Can't we get rid of Ben Nelson? Today's vote...

He's the only D to vote against the unemployment extension. McCaskill and Byrd didn't vote at all. Bond, Collins, Snowe, Voinovich, Vitter and Murkowski were the Rs voting for it.

The man is useless as teats on a boar....

Just one of those silly little things I think about from time to time.

:hi:

We just don't know it yet. Maybe we'll all be unisex someday lol!

:hi: sweetie!

So the question is, who stands any chance of (a)defeating Nelson in a primary and (b) getting elected? Since Nelson's not up until 2012, its all rather speculative, but at the moment, I'm not aware of any realistic prospects among Nebraska's shrinking base of Democratic officials to make a serious run at statewide office.

The state has 3 Congressional representatives -- all three are repubs
The other Senator from Nebraska, Mike Johanns, who previously served as governor, won his Senate seat by over 17 points.
The current governor, whose term is up in 2010, is a repub who won election in 2006 with over 70 percent of the vote.
The state has a unicameral legislature that, while nominally "nonpartisan" has nearly twice as many repubs as Democrats.
McCain won the state by 15 points.

Nelson himself appears to be in serious trouble in terms of his reelection prospects. But that being said, I'm having trouble figuring out who is out there that would have a better chance of keeping the seat in Democratic hands, even if it means having a Senator who is pretty disloyal to the party (but still more loyal to it than any repub would be).

the political landscape...

This man is one of them.

than a Democrat who sometimes fails you?

There have been 39 recorded cloture votes in the 111th Congress. Nelson, for all his failings (and they are legion) voted against the Democratic majority on three of those votes. He voted with the Democratic majority 36 times, and a few of those votes actually would have failed without Nelson. In contrast, Johanns, the repub senator from Nebraska, only voted for cloture 15 times.

So I'm still trying to figure out how a guaranteed bad vote most of the time is to be preferred over a sometimes bad vote. Absent some evidence that someone "better" than Nelson can win -- and a name would be nice -- how many times do you think that having a repub in Nelson's seat will produce a better (rather than worse or the same) outcome than the one with Nelson there?

You are not required to agree. But past a certain point, long since reached with this fellow, people calling themselves Democrats who vote against the Party on many important occasions, and who run for election saying they are not like the rest of the Democrats, grow tiresome....

a worse option than a republican who always votes against the party?

I'm all for replacing Nelson if someone can suggest someone with a chance to win. But I have a feeling, given the lack of any notable statewide figures among the Democratic party in Nelson, that I'll be waiting a long time.

The whole point of cutting these types like Nelson slack was that we were either in a minority or had only a paper-thin majority, and the understanding was that when we had a decent number they would be good soldiers and do the right thing. He has failed to live up to the bargain. If you will forgive the crudity, Sir: fuck him. Let him lobby or lecture for a living, but see him gone from any pretense he serves the public, and acts in the interests of the people of the country.

for a repub.

Again, Nelson voted for cloture on several bills where cloture passed with between 60 and 65 votes. Lose him, lose a few others, and pretty soon, all of those votes are victories for the repubs. I'd rather have a Democrat who votes for legislation like SCHIP and the Recovery Act or for the confirmation of Sotomayor than have a repub that would vote against each and every one of those items. While Nelson gets it wrong too often, he gets it right sometimes, which is more than I can say for his repub counterpart, Senator Johanns.

I still don't get your point--if the option to Nelson is a repub who won't ever vote with the party, and who likely will be in office for a long time, how is that a positive thing?

Not, as we used to say, a stand-up guy....

Show me an alternative and I'm on board. But show me a choice between a never vote and a sometimes vote, and I'll take the sometimes vote every time.

because he's so old and sick.

Like today. If I missed that much of work, I would be canned. Gotta love how are tax dollars are being spent!!