Gonzales 60, Donks 36
That was the final tally yesterday as Alberto Gonzales was confirmed by the Senate as John Ashcroft's successor as Attorney-General of the United States.
Note that second number. This was the source of Dirty Harry Reid's "magnanimity" in deigning to "allow" an up or down vote. Since all the nay votes were Dems, he'd have needed five more Donks to sign on to go for a filibuster, which some, like Ted Kennedy, were urging.
Why is that significant? Because it illustrates how much more difficult a proposition blanket obstructionism is going to be for Reid than it was for his predecessor, Tom Daschle - who, of course, paid for his ruthless pursuit of it with his seat last November. Not only does he have four fewer votes to work with, but those still on the Hill, particularly from "red" states, aren't going to be, as I put it the other day, eager "suicide bombers," blowing themselves up politically to try and block every last item of the President's agenda with 2006 on the horizon.
It illustrates once again that the Democrats have no clue about how to function as the minority party. Part and parcel of that role is picking your spots, knowing when and where to take stands. That's how you hold your caucus together, the importance of which is amplified in proportion to how small it's become. Be imperious far beyond your actual strength, try to stop everything, arrogantly act like you still run Congress, and your ability to hold filibusters of anything will evaporate as "red" state Donks peel off to look after their own individual interests as opposed to the Party ship that is sinking out from underneath them.
For Democrats, intelligent resistance is not necessarily futile; foolhardy resistance clearly is. Until they and their hapless leaders figure out and accept the difference, their fortunes will continue to dwindle below the threshold of irrelevance.
Note that second number. This was the source of Dirty Harry Reid's "magnanimity" in deigning to "allow" an up or down vote. Since all the nay votes were Dems, he'd have needed five more Donks to sign on to go for a filibuster, which some, like Ted Kennedy, were urging.
Why is that significant? Because it illustrates how much more difficult a proposition blanket obstructionism is going to be for Reid than it was for his predecessor, Tom Daschle - who, of course, paid for his ruthless pursuit of it with his seat last November. Not only does he have four fewer votes to work with, but those still on the Hill, particularly from "red" states, aren't going to be, as I put it the other day, eager "suicide bombers," blowing themselves up politically to try and block every last item of the President's agenda with 2006 on the horizon.
It illustrates once again that the Democrats have no clue about how to function as the minority party. Part and parcel of that role is picking your spots, knowing when and where to take stands. That's how you hold your caucus together, the importance of which is amplified in proportion to how small it's become. Be imperious far beyond your actual strength, try to stop everything, arrogantly act like you still run Congress, and your ability to hold filibusters of anything will evaporate as "red" state Donks peel off to look after their own individual interests as opposed to the Party ship that is sinking out from underneath them.
For Democrats, intelligent resistance is not necessarily futile; foolhardy resistance clearly is. Until they and their hapless leaders figure out and accept the difference, their fortunes will continue to dwindle below the threshold of irrelevance.
posted by JASmius at 5:06 PM
<<< Home