Patterico's Pontifications

12/2/2008

Chambliss Wins

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:16 pm



Good news. Allah says:

Now that a filibuster-proof majority’s unlikely, the stakes of getting Franken elected are much lower. Maybe that means the Dems will eschew the nuclear option of challenging the Senate not to seat Coleman.

Good going, Georgia.

32 Responses to “Chambliss Wins”

  1. Good on us. Now make Franken go away, figure out a way to keep the 42 in line, and let’s get to work on 2010.

    the bhead (a31060)

  2. I cannot fathom what kind of drugs one would have to be under the influence of to make you go into a voting booth and say, “Yes. Yes, I DO want Al Franken to be a United States Senator.”

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  3. yeah, but of the 42 aren’t there a couple of really limp rino’s? I still say we’re screwed! At least Georgia got it right, thank God.

    J. Raymond Wright (0440ef)

  4. that margin of 2 votes doesn’t mean much with people like Snowe and Specter still in office.

    gabriel (180095)

  5. …and Collins, and Grassley, among others.

    They could form a Performance Art Group:
    The InveRtebRates!
    We could all stand around and watch them try to stand up.

    Another Drew (4472ac)

  6. The whole idea of a filibuster-proof Senate is kind of ridiculous when you get into the range of say 57 to 63 Senators of the same party as the administration. Unlike the House, senators can’t really be influenced by party loyalty arguments much if it’s an issue that goes against the interests of their constituencies. House members who don’t play along with the leadership of their parties get sent to the back benches, while in the Senate that isn’t really an option.

    Whatever gets proposed, you will have some Democrats voting against the Administration and leadership and some Republicans voting for it, because it impacts something especially important to their states like labor, farms, transportation, energy, or whatever.

    I can’t think of a single issue of legislative importance right now that so fundamentally divides the parties that I could say, “every Senate Democrat will vote for this and every Republican would be so opposed that they’d actually filibuster it.”

    If Obama and the Congressional leadership try to do something too far to the left, the roadblock won’t be the threat of a unified Republican caucus in the Senate threatening a filibuster, but from the centrist or otherwise opposed Democrats not willing to go along. On the other hand, if Obama tries something staunch conservatives really hate and try to filibuster via a unified Senate caucus, there will be moderate Republicans who aren’t willing to go that far.

    Also re Chambliss: for reasons I don’t have the time to get into now, enjoy your victory but this guy is your next big embarrassment. Imperial Sugar is just the starting point; he’s your next Ted Stevens. Enjoy your victory.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  7. “… Imperial Sugar…”

    So, it is time for the Dems to do the American consumer a favor,
    and end this hideous subsidy to corporate greed that they put into place originally.
    End the Subsidies,
    End the Import Quotas,
    Let the American consumer enjoy sugar at the World Market Price!

    Another Drew (4472ac)

  8. Um, AD, the Imperial Sugar litigation Saxby is caught up in is not a subsidy issue, it’s more an OSHA and corruption issue he is alleged to have been caught up in.

    And I agree, let’s end sugar subsidies and quotas. Wonder what Saxby’s position is on that.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  9. “…he is alleged to have been caught up in...”

    Well, before you actually drive the spikes through his palms, could you at least wait for Pontius Pilate to declare him guilty?

    And, if this is such a big item, why haven’t we seen the MSM going overboard on their “GOP, Culture of Corruption” crusade, or was that the meme from 2006, and can’t be re-used?

    Another Drew (4472ac)

  10. Dear Aplomb: I love the idea of cleaning House and Senate of all corruption. But that is not a partisan issue—-paging Barney Frank.

    But I find that partisan folk—on both sides—tend to defend the actions of the corrupt on their side as being part of business, while excoriating the other side for the equivalent acts.

    And the MSM has…ahem…not been very even handed about this (see Glenn Reynolds’ continuing “Guess that Party!” game regarding news reports).

    I say toss out ALL the corrupt officials. I don’t care what else they have done. But it’ll never happen. And we will continue to have Democrats excusing folks like Cold Cash Jefferson, while braying about the Culture of Corruption from Republicans. At the same time, we’ll have Republicans defending people like Stevens….except, wait…many of us wanted Stevens tossed out!

    Step up Democrats. You have numerical advantage in Congress. Use to it clean house. If you really care about honesty in government, that is.

    Eric Blair (8f93a0)

  11. Allah Akbhar!!!!!!!!!!!

    Da'Shiznit (089453)

  12. If they actually cared about cleaning house, wouldn’t be none of them left to turn out the lights.

    Soronel Haetir (644722)

  13. “…wouldn’t be none of them left to turn out the lights.”

    Wouldn’t have to, someone would have stolen the wiring on the way out.

    Another Drew (4472ac)

  14. I regret that I had but one wife to take with me and instruct to vote for Saxby Chambliss. hehee

    ccoffer (32a57d)

  15. I can’t think of a single issue of legislative importance right now that. . . every Republican would be so opposed that they’d actually filibuster it.

    Um, Supreme Court Nominee Bill Clinton?

    Official Internet Data Office (85f70b)

  16. I don’t care how this is spun, there’s no way anyone is going to convince me that the Republicans struggling…struggling to hold on to frickin’ Georgia is anything but an embarrassment for them and yet another sign that they’re royally screwed.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  17. Hey, maybe somebody should set up a new site: From 57 to 42.

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  18. OIDO 15:

    Are you so sure that all Senate Republicans, including say Snow, Specter, Collins, Gregg, or whoever, would not just vote against it, but filibuster against it even reaching an up or down vote?

    First, there is no way that job would be offered to Bill or that he would accept it. But more importantly, if it were, I don’t think the Senate contains enough members opposed to the idea that a filibuster would be sustained.

    Taft wasn’t a particularly popular former President by the time his name came up, but not many senators found reason to vote against the appointment, let alone attempt to tie up the Senate with a filibuster.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  19. You aren’t seriously comparing Bill Clinton to William Taft, I hope.

    There was the whole, well, impeachment thing.

    Eric Blair (8f93a0)

  20. And the whole getting disbarred thing, and the perjury business, and the tempation to sneak Lewinsky in under the judicial robes. . .

    Official Internet Data Office (85f70b)

  21. the fact that alone, the leftis illuminati employed Ludacris to campaign for them made me opposed to the guy

    ew (7f2fd7)

  22. Good going, Georgia.

    First, you’re welcome. Second, the issue was never in doubt here. All the hoopla was media/partisan frenzy over the possibility that the Dems could reach that ‘magic’ 60. Like on May 1st when the Cubs ‘have a shot at the Pennant’.

    Gajim (e39b35)

  23. 15% is a struggle?

    Comment by Jim Treacher — 12/2/2008 @ 10:37 pm

    There was a runoff, because Chambliss, the incumbent in a deeply red state couldn’t break %50 percent wasn’t there?

    I’m sure a many good ole boys were re-animated out of the nursing homes and wheeled in to the voting booths on massive doses of painkillers to get this to happen.

    Anyhow, can’t say much about the man as he just seems a company man, as they say, but Saxby Chambliss is just about the coolest name ever.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  24. Taft was also Solictor General and a federal appellate judge before being nominated to the Supreme Court.

    What judicial experience has Bill Clinton had?

    Does anyone else remember the enormous outcry against Clarence Thomas because he didn’t have enough bench experience? Wanna bet whether Democrats would use the same yardstick for Clinton?

    Steverino (69d941)

  25. There was a runoff, because Chambliss, the incumbent in a deeply red state couldn’t break %50 percent wasn’t there?

    Chamliss received 49.75% in the general election, substantially more than Martin’s 46% Not every state requires a majority to elect a Senator, Georgia just happens to be one of them. But your statement that the GOP had to struggle to maintain this seat is laughable.

    Steverino (69d941)

  26. Now, Peter. When you write, about Republicans:

    “…I’m sure a many good ole boys were re-animated out of the nursing homes and wheeled in to the voting booths on massive doses of painkillers to get this to happen…”

    All you are doing is being ridiculous. Here is a word: ACORN. Also Franken’s people “finding” more ballots than there were registered voters, trying to steal an election. The MSM out and out playing favorites. The list goes on.

    Your guy won the Presidency, and your party more seats in Congress. Try to be more dignified in victory, instead of casting spurious insults that can be turned right around on you—with evidence instead of supposition.

    I’ve read your posts. You are better than #24. Far better.

    Eric Blair (8f93a0)

  27. Here’s Peter. A conservative wins so it’s a stolen election. Obama/Soros disable credit cards and pull off a paid political coup, but it’s a (bogus) equal rights victory. Straight up nonsense, dude.

    Vermont Neighbor (5ea336)

  28. Also Franken’s people “finding” more ballots than there were registered voters

    After the nonsense in WA in 2004 and this newest episode I think we desperately need to alter these voting machines so that they print an encrypted code on the ballot somewhere when it goes through the machine that lists the time, location, and position in the tally. It wouldn’t do away with the “found” ballots, but it’d make them a hell of a lot more conspicuous.

    Taltos (4dc0e8)

  29. Comment by Peter — 12/3/2008 @ 8:47 am

    Oh Great Sage!
    You do recall that this was (Nov 4) a 3-way race?
    When there is a strong third candidate, very rarely does the favorite win a majority
    (see Clinton, W.J., 1992; Nixon, R.M., 1968).

    Now, go back into your cave,
    and we’ll call for you when we think you have something important to contribute…
    NOT!

    Another Drew (240de7)

  30. #30 Another Drew:

    Now, go back into your cave,
    and we’ll call for you when we think you have something important to contribute…
    NOT!

    Drew: Saxby my Chambliss!

    Nitwit.

    Peter (e70d1c)

  31. Comment by Peter — 12/3/2008 @ 3:25 pm

    Just mark a spot, since you seem to be all Chambliss!

    Another Drew (410846)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7355 secs.