No matter who wins the Senate election today...

[regnaD kciN]

...I want you to think back to "those thrilling days of yesteryear" -- specifically, November 5, 2008, the morning we woke up to realize we'd elected Barack Obama to the presidency. Remember how excited you felt that day?

Now, think back: what was our expected advantage in the upcoming Senate that day?

First off, Arlen Specter was still a Republican, with no signs he was considering switching parties. Furthermore, at that point in the Minnesota Senate race, before the recount, it looked like Norm Coleman had won a narrow re-election contest with Al Franken.

So, in other words, our expected Senate advantage was 58-42...and that's assuming Lieberman would vote with us.

My point is this: do you really think Obama and his transition-team/administration wasn't counting on a Senate where Republicans could filibuster if they chose? Did you think that their administration's plan was merely to watch everything they proposed get tied up in gridlock? I doubt anyone would be so naive as to settle for that.

In other words, although the loss of our theoretical 60th seat (actually more like 59th, thanks to Unholy Joe) will be a blow, there's no reason to think that this is the end of the Obama administration's ability to achieve its agenda. It may make it more difficult but, if you really thought that Obama needed 60 lockstep Senate votes to achieve anything, why would you have been so satisfied back in Novmeber 2008, when it looked as if we had "only" increased our majority there to 58-42?

[ddeclue]

1. The didn't have a plan then they don't seem to have one now either..

[villager]

3. Alas.

n/t

[ixion]

2. I was not excited when Obama was elected, but guardedly hopeful

I'm glad it was guarded. I've been let down.

Change... not so much.

[sharp_stick]

8. Your responses are as predictable as the tides

[ixion]

14. blah blah attack the messenger blah blah

right back at'cha.

[leveymg]

4. Then, why does Obama and the rest of the leadership speak as if it were essential? Recced.

I'm beginning to conclude that we've all been conned and a whole year has been wasted under a false pretense that 60 were needed for HCR, producing a Bill that no one wants.

By the way, thank you for helping me understand Senate rules about Reconciliation. I posted my conclusion about that in response to your last comment on the previous thread. Bottom line: in Reconciliation, Joe Biden (or the appointed Pres Pro Temp) can pretty much do what he wants. I am now very dubious about all the talk about getting a Bill past the Parliamentarian, since the Parliamentarian's role is merely advisory. What do you think?

[gratuitous]

5. If Brown wins (perish the thought), the biggest loser will be . . .

Joe Lieberman.

[rhett o rick]

6. Thanks for that. A little sunshine in a tornado. nt

[Mira]

7. Let Jon Stewart illustrate this point as only he can:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-january-18-2010-david-walker

go to min.6:55 and watch him take on this issue as he turns to camera three as only he can.

K&R

[AlinPA]

9. I don't see how anything proposed by Obama or any Democrat can make it. The filibuster

stops everything in the senate. The filibuster is a durable "NO".

[Qutzupalotl]

11. Short of the nuclear option, yes.

But when the filibuster power is abused, it's time to consider changing the rule. How about 55 votes?

[regnaD kciN]

13. In that case, we should have given up in November 2008...

...because we didn't have the votes to break a filibuster then.

And, no, it doesn't "stop everything in the Senate." Anything directly related to taxes and/or spending (i.e. budgetary items) can be passed by reconciliation. And there's are some areas, at least, where not all Republicans will vote in lockstep. HCR is a big, high-profile issue the Republicans were eager to kill, but, if they block absolutely everything, they're going to come off looking worse than the Democrats, and they'll be the ones getting killed in November.

It may mean more deals with Snowe or Collins (or, depending on the situation, other Republicans who might have concerns for their own state that can be included in a bill). But, if we needed 60 votes to pass anything at all, we should have just thrown in the towel two Novembers ago, and let McCain run things.

[AlinPA]

15. RE:.."if they block absolutely everything, they're going to come off

looking worse than the Democrats, and they'll be the ones getting killed in November." I have been hearing that here all year and I don't see the republicans changing, in fact they are getting more resolute in saying no.

Harry Reid does not have the guts to go to reconciliation, so we can forget that. Deals with Snowe and Collins? Doubtful, they are locked in now. Which republicans care enough about their state to go along with Obama on anything at all?

The republicans are out to stop anything and everything and will continue to vote in lockstep to please the teabaggers and birthers.

[LaydeeBug]

10. good perspective

I don't think this is the end. But I am not watching the MSM for a coupla days.

[groundloop]

12. It was a miracle that Democrats had "60" Senators

If by chance Coakley looses it's just back to where we were. And as someone else alluded to, Joe Lie-berman will become irrelevant, as will Ben Nelson.

I will say though, that I'm disappointed in how the healthcare process was managed. I don't think President Obama counted on the fierce obstructionism of the repukes, even though all involved should have seen it coming. Maybe, just maybe, they've learned their lesson and will be better prepared to deal with it moving forward. Hell, I still want to see the government brought to a screeching halt while Boner reads the phone book for hours on end.