Sixty doesn't mean shit. It might if you had a Senate majority leader with some balls. LBJ or Trent Lott could have gotten a lot done. Now if Nancy Pelosi were in the Senate and if she were the majority leader, shit would be getting done. Senators who obstructed her would find out that their states all of sudden became Federal toxic waste depositories, if you catch my drift.
But not with Harry Reid, nope, sixty is not enough. After all, some GOP senator might say something mean and throw a hissy fit. Then Ol' Harry will withdraw the offending legislation, apologize for offending the dear senator from Alabama or Oklahoma and that will be the end of it. Harry Reid with sixty Democratic senators is very much like Barney Fife with his unloaded revolver. With a different majority leader, having sixty senators in the caucus would be like giving Sonny Crockett a M-60 and ten belts of ammo.
You want health care reform? Out of this senate, the only ones who will benefit from health care reform will be the the very same fuckers who have made our current health care system the over-priced clusterfuck that it is: The health insurance industry. As for the rest of us, we'll be lucky if we get a free box of band-aids every other year, for that is about all they will do that benefits the American people.
Sixty doesn't mean shit.
UPDATE: As Jon Stewart explained, having 60 senators will not make the Democrats unstoppable.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Franken's Time | ||||
| ||||
Yep. The plain fact is that there could be eighty Democratic Senators of the sort we have now, and they still wouldn't be able to get anything useful done. There are enough Democrats who clearly don't want to upset the people who paid their way into the Senate.
ReplyDeleteThe thing we need to remember is that Harry Reid didn't get his job as an appointment. The Democratic caucus elected him. He's doing what they want him to. If they saw him as a problem, they'd un-elect him.