Awesome piece: Wall Street Journal Editorial: If a Butterfly Flaps Its Wings, Blame Obamacare

[cali]

If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to ask for a glass of milk. And then a straw, a napkin, a mirror, and so on. Another system of causality beloved by children and adults alike goes that if you steal an election in one state, and hide exculpatory evidence in another, you’re going to pass Obamacare, and if you’re going to pass Obamacare, you’re going to pass the nuclear option in the Senate.

That’s one of many takeaways in a new Wall Street Journal editorial in reaction to Senate Democrats lowering the filibuster threshold on Thursday. Amid the predictable hand-wringing, as though Sen. Harry Reid restoring majority rule in the Senate is the worst thing to happen to the chamber since the 17th Amendment allowed the direct election of senators, is a reminder of what the nuclear option is really all about—Obamacare, of course:

ObamaCare would never have passed if Mr. Franken hadn't stolen the Minnesota recount and prosecutors hadn't hidden exculpatory evidence to convict Alaska Republican Ted Stevens on false ethics charges. But liberals are showing that they'll only need 51 votes, not 60, to pass the next ObamaCare.

<snip>
Now, the Journal is right that there was prosecutorial misconduct in Stevens' 2008 corruption conviction—the Justice Department brought down the hammer for it. And it’s true that without a scarlet "C" branded to his chest, Stevens might have won his close race against Democrat Mark Begich, who ended up being a crucial vote for Obamacare. But this kind of what-if revisionism becomes absurd at a certain point. Sure, if a million factors hadn't come together, Obamacare would not have passed. If Ann Dunham hadn't met Barack Obama Sr. at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Obamacare might be called, well, Hillarycare. If proteins hadn't coalesced into self-replicating compounds in the primordial soup, Obamacare sure as hell wouldn’t have passed.

<snip>

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the nuclear option (and I'm not sure the Journal editorial board does either), but we can all agree with the Journal’s stance that history would be totally different if history had been totally different.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/11/22/wall_street_journal_blames_obamacare_on_al_franken_stealing_his_election.html

[BumRushDaShow]

1. I'm surprised they missed the fact that Specter switched parties. nt

[CTyankee]

2. Can someone explain to me what the Franken thing is all about?

He "stole" the recount? Single-handedly? Really?

[BumRushDaShow]

3. They left out the fact that the MN Supreme Court ruled 5-0 that he was good to go

after 246 days fooling around with Norm Coleman's intransigence.

[CTyankee]

4. that was my vague recollection also. The WSJ is even more off the wall with that one than I

thought!

[marble falls]

5. And that the GOP Sect of State authorized the recount, certified the recount .....

and on and on and on. The WSJ is Fox with an Ivy League education, like Ted Cruz is to Sarah Palin.

[CTyankee]

7. what do you think they are referring to then?

It seems so open and shut.

[marble falls]

9. If you own a printing press you get a chance at rewriting history. Sometmes it works if they are ...

preaching to a conservative crowd.

They believe in majority rule unless they're in a minority position.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. And the owner of this printing press is Murdoch himself. nt

[marble falls]

11. And there you are: Murdoch is an editorial board unto himself and he owns the printing press....

Thanks you said it a lot simpler than I did.

[annabanana]

6. WSJ - WTF?

How can they put out something so dumb and still be considered "serious"?

[Fla Dem]

8. The WSJ always had a pro business, RW tilt. They went over the cliff when Rupert Murdock bought

them out.

[Oilwellian]

12. For just a moment...

the OP title led me to believe the WSJ was mocking the right wing conflation of Obamacare and the Nuclear Option. Silly me.