John Aravosis - grudging respect for republicans, open disdain for democrats

Wow. Just wow.

I've heard people say that it's not fair to criticize the Democrats for botching health care reform because the Democrats never truly had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Sure, they have 60 votes in principle, the argument goes, but with Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, and Bayh counted as four of those votes, it's not really a solid 60...during Bush's most effective years, from 2001 to 2005, the GOP had a grand total of 50, and then 51, Senators. The slimmest margin possible.

...So what's the difference? Why with 60 votes are Democrats so ineffective, but with 50 votes Republicans excel?...

...We lost real health care reform not because we don't have a "real" filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. We lost health care reform because we don't have a real leader anywhere in our party. It's not going to get better if we elect more Democrats to the Senate and it's not going to play out any differently should we try to revisit this issue in the future....

Of course John can't quite bring himself to entertain the other reason why Bush was so effective compared to the current insane clown posse running the congress and White house. That obviously being that the "radical Bush agenda" wasn't nearly as radical to the general public as the Democrats loved to portray it, and the Pelosi/Reid/Obama agenda is far more radical than they're willing to admit.

posted by Purp at 01:03 PM

| Access Comments