crossposted at Docudharma
Aren't you guys a little tired of the whingeing about not having enough
Democrats in the Senate? About waiting for 60 votes before we can do anything meaningful about... well, anything?
The problem isn't the size of the majority. The problem is the leadership.
Democrats have done more with less....
picture slowly fades into wayback sequence
We're taking the wayback machine to the 84th Congress: 1955-1957...
Republican President, one-vote Dem majority in the Senate, 29 in the house... any of this sounding familiar?
Well check out what they managed to do... it's not a bad record to run on:
25% hike in the minimum wage... national Polio vaccine... expanded Fannie Mae mortgages... established & funded the interstates.
'course, LBJ was majority leader then. Harry ain't no Lyndon.
Still not convinced? Onward to the 85th Congress: 1957-59
reprise wayback effect
LBJ had it slightly better; a two-vote majority.
His big win? The Civil Rights Act of 1957.
And you think Blue Dogs are a problem? His majority at the time included Strom Thurmond, John Stennis and the rest of the Dixie Democrats.
So really....
Is it the size of the majority, or the size of the leader?
And if you think the latter, who should be the leader?