It is all very simple - you have it all. Show America the liberal way to success or failure.
That's silly, Bob, you have a habit of over- or mis-stating matters, Bob. First, Republicans in Congress under Bush was subservient to Bush; Democrats won't be subservient to Obama. Frist and Hastert saw their jobs as sheparding Bush's agenda through Congress. They were wrong. Congress is a coeval branch of government, and the legislative and the executive branches are supposed to have give and take, always checking each other as well as cooperating. In fact, if anything, the founders at the Constitutional Convention conceived of Congress as the First Branch, first among equals.
However, second, Democrats have never been known as a cohesive party--remember the Will Rogers quote about Democrats? "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." It holds now even more than it did then, IMO. Aside from the fact that there are conservative Democrats who wouldn't go along with Obama's agenda, there are also Democrats who may not be personally conservative, but were elected from conservative states or districts who want to be reelected and wouldn't go along. Related to this--just talking about "liberal" and "conservative" in the way you do above ("the liberal way to success or failure") is misleading at best--there is no one "liberal" or "conservative" "way to success or failure."
Last, the Senate is set up to make it easier for the minority to force compromise, 60 Ds or no. The Democrats won't simply vote the way Obama or Reid or Pelosi want them to. There are also pressures from lobbyists and from the public itself. Majorities in Congress are no simple guarantee of anything. Legislation will still be sausage making, for better and for worse. |
