Majority Is The New Minority

At least when it comes to the United State Senate.

I've never read the Village Voice, and now I know why. Apparently they see Brown's win last night as not only transformational in the political sense but in the numerical sense, as their title for the linked article references a 41 Seat Majority for Republicans.

The election of Republican Scott Brown to replace the deceased Ted Kennedy in the Senate from Massachusetts yesterday destroys the Democrats' 60-vote super majority, widely presumed to be needed for passage of a health care bill, or so it would seem from headlines ("House Dems largely reject idea of passing Senate health care bill"), from Republicans who cheered "41!" at Brown's victory as if it were some kind of milestone, and from conservative Democrats like Evan Bayh, who portrays the election as a "wake-up call," indicating that Democrats should propose a weaker health care bill that will not piss off insurance lobbyists and other powerful Republican constituencies.

And while the article isn't too terribly written, the premise laid out in the title suggests that Republicans can have more power than Democrats no matter how many asses they have in seats in the Senate.

But just think about this - during the Bush administration, there wasn't a super-majority amongst Republican members of the Senate and that clown got EVERYTHING he wanted. Why is that? Is there some irrational fear that Senate Dems have when it comes to the legislative process? I hardly think so, but there is certainly a procedural clusterfuck that happens with every Senate action that largely favors the Republicans. That's why I say it should be a majority vote, no filibuster, no cloture vote, no excessive "debate" ( read: obstructionist tactics based on parliamentary procedure ) and just a series of 10 minute speeches with a final vote.