The liberal columnist seems to be under the impression that the Republican use of the filibuster this year is a shockingly new tactic; somebody should introduce him to a few of Bush’s appeals-court nominees.
But it’s not just Republicans that irritate Meyerson; it’s Democratic “ditherers” who are holding up health-care legislation too. “If Lincoln, Landrieu and Nelson are comfortable with the idea that elections shouldn’t have consequences, they should say so publicly,” he writes. Yes, elections have consequences. A consequence of elections in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska is that liberals have to put up with three senators who don’t vote in lockstep with them.
Perhaps Meyerson thinks that Obama’s election amounted to a mandate for a public option and fines for the uninsured. I have no idea why anyone else should.