If Republicans had taken control of the Senate in the mid-term elections, that long-shot win would have been razor thin, probably only by one seat.
The Senate would be controlled by those who were willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder or those with their own agenda. In the last Democratic controlled Senate, the votes on the cusp (Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman) were able to use that leverage to their advantage.
In Republican terms, we would be witnessing in the upcoming Senate two years of the Lisa Murkowski or Mike Castle Senate, a time of bitter sniping by bruised egos with personal vendettas. (I don’t put Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe in the same category.)
Murkowski, the likely winner when the counting is done in Alaska, is chomping at the bit to divide the party by gratuitously attacking Sarah Palin.
Two years of such a Senate controlled by Republicans would have destroyed all of the gains of the mid-terms, and would have demoralized the Republican Party heading into 2012, much as the gamesmanship needed to win over Nelson, Landrieu and Lieberman were a disaster for Democrats.
A Murkowski-Castle Senate would have been no victory.
We wished really hard for something; in the long run it may be better we didn’t get it.
——————————————–
Related Posts:
Japan Won WWII and The Tea Party Lost The Mid-Terms
The People Who Brought Us The 2006 and 2008 Disasters Want The You-Know-Whats Back
Memo to the Right: “The Lombardi Rule” Is In Effect
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
First off, Murkaslalski (whatever) shouldn't have been allowed to run as Miller already beat her in the primary. And she has intimated she is joining the Democrats. Some ObamaCare repealer, huh?
Second, Fiorina was endorsed not because of McCain, but because she had the better chance of winning by the numbers. Of course, it being California, they elect any idiot who has a D in front of their name. A long shot to start with.
Third, what O'Donnell said in the past was NOT dumb. And a deep blue state like that was not going to elect a Republicans anywhere. It was again a long shot from the start.
And for the 'maybe' votes, Castle is not a maybe. Castle is a liberal. There are more dems who will vote against ObamaCare because of the losses than Castle likely would.
I saw something that indicated that ballot boxes in the Inuit areas were already stuff with Murkowski's name prior to the election.
I'd also like to point out that even had Castle won (which he would not have) and voted to repeal ObamaCare (highly unlikely) he is a big Cap and Trade supporter, and that piece of legislation will be as equally disastrous as ObamaCare, maybe more so.
So do you prefer a Bennet-Reid senate to a Norton-Lowden senate? Alaska and Delaware are not the only races that the tea party botched.
The phrase is champing at the bit, not chomping.
Leave a Comment