Giving into Boner and the House Republicans however is a totally worthless exercise.  There's no point there.  None.  They know they are in a situation where they are pretty much powerless.

If you're right, then several of them will jump ship and work with Obama to gain power now.  It's a safe, logical, and pragmatic thing to do.

But you're assuming "safe, logical, and pragmatic" are positive virtues to the most partisan group of lawmakers ever to darken Washington's doorways.

I say 177 Republicans will vote no on the reconciled bill next month.  They want Obama to own this economy because they know how bad the economy is going to get.  House Republicans are praying for the End Times, BooMan.  They want a Second Great Depression.  They want to rise from the ashes of America's wrecked economy, with Obama and the Democrats permanently shamed, and finish what they started this century.

I see them literally going for broke because the stimulus at best will cushion the collapse of our economy.  They know it.  Obama knows it, which is why he's pushing bipartisanship so hard.

The GOP is now married to the idea that the stimulus and the American economy will fail spectacularly.  That's their plan.

I hope to God that you're right, Boo.  I hope the GOP is sane enough to try to make this stimulus work.  Because I'm seeing them dig a bomb shelter instead.

It's one thing for me to talk about the coming economic disaster.  It's another thing to see the GOP actively betting on it happening.

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.

The main question I have here -- I know it doesn't address your main point -- is, Why would Gregg accept Commerce Secretary? Is it an improvement over Senator in the first place? Why? I ask that because, in the second place, his accepting would both have the adverse consequences for his party that you mention and (consequently) generate considerable wrath toward him from said party.

I haven't forgotten Jim Jeffords. I'm just wondering whether, and if so, why, the position of Secretary of Commerce would entice a securely sitting senator to give up his seat -- particularly when doing so would both weaken his party's power and expose him to considerable animosity as a result.

Let's remember, many regarded Gov. Richardson's nomination to the post as a disappointing "consolation prize."

I'm asking for information, not trying to be challenging.

I understand the math, I don't need that explained to me.  But does anybody suppose once we get some big priorities voted on that we might gain something by playing a little hardball?  For instance, instead of just assuming a filibuster took place, why not start forcing the reepubs to follow through on the threat.  How many consecutive filibusters do you think they could actually deliver on?  

What about the "nuclear option" that the 'pubs always threatened us with if we carried out a single filibuster against them?  I know it goes against our principles to some extent and sets a dangerous precedent for the next time the power balance shifts, but then again, don't you think they'd just go back to the same playbook and either cow us into submission with the same threat, or actually follow through this time?  What do we have to lose in that scenario?

Mostly though I'd love to see the media forced to cover the GOP being the obstructionists on issues that Americans overwhelmingly support.  Right now if we just take the filibusters as given and move onto the next agenda item, it gets zero coverage, and the Dems come out bearing the appearance of ineffectiveness.  That can't help either, especially when we recall that the trend for the next two election cycles in Congress is against our making further gains, and actually losing some seats as the pendulum swings back the other way.

And one last tooth the GOP has that needs to be pulled:  "secret holds."  WTF?  I understand some tradition of deference among senators (do they have the same thing in the House?) but this is clearly some vestigial bit of procedure from back in a day when either nobody knew about it or weren't brazen enough to abuse it to the extent they do now.  When a single senator from Oklahoma can singlehandedly block what, more than 80 items in a year or two, this is a ridiculous function that I think we could win the perception game on pretty easily...with some discipline.

I understand Obama plays a deeper and smarter game than I can comprehend at times; my political eq/iq must have jumped up about 15 points apiece from just a year's worth of observing his campaign in action.  But the legislative branch isn't his territory.  He can quietly try to infuse some hardened spines in the Senate and House while continuing playing the Executive game along the lines that he's already developed.  

Like I said, I know we have to get a lot of shit done asap, so we have to pick our battles at present with the utmost intelligence and view toward the end game.  But if the 'pubs find a way to keep holding up the most important legislation as they have been (yeah, we got the stimulus bill, and we'll probably win on SCHIP, but what about mortgage and bankruptcy restructuring, mass transit, and hey, Nola and the Gulf Coast, to name a few), it just seems to me we're going to have to get tougher on the Hill.

Has Obama's FCC pick been confirmed yet?  It would help tremendously if McConnel and Boner had permanent laugh tracks playing whenever they made TV and cable appearances...

If I don't understand the secret holds and 60-vote thingy, I'm up for some education.

The Wages of Sin is about $5.15 an Hour

I have to admit, i am having a WONDERFUL time watching all of this as the republicans and the conservatives start to grasp the enormity of what has happened. my brother's troll is trying to bother me at brendancalling, and it's like watchign rumplestiltskin flip out in impotent powerless rage.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

So, in short the Dems will still need to pick off Rs up for reelection and in states BO won.  Because we have met the enemy and it is us ( or blue dogs or some other species )