Shorter Susan Collins

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 14:00


"Why divided government would be less divisive":

I really am dumber than a rutabaga*.  Honest!

The results of the "bipartisanship" that Collins celbrates, from my Feb. 2008 diary, "Bipartisanship Vs. Reality: The Stimulus Package ", qouting  from Glenn Greenwald::

"bipartisanship" is already rampant in Washington, not rare. And, in almost every significant case, what "bipartisanship" means in Washington is that enough Democrats join with all of the Republicans to endorse and enact into law Republican policies, with which most Democratic voters disagree. That's how so-called "bipartisanship" manifests in almost every case.... That's "bipartisanship" in Washington:

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:
    GOP - 48-0  / Dems - 12-36
To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:
    GOP - 0-49  / Dems - 24-21
To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:
    GOP - 46-0  / Dems - 7-40
To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:
    GOP - 49-0  / Dems - 8-38
Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:
    GOP - 46-2  / Dems - 30-20
To condemn MoveOn.org:
    GOP - 49-0  / Dems - 23-25
The Protect America Act:
    GOP - 44-0  / Dems - 20-28
Declaring English to be the Government's official language:
    GOP - 48-1  / Dems - 16-33
The Military Commissions Act:
    GOP - 53-0  / Dems - 12-34
To renew the Patriot Act:
    GOP - 54-0  / Dems - 34-10
Cloture Vote on Sam Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court:
    GOP - 54-0  / Dems - 18-25
Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:
    GOP - 48-1  / Dems - 29-22
On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means.

David Kowalski (comment earlier today):

Susan's factually lacking

She cites her vote against cloture on DADT as a blow for bipartisanshio whereas it was coming to heel for the DeMints and Enzis who dominate the Republican world of the Senate.  

Lest we forget, Progressive Punch"s latest lifetime scores list only two Senate Republicans who vote "liberal" in the crunch even 20% of the time (the two Maine ladies), and only three others who manage a crucial liberal vote between 10 and 20% of the time.  Those other three would be Scott Brown, the retiring Feorge Voinovich and John McCain who managed a zero rating on clutch votes in 2009-2010.  So as of January 2010 the GOP "moderates" will pretty much formally consist of Collins, Snowe, and Brown.

On the Democratic side of the aisle, the rush to compromise is barely slowed.  Just 17 Democrats have a clutch vote of 90% or more; 42 reach the 10% threshold vs. 5 Republicans.  Of course, 26 compromise at least 20% of the time on crucial votes including that awful Harry Reid (see article) vs. the lonely Maine Ladies on the GOP side.  They may be lonely in their own caucus but the bizarre interpretation of the 60 Rule makes them the most sought after dance partners in the land (clunky jewelry and horned rimmed glasses forr Collins have no effect).

Oh yeah.  As I mentioned recently, Republicans have never had 60 popularly elected Senators.  The last time they reached 60 was in the 61st Congress, exactly 100 years ago (1909-1911).  Back then, William Howard Taft was President, there were 92 Senators and 46 states, and state legislatures selected the Senators.  They did reach 60% once when Harding was President.  That's it.

Collins and Ben Nelson did more to warp the Stimulus to uselessness than anyone else in Congress.  She thinks she's a national treasure and so does Versailles.  They are both wrong.  (Note to movie fans, the Maine Senator Brewster who was "owned" by Pan Am in "The Aviator" lost his next election.  Where's Howard Hughes when we need him?).


* "Call any vegatable, and the chanes are gooooood... that the vegatable will respond to you." -- Frank Zappa.  

Susan Collins?  Not so much.

Paul Rosenberg :: Shorter Susan Collins

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It's spelled VEGETABLE, Paul. (0.00 / 0)
Good idea to spell check when you're mocking somebody for being stupid.  You know how famous the picture of the guy with the sign about "MORANS" is.

Progressive Punch is a bad way to rate Harry Reid (4.00 / 3)
I'm not defending Reid, but if you're going to use an objective measure to trace Reid, you have to realize that, for procedural reasons, he's going to vote with the Republicans on every failed cloture vote, and thus, is going to look way more Republican than he is.  

Harry Reid is horrible, but he's not 58% Democratic horrible.  


Indeed. Strange that PP doesn't cope with that. (0.00 / 0)
They should take all the procedural votes out of Reid's scorecard. Fair is fair. And it's not helpful to punish him for being the Senate leader.

[ Parent ]
PP is intentionally a no-special sauce metric (0.00 / 0)
they don't toy with or manipulate their data.  And it's made complicated when you have Reid voting the wrong way on substantive non-procedural votes for procedural reasons.  It'd be really hard to separate out what's going on, other than exempting him from all cloture votes.  It's probably best to just put an asterisk next to those who were majority leader during the period under consideration.  

[ Parent ]




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS