I think this is a good idea. Yeah, it is likely only going to be worthwhile in a limited number of instances. But if certain districts are unwinnable for Dems (for example, if we couldn't block Bill Sali of all people in that district in 2006 ...), it makes perfect sense to me to still try to get the best ideological results possible, but playing in the GOP primaries.
And of course there are already Republicans we could work with to achieve this (like the PEARL group in Oregon - though I don't have applying this in Oregon in mind).
He's certainly NOT stupid. And it's his job to raise money. The party can't fight for what's important by relying on 5 dollar checks from grandmas on fixed incomes. If you want to raise money you have to deal with people who actually have money.
For those of you who are projecting who will replace the Republicans chairs who retiring this Congress, keep in mind 1) that unlike the Democrats the Republican caucus does not go strictly be and 2) some committees like Budget have term limits which means that their membership and potentially their leadership is rather more in flux than the other committees.
These factors will come into play as the Republicans choose who will replace Thomas, Hyde and the rest. For example, it's widely expected that Jim McCrery (R-LA) will be the next top Republican on Ways and Means, even though he's not next according to seniority.
I don't get this post at all. How has the Democrats' action NOT helped with the culture of corruption angle? It makes it abumdantly clear that there are consequences for even the appearance of corruption on that side of the aisle - while the Republicans stand by and do nothing as a half dozen men on their side of the aisle go about their business, but could seemingly be indicted at any time? If fighting corruption is something that matters to people (and it certainly matters to some), this move seems appropriate and a good move politically.
Secondly if John Lewis and Charlie Rangel are siding with Pelosi (and they are), I wouldn't worry about a CBC "revolt". Particularly since at this stage in the game hurting the party would be close to suicidal (as if the Dems take back the House people like Rangel and John Conyers will be chairing major committees).
Finally - La Pelosi? What - is the leader of the Democrats in the House some sort of soap opera diva? That strikes me as a little sexist. Just call her arrogant if that's what you are thinking.
This is just snark. Good people come from Wall Street (Rubin, Corzine) and Finance is the most powerful committee in the Senate (taxes, trade, health care, it's all there). Why on Earth wouldn't Schumer want on. Some senators have given up loads of experience on other committees to get on, and of course it's especially important to a senator from New York. Pat Moynihan used to be chairman of the thing for goodness sake - are you going to start bashing him next?
I was under the impression that this was a one-horse race and had been for months. And this poll would seem to imply that's indeed still the case. This is Cardin's race to lose. And short of a live boy/dead girl issue it's hard for me to imagine him losing it. You're crowing about a 2nd place finish.
And calling him a DINO is extreme. Do I like every vote he casts? No. But he's got superb ratings from abortion rights groups, labor groups, the NEA, women's groups - those are hardly the marks of a DINO.
All 3 are atriocious (STUNNINGLY awful) on social issues that are important to progressives, and all come from districts that could elect better progressive Democrats.
I think the attacks on Rahm and Harman are are going overboard though. You might not like that they are "establishment" or the war thing or whatever, but in terms of their support for basic progressive causes like the right to choose, the environment, gay rights, they are vastly superior to people like Cuellar and Lipinski.
There are names already listed here I like a lot - especially John Lewis (Vice Presidential timber?) and Barney Frank (who, like Charlie Rangel - has both the knowledge and wit to be funny, engaging, piercing and right on the issues). To throw a couple more into the mix I'll note 2 from New Jersey - Rush Holt (bright, committed, idealistic but not ridiculous about it, strong progressive) and, to be bipartisan, Rod Frelinghuysen (for a Republican he seems pretty well-meaning, and he's a solid, competent guy).
Condi. Look at most of the personnel picks Bush has made in the last couple of years: Condi, Miers, Gonzalez, the Ed Secretary (Spellings?) ... it often seems that if you're not in Bush's eye-line there's no way you'll get a top job in this White House. It's insular in a way that beats Nixon.
And out of the insiders Condi is the only one that strikes me as a feasible pick.
He's a whiner - won't take on those who he says are making politics worse - if that's the case, why on Earth should anybody miss him? I mean if he won't even take on old school Democrats what kind of fight would he give the Republicans.
If he's going to just fold his tent, take his football and go home or whatever metaphor you want to use - good riddance. We need someone who'll really fight for progressive values. Not somebody who just complains and is unwilling to take a chance to secure a better country.
ZamboniBuy is right - Cillizza was making a top 10 list, not making a list of every competitive race. And the 10 races he put on the list all look like they'll be competitive. Are there others? Sure. I think Chris Shays should probably be one of the Democrats' top 3 targets, the race in Minnesota 6 should get a lot of attention, and there are a host of races in Ohio and Pennsylvania that need money and support. Additionally, I'm troubled that the races in VA 2 and WV 2 haven't been listed on this line of comments so far. Ashe and Callaghan need our backing and can win their races. But I think Cillizza is right in that the 10 he mentioned all merit close attention.
I'm puzzled, and troubled, though that he bumped Indiana 8 up over Indiana 9. That's not good news for Democrats.
While I still like the idea of another US Senator Rush Holt, a big part of why I think Holt would be a good choice politically is that he's a highly qualified fresh face. Naming someone like that would seem a great way to make a clear statement about breaking away from a lot of the uglier parts of the past - something that naming Gill would also accomplish.