Here's my issue with the way these debates play out... [View All]

[vi5]

Healthcare is the most immediate and obvious one, but it's basically on everything. Prompted by this post at TPM:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/11/all_about_the_60.php#more?ref=fpblg

I understand that for better or worse we need 60 votes.

I understand that there are a handful of "centrists(ie. attention mongers screaming "Look at meeee...pay attention to meeeeeeeee") and that we need their votes.

I understand that e-mail or phone blasting members of a body of government where 90% of them are on our side and supporting the legislation we want and only a handful are mucking up the works is to some degree counter-productive and wheel spinning with regard to the "PLEASE VOTE FOR THIS!!!!" when most of them are going to anyway.

What the pressure needs to be is for the majority to bring to bear on the minority, even within our own party.

The problem is that the minority (the Nelson's, the Conrad's, the Landrieu's) are the ones calling the shots and saying "Do this or else I won't vote for it." rather than the way it should be with the leadership saying "Vote for this and support the majority of your party or else" and being the ones to dictate the carrot/stick way things will pan out.

And yes, I get it our party is diverse and we should be happy that we don't march in lock steps like the repugs, etc. yeah yeah yeah. And if there were no concessions made to these people of differing opinions then I would agree that it's wrong for us to ram a bill that they completely disagree with down their throat by weilding a big hammer.

But at this point, when concessions have been made, when negotiations have taken place, when they've already had their whims catered to and given their precious media attention.....now is the time to say "We've made the concessions. Now if you still don't vote with us here are the ramifications from that....here is what will happen to your positions of leadership, you committee chairs, your voice within the caucus." I hate to use parenting terms but now is the time where it needs to be said "If you stimey this historic piece of legislation and vote against the very large majority of your party.....this will be your punishment."

Now maybe this is being done behind closed doors. And if things turn out o.k. then I will freely admit that this was the case and that our leadership chose to do this in private and in back room negotiations rather than wielding their power and their hammer in public.

But if this does get stymied and it does fail because of a select few attention mongers and "centrists", and our leadership offers no punishment or ramifications...then that's where I have the issue.

O.K....rant over. Flame away and tell me how great it is that we don't march in lock step like republicans and how democracy is messy and a game of chess and all that.

Thanks for listening.