Something you need to know about Ben Nelson

[karynnj]

47. I was not speaking of Nelson per se, but re-read the op

Tell me what we would have been able to do in 2009 without 60 votes. There were several times where Nelson was a problem, but if he - or any other Democrat - were replaced by a Republican, there would have been no HCR passing. Not to mention, the Republican who replaced him would not be a Snowe/Collins/Brown type Republican, who we might get on some important votes, he would probably be more like Johanns.

That he turned down Secretary of Agriculture and stayed a Democrat in the Senate meant we had the Senate chairs in 2007. Compare this to the dysfunctional 109th Congress when the Republicans controlled both Houses and the Democrats were essentially powerless. We controlled the Senate because we had 51 votes - a result that surprised the pundits in November 2006. Can you imagine the consternation of losing that - soon afterward as Nelson resigned and was replaced by a Republican? What would it have done Democratic enthusiasm.

One thing the change of the Senate could have impacted was that a version of Kerry/Feingold (Reid/Feingold) was included in a must pass defense bill - that Bush vetoed until it was taken out. It had the support of I thing 52 Senators - up from the 13 who voted for Kerry/Feingold in 2006. It's main goal was to get Bush to set a timeline for getting out of Iraq. Bush in 2008 did that in conjunction with Iraq - and it is that Bush plan that became the exit strategy that was just completed. McCain, by his own statements, would not have followed that route to get out, but it gave Obama some political cover. There is NO way a Republican controlled Senate would have pushed for setting a deadline to get out of Iraq.