Is Stabenow (D-MI) worthy of re-election in 2006?

[paineinthearse]

I watched Stabenow on CSPAN this morning and am not at all impressed with her reasons for voting to confirm Rice "The president deserves to have the cabinet he chooses".

She dodged a caller's question how she could vote for confirmation after Rice lied to the 9/11 commission, and that Rice would be a mouthpiece for the administration rather than to be an independent force.

Stabenow plans to raise $12 million for the campaign.

1. Should Michigan Democrats support Stabenow for re-election in 2006?
2. Are there any viable alternative candidates to run against her in the primary?

[realFedUp]

1. Bush deserves the cabinet he's chosen

No dispute about that...crooks and liars need other
crooks and liars to pull off their crimes...

but we still fortunately have some semblance
of checks and balances, advise and consent for
a reason....in the least some debate on whether
the leaders of this country are honest and
honorable enough to pre-emptively strike another
country without reason...:eyes:

[purji]

2. Maybe

Lynn Rivers.She used to be in congress until the redistricting.
She's a lot more liberal the Stabenow.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Rivers doesn't always do that well in primaries with other Democrats

Just ask John Dingell. ;)

[purji]

7. Well part of that...

...was the fact that the districts that combined were of unequal populaitons, Dingell's was larger. Plus Dingell has been in office since just after the last ice-age - :evilgrin:

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. And the deck will be staked against Rivers this time as well

Rivers represented 1/16 of the state half a decade ago. Stabenow have been representing the entire state for the entire six years preceding the election.

[AP]

8. How are you going to beat John Dingell?

Ford and the union members in Dearborn love him, he's got a machine, and he's been around forever.

I think he was selfish not to retire. How much longer is he going to be around? He should have passed the torch to Rivers.

I think he's just holding on until his son makes enough of a name for himself that he can run for the seat, and I don't think that's very Democratic.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. How is she going to beat Debbie Stabenow?

She is an imcumbent Senator who is well known throughout the state. Rivers is a former member of Congress who represented 1/16 of the state a half a decase ago.

[AP]

14. Nobody should try to beat Stabenow. She's a fine, progressive

senator with the best interests of the citizens of Michigan in mind.

[AmericanLiberal]

22. Toomey nearly beat Specter

Arlen Specter was a 4th-term incumbent senior senator, but he was nearly beaten by an unknown Congressman in the GOP-PA primary. The most important thing is getting funding, and the Democratic primary will be a bigger hurdle than the general election.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Specter was not particularly popular with the GOP base in PA

Especially due to his stand on abortion. Is there any evidence that Stabenow is unpopular with Democratic voters in MI?

[sunnystarr]

3. Let's stop stabbing good Dems in the back ...

While I, as much as most of you, would love to see Rice not confirmed, it's not the reality. What Stabenow pointed out does make sense. Rice was supporting Bush and promoting the Bush agenda. Gonzales on the other hand was giving Bush justification for an erroneous policy and that lead to Abu Graib and the use of torture. Stabinow is voting no on Gonzales. Since Rice didn't create the policy she'll be given a pass on the responsibility of these policies since that responsibility belongs to Bush.

Bush only surrounds himself with YES people, which is his right as President, even if incredibly stupid. It's a confirmation of his weakness as President. Like it or not we're stuck with more of the same and then some.

I'll support Stabinow even though not in my state. If we start lashing out any Dem who doesn't vote our choices every time, we'll be left without any leaders at all. We need to focus to identify the Dems that are actively supporting Bush's agenda (like Lieberman) and make every effort to replace them with Dems who have the courage to stand up for the people they serve.

[electropop]

4. She sure pissed me off

Do you think the GOP has dug up blackmail dirt on every Dem Congress person? Why are our "leaders" playing dead on every issue? Why are they there at all?

[AP]

6. Oops. Circular firing squad. Stabenow is one of the most progressive

members of the Senate.

The only reason she shouldn't run again is if she were getting sworn in as P or VP.

[fujiyama]

49. I'm amazed people are debating this!

She's been doing a very good job. I'm disappointed with her Rice vote, but one vote isn't a reason to make or break a senator.

[noonwitch]

9. It's a seat we can't afford to lose.

I don't know of anyone else with name recognition to replace her.

The MGOP is going to go all out against Debbie and Gov. Granholm in 2006. They've already said so. Luckily, the guy who has the best chance to beat Granholm is an Oakland County republican (Prosecutor Gorcyca)and the DeVos/Engler social conservatives won't let him get the nomination. My guess is that Ken Sikkema will run.

I don't know who they'll tap to run for Senator. It could be Mike Rogers, who replaced Debbie Stabenow in congress. It could be Mike Cox, who replaced Granholm as Atttorney General, although his being from Wayne County will hurt him against the DeVos/Engler people that run the MGOP.

We need to get out the vote in 2006. Neither the Senator nor the Governor won office by large margins-Stabenow won by less than a percentage point, Granholm won by about 4 percent.

[BlueInRed]

12. Can a more courageous D get elected in MI

I guess that is what it boils down to -- is there any realistic possibility of replacing her with someone better? If not, then I say yes she should be reelected. If you get rid of her, only to see a Republican in the spot, are we as a country any better off? I don't think these decisions can be viewed in a vacuum.

I think the more pertinent question is whether she deserves a leadership post in the party. To that, I would quickly answer "no".

[AP]

16. Stabenow has a ton of courage, and the party needs more

people with her background and experiences.

Stabenow entered politics because the county she lived in was about to cut funding for the retirement home her mother lived in. She was a housewife who grew up on a farm and played folk guitar in bars in East Lansing to help pay for college. She ran for office and saved her mother's retirement home from being de-funded.

Her entire political career has focussed on helping people who come from the same place from which she came.

That's courage, if you ask me.

[BlueInRed]

17. I haven't seen it, but am willing to be educated.

Perhaps you could give me some examples I missed. All I know is when I was concerned about an issue and looked around to see where she and other Democrats stood, I was not satisfied that she was showing any leadership. I wouldn't have minded her position if she wasn't a leader, given the state she is from, but I compare her to Durbin and in comparison, she seems less than courageous to me.

[AP]

18. Courage is running for office to save a county nursing home, winning

and then actually saving the nursing home.

What more do you want?

[BlueInRed]

20. I'm talking about votes in the Senate

I have no doubt her life has been filled with courageous stuff. The question was about her performance as Senator and that is what I limited my assessment to. As a Senator, I do not feel on the big questions that have mattered to me over the years that she has shown courage or leadership.

I think the things you mentioned are all honorable things. But again, I am basing my assessment on votes I paid attention to over the past few years, and every time I was concerned, she was not standing up and others were.

[AP]

21. Like what votes?

I don't think that she's lost any of her progressive values since becoming Senator.

[BlueInRed]

26. I'll spend some time looking them up

But in the meantime, feel free to post votes supporting your position that she is courageous on big issues. Obviously I'm not the only who thinks this, or this thread wouldn't have been started by another poster.

And for the record, if you noticed, I didn't say she should be replaced as a Senator, unlike the other posters here. I said she shouldn't be a leader.

[AP]

35. Didn't we go through this with Kerry? How a senator votes is usually

much more complicated than REPUBLICANS want to pretend it is.

Here we have a Senator with VERY CLEAR PROGRESSIVE VALUES. And really don't know what more you could want.

Why do you think Rove and the Republicans are targetting this seat? They have a good senator with a narrow margin of victory and they want her gone and they think they can do it with their fear mongering.

[BlueInRed]

36. You know

if you are going to bring something up I've addressed in another post, why not do it there, where it is clear what I think on the issue. Scroll down and I have ALREADY addressed the targeting issue, which I'm perfectly sure you saw before posting this.

And I see you didn't bother to post ANY votes in support. I have run across some votes that address what I was thinking (for example, bucking the D caucus on the bankruptcy issues to make it much harder for consumers or Goss for CIA or Rice or the 87B to be mispent in Iraq, etc). When I finish my research, I will post them, but not on YOUR schedule! If you can't wait, then go find someone else to fight with.

As for Kerry, I have never been a fan, though I didn't engage in the flame wars on him, as it appeared perfectly pointless. Everyone already has their firm opinion on him and debating further will achieve nothing productive.

[AP]

37. I don't read every post in a thread before posting...

...and I think I'm entiteld to respond to points raised in the subthreads in which I am posting.

I think it's the plaintiffs burden to make their case before I enter my defense. If you fail to state a case, no defense is required.

In the few Senate votes since Stabenow became Senator where I have looked down the roll to see how she has voted, she's made me proud every time, by the way. Nothing sticks out in my memory as a blot on her copy book. And if you can't make an argument for no liking her, I don't know why I have to give you any more than that.

[BlueInRed]

39. Interesting how you ignore things I said

that didn't fit your position. You didn't "respond" to most of the points I raised; you mostly ignored them or acted like I had said I hated her guts and wanted her defeated, which is not even remotely my argument. And I am not a plaintiff, you certainly aren't defense counsel, this isn't a courtroom, and I'm not on trial.

Defending positions is a two-way street. I listed four issues in a prior post that were just some examples and in each case, a decent number of other Democrats came down on the other side. You ignored that, acting like I had posted nothing.

I remember the bankruptcy issue well because it is one of the under the radar law changes that will make it a lot harder on many people in dire financial circumstances. That is the kind of issue that tests where someone is really at precisely because it is under the radar. And that issue is coming up again shortly.

In my research, I was pleasantly surprised by some of her votes, but mostly the votes were what I consider "safe" votes on subjects like health care, women's rights, ANWR, etc. I think courage in a leader is quite distinct from courage in a non-leadership position. If you want to lead the party, you should be willing to put yourself on the line for principle, such as with this Rice nomination. The Rice nomination is an excellent example of lack of courage if she votes to confirm. If you take on the burden of leadership, you shouldn't be surprised when people expect you to actually lead, such as on this vote. As I said early on, she should be re-elected to the Senate, but not be a Democratic leader.

On the scale of "liberalism", my research shows she falls in the upper middle of the Dems, with a NatlJ composite voting record score fractionally less liberal than Hillary's. Durbin rates considerably higher in the same evaluation, which is probably why I'm happier with him as a leader. So does Kerry for that matter.

As for further research on votes, fuhgettaboutit. If you think that only those that disagree with you have to support their positions, you're not worth my time away from work to do the research. I don't need your permission to have an opinion based on my own observations.

[AP]

40. I still haven't read the posts to which you're referring.

So I really don't know what you're talking about in your first and second paragraph.

My interest in this thread is narrowly focussed on the subthreads in which I participate.

If you feel that you don't want to repeat yourself, then you can politely refer me directly to your other post with a link (or you can simply cut and paste the argument you made into this subthread). It's crazy for you to go off on me because you presume I read something which I didn't.

The bankruptcy law didn't pass, so I'm not going to hold it against Stabenow (or Edwards, whom I consider very progressive and a serious champion of the same sort of Americans that both Edwards and Stabenow grew up with). Michigan has a lot of big banks, and if Stabenow felt she had to represent them by protecting their employees and their business, I'm not going to complain. Had the bill been in any danger of passing and if it threatened the interests of the workig class, in that case I would judge Stabenow on her vote.

It sounds like that's the only vote with which you have a problem. It's funny that you discount her safe good votes, but you put a great deal of weight on her safe bad votes. Can we agree that she never voted for a bad bill that passed, and votes for very good bills all the time except once?

By the way, I'm not going to let the National Journal be the last word on the liberalism of a senator. They base those rankings on as few as eight votes, and it's more art than science. For example, I think Edwards voting for a Jordan trade bill and against trade bills with countries that don't protect the environment and workers rights is an important measure of liberalism (considering we live in a world where the real battle between left and right is over neoliberalism). However, IIRC, the National Journal doesn't even use those votes in its calculations. Although I'm very proud of the Senators who rank high in the NatJ tabulations, it's not the final word. And the difference between Durbin and Stabenow might be a single vote which is not liberal only according to someone else's subjective opinion.

And once you get this issue of their voting records out of the way -- the sausage making part of legislating -- can we agree that Stabenow's heart is definitely in the right place?

As for your last paragraph, I disagree with your characterization of what happened in this thread. Everyone's entitled to his or her own opinion. However, when asked to support that opinion you can't go arround saying, "but you didn't prove my opinion wrong." That's just has too much of the whiff of the red scare about that.

[fujiyama]

51. If you think she's less liberal than Hillary

I call BULLSHIT.

Her record has been much more impressive than Hillary's.

[fujiyama]

50. She voted AGAINST IWR for one...

Against the recent budget, against the tax cuts of '01, will vote against Gonzales...She's been strong on choice, I could probably find other issues.

Overall, she's been doing a good job. I live in MI and I for one want her to serve another 6 years! I'm disappointed with the Rice vote, but don't judge a senator by just one vote.

[Carni]

30. Personally, I am just glad we have Dems in office here in general

As *Conservative* (moronic IMO) as much of this state is I feel fortunate that we have what we have!

I was MOST disappointed in Stabenow's intention to vote to confirm the liar Rice...but I also understand that she is dealing with a constituency that rides the fence.

[BlueInRed]

33. I understand completely

The reality of the state composition affects the votes, no doubt. The Rice thing is frustrating, especially from a Democratic leader.

But as I have been researching her voting record, I also discovered she is on the list of the "most targeted" senators by the Republicans in the next election cycle. That may be affecting her choices as well. If they view her as that vulnerable, it tells me that the answer to my original question is that it definitely could be worse.

[Sparkle]

13. I saw some of that also.

But what she is saying is that no matter who dumbo nominates, that person will only be a cheerleader for the puppet's policies. Debating and having your say on why this person shouldn't be SOS, at least on record you aired your disapproval. It's not like he'll appoint a Democrat.

[ClassWarrior]

15. All Dems are worthy of re-election in 2006 - unless...

...you have a strong, STRONG primary challenger who has a good shot at winning the general. But that's EXTREMELY rare, and if it doesn't work, it just weakens us.

NGU.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. There's not going to be a strong primary challenge against anybody

Unless a senator is caught in a serious scandal, it just ain't gonna happen.

[anarchy1999]

19. Simply and plainly, NO! Go see Kay Bailey and devote yourself to

making sure she never gets re-elected. Treason, high crimes and misdeamoners have been committed. What more do you need than "lying to Congress".

Debate, Why?

on edit:

I think this is more painful than watching the Iran-Contra hearings.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

23. This sh*t gets so tiresome

These are Debbie Stabenow's "Scorecards" from selected organizations based on her voting record.

Planned Parenthood 100%
League of Conservation Voters 100%
National Breast Cancer Coalition 100%
AFSMCE 100%
Peace Action 100%
AFL-CIO 95%
Americans for Democratic Action 95%

And not to put too fine point on the subject, but the American Conservative Union gives her a lifetime rating of 12%

Maybe I'm just feeling a little extra-cranky this afternoon, but I'm getting dreadfully sick of DU'ers standing up and denouncing any Democrat who can't pass their personal purity test. There was so much scorn being heaped on Hillary Clinton in a couple other threads here that I thought I had inadvertently wandered into Free Republic.

[booksenkatz]

24. As a Michigander for 10 yrs, I'm personally disappointed and would like

to see a DEM THAT FIGHTS take over her seat. Trouble is, finding a DEM THAT FIGHTS...? Might as well look for feathers on a frog. Sorry to be so "black 'n white" about things, but from now on, I want fighters or I don't want anyone at all.

[ScreamingMeemie]

25. She and Levin (my personal hero) have done a hell of a job sticking up

for Democratic values up until this point. I think we here in Michigan need to spend time ousting Candace Miller, the true criminal, and making sure she has no shot at governor.

[SharonRB]

27. I'm with you, MrsGrumpy

I generally like Stabenow. She's not going to agree with us every time -- no one is. That would be asking too much. She did stand up and speak on the floor the day of the electoral fiasco -- she didn't vote with Boxer, but at least she spoke. That's more than Carl did (although I think he was in the Middle East with Kerry, so I'm forgiving him).

[semillama]

28. I was raised in Michigan

and we seem to have real good Dems and real awful republicans.

We have folks like Levin, Blanchard, Granholm and Bonior, and then Miller and Engler.

Then there's weird anomalies like Stupak, the rep for the UP. He's a Dem but also pretty conservative, like he's anti-choice. However, according to my dad, who's on the ball about these things, he's always put his constiuents first, so my dad counts him as one of the good politicians.

[Carni]

31. I agree! If that vile woman were to become Gov - I am OUTTA HERE

I have despised that woman since she was Secretary of state and her remarks at the hearing about the electoral vote in Ohio just about sent me over the edge! She is one nasty right winged nut IMO

[Norquist Nemesis]

29. Okay...but is it what the American citizens deserve?

By her logic, why does she even show up and cast a vote? Seems like a waste of time if that is the case.

It's amazing to me that very little is put forth that the SOS is 4th in line to ascede. This is an UNELECTED position. This is not an individual chosen by the majority of voters. Apparently, we (through our elected representatives) are just supposed to rollover and give a big thumbs up to everything the President breathes, thinks, and speaks while he/she is in office. *sigh*

If she's going to vote yes for this reason, she should just get her rubber stamp inked and ready to go to work.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. That applies to CABINET MEMBERS only

Senators are traditionally supposed to be supportive of the confirmation of the president's cabinet members because they are supposed to work for the president and more or less carry out his wishes. They are in a sense, HIS, administration. Not saying that I would vote YEA on condi because I think that there is a certain value in dissent to hold the administration accountable but tearing down Stabbenow, who is a great senator, because she believes in the principal of senatorial courtesy, is just ridiculous.

[qanda]

32. Who?

The first I even heard of her was this morning on C-SPAN. I cannot be that ignorant. Where has she been and what has she been doing?

[WI_DEM]

34. we'll never have a 100% pure democrat

who will vote "my way" everytime. Hell, even Wellstone didn't. I think she is worthy of re-election.

[ComerPerro]

41. Yes

She has a point, and she is a good Democrat.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. I'm sorry but this is a dumb question

Would you rather have a senator who is good on the enviornment, good on taxes, good on social programs, voted NAY on the IWR, supports a woman's right to choose, who voted YEA on condi on the principal of senatorial courtesy OR a fascist anti-choice neocon who would've voted YEA on condi anyway?

Running a viable primary challenger drains one thing that democrats don't have enough of, MONEY. If she has to spend her own war-chest to defeat a primary challenger, it will make her that much more vulnerable to a Republican in the general election. She will have to use more DSCC resources to defeat that Republican which will be taking money away from other good democrats that we need to elect and re-elect to the senate.

Let me put it to you this way. Democrats are going to be faced with a similar confirmation regarding Alberto Gonzales. Wouldn't you MUCH rather have had Pat Leahy running his judiciary committee hearings than Arlen Specter? To do things like this we need to get MORE DEMOCRATS elected to the senate, not shrink our caucus till we only have 12 democratic senators left.

[DaveinMD]

45. don't be sorry

Stabenow is a great Dem. People here seem more intent on slamming other Dems than slamming Republicans.

[proudbluestater]

46. Of course she is worthy of reelection. You don't base all on one vote

She gave a great press conference last week with Byron Dorgan on the social security "crisis" that isn't. Pointed out Bush's buddies on Wall Street want to get their fat hands on all that money, how it only takes 1% to administer the thing compared to what the brokers would charge. She went on to list a series of REAL crises that need to be worked on first.

She is a first-term senator, still learning her way around, but she has made me proud to be a Michigander on a number of occasions already.

I, too, am disappointed with any senators who vote to confirm Kindasleezy, but I won't base my feelings about Ms. Stabenow only on a single vote.

[oasis]

47. Pick your battles. She does, all politcians do. Debbie's a hard working,

loyal Democrat and deserves re-election.

[fujiyama]

48. YES!

OMG, this is nuts!

While I am admittadly disappointed to find out she voted for the Rice confirmation, she has a great record (she's no Carl Levin, but hey who is?).

She voted against IWR for one, against the budget several weeks ago, the tax cuts, I could go on.

She's been doing a good job overall.

[JNelson6563]

52. Get real

There is no one else we can run and besides, she is a pretty good Senator. She knows the R's have a target on her back. She's a one termer. I just talked to her this past weekend and she is definitely worth re-electing.

FYI, she voted against Chimpy's war.

Julie

[UrbScotty]

53. HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Rice vote notwithstanding, I am darn proud to call her one of my United States Senators.