Posts
After the shocking vote of 228 to 205, party leaders did their usual rounds of partisan finger-pointing, but it really wasn't a partisan issue at all. The center had collapsed in favor of a coalition of far-right and far-left zealots. What was once the lunatic fringe was now a majority: 40 percent of House Democrats, going by yesterday's vote, and fully two-thirds of Republicans. . . .
The new majority isn't worried about ephemeral things such as 700-point drops in the Dow. "No, I'm not," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) declared after the vote. "The market may be down, but the Constitution is up!"
So, Nancy Pelosi can deliver only 60 percent of her caucus, and the problem is . . . Republicans. Be assured that, if the bailout had passed, Dana Milbank would have found a way to use the passage as an occasion to attack . . . Republicans. If the Republicans are going to be blamed either way, I'd prefer them to blamed for doing maximum damage to Milbank's 401K. Congratulations, "lunatic fringe"!
So, Nancy Pelosi can deliver only 60 percent of her caucus, and the problem is ... Republicans.
ReplyDeleteWell, if Boehner can only deliver 35 percent of his, then the problem is in larger part a Republican one (stipulating that the bill be good, and thus its failure be a problem).
And further .... where does Milbank say that? Did you read the whole article, Stacy? Milbank's point couldn't be clearer -- the leaders are no longer in charge of either party's rank-and-file, the inmates are in charge of the asylum, the center cannot hold, etc.
I could never deny that Milbank's article is the Platonic Form of Broderism -- a particular form of Inside-the-Beltway, ego-stroking, "bipartisan=good," consensus liberal, pseudo-centrism that enjoys Gramscian hegemony so thoroughly it cannot see anything outside it as rational.
But **this** article is not "an occasion to attack ... Republicans," but attacks "extremists" in both parties. Where else in the Post are you gonna read Dennis Kucinich described as "far left"?