20 January 2010

Venimus; Vidimus; Vicimus!

The "we" in our title being "we the people" generally, and of the TEA Parties in particular, you might say we're all "we-we'd up" — OK, bad pun. But consider the following:
"If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since ... the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform ... . But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process” — Barney Frank, 19 January, 2010. [Emphasis added]
It's not often that this correspondent finds himself in agreement with the bloviator from Bayonne. But on this occasion, I say, "Bully for Barney!" — the business about discussions with "some Republican Senators" — watch yourselves, Olympia, Susan — notwithstanding. Let's hope Barney's newfound "respect for democratic procedures" isn't a flash in the pan.

Memo to Self. All politicians betray their constituents, the only questions being "To what extent?" and "When?" In Scott Brown's case, let's hope the answers are "not a whole lot," and "not for a while."

Sed nunc gaudeamus!

No comments: