And again, the assumption is we’re just mindless drones.  The Washington Post reminds us boastfully of their insane ability to “take down a Republican” with the repetition of one word.

Folks, this is exasperating.  “Macaca” did NOT cost George Allen the Senate seat.  George Allen’s apparent lack of ability to actually have a conversation is what cost him the Senate seat.  He treated the race like it was his God-given right to have that spot and when the Democratic party put a former (emphasis on former) Reaganite up against him, he didn’t have the ammunition.  He seemed to have no message, no real reason for being there other than a) he was already there, and b) he was going to run for President.

Someone please tell me in what world did he deserve to keep his spot, and if he would have squeaked by and kept it, why he would deserve the Oval Office.

Don’t get me wrong…I voted for him.  I’d vote for him again, and I’m sure he’s a good conservative…but if anyone here followed that race, did anyone but me get the impression that he didn’t really have a whole lot to say and Jim Schwebb had a WHOLE LOT to say.

First of all, what iffing is useless, because the if is over.

Second, one word or one statement or one gaffe is only a campaign killer if the campaign has not really said much else…and that’s what happened.

Third, when are we going to start expecting from our “Conservative” candidates what we should expect from them–the consistent sale and push for Conservative ideals–as opposed to what we’ve been getting from them–inane pap and a sense of entitlement.

Senate Republicans Block Union Bill
Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would allow labor unions to organize workplaces without a secret ballot election.
Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes needed to force consideration of the Employee Free Choice Act, ending organized labor’s chance to win its top legislative priority from Congress.
The final vote was 51-48.
…
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/26/123010.shtml?s=us

Senate Showdown on Amnesty Set for Tuesday

The one thing the politicians, the pundits and the press can agree on when it comes to the historic immigration bill now before the Senate is that it’s going to be a close call.
A make-it-or-break-it roll call vote on whether to cut short debate on S. 1639, the corrected and updated version of S. 1348, and to allow only amendments deemed appropriate by the bill’s backers to be discussed is scheduled for Tuesday.
…
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/25/221811.shtml?s=lh

At first I thought, “OK, Dems are backing off a little on their ‘let’s lose as soon as possible’ strategy, and the White House is finally acknowledging that if Baghdad isn’t held accountable for stepping up and taking control of their destiny, then we’ll never get anywhere.”

Great, right?

OH No…it seems that somehow health coverage for children, farm aid, a minimum wage increase (double AAARGGH) , and tax breaks for small businesses must be included with the bill.

It reminds me of when my grandmother was suffering from Rheumatoid arthritis (yeah, I know…bear with me). She’d take about 10 pills twice a day…one for pain, one for inflammation, one for something else, and the other 7 to counteract the vicious side-effects of the first three.

I understand the concept of give and take in the Senate. I probably would never make it as a Senator (OK for tons of reasons) because I would not be able to sign off on bills which included 80% BS. But the inability of the Senate to formulate good legislation (especially a military funding bill) without packing on lard…well it’s just sad.

Democrats to fund Iraq war with no pullout date

Does anyone but me get the impression that the Senate is in that classic mode of putting through legislation for the purpose of putting through legislation, so they can go back to the voters and say, “I lead the effort for ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform .”

Now true, if Ted Kennedy AND John McCain are both happy with a piece of legislation, I just automatically get nervous. But it seems like the “attacks” that the Senate keeps fighting back are just simple common sense. Can anyone argue that the unifying forces forming this “unlikely coalition” are very simply agri-business (sorry…BIG AGRA) and labor-unions, both lining the pockets and providing power to two political parties, 64 percent of which have somehow missed the simple fact that their constituents DO NOT BELIEVE THEM when they say they are going to be “tough” on border security, especially when the bill provides very little teeth and details on that point.

These are the times when Scottie’s national referendum rants seem to make sense…if just for a few moments.

International Herald Tribune

This is what happens when you read a speech from a Senator about Iraq that actually makes a little sense. A few months later, he’s back to his old self, because he’s obsessed with his prospects for President.

This is why if I were to support a Senator for President, the most tempting prospect at this point would be Barack Obama. Assuming he is what he claims to be, and his attitude is genuine, I would simply pray that 4 years in the Senate isn’t enough to morph him into that odd creature that is a Senator.

One has to operate from the assumption that they’re not just born this way…there is something that happens in that chamber, something that hinders their ability to tenor their speech, except as it pertains to focus groups and interest orgs. An election year…or two years…almost precludes the possibility of actual conversations to occur, without the allure of the Oval Office hanging in the air.

And Biden is by no means the worst–even though he loves to hear himself speak, he (as I’ve pointed out is my favorite trait of his) at least speaks the English language, unlike Mr. Kerry whose Senatese has been so refined as to become unintelligible.

Perhaps it’s just a Senate thing (as perhaps your average Representative doesn’t have quite the same reputation), but it does illustrate why Senators make terrible Presidential candidates. In addition to all the deal-cutting necessary to garner voting records that anyone could pick apart, they have a serious problem expressing themselves without slipping into the blah, blah, blah…

However, executive types (Governors and Mayors) have mastered the art of making decisions instead of compromising, ducking, dodging, and hedging.

So those who want a Republican to win the White House in ‘08, Romney and Giulliani are probably your best bet, and I suppose Bill Richardson is the best bet on the Democrat side. Because the Senators (even if they say just want to “chat”) are just simply going to blabber their way to 48 percent or so.

washingtonpost.com