Today’s—depressing—post is over at Pajamas Media.
I had originally guessed the vote would not be all Democrats and Independents against all Republicans. I had supposed Reid was going to play a clever parliamentary trick. Twist the nine arms required to “stop debate” on a bill so that nobody can filibuster it, and then allow nine—ordered by whose reelection races are tightest—to vote no on the actual bill. This way those nine can say they were against it—while still being aware that their “stop debate” vote ensures the bill must pass.
Ah, well. Prediction. The editors wisely left that part out.
According to the New York Times‘s (D) glowing—no, depressing—report of the events:
If the two chambers can strike a deal, as seems likely, the resulting product would vastly expand the role and responsibilities of the federal government. It would, as lawmakers said repeatedly in the debate, touch the lives of nearly all Americans.
For once, I am in complete agreement with that paper.
Merry Christmas, Briggs.
[As Viktor Frankl taught us, those in charge can do their worst, but they can’t destroy what counts.]