Any younger Demorats available?

Being that the replacements have such a short time to sell themselves to the voter, the Dems needed candidates who were 1) available and 2) carried a lot of political capital with them.

This pretty much leaves old geezers.

 

The problem, especially in Minnesota, is that you need instant name/face recognition when replacing someone so late in the race. If the DFL put in someone young, even if that person had a lot of potential, no one would know who he or she is, and the party would risk losing the seat.

While I generally agree that there needs to be more new blood in congress, it's pretty well impossible in this particular situation.

 

Exactly. It's all about name recognition. Now, if they're not grooming younger replacements for the next election, they've got other problems.

 

The Dinosaur Party is out of fresh ideas, that's why they have to prop up their candidates like Weekend at Bernie's. Unless you consider Hillary Clinton to be full of new, innovative ideas, the Democratic Party is full of has beens. All of the fresh ideas in Washington come from the right. When somebody offers up new ideas, like LIMITED, VOLUNTARY PRIVATIZATION of the Social Security, the Dems just shoot it down thru scare tactics aimed at seniors. The Democratic Party is the anchor of the nation.

 

Now, you see, I just don't get this. Why do Republicans shout scare tactics whenever there's a discussion of privatizing social security?

There's nothing scary about a bunch of brokers gambling with social security funds, now is there? It keeps the brokers busy and off the streets, gives the markets a fresh infusion of cash, and redistributes all of that tax money back into the pockets of the rich where it belongs.

So what if a bunch of senior citizens lose their shirts in the stock market? They'll be dead in a couple of years anyway. It's not like they're important or anything.

 

You're a couple of memos behind, Ian. The Republicans don't use the "P" word any more. In fact, "privatization" is a Democratic slur on the GOP program.

Hey, that's what the RNC said. We've ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.

And the Republican Party is the iceberg.

 

The DFL could probably place Socks the Cat on the ballot here in the Land of the Frozen Chosen at this point and the Strib Poll would have Socks with a 5-6% lead over poor Norm Coleman...

I see Mondale winning in a landslide, serving 2 years, then retiring...if the DFLers get the Governor's Mansion...

 

History -- isn't it fun?

Back in 1983 here in Washington, Senator Henry Jackson, a Democrat, died in office only two months before the November general election and one week before the state primary. State law at the time required his successor to be picked in November. That forced a special primary between the regular primary and the general election.

The state's Republican governor picked a former Republican governor to fill the seat. He went on to win the election and retired at the end of the term.

So it's not like there's anything new, shocking or despicable about this. It's everyday politics.

 

The ideas coming out of the Republican Party are concerned with only 3 things: the gun, the fetus and feathering the nest of the ultra-wealthy

 

Damn, I coulda sworn I heard your boy Clin-ton propose it during the State of the Union in 1999....

 

I see that you're a subscriber to the Democratic Talking Points Weekly. I know you're against people controlling their own money and that bureaucrats in Washington are more competent than people out in the heartland, but your scare tactics are still off base. The Bush plan was about VOLUNTARY contributions of a LIMITED nature. In other words, if you fear that you'll go out and buy a bong with your retirement money than just keep it in the SS plan. But, don't limit the choices of those who feel they can plan for their retirement in better ways than to get a 2% return. And, the only people "losing their shirts" are people whose sole retirement funds are invested in Social Security.

 

I don't care what the Republicans are saying, I favor full privatization. The Social Security system as it's currently comprised is a massive fraud, and bankrupt to boot.

 

If you weren't so nasty some of the time people might listen to the points you make, Ian. That said, I completely agree with you for once. I think voluntary privatization of SS should be enacted years ago and I've yet to hear a good argument from the Democrats against it. Some Democrats do use "scare tactics" with seniors and it works and it's embarrassing.

 

Talk about scare tactics....

http://gop.com/flash/nightmaresenate.htm

Which party had the first flash animation campaign? Was it that social security one? Or was there one before that?

 

Did you now?

http://www.lthurow.com/articles/html/clintonsnook.htm

 

So, if we take the premise of this article as gospel, you're saying that Clinton lied during the 1999 State of the Union address?

 

How did you get that from the article?

There might be a tiny difference, by the way, between Clinton saying:

Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years.

and saying he wanted to privatize Social Security.

 

The guy who wrote the article is essentially saying that Clinton proposed it so that it would be dismissed. That's silly. I realize the guy probably wants to believe that, but come on.

I definitely agree, but people tend to forget that Clinton did bring this up.

 

He didn't bring up anything resembling what Ian and the Cato Institute are talking about, though.

 

When you talk about "privitizing Social Security" there are two separate issues.

The first, which is what Clinton proposed, is allowing portions of the taxes to be invested in the stock market. Right now, it is only invested in gov't bonds. Benefits would still be guaranteed (to the extent they are guaranteed now)

The second, what is talked about more often now, is allowing people to opt out of SS and invest portions of the deducted amount into their own accounts which they control. If you lose $$$, you're on your own. Clinton did not propose this, to the best of my knowledge.

Personally, I think the whole concept of a trust fund and investment is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. But that doesn't mean I'm against SS. Just treat it like you treat other entitlement programs, and make payments from the general treasury. If you want to levy special taxes for it, like is done now with the Payroll Tax, fine. If you want to link it to work history, ok. But the "trust fund" concept is an accounting device, nothing more.

----

Back to the orginal topic. The Lautenberg and Mondale nominations, 11th hour nominations to replace other candidates, are not good benchmarks of what constitutes the Democratic "bench." Despite that, I do think the Democratic bench is looking awfully thin. I'm not aware of too many impressive newcomers who could really lead and inspire that party.

 

And who would that be? Ohh, that's right . . . the WORKING CLASS.

The problem with privatizing Soc. Sec. is that scrupulous brokers would prey on seniors. Having worked for a mutual fund firm's Retirement Plan Dept., I saw too often in which individuals near retirement had their entire plans held in tech stocks. They shouldn't have had it all in equity, let alone volatile equities.

 

Perhaps you mean unscrupulous brokers?

Anyway, I suppose that telemarketers might also try to con old people out of their money, maybe we should ban telephones.

 

We could ban telemarketing.

 

I find it naively charming that Ian believes that his Social Security contribs are socked away in a piggy bank somewhere, gaining 2.5% interest just for him.