UPDATE: I missed this comment from Mickey Kaus, which is far more interesting and combat-worthy than the original source for this post:
Mickey's premise is wrong. He says I predicted Democrats "would not use the lame duck to try to jam through controversial legislation." More from my original post: "a lame-duck session is on the calendar and likely to be bland" and "the lame-duck session's agenda was likely to be noncontroversial and would probably handle whatever routine business that the blundering 111 th Congress couldn't finish in September." Well, it wasn't bland, but it did actually deal with business that had majority support but wasn't dealt with in September -- not Democratic priorities that had died before September. None of the legislation that Mickey and conservatives were warning about made it to the lame duck. What was Mickey warning about? Let's go back to a friendly argument we had on Twitter on August 8 :
... Lame duck fuss isn't just GOP base-rousing. If U oppose immig. amnesty U worry abt lame duck--it's amnesty's last chance.
Mickey was talking about comprehensive reform, which was not brought up in the lame duck.
You found no "evidence" because as you admit you ignored immigration. And my anti "card check" source worries--sez not mirage
Card check wasn't brought up in the lame duck.
What did make it to the lame duck? A tax cut compromise that
75 percent of voters support
, the DREAM Act
that 54 percent of voters support
(it's complicated, and Mickey has done a good job explaining why), DADT repeal that 70-80 percent of voters
, which 73 percent of voters support. The DREAM Act was the most divisive issue the Senate dealt with, but it's still largely popular, and it's not something Republicans or Kaus were sounding the alarm about in August. The lame duck panic was very specifically about Democrats ramming through card check, cap and trade, and tax increases, with some panic-ers worrying about amnesty, and none of this happened. My sources who said Democrats weren't going to try amnesty turned out to be more prescient than Kaus's source who was worried about card check. His original point, though, was that reporters shouldn't trust politicians when they deny what they're saying to their interest groups. Even if the Democrats crumpled this time, that's a better rule to follow than the rule I followed in August.
P.J. Gladnick thinks he has a "gotcha" here.