Richard Blumenthal thoughts

I find myself unsure as to how Richard Blumenthal will perform as my new Senator.

Blumenthal has been the state Attorney General for as long as I've been aware of such an office, and I've always thought he did a great job in that role. I've often compared many of the lawsuits Blumenthal has brought as Attorney General to suits brought by the ACLU - Even when I disagree with them and think they're going too far, I'm still glad they're doing it, because it's almost always for a cause that deserves to be heard. Blumenthal would file a suit at the slightest whiff of injustice to Connecticut citizens, and I thought that kind of over-zealousness by our Attorney General served us well.

How he'll do as Senator may be another matter, though. Blumenthal, based on observing his performance as my state's AG for the past 20 years, loves the spotlight, loves to be on-camera, on-screen, the focus of attention. To steal an old joke, the most dangerous place in Connecticut is inbetween Richard Blumenthal and a news camera. Now, is this craving for media attention a means by which he seeks to forward the issues he's pursuing? Or the flipside, how much of his laudable over-zealousness as AG is just a bid to make news, to insert himself into whatever story is in the headlines this week?

My question is, between the issues and the attention-seeking, which is the means and which is the end? I'm not sure myself, I think they both happily aligned in the same direction in his role as AG. It may in fact be why he's been so reluctant to pursue other offices, turning down entreaties to run for governor in 1998, 2002, 2006, and 2010. But what happens when those two goals are no longer aligned? What happens when the best way to get exposure and screen time is to go along with whatever sell-out party leadership is selling today? Will he continue to be a strong advocate for justice, or will he be angling for a speaking slot right after Harry Reid at the press conference?

I keep waffling on which I think it'll be, it depends on whether I'm feeling particularly optimistic or particularly cynical at the moment. We won't really know until over a year from now, in any event. But it's the one thing that worries me about Blumenthal in the Senate.

Well, that, and who'll be the new AG?

Thank you, Chris Dodd

Chris Dodd, my senator, one of the few really good representatives left in the mess that is the US Senate, is retiring. I know a lot of people are happy about this, because replacement candidate AG Richard Blumenthal is polling about 30 points better than Dodd was, so this means the seat is safe for Democrats. But I can't be anything other than disappointed, because it comes at the cost of having Chris Dodd in the senate.

Everyone has been hammering Dodd for the past year or two, because he was on the senate Banking Committee when the global financial system hit the fan, and because he got a mortgage. Some have slammed him for owning a cottage in Ireland, where his family hails from. Many have slammed him for his 2008 Presidential campaign, as if campaigning in the Iowa caucus showed disloyalty to Connecticut. Somehow that didn't hurt Joe Lieberman in 2006, but IOKIYAR.

I still believe that Dodd would have won reelection. Even in the polls where he trailed Rob Simmons, Simmons was still only getting around 40%. Anger towards Dodd for stupid shit like having a cottage, or having a mortgage, or the deep betrayal of campaigning for president in another state, would only have decreased as time passed. In the end, Democrats would have come home, and Dodd would have won a close one.

But Dodd didn't want to have that fight. He didn't want to spend resources that can now go to other competitive races, he didn't want to be a potential drain on other Democrats running in the state, and he didn't want to run the risk of losing the seat to the Republicans. And, after three decades in the Senate, he didn't want to have to spend a year fighting for his political life. And in my opinion, after the service he did not only for Connecticut but for the country during those three decades, that's his right to make that decision. If he wants to take some time to relax and watch his girls grow up rather than fighting and clawing for votes, I can't complain. He gave me thirty years.

Chris Dodd has been my senator since I was two years old. For as long as I've understood what that meant, I've been proud to have him as my senator. I don't know what Richard Blumenthal will be like in the senate. There may be times in the next six years, when Blumenthal makes some dumb mistake, or caves on an important issue, that I curse the day Chris Dodd gave up his senate seat, and curse Chris Dodd for not fighting it out. Maybe that day will never come, because Blumenthal turns out to be better than anyone can imagine. But either way, I wanted to take this moment to say, Thank You, Chris Dodd. Thank you for your service, thank you for fighting to improve this country. Even when nearly every Republican and even most Democrats fought against your efforts, it was still heartening to see someone making the fight. I'll miss that.

About This Whole Decade Thing

When I first saw a few people saying "The decade begins in 2010, I don't care what some people insist..." I assumed that it was just people who were still bitter over being wrong about when the 21st century began, arguing with straw-man versions of the folks who were right, who stopped arguing with them in 2001. But later I actually saw people arguing, for serious, that just like the century didn't begin until 2001, the decade doesn't begin until 2011.

Let me say this to those people: Stop it. You're making those of us who were right about the century look bad.

Whether you're talking about the century or the decade, it all hinges on which decade or century you're talking about. The whole issue with the century was that they were numbered. The 1st century A.D. began with the year 1, therefore the 21st century A.D. didn't begin until 2001. If you're talking about the 1900s, that's a different century than the 20th century A.D. The 20xx's obviously began in 2000, while the 21st century A.D. didn't begin until 2001.

Similarly, if you're talking about the 202nd decade A.D., indeed the 202nd decade A.D. doesn't begin until 2011. But no one has ever referred to the 202nd decade A.D. When people say "the decade", they're talking about the 201x's. And indeed, the 200x's are over, we're now onto the 201x's.

So to recap: "the decade" of the 200x's is over. The new decade, the 201x's, has begun. Anyone saying otherwise: Stop.

And anyone trying to complicate matters by talking about "the first decade of the 21st century" I say: Shut up. Why are you trying to throw gasoline on the fire?