Don't you know? The majority is the minority. Depressing. Winning means you lost.

The eight turncoat assholes can go fuck themselves. We don't need them, especially after Sen Franken is seated. 59-8 is still 51 and we can even afford to lose one more (Lieberdick, no doubt, assuming he isn't already one of the Gang of 8) with Biden casting the tie-breaking vote.

Thank you for using the quotes around "moderates." I think we all need to come up with a new word for these types -- say, "rich-man's lickspittles." No, too long. How about "twits."

The constant Republican references to violence is troubling.

The Senate is already undemocratic enough, with Senators representing Wyoming with 600,000 residents having the same vote as Senators representing California with over 40 million residents.

To allow 40 Senators to derail legislation is not acceptable. Harry Reid must figure this out, and a Democratic who votes for any Republican filibuster should be disciplined by the caucus.

"You're talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River." - Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)

What a refreshing concept. An encouraging turning of tables as it were. And an indication of knowing how to play the game.

And what a stroke of good fortune it was that kept Gregg in his stupid little world and off of the Obama team. The guy is a world class whiner and catapulter of b.s.

They'll scream and pitch fits, that is to be expected. However, Obama seems like a pretty strategic thinker- he knows that he must do this unless he wants to spend the next 4 years fighting for every bitty thing.

Obama's agenda was pretty clear- health care reform, green jobs, etc. This is what the people voted for- this IS the change he talked about for 2 years. It's time to push the obstructionists to Obama's agenda out of the way, whether they have a d or r next to their nams.

Go for it! Gregg and I have the same fantasy; who'd a thunk?

"You're talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River." - Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)

As opposed to what the Republicans did when they were in the majority, which was to lock the minority Democrats in an unused room in the basement.

I've seen this same complaint many times since 2006 and especially since this January. What it really boils down to is, "Why are we allowing members of Congress to disagree with the President? Why isn't 50% + 1 good enough? In short, why can't we be more like the Republicans?" We spent a lot of time from 2001 to 2006 castigating the Republicans for completely ignoring us and running the country like a parliamentary state where the majority party gets to do (almost) whatever they like. Now that we have the majority, do we want to run the country the exact same way?

"If Obama doesn't let Republicans have the opportunity to block key pieces of the White House agenda, then Republicans and the president may not get along. As if the minority party has been playing a constructive role up until now."

This is where their grandstanding on the stimulus package lands them, and they thought they were being so clever. Unfortunately, in human interactions, the best practice is not the Golden Rule applied without conditions, the cheek turned seven times seventy. Harmony in complex social groups is a function of the Golden Rule administered with a tit-for-tat amendment. Of course, Republicans are slow learners, so they are still stuck in the snarky conservative "It's mine! It's all mine! I won't share! You can't make me. I'll shoot you!!!" mindset.

So, Obama tried to play nice (Golden Rule). The Republicans could have responded in kind, but no, they were jerks. Now (tit-for-tat) Obama is playing hardball back.

Let them howl. Maybe, the next time they are given a chance to work with the majority, they will at least try.

The eight turncoat assholes can go fuck themselves. We don't need them, especially after Sen Franken is seated. 59-8 is still 51 and we can even afford to lose one more (Lieberdick, no doubt, assuming he isn't already one of the Gang of 8) with Biden casting the tie-breaking vote.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on March 18, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Beat me to it. Ditto and amen. I'd just add that after the first major package sails through with 51 votes and gets the president's signature, and polls show that big majorities in their own states are thrilled, the dem traitors will come slinking back, begging to be allowed to vote with President Obama next time.

What bipartisanship? Obama made the appropriate gestures, reciprocated by slaps in the face.

Bitch please.

i opened the comments to discover how long it was going to take for some misguided soul to argue that really, it's all about harry reid, and the answer turned out to be five comments.

the idea that harry reid has some magical powers that will keep these assholes from behaving like assholes is quite silly: they need to be scared by the voters in their own states. harry reid has nothing to do with it.

Hopefully the Obama Admin will point out that those on the edge of the vote always get more say in the final bill. For a filibuster of 60, this is moderate republicans, not the moderate democrats who would get to twist arms.

With Biden in reserve, democrats only need 50 votes. Where is Al?

The argument, according to the piece, is that some right-leaning Dems -- most notably Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) -- believe mandatory supermajorities will make it easier for them to exert influence.

Because having a mandatory supermajority to pass spending bills has worked out so well here in California that we need to extend it to the federal government as well.

"You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."

If it wasn't for the environmental impact statement required, that might be a good idea.

They'll probably ignore me, but I just e-mailed Lincoln and Landrieu asking them if they really wanted to have the same budget process that's working SO WELL here in California.

"That would be the Chicago approach to governing: Strong-arm it through," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. "You're talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."

Ummm....OK?

Republicans are howling about the proposal to expand health coverage and tax greenhouse gas emissions without their input, ...

We already have the Rushpublicans' input; it can be boiled down into six little words: We are the Party of No.

...warning that it could irrevocably damage relations with the new president.

Tell me, please --- how in Hades do you "irrevocably damage" something that has yet to exist?

Oh, and qwerty@11:05 --- you could stuff them into a derelict Naval vessel destined to become a deep-water reef somewhere of the coast of Guam. Would that alleviate your EIS concerns?

"You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."

If you're a RepoTalian - that's exactly where you belong. If you are a part of the Party of NO, that's exactly where you belong.

If you want to actually help and have constructive ideas, you probably will be welcome as part of the negotiations.

Some in this government are trying to both bail out the sinking ship and row for shore at the same time.
Some in the government are pouring the water back into the boat and wrestling with the oars to try to stop its movement toward safety.

If you are one of those you should be pushed aside and left for the sharks.

Re: the Gregg quote: if I thought they'd stay at the bottom of the river, I'd be all for it. But these clowns don't get the message, they'd come right back up again for more..

But these clowns don't get the message, they'd come right back up again for more..

What it really boils down to is, "Why are we allowing members of Congress to disagree with the President?" -ArkPanda

Incorrect. What is boils down to is, "Why are we allowing members of Congress to disagree with the prescribed mandate they were elected to enact?"

The country should get what the country wants, and no corporate whoring, power hungry tool should be allowed to stand in the way.

It's not about impeding the President. It's about impeding the American people.

It also boils down to, "why are we continuing to accept the historically unprecedented and totally unconstitutional inflation of the filibuster into a routine supermajority requirement"?

President Obama is doing what the people voted him in for. Now we find out that there are traitors in the Democratic party, they are probably in the pocket of Health Ins companies and the corporations. Call and email Bayhs office.

"You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."

Mmmmmmm.... Nice to see a Republican finally figure out what it's good for. "The only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies."

The really ironic part is that no one believes that the President* Bush would not have scrupled to do this. The only reason the GOP did not, is that they never had a bill that potentially would reduce the deficit.

"Now that we have the majority, do we want to run the country the exact same way?"
Posted by: ArkPanda on March 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM |

Yes.

SASQ (h/t atrios)

I'd love to see the Dems poised to pass these bills with a slim majority and then lock in a few Republican votes by negotiating a tweak to the package.

They get input... but they MUST vote YEA. Snowe, Collins, Specter model.

If we can land "moderate" Republicans, I really don't care if we have "moderate" Democrats or not.

Here's also hoping the health care plan is economically sensible. (Expanding Medicare for all uninsured comes to mind.)

"You're talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River." - Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)

It's about time. What Sen Gregg doesn't realize is - bipartisanship, what bipartisanship - we don't need no stiiiiiiiiiinkin' bipartisanship. But the republicans do. So they can just stand by with their notebooks while we make history.

This is exactly what needs to be done to break the stranglehold of the spoiled Senate children over the American people. Obama was elected to govern, and he made no promise to only enact what both sides could agree upon.

Let the spoiled bitches roar, they'll back down soon enough when they realize their tantrums just don't work anymore.

Harry Reid doesn't need magical powers. He has plenty of tools already. I agree that it would be great if the people of Indiana would rise up and get Evan Bayh back on board with the agenda, but I've noticed that Senators with six year terms aren't so responsive to the will of the people.

I think that it will take some of both, internal and external pressure on the blue dog Senators.

Mob rule is where a minority is able to have its' way through orchestrated violence and obstruction.

As always, evil people can only talk about themselves.

I live in Arkansas, and I hate Blanche Lincoln worse than the devil. She's not worth the dirt it would take to cover her up.

She's typical of the dumbed-down depths reached by contemporary soccer mom politics. She never fails, in all her commercials and public appearances, to use the touchy-feely soccer mom rhetoric about "our children," "our seniors," "our working families," etc., and appeal to the symbolism of "families sitting around the kitchen table." Then she votes however Wall Street and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tell her to.