Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on where else I'm wrong...maybe to do with how the same people are framing this administration? Maybe you'd like to describe how this administration has somehow been oh-so-radical when compared to what was promised, as that seems to be the current talking point? What specific pieces of legislation have been signed into law that fit that criteria?
Apparently, bills debated by the Senate that haven't even passed constitute an extremist overreach by the current administration, and especially the President himself. Or would you disagree with the premise of your peers, as a member of the administration? I certainly hope you'll have an answer, because otherwise, I'd assume that this isn't the debate for you. 
Even by Labor standards this is a particularly far-fetched bit of propaganda. A bill that nationalises 10% of the economy (for no reason!), was unanimously supported by the governing party, championed by the President, only failed at the last minute because two Senators became afraid of looking like TNF, and
is to be reintroduced until it passes doesn't constitute overreach?
Overreach can be rejected. It generally is. In the case of both Windjammer's executive branch power grab - which was, to his credit, also rejected by the President - and this deranged attempt to seize the energy sector, overreach has been rejected, despite the caterwauling of Labor, who think they can "bend the public to [their] will" by screaming loud enough. The best right-winger is worse than the worst Labor Senator! Lumine is a social traitor! Workers! Workers! Workers! If you keep repeating dogma enough people might even internalise it.
I won't attempt to defend the fact that there was hardly a peep from the Right about the power bill. It's true, and shameful. All the criticism was from the libertarian right (Deus) the centre (me, Polnut, Simfan, Duke) and even within Labor (Nix). The Right slept. Perhaps they're trying to make up for that failure in duty by blocking the Vice-Presidential nominee.
And it's clear why, and I'm afraid I don't think it's some inexcusable atrocity that this nominee has been blocked. It has become clear - from, you know, the countless public statements to that effect, that Labor will continue to overreach and push an extremist agenda through the Senate, most specifically the economically suicidal and deeply unpopular energy nationalisation program, and some Senators don't wish to give Labor an effective majority. That's a reasonable position to take considering the entire party seems on the brink of Nixonian paranoia (we are beset by enemies on all sides, comrades!" and an overwhelming desire to get this "win" at all costs.
It's true that Tyrion's backed down on his support for the bill, but you can see why many Senators are troubled by his previous support and the mere fact that he's a Labor vote, who will, like all Labor Senators are at some point, be pushed into supporting an extreme far-left agenda. All that said, if I were a Senator I'd probably vote to confirm him as Vice-President, but that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate reasons for others to oppose the nomination. To claim that this rejection - let alone the fall of Windjammer, who lost the support of virtually everyone in the administration - are nothing but expressions of partisanship demeans your credibility.
Labor has been very clear that they do not care about either the will of the (overwhelming majority!) of the public, the opinion of the Senate, or the merit of this power bill. Why they are shocked and appalled that Senators would reject handing them back a working majority is beyond me.
EDIT: I will however concede completely that I remain hurt and annoyed at Lumine's decision to quit our party soon after we'd elected him. I'll still vote for him since he's objectively one of the best Senators in the game, but it was a troubling and disappointing move.
