PROOF IN THE PUDDING

Over the past week, in a vain effort to make sense of their minority status in both houses of Congress, pundits and politicians alike continue to claim that the Democrats succeeded by moving far to the right and electing a whole slew of so-called Blue Dog Dems.

This has been shot down by any number of more learned bloggers on the left than me, but one thing that I haven't noticed is, basically, does what the various mouthpieces and talking heads really matter? Isn't the proof going to be in the voting? When Bush is no longer able to push along his conservative judges through the Judiciary Committee, will we still hear right wing pundits claiming their conservative views ultimately won out last Tuesday. When the various tax situations are sorted out so that the rich are paying more while the middle class receives more of a break, will fiscal conservatives pat the Blue Dogs on their respective backs for upholding the Bush tax cuts? When oversight returns to the Congress with both houses investigating various misdeeds overlooked and ignored by the GOP-controlled Congress, will conseratives still take solace in the moderate nature of this new Dem party? When Big Oil and Big Pharma lose their tax breaks (though subsidies for the former and Medicare D for the latter), will the financial know-it-alls still tout the far right Dems?

Ultimately, when the chips are down, this line of thought will be exposed as the empty rhetoric it is - a sad attempt by the right to make themselves feel better at having their asses handed to them last Tuesday.