What’s does Charlie Pierce say about reading Politico? Something like, “reading Tiger Beat on the Potomac makes me want to gargle antifreeze, Part The Infinity”?
Yeah, pretty much.
Adding [Sen. Elizabeth] Warren [to the Senate leadership team], Democrats say, would bring in a nationally known name who could help sharpen the Democratic message as it goes toe-to-toe with the new Senate Republican majority. The move would likely be viewed favorably by an increasingly liberal caucus.
But elevating Warren could also be seen as an indication that the new Senate Democratic minority is less interested in bipartisan compromises than the White House or Senate Republicans.
Well, we wouldn’t want to give any indications, would we? We wouldn’t want to send a signal?
We certainly wouldn’t want to give the impression that we’re less interested in compromise than the Republicans.
No, Ma’am.
Not us.
No way.
Putting Warren in leadership, would make me happy. And, won’t compromise…sounds good
Less interested in compromise than Republicans? Is that even possible?
These are the same people who have stopped taking concrete, unified stands until Obama says something about a topic, so they know which side is the socialmalistic, job-killing, gun-stealing, America-hating stand that they can proundly emit spittle about.
I was going to post exactly this, plus point out that the Republicans who supposedly want to compromise are the same Republicans who in 2006 changed 215 years of Senate tradition to use the filibuster only rarely to using it on every single bill that they opposed.
Washington punditry is as pro-Republican as they can be without giving the game away. And yet, because wingnut media is so out of touch with reality they think that Washington punditry actually favors the Democrats.
Our systems are broken beyond anything I could have imagined in my youth.
Has anyone started a betting pool on how long the filibuster survives under the new Republican majority? I would say it’s a question of how soon the Democrats try to filibuster anything, because that’s going to be the end of the filibuster.
So my personal theory is that the filibuster is kept on the books but never actually used by the Spineless Party. There will be some sort of compromise in which 7 or 8 Democrats agree never to filibuster anything (thus allowing everything to come to the floor) in exchange for … some kind of valueless promise. Maybe not to impeach or something.
From the GOP’s point of view this is ideal. The filibuster stays but is used in practice only when the GOP is in the minority, which is why they’ll push for it.
For some reason the national media has accepted as normal the idea the the GOP filibusters everything but the Dems have to compromise.
Yep, that’s why all these warnings about antagonizing the Republicans are so hollow. I mean, so the president waves a red flag. What are the going to do? They’re going to get angry? They’re not going to like him anymore? Oh my.
Hmm…I like to start my day with my new mantra…Fuck all republicans for all time…
Compromise means both sides give up something, right Mitch?
No! It means Democrats compromise their party principles and get nothing in return but a nice write up in the Washington Post.
That would be another red flag, wouldn’t it?
LOVE the idea of Warren in leadership.
This is the best post-midterms news I’ve heard, outside of 2016 polling vs. the entire GOP field.
It would be great.
Not sure this is really leadership. It sounds like a made up advisory position to get her out of their hair.
“But elevating Warren could also be seen as an indication that the new Senate Democratic minority is less interested in bipartisan compromises than the White House or Senate Republicans.”
I certainly hope so!
Monday: “I’d start by generating buzz for the next generation of Democratic pols.”
Thursday: “Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) expanded his leadership team Thursday, including the addition of liberal icon Elizabeth Warren…”
Your Quakerman sees, knows…