Scott Brown will vote against the Senate bill. Without 60 votes in the Senate, Harry Reid would have to go through monumental procedural gymnastics to get the bill passed, even with the secretive attempts to avoid a conference.It's a valid question. Is six years of Scott Brown a valid price to pay in order to kill the bill? Would Harry Reid simply tell the House to eat the Senate bill as is, verbatim, and send it to Obama with no improvements? Would it be worth it to basically give the Republicans the power to filibuster every single piece of legislation for the rest of the year?
Martha Coakley will be the 60th vote for the destructive Senate bill you hate so much.
And Coakley is the type of Democrat about whom you complain so much, someone who promises progressives one thing to get your money and votes, then does another thing. Coakley promised during the Democratic primary that she would not vote for any bill which contained restrictions on abortion, netting her hundreds of thousands of dollars and votes from progressives. But after the primary, Coakley switched her position and now has joined Harry Reid and Ben Nelson.
I want the Senate bill killed for my reasons, and you for yours. Now is your chance to kill the bill by helping elect Scott Brown.
Are you with us on this, or not?
This of course is the price Jane's new pals are asking of her, to toss the country under the bus on every other issue before Congress in 2010 to stop the bill she dislikes. If she says yes, it's as good as slapping an (R) on FDL. If she says no, well, "She was never serious about killing the bill, she's a hack."
And this is why useful idiots are useful. You can put them in situations where they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. Either way, you win.
Mustard 1, Firebaggers 0, no matter what Hamsher's response is.
Here endeth the lesson.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment