Some Realism on 60 Senate Seats
In the 334,870th liberal blogosphere iteration of what Digby said I think it’s a very good idea to inject some caustic realism on the holy orgiastic nirvana of Democrats possibly winning 60 seats next week. It’s not anything remotely like a filibuster-proof majority, only a technical tease we should forget about.
As Digby notes the real number to reach is 61, because after Lieberman has campaigned for McCain and Palin there is no way he’s staying in the Democratic caucus next term. Without getting into it, the continued presence of Lieberman was one of the secondary reasons I didn’t attend the Democratic convention this year.
Furthermore, as a constituent of Dianne Feinstein I can assure you it is not possible to discipline her votes—if there’s a stupid regressive way to hurt the country she’ll do it, positively irresolute in her cluelessness. Democrats don’t do party discipline.
While we’re on the subject the new House majority announced next week should also be viewed with extreme skepticism, somewhere around 20-35 House Democrats are “blue dogs,” meaning they’re Democrats like Dianne Feinstein. Very, very little is said about this subject, naturally liberals don’t like to talk about it and it’s likely a major party faux paus to discuss it right before an election.
That which embarrasses us as a Party and creates an impulsive need to be hidden should be precisely brought up more often, just for those reasons. All Democrats should keep firmly in mind that amid all the possible screaming hoopla of victory next week there is a long, long way to go for the Democratic Party to get where it should be. It’s simply irrevocably true, I’ve been very charitable in describing past Democratic Party behavior here, ‘n Digby started it.