As voters go to the polls today in Georgia, it looks like incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss will retain his seat in spite of overwhelming Democratic wins across the nation. Chambliss already WOULD have won, except for a twist in their laws, which requires a Senate candidate to garner at least 50% plus one vote in order to win. While winning by about 3%, he fell just short of getting a majority due to third-party candidates on the ballot.
So, this will finally put to rest the possibility of the Democrats getting a 60-seat majority in the Senate to ensure defeat of any GOP filibusters. The Super Majority is dead.
Which, as far as I'm concerned, was a fantasy to begin with. The magical number 60 depended on both Al Franken winning his recount in Minnesota, and the continued good will of Sen. Joe Lieberman. I don't trust him to deal in good faith with the Democrats, as he's often stated that he'll act on his own "principles" rather than what's good for the nation or the Democratic Party.
These principles, in case you forgot, include such things as siding with the GOP to invade Iraq and taking steps to set up an invasion of Iran; campaigning endlessly for John McCain and GOP Senate candidates; favoring Catholic hospitals in denying Plan B emergency contraception to rape victims; forcing continued life-support for brain-dead patients over the wishes of spouses (Teri Schiavo); supporting ultra-conservative candidates for the Supreme Court; failing to investigate Katrina as HSC Chair; etc.
But Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats have short memories, and they decided to forgive and forget everything Joe Lieberman has done to betray his former party, all in the desperate hope that they might be able to count upon his vote to make that magical "Sixty".
Well, it ain't gonna happen now. We technically have 58, and if Franken prevails in the recount (which at this point is very much in doubt) we'll have 59. But Georgia is almost definitely going to remain a GOP seat, and all those Democratic dreams for a super-majority is going to have to wait until the 2010 election at the earliest.
I wonder if things would be different if Georgia didn't have that silly little glitch in their laws that made a runoff election, which was scheduled AFTER the Senate Steering Committee met, a necessity? If Chambliss actually won on election night and the mythical 60 was completely out of reach, would Barack Obama have withheld his support for Joe? Would Harry Reid have stuck to his original tough talk about Lieberman? Would Chris Dodd and about 40 other Senators have voted differently and punished Joe the way everyone expected?
We'll never know. At this point, it's only idle speculation and it doesn't really serve any useful purpose. But we should remember this, because, unlike those well-insulated Senate Democrats, we'll be the ones who have to live with the results of their actions.
And the first time Joe Lieberman behaves true-to-form and screws the Democrats again (like we firmly believe he will), we'll be there to remind those Senators of their actions and hold them accountable.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong, and Joe Lieberman will become a good Senator and actually work WITH the party to get constructive legislation approved. It MIGHT conceivably happen...
...I'm just not going to hold my breath.
18 comments:
>>The Super Majority is dead.
Consider it from the opposite perspective.
Would that really be a good thing?
There's a reason that was well thought out by others centuries ago as to why it's intentionally difficult for a few to control everything in our system of government.
This is why locally we have a zoning board as opposed to some sort of zoning czar.
I recall decades ago chairing the local zoning appeals board when after discussion the majority thought we had some appeal nicely stipulated and all wrapped up, when just before we put a bow on it, one lone voice would say something like:
"...have we considered that with this approval, not *this* applicant but some future owner of the property could [insert horror show here]."
(The rest of us would think "Oh nuts - he's right!")
The fellow used to drive me crazy.
Too often however he was spot on, and personified why authority must be shared across multiple lines of background, perspective and thought.
Political utopia to one group would probably be tyranny to another.
To be honest, I don't consider having sixty senators in our caucus a sure Super Majority as long as it contains Joe Lieberman, so it's a moot point. Maybe if we had 61 you'd have real cause to worry, but for now even if Saxby and Franken somehow prevail, it won't matter one bit.
The Republicans seem to have been remarkably successful at being a single partisan voting block, especially during the first six years of Bush's administration, when he didn't veto a SINGLE bill presented to him. Only when the Democrats took (minimal) control of the Senate did he start issuing vetoes.
I get what you're saying about the tyranny of the majority, which is why I'm against voter initiatives like they have out in California. But I'd hope that the current sitting senators are capable of displaying a modicum of responsibility for their actions, especially considering the wayward behavior of the previous GOP-dominated legislature.
I think they realize it ain't the same ballgame it was just a few years ago.
It's remarkable that this run-off is even happening. Georgia is red-state right down to its clay.
oldswede
Dude, please stop pimping your shitty "bailout" website on my blog. It's the worst form of marketing I've ever seen; you reach maybe a handful of people and piss off the site owner at the same time! I'd be shocked if you sold a single loan that way. Just stop.
Unless a few republican senators flip to the democrats, the dream of having the ability to outlaw the republican party appears to be dead, at least until 2010. On the local front there is in having veto proof majorities, no reson the democrats in hartford could not make things at the least extremely difficult for republicans to even be on the ballot, since they appear to lack willpower in otlawing the ct republicans. The will at least of CT voters is obvious: no more republicans, the assembly should follow the peoples will and eliminate republicans and conservatives in general.
"...the dream of having the ability to outlaw the republican party appears to be dead..."
Why is "outlawing" the Republican party such a big thing to you?
That might be YOUR dream pal, but it ain't mine!
One happy thought out of this is that Newt Gingrich, former Georgia congressman, must be at least a little concerned. He has lately been trying to squash the notion of Sarah Palin as the future leader of the GOP.
He seems to think that there's an opportunity for his little hypocrite self to float to the top yet again, but her role in this runoff will only increase her value to the base. Let the infighting begin.
oldswede
Republicans are anti science, anti choice, anti reason (pro religous), anti peace, pro war, pro law enforcement, pro defense industry, and they think americans deserve to be elevated above all other people in the world, I can go on and on but I think my point is made. By outlawing them (and it can be done, there is no inherent right to have a political party)we can save the world so much violence, death, exploitation of resources and even help global warming. No republican party equals the greening of our energy and the death of carbon fuels, with them out of the way we can even get single payer healthcare. Let's face it, it would be a huge mistake NOT to eliminate the republican party. Any chance those anti modernists could get back in power HAS TO BE prevented. The world will only thank us for doing so.
anonymous, the way to resolve the problem is to encourage the GOP to swing back towards the middle.
This is something that I think we're going to be seeing over the next two years, as they come to realize that America is much more in the middle than they are. They'll have to adapt and become more moderate, or they'll keep losing elections to Democrats.
Either way, we win...and by "we", I mean "the people".
Once last thing, Every ghetto in this country is a direct result of the inhumane social and economic policies of the republicans. For that matter most of the worlds suffering can be laid at their feet. This monstrosity can not be allowed back into power, however so many americans are low iq trash that they could vote them back in. For the sake of humanity eliminating republicans would stop this danger forever.
Sounds like a job for the Khmer Rouge. Ever heard of them, anon?
oldswede
Of cambodia? yes of course I have. We have them in the us. They are known as republicans here. Remember every dead child, dead because of a lack of healthcare, every family living in poverty, every job loss can again be laid at the feet of the republicans and their enablers. I hope the democrats realize that by allowing republicans to exist they are enabling them to possibly regain powr. We just can't allow that to happen.
LOL!
OldSwede, you gotta give this guy anonymous some credit; he's undeniably consistent!
There's a new post up top. I wanna hear what you all think about beards.
Hey Anonymous Dude--
There's one TEEEEEEEEEEENY little, miniscule (almost not worth mentioning) problem with your grand delusion about outlawing Republicans (aside from they're hard ti dentify; they've not - yet - all had elephants tatooed on them).
No this minor obstacle is the Constitution of the State of Connecticut.
You see, had you stopped smoking your meds & read the law, you might see that the two major parties are based on the last Governor's election or on PARTY ENROLLMENT numbers (Sec 9-372(5), Connecticut General Statutes). Thus, the Republicans (who um, kinda WON the Governor's race)are not only a legal political party, not only a MAJOR political party...but THE MAJORITY POLITICAL PARTY (with the top ballot line reserved for them).
So unless you propose we march all Republicans out of the cities to work on the collective farms (hmmm, I wonder where THAT idea was tried before?), I can only conclude that either (a) you need to take less of your meds, or (b) everyone needs to take more. Or would that only enrich big pharma?
P.S. I suggest you create a Blogger Account...."Falstaff" would be a most appropriate tag.
We have proof positive that meth and stupidity cause paranoid delusions.
oldswede
OS - LOL!
I'm actually beginning to enjoy the fool's rants...but maybe meth would be a stabilizing influence on her/him.
props for the shakespeare reference --- diff anon
Post a Comment