Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> >> But they want to deliver a lot more than they have which is zip.
> >
> > Then why don't they?
>
> Because for most of what they want to do they've got 52 votes in the
> Senate. And that's probably the best they'll get.
Michael, this just doesn't make sense. What is your evidence that they "want to deliver"? And how do you know WHAT they want to deliver. Reucing major plicy issues to a MERE technical matter of votes in the Senate seems totallyout of touch with reality. A racist Congress passed the most revolutionary legislation since the civil war in 1965. They didn't pass it because those really in favor of it had the votes. They passed it because the necessity of it was imposed on them by forces _outside_ of electoral politics.
Obama has made it clear time after time in both words and actions that he puts a very high priority on "balancing the budget." How can manipulating Senate rules change the fiscal realities? And are they ralities or only illusions?
Carroll