What The Hilltop Brigade Accomplished (& A Look Ahead To 2008)

Picking up seats in 08 (0.00 / 0)

Is important. As is the less likely possibility of picking up a senate seat or two before then - through party switches, retirements, or for health reasons.

Although I'm not sure how much of an effect out-of-stater volunteerss can make in any state, NH and Maine (if Collins sticks to her own two-term pledge) are prime pickup possibilities that aren't too far away.

And even if Collins doesn't retire, it would be particularly fun to go up there and help a viable Democratic challenger against Collins and - probably - Joe himself.

---

by: tparty @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 20:38:18 PM UTC

Collins running again (0.00 / 0)

As a Beltway'er of course she's going to renege on her pledge and run again. She'll do it to break the bitter poisonous partisan infighting which has caused so much gridlock in the past few years...Or somethin'..

Collins to seek 3rd term

---

by: Scarce @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 22:58:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

YES Thank You (4.00 / 1)

The Hilltop Brigade did a lot of good!  Of course they drained people from the 1st and the 3rd, because they were not needed in those congressional races.  MattW doesn't seem to think that taking over Congress is important--I beg to differ!! Since Joe Courtney won by such a slim margin, the Hilltop help may have made the difference. That is huge.  And I agree that all of us in CT should take an interest in the New Hampshire senate race.  I'd love to see a My Left Nutmeg chartered bus leaving from Hartford to Keene or Concord or some NH town to help canvass--that would be fabulous! If we can get to that level of organization, I feel really hopeful about the future of this country!

---

by: noankdem @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 20:40:42 PM UTC

Brilliant (0.00 / 0)

And I agree that all of us in CT should take an interest in the New Hampshire senate race.

This is art. God knows there won't be anywhere in CT that activists will be needed in 2008.

I like how you didn't even remember the congress through the end of your paragraph.

Again, no thank you.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 20:46:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What is more important (4.00 / 1)

Control of the U.S.Senate and House are, in my opinion, much more important than any local race.  Global warming?  World running out of resources like oil? Global diseases like bird-flu?  War & Peace? These are things that will not be dealt with on the state level. Of course our CT races matter, but if you have to prioritize, the federal offices are much more important. 

---

by: noankdem @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 22:29:09 PM UTC

a grand question to consider: local or federal? (4.00 / 1)

I think you bring up a point of view that is well worth discussing and unearthing more information about.  I am coming to appreciate the local/state level a little more than before, but we have people on this list who either serve at those levels or have run for office, and I'd love to hear what they have to say.

I'm actually coming to another conclusion -- that the federal government is so completely tied up in PAC money that the chance of getting aggressive legislation about the environment is limited, and if we had a "50-state 'state level environmental' strategy" in which legislation was pursued in all 50 states at once, the corporations would make their lawyers really rich that year and there is some chance that some decent laws would get passed for the same reason that the 50 state strategy worked in this election.  Distribution of resources.

I will also bet that when the federal government gets around to it, they will look at California's laws for guidance on the environment.

There is a reason that the green industry has seen fit to get written into state legislation a proviso that local communities not be able to pass laws for 5 years (in certain legislation). It is because in Canada, the local communities  became quite eager to reduce the chemical/pesticide exposure in their communities and laws swept all across Canada at the local level to restrict pesticides.  So they tried to stop it here.

It would require a plethora of legal flyswatters to extinguish local action on the environment, so --is it totally outside the question that there actually may be more hope there if we get our acts together on the local/state level than on the federal level?

So how about it, you people in the know -- what can be done at the state and local level?  Or is the federal level what really matters -- both theoretically and practically?

---

by: greenpeas @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 22:51:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and whoever wants to discuss it, you get to start the thread (0.00 / 0)

Would love to hear more but don't want to hijack this thread, so....anyone up for discussing this?

What can we get done most effectively at the state level?  What can be done at state and later tied into new federal legislation? What gets done locally?

And what cannot be dealt with here at local/state level?

Any pros/cons of using a local vs. federal strategy on key issues welcome.

---

by: greenpeas @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 22:53:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm Game (0.00 / 0)

I'll set one up.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 23:25:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here you go (0.00 / 0)

http://www.myleftnut...

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 00:07:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lautenberg in NJ (0.00 / 0)

Would be very surprised if Lautenberg ran again.  He already retired once, but came back when Torricelli self-destructed.

---

by: trini @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 03:55:53 AM UTC

Octogenarians (4.00 / 1)

It's depressing how many of these old war horses stay on forever in the Senate. Byrd was just re-elected at age 87. Strom Thurmond worked (slept) in the Senate till age 100.

Ted Stevens will be 85 in 2008. Warner 81. Lautenberg 84. Inouye is 82 now.

---

by: Scarce @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 04:14:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Byrd dies in the next 6 years, at least there's a democratic governor in WV. (0.00 / 0)

But, I'm not sure what West Virginia's laws are pertaining to replacing a senator before an election.

Speaking of octogenarians, does anyone here think term-limits would be a good idea for senators? Would it require a constitutional amendment?

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 04:34:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey, you guys (4.00 / 1)

Octogenarians have a damn good excuse for not putting a good sentence together, yet Robert Byrd does better than almost all the people he's in the Senate with.

What is George Bush's excuse?

Rather than term limits, let's start with an IQ test and take it from there.

---

by: greenpeas @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 05:05:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

George Bush's excuse is he's stupid. (0.00 / 0)

But he's not too stupid to surround himself with people who helped him get into the White House (e.g. Rove, Baker, the Supreme Court). Notice I didn't say elected into the White House. If all the valid ballots in Florida where counted in 2000, this would be Gore's second term.

As for IQ tests, they measure some aspects of intelligence. But they do not always measure common sense. As my father once said, common sense is not always common.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 05:19:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why are they there... (0.00 / 0)

In my opinion it's not even a question of their competence anymore at that age so much as so much as asking why are they still there? Most cite they want to get things done for their constituents, which is more like a euphemism for they've accrued so much influence they can get copious amounts of pork from the taxpayers. Byrd and Stevens are exhibits A and B on this score. No limits strikes me an excuse for corruption, legal or not.

---

by: Scarce @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 13:26:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Appopriations committee (0.00 / 0)

chairmanship needs to be a term limited position.

I have a ton of respect for Byrd but he and Stevens have shown that Appropriation Committee Chair should be limited to maybe 4 yrs in a Senate carreer.

---

by: ctkeith @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 14:45:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

Actually the GOP term-limits committee chairs to 5 years... the Dems don't, as the House fight over whether or not Harman should stay Intelligence chair illustrates.

Take it up with these guys... tell em you want a consolation prize for them giving Lieberman back his seniority.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 18:29:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's gather some info on this (0.00 / 0)

Here is a quote from a document created by a GOP member of Congress arguing against term limits.

"The average length of service for House Members in the 105th Congress is only 8 years, and the median length of service for House Members is 4 years. Just as striking are the figures for the Senate in the 105th Congress. The average length of service for Senators is 10 years, and the median length of service in the Senate is 8 years. I submit that these figures weaken the argument for term limits. The 8 and 10 year averages for the House and Senate fall below the artificial term limits that proponents advocate--12 years for the House and 12 years for the Senate. Additionally, since half of the House Members have served for 4 or fewer years, and half of the Senators have served 8 or fewer years, can anyone really say that Members of Congress have been around too long?

Are there a few people to unelect or are term limits needed?  They require a constitutional amendment, don't they?

So - take it with a grain of salt - but may I speak up for the value in NOT equating "age" with "length of service"?

When I hear people using chronological age and not "years of service" as a cover for a discussion on "term limits," I have to ask that the terms of the discussion become responsible.  I'm over 55, and I assure you, I encounter on a daily basis the "if it's gray, throw it away" mentality that is so a part of youth culture today that you can't even see it if you're part of it.  Respect for the contributions of elders?  Minimal.  In Japan, highly skilled members of society who have worked their crafts for decades are honored and designated as "national treasures". 

This is not to say that Strom Thurmond was a national treasure.  However...

I cannot countenance using the ages of the oldest members of the Senate as a stand-in for years of service and amount of PAC money when arguing  for term limits.  There are plenty of corrupt and beholden "spring chickens" -- it is not just how long you have lived, but how long you've been doing  business, and HOW you do business/how the system corrupts.  And nowadays, it starts very early.  Let's zero in on the real issues and real causes, and make sure that our poster children for term limits aren't really about unexamined prejudices about what someone over a certain age is capable of accomplishing.

As a starting point, go to the FEC campaign finance reports for the newest members of Congress, and see how much of their campaign was already financed by PAC money.  Oops.

---

by: greenpeas @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 16:36:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]