Unreliable votes from the left only drives legislation further right.

[Barack_America]

So long as the Blue Dogs outnumber the unabashed liberals.

If you want the Blue Dogs to have less influence over legislation, tell people like Kucinich to start voting with Dems when it counts.

If that happens, we'll see less embarrassments like the Stupak Amendment.


Good night.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. The progressive caucus is the largest in congress. They always fold, except for

a few.

If they would actually stick to their guns, like the blue dogs do, they would get more. But they always fold.

If the mainstream Democrats are willing to pass legislation, if need be, on the backs of women, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.

In the Senate, are they going to give away the 8 hour work day and the minimum wage in order top pass this insurance company bailout bill?

It wouldn't surprise me.

Sleep tight

[Scarsdale Vibe]

3. Progressives fold because their constituents actually care about results.

100% of Democrats acknowledge that this bill will result in far fewer unnecessary deaths and bankruptcies in the years to come. Republicans and ideological purists on the left don't care about actual results, they just care about their precious principles, even if it results in death to the sick and poor. The progressives who "folded" and voted for the bill despite the odious Stupak amedment are to be commended, Kucinich and Massa should be primaried and replaced with people capable of empathy.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. In the short run, maybe, in the long run it will be worse than doing nothing. I'm a

Democratic precinct captain, elected to my post, so you are incorrect with your figures.

And I believe you are also incorrect with your assumptions. But of course you are free to hold any assumptions you want, even incorrect ones.

In fact I believe the driving principle for most proponents of this bill is political gain for Obama and the Democratic Party.
They hide that behind their loudly and often professed concern for poor people.

But sucking money away from health care for people hardly helps people get more health care.

This bill doesn't go into effect for what, 4 years?

Is that because you are so fucking concerned with poor sick people? Only 160000 thousand dead?

Medicare was completely populated in 9 months from when it was signed with 10S OF MILLIONS COVERED. millions covered. 9 months. Not the cowardly and kick the can down the road 4 years.

You can talk all self righteous but the facts are clear.

The Democrats, for the most part, are far more worried about the contributions from the insurance and drug industries than they are about poor people.

They just passed this bill on the backs of women. They actually did in one vote what the Republicans haven't been able to do in 40 years. Dennis wouldn't do it though. He said months ago he wouldn't vote for any bill that didn't have a strong public option. And he was true to his word, unlike so many others in our political sphere.

So you might look and see if your heroes kind of look hypocritical, because to me they really do.

Were you this passionate about Romney Care? Because that's what it is, four years from now. And they are cutting benefits in MA because the cost keeps going up. And that's what will happen with this bill because there is no cost control, so it's unsustainable.

A miracle of humanitarianism? No.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

19. The bill goes into effect for me in January of 2010.

And likely hundreds of thousands of others who have pre-existing conditions but no mechanism for pooling our resources together to buy affordable policies. We don't matter to you though. If the bill's not perfect, it's not worth supporting, and damn the consequences for those that are suffering right now.

[Barack_America]

20. But you could die knowing you held out for perfection.

What? Not enough?

:sarcasm:

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Rahnm said all that matters is a bill passes. So it doesn't matter what's in it.

That person is getting it before the Senate votes on it, apparently, is what they said.


And i'm glad for them.

If it doesn't pass the senate, I would suggest moving to MA.

They have the exact same thing and it's already up and running, right now. No waiting.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. Is that befor ethe Senate votes on it and the President passes it? I thought Ried said no

vote until next year?

How much will you be paying for what kind of coverage?

[emulatorloo]

11. You are aware of the Hyde Amendment, which passed in 1976?

It bars the use of federal funds for abortions. It has been on the books for a while.

I don't get the STUPAK amendment, basically it appears to be redundant.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. It prohibits women who are in the federally run insurance exchange from being covered by

insurance that would provide an abortion.

[dflprincess]

2. That makes sense

vote like a conservative to show the liberals mean business. :shrug:

We didn't get a better health care bill because there was no reason not to expect most of the Progressive Caucus to cave - and they did so once again the corporate Democrats won.

What might wake them up is if the liberals stay home on election day or, at least, skip the races where the only option is to vote for a Blue Dog.

[Barack_America]

4. Principle isn't free when it comes to legislation.

Support your caucus or they'll look for support elsewhere. Democrats cannot not afford to allow votes to fail.

That's simply how it goes. Kucinich got to stay "pure" with his vote, but his holding out brought us that much closer to the Stupak Amendment.

[dflprincess]

6. Well, perhaps if they'd left Kucinich's amendment in the bill

so at least the states would have had the right attempt real reform, he might have voted differently. Instead, Pelosi was willing to throw that out and protect the insurance companies.

I'll direct you to my sig line:

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them." Paul Wellstone

The Democratic party stands for less everyday.

[Barack_America]

10. A personal slight was worth the Stupak Amendment?

How noble.

Remind me, how did Weiner and Grijalva vote?

[dflprincess]

12. Not a personal slight - the amendment was a glimmer of hope in a bill otherwise designed to protect

the status quo and shut anyone advocating for true change up.

If the states had been given the right to consider real reform there might have been a reason to support the bill. A lot of us might have felt better about the bill if the was the chance of acutal change, if only state by state. Sadly, it appears that that is no longer an option. I suppose if states were able to do that it would cut into insurance company profits and, more importantly, campaign contributions.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. The rest of the Dems would vote for the bill with anything in it, because winning is their

only principle.

The fact they did it on the backs of women kind of proves it, doesn't it?

It wouldn't matter how bad that bill was they would have voted for it because they see it as a big political coup.


They think it's going to be a bonanza, in votes and in health care industrial money.


Rahm said it quite early on. All that matters is passing a bill, period. And they sure proved that.

[Barack_America]

18. If Dennis had committed to voting for the bill...

...that would have been one step away from the Stupak Amendment the caucus could have taken.

Every time Dennis votes against the caucus, he pushes the legislation closer to the Blue Dogs.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to realize that works in reverse as well, as noted above. Fortunately, other progressives do, saving us at least from ridiculous proposals like a "trigger".

[John Q. Citizen]

22. If the Dems would put up a Democratic bill instead of a kabuki industry bill, all kinds of good

things would happen.

But they can't seem to do that because the money keeps getting in their eyes.


Sorry, I'm not buying your argument that rolling over for the blue dogs or rolling over for the insurance company money is the right thing to do.

If you don't like Dennis, fund his next Repo opponent. You will lose, but at least you will feel like you are doing something for making everyone line up the way you think they should.

Obama wouldn't be President, though, because he would have lined up with the majority and voted for the war, and we wouldn't have voted for him in the primary. So it would all be moot.

[anonymous171]

5. Very wrong. nt

[Barack_America]

7. Show me the math. nt

[MajorChode]

8. I don't really think that every Democrat needs to walk in lock step

But there are some pieces of legislation that need 100% support. The GOPhers damn sure have it. That's why they are able to pass shitpile pieces of legislation like tax cuts for the rich with a slim majority and the Democrats can't even get basic legislation passed with a almost a super majority or at the very least they have to make too many compromises.

[The Magistrate]

9. Those Who Peel Away From Either End, Ma'am, Are Contemptible

Argue the thing out, harshly as you please, till a formula emerges the majority of the caucus can live with. Then, everyone in the caucus votes for it. People who cannot live by this, who cannot live up to it, have no business in politics.

[Barack_America]

15. Indeed.

Kucinich seems better suited for a career in the blogosphere, where principle and purity do not come at a price.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Maybe in your world, but not where I live. By your reasoning, Obama would have voted for the IWR

Or do you imagine we have a parliamentary system?

[The Magistrate]

21. If One Party hangs Together In Parliamentary Style, Sir, While The Other Does Not

The former will enjoy a great advantage over the latter in any legislature. You can see the benefit the Republicans' functioning as a bloc brings them, a influence on events out of all proportion to their numbers. Our lack of discipline is our abiding fault, and you can see the consequences in the poor quality of this Bill.

President Obama, by the way, was not in the Senate when the Iraq War Resolution came up, but in the Illinois legislature.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. What you say makes all the theoretical sense in the world, except in real life it

rarely works like that. Our lack of discipline is also our saving grace.

There is a reason people don't want to be Republican, after all.

[Barack_America]

29. Seems to work for the Republicans in real life.

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

33. If It were Our Saving Grace, Sir, We Would Have Passed 'Single-Payer' Tonight, By Fifty Votes

It is no grace but a curse, and one that smites us regularly.

[villager]

23. "The reason things have moved so far right is because of the left! It's their fault!"

Hmmm... where have I heard that before?

[Barack_America]

25. I don't know. Whom are you quoting?

[John Q. Citizen]

27. It's obvious; They are paraphrasing you but accidentally or

mistakenly used quotes.

But what they say is right on.

That is kind of the essence of what your argument is.

I'm sorry you hate Dennis for doing what he said he would do months ago. He signed a letter that if there wasn't a functional Public Option that he wouldn't vote for the bill.

I think if Obama hadn't blown off the public option and had actually fought for it, that then Dennis would have voted for it and all this misery would have been averted.

So it's all Obama's fault, see? It's Obama's fault that the Dems let a blue dog pass a crappy anti-woman amendment, and then that the Dems voted for the bill with it in it.

Does that make sense? Doesn't to me, unless I employ your thought process, then it makes perfect sense.

[Barack_America]

31. I see. I didn't realize that Kucinich was "the left".

I thought it also included the likes of Grivalva, Weiner and my own Fattah each of whom I happen to have great respect and admiration for.

It's not the fault of the "left" it is the fault of those who will not accept compromise, even for the good of their own constituents.

[Fading Captain]

30. True. So? Move to the left, or get your ass kicked

eom.

[Barack_America]

32. Or, better yet, stand united with Democrats and the entire caucus will shift left.

The equation is reversible, after all.