I'm starting to realize something regarding health care and other issues.

[drm604]

Some of you may have noticed (as if anybody here notices little old me) that I've become very frustrated lately at the seeming inability of our Representatives and Senators to do anything other than compromise. Compromise in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the nature of the forces with which they're compromising makes any compromise worthless as far as achieving any real change.

I've looked at what's going on and thought, what the hell? Why don't we force this thing. Why don't we make them literally filibuster? I mean real "read the damned phone book and pee their pants" type filibustering. Or why not change the parliamentary procedures to lower the votes required for cloture? Or use reconciliation to open up Medicare to anyone who wants in?

But I think I may be seeing some method to the madness. 2010. Don't rock the boat but pass something that will help a lot of people in the short run. This hopefully will win us more seats next year and hopefully we can then have a large enough majority to push through what is needed.

If we mess with the filibuster or if we use reconciliation to force things through, that just gives the right-wing noise machine more ammunition, more talking points about how "partisan" we are, and about how we "undemocratically" force things through. Maybe we're better off if we lay low until after the elections.

On Edit:
I'm not saying that I advocate such a plan, just that I think that it may be what they're thinking. I personally need health care change as soon as possible.

[valerief]

1. Yes, let's keep waiting until we're all dead. Good strategy. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. +1 nt

[ThomWV]

3. There is no reason to suspect the President will be in a stronger position 4 years from now

Or even that Mr. Obama will be the President 4 years from now and predicating future success on current defeat doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

By the way, you write a very clear posting.

[rucky]

4. If people see a short-term benefit in what we "ram through"...

then why would that hurt any supporters' chances of reelection?

[joeycola]

5. help in the short run? The proposals are not effective till 2013 from

what I have read.

[drm604]

10. If that's true then the plan wouldn't depend on helping people immediately.

But they still may be trying to not rock the boat in the hopes of improving their position next year.

I'm not saying that it's a good plan, just that it may be what they're thinking. They do seem to be overly cautious.

[joeycola]

16. TOO overly cautious.

[drm604]

6. I'm not saying that it's a good plan. But it may be their plan. n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. And then there are folks like me

My circumstances are such that I simply cannot afford to be patient while Congress and the President cannot manage to enact menaingful healthcare reform. It is not an academic issue for me. It has daily consequences. If Dems can't manage to enact some kind of meaningful reforms then come 2010 I'm going to be thinking twice about whether or not to vote for some of the bastards. A Dem who does not protect or advance my needs and interests is no better than a puke who does likewise.

[drm604]

11. You and I are in the same boat. n/t

[scubadude]

8. Imagine if Lincoln had compromised with the slave owners....

Gee, no more new slaves, but the ones you've got can be used to breed more...

We have to get away from compromises in this case. The insurance companies are trying to economically enslave us with their ever increasing rates. We have to strike back and say no to economic enslavement.

Have you hugged your insurance rate hike today?

Scuba

[obliviously]

9. The problem is within the party

It won't make a difference if more democrats are elected in 2010 there is a line of disagreement within the party. You can eliminate the republicans but as long as you have conservative voters you are still going to have conservatives elected the difference is they will be within the democrat party.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

It's a big club and you (and I) ain't in it.

We're not going to win any seats.
We're not going to get any reform.
We're not going to retrieve our ownership of the government.

I don't know what the fuck we were thinking when nominated someone for whom "optional universal" healthcare was anything other than a complete oxymoron.

[valerief]

13. Bingo! nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. +1 nt

[vi5]

14. The problem is they are lock step....we are not....

There was a dead-on letter in my NJ paper today that basically pointed out the absurdity in the fact that every republican seems to agree about every single thing. Even if they don't actually, they do with regard to voting and with regard to words and rhetoric. At best the moderates stay silent but still vote lock step.

Our party is all over the map and has been for a while and as much as I hate to say it, until we get some kind of cohesive message and party unity and lock step voting going we are going to continue to be in this mess.

I don't know how we got from coming close to the start of what could have been a lifetime of democratic rule and republicans in exile to completely crashing and burning in less than 9 months. It's insane.

Bottom line is our leadership sucks. Reid and Pelosi refuse to put their foot down, refuse to lead, and they refuse to "punish" (I hate using that word but it's the only one that really applies) those who would put themselves and their own ambitions and their own public profiles above the good of the country. The fact is that Reid and Obama sent a message with how they handled a problem like Leiberman and now every wannabe "moderate" or "centrist" knows there are no ramifications and no repurcussions for doing what Leiberman did and if anything they'll get more media attention.

[RKP5637]

22. Excellent Points! Agree 100%!

[MadHound]

15. HOW MUCH MORE OF A MAJORITY DO YOU FUCKING NEED TO PUSH THROUGH A LIBERAL AGENDA?

Fuck that shit! Pardon my language, but we've been subjected to this same sort of shit for far too long. First it was that we didn't have a majority in either house of Congress, then that we didn't have a Dem in the White House. Well gee, we've now got huge majorities in both houses (including a veto proof majority in the Senate until Kennedy passed on) and a Dem in the White House. If not now, when?

No more excuses, no more kicking the can down the road, the Democrats need to stop being such goddamn spineless wimps and push their agenda through. My God, if we had this sort of pussy footing around during the thirties, we never would have pulled out of the Great Depression, wouldn't have had the New Deal, wouldn't have Social Security or Unemployment Insurance. If Democrats had this sort of spineless behavior in the sixties, we wouldn't have had Medicare, Medicaid, or Civil Rights legislation passed through.

You're not only wrong about this, but you are continuing to enable this sort of spineless, weak kneed behavior on the part of the Democrats. Instead of compromising and equivocating, trying to be bipartisan and work with screaming conservative idiots, Obama needs to push through his inject some fortitude into Congressional Dems, kick their ass into gear and push through his agenda. Now is the time, and if you wait and delay you're simply going to lose seats in 2010 and the presidency in 2012.

[undeterred]

18. +100

[drm604]

19. I agree. n/t

[TransitJohn]

20. Bullshit.

It's about '10 elections alright, and keeping the pharma and insurance campaign contributions flowing. All the flowery justifications for selling out the American people to corporations can't change that.

[SoCalDem]

21. Why we can't.. "We" gave them our proxy when we elected them

"They" all belong to the same club..they all know the "secret handshake", and look out for each other, no matter how they squabble for the tv cameras.

"Their" pensions & health care-in-perpetuity are guaranteed..even if they go to jail.

"We" only matter when they want our votes.