Junior Senate Dems want chairmen to face election by secret ballot

[Joanne98]

Source: The Hill

Senate Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 are challenging the internal caucus procedures that have allowed veteran lawmakers to lock up committee chairmanships for years on end.

A group of junior Democratic senators are pushing for committee chairmen to stand for election at the beginning of each Congress, a requirement that has not been in effect for years, according to lawmakers familiar with the discussions.

They want to have more of a say in the leadership of powerful committees, such as the Senate Finance, Appropriations, Commerce and Banking committees.

The proposed rules change has made some chairmen nervous, Democratic aides say.





Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/136543-junior-senate-democrats-want-chairmen-to-face-election-by-secret-ballot

[Renew Deal]

1. I like some of the newer dems.

:D

[No Elephants]

8. Most newbies are Pubs, no?

[Renew Deal]

9. This year

But there's lots of good dems that came in 2006 and 2008.

[No Elephants]

11. Oh. Got it.

[harun]

2. Get rid of Baucus! Only thing Dem's should let him do is switch parties.

[Tippy]

3. K&R....I am against changing this rule.....

[yourout]

4. A "nervous" Senator is a good thing.

Frankly all elected Reps should be "nervous" about us.

[northoftheborder]

5. First thoughts:

Going by seniority on committee chairs, should, I say should, make the most senior senator the most experienced and knowledgeable of the subject matter and history of what has gone before. However, I can see the point of some of the younger members, that they have so little power in what goes on in that committee, yet might actually have more up-to-date knowledge on technical subjects, etc. Some senators get too old to actually be leaders, yet there they are, being propped up in the chair, which is actually being led by someone else.. There are other points on each side I'm sure. Such as, the minority chair leader waiting for years for his party to take power, doesn't necessarily have the qualifications to be chairman all of a sudden; maybe he's not been paying attention, or keeping up with things. I suppose that's the reason there are so many committees --- way too many in my view, but it does spread around the number of chairs in the party.

[karynnj]

6. I have mixed feelings aboiut changing it - but mostly I'm for it

The reasons I can see for it are:
- The leadership would never have to delicately and politely convince an older Senator that he really does not have the stamina to chair an important committee. There have been committee chairmen who stayed in power long passed when they probably should have stepped aside.

- An unusually good or prominent Senator would be allowed to take responsibility earlier when his/her peers see a reason for it. Remember back in late 2008, one thing that bothered many Clinton supporters (and likely Hillary Clinton) was that if she returned to the Senate, she was not going to get an important committee because she did not have the seniority. (Here, there would have been a problem anyway as - which shows the limitations on my first point - there would have been enormous resistance to taking the HELP committee away from Kennedy, ill as he was - or as a leaked proposal suggested giving Clinton a subcommittee of HELP that would create the HELP HCR bill.)

The negatives I see are:
- It would very possibly be used against the left most people in the caucus. Imagine that John Kerry leaves the Senate - the next most senior Democrat on SFRC is Barbara Boxer. Do you think the party as a whole would give her that job if there were a vote?

- It would create deep divisions. Here's an example for which I have mixed feelings.

Imagine 2005 and the SFRC. John Kerry had just come within 59,000 votes of the Presidency - and it was that close partially because of his incredible knowledge and vision on foreign policy. He had less seniority than Biden, Sarbanes, and Dodd. He had also shown considerable skill as chair and ranking member of the Small business committee in working in a steady bipartisan manner. On the other hand, no one in the Senate in recent times has done a better job on investigations - and many Kerry called for were never done. Had there been a vote based on merit, not seniority, there is little reason, other than the Clinton wing opposing it for political reasons as he was still a threat to HRC, to think he would not have won. It would have at least been close - and could have hurt Biden as a VP candidate. Kerry losing would have been much harder - as after his high road campaign in a year where a Democratic win was unlikely - this would be spun as a public repudiation by his party.

Here seniority avoided that - and both Kerry and Biden have since made enormous contributions to US foreign policy.

[jeff47]

13. Those senior senators are welcome to emphasize their experience in their campaign to hold the chair

(nt)

[old guy]

7. There are things positive and things negative to changing this.

The reality is that it is never going to go happen, but it does make for interesting discussion.

[w4rma]

10. I don't like this potential rule change. I want to know who is supporting whom in the Senate. (nt)

[No Elephants]

12. I am undecided.

In general, Newbie Dems have tended to be less and less blue. OTOH, I like Sherrod Brown.