October 12, 2012

Would a Romney win really matter THAT much?

As people like Nate Silver have now put both Colorado and Florida (slimly, in both cases) in Mitt Romney’s camp, can Preznit Kumbaya actually learn something from Joe Biden’s Veep debate performance?

Odds? About 50-50. You see, despite his own self-delusional belief, Obama’s not our first post-racial president. Now, his fervent wish is that he could be our first post-partisan president, and that’s even less true. But, he still has trouble leading, not just governing, but leading, as a partisan leader. He’s not the monarch of a constitutional monarchy, sitting above it all while passing out vague policy guidelines, as much as he might wish.

Let’s take the “under” and say Obama doesn’t do a lot better next time out, and that Biden’s performance doesn’t move the needle much and that, ultimately, Obama loses.

Well, short of massive vote fraud, if nothing else, there will still be at least 41 Democratic Senators in the next Congress.

But, even before that while Obama would still be president at the end of his one term, albeit with the new Congress in place for just over two weeks, the Bush Obama tax cuts will expire. If those 41 Senate Dems won’t filibuster to keep them from being re-instituted by a GOP House, Dear Leader can still veto that; I assume that 34 Democrats would have enough balls to uphold a veto even if 41 won’t filibuster, or filibuster threaten.

Beyond that issue, under a President Romney, as long as there's 41 Dems in the Senate willing to play hardball as much as McConnell and the Senate GOP has in the past, there's only so much that he could do.

Massive tax cuts? No.

Wingnuts on the high court? No. Wingnuts on lesser courts? No; Democrats could put holds on them or otherwise obstruct the way McConnell et al have obstructed Obama’s district and appellate court nominees.

And, if Senate Democrats are too high-minded, too stupid, or whatever, to play gridlock politics that way, then they need to get the fuck out of there anyway.

So, to be technical, let me rephrase.

A Romney win shouldn’t mean that much.

If he does win, and it does wind up meaning that much, it’s because too many Democrats have no balls.

And, if you insist on continuing to vote within the two-party structure, without fail and without reservation, you know who to blame if a lot of Senate Democrats don’t have balls, and it’s not third-party voters like me.

No comments: