Joseph Robidoux III wrote:
MsDaisy wrote:
ZekeB wrote:
Nah, MsDaisy. I lived in that Red State long enough to know that the (R) after your name gives you a huge advantage. The only way a Pub loses there is if a very popular conservative Dem from a populated area runs against him.
Well let’s at least hope that’s the case. Even a conservative dem is better than an asshole repub.
For anyone who has criticized the actions of Kent Conrad (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Max Baucus (MT), Mary Landrieu (LA) or former senator Byron Dorgan (ND), look at what the alternative is.
Republicans experience the same level of frustration with Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Scott Brown (MA). In Brown's case, their frustration may be ending shortly.
Frankly, if Nelson, Conrad, Baucus, et al were as good Democrats as Collins, Snowe, and Brown are Republicans, I'd be totally thrilled. Sadly for us, they're not.
Seriously. In 2009, we had the House, 60 seats in the Senate, and the Presidency. There was a shitload of good legislation that either stalled or was watered down in the Senate because Nelson, Conrad, and a few others wouldn't stand with their party on
cloture votes. I wouldn't have given a rats ass if they voted against the legislation proper, but the fuckers wouldn't stand firm enough to give shit that had overwhelmingly passed the house and had a majority whip count in the Senate get an up or down vote at all.
Frankly, I think a real argument
could have been can be made that having those assholes in the Senate did more harm to the Democrats, and that the alternative would have been an improvement. The outcome wouldn't have changed, and at least then the media narrative would have been more likely to be "Republicans obstruct legislation" instead of "Democrats, with their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, again fail to pass the President's agenda."
Edit: Edit: changed tense of sentence from past to present.