It's one thing to threaten the "nuclear option" when the conservative vistas appear to stretch out in all directions, forever and ever, in an unending tribute to all things gloriously GOP. It's quite another to threaten the nuclear option when it might be the last thing you get to vote on as the majority party for a while.
Remember when the braying bloggers were egging on Frist to go for it, and reduce the Democrats to ashes? You know... less than one year ago? Wasn't that, like, the most fun ever?
But have no fear. Like Bush in 2004-05, Harry Reid will surely be willing to "work with those who share his goals."
There'll be no vote, and there'll be no trigger. Bye bye, Boyley!
You assume the Republicans will lose the Senate - they won't.
You assume the Republicans "lost" by failing to engage the nuclear option. Dude, the Democrats got *rolled* by the Gang of 14. TWO Supreme Court judges and a bouquet of federal judges - sweeeeet.
We'll see on Boyle. Hopefully my archives - or Google - will save this post for future reference.
In blogspeak, the Democrats are "obstructionist" when they block judges, and they're "rolled" when they don't. That's some sweeeeet logic.
Future reference rocks. There are a whole lot of blog archives that read "Go, GOP, Go! Call Their Pathetic Bluff!", way way way back when Tom Daschle had gotten snuffed and it seemed apparent that Congress was turning beet red for the next 30 years. They're not hard to find, the relevant links all say "May 2005."
Come to think of it, there are a ton of blog archives boldly predicting that GWB was on pace to confound history and gain seats in the dreaded sixth-year election. Tee hee. Remember those?
Dear Viking Pundit fan: If you look back, you'll note I was a charter member of the "Coalition of the Chillin'" who opposed the nuclear option. But thanks for lumping me in.
And given that the Democrats have high gas prices, what will they campaign on if crude prices drop? There's always the minimum wage.
4 comments:
It's one thing to threaten the "nuclear option" when the conservative vistas appear to stretch out in all directions, forever and ever, in an unending tribute to all things gloriously GOP. It's quite another to threaten the nuclear option when it might be the last thing you get to vote on as the majority party for a while.
Remember when the braying bloggers were egging on Frist to go for it, and reduce the Democrats to ashes? You know... less than one year ago? Wasn't that, like, the most fun ever?
But have no fear. Like Bush in 2004-05, Harry Reid will surely be willing to "work with those who share his goals."
There'll be no vote, and there'll be no trigger. Bye bye, Boyley!
Phil,
You assume the Republicans will lose the Senate - they won't.
You assume the Republicans "lost" by failing to engage the nuclear option. Dude, the Democrats got *rolled* by the Gang of 14. TWO Supreme Court judges and a bouquet of federal judges - sweeeeet.
We'll see on Boyle. Hopefully my archives - or Google - will save this post for future reference.
In blogspeak, the Democrats are "obstructionist" when they block judges, and they're "rolled" when they don't. That's some sweeeeet logic.
Future reference rocks. There are a whole lot of blog archives that read "Go, GOP, Go! Call Their Pathetic Bluff!", way way way back when Tom Daschle had gotten snuffed and it seemed apparent that Congress was turning beet red for the next 30 years. They're not hard to find, the relevant links all say "May 2005."
Come to think of it, there are a ton of blog archives boldly predicting that GWB was on pace to confound history and gain seats in the dreaded sixth-year election. Tee hee. Remember those?
Dear Viking Pundit fan: If you look back, you'll note I was a charter member of the "Coalition of the Chillin'" who opposed the nuclear option. But thanks for lumping me in.
And given that the Democrats have high gas prices, what will they campaign on if crude prices drop? There's always the minimum wage.
Post a Comment