Was The Mukasy Vote Part Of That Rovian New Math?

When throwing someone out of the room can often be called giving them the "bum's rush", what kind of bum or rush is it when they're rammed through the door?

Many a Senate Democrat called for giving New Attorney Crony Michael Mukasey the bum's rush, but, as has been their habit, they caved (thank you again Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein), while their Republican colleagues rammed him home - and without their pet 60-vote rule;

Senate Confirms Mukasey By 53-40

Salon's Glenn Greenwald showed up the MSM, with his post today "What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?"

"The so-called "60-vote requirement" applies only when it is time to do something to limit the Bush administration. It is merely the excuse Senate Democrats use to explain away their chronic failure/unwillingness to limit the President, and it is what the media uses to depict the GOP filibuster as something normal and benign. There obviously is no "60-vote requirement" when it comes to having the Senate comply with the President's demands, as the 53-vote confirmation of Michael Mukasey amply demonstrates. But as Mukasey is sworn in as the highest law enforcement officer in America, the Democrats want you to know that they most certainly did stand firm and "registered their displeasure."

And Greenwald uses a great quote from Steve Benen, of The Carpetbagger Report, in his post "The GOP — Grand Obstructionist Party".

I won't spoil it for you here, but there's another great line from it;

"In April, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail … and so far it’s working for us.”

So much for those great Republican leadership qualities.

It's a good read, and it nails the caving Democratic Congress to a cross.












The Cavingcrats