Simple Facts

by: Mike Lux

Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 15:00


The divide between progressives on whether to support the health care bill is one of the most striking things I have seen in all my years in politics. The fact that so many good people are on different sides of whether this compromise should be accepted is the true sign of how complicated both the politics and policy is on this issue.

Beyond the well and passionately argued opinions on both sides, though, there are two facts which are undeniable: for better or worse, this bill passing the Senate keeps the process moving forward; and, for better or worse, the Senate bill is simply unpassable in the House.

Sen. Conrad and all the pundits can deliver all the pronouncements they want about how the House will just have to live with what the Senate did, but between the lack of a public option, the bad abortion language, the tax on health benefits, and other concessions to insurers, this bill cannot get 218 votes in the House. Nancy Pelosi is the best Speaker, and best Democratic House leader, since Tip O'Neill, but not even she cannot corral 218 votes for the Senate bill. Yes, it is true that she could pick up some Blue Dogs who like this far more conservative bill better, but remember that a lot of them are from fairly conservative districts, and for all the stuff progressives don't like in the Senate bill, it is still being attacked viciously by Republicans and the conservative attack machine. Between their political squeamishness, their lack of party loyalty, and the fact that they already voted no once, it will be tough to pick up a lot more of those votes.

The House bill had a two vote margin last time. Say you can pick up 10 moderate Dems who voted no last time. How many votes will be lost on the choice language? How many on the benefits tax? How many on the lack of a public option? How many on the combination of all of the above?

The Senate, and their allies in the White House, may not want to negotiate, but they are going to have to if they want a bill. The abortion language is a mess, and has to get better. Giving one break after another to the insurance industry after stripping the public option language is adding insult to injury. Taxing decent but hardly extravagant health plans is not acceptable. And this bill can't get 218 votes without making some changes in these items at a minimum.

As I have written before, no step in the process of passing a health care bill was ever destined to be easy. The Senate has no margin for error, and so progressives will have to accept some big disappointments, but the margin for error in the House is pretty damn small, too. Everyone needs to be serious about negotiation here, or this thing will not get done.    

Mike Lux :: Simple Facts

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Simple Facts | 49 comments
Take a look at the Barak Il Jong crowd (3.43 / 7)
if you can stomach it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...


Uprated for HR abuse (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps the "Il Jong" reference was a bit much, but that there is worship going on is undeniable to all but reality-deprived types.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
That's not TR abuse... (0.00 / 0)
This has absolutely nothing to do with Mike Lux's diary, and, "Barak il Jong" is ridiculous for any number of reasons.
[ Parent ]
Sure it does (0.00 / 0)
There is clearly a concerted effort going on, be it coordinated from above or self-directed by the fanboys and girls, to portray Obama as some sort of glorious man of the ages who exists above mere pedestrian politics, the intention being to get people to deny or ignore what a key role he's played in such massive policy and political failures such as HCR. If you don't see the obvious link, then that's your problem. Sorry, it's over a year since the election and nearly a year since he took office, he's presided over one such failure after another, in large part because of his own policy and political failures, and there is previous little room for worship at this point on a legitimate progressive blog. Such diaries need to be trashed.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
And in their mind, those aren't "failures" (4.00 / 2)
in the collective thinking of the administration, preventing single payer was a success.

Preventing drug importation was a success.

Preventing a cap on exorbitant credit card interest rates was a success.

Preventing cramdowns that people in distress could actually qualify for was a success.

Not opening investigations into Bush-era abuses of civil liberties was a success.

Maintaining the practice of renditions was a success.

Throwing Valerie Plame under the bus was a success.

Avoiding a carbon tax was a success.

On, and on...

[ Parent ]
Why you hater you (0.00 / 0)
Aren't you fired up and ready to go?

;-)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
What is your source? (0.00 / 0)
On the "collective thinking of the administration"?
[ Parent ]
This would've been a more substantive first post... (0.00 / 0)
That would not have been TRed by me, even if it wouldn't have had as much to do with the diary, at least there's a point in here.
[ Parent ]
wtf... (4.00 / 1)
I'm not enamoured with Obama at all... I've been frustrated with him throughout the entire HCR process and, yeah, I'm pretty angry at him right now.  But this comment is (you even seem to concede, as your "reason" still has nothing to do with the post) has nothing to do with Lux's post and the only purpose of it is to enflame.  Honestly, this seems pretty straightforward to me and I'm not in the habit of TRing people because I disagree with them (and to be honest, I don't use it very often, but things hva, but I guess a lot of people now see any motivation to shit all over Obama as reason enough to post (and uprate).
[ Parent ]
To correct my own post for clarity... (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, started to correct something in the middle of the post, then got distracted and posted anyway... to clarify the middle of the post that says "but things hva" should be:

"but things have been more ridiculous as of late"

[ Parent ]
There is quite a bit of shilling and/or fan boy (4.00 / 1)
responses to policy online. From the claims of how the bill will help them personally although people repeatedly point out the fact that the language is weak with regard to the issue that they say they will be helped by to exaggerated claims about how the president has no influence over Congress to attacks on anyone who says anything about the president in a negative way such as Feingold, Webba and Conyers. At this point, I don't know who is legit and who is not.  
[ Parent ]
Think you already point to the problems... (0.00 / 0)
No room for error in the Senate along with needing people to be "serious about negotiation" pretty much means that there will probably be little to no improvement in conference.  I don't think Lieberman, Conrad, Nelson, etc, are that "serious" about negotiating anything.

I hope I'm wrong.

who goes first (4.00 / 1)
it'll be interesting to see if we hear anything from Pelosi or other House people about who will vote first on the conference report. personally, i'd be damned if i'd go through the work of trying to get whatever Soylent Health Care bill comes out through a tough House vote and then have to sit around again and watch the Senate fiddle...

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.
Admitting my ignorance here (0.00 / 0)
But who votes on the conference report?  A committee or the body?
[ Parent ]
The body (0.00 / 0)
Both bodies.  It's the conference report that becomes the actual law, and thus has to pass both houses and be signed by the president.
[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
Is the report written by a committee?  Who's on it in the House?
[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
The "report" is actually a complete, merged bill, written by the conference committee, which contains members from both houses.  The committee doesn't exist yet, it won't be chosen until after the Senate bill passes and Congress comes back for the new year.

I'm not an expert on how conference committees are selected.  According to Wikipedia, "The conference committee is usually composed of the senior Members of the standing committees of each House that originally considered the legislation," but I think this can vary.

[ Parent ]
right (0.00 / 0)
sorry, i've been reading too much jargon and i was echoing it back. i meant The Bill, the final (maybe) version that, if it passes, goes to Obama for his photo op. er, signature.

who's on the real committee, if not the official one: Pelosi, Reid, Rahm. plus whoever they want to talk to.

as far as i can tell, there's no strict rule about who votes first, the House or the Senate. but if the bill fails in the first chamber to vote on it, it goes back (or can go back) to the committee. once it passes on one side, though, that's not an option. it either passes on the other side too or it dies.

we've seen that there is zero reason to trust any "deals" in the Senate until they actually vote on it. the House ought to insist on it.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

[ Parent ]
I'm wondering how much support the (0.00 / 0)
reform (if I can't still call it that) effort can lose before Democratic pols start jumping ship. I mean, a majority oppose it right now; it must be about 70 percent in conservative states. When was the last time a party held its caucus together for a major bill this unpopular?
I've been trying to argue this all weekend, Mike, to no avail (4.00 / 1)
Yes, Obama made a deal with the devil (Big Pharma/Big Insurance) to get this damned thing passed.  Not going to rehash that, and I have no problem in calling a spade a spade.

However, with any small change the House wants to insist on now that doesn't upset that deal, such as, as you point out, who pays for it (the rich or working people), I simply don't see how the Senate can justify resisting.  Lieberman's an asshole but do you see even him saying "I'm going filibuster a bill I voted for because it hurts the rich too much"?  I don't see it.  The House has strong grounds to stand on here, because they are the ones who have to face the voters.

I'm not as optimistic about the abortion situation, but the two-check thing is certainly obnoxious.  It will probably take Obama stepping out on a limb to get that improved, but that's something I guess I've lost hope of seeing audacity on.

But I find it amazing that people think Obama's declared war on us and that beating us is his central goal in all this and who therefore refuse to even imagine the possibility of any improvement from the House now.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Because in recent history (0.00 / 0)
caving to the more conservative senate and WH is what the house has done, on FISA, Patriot Act, financial reform, etc. It does so kicking and screaming, with lots of passionate speechifying. But in the end it ALWAYS caves. Which I expect it to now. It all comes down to the chilling threat made to a house progressive a while back, that if they opposed the WH, they'd be politically dead.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
That was when House was doing stuff to undermine the private insurance industry. (4.00 / 1)
That's long gone.

If nothing else would let us conduct an experiment to determine the following:

1) Is Obama's project the active crushing the Left?

or

2) Is Obama's project simply to be a centrist Democratic-lite president and somewhat interested in the success of this goal.

We've certainly disproven

3) Is Obama's project the remaking of America along classic New Deal lines?

But I would still like to see if it's 1 or 2.  Seems worth knowing to me.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Haha... (4.00 / 1)
"I'm going filibuster a bill I voted for because it hurts the rich too much"?  I don't see it."

You don't?  Lieberman publicly supported Medicare buy-in for age 50+ just 3 months ago and supposedly told Harry Reid he liked the original gang of 10 compromise (which included it), only to stab everyone in the back a few days later.  If "liberals" get anything out of conference you can be sure that Lieberman will proudly proclaim he'll filibuster on any and every camera that gets put in his face.

[ Parent ]
"you can be sure" (0.00 / 0)
How can you?

Read my whole argument.  Obama got a bill.  It preserves his unholy deal with the insurance industry.  He's still got to try to come out of the 2010 elections with something.  He'll expect to lose seats but not his majority.  He's already taken hits enough from the Left and our guys aren't shutting up even when voting for this crappy bill.  (see Feingold)

But when you put it squarely - tax the rich or tax the working people, if Lieberman is so craven that he'd filibuster even that - Obama might finally have to apply a little pressure the other way.  

It's at least worth the gamble.  What is there to lose by trying?  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'm okay with that and at worst we've learned one more depressing fact.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Not that I don't hope there's some pressure going the other way... (0.00 / 0)
We just have yet to see it yet, and at this point there is nothing I wouldn't expect Lieberman to do if it somehow punched liberals in the gut.  He's not negotiating in good faith.... he's not really "negotiating" at all... basically just demanding, and the Dems have seemed willing to appease.
[ Parent ]
What I never bought (4.00 / 4)
and which made me instantly question the credibility and good faith of anyone who invoked it, was the lame "defense" of the senate version of this bill on the basis of how we supposedly "can't get everything we want", and "Let's not make the perfect be the enemy of the good"--clarion calls of defenders of the status quo the world over.

What made me question these was that they were ALWAYS used against progressives trying to make the bill better, and NEVER used against ConservaDems trying to make it worse. It was always progressives who were expected to be reasonable, realistic and ready to compromise in the name of progress, never ConservaDems, making these trite cliches especially hollow and disengenuous in the instance.

When Howard Dean called for killing the bill, his sanity and good faith were questions. When Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman threatened to kill the same bill, no one dared question either their state of mind or good faith. Which, to me, revealed the sheer and utter dishonesty of those who defended this bill and its proponents BY attacking its opponents (as opposed to by doing so on honest policy and politics analysis).

No surer sign of paid, volunteer and duped shills for bad policy than their use of ad hom, lies and shallow sloganeering. I'm not saying that there haven't been principled (if reluctant) supporters of the senate bill (e.g. Sanders, Feingold, Franken). But the most energetic and strident defenders have done so on such a basis, from the big guy on down.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Do we have Ben Nelson's game down pat now? (0.00 / 0)
Straddle the middle and extort special treatment for Nebraska.

This is a moral hazard as others are bound to adopt this practice after seeing how successful it is (Nelson wins by huge margins in a deep red state).

This would happen whether you would need 60 or 50 votes by the way.

Bottom line? Ben Nelson can always be bought.

So can the people who bought him (4.00 / 2)
This has been a team effort, this sellout to special interests and the unprincipled people who represent them.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
and OFA is asking... (4.00 / 2)
Nebraskans to call and thank him. Gotta reward that bad behavior.
[ Parent ]
Good post, Mike. (4.00 / 2)
We may be able to improve the bill.  It may never become a "good" bill, but we may be able to make it less bad and accomplish something.

Don't give up.  The real fight has just begun.  

why things don't change (4.00 / 1)
As I have written before, no step in the process of passing a health care bill was ever destined to be easy

Yes, but this is WHY it never was:

In my view first and foremeost progressives must explore in depth the triangulation/reconciliation that encompasses the Wall Street/Bilderberg alliance betwee "liberals" and "conservatives" in both political parties. This is not the Democrat vs. Republican bullshit narrative embraced by the mainstream media.

Take a gander at the folks below who are members of Bilderberg or who have attended Bilderberg events. These are some of the richest and most powerful members of America's ruling class. They have enormous influence in the creation of policy [and the funding of the policy makers] in Washington.

paul gigot henry kissinger henry kravis hank paulson richard perle condolezza rice mark sanford paul wolfowitz alan greenspan douglas feith chuck hagel dan quayle donald rumsfeld john sununu evan bayh ben bernanke bill clinton richard holbrooke bill kristol bill richardson hillary clinton tim geithner larry summers george mitchell charlie rose george stephanopolus kathleen sebelius dennis ross david rockefeller vernon jordan david gergen harold ford diane fienstein chris dodd etc etc etc

Is this a Democratic bunch? a Repbublican bunch? a liberal bunch? a conservative bunch?

Or take a gander at the corporations that are involved in one capacity or another with Bilderberg:

chase manhattan bank goldman sachs aig washington post company xerox ford motor exxon mobil shell bp fox news corporation merck archer daniels midland monsanto ibm etc etc etc

What sort interests do all of these folks share in common?

Crony capitalism, of course. A fake democracy that is trotted out whenever policy and legislation revolves around really, really, really important economic or foreign policy.

If you want the audacity of real change elect democrats and independents to the Congress and the White House who are not part of the revolving door, mainstream media crowd above.

No liberals on that list (0.00 / 0)
There's no one on your list that a consensus of mainstream experts would likely classify as liberal, certainly none "strongly liberal."  Lots of moderate, maybe moderate-liberal Democrats.

I'm not using a radical standard.  To illustrate, I would consider the following unambiguously liberal: Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin, Barbara Boxer, Frank Lautenberg, Ted Kennedy.

Not necessarily my favorite group of politicians, but liberals.

I think you have a point, but don't agree that there are many actual liberals among the crony capitalists.

[ Parent ]
idealism (0.00 / 0)
To me the distinction between liberals and progressives is the extent to which they grasp the nature of political economy---and the role Wall Street plays in subverting democracy in Washington.

Liberals are often idealists. They have an idea of how this would be a better world but they don't have a firm grasp of either the class struggle [however far removed it now is from Marx and Lenin] or the Bilderberg forces.

Some progressives of course still cling to Marxism. That's just another kind of idealism to me. They call it "scientific" and "materialism". But it's still idealism to me.

[ Parent ]
The difference (0.00 / 0)
can quite simply be defined as between those interested in effective policy, and those interested in politics.
Who is on which side? n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Are you sure the Senate bill won't pass in the House? (0.00 / 0)
That's a pretty big assumption.

You ask:

The House bill had a two vote margin last time. Say you can pick up 10 moderate Dems who voted no last time. How many votes will be lost on the choice language? How many on the benefits tax? How many on the lack of a public option? How many on the combination of all of the above?

Those are good questions, but you and I and all of us don't know the answers yet, so I'm not sure we should assume the answers.  I would predict that if the bill went to the House in its current form, it would be a very, very close vote. There would be a lot of pressure from Obama and Pelosi to get just enough votes to pass the bill. And when push comes to shove, progressive Democrats in the House are not going to go against Obama on this.

I say this because I think you misread the balance of power in the negotiations. Nelson and Lieberman are not going to compromise more than a very tiny bit, because they're willing to let the bill die. The House is going to do 99% of the compromising, because they won't be willing to let the bill die. That's just the politics of the bill, and we shouldn't be surprised by it when it happens.

DemConWatch

No I'm not sure (0.00 / 0)
and you may be right.

But, Obama has won the intra-party battle.  He can afford to be magnanimous with the left at this point and it's probably in his interest to do so.  He ought to be interested in remotivating his base, now that he's gotten the main thing he wanted.  If he isn't, the sooner we find that out, the better.

No, I'm not sure, but an awful lot of people here ARE sure the other way and they shouldn't be, IMHO.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
re: bill (0.00 / 0)
Nelson and Lieberman are not going to compromise more than a very tiny bit, because they're willing to let the bill die. The House is going to do 99% of the compromising, because they won't be willing to let the bill die.

you can vote no against the current bill and not let hcr die

with a no vote you force obama to go to reconciliation

and obama will go there if forced, he may not want a po but he wants hcr fail even less

[ Parent ]
Some more simple facts (0.00 / 0)
Nancy Pelosi is the best Speaker, and best Democratic House leader, since Tip O'Neill...

We live in different worlds.  I can't name one major progressive accomplishment that Nancy Pelosi has had - ever.  I can, however, easily name many conservative ones. (e.g. keeping impeachment and investigations "off the table"; keeping single payer "off the table"; pushing through a blatantly unconstitutional bill of attainder against ACORN; condemning MoveOn for not properly worshiping Petraeus; passing a resolution declaring that Christians are wonderful; fully funding all Bush's military blunders; telecom immunity; and on and on).  If this is the best, then the Democrats are truly hopeless.

Mike, I understand you bounce between the netroots and the Village quite a bit, and I appreciate your insight, but take off your Village hat for just a moment.

What many of us see is faux opposition from the right (death panels, socialism, etc.) that has been ineffective at moving poll numbers much, but extremely effective at eliminating left wing criticism as a topic.

Teabaggers are a ridiculously small and irrelevant group.  Despite tons of corporate financing and publicity from all networks (including actual advocacy from FOX), their 9/12 national rally still couldn't attract enough people to fill a medium sized football stadium.  They are not a force; they are an excuse.

There are two major interests colliding here:  the wishes of a large, consistent, majority of Americans on one hand; and truckloads of bribe money on the other.  We see clearly which side the Democrats have chosen.

Granted, we don't have nearly the cash or power of the industries' lobby, but we knock on doors, make phone calls, donate money, and try and spread the word.

We may not have the numbers or organization necessary to kill this bill right now.  But that doesn't mean we can't seriously damage the Democratic party next year and beyond.

The Republican Party has been all but destroyed due to it's slavish pursuit of the corporate agenda. If the Democrats refuse to note that history, I for one will be happy to watch their doomed repetition.

Use Google (4.00 / 2)

I can't name one major progressive accomplishment that Nancy Pelosi has had - ever.  

She stopped Bush's attempt to eliminateprivatize Social Security.

She got a healthcare reform bill with the public option (admittedly with the Stupak monstrosity, but remember she had already had the experience of having major legislation (TARP) fail unexpectedly).

She got a stimulus bill that was pretty good until President Nelson and President Collins neutered it.

On war funding, it's pretty clear that from here on out, Obama is on his own (until he can replace Pelosi with Hoyer).

She gets poor press, but overall we could (and probably will) do a hell of a lot worse.

[ Parent ]
Pelosi stopped social security privatization? (0.00 / 0)
Sure she was involved, but so were millions and millions of other Americans.  But hey, all those letters and calls we made weren't that important.  It was all Nancy Pelosi.

As for the rest, well, there doesn't appear to be anything else despite your masterful use of teh Google.  The House health care bill isn't law (and it's public option only permits roughly 2% of the population to join); her stimulus bill, as you note, was effectively neutered and is not law; and all we have are her promises on war funding.  Promises are not accomplishments. Moreover, she's made those promises before.

But even if all these "accomplishments" are taken as a given, it's still a pretty thin resume for someone who's been Speaker for three years and in Congress for over twenty.

[ Parent ]
Last I heard.... (0.00 / 0)
....Speaker of the House does not control the Senate.  The Senate is a national embarrassment.

Pelosi stopped Bush's assault on Social Security.  Had Hoyer or Immanuel been speaker, they probably would have yielded to Beltway conventional wisdom and offered a "plan" that would have been the starting point for Bush.

And it's scary to think what would have happened had Obama been Speaker at the time.....

[ Parent ]
especially as that would mean that scores of more senior (D) reps had died (0.00 / 0)
n_n
[ Parent ]
Some more simple facts (0.00 / 0)
Nancy Pelosi is the best Speaker, and best Democratic House leader, since Tip O'Neill...

We live in different worlds.  I can't name one major progressive accomplishment that Nancy Pelosi has had - ever.  I can, however, easily name many conservative ones. (e.g. keeping impeachment and investigations "off the table"; keeping single payer "off the table"; pushing through a blatantly unconstitutional bill of attainder against ACORN; condemning MoveOn for not properly worshiping Petraeus; passing a resolution declaring that Christians are wonderful; fully funding all Bush's military blunders; telecom immunity; and on and on).  If this is the best, then the Democrats are truly hopeless.

Mike, I understand you bounce between the netroots and the Village quite a bit, and I appreciate your insight, but take off your Village hat for just a moment.

What many of us see is faux opposition from the right (death panels, socialism, etc.) that has been ineffective at moving poll numbers much, but extremely effective at eliminating left wing criticism as a topic.

Teabaggers are a ridiculously small and irrelevant group.  Despite tons of corporate financing and publicity from all networks (including actual advocacy from FOX), their 9/12 national rally still couldn't attract enough people to fill a medium sized football stadium.  They are not a force; they are an excuse.

There are two major interests colliding here:  the wishes of a large, consistent, majority of Americans on one hand; and truckloads of bribe money on the other.  We see clearly which side the Democrats have chosen.

Granted, we don't have nearly the cash or power of the industries' lobby, but we knock on doors, make phone calls, donate money, and try and spread the word.

We may not have the numbers or organization necessary to kill this bill right now.  But that doesn't mean we can't seriously damage the Democratic party next year and beyond.

The Republican Party has been all but destroyed due to it's slavish pursuit of the corporate agenda. If the Democrats refuse to note that history, I for one will be happy to watch their doomed repetition.

Some more simple facts (4.00 / 1)
Nancy Pelosi is the best Speaker, and best Democratic House leader, since Tip O'Neill...

We live in different worlds.  I can't name one major progressive accomplishment that Nancy Pelosi has had - ever.  I can, however, easily name many conservative ones. (e.g. keeping impeachment and investigations "off the table"; keeping single payer "off the table"; pushing through a blatantly unconstitutional bill of attainder against ACORN; condemning MoveOn for not properly worshiping Petraeus; passing a resolution declaring that Christians are wonderful; fully funding all Bush's military blunders; telecom immunity; and on and on).  If this is the best, then the Democrats are truly hopeless.

Mike, I understand you bounce between the netroots and the Village quite a bit, and I appreciate your insight, but take off your Village hat for just a moment.

What many of us see is faux opposition from the right (death panels, socialism, etc.) that has been ineffective at moving poll numbers much, but extremely effective at eliminating left wing criticism as a topic.

Teabaggers are a ridiculously small and irrelevant group.  Despite tons of corporate financing and publicity from all networks (including actual advocacy from FOX), their 9/12 national rally still couldn't attract enough people to fill a medium sized football stadium.  They are not a force; they are an excuse.

There are two major interests colliding here:  the wishes of a large, consistent, majority of Americans on one hand; and truckloads of bribe money on the other.  We see clearly which side the Democrats have chosen.

Granted, we don't have nearly the cash or power of the industries' lobby, but we knock on doors, make phone calls, donate money, and try and spread the word.

We may not have the numbers or organization necessary to kill this bill right now.  But that doesn't mean we can't seriously damage the Democratic party next year and beyond.

The Republican Party has been all but destroyed due to it's slavish pursuit of the corporate agenda. If the Democrats refuse to note that history, I for one will be happy to watch their doomed repetition.

Another pelosi accomplishment for you (0.00 / 0)
Condemning the Goldstone report and rushing through sanctions on Iran - actions designed to appease a foreign interest and its all powerful lobby in this country. On another level, those types of sappy, sloppy "resolutions" were just one more conservative capitulation to corporate and special interests. It's all of the same cloth - he who pays the piper sets the tune.

Interestingly, those kind of silly resolutions, along with automatic approval of bloated 'defense" budget (in reality, the only good "jobs" program we got) are the only ones that get near unanimous approval in both houses. That, more than anything, should tell us something. Maybe all we really need to know?

[ Parent ]
Prediction (4.00 / 1)
The Senate version of the bill will pass the House, and the Dems will capitulate. It is what you do.  
Nancy Pelosi is the best Speaker, ... (4.00 / 2)
and best Democratic House leader, since Tip O'Neill, but not even she cannot corral 218 votes for the Senate bill.

Why on Earth should she want to?

This bill needs killing - badly (4.00 / 2)
Everyone needs to be serious about negotiation here, or this thing will not get done.  

Not getting "It" done is the best thing progressives can push for. Even if it's necessary to hold up one's nose and make common purpose with libertarians. If ever there was a lousy bill, this is it. We have - at the urging of Chris - 40+ representatives who committed to not passing a bill without a public option. we should hold them to it, because of all the reasons we campaigned for that in the first place. otherwise, what was it really all about?

Should this bill pass, it'd mean the end of the progressive movement as we know it - that's my prediction. Those who keep harping on the "It's a start....it'll get better..." are just a new brand of polyanna, or if they are politicians like harkin and brown, they are just lying - again. NOTHING will be improved on this bill because the will that wasn't there before, will be even less after 2010 and the projected losses. The white house that gave everything to the corporations before will be lobbying for them to keep their gain. If I can see this far away from the seats of power, so can they.

Time to face the truth: this white house is not on our side - any more than bush's was. I am beginning to understand the deep cynicism of ron paul's libertarian supporters, I think. And am newly appreciative of the courage and integrity of dennis kucinich. People who think their kind of principled attitude is destructive to democratic majorities should consider what good these majorities have been for us, the people.

To those who keep pushing for this travesty of a bill, just like those who kept apologizing for upholding torture and war and give-aways to wall street, I say:  "we are all liebermans now".

As for me, I just called my representative - anna eshoo - to assure her that my vote for her and for my democratic senators (boxer, feinstein) is entirely dependent on her holding the line against the senate bill in its current version. If because of such votes, democrats lose their precious majority, perhaps it's no great loss, given the reality of our congress. Besides, that majority will be lost in any case, and maybe not a moment too soon.

Simple Facts | 49 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox