« Quotes of the Day: Sotomayor Edition | Main | Our Broken Tax Politics »

July 21, 2009


Chuck Todd was very reliable when discussing delegate distribution in the Democratic primaries.
Since then, it's been downhill

"Second, one would hope that policy for 300 million people outranks "buddyness" in the United States Senate."

Yeah, one would hope an awful lot of things about our government, which manifestly aren't true.

You sound so surprised. But isn't this the well-known "collegiality" of the Senate?

I know its only been 6 months, but I'm getting increasingly pessimistic that Obama will accomplish any of his major initiatives.

It seems that it doesn't matter if you have 60, 70, or 80 Democratic seats in the Senate, there are still just too many of them that are weak, stupid, corrupt, or a combo of all three, and they simply are afraid of the GOP and its screaming, bloodthirsty mob to give the American people the changes we asked for on Nov. 4.

On top of all the pressures Obama must feel as President, it must be a thousand times worse knowing that, if he fails, he is handing the reigns of power back to a group of weaklings and out-and-out, frothing-at-the-mouth, gay-bashing, war-loving birth certificate conspiracy theorists.

I'm going to guess that Baucus is just using Grassley as cover so he doesn't have to reveal that what is really going on is he just doesn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy individuals and interests that shovel him campaign funds.

I really think he threw in the towel yesterday. His speech was what they call in poker "hollywoodin'": making a huge show at calling the all-in of an opponent, all the while knowing that the 'fold' is a foregone conclusion. Health-care reform in any way meaningful at all to the real life of the under- or un-insured, is doa.

I think Obama's support, like the Missouri River this time of year, is a mile wide and an inch deep. It'll get narrower and shallower as he is unable to deliver on the things he's expected to accomplish, whether he promised to do so or not.

In part I think he's hobbled by his time in the Senate. It was too short. I suspect he's regarded as a parvenu --kind of a Jay Gatsby, out of the West-- by a LOT of senior 'leaders' who likely bridle at BOTH his youth AND his race. They would be, if not forgiven, at least comprehensible if they regarded him not as standing gratefully on the shoulders of giants, but as having leap-frogged them.

The metaphor to remember here is the tin-horn playing with the house's money.

This is what the Senate is supposed to be.

This is why we must abolish the Senate, or at least strip it of most of its power.

"This is why we must abolish the Senate, or at least strip it of most of its power."

Will this turn out to be a good idea at such time as there is a Republican majority House again?

How well would it have worked out during the Clinton Presidency, if there had been no Senate to vote not to convict Bill Clinton?

The comments to this entry are closed.