Reid and Rahm need to start channeling LBJ.

[chieftain]

Johnson's view of important legislation was that if it passed by more than 2 votes, too much had been compromised away. Lyndon must be rolling over in his grave at the thought that we are acquiescing in the concept that you need 60 votes to get a bill out of the Senate.

[rucky]

1. Time to break out the blackmail tapes.

[Double T]

2. Reid and Rahm only channel wall street............

to which they reply "Yes masters".

[Jennicut]

3. LBJ also continued Vietnam until it became a quagmire and was a bit of a megalomaniac.

He is not the greatest role model.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Maybe not, but he knew the mechanics of the Senate inside and out.

Try reading Caro's "Master of the Senate". You'll be amazed and appalled.

[chieftain]

Johnson's legislative abilities were the point of my post,

not his reprehensible prosecution of the Vietnam War. As someone who was of draft age during that shameful period of our history and as a proud protester of that criminal war, I am well aware of LBJ's sins. But that in no way diminishes his mastery of the legislative process and our crying need now for some of that combination of spine, savvy and bare knuckles.
I also agree with your recommendation of Caro's series of books about Johnson.They are great histories His biography of Robert Moses and the automobilization of New York is a must read, as well.

[R. P. McMurphy]

5. That was an excellent book.

Amazed and appalled is correct - but he did get things done.

[Jennicut]

6. At what cost?

[eppur_se_muova]

9. Good question. Worth reflecting on.

We tend to attribute the current "nastiness" of the US Congress to Newt's cohort, but Johnson did a lot to turn the climate in the Senate towards a bare-knuckled, winner-take-all combativeness. His favorite euphemism for getting the better of an opponent was "cut his balls off" -- not exactly the description of a good-natured, gentlemanly debate.

[Enrique]

7. odd that you avoid mentioning Obama

he's president, right?

Do we even remember who LBJ's chief of staff and senate leader were? No, because he was a great president.

And he was a great senate leader too, during which the liberals complained how much he compromised with the republicans.

[onenote]

8. LBJ was a master of forging legislative majorities

But that doesn't mean he didn't make signficant compromises. Consider the 1957 Civil Rights Act as one example. Comparing today's Sentate to the Senate in the era when LBJ was Majority Leader and later VP/PRes is comparing apples and oranges. The Senate of the late 50s and early 60s didn't break neatly across party lines. You had a lot of moderate repubs and a lot of very conservative Democrats. Much of the legislation that LBJ passed (and by more than 2 votes typically) required a lot of effort not merely by LBJ, but by the repub minority leader, Dirksen.

Today, the Senate is much more polarized along party lines. While there are still some relatively conservative Democrats in the Senate, none of them are anywhere near as conservative (and their conservatism takes different forms) as the conservative Democrats in the LBJ era. And moderate repubs are a nearly extinct species in the Senate.