« NRSC's Money Pitch: Stand Up Against Former Republican Arlen Specter | Home | NRSC Launches Calls To Remind Pennsylvania Dem Voters Of Specter's GOP Roots »
Cornyn Warns Against Danger Of 60 Dem Seats -- In Case Of "Unlikely" Coleman Loss
In a guest-post today at the conservative Power Line blog, NRSC chairman John Cornyn has an interesting line in terms of playing up the dangers of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority:
Second, in the unfortunate and unlikely event that Senator Norm Coleman loses his legal battle in Minnesota, Harry Reid will now have his long-coveted 60-seat, filibuster-proof supermajority in the United States Senate. With Nancy Pelosi firmly in control of the U.S. House of Representatives and President Obama just 100 days into his administration, Republicans will have lost the ability to meaningfully impact legislation in any way.
Note that Cornyn refers to a Coleman legal defeat as an "unlikely" event -- despite the fact that hardly any neutral observer would predict that Coleman will win his court fight.
Cornyn has to walk a very fine line here. He obviously needs to communicate to the base just how dangerous a 60-seat Democratic majority is -- but if he admits that such a thing is actually happening, then he's given away far too much in the final remaining battle of the 2008 election.
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
And what happens when the world doesn't end? The Dems have their 60 votes and there is no veering to the hard left? What will the GOP run on in 2010 with that boogeyman off the table?
I think this is the biggest benefit of adding Specter, because I think the GOP would have got solid traction from their "having to keep the evil libruls from their 60-seat filibuster proof majority" attack in 2010.
April 29, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I hadn't thought of that.
But when every person in our country has health care, with every republican having voted against it, what will they run on? That is a huge fear of theirs, because the same thing happened in England. The obstructionist party never recovered once people in England could actually go to the doctor when they were sick and not get hosed by insurance companies.
Unfortunately, Obama is not proposing what the Brits have, but hopefully the door will be open with a big fat foot keeping it from slamming shut.
April 29, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately??? You do not what what the Brits have. It actually is socialized medicine. What you want is more like what the French or Canadians have. It's the insurance that is socialized, not the doctors and hospitals. The difference is enormous.
April 29, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I DO know what the Brits, the Canadians, and the French have.
UNFORTUNATELY the Obama approach is very much involved with the insurance-industry, and NOT what other developed countries have.
It IS unfortunate. Check out what I heard Zeke Emmanuel saying
on my blog from some time ago:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/cville_dem/2009/01/forget-single-payer-orthe-obam.php
Rather than extending Medicare to include all Americans by gradually decreasing the age of eligibility and tweaking it to apply to younger people, the goal is to ELIMINATE Medicare and put everything in the hands of insurance companies.
THAT is what I'm talking about, and I DO know what I am talking about, FYI.
April 29, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS, You have given me tons of information about the Franken fight, and you obviously know law. Trust me. I know health stuff!
April 29, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
you can't insure the inevitable that people will use something. The idea of insurance is that you mathematically identify a group of people who pay for something that only a few people actually use.
That is why national health CARE is the only answer, you can administer in smaller groups like states or SMSA's and then a very large regional rural care section but you have to use full demographics to administer the costs.
Problem---FL, AZ, AL, MS states with much older populations for state administration if Medicare is not continued.
Example is the UE Insurance, right now the system is bankrupt at the state level.
April 30, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cornyn will never admit that Coleman lost, no matter what those "activist" judges say.
April 29, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just another example of Republicans being out of touch. Cornyn better re-check the vote count and re-read the last court's decision: Al Franken has won and only an act of God (or Republican corruption) can change that.
April 29, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, to continue today's opposite day meme, Cornyn thinks it "unlikely" Coleman will lose.
Which is EXCELLENT NEWS! FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!
April 29, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it odd that Cornyn does talk about Norm "winning" only about Norm not losing. And so far by keeping Al away from the Senate Norm has won, because a No Vote is the same as a Vote of No when it comes to the Filibuster
April 30, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
More like we'll have taken away their hammers so they won't be hammering any more nails in the nice hardwood flooring. Yep, the short bus party is that retarded.
April 30, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being a Republican politician is now almost tantamount to being mendacious, which is kind of pathetic and not good for the country.
April 30, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Republicans will have lost the ability to meaningfully impact legislation in any way."
Nonsense. They can still stamp their feet, which is all they're doing now.
April 30, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink