« | »

NYT Fawns: Senate Women Lead GOP’s Surrender

From an admiring New York Times:

Senate Women Lead in Effort to Find Accord


WASHINGTON — As the government shutdown dragged on, Senator Susan Collins of Maine was spending another weekend on Capitol Hill, staring at C-Span on her Senate office television as one colleague after another came to the floor to rail about the shuttered government.

Frustrated with the lack of progress, Ms. Collins, a Republican, two Saturdays ago quickly zipped out a three-point plan that she thought both parties could live with, marched to the Senate floor and dared her colleagues to come up with something better…

A plan that gives the Democrats everything and the Republicans nothing. A plan for which she was publicly slapped down by her fellow female colleague, the ever gracious, Patty Murray.

A few days later, two other Republican female senators eagerly signed on — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who overcame the Tea Party to win re-election in 2010, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who benefited from the Tea Party wave.

Together the three women started a bipartisan group whose negotiating framework formed the centerpiece of a tentative Senate deal nearing completion Monday to reopen the federal government and avert a disastrous default.

“Before I went to the Senate floor, no one was presenting any way out,” Ms. Collins said. “I think what our group did was pave the way, and I’m really happy about that.”

And never mind that caving is always an easy way out. Or that surrender is always an option.

In a Senate still dominated by men, women on both sides of the partisan divide proved to be the driving forces that shaped a negotiated settlement. The three Republican women put aside threats from the right to advance the interests of their shutdown-weary states and asserted their own political independence.

By giving Obama and the Democrats everything they want.

“I probably will have retribution in my state,” Ms. Murkowski said. “That’s fine. That doesn’t bother me at all. If there is backlash, hey, that’s what goes on in D.C., but in the meantime there is a government that is shut down. There are people who are really hurting.”

Ms. Murkowski thinks Alaskans will have forgotten in four years. We should not let that happen.

Two powerful women on the Democratic side of the aisle — Senators Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland and Patty Murray of Washington — took a hard line and pressed their Republican counterparts to temper their demands, but they also offered crucial points of compromise.

Oh, our sides. Patty Murray was as nasty and insulting as possible. And Mikulski was just herself. They ‘compromised’ by making even further demands from the so-called Republican women.

Together, the five senators starkly showed off the increasing power of women — even those who are not on the relevant committees — as their numbers grow in the upper chamber…

Senator Joe Manchin III, Ms. Collins’s first Democratic collaborator, said: “That gender mix was great. It helped tremendously.” He added: “Would it have worked as well if it had been 12 women or 12 men? I can’t say for sure, but it worked pretty well with what we had.” …

Yes, it worked out great — for the Democrats.

Ms. Murray is chairwoman of the Budget Committee and would have primary responsibility for turning any broad agreement into a detailed plan for tax and spending policy over the next decade…

“Patty and I were e-mailing all weekend,” Ms. Collins said. “I was not off the phone for longer than 20 minutes yesterday.” It was Ms. Murray who suggested language ordering an immediate start to budget talks…

In other words, Patty Murray called the tune and the (moronic) Susan Collins danced her jig. Isn’t that wonderful?

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, October 15th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “NYT Fawns: Senate Women Lead GOP’s Surrender”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Seems to me the only argument I’m hearing in the public airwaves is who can do socialism better, the democrats or the republicans.

    Major exceptions are our tea party favorites, of course but for crying out loud, Boehner and Co. ® seem to have locked in their arguments around, “We can do it better, cuz we’re republicans” and Reid Enterprises ® seem to have locked their arguments around, “We don’t care how it’s done, screw you guys”.

    In the end, no one has listened to the American people, though both sides claim otherwise.

    In another blog, I likened the ridicule that Cruz is getting to the unassuming efforts of John Houbolt who pushed for Lunar Orbit Rendezvous as the only way to get to the moon and back while the “great and established minds” of the time were pushing for a huge, ungainly vehicle that would be ridiculously dangerous to try to land on the moon.

    They all thought John was nuts but he stuck to his guns and pressed the idea, elaborating on why it was the onlyidea, not just the best idea. It did win out, as history proves and could not have been done any other way.

    However, Max Faget and Dr Seamans, to this day will not acknowledge anything other than that Houbolt was annoying them. They cannot bring themselves to say, “He had a better idea than my conventional wisdom would permit and he whacked my ego but good”.

    Interestingly, Werhner Von Braun, when the Eagle touched down on the Sea Of Tranquility in July of 1969, turned, searched for John Houbolt, found him and said, “We couldn’t have done it without you, John.”

    But such things are the exception, rather than the rule. Our own F-22 fighter suffered for years from cost overruns by egoism.

    And our current display in our government, where incredibly ego-fueled people run the show is not only off-putting, but damaging in a huge way. But we really are just proving (again) that we haven’t changed a bit since Roman times. With one exception: The national socialists want to ban all forms of “violent” sports whereas the Romans tolerated their shitty government as long as there was bread and circuses where their blood-lust could be satisfied.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    There’s nothing left to say at this juncture except words that will get us all arrested.

  3. Petronius says:

    The three Sisters of Charity: Collins, Murkowski, and Ayotte.

    By the way, it occurs to me that there are three reasons why the tyrant Nerobama refuses to negotiate with Republicans:

    1. Because the Republicans always cave anyway, so why bother?

    2. Because he doesn’t know how to negotiate.

    3. Because he doesn’t understand how the government and budgets operate.

    We have to remember that this man has never held a real job. He’s never conducted business negotiations because he’s never worked in business. He’s never conducted negotiations as a lawyer because he never practiced law.

    Rather his entire pre-presidential life was one long immersion in communist and neo-Marxist ideology and black liberation theology, voting present in the Illinois State legislature, and reading scripts from a teleprompter.

    Having been elected president, he might have taken the trouble to learn how the government operates and how to perform his duties. But again, why bother? It’s much nicer to spend other people’s money, play golf, eat Kobe steaks in Hawaii and ice cream on Martha’s Vineyard, trample on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and shoot off one’s mouth while one’s minions in the media lap it up with their furry tongues.

    In any prior age he would probably have been a crazy beggar on a street corner. Probably on a neglected street corner in a bad neighborhood. Waiting there for the three Sisters of Charity to drive by and drop a dollar into his tin cup.

    But Columbia and Harvard Law gave him degrees. So here we are.

  4. yadayada says:

    “I probably will have retribution in my state,” Ms. Murkowski said. “That’s fine. That doesn’t bother me at all. If there is backlash, hey, that’s what goes on in D.C.”

    read, “who cares what my constituents want? the media likes me!”

    “Ms. Murray is chairwoman of the Budget Committee and would have primary responsibility for turning any broad agreement into a detailed plan for tax and spend[ing] policy over the next decade…”

    wow!!! get rid of the i-n-g at the end of “spending” and the nyt just gave away the whole plan…. I guess they don’t feel a need to hide it anymore.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »