Note: I originally wrote this post in December of 2008, and am feeling a little smug about it (like it was so hard to predict what was in store for us). So consider this gloating.
—————–
With Saxby Chambliss winning in Georgia, Democrats will not have a filibuster-proof senate. No surprises there. I never thought that idea had much merit anyway, as there are enough right wing Democrats to kill and progressive measure that comes afoot. Think … Joe Lieberman. I doubt they’d be able to muster sixty votes on anything. Even with a working majority last time around, Republicans ran the show, and the Democrats did not put up much of a fight.
The nomination of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General is a fine example. Democrats were poised to bottle up the nomination in committee, and then had two timely defections – Chuck Shumer and Diane Feinstein. They got it out of committee. Interestingly, the nomination vote had 40 votes against – yet there was no talk – none – about a possible filibuster. (Probable there were some hidden pro-Mukasey votes nestled among that forty – that’s another problem. You never really know what you’ve got there.)
That’s just how Democrats roll …. over.
Piece of Mindful 
I have just posted on the Senate, suggesting that it reform is needed. To read, pls see http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/the-u-s-senate-what-is-it-really/
LikeLike
Best outcome: no bill this year. Let the right-wing Democrats have their no vote.
Come back, try again when they’re facing 2010 election. Make them vote. Make them filibuster.
Make a public record of their position on single-payer, public health care for all.
LikeLike
“Public healthcare for all”
Reminds me of the ice cream story that was sent to me.
==================
THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
ONE OF THE BEST EXPLANATIONS
OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
From a teacher in the Nashville area
———————-
“We are worried about ‘the cow’ when it is all about the ‘Ice Cream.’
The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year…
The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.
I decided we would have an election for a class president.
We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.
We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.
We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections.. Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.
I had never seen Olivia’s mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best.
Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now is was Olivia’s turn to speak.
Her speech was concise.
She said, “If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream.”
She sat down.
The class went wild. “Yes! Yes!
We want ice cream.”
She surely would say more. She did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream?
She wasn’t sure.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it.
She didn’t know.
The class really didn’t care.
All they were thinking about was ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds.. They want ice cream.
The other 48 percent know they’re going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.”
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!
[ picture did not transfer. Shows someone having his cone filled from the back end of a cow.]
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone — that they have not first taken away from someone else.
LikeLike
Here’s why we don’t communicate – your point is obvious, known to all, and irrelevant. The thing you’re missing is this: Market economies do not always produce ideal results. We don’t have to accept that, and can change it if we want. We have it in our power.
You want to deny us that power. You want us to accept market outcomes as the only just outcomes. But they are not – most people work for a living in some way or another, and are generally underpaid, as someone else takes home most of the fruit of their labor. That’s a flaw both in the system, and in humans – too many of us are willing to swap a little security for the bulk of our true earnings.
But there is a larger class, about ten percent of us, who totally make their living off the labor of others – they are the investors, the inheritors of wealth, the harvesters of wealth. They own more than 95% of the financial assets in this country, and it keeps growing.
Of all the flaws of unregulated markets, that is the greatest – the natural coagulation of wealth in a few hands.
We progressives and socialists seek to change this by taxing that wealth at very high rates. From this we draw benefits that we would otherwise have if everyone were allowed to to keep the wealth they produced. Among these things are health care, education, infrastructure, all equitably distributed and used by all.
As a conservative, you make painfully obvious points as if we just don’t get it over here. We get it. We totally get it. As I read your ice cream story I thought “Quack quack! Doubleplusgood duckspeak!”
LikeLike
Mark, I don’t think you do get it…otherwise stories like this would not appear in the NYT: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/the-magic-of-financing-health-care-reform/
LikeLike
Again, your point is painfully obvious, and you don’t even see it: You only care about money when it finances something you don’t like.
Did you say, when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, “But hey! What about the deficit?! How are we going to pay for these wars?!!!”
Why is it, when something has populist appeal, people who spend our money like whores on an expense account on things like military contractors and the like all of a sudden become fiscally conservative? Your fake concern about deficits is a stalking horse for your real agenda, which appears to be keeping the insurance companies in the pink and 50 million of us outside the tent looking in.
Anyway, the numbers are about as meaningful as the supposed positive results of stimulus spending – they totally mask the real agenda. Fact is that every other country that has outlawed for-profit insurance for basic health care is spending way less than we spend.
Your point, again, is painfully obvious, and again, you’re simply not seeing things clearly. You’ve got an agenda, and even you don’t seem to realize it.
LikeLike
Mark, smoke and mirrors delivered with bluster does not an argument make.
LikeLike
Now that was duck and cover. Shame on you.
LikeLike