![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mr. Brown Goes To Washington
Jan. 19th, 2010 11:24 pmFor the record, I voted for Martha.
While it can of course be said that Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley, it can also be said, with equal accuracy, that Washington Democrats defeated Martha Coakley. It can also be said that she defeated herself, with her lame-ass campaign compared to his energetic and serious one. If she hadn't started off with such a huge lead in the polls, it might have occurred to her in time to do something about it, that a win is not automatic.
Mitt Romney makes me want to puke. Sorry, had to say it.
So, what happens now? Probably nothing, which was what was going to happen anyway. For the Democrats, a so-called super majority of 60 senators is meaningless. They'd need about 80 or 90 just to get 60 who'll agree on something. That's one of the things that pisses me off about them. The Republicans were able to push a lot of crap through with, at most, 55.
The first year of Obama's presidency wasn't all that different from eight years of Bush, as far as I can see. As I was leaving the polling place this morning, I thought a win for Coakley would mean there's a chance, however slight, that something might be different before the end of his first term, and a win for Brown would mean that absolutely nothing will change before then.
The health care bill that the Senate passed, which isn't much in the way of reform, could be passed in the House as is. If not, we're back to square one. If the Democrat's don't act fast, we're back to square zero. Probably to stay.
While it can of course be said that Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley, it can also be said, with equal accuracy, that Washington Democrats defeated Martha Coakley. It can also be said that she defeated herself, with her lame-ass campaign compared to his energetic and serious one. If she hadn't started off with such a huge lead in the polls, it might have occurred to her in time to do something about it, that a win is not automatic.
Mitt Romney makes me want to puke. Sorry, had to say it.
So, what happens now? Probably nothing, which was what was going to happen anyway. For the Democrats, a so-called super majority of 60 senators is meaningless. They'd need about 80 or 90 just to get 60 who'll agree on something. That's one of the things that pisses me off about them. The Republicans were able to push a lot of crap through with, at most, 55.
The first year of Obama's presidency wasn't all that different from eight years of Bush, as far as I can see. As I was leaving the polling place this morning, I thought a win for Coakley would mean there's a chance, however slight, that something might be different before the end of his first term, and a win for Brown would mean that absolutely nothing will change before then.
The health care bill that the Senate passed, which isn't much in the way of reform, could be passed in the House as is. If not, we're back to square one. If the Democrat's don't act fast, we're back to square zero. Probably to stay.
