by Jonathan Singer, Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 12:04:14 PM EDT
Norm Coleman concedes following unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court ruling favoring Al Franken. Congratulations Senator Al Franken.
Tags: Al Franken, Minnesota, MN-Sen, Senate 2008 (all tags)
We finally have 60 votes! not naive about how much that's worth but its deffinately a good thing.
I know you aren't naive, because Byron Dorgan and Al Franken are alike politically.
...but a background array of flashing SNARK's would work better.
I read the quip you posted & lapsed into trying to figure out who would post such a comment here, and why, and what exactly did they mean (as I'm guessing captain dan thought)... then I kinda picked up on it... but not right away.
Second time in a week the snark flew over my head - last time, I posted several snide sentences in response to a diary by ragekage... which in fact HAD a snark tag.
Fortunately for my remaining modicum of pride, I wasn't alone either time (especially the ragekage diary), but I wondered WHY DO I AND MANY OTHER LIBERALS SEEM SO SUSCEPTIBLE TO SNARK?? and then it hit me...
We're used to hearing identical bullshit from so many wingnuts, only they mean it! So in either case we but it! Hard not to when the only difference between the (A) snark and the (B) bullshit is the intent of the (B) speaker or (A) comedian...
...Which leads me to congratulating Al Franken on his NOW OFFICIAL TO ALL WHO MATTER victory (& avoid hijacking the diary thread)! I'm a big fan of his comedy, his thought process, and his misunderestimated intelligence as much as his politics.
To the dismay of many, I think he'll be an outstanding Senator. He's really not the 'batshit crazy run-amok liberal' of wingnut propaganda (nobody is to the degree they insist, which looks and smells like snark). My honest hunch is that his leftwardness may be overestimated by most...
BUT on any given issue, I don't see him sliding an inch more to the right than his honest opinion will allow, and I think he'll vociferously argue (rather than cheer) for our cause(s).
Also his latest book is another outstanding tome (ghost-writing Senator Jim DeMint's new release "We Can Stop America's Slide Into Socialism").
Now, did you read that and for an instant...
think Fox News would be going bonkers tonight?
I hope... (hope!) that O'Reilly labels Pawlenty or Coleman as "pinheads" for not doing more to delay Franken's inevitable ascension to the Senate.
Republicans devouring their own is sweetness itself.
Remember when I was mocking this project--sayint was the road to 58.
Well, with a switch and this decision, the road is complete. No excuses for failing on health care now.
Harry Reid will now assert that he needs 61 votes to get anything done.
In all fairness to Harry Reid (not that he deserves it), but although there are 60 democrats in the caucus, several of them are DINOs, and two of them (Kennedy and Byrd) are absent for long periods of time due to health issues.
Actually getting the 60 senators on the floor to vote for something is now marginally easier, but is still by no means a sure thing.
is Democrats need to (and might actually) committ to breaking Republican filibusters. If all 60 of them agree to break filibusters, then passing bills will be much easier because we can lose 10 Democrats and still pass our agenda.
The problem, as you pointed out, is Byrd and Kennedy too, but they need to be wheeled in Clare Engle style for the important stuff.
Byrd won't vote for the climate change bill anyway, so.
... I wonder how many DINOs will vote yes on cloture but no on the bill -- and how many of them will just be happy enough to kill the bill that they will happily join the filibuster.
stuff like repeal of DOMA may entice some conservative Democrats to support Republican filibusters, because it's bound to be incredibly unpopular in some of these Democrats' states (Nebraska, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia), but I think in many things, Democrats can (and should) refrain for supporting a filibuster and vote no on a bill if they wish...say health care or judges...the line should be drawn that all Democrats need to oppose Republican filibusters, but vote however they want on a bill or nomination...say we break the Republican filibuster of healthcare with 60 votes, but only 53 Senators actually vote for it...or all 60 break the filibuster of EFCA, but only 55 vote for it.
It is interesting though how the 60 vote threshold has become standard all of a sudden...that every Republican in the Senate supports filibustering EVERY SINGLE thing that comes across. I think this had it's birth in the stimulus fight when we actually did need 60 votes. Some people keep asking why the 60 vote threshold didn't exist when Republicans controlled the Senate...that answer is easy...Democrats didn't think filibustering everything was right, and when we filibustered, Republicans were able to find enough Democrats to join them to break a filibuster.
The Republicans have singlehadidly rewrote the rules of the Senate in the minds of the media. Someone really needs to point out that we would need 50 votes if the Republicans would not filibuster everything.
the cavalry has come.
Unless the Dems screw up. Then there will be big time hell to pay. Big time.
But that won't happen, now will it.
Congrats. Now can someone tell me if he supports the public option?
Sounds like public option to me
"A single-payer system would be the most effective in terms of reducing administrative costs, and I would be thrilled to support such a system. But I believe that today's political environment requires a creative and flexible approach to covering every American. I would require every state to cover every one of its citizens, and the federal government to provide funding to fulfill that requirement. Each individual state would be free to offer a variety of options, as long as they add up to universal coverage, giving us 51 laboratories (if you count DC) to figure out which system works best. I would add one constraint: each state must cover every child 18 and under with a single-payer system similar to Medicare. I would fight to make Medicare a true single-payer system. Right now, we overpay insurance companies, who then turn around and cherry-pick only the healthiest seniors to cover. That's not fair and we should change it."
Source: Campaign website, www.AlFranken.com, "Issues" May 14, 2008
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
23 Comments