It Only Took A Month…
…but the Republicans have finally confirmed that they will keep the Democrats shy of 60 seats. With Minnesota still in the throes of an endless recount, the reelection of Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss (Saxby Chambliss? Sounds like a parody of an F. Scott Fitzgerald character) means the Democrats can, at most, reach 59 seats in the upper chamber.
I know, I know, it’s practically filibuster-proof, but even the symbolic threat of a filibuster will give the Republicans SOME leverage in a government where they will have precious little, otherwise. For those of you on the left, I’ll remind you that total control of all levers of government by EITHER party is seldom a good thing. After eight years of the Bush administration, liberals are entitled to a little bit of a celebration over their massive numerical superiority – I don’t begrudge them.
All the same, it’s nice to know that if something REALLY outrageous comes down the pike, we can theoretically block it (though it would require complete party unity, or some crossovers from the left side of the aisle). So, unlikely name and all, I salute you, Saxby Chambliss, on this night of your victory…
If only he weren’t such a completely awful human being. Can I have Gordon Smith back instead? Or John Sununu? Saxby Chambliss is one of the worst, vilest, most disgusting people in American politics. I would give you back *both* Smith and Sununu if it meant no Chambliss.
Agreed. With Ryan.
There’s no point wishing for the Republican Party of yore.
Saxby Chamblis is perfectly emblematic of the Southern rump party that the Republican Party has been reduced to. Enjoy him as best you can. He and — let us not forget — Sarah Palin, are what the Party has left.
Look, I’m no fan of Saxby Chambliss, just to be clear…but we needed that extra seat from somewhere…
Yeah, it’s not even about policy. If the South wants to elect conservative Republicans, that’s just the way of things. Trent Lott is basically fine. Mitch McConnell is basically fine. Orrin Hatch (not from the South, obv) is basically fine. But Chambliss is just a bad guy. It bothers me to watch Republicans fly to the side of someone like him just because he’s a member of the party. It bothers me to watch McCain say what he did was despicable then decide he should probably be reelected anyway. I know that it’s easy to call a pox on both houses, because everyone protects their own guys, but it’s still ugly.
What is so “disgusting” or “vile” about Chambliss?
Specificly. Without mentioning the Cleland commercial thing.
What’s so bad about the KKK?
Specifically. Without mentioning their position on race.
So, that’s it, one commercial 6 years ago.
A Win for Civility.
Without mentioning the KKK’s position on race, what’s wrong with them?
How about their anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia?
In any case, the Klan’s raison d’etre was the promotion of hate. Take the hate out of the Klan and you don’t have anything left.
Even if one were to accept the fallacious assertion that Saxby Chambliss’s criticism of Max Cleland’s voting record was the equivalent of questioning his patriotism, take that brief instance out of his career, and there’s still plenty in his career to criticize or admire. He actually has a fairly bipartisan voting record.
Saying that someone is a despicable human being in general based upon thirty seconds is like saying that someone is a bad writer over one spelling error. Even Shakespeare couldn’t meet that bar.
Why does the right hate Bill Clinton, besides the Clenis thing?
Questioning the patriotism of a man who left limbs on the battlefield is not the moral equivalent of a spelling error.
Additionally, I assume Shakespeare would at least have the decency to apologize for said spelling error. And he probably also wouldn’t link to halfwit hacks who insist that the spelling error never occurred in the first place.
Yup, Chambliss did nothing but criticize Cleland’s voting record. Aaron, I’ll come to you for all of those pesky questions where reality yells too loud for me to hear what I really want to believe.
Cleland voted against the Homeland Security bill times because he was beholden to big labor at the expense of national security.
The Chambliss campaign pointed this out and the Democrats — as they always do when their poor judgement with regard to national security issues is put on display — whined about their patriotism being questioned.
Aaron, I’ll come to you for all of those pesky questions where reality yells too loud for me to hear what I really want to believe.
Believe reality over what you want to believe? Why start now?
Questioning the patriotism of a man who left limbs on the battlefield is not the moral equivalent of a spelling error.
My point was one of proportion — a concept that is apparently foreign to you — not morals.
But in any case, it’s a moot point since the ad was questioning Cleland’s judgement in voting against the Homeland Security bill.
Just so we’re clear this is the ad, right?
There wasn’t a different one with Cleland’s face morphing into bin-Laden or something like that, was there?
Chambliss accused Cleland of “breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.” How should I interpret that?
Also, Democrats don’t “whine” about their patriotism being questioned. The people who aren’t responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of human beings aren’t the ones with patriotism problems.
Actually, that’s not fair. I’m retracting it. Democrats are pretty equally responsible, much to my dismay.