Here we go again:
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) called on President-elect Obama Monday to raise the Small Business Administration to a cabinet-level position, as it was under the Clinton administration.
Snowe’s request raises an interesting scenario: If Obama raised the SBA and then named Snowe as the secretary, Maine Gov. John Baldacci — a Democrat — would be in position to appoint a Democrat to the Senate, giving the party at least 59 members. That’d leave them one short of a filibuster-proof majority. If Al Franken pulled out a victory in the Minnesota recount, Democrats would be at 60.
I can’t be the only one who thinks all this nonsense about 60 is just an excuse- “Oh noes, we wanted to do this, but we only had 58 Democrtaic votes!” With as many moderates and conservative Dems as there are out there, I am hard pressed to think of scenarios where they would be unable to peel off a Republican vote or two, and should they fail to do that, they will have probably already lost conservative Democrats. The simple fact that they are counting Lieberman as one of the solid 58 votes shows how fanciful this thinking is. This focus on 60 Democrats is silliness.
Speaking of fetishes- Bush’s EPA director can’t figure out the difference between science and God. I am sure this surprises no one.
NR
Anyone who doesn’t think that 41 Republican votes will be a rock-solid, unbreakable blocking force for Obama’s legislation in the Senate hasn’t been paying attention to anything for the last eight years.
Republicans always vote in lockstep. At least, when it really matters.
DougJ
I know where you’re coming from on this, but I think that the only way Obama will be able to get any judicial nominees through is to have 60 Democratic Senators. You’re underestimating the Republicans’ beliefs that (a) they’ll come back to power relatively soon (so that stalling nominations is worthwhile) and (b) that acting like obstructionist assholes won’t have political repercussions.
And I’m not sure they’re wrong on either count.
Realistically, I think we need 65+ Democratic seats to get anything serious done.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
The whole focus on filibuster proof majority is wrong-headed; because it presupposes the Republicans will even try to filibuster.
Reid should be forcing the bastards to stand at the fucking podium if they want to filibuster something.
Let’s see whatcha got, conserva-boy.
Comrade Dread
There’s plenty to criticize about the Bush EPA, but this doesn’t seem all that out there.
If you’re not going to go agnostic or atheist, and you’re not going to adhere to Creationism, then you’re probably a Theistic Evolutionist.
As to the filibuster proof majority, this is the exact same game Republicans played in 2000, 2002, and 2004. "Gee whiz, small government voters, we sure would like to pass some genuine reform and stop all this bad growth in government power and spending (that we’re actively pursuing and enabling), but we just don’t have 60 votes and those darn Democrats are out there ready to stymie us. But keep voting for us. We promise next election we’ll get there."
It’s bull, and the sooner Democrats become disillusioned, disgusted and cynical about all government functionaries, the better.
DougJ
What I find interesting about this post and others is how much John grasps about how the Democratic party works — yes, they will use any excuse (such as filibusters) they can not to do anything, and, yes, Democrats like to fuck with each other — but how little he understands about the Republican party.
Maybe being in a party blinds you to how it works? As a lifelong Dem, I probably have to plead guilty to understanding the Republican party much better than I understand the Democratic one (I still don’t get how the Harold Ford/Di-Fi types think at all nor do I get the Clinton hatred or the PUMAs).
KCinDC
Comrade Dread, you have a point, but the Republicans actually did block almost everything during the past two years, forcing record numbers of cloture votes. The Democrats didn’t do anything close to that when they were in the minority.
Comrade Dread
Which is not a filibuster per se, and as others have said, make them stand at the podium and gab, read from a phone book, or otherwise make jackasses of themselves.
Make them actually do it.
In short, they can stop acting like a whipped puppy and grow a pair.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
The whole focus on filibuster proof majority is wrong-headed; because it presupposes the Republicans will even try to filibuster.
Reid should be forcing the bastards to stand at the fucking podium if they want to filibuster something.
Each and every time. And make damned certain that something important, even VITAL to Republican interests is scheduled to follow such a debate, and can’t be addressed until this one is over.
Comrade Stuck
@NR:
I tend to agree with NR. We are going to see the goopers circle the wagons and stack layers of concertina wire all the while GOParty pods do their work to snatch those moderates who don’t toe the purist wingnut line. Mconnell is smart enough to not fight every dem initiative, but the big ticket items that threaten the future existence of the Republican party, like national healthcare, we can expect ferocious resistance. Snow is probably the only repug with the cajones to join dems in those fights though, so having her seat held by a dem would make the least impact, imho.
Punchy
WTF? Sanders and LIEberman are fucking Indys, and actually, Joe is closer to a R anyways.
Too much to ask for these fucking writers to even know fucking letters in the fucking alphabet actually stand for?
Fucking morans.
Comrade Stuck
The problem with that, however, are arcane Senate rules on quorums that also force a large number of the caucus being filibustered to hang around the gym while a single filibusterer gabs on. That’s a big reason why they truncated the process a long time ago with cloture votes, to avoid that pain.
D-Chance.
Snowe is already one of the more reliable Democrats in the Senate, voting-wise… why take her out of the mix?
El Cid
I think that having or not having 60 (let’s say even actual) Democratic Senators would simply provide different excuses for the Democratic Senate leaders to provide for why they had to cow-tow to some right wing dickheads.
Somehow Republicans manage to pass stuff with fewer than 60 Senators.
Hell, if there were 100 Democratic Senators, they’d still be coming up with reasons why some sensible bill couldn’t get passed. ‘Oh, without 200 Senators, um, something!’
Just Some Fuckhead
@Ivan Ivanovich Renko: Well, it’s not really that simple. Senate rules allow for extended debate on any particular bill, unlike the House which has a Rules committee that actually prescribes time limits on floor debate.
In order to bring debate to a close so actual voting can occur on a particular bill in the Senate a vote of cloture is taken. To close debate down and actually vote on a bill requires a three fifths majority, or 60 votes. No one actually has to stand up and speak for twenty four hours UNLESS that person is trying to prevent a vote of cloture from occurring that is all but certain to pass.
So it’s important, yes, but if the Obama administration is serious about working with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are savvy with granting of earmarks and such they should be able to peel off the few Republican votes necessary for cloture.
Dennis - SGMM
Democrats could have eighty Senators and Harry Reid would still be explaining why he can’t get legislation passed.
Just Some Fuckhead
Damn, blew my daily quota of actuallys in one comment.
Halteclere
As the number of Democrats approach 60 and beyond, the more important someone like Lieberman becomes. Personally I’d rather have 58 Senators and constantly put pressure on the 5-most endangered Republicans (Republicans in Democratic-swinging or swung districts). The more people that are "swing votes" the less power one single fense-riding person has.
Comrade Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Actually, the actual number was 2.
aimai
As I understand it from reading around the net the sixty votes may also impact how the chairmanships and positions are dealt out in the committees. I forget where I read that but I definitely read it this morning. So getting to sixty would enable us to fully control all the committees and fully stack them. I thought it was just a majority/minority split but it seems I was wrong.
aimai
JGabriel
ABC News (Via the article on Bush’s EPA director that John Cole links):
Great. That explains so much. Our president for the last years has been Unfrozen Cave Man.
So glad this national embarrassment of an administration is almost over.
.
Comrade Stuck
@JGabriel:
better
Punchy
@Just Some Fuckhead: I blew throught my fucks allotment in one sentence.
Just Some Fuckhead
A Charlie Brown Christmas is coming on ABC if anyone else needs their seasonal nostalgia fix.
Comrade Stuck
OT
Transcript:
Rice — Tastes Great
Clinton — Less Filling
JGabriel
@Comrade Dread:
Actually, Dread, there are a number of faiths that are completely comfortable with Darwinian evolution, and regard the Genesis story as a metaphor for the creation of the human soul. Catholicism and Episcopalianism/Anglicism come to mind, just off the top of my head.
They may believe that God set the rules that guide the universe and evolution, which might fit the most minimal definition of Theistic Evolutionism, but that really would be kind of a stretch.
The point is that there are other religious interpretations which are consistent with Darwin, rather than just the inconsistent Creationism or Theistic Evolution.
As an agnostic, I’m merely mentioning this as a public service, and have no interest in debating the merits of such an interpretation.
.
bago
@Punchy: Who do you think you are, Bob Allen?
bago
Pat Boone and the Sexual Jihadis.
Also.
TenguPhule
Haven’t we been punished enough already?
Just Some Fuckhead
@TenguPhule: Hey asshole, haven’t we been banned enough already?
gwangung
Hm. And Emanuel is going to stand by and not doing anything while Reid is flailing about ineffectively?
Nah, I don’t think so.
Reid and Pelosi may play softball, but Emanuel won’t.
evie
It’s a media fetish. You don’t see Democratic politicians talking about it. And let’s face it, it’s not real unless we had 64-65 seats.
Objective Scrutator
This looks like a pretty good analysis from Nate, although I heavily disagree with him over Voinovich. Voinovich seems very unwilling to cooperate with Obama; I haven’t seen him willing to go along with any of Obama’s plans, even though Voinovich himself is a moderate.
I also don’t think that Specter is going to go along with too much of Obama’s plan other than on social issues and possibly tax policy. Keep in mind that Specter has been quite adamant in maintaining corporate loopholes, and that he’s recently been getting lax on judge appointees. The primary for Specter is going to be harder than the general election, IMO.
Still, Obama is certainly going to be able to funnel in votes from Snowe and, to a lesser extent, Collins. He also has strong connections with Lugar, especially on nuclear policy.
I think that war votes will be key.
Punchy
/looks at bago’s question….scratches chin in puzzlement…
bago
I present to you, Bob Allen.
Comrade Rick Massimo
They had a 100% majority when they were deciding what to do about Lieberman, and they did nothing.
TenguPhule
Well if Limp Dick Harry would stop rolling over to GOP and insist on up or down votes….
Ed Marshall
Back when the republicans were threatening the "nuclear option" I wanted them to go for it. If the dems had told them "fuck it, do what you want" at the time we wouldn’t have to worry about this ridiculous situation.
OTOH, I really don’t see much downside to pulling the "nuclear option" out on republicans if they feel like really being assholes with the fillibuster. Obama and the democrats got elected to do something and if the dead-enders can’t get with the program I don’t think anyone outside of talk radio land and David Broder will give a damn if the democrats rewrite the Senate rules
Indylib
I’m hoping that Obama and Rahm have thought of some creative ways to use that million+ list of donors and their e-mail adresses to good effect. Congresscritters and Senators in swing districts and purple states are vulnerable to pressure from constituents and if Obama can organize supporters in the right places at the right times it might make a difference in getting legislation passed.
I’m picturing all of us who donated to Obama’s campaign who live in purple states getting e-mails from the White House asking us to contact our legislators. Anybody know if there’s any legal reason this couldn’t be done?
C
@Comrade Dread: "There’s plenty to criticize about the Bush EPA, but this doesn’t seem all that out there.
If you’re not going to go agnostic or atheist, and you’re not going to adhere to Creationism, then you’re probably a Theistic Evolutionist."
If you can’t see that they’re trying to wedge and conflate evolution and creationism, you’re an idiot.
I know the difference, you may know the difference. The people at large have no clue what the differences are, and trying to make them okay with the creationist school syllabus is EXACTLY what this whole new bush "theistic evolution" narrative is about.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Comrade Dread:
On the surface, there’s nothing really objectionable about Theistic Evolution; it’s entirely possible that God is working in such a way that’s indistinguishable from a purely natural (hmmm, maybe mechanistic is a better word) process to guide the evolution of mankind (or beetles, or mice, or whatever His end product is intended to be). It’s not incompatible with the evidence we have, and if it allows someone to reconcile their beliefs in a personal, interventionist God with current scientific understanding, then so much the better, right?
As you start to examine it critically, though, that position becomes less viable for several reasons. We cannot tell the difference between a purely mechanistic process and God behaving like a purely mechanistic process, so science assumes the former explanation as it is simpler. This is true in all areas of science; we typically do not invoke God to help us understand radioactivity, for example, or Newton’s laws of motion. Why is evolutionary biology so damned special?
That was a rhetorical question; you can put those hands down.
On the other side, it wedges God into some pretty tight and ever-shrinking gaps; if you don’t allow for God to act in ways that are distinguishable from purely mechanistic processes, you’ve pretty much admitted that the idea of a personal, interventionist God cannot exist. I know at least a few Young Earthers who equate theistic evolution with outright atheism.
Fritz
So why should the SBA be a cabinet-level position anyway? There already is Commerce. Does somebody then want a Small Union Administration in the cabinet also, for balance?
And, yeah, I want to see some "up all night for a week reading the phone book" filibusters. I figure the stress alone might weed out the oldest dozen Senators.
C
You’re all forgetting that giving the people Creationism, placating the NRA about guns in parks, this is seriously his last ditch effort to work on his "legacy".
If he can’t convince the 70%, by fucking GOD he’s going to reach that 30%.
C
"As you start to examine it critically, though, that position becomes less viable for several reasons."
I think by all accounts it is a red herring.
NR
@Ed Marshall: I’d love to see this happen, but I don’t think the Dems have the balls for it. Harry Reid certainly doesn’t. Look up "weak-kneed" in the dictionary and you’ll find his picture under the definition.
What a lot of people don’t realize is that most of LBJ’s Great Society reforms would not have been possible, even with the absurdly huge Congressional majorities the Democrats held at the time, if the Democrats hadn’t pushed through rules changes in both chambers. While they weren’t quite able to do away with the filibuster, they did manage to wrest the committee chairmanships away from the Southern conservatives who held them. That was enough to get most of LBJ’s programs through. I’m afraid that something similar is going to be needed today, and like I said, I don’t think our current crop of Democrats has the balls for it.
Ed Marshall
That cuts two ways. If Obama told him to nuke the fillibuster I can’t see Reed bucking the de facto King of the DNC either. Things have changed in the relationship even from what they were in the Clinton years.
anonymous
@D-Chance.:
Hardly. While she’s not bad, Americans for Democratic Action gave her a Liberal Quotient of 60% in 2007. By comparison, Nebraska’s Ben Nelson got 75%. Only Dem rated worse AFAICT was Tim Johnson, who didn’t show up for many votes for obvious reasons.
Comrade Jake
I’m sure this has already been said, but in case not: the Dems do not really want the filibuster-proof majority. That presents a situation in which they own everything over the next two years: the good, the bad, and the ugly. There’s no way they want that responsibility.
J. Michael Neal
Not really. When you peel it back to first principles, you find that neither position is really simpler than the other. It ends up depending how you feel about the Aristotelean First Mover, and how you explain the conundrum that nothing can create itself. Me, I’m agnostic. I don’t find the arguments that the First Mover is the only possible explanation very convincing, but I don’t find anything else convincing, either. Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder.
It isn’t. If you believe in Theistic Evolution, you explain it in exactly the same way that you explain every other scientific principle. They all derive from God. You do explain radioactivity through God. The only difference is that you don’t have anyone out there claiming that radioactivity doesn’t exist, so whether you explain it through God doesn’t come up in conversation.
Ed Marshall
Why not? Leaving aside for a second how much utility I really think a sixty-vote majority in the Senate means when it includes people like Blanche Lincoln, Lieberman and the like, I do wish we had everything. If we can’t wrestle things back right in two years something is wrong. If things haven’t turned around and the opposition is saying it’s because we need a capital gains tax cut they are fucked anyway.
DougJ
Only Dem rated worse AFAICT was Tim Johnson, who didn’t show up for many votes for obvious reasons.
Come on, you buy that stuff about the stroke? The guy’s a DINO who doesn’t have the guts to fight torture and wire-tapping. Don’t be surprised if a lot of Democratic Congressman have "strokes" this year just before the big votes that would truly advance the progressive agenda.
Comrade Jake
@Ed Marshall:
I think you’re fooling yourself if you think we can undo the last eight years of suck in two years of win. We can’t. This is going to take a lot more time, and there’s a chance the perfect set of policies are mostly going to just end up sucking less than the alternatives.
Obama is going to need some buy-in from a select number of Republicans, and that’s really not a bad thing. There are more than enough moderates to make a difference, but if there’s this sense that things are being rammed down their throats, 2010 would be ugly.
DougJ
Subtitle of an article on Politico right now:
"The claims that Obama isn’t an American are strong."
Indylib
@DougJ:
Followed by the caveat that the claims have been "widely debunked".
At least that is in the first sentence.
Delia
@J. Michael Neal:
Well, the Aristotelian Prime Mover isn’t exactly God, no matter what Thomas Aquinas thought.
But you know what? As much fun as it is to argue ancient Greek metaphysics, or permutations on creationism or evolutionary theory or all intersections of the above, I did not know that was in the friggin’ job description for head of the EPA. I thought he or she was supposed to kiss the feet of the captains of industry and methodically destroy all rules and regulations on the amount of pollution in our air, water, and land while saying it was helping us all.
DougJ
Followed by the caveat that the claims have been "widely debunked".
You have to click through to see that though.
I think it’s strange.
Jen R
I’m just pissed the Democratic caucus pandered to Lieberman so they’d have 60 members, and then didn’t get 60 anyway.
I got a horrible non-response from Dick Durbin’s office when I wrote to express my dissatisfaction with the situation, too.
J. Michael Neal
Not necessarily, no, but the essential simplicity of the argument is the same. The entirety of my argument is that an appeal to Ockham gets you nowhere on this question.
It isn’t his job not to have an opinion, either. This answer is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is doing a good job. It is perfectly possible for someone who would say exactly that to be a good head of the EPA. It is perfectly possible for a non-believer to be a terrible one.
There are a lot of good reasons to dump on Johnson. This isn’t one of them. There are a lot of theists in this country. You’d do best to make peace with that fact.
Indylib
@DougJ:
It’s the same crap that the NYT pulled with their story about Obama being a muslim, except that the Times article waited until the end to point out that it was a delusional rumor.
It is misleading because the "strong" in the article refers to the strength of the rumor mill churning throughout greater wingnutistan not the actual claim that Obama isn’t a citizen.
To be fair though, Huffpo often pulls the same sort of crap with their headlines.
DougJ
Sometimes I wonder…what will future generations think of us all when they see that in the midst of the worst recession in 70 years, the American media was focused on cardboard cut-outs and rumors about the president being a Muslim?
Calouste
@DougJ:
Politico == Drudge, and are sliding in the direction of redstate.
They quote Berg, convicted tax fraud Bob Shultz, Micheal Savage and Jerome Corsi.
In other news, Pontius Pilate is convinced that guy from Nazareth is 100% guilty.
Oh, and factcheck.org is no longer reliable apparently because it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also founded the board on which both Obama and Ayers sat.
TheHatOnMyCat
They will do the only thing they can do: Blame it the Bossa Nova.
Ed Marshall
We’ll find out. Who knows what happened behind closed doors. If Leiberman is a huge pain in the ass in the future we got rolled. If he’s pliant he got rolled. That’s a real possibility, and it’s just good sense if he knows it and Lieberman is onboard to have the camel pissing out of the tent instead of into it.
TheHatOnMyCat
It’s the same crap that cable is doing today with their "OhNoes, liberals wring hands over Obama shift to center!"
They have nothing to talk about that fits their prepackaged false dichotomies, so they just make shit up.
How fucking devoid of material does a NYT columnist have to be to sit down and write a column that basically says "Beware the GHOST OF ROBERT MCNAMARA!"
Next year is going to be Mister Toad’s Wild Ride. Nothing that is happening right now will even be remembered.
gnomedad
Heh-heh, for a moment I thought you meant Bill.
Comrade Stuck
@gnomedad:
That thought requires a dose of brain bleach.
Delia
@J. Michael Neal:
There always have been. Hell, I’m a theist myself, and I believe in evolution, on pretty much the same philosophical basis that someone way up-thread mentioned. And as I said, it can be fun to have these sorts of philosophical discussions in private if you’re all in the right mood. It’s just that before this idiotic administration high ranking public officials never found the need to launch disquisitions on the nature of their faith and creationism for the public record. And it’s really just one more bit of flim flam to distract the religious base from the way the Bush industrialists are screwing over the environment. If the goopers had managed to keep the White House for this next round, we’d be pretty much in the same boat as the Chinese as far as pollution and food standards are concerned.
I guess it’s the rank hypocrisy of it all I find so irritating. You’d think after eight years I’d be used to it, but I’m not.
DougJ
Sometimes I can’t decide whether or not I accept the Burkean view of theism or the Oakeshottian one.
Birdzilla
Just another excuse for big goverment and big brother to get involved in our lives what else can you ever expect from the buricrats
binzerator
HOLY SHIT BIRDZILLA WHEN DID YOU LEARN ABOUT LOWERCASE LETTERS!ELEVENTY1!1!
I see you’re still having trouble spelling words of more than 2 syllables.
John Cole
@DougJ: At this rate, there are not going to be future generations of us.
BTW- if you check the trackbacks to the cutout post below, the racist fuck puma myiq is all in a snit.
binzerator
Aw, what the fuck, the auto-moderator took the eleven-ty plus multitudinous !’s and 1’s out of my post. How the hell can one respond to a spoof with out an overabundance of 1’s and !’s and eleven-ty? Sheesh.
Comrade Dread
There are varying degrees of theistic evolution starting with the more deist concept that a divine or first cause set up the entire system, kicked it off, and has been letting things run their course, to the idea that God has been the one tweaking the DNA at each integral step which results in the next move forward.
Which misses the point. The theistic evolutionist does not deny the existence of natural laws and processes, but sees the hand of God as the force that created and started the processes.
Ultimately, it is a moot point in the context of what the head of the EPA does. He (or she) should protect the environment, while preferrably finding a balance that allows for human ingenuity and the economy to flourish.
Given all of the crap that Bush and the EPA have greenlighted with regards to mining, dumping hazardous chemicals into rivers and streams, and opening land near national monuments to oil drilling and mining, I would think there would be plenty of cannon fodder for blasting the guy without ever hitting on whether or not he believes in a first cause.
Comrade Stuck
Balloon Juice is once again made whole.
Conservatively Liberal
His goats must have got loose again and he’s hard up for a fix.
Comrade Stuck
@Conservatively Liberal:
Did you read the rant. You have a starring role and apparently condone cardboard rape. At least according to Mylowiq
Comrade Stuck
link
Keith
Why is it that under Bush, the magic number was 50, whereas under Obama, it’s now 60? This is fucktarded.
Conservatively Liberal
@Comrade Stuck:
I just read that and came back here to comment and saw your note…lol! What is wrong with raping cardboard? Could it be the paper cuts are a real bitch to deal with?
Besides that, it is probably Chinese cardboard anyway. Not the good stiff American stuff.
Llelldorin
John nails it. The basic problem is that beyond Social Security there really isn’t a single issue that the entire Democratic Party agrees on. We have broad overlapping areas of agreement—most of us are pro-choice, most of us anti-Iraq War, most of us pro-union, and so on—but every issue has its loud, angry dissenters.
Sometime during the mid to late Clinton years, the party seems to have developed a strategy of smiling really broadly, couching everything in phrases whose meaning can be up to the listener, and saying "big tent" a lot. I strongly suspect they’re just as happy to have the Republicans filibuster things, because it helps avoid the horror of actually accomplishing anything. If they did, 90% of the party would be delighted, and the other 10% would swear eternal revenge.
On every issue, it’s a different 10%, too.
Comrade Stuck
@Conservatively Liberal:
Hmmm, not Natural Born American cardboard. I think it’s legal then.
And speaking of China. This news warms my Red Marxist heart.
I bet you even get a free poster of Chairman Mao with a new checking account.
DougJ
I hate to keep pimping the blog I contribute to and this is off-topic, but this is a good find — the sheer idiocy of Ruth Marcus, on why Caroline Kennedy should be Senator:
Conservatively Liberal
Let me guess, the banking rules come in a little red book and the investments are all based on five year plans?
Republicans: Obama = Communist, Communist = Evil, Evil = Business opportunities to be exploited for personal gain at the expense of American workers.
Somehow this makes sense to the free marketeers.
NonWonderDog
@TheHatOnMyCat:
I’ll say. Half the channels on my cable just froze (fucking Comcast), but on Faux News it froze on a chyron saying, and I quote:
They have nothing to talk about.
Chuck Butcher
I got a tad pissed at Frank Rich’s column John referenced. At a glance it didn’t seem all that stupid, with a second look it is all that stupid.
Xenos
There is some value in deploying sentiment for political purposes. Just use it responsibly, so as to further democracy, not to undermine it.
If Paterson, or Deval Patrick, for that matter, needs a place holder for a year or so until a new election is held, then it makes sense to put a non-politician like Caroline Kennedy in the job. She can coast along supported by the staff, and a fair election between the 20 or so Democratic Party candidates can take place. Otherwise, the Senate appointment is giving the power of incumbency to one of several candidates from the party.
There is no chance of a Republican winning the seat, and a new generation of 40-somethings need to pick their champion, so someone with 20 years of seniority is there to wield serious power in a couple decades.
Ash Can
@DougJ: Gah. I could wring Marcus’s damn neck for that. I’m very fond of Caroline Kennedy myself, but I’m not at all convinced that she has the political chops to be a senator. Marcus is NOT helping any feminist causes with that blather.
liberal
@DougJ:
Be glad you don’t suffer seeing her in the deadtree edition like I do. (OK, just guessing you don’t live in the DC area and get it.)
I don’t think she’s quite as moronic as Anne Applebaum, but…
gnomedad
They are obviously beerboarding her as well.
Jen R
@Ed Marshall: I don’t envision Lieberman starting to become pliant now, when we’ll have a president who is, by his lights, so unserious and dangerous on foreign policy. But we’ll see.
He’s out in 4 years anyway.
DougJ
I’m astounded that anyone could as tone deaf about that as she is. "A princess from fairy tale"? Just amazing.
Dork
I have absolutely no idea what this means.
Punchy
When Douglas Jay brings the sauce, he doesn’t come swinging with that weak shit.
khead
Re: EPA director
"The point here is that social and religious conservatives should not have to truncate, abbreviate or deny their religious teachings when making public arguments, which is effectively what they would have to do if they are not to refer to God or religious teachings in public discourse."
Discussing science is actually one of those places where some conservatives might need to do some of truncatin’.
Ben
I always saw the 60 number as sort of the ultimate "ha-ha" to Republicans. It doesn’t have much more to it than that… maybe judicial appointments… that being said one more Dem and one less Rep is a good thing in my book.
Spector might not make 2010 the way he’s been hit with cancer. I don’t wish ill on the man or anything… but he’s not exactly the picture of health.
ksmiami
On Obama’s strategies with dealing with the Republicans:
1) Use the bully pulpit, show that Repukes care more about power than actually doing anything that benefits citizens. Get the media to portray them as the slimy obstructionists they are. see Newt, Gingrich and the shut down of govt.
2) Go nuclear as in. NO FUCKING PORK MONEY FOR RED STATES. They are such suckerfish anyway. Basically tell them that if they don’t go along with the agenda, then they are on their own. Cut subsidies to these states that take in more than they give out. And I mean fuck them hard with a spiked dildo until they can’t take it anymore.
These together will prove that most repukes are assholes and they will show themselves for what they are very very quickly. Clinton was a master at this, I am sure Obama will be even better
Geeno
Re: The Chinese Bank
I can haz little red passbook account?
Re: the Bossa Nova
Music to Lambada by. You’re too young if you don’t remember the lambada.
Comrade Kevin
@Dork:
Blame it on the Bossa Nova
Xenos
@ksmiami:
I think Rahm could arrange that. In fact, he would enjoy it.
ksmiami
If I were a dem rep or senator, I would grind the rep fuckers into dust, but I would be quiet about it. Go Rahmbo
Andrew
You know, we could solve a lot of these problems if we started deporting the baby boomers.
Barry
Comrade Jake, @47, (re – does the Democratic leadership in the Senate actually want a fillibuster-proof majority?)"
"I’m sure this has already been said, but in case not: the Dems do not really want the filibuster-proof majority. That presents a situation in which they own everything over the next two years: the good, the bad, and the ugly. There’s no way they want that responsibility."
If they don’t then they’re stupid. The President Owns the Economy has been a good rule in USA politics since Hoover, at least. In addition, the GOP will definitely run a theme of ‘Liberals control the government’ for the next two years, because they know that it’s f*cked up.
Letting the GOP dictate policy (as a block) means that the Democratic politicians take all of the blame, while having sharply limited power to get things done.
Now, it might well be that Reid & Co. haven’t figured out that they’re in charge, and had better get things done, and that getting things done might entail posting some heads on stakes (as well as bribery, blackmail and sweeeeet, sweeeeeet reason). In which case they and we are so f*cked.
Original Lee
@Andrew:
Only if we can figure out and agree upon who the Boomers really are. You don’t want to deport Obama, do you?
TheAssInTheHatOnMyCat(Formerly Comrade Tax Analyst)
You mean those aren’t the requirements for being a United States Senator?
Is anybody out there interested in a low-mileage pony? I don’t think my daughter needs this one anymore.
And she SO wanted to be a Senator when she grew up…(sigh)
pseudonymous in nc
Oh so late here, but what problems did Frist have with 55 GOPpers in 2005-6? Oh, I forgot, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln voted with them time and again, while Snowe and Collins never actually stray when it affects the outcome.
If Reid can’t get stuff passed with a 56+Bernie+HoJoe caucus, he should resign and put an enforcer in charge.