It's about time real Democrats rise up and STOP...uh...what, exactly?

[Atman]

If "real Democrats" stop this bill, it will go down in history as Clinton II, another failure by the Dems to do ANYTHING.

If they pass it, it will go down in history as a colossal failure of the Democrats to leverage their power in order to help Americans.

And you want them to fix all of this by the Christmas recess?

Any number of us on DU could fix this problem because we don't rely on lobbyists to make a living. Democrats can't rise up and stop shit. They needed long ago to write the bill their constituents said they wanted, what their constituents voted them into office for. The bill which would actually help real Americans. And then, just ram the thing through Congress while telling the Republicans to go fuck themselves. Instead, they chose to help the insurance industry and the status quo.

I'm not sure how any of them sleep at night.

.

[dusmcj]

1. they didn't have the power to leverage. Look at the House re: sexual rights

where there were enough reactionary twats (of either gender) who managed to get elected so that Fartin' Bart Stupak's little piece of pandering to his constituency managed to pass. Based on support of other turdburglars pandering to theirs.

In this case, polls show that more Americans support abortion rights than the House Democratic demographics show. As a people we lean liberal. Except for our political class (and you better believe we have one) which leans in favor of its wallet.

[mullard12ax7]

2. Uh...I don't know...uh...how about war crimes, wars, criminal banks, election rigging

catastrophic global climate ruin, health care instead of health insurance...

Ahhhhhh faget aboutit and don't learn a damn thing.

[Faryn Balyncd]

3. I think your analysis is spot on.....

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Failing to pass a bill will go down as "Clinton II".

And passing a any kind of bill that will satisfy Lieberman & company will indeed go down as "a colossal failure of the Democrats to leverage their power in order to help Americans."

The only thing one might add to this is that the consequences of the second option might be understated.

And when the American people find out just how much they have been screwed in the name of "reform", their rejection of us will have the potential to be much worse than "Clinton II".




Our so-called leaders don't deserve to sleep at night.




(K&R, by the way.)

[grytpype]

4. Hey, great, who are the 60 votes in the Senate for your ideal bill?

Huh?

You don't know, do you.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grytpype]

6. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[LooseWilly]

8. "Cloture" is a Senate rule.

Reid could change the "60" number with 51 votes. He could also do away with it entirely.

That's what the "nuclear option" the Republicans kept threatening back in the day was.

If Reid &/or the WH wanted to play "hard ball", they could do away with the 60 vote cloture rule tomorrow. They could possibly do it tonight, if they can get 51 Senators to show up in the middle of the night.

You are obviously the one who knows not of what you speak...

[kelly1mm]

9. By rule, to change a rule you need 67 votes in the Senate.

The nuclear option is not a "rule change" per say. Rather, it is a finding that the filibuster is, in itself, unconstitutional.

[LooseWilly]

11. Filibusters are not mentioned in the Constitution. Not at all.

They are purely a result of Senate rules.

The Senate does not require a 2/3 majority to change its own rules.

Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution governs the rules of the Congress.
(for reference starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Rules_of_the_United_States_Senate)

Clause 2 governs rules:

Clause 2: Rules
“ Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. ”

Each House can determine its own Rules (assuming a quorum is present), and may punish any of its members. A two-thirds vote is necessary to expel a member.

Nothing there about 2/3 majority (67 of 100). A simple majority, in a legislative body like the Senate, would be sufficient under this law to change the rules. 51 votes.

[Atman]

12. And yet, somehow it was MY reply that got deleted by the mods. WTF?

I don't even remember what I posted, but seriously... I know it wasn't anything bad. WTF, mods?

.

[Atman]

13. And yet, somehow it was MY reply that got deleted by the mods. WTF?

I don't even remember what I posted, but seriously... I know it wasn't anything bad. WTF, mods?

.

[Atman]

14. And yet, somehow it was MY reply that got deleted by the mods. WTF?

I don't even remember what I posted, but seriously... I know it wasn't anything bad. WTF, mods?

.

[Atman]

15. And yet...DU posted THAT reply three times! LOL!

I love this place.

.

[Goldstein1984]

7. They probably sleep very well...

They have money; they have power; they have celebrity; they probably have a lot of things they aren't really supposed to have.

They are in the club. They're having a party and citizens aren't invited.

I don't know how many are corrupt and how many are not, only that enough are corrupt to make our government unresponsive to the people. There are too many Joe Liebermans and not enough Bernie Sanders'.

I struggle to believe that with majorities in the House and Senate, and control of the Whitehouse, so little is being accomplished.

But I'm tired of following the HCR process. What's in or out of the bill today? Who's voting for it and who isn't today? Do we blame the repulsive Republicans, Blue-dog Democrats, ineffective liberal Democrats, Lieberman, lack of leadership from Obama, the insurance industry, or all of them? (If all the answers sound correct, "all of the above" is usually a good choice.)

At this point I just want to see it drop. Then I want responsible media people who still deserve to be called "the press" to put this whole process together so the American people can figure out who was working for them and who was working for the insurance companies. They can ignore the Republicans, we know who they work for, and it isn't us.

Then we start over with all the dirty laundry out in the open, and with the American people sending clear messages to their elected officials telling them we the people are paying attention, we want a single payer system, and we want it soon.

Maybe by then we can get a Bernie Sanders, or a Dennis Kucinich, or even a Thom Hartmann or Ed Shultz to take a very public lead and be the voice of progressives.

But I have a cold, and I'm taking prescription cough medicine, and maybe it's just the codeine talking here.

[Union Yes]

10. Dems can stop war funding in a show of solidarity until real HC reform is passed.

If only they could remember the meaning of the word solidarity.

[Mari333]

16. I think they planned on doing this all along

even if they do get voted out of office in 2010,they have all assured themselves some pretty cushy jobs when they get thrown out of office. Their handlers will treat them very well.
They could care less about the people of the United States.