Wednesday, January 10, 2007

No Plan

I was listening to Sen. Tom Daschle on the Ed Schultz show tonight. I found out a couple of interesting things. First, Senator Tim Johnson will not be back to the Senate soon. He is now undergoing rehabilitation, no mention of when he will be recovered enough to return to the Senate. This means Lieberman is the swing vote in the Senate if the Rs and Ds keep their troops in line.

Second, Iraq investigations are going to tie up the House and Senate so that Democrats will not be passing much of their agenda, according to Daschle.

Third, when pointedly asked about the Democrat's plan for Iraq he avoided answering the question in any way shape or form.

I think what that all means is that the Democrat's plan for the next year or two is to use the investigations into Bush's conduct of the war as a stalling tactic to avoid doing anything substantial.

I think this fits in with a desperate plan to keep the Democrats From Splitting.

Update: 10 Jan '07 0438z

Senator Tim Johnson's condition has been upgraded from critical to fair. His recovery is expected to take several more months.

Ammended due to a Power and Control Commenter re: counting heads in the Senate.

Cross Posted at Classical Values


Anonymous said...

A 49 to 49 tie assumes two members are missing. 50 to 49 is not a tie.

M. Simon said...

Quite right.

I'll ammend the post.

I was thinking about Lieberman in the war/peace issues.

Karridine said...

Amend works best if you amend yours in the future...

And as for Tom and Nancy, they sound like Republicrats... or is it Demoblicans?

You know, those people who SWEAR ON A STACK OF Bibles, Korans, Telephone Directories, whatever-

that they WILL do their best to enact X, Y and Z when WE put THEM into the system...

but THEN, when they get there and dance, giddy with "power" for a week, they quickly change their tune into, "Gee, we'd LOVE to, but, well, you know, I mean, see, its all Bush's fault..."

And when Tom (or anybody) REFUSED several times to address/answer the same question, THAT IS and answer!
(cf. CAIR and its ilk on publicly denouncing Hamas/alQaeda/terrorism)

In a FOR/AGAINST choice, refusing to choose FOR demonstrates an unvoiced choice of AGAINST!