Jim Bunning Should Not Resign
Yeah, it would be fucking hysterical to watch Mitch McConnell's head explode if Senator Non Compos Mentis actually carried out his threat, but only for a couple of minutes.
Then we'd have a few decades to regret letting Governor and Cowardly Waste of Oxygen Steve Beshear appoint some repug-fellating DINO or hacktastic corporate shill in his place.
Or, FSM forbid, his own Lt. Governor.
And no, Beshear's nominally "Democratic" appointee would not be the 60th Democratic Caucus vote in the Senate: Joe Lieberman would be.
There are currently 57 U.S. Senators elected from the Democratic Party, including Senator Al Franken of Minnesota. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, elected as an Independent, almost always votes with the Democratic Caucus, bringing the majority to 58. The vote that the MSM lazily and inaccurately count as a Democratic one belongs to Democratic Traitor and John McCain BFF Joe Lieberman, the sole member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.
At the moment, Lieberman votes with the Democratic majority for two reasons: 1) his vote doesn't make or break a filibuster-ending supermajority of 60, so he's irrelevant, and 2) Lieberman's only hope of re-election in 2012 in Democratic Connecticut is to be President Obama's bitch.
However, if Beshear's pet DINO/hack replaces Bunning, suddenly Traitor Joe becomes the Senate swing vote. Everyone who believes Traitor Joe would stay loyal to the Democratic caucus once he has that kind of power, stand on your head.
Have patience. Next year, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway will slay a dozen primary opponents on his way to beating Bunning in a landslide. Conway's no liberal, but he has yet to show DINO tendencies. It's remotely possible Beshear would appoint Conway if Bunning retired, but as Kentucky Democrats have learned to our sorrow, you can't trust Beshear out of your sight.
Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....
Posts
5 comments:
Interesting points, Yellow Dog! Giving LIEberman any additional power or focus would NOT be a good thing. The guy is a milquetoast, a waffler, and a closet Republican. Our nation would be in far better shape were he not in the Senate and had Ned Lamont beat him in '06!
Dog -
It would be inproper to give your comments a free ride. I agree with your analysis of those outside the Commonwealth. But ... I also repectfully request that you defend - with fact, not innuendo and opinion - your dismissal of the Guv as a waste. Merely disagreeing doesn't make either of you a waste.
Real Democrats want a filibuster proof Senate ASAP. For that, at least 2 have to go, and I don't fucking care which one is first or second. I'm happier that at least one is Bunning. Two of the biggest disappointments in history represent Kentucky in the Senate now and 3 more in the House. Who cares about when they leave annd in which order?
Here's a question I've not seen asked yet since the Democrats took the majority in both houses:
What are we going to do if the Dems GET the filibuster-proof majority, and become just as big assholes as the Repugs were for years when THEY were in the ascendant?
It's my opinion that it's much less likely to happen because the assholy-ness comes from the top, and Obama is not as big a one as Bush. But it's not impossible.
Now is it?
And I would really hate to have to eat that much crow if it happens that way.
BTW, no one has mentioned (that I've seen so far) that Jim Bunning is certifiably bull-goose loony. I mean really, the guy is nuts, and it only takes about 5 minutes of reading transcripts of his pronouncements to see it.
Unfortunately, that doesn't disqualify one for the office of Senator. If it did, at least 1/2 of the Senate would be vacant at the moment, and another quarter would be appealing something or other.
Cheerio!!
The last time the Dems had huge filibuster-proof majorities was in the 1960s, when a lot of progressive legislation like Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights, and fair housing laws were passed. By no sheer coincidence, these large majorities ushered in a higher number of progressive and liberal legislators, so I fear the 2010 elections far less (and with good reason) than I did the 2002 and 2004 ones. Democrats don't abuse power as badly as Repugs, and they have a 75 year track record which proves it. We would be in far, FAR worse shape would today's ultra-conservative GOP regain power!
Mr.Miles,
I carry the same fear you do. In the past the Democrats have generally behaved in a naive and blissfully humane manner. Except for BopTrot here in Ky, generally Democrats have become Repulicans before continued misbehavior: see Louisana, Mississippi, Georgia, S.Carolina, N.Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma. They seem to jump ship to develop cover from association with fellow corruptors.
Our own, Ky Legislators weren't quite that venal - or maybe they were too venal to seek cover - but we always seem to let the moment pass that we could use to nail the coffin closed.
Philosophically, I prefer a viable 2-party system, not this venal, toxic reality laced with avarice and social hatred based on religious intolerance.
Jack's perception is more symptomatic than causal, but draws the same conclusion.
Post a Comment