« Danger, Danger | Main | 1776 »
October 28, 2007
The Head Of The Elephant
At this early stage, the Republican Senator I'd be the most excited about defeating in 2008 is Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Minority Leader. He has a reputation as a very effective legislative tactician, and I've been wondering if the drop in Harry Reid's effectiveness from the last Senate term to this one has something to do with the fact that he's up against a serious opponent instead of Bill Frist. (It's also true that we have one of the flimsiest majorities ever, with Joe Lieberman providing the deciding vote.) If McConnell gets replaced by a less effective leader, getting universal health care and everything else through Congress becomes easier. If anyone has an idea who might be the next Senate GOP leader if we beat McConnell, I'd love to hear it.
Via Media Czech at MyDD, the latest Kentucky polling has McConnell at a 45/46 approval/disapproval rating, with our potential candidates trailing him by between 5 and 11 points in the polls. The most interesting candidate mentioned seems to be ex-Marine Andrew Horne, who trails by 11 because of low name recognition but has a 36/9 approval/disapproval rating. And of course, one way to help Democrats win the Kentucky Senate race is to provide the coattails of John Edwards, the only Democrat who's head of Romney and Thompson in Kentucky head-to-head polling.
October 28, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I'm gonna cut right to the chase: How come liberals are always wrong and never want to admit it?
See, I've saved Patton and the rest of some time here. Your welcome.
Posted by: DMonteith | Oct 28, 2007 4:57:18 PM
urm..."the rest of us"
Posted by: DMonteith | Oct 28, 2007 4:58:56 PM
Will the homo bomb on Mitch drop before the election?
Even if not, a Bush attack on Iran will seal the deal for the Dems. Mitch is in trouble either way, me thinks.
Good riddance.
Posted by: John O | Oct 28, 2007 5:44:58 PM
C'mon Neil,
"Harry Reid's effectiveness" It isn't so much Mitch McConnell being good at what he does, as it is Harry Reid's a doormat.
Posted by: S Brennan | Oct 28, 2007 6:13:53 PM
I think it would most likely be Trent Lott. He's rehabilitated himself to some extent and is now the whip. He got that job by being so good at counting votes the party was willing to tolerate criticism about his infamous comment about Strom Thurmond. Then again I don't really have any insider knowledge.
Also, really? Worse than Inhofe?
Posted by: Sam Boyd | Oct 28, 2007 6:28:31 PM
Perhaps this is wrong based on history and/or available empirical evidence, but I have to wonder if part of the problem is our willingness to buy into the idea that certain candidates are in fact completely incompatible with others. In other words, if Clinton is the nominee, and some candidates act as if they don't want to be connected to her, isn't that just making things worse? I'm not saying that that these people have to become one in the same, but if we stop running away from things, it'll be easier to deal with them. Presenting a unified front, acting as if we are all proud to be Democrats and all concerned with setting the country on the right path, might make it easier to actually win, regardless of who is at the top of the ticket.
Posted by: Brian | Oct 28, 2007 6:38:39 PM
Mitch has some wicked staff in his office, and I'm not sure he's as smart as he comes off - perhaps he's just at saying what they tell him to say.
But he's the perfect foil of the Dems who won't fight back.
I'll sure be ready with some cash if a good Dem. opponent for Mitch arrives on the scene. He's very vulnerable from what the polls indicate.
But Lott won't be much better as minority leader (from the Dems point of view). But the field isn't deep in the Repub Senate ranks.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Oct 28, 2007 6:46:08 PM
C’mon Guys! I know it’s hard, but we’ve got to bite the bullet here and own up or Patton’s gonna start posting and reveal the painful, shameful, truth that we are so assiduously avoiding here anyway.
I’ll go first:
My name is Dmonteith, and I’m a liberal. I’ve felt ashamed ever since my first secularist, whites-only, indoctrination sessions, but the power of the liberal mind control is such a sweet, sweet, antidote to my inner, wussy, gayified, will-to-power that I just haven’t been able to help myself. Thankfully, through Patton’s concerned, self sacrificing (nay--Heroic!) ministrations I’m coming to realize that Clinton is a Fascist (come on, isn’t his code name at our cell meetings “Il Cane Grande” a big give away?), that we’re winning in Iraq, and that tax cuts always increase government revenues. I know that any apology I make will be inadequate: my monstrous soldier-hating, terrorist-loving, labor-theory-of-value-believing sins are just too great. I just hope to earn the right to be begrudgingly accepted like a permanent frat pledge or lap dog at the margins of the great conservative family before I die.
See, that wasn’t so bad was it? Who’s next?
Posted by: DMonteith | Oct 28, 2007 6:49:16 PM
I was very impressed with Harry Reid last term, S Brennan. He and Pelosi defeated Bush on Social Security Privatization, and it looks like he engineered the Harriet Miers nomination. I don't think Reid made a single wrong move in the entire Supreme Court process, and if Joe Biden and the Judiciary Committee had done a good job instead of a terrible one, we might've been able to pull off an Alito filibuster.
Sam, I agree that Inhofe's views are worse, but what I want more than anything else is ineffective Republican Senate leadership so that we can pass universal health care. If the successor is really going to be Trent Lott, though, we may not get as much of an advantage as we thought.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 28, 2007 7:02:37 PM
(correction... as I thought)
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 28, 2007 7:04:00 PM
I know that my posts here have been far too short, but I'm trying to up their number and frequency! Oooh! I hope Patton approves!
Oh yeah--LIBRULS SUCK!!!!11!!!1!!THEY SHOULD JUST GO BE IN THE DEMOCRAT (see, no "ic"!1)PARTY!!!11!!!!!1!1!!!!
Posted by: DMonteith | Oct 28, 2007 7:04:03 PM
ok, all you liberals, let's try to get educated. What makes an effective majority leader? It's the number of the Senators!!! duh!!! No one, not Harry Reid, not Bill Frist, not Mitch McConnell, not Tom Daschle, not even the evil Trent Lott can do an effective job if they don't have 60 Senators. So that's what you have to shoot for - 60 in 08!!! Then you can get any legislation to the floor, not have to worry about getting it filibustered, and be able to get it passed. That is, if you can control your Senators.
Posted by: Paradise | Oct 28, 2007 7:48:23 PM
That is, if you can control your Senators.
Which is the largest part of a Majority Leader's job. And it's a job that matters tremendously, whether you have 45, or 55, or 60.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 28, 2007 7:51:32 PM
ok, all you liberals, let's try to get educated.
Hey, that's a good start, Paradise, but I know you can criticize liberals better that that! And deep down, you know you want to! Help me save us from irrelevance!
(Was that good, Patton?)
Posted by: DMonteith | Oct 28, 2007 7:54:08 PM
Hmmm... with this post I'm only at 5 out of 13 total posts. I guess I never really appreciated how hard Patton works to dominate so many threads! All this while being an innovative entrepreneur, an expert military analyst and strategist, a Middle East expert, a political consultant, and an economist. Whew! I will never be worthy!
oh yeah--LIBRULS LURV THEM A GAY(!!!11!!11!!) POLKA!!!1!!1 (No disrespect, of course, to our German ancestored soldiers!1)
Posted by: DMonteith | Oct 28, 2007 8:07:21 PM
(No disrespect, of course, to our German ancestored soldiers!1)
(It's such a relief to quote my self now! Circularity and self referentialism is the conservative gift that keeps on giving!)
Anyway, is this too liberal? I mean who cares who I offend, right? It's all in a good cause, right?
I sure wish Patton could help me out a little here!
NO!!WAIT!!!...I take it back!!! I'm a self made man now, an island!
Whew! This is HARD! No wonder only Manly Men walk this narrow path!
Posted by: DMonteith | Oct 28, 2007 8:14:55 PM
7 out of 15 now! I'm starting to get the hang of this!
DOWN WITH LIBRUL-GAY-UN-"INTERNATIONAL BANKER"-APPARATCHIK NAZIS!!!1!!1!
Posted by: DMonteith | Oct 28, 2007 8:20:15 PM
Liberals, considerably less than conservatives, are too much in thrall to cults of personality and the romance of individual achievement. This is revealed in the attitude toward Presidential candidates as saviours and in the demonization of their enemies.
Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Mitch McConnell were/are obviously not in themseves the problem, as the effectiveness of the opposition under such diverse leadership indicates. Hastert as brilliant leadership? Good grief.
Falwell, Reed ,Robertson, Dobson, whomever. Understood as replaceable. Replaced without loss of momentum. Why does the Right understand politics so much better?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Oct 28, 2007 9:11:04 PM
I also lack any inside information, but I assume it would be Lott or Jon Kyl. They are the next two ranking members of the leadership team, and both have fans in the conference.
Posted by: Armand | Oct 28, 2007 9:39:37 PM
bob, the reason I think as I do was that Frist was genuinely incompetent. I'd be happy to make Bill Frist Senator for life from Tennessee if only they'd make him the Senate GOP leader for life.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 28, 2007 11:40:55 PM
