Glenn Greenwood (salon.com):
Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.
How, then, can this be explained?
The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night, approving him despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terrorism detainees.
The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the third person to head the Justice Department during the tenure of President Bush . . . Thirty-nine Democrats and one independent [Bernie Sanders] opposed him.
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."
This on the heels of Nancy Pelosi FINALLY, one year later, showing a small spine by telling the president no more war funds this year unless he withdraws some soldiers. Of course, it's an empty threat because the war is fully funded throughout the year. But it's a change since she is used to giving in to EVERYTHING he wants.
I told my former Democratic colleagues not to worry, that Nancy will change her mind once Bush starts calling them names. (weak) But I didn't even have to wait for that. Phony Democrats are already worried about taking such a brazen stand of an empty threat and are worried about standing up to the hick 23% of Bush/war supporters--these cowards are expressing doubt on this course. Yes. Better to give our manipulated moron-in-chief a blank check.
I don't have to defend you bastards anymore. And I don't want to hear crap about switching to the opposition party. I may have switched temporarily as a protest; but you bastards are the ones doing our bidding.
You guys disgust me.