1 comment October 29th, 2009at 07:23am Posted by Eli
Is it Obama, for secretly opposing the public option he claimed to want?
Is it Joe Lieberman, for vowing to join the Republican filibuster against it?
Or is it Harry Reid, for once again completely failing to get an accurate whip count? I know there have been other occasions where Harry has guaranteed that he had the votes to pass something or block something, and it turned out he wasn’t even close. Does he base this on any kind of evidence, or just some kind of gut feeling or misguided belief that his caucus will go along with him without any arm-twisting or horse-trading at all?
If Harry did ask Lieberman if he’d join the filibuster, and Lieberman said no, then shouldn’t Harry be doubly pissed at Lieberman for lying to him and making him look like a fool? Pissed enough to maybe try to take his gavel away?
And if Harry didn’t even bother to ask Lieberman, then he is a fool.
I’m pretty disgusted by this whole situation, but all three of these wankers are just being true to themselves: Obama the feckless non-progressive compromiser, Lieberman the not-so-stealth Republican, and Harry the clueless “leader” completely out of touch with his caucus. I can at least give Harry credit for trying to do the right thing.