Comments on: US Senate: When 60 Isn’t 60

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:39:14 +0000

Snowe and Collins, for example, not only can but should change their party affiliations to be honest, and to be opportunist as well after the Dem victory.

The bright side of firm Dem control of the Congress as well as the White House: NO MORE BOGUS EXCUSES from them in Washington and in the media for any failures by them. They are going to be getting _their_ way and _they_ can take the blame when they fail.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:09:23 +0000

elrod,

Does it really matter who becomes the next minority leader since the Repulbicans will have zero affect on policy.

You also realize how moderate Democrats have support things that most of their voters do not want like gun control or amnesty for illegal immigrants by voting for closure and then voting against the actual bill. Then Webb can go home and say he voted against when he actually took the steps to make what he claimed to opposte to actually happen.

By: elrod

elrod — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:49:01 +0000

The 60-vote margin is just to prevent a filibuster. Right-leaning Democrats are not going to filibuster liberal Democratic legislation. They might not vote for it in the end but they won't support a GOP filibuster.

Add to this some of the few remaining GOP moderates like Snowe, Collins and Voinovich and it seems that a filibuster is gone anyway.

The GOP may lose Mitch McConnell. Who will replace him as leader of the GOP in the Senate? Who can rally troops?

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:09:28 +0000

How will they get the money to pay for a Bold "Progressive" [sic; regression to 1960s] Agenda?

As I've said before, so now says the Journal -- the tax base will have to broaden (see the second of the three paragraphs repeated below, what I have told others already). Perhaps that "doughnut hole" in Obama's Social Security tax plan is merely a set-up reserve for income tax increases already planned but not being revealed officially yet.

"In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the 'very rich' -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the 'fairness' of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556...

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:05:09 +0000

Sixty seats in the Senate is the Dems' dream this year. I just hope it doesn't teach them the wrong lesson and they believe they have a “mandate” to lunge substantially to the left. I.e., it's bad enough if a Dem Congress and White House act as mutual rubber stamps, but worse if they believe the USA “needs” the equivalent of a Barbara Boxer or Dennis Kucinich Nation (alien and antithetical to nearly all Americans, to say nothing of precedent, propriety, or tradition). Hopefully they'll learn the lesson of the early 1990s when the Clintons tried a leftist lurch and Americans responded as we all know in 1994.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:03:17 +0000

The 60 seats will allow the Democratic Party to appear more moderate while actually being more liberal. The 60 seats mans moderates will Nelson can vote for closure and then vote against a bill. It will be easy for the Democratic party to always have the 51 safest seats vote for a bill while just requiring the 60 Democrats to vote for closure.