According to the Huffington Post there’s no chance the Democrats will have the spine to let the Bush tax cuts expire. I don’t quarrel with that.
But this had me shaking my head:
A top Senate aide, meanwhile, predicted that there would be “lots of nay votes on a White House compromise,” though likely not enough to sustain a filibuster. A far more difficult calculus faces the party in the House, as The Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman reported. But even then, most observers expect leadership to let only enough disaffected members vote no so that it doesn’t endanger final passage.
Since when has a Democratic Congressman had to be allowed to vote against his or her party? Seems to me the Blue Dogs have made a habit of it, their reward being a party that fell on its collective sword in a (thankfully) mostly vain attempt to save their collective asses. Does Pelosi have some sort of hold over the votes of the progressives that she lacks over those of the DINOs that are constantly impeding real progressive legislation in the House?
The odd thing about this is that it assumes that the legislation will need any unwilling Democratic votes. Is this to be one of those “compromises” that the Democrats have to push through on their own? Shouldn’t there be enough Republican votes (all of them, I would say, or no deal) so that, along with the willing Democrats, the cave in will pass easily? I mean, you can always count on the Democrats to reinforce their spineless image. Since when have they needed to be pressured?
Post a Comment