September Straw Poll - Senate Primary

Sorry, I'm holding off (4.00 / 1)

I expect that I will be able to enthusiastically back Governor Shaheen. But she hasn't laid out her Iraq War position yet. I don't expect any disappointment when she does, but I'll hold off until then.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 14:28:19 PM UTC

Ditto-- (4.00 / 1)

Marchand and Swett both submitted to some tough questioning.  I hope that Buckey and Shaheen will do the same.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 16:49:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ready and Willing (4.00 / 3)

Jay has been answering lots of questions on the campaign trail all summer, about the Iraq War and more. As his campaign manager, I can assure you that he'd be happy to answer questions for the Blue Hampshire community. You can also see his record on the issue here. If you have some specific questions, please feel free to shoot them to directly or post them in Blue Hampshire...

We look forward to interacting with you on the campaign trail - virtual and physical - in the year ahead!

Change is inevitable, but progress is not. Working together, we can make sure that change = progress. And that's what makes us progressive...

---

by: KarenLH @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 20:23:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I met Jay at YearlyKos (0.00 / 0)

I was impressed. He's smart and articulate. He looks great. And I think the whole doctor/astronaut/not-a-politician thing really works. He's got a very credible background to talk about healthcare and the damage that the Bush administration has done to science.

I didn't grill him about Iraq. Maybe I should have.

---

by: Pericles @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 18:12:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Double ditto. (4.00 / 1)

I wasn't going to mention it up top, but you hit the nail on the head for me.  I'm waiting this one out too.

The question I'd love to know truthfully is how Buckey, Shaheen, and Swett would have voted on this past session's Iraq funding bill and FISA fix.

Those two moments significantly depressed the momentum of the 2006 elections, in addition to the more obvious result of extending the war and continuing Bush's fetish for spying.

Would they have voted with the Senate leadership of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, or with freshmen NH House reps Hodes and Shea-Porter?

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 23:01:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just back from a day of politics (0.00 / 0)

with wonderful Democrats in Nottingham and at the Democracy Factory in Somersworth.  I talked about Jay at both places, and why I would love a scientist in the Senate.  We need some clear, logical, fact-based thinking because we are going to have some dreadful problems coming up.  Bush's legacy will be a disaster and we need to be completely reality-based as we decide what to do.  And we will need to be able to figure the results of our decisions out past the next election, and that is what thinking like a scientist is all about.

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 21:04:16 PM UTC

Do you think our problems are because (0.00 / 0)

our political leaders cannot think straight, or are under-educated?

I don't.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 21:23:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Special Interest/Political postering v acting (4.00 / 1)

Look at CAFE standards as just one of many examples of the Dems (and politicians in general) in the past not doing the right thing (increasing CAFE standards make cars more fuel efficient) and doing the political expedite thing. 

Same thing with this damn war...instead of looking at the facts, most Dems just stuck their finger in the air and voted which way the wind was blowing.

I don't necessarily think our political leaders can't think straight (but there is that element), I think they make decisions based on advancing their careers--and that often means not pissing off the moneyed interests.

We need new leadership in Washington.  We need people who are not only smart, but will vote based on what they think is right and wrong, not what will generate more campaign funds or what other insiders tell them.

We do need people like Jay Buckey.

---

by: Stark Blue @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 22:07:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

John Dingell's longevity - 52 years as a Michigan Representative (0.00 / 0)

Dingell took over his father's seat, and has held it for 52 years. Nancy Pelosi had to form a "select" committee to be able to broach the subject of changing the CAFE standards as well as definitions involving trucks and SUVs, since each category has its own standard. Then what happens? Dingell decides to sponsor a tougher standard. Of course, none are as high as they could, or ought, to be set. And this is almost like locking the barn door after the horse has escaped. Still, it moves us in the right direction.

As proponents of electric cars vouch, Detroit had a chance to move forward on those and did not. Jay mentions this in his energy perspective on his website .

---

by: Books Alive @ Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 04:01:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some of them (4.00 / 1)

can't think straight or are under-educated, certainly.  But it is less that than an attitude.  For someone who really really loves the scientific method, bending the truth is almost an immoral act, maybe it IS an immoral act.  There is something about the training to be an engineer or a doctor, and Jay is both, that makes such a person much less likely to take lightly the spin that is put on so much of the decisionmaking by most political actors.  This is more a state of thinking, of mind, than just a matter of education, in my opinion, of course.
I am a great admirer of scientists, as you can tell.  The Bush administration's perversion of science has bothered me terribly, it seems sinful to me to do that. 

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 22:30:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two Words (0.00 / 0)

Bill Frist

 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 00:50:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

or how about Sununu? (4.00 / 1)

He's an engineer.

---

by: person @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 00:57:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (4.00 / 1)

The last thing we need are more MIT engineers who don't acknowledge climate change.

But on the other hand, tackling climate change intelligently is a big part of Buckey's campaign.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:15:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shaheen record (4.00 / 1)

As governor, Jeanne Shaheen was able to get landmark legislation passed that required utility companies to reduce emissions of four pollutants.  Working with a legislature that had a Republican majority! Energy independence is one of the major issues she addresses on her new web site.

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:35:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you beat me to it (4.00 / 1)

And Sununu's dad was an engineer too. And shares the view that we need more engineers and scientists in elected office.

http://news.uns.purd...

---

by: Judy Reardon @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:04:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But did he kill cats? (4.00 / 1)

Bill Frist was a confessed kitty killer. 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:08:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two Better Words (0.00 / 0)

Jimmy Carter.

Jeanne can catch you up, if you miss my drift.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden  

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:06:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Post Script (4.00 / 1)

I am not siding with bloomingpol. I have seen the lather he has created with the commemts regarding the NHDP.

Flatlander, so I'll abstain.

Having studied, researched and worked as a Chemist, in the past; I am partial to the Scientific Method.

Funny thing is, in politics - I am much more a "grip 'n grinner". I have seen the positive effects of the "Hard Count" methodology. Being founded on statistics, I am surprised at how I can't come to abide by this approach.

The "touch" of the grassroots style has a resonance that is hard to punch into a calculator. Carter, IMHO, represents the political "alchemist", if you will.

Must thank Jeanne for her efforts with Carter. His post-presidency work sets the standard and has yet to be matched. Ha, nary a shadow has been cast upon Carter's work.


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden  

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:27:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two more words (0.00 / 0)

Howard Dean...

---

by: Stark Blue @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 03:52:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Coronations ... (3.00 / 4)

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with coronations and this move by Shaheen - when the other candidates have been in the race for quite a while - has all the makings of one. I congratulate Marchand for standing by his word and dropping out. But I'm even happier to see that Buckey is staying in and that Swett doesn't seem to want to give up either, especially so that voters have a choice.

My problems with Shaheen are not unlike those with Swett: When push came to shove, they were on the wrong side of the Iraq issue at the beginning and didn't show the independence and foresight which should be a prerequisite in any Democratic candidate. They should have known what the rest of us knew and that is that this war was wrong and would be a horrible mistake. Ask yourself this: How come all us regular folks knew that and yet Swett, Shaheen, Kerry, and a whole slew of others, with all their "intelligence" and handlers didn't know it?!? Because they were  scared of what all those bad, chickenhawk Republicans would say about them in TV ads. Boo hoo. On that issue, the most important of this election cycle and the previous one, they are just as bad as Sununu in my eyes because they would have voted with the president when they should have known better. You can measure the other issues and decide where you stand and more than likely, Shaheen and Swett will be better. But, if we have learned anything from the 2006 cycle, it is that even when the Democrats get swept into office, it doesn't mean a hill of beans. Nothing has changed and it is almost a year later.

I think it was Bill Clinton's mentor Carroll Quigley who once wrote that the two major parties are pretty close to the same so that when the voters get sick and tired of one party, and kick the bums out, essentially the same political structure stays in place and the same people behind the scenes still control everything. We should all really give that some thought.

Shaheen and Swett can change their minds now, and they have every right to apologize like John Edwards did, thankfully, to the voters and more importantly, to the dead and dying. As voters, we can accept that apology and forgive them. But this is a fundamental flaw with Democrats these days and personally, I'm sick and tired of voting for people who don't realize that they have to stand up and do the right thing even when it isn't popular.

And who can forget those awful radio spots which Shaheen ran in 2002 when she tried to out-tough Sununu on defense spending and the War on Terror. It was embarrassing and surely depressed liberal voters in that cycle. I remember hearing them in The River wondering, what the hell is this? Is she insane?

If Shaheen is so great and so powerful, powerful enough for a coronation like this one, then she should have done us all a favor and sat out 2008 and taken out Judd Gregg in 2010.

Politizine.com

---

by: Tony Schinella @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:20:32 AM UTC

October 2002 (4.00 / 3)

How did two men, seemingly different, come to the same conclusion?

Oct. 2, 2002: Obama- "an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda."

Oct. 10, 2002: Buckey- "I support my country and I am very concerned about Iraq, but cannot support the current resolution. This resolution provides the president with too much power and doesn't prepare the nation for what might be a long-term and costly commitment. I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO VOTE AGANST IT."


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden  

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:52:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I stopped by the table of some (4.00 / 1)

friendly Obama staffers in Nashua last week and read their flyer with his entire Oct 2002 speech.  You have to give the guy credit for predicting so much of what was to come.

I still haven't picked a presidential candidate, and probably won't for several months, but that speech is a strong point in Obama's favor.  The long term vision displayed in that speech is very impressive, especially given the hostile climate in which it was given.

Where do we go from here?

---

by: Gavin @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 03:50:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

coronations (0.00 / 0)

Former Governor Shaheen is experienced and trusted.  The dirty tricks she experienced in 2002 earned her another shot at Sununu.

I would like very much to see Katrina sign on with Gov. Shaheen as a policy director/chief of staff or something, go to Washington with her, and be ready to seriously contend for Judd Gregg's seat in 2010.

---

by: observer @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:28:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

? (4.00 / 1)

It isn't a coronation when over 1200 people ask a person to run for office.  She wouldn't be running if she didn't have grass roots support. 

Iraq is critical to me - which is one of the reasons I wanted Jeanne Shaheen to get in the race. We need to beat Sununu, and she is our best chance of defeating him.  I won't repeat all the other reasons I think she is the best candidate, but this talk of a "coronation" is just wrong. She will work hard for every vote.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:42:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But how (4.00 / 1)

do you explain away the 2002 support for Bush's policies? I just don't buy that she was duped. She is at least as intelligent as I and millions of others who saw this invasion as wrong-headed (as well as the disaster of giving W so much power).

I want to support her, but I can't get around that. Also, her support of Bush's tax cuts for the rich, etc. I know it's not 2002, but those were important policy issues I strongly disagree with her on, and have proven to be detrimental to the country.

I'd be open to hearing, as Elwood suggested for all candidates who either were for or actually gave authorization to Bush, what they've learned and how they'd do things differently going forward.

I know she's a zillion times better than Sununu, but comaprison to HIM just doesn't do it for me. At least not at this point in the process.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 13:27:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you think that... (0.00 / 0)

there is no difference with Democrats in control of the government then you are nuts. You might not have everything you want but millions of lives have been touched in the 8 months since the Democrats have taken over. Stop being selfish!

---

by: itstime @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 13:28:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The coronation nonsense (0.00 / 0)

• Although the other campaigns have been underway for months, we still have a year until the primary and fourteen months until the election. This is hardly a "late entrance."
  
• Shaheen hasn't immediately become the favorite for the nomination because Chuck Schumer supports her - she becomes the favorite because the voters strongly support her, according to four different polls.
  

---

by: elwood @ Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 13:40:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]