Honestly, what do they have to lose?
Posted by Wickedpinto on August 10, 2010
The lame duck pushing of new entitlements and stuff only makes sense.
Especially if you are in a vulnerable district or seat or whatever. You are so insanely corrupt, that if you lose the power of congress only to a level that allows you to be incapable of overriding a veto, in 2 years, the Dem’s can say “Yeah, what did THEY accomplish in two years? Things are even worse!” Because, in the lame duck, all of the sore losers burn bridges and salt the fields leaving the incoming ‘pubs with an even worse situation, while the pres will veto everything ‘pubs offer.
Meanwhile the outgoing ones, at least the influential or needy ones, are gonna collect their pensions as well as “private” pay from the entities they corrupted government for.
What do people with only a sense of personal value, and no sense of public service have to lose by hammering in a grotesque legislation that their enemies (I do believe that is how they view republicans) have to deal with against great opposition from the Exec, in terms of veto, lawsuits and offsetting regulation?
They will get their banner jobs, collecting cash, and then laughing in their champagne cocktails without a concern. They will be accepted at universities talking about how they took part in the expansion of social justice and collect a paycheck for it, while Code Pink and La Raza delivers external security for their speeches.
What do they have to lose?
So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they do follow through on the “lame duck” tactic, because they are already fired, they already lost their job, and they already are lined up to collect the fruits of their corruption.
Don’t scoff this off.