Ben Nelson voting against Kagan

 Now typically senators, vote in favor of their party's nomination to the supreme court but apparently now we have one exception. Democratic Senator from Nebraska Ben Nelson has said he will vote against Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan who was nominate by Democratic President Barack Obama to replace retired justice John Paul Stevens.

 Does this make Nelson an independent voice? Hell No! This is all based on politics. Keep in mind this is the same Ben Nelson who stood in the way of health care reform, wall street reform, and voted against the unemployment benefits. He also was one of twenty-three democratic senators who voted to confirm John Roberts and one of only three democratic senators who voted to confirm Samuel Alito.  So why would Nelson act so much like a Republican even more than most cowardly democrats would? Well it's because Nelson is up for reelection in 2012 and he's made it clear that he plans on running and Dave Heinaman, Nebraska's Republican Governor who is considering running against Nelson is leading him in a recent poll. That's why but never under-estimate the power of progressives. For all we know Nelson could get challenged by a progressive in the democratic primary. I mean Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania voted for Roberts and Alito while he was a Republican and I think that was one of the many reasons he lost the democratic primary to Joe Sestak. Personally I believe Ben Nelson should get a progressive opponent in the democratic primary.  One that can make him act more progressive like how Sestak did to Specter.  
< Conservative censorship | Expats and furriners check in >

Poll

How will Ben Nelson's opposition to Kagan effect his reelection in 2012?
Help 18%
Hurt 27%
No Effect 54%

Votes: 11
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
At my precincts polling location we had an 80ish year old woman come up to vote. We asked her if she needed a sample ballot and she said. "No thank you, I know exactly how I'm going to vote. I'm voting for Anita Hill." Spector is a damm fool to think that a career of horrible votes and self serving positions would be forgiven by yet another self-serving party switch.

by CptRich on 08/01/2010 05:02:14 PM EST

progressive impotence will be amply demonstrated by ben nelson's reelection even after he repeatedly fucks progressives up their collective assholes, and pays no electoral consequence for it.

the reason is that progressives are ultimately pussies. they talk the big talk, but come election day, they will cower in fear at the rethuglican troglodyte running against nelson and decide to "hold their nose" and choose the "lesser of two evils".

that is the way it has been, and always will be.

by neo on 08/01/2010 07:57:58 PM EST

I was wrong. There have been senators in the past who have voted against their own party's judicial nominees.  In 1991, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who switched parties in 2001 voted against the confirmation of Clarence Thomas who was nominated by George H.W. Bush. In 2006, Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, who is now an independent, voted against the confirmation of Samuel Alito who was nominated by George W. Bush.

by bart11114 on 08/03/2010 05:42:39 PM EST

 Display: