Democrats Bends Over (Health Care)

[The Romulan Republic]

-You clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say so I'll try saying it again. I think Republicans taking power in the future is inevitable if the Democrats fail to enact any significant part of the progressive agenda which others have already outlined above. I don't know if it will be next election or some time further down the road though.

I understand what you're saying here, and you may be right. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what voting against the Democrats as you and others have suggested will accomplish. One might do so anyway, if they find the Democrats' conduct so reprehensible that they cannot ethically justify voting for them again even when the alternative is GOP rule, but I fail to see what it will accomplish, other than handing the country to the Republicans faster.

The best solution might be to support challenges to the "Blue Dogs" and the cowards in the primaries, I suppose. But that risks simply dividing the party and leaving a united GOP as the only functioning party.

[Nova Andromeda]

I understand what you're saying here, and you may be right. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what voting against the Democrats as you and others have suggested will accomplish. One might do so anyway, if they find the Democrats' conduct so reprehensible that they cannot ethically justify voting for them again even when the alternative is GOP rule, but I fail to see what it will accomplish, other than handing the country to the Republicans faster.

-What we hope we will accomplish is to trade short term loses (which we stand a good chance of having anyhow) for long term victories by making the Democrats fear their base the same way the Republicans fear theirs.

[ray245]

So a big question, is the progressives in the US a substantial % of the population such that catering to them will actually do the Democrats any good, actually?

Someone in the other thread mentioned that it was 20 percent.

-What we hope we will accomplish is to trade short term loses (which we stand a good chance of having anyhow) for long term victories by making the Democrats fear their base the same way the Republicans fear theirs.

How the hell are you going to do that? It's far easier for the mindless "middle" to reasonate with the conservatives than to reasonate with the liberals. The influence of the liberals are not even comparable to the teabagers, given that US is a conservative country.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So a big question, is the progressives in the US a substantial % of the population such that catering to them will actually do the Democrats any good, actually?

Someone in the other thread mentioned that it was 20 percent.

Which is such a pathetic number, even catering to it might not do the Democrats any good.

[aerius]

I understand what you're saying here, and you may be right. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what voting against the Democrats as you and others have suggested will accomplish. One might do so anyway, if they find the Democrats' conduct so reprehensible that they cannot ethically justify voting for them again even when the alternative is GOP rule, but I fail to see what it will accomplish, other than handing the country to the Republicans faster.

One theory I've heard is that it'll fuck things up faster & harder and get enough people pissed off to the point where they'll force government reform. Basically, try to crash the system and fuck up the country as soon as possible to force a reset of the government system.

[ray245]

I understand what you're saying here, and you may be right. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what voting against the Democrats as you and others have suggested will accomplish. One might do so anyway, if they find the Democrats' conduct so reprehensible that they cannot ethically justify voting for them again even when the alternative is GOP rule, but I fail to see what it will accomplish, other than handing the country to the Republicans faster.

One theory I've heard is that it'll fuck things up faster & harder and get enough people pissed off to the point where they'll force government reform. Basically, try to crash the system and fuck up the country as soon as possible to force a reset of the government system.

Meh, I have no faith in the American leadership to reform the US. Who knows, for all we know, people would want to vote for a even more conservative nut-job to run the nation once things is getting more and more fucked up.

[Vympel]

Its going to be pretty hard to make Democrats afraid of their base when the emerging fucking idiotic conventional wisdom from Versailles on the Potomac is "you need to stop being so leftist" - i.e. be more like the Republicans.

Maybe they should be more like the GOP and grow a set of fucking balls, the damn losers.

[The Romulan Republic]

One theory I've heard is that it'll fuck things up faster & harder and get enough people pissed off to the point where they'll force government reform. Basically, try to crash the system and fuck up the country as soon as possible to force a reset of the government system.

Any future political reforms that might result will be little comfort to those who suffer and die in the meantime. And frankly, a total crash of the system would be more likely to result in people rallying around an authoritarian leader who can promise some semblance of order and security (ie, a dictator) than it is to create a more liberal nation. I hate to invoke the Nazis as an example, but remember Germany 1933?

[Pulp Hero]

I just heard GOP senators on NPR this morning, they complained that the democrats had not attempted to be inclusive or bipartisan during the health care bill debacle. Fucking really? Didn't attempt to be bipartisan? So that's why they didn't just shove a bill through the senate back when they had their super majority?

[His Divine Shadow]

Fuck bipartisanship, fuck the republicans and fuck the democrats too.

Well... Got 1 out of 3 there anyway.

[xammer99]

I just heard GOP senators on NPR this morning, they complained that the democrats had not attempted to be inclusive or bipartisan during the health care bill debacle. Fucking really? Didn't attempt to be bipartisan? So that's why they didn't just shove a bill through the senate back when they had their super majority?

I hate to break it too you, but the Republican party has never had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The last true super majority in the Senate was in 1937, and FDR pissed that away with his shenanigans of trying to pack the Supreme Court. Course back then, filibuster proof majorities were serious and required 76 instead of just 60.

[D.Turtle]

So a big question, is the progressives in the US a substantial % of the population such that catering to them will actually do the Democrats any good, actually?

The thing you have to look at is the actual policies proposed. Many progressive/liberal policies have large support - the public option in Healthcare was at 70-80% before the Democrats screwed it up with their pathetic messaging, for example. Increased regulation of Wall Street and financial institutions is also largely supported. And so on.

The problem is that the village mentality of Washington DC and hence the traditional/mainstream media is that the US is a right-of-center country, and that any and all failures by the Democrats are due to not being centrist/moderate/right-leaning enough. This is then picked up by the centrist Democrats to support doing less, which results in everyone being unhappy.

The thing to remember though, is that a lot of progress has been achieved over the last few years. Blue Dog democrats are being elected out, and more and more liberal senators and (especially) representatives in the House are being elected. Lieberman for example was kicked out in his primary and is toast in 2012. There are somewhere around 40-50 liberal Senators and somewhere about 150-180 liberal Representatives. The thing is, the Democratic Party machine is still largely supportive of moderate Democrats, because they serve to protect incumbents. See Lieberman, see Howard Dean in 2004 as examples.

So, yes, the Democratic base IS changing the party, it just takes time.

Oh and as for Health Care Reform: As a result of the lost special election, it could actually be possible to get a better aka more liberal reform now, because if the Democrats want to pass anything, they will be forced to use reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes in the Senate.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So a big question, is the progressives in the US a substantial % of the population such that catering to them will actually do the Democrats any good, actually?

Someone in the other thread mentioned that it was 20 percent.

Which is such a pathetic number, even catering to it might not do the Democrats any good.

Wait . . . what? Twenty percent is a pathetic number? That's not much less than the contingent of Teabaggin' Bible-thumpers who'd vote for the GOP candidate even if he ate live babies slathered in barbecue sauce made from puppies on national television. The GOP has turned pandering to their lunatic base and relying on the general apathy of the Mindless Middle and the antipathy of outraged progressive/liberal interests to sustain them into a political art form.

The Democrats need to stop pandering to the mindless middle while paying only the barest of lip-service to progressives and liberals and have a platform that doesn't consist of "Well, we kinda-sorta suck less than the GOP. But only when they're not making us bend over and squeal like pigs."

[Highlord Laan]

So a big question, is the progressives in the US a substantial % of the population such that catering to them will actually do the Democrats any good, actually?

Not with the boomers around.

[SirNitram]

The media, once again, shows it's thoroughly on the GOP's side, thus poisoning the well against those considering going to the left.

Matthews: There's two facts on the table right now. The Democratic candidate was for the public option. She was very aggressive, very progressive. She was much more progressive than the president. She stuck to the line, "I want an individual mandate and I want a public option." Period. She said it right to the end and never broke from that. So she took the position you're advocating right now. The other guy said I'm going to kill it in its bed. The voters voted for the guy who said he was going to kill it. So the voters had a choice between the public option candidate and kill it and they voted to kill it. So how do you explain that?

Dean: The voters were sending a message to Washington. They asked for change and they haven't gotten change...

Matthews: But she said "I want to give you a public option" and they said no to her...

Dean: They've had a year of dealing with every interst group, the banks ...

Matthews: Governor, you're whistling past the graveyard here. She ran for the public option.

Dean: Our polling shows what it shows.

Matthews: But she's for the public option and got blown away.

Dean: People who are for the public option ...

Matthews: Why didn't they vote for the public option?

Dean: because they wanted to send a message to Washington of real change ...

Matthews: How about voting for a candidate who's more progressive. Wouldn't that have done it?

Dean: You know voters as well as I do and the voters ....

Matthews: I'm just saying that "I'm more progressive than the president, vote for me" and that was Martha Coakley's position and they said no. And the other guy comes along and says, forget about it all, I'm voting to kill it." Ok. He's calling himself Mr 41. This guy, Scott Brown is walking around signing his name, "Scott Brown 41" I'll be the 41st guy who votes for the filibuster.

Dean: There are a lot of people outside Washington who don't thiunk that bill ought to pass because it's too watered down...

Matthews: Not Martha Coakley...she was all the way for a pogressive, public option.

Dean: You're being silly Chris because you know very well what voters do. Voters were sending a message to Washington: we don't want business as usual. That's what they were sending the message about.

Matthews: How do you know that?

Dean: Because we polled

Matthews: But the poll that was taken yesterday, the official poll where people had to go into the booth and vote, they had a choice between a public option candidate and a no candidate. How do you explain that position.

Dean: You can't know what people do in the booth unless you ask them. And we asked them overnight. And we found out that of the Obama supporters who either stayed home or voted for Scott Brown, they overwhlemingly wanted to do more on health care, not less.

matthews: So they were more progressive than the president.

Dean: That's right.

matthews: So on all the issues raised inthe campaign, debt, taxes, the arrogance of the democratic party in Massachusetts, where were the voters?

Dean: the voters were upset by Washington as usual, dealing with special interests, writing a bill that was great for the insurance industry, not doing much about the bankers.

Matthews: That's your position!

Dean: That's not my position that's the voters of Massachusetts.

Matthews: You say the voters of Massachusetts agree with you but they voted republican. Tthat makes no sense.

Dean: It does make sense...

Matthews: You've been in the voting booth. Would you have voted for Scott Brown?

Dean: Of course not.

Matthews: So you rationally would not have voted for the Republican because he's against health care. But you say the voters are irrational. They somehow send smoke signals in their vote. They vote for a conservative Republican who's totally against health care to tell the country they want a progressive health care program. That's crazy.

Are voters crazy? Are voters crazy?

Dean: Chris, there's only one crazy person around here and if I hold up- a mirror you may see him.

Matthews: Voters vote right wing Republican to express progressive values...

[...]

Matthews: Why do you believe that Martha Coakley's defeat meant people wanted a more progressive health care bill?

Dean: I think people are sending a strong message to Washington they want strong leadership, they want real change, and they don't want to accomodate the special intersts. And they think for the last year that the democrats have accomodated special interests. Not just in health care, but in the banking industry and Wall Street, and these other areas as well.

Matthews: So, if you're Scott Brown, and he's listening to this program, and he's learning from you that what he really ought to do is back a public option because people who voted for him were really secretly for the progressive position not for him.

Dean; i'd say you are being silly and you know they're not saying ...

Matthews: Are you saying he should vote for a public option now that he's in the senate?

Dean: You know he's not going to do that. let's be ...

Matthews: Dut you said your polling showed they were for that ...

Dean: Let's be real about this for a minute. the public option is dead this year...

Matthews: But it would be in his political self-interest to vote for the public option you're saying ...

Dean: What I think we ought to do is look forward from this ...

Matthews: But you said the polling said the people were for the public option ...

Dean: I said this is silly, we're not getting anywhere. Do we want to move forward ...

Matthews: No you're being silly. You're saying that no matter who wins an election, your argument wins.

Dean: What I'm saying is, we need a health care bill...

This is from the so-called 'leftist' network MSNBC in prime time: You are always wrong, you're being rejected for being on the left, screw your facts, and conservatives are right. This is the 'leftist' network? Then why are ANY of you surprised the Dems only take losses are repudations?

[Pulp Hero]

I just heard GOP senators on NPR this morning, they complained that the democrats had not attempted to be inclusive or bipartisan during the health care bill debacle. Fucking really? Didn't attempt to be bipartisan? So that's why they didn't just shove a bill through the senate back when they had their super majority?

I hate to break it too you, but the Republican party has never had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The last true super majority in the Senate was in 1937, and FDR pissed that away with his shenanigans of trying to pack the Supreme Court. Course back then, filibuster proof majorities were serious and required 76 instead of just 60.

I'm talking about the Democrats. Republicans claim that that the dems are not being bipartisan, which is clearly untrue, because even with a super majority, dems were still courting lots of republican votes. This effort was met with Tea Partying and populist non-sense.

[Vympel]

I've come to the belief the media isn't on the GOP's side - they just hate losers. I know I do. My reaction to this entire affair has been disgust, because the Democrats are just so fucking useless.

The tongue in cheek references to the Democrats 59-seat minority and the Republicans 41-seat majority aren't far from the truth. Senate democrats are even circulating talking points saying they can't pass health care with "only" 59 votes. Fucking pussies.

[Glocksman]

I've come to the belief the media isn't on the GOP's side - they just hate losers. I know I do. My reaction to this entire affair has been disgust, because the Democrats are just so fucking useless.

The tongue in cheek references to the Democrats 59-seat minority and the Republicans 41-seat majority aren't far from the truth. Senate democrats are even circulating talking points saying they can't pass health care with "only" 59 votes. Fucking pussies.

There is a way to change that, assuming that the Dems manage to hold onto their Senate majority in 2010.
At the beginning of a new session, all it takes is 51 votes to either modify or outright remove the filibuster.

After the rules adoption vote though, it takes a supermajority to change Senate rules.

Personally I've love to see the Democrats man up, strip out the filibuster from the Senate rules, and strip Holy Joe of all his committees and chairmanships.

Though I have a better chance of unseating Obama in 2012 than the Democratic Senate leadership does of growing a set.

[Elfdart]

Tort reform is the one thing I wanted most out of all of this.

Somehow, I doubt you'll ever get tort reform in a country which has the highest per capita lawyer numbers in the world. Unless by reform you mean find a way to make work for even more lawyers.

Personally I think the bill's getting to the point where it's so fucked up that it might as well be killed. I doubt it matters whether they pass it or not, either way enough people are going to get dicked over to make the midterm elections real interesting.

We had tort reform and limits on malpractice awards in Texas, and boy can you see the results in lower costs.

[Master of Ossus]

We had tort reform and limits on malpractice awards in Texas, and boy can you see the results in lower costs.

You realize that "tort reform" constitutes an incredibly broad range of possible actions, right, and that failure or success of a particular series of actions that can be characterized as "tort reform" doesn't say anything at all about the effects of other proposals that can also be described in such terms?

[Simon_Jester]

What are the odds that the same Republicans who gave the Texans state "tort reform" plan an entirely different and better kind of "tort reform" for the nation at large?

[Master of Ossus]

What are the odds that the same Republicans who gave the Texans state "tort reform" plan an entirely different and better kind of "tort reform" for the nation at large?

I wasn't aware that tort reform could only be planned by the same Republicans who gave the Texans state tort reform. Learn something new every day.

[Darth Holbytlan]

There is a way to change that, assuming that the Dems manage to hold onto their Senate majority in 2010.
At the beginning of a new session, all it takes is 51 votes to either modify or outright remove the filibuster.

After the rules adoption vote though, it takes a supermajority to change Senate rules.

I don't think this is correct. While the House is considered to be an entirely new body at the beginning of each session, and therefore must readopt their rules each time, the Senate is a continuing body and maintains its rules from session to session. The effect being that they always need a supermajority to change the rules, so they can't even change the rule requiring a supermajority without one.

2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

[Teebs]

There is a way to change that, assuming that the Dems manage to hold onto their Senate majority in 2010.
At the beginning of a new session, all it takes is 51 votes to either modify or outright remove the filibuster.

After the rules adoption vote though, it takes a supermajority to change Senate rules.

I don't think this is correct. While the House is considered to be an entirely new body at the beginning of each session, and therefore must readopt their rules each time, the Senate is a continuing body and maintains its rules from session to session. The effect being that they always need a supermajority to change the rules, so they can't even change the rule requiring a supermajority without one.

2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

It makes you wish that when the Republicans controlled the Senate and threatened to change the rules if the Democrats used fillibusters on them they had gone through with their threat. We all know the Democrats would have folded on that, so now they would find it much harder to fold.

[Simon_Jester]

What are the odds that the same Republicans who gave the Texans state "tort reform" plan an entirely different and better kind of "tort reform" for the nation at large?

I wasn't aware that tort reform could only be planned by the same Republicans who gave the Texans state tort reform. Learn something new every day.

Look. As a theoretical matter, you're right. Good tort reform can exist; it's possible.

As a practical matter, ANY tort reform we see on a national level in the US is likely to either be spearheaded by the Republicans, or to be something specifically designed to appeal to them. Either way, it's not going to end as well as rational tort reform would. Too much of the impetus behind it will come from people whose real political motive is "I need some fake reform I can present to the public as a change for the better while actually benefiting the companies whose lobbyists I am dependent on."