EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Angry Liberals: Why Didn't Obama Fight?
More than anything else in Barack Obama's presidency so far, health reform has exposed a get-a-deal-at-any-cost side of Obama that infuriates his party's progressives.
President Obama's get-a-deal-at-any-cost philosophy infuriates his party's progressive wing. (Politico collage) And as Democrats tried to salvage health reform Tuesday, some liberals could barely hide their sense of betrayal that the White House and congressional Democrats have been willing to cut deals and water down what they consider the ideal vision of reform.
"The Senate version is not worth passing," former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told POLITICO, referring to plans to strip the latest compromise from the bill, a Medicare buy-in. "I think in this particular iteration, this is the end of the road for reform."
Dean said there are some good elements in the bill, but lawmakers should pull the plug and revisit the issue in Obama's second term, unless Democrats are willing to shortcut a GOP filibuster. "No one will think this is health care reform. This is not even insurance reform," he said.
The White House pushed back hard at liberals' complaints Tuesday, with Obama talking up what's in the plan but not saying a word about what's been left out:
A single-payer plan, a public option, a state "opt-out" of the public option, a trigger and a Medicare buy-in - all ideas pushed by Democrats and blessed by Obama at various times but now gone from the bill.
But it's not just the liberal base that's feeling unsettled. Obama has also proved frustrating to moderates, who simply wanted to know where Obama's core principles on health care stood, all the better to cut a deal to the president's liking.
Time and again, he rebuffed Democrats' requests to speak up more forcefully about what he wanted - a strategy that allowed Obama to preserve maximum flexibility to declare victory at the end of the process, no matter what the final bill looked like.
He began that process in earnest Tuesday after a meeting with Senate Democrats, who are resigned to dropping a Medicare buy-in compromise to win the vote of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and get the 60 votes needed to pass a bill.
Obama hinted at the Democratic retreat on the plan - saying not every senator's favorite ideas can be included in any bill - while staunchly defending what Senate Democrats can accomplish in a bill, including making coverage more affordable for 30 million uninsured Americans, cutting insurance premiums and reducing the budget deficit.
"These aren't small changes. These are big changes. They represent the most significant reform of our health care system since the passage of Medicare. They will save money. They will save families money. They will save businesses money, and they will save government money. And they're going to save lives," Obama said.
In the White House meeting, there were signs of tension within the Democratic Caucus. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a proponent of the public option, challenged Lieberman's arguments that allowing people ages 55 to 64 to buy in to Medicare would add to the deficit and hurt the program.
"I made a direct appeal to him ... and answered the arguments I've heard him make," Brown said. "We're not giving up. It's going to conference."
But in the end, Brown said he would vote for the bill. "I can't imagine I wouldn't. There is just too much at stake," he said.
Obama's need to pass a reform bill ahead of the 2010 elections drove the political calculus as the calendar turned to December, when the days grew short and the pressure to sign something, anything, began to take precedence. Otherwise, Democrats risked facing voters next fall with little to show for a full year of twin congressional majorities. It's what drove White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Lieberman.
The final bill isn't even close to a bill then-U.S. Senate candidate Obama spoke of in 2003, when he said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan," using the terms that commonly refer to a government-run health insurance system.
But whatever Democrats can pass now - if they can pass anything at all - also will fall short of ideas Obama discussed during the year to create a public health insurance plan to provide competition to private insurance companies and keep them honest.
Yet perhaps what angers liberals the most is that Obama himself never seemed willing to push hard enough for the public option - and, in fact, all but took it off the table in August when he said he could sign a bill that didn't include it.
Once Obama said he didn't need a public option, these progressives argue, there was no cost or penalty to be paid by a Lieberman or a Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) or a Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) for taking to the Senate floor and opposing it, too.
Progressives feel betrayed, but are not surprised, by the Senate's move to drop the Medicare buy-in and the public option. They blame Reid and Obama for not exercising their power to fight for the provisions.
Obama's failure to demand a public option and Reid's decision to take reconciliation off the table emboldened moderates who might have thought twice about challenging a popular president or a Democratic majority comfortable with using Senate procedure to pass a bill with 51 votes.
"They were very good at making it look like they wanted a public option in the final bill without actually doing anything to make it happen," said Jane Hamsher, publisher of the liberal blog Firedoglake. "It's hard to believe that the two most powerful people in the country - arguably the world - could not do more to achieve their desired objective than to hand the keys over to Joe Lieberman. They would not be where they are if they are that bad at negotiation."
Press secretary Robert Gibbs defended Obama against charges that he was caving in to moderates to get a final bill passed, even if it risked angering liberals who wanted more government involvement in the health care system.
"There's very little legislation that's passed that has each and every idea that each and every member of the Senate or the House wants to have in it," Gibbs told reporters Tuesday. "On balance, does this legislation make a big difference in the lives of everyday working men and women? It's not even a close call on that."
If Obama was hoping for a triumphant announcement out of a rare White House meeting with the entire Senate Democratic Caucus Tuesday, his measured tone and acknowledgment that differences remain showed how much work is still ahead for Democrats eager to wrap up by Christmas.
Reid was still awaiting a price tag on his bill from congressional scorekeepers, and Nelson said he still can't support the current version of the bill, which lacks the tough anti-abortion language he seeks.
But after leaving the White House meeting, even some of the staunchest public option advocates seemed resigned to passing a bill without it or the Medicare buy-in, a sort of public option for people ages 55 to 64 - a sign of a split between liberal elected officials and the activist base. Obama's argument that Democrats shouldn't pass up a once-in-a-generation chance to achieve reform appeared to be sinking in.
Brown, who has said several times throughout this process - including two weekends ago - that the president needed to get more involved, brushed aside any introspection about what the loss of the public option says about Democrats or the president.
"It says something about the math here," Brown said. "You've got to get all 60 Democrats and independents, and it is hard to do. I want to continue to talk to people. ... I like the bill. I just think we could make it better."
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), also a major advocate of the public option a few months ago, is a convert to the bill. He has a perspective that many of his colleagues lack: He was around 15 years ago when President Bill Clinton rejected compromises that fell short of his goal of providing universal coverage.
"If you think of what I don't get, and you think of what we do get, that's a pretty long list," Rockefeller said.
Carrie Budoff Brown contributed to this story.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
158 Comments so far
Show AllIt's time to pass out the Kool-Aid and start all over again. Universal, Single Payer Healthcare or else.
Obama is fighting as hard as he can -- to crush the little people who are in the way of his corporate gravy train.
Exactly. I would direct the author to read today's article, "White House as Helpless Victim on Health Care" by Glenn Greenwald. I don't know which is worse, pre-emptively crushing health care for all or pre-emptively invading another nation.
Both are devastating. Here they sit, with this much coveted triple majority and they are blowing it - by design. Democrats will lose the majority in the next election and we'll be back with the excuses that we had before: "We just don't have the votes!"
And what's worse, they don't care. That's obvious. Corporations aren't allowed to care if it intrudes on profits, and it's the corporations who are in charge. Obama is just their shill.
We the People need to stoke up that fire in our bellies. This is outrageous.
What triple majority?
q
The White House, Senate and House of Representatives.
Either way it's destroying lives.
"Dean said there are some good elements in the bill, but lawmakers should pull the plug and revisit the issue in Obama's second term, . . ."
Uh, Howard, there will be no second term for Obama, primarily because he is not willing to fight on principle. The man has clearly demonstrated that he has no principles.
q
"no principles" and NO LEADERSHIP QUALITIES.
Obama has great leadership qualities.
He has fought hard and provided great leadershp to assure that banks, insurance companies, drug manufacturers and the military industrial media complex increase profits for years to come.
The title of this article is misleading. Obama fought hard to assure that the corporations got everything they wanted...and then some, while the rest of us will pay more for less health care.
'fraid so. America's goose was cooked on election day. Speaking of the US prez, gee...think back...who supported Lieberman over the Democratic nomination winner? oh yeah, Obama.
Obama wasn't "helpless" then was he?
We keep tellin' you, vote for people who are anti-war and pro health-care, but did you listen America? No.
nice one.
Sarah Palin in 2012. I'll take dumb, dumb over con, con as the lessor of two evils! Hey progressives, at least we know where she stands as she is definately too dumb to con anyone! Oh, and one more thing, the pistol packin mama from Alaska will never,never, take our guns away as she is a member of the NRA. I would hope that many of the brainwashed sheeple will support third party candidates in 2012; however they will probably not have much of a voice again, but if we keep on trying maybe the duopoly will start dying!
Do not make the mistake that Sarah is 'dumb', well maybe, but she is determined...she has her handlers too, like Rupert Murdoch who is orchestrating her rise to power, and the oil companies who benefit from low taxes and subsidies. And the fools who blindly support her, even if she represents the gun toting, war mongering, anti-abortion, but 'alright to kill everyone and everything else, dontcha know' mentality...too much flouride in the water down there, or maybe it's the aspartame in the soda, mad cow,...brain lesions seem to abound.
Sarah Palin will never have power. What she'll have is a lot more money and a life of celebrity style fame, as Obama enjoys now. None of these people have power, they are the ultimate corporate/military shills. Same with GW. Do they even have to believe in what they're shilling for or is it even better if they believe in nothing much at all, just their own ascent to fame and fortune?
The problem with progressive politics is there's no money in it.
I agree. I think the ooh-ooh scary Sarah Palin boogey man is just ridiculous.
The same people will govern who govern now. Instead of salsa dances, someone will come do bang up covers of "Barracuda"--since Ann and Nancy Wilson refuse to party with Sarah--and the public will *LOVE* it!
It's a done deal. The end game of 40 years of culture wars.
Whose band is next? Let's get a list going...
Exactly my thoughts. Don't think this is not by design. Who could vote for anyone but a Democrat if there is a chance to get a single payer in the second term. Progressives will, again, be hostages to these corporate shills.
"Obama's argument that Democrats shouldn't pass up a once-in-a-generation chance to achieve reform appeared to be sinking in."
Except that that argument doesn't hold water. Where's the "reform" that would be passed up if they fail to vote for this bill? Universal coverage? No. Cost controls? Nope. Mandates to force people to buy un-afordable coverage from for-profit insurers to further pad their bloated profits? Yep.
This doesn't pass the smell test. The first rule of medicine - do no harm - should apply here. This bill is even worse than the status quo. It should die and the Democratic hacks and corporate whores responsible should die with it.
The failure of the smell test on health care reform is fault of the stink of corruption in our Congress and White House. These paid mercenaries for the corporations have served their masters well.
It is time for we the people to stand up and get those courtesans of the wealthy (and they are wealthy themselves) OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT. Don't be again sucked into the political side show of our campaign system. Dont pay attention to the pretty pictures and songs on the boob tube. Go out in the community and talk to your neighbors, listen to public speakers, read books and articles and never again vote in loyalty and with hope for any corporately sponsored candidate. Vote on the issues, not the P.R. hype. Step out of the ignorant trusting crowd and vote with intelligence. Get over that 'lesser of two evils' crap. Evil is evil and it is clearly winning in our nation. Stand up and vote with care and intelligence. Don't be led to our doom by the emotional draw of the masters of propaganda.
wantrealdemocracy - EXCELLENT POST ... right to the heart of our phony election system.
"Vote on the issues, not the P.R. hype. Step out of the ignorant trusting crowd and vote with intelligence. Get over that 'lesser-of-two-evils' crap. Evil is evil and it is clearly winning in our nation. Stand up and vote with care and intelligence. Don't be led to our doom by the emotional draw of the masters of propaganda."
++++++++++++
We should all print and clip this out and tape it to our bathroom mirrors, and make bundles of just this and pass this out on a strip of paper whenever we are in supermarket, strip mall, shopping plaza/large mall parking lots, wherever ... Who knows we may get to talk and then meet with a lot of people who feel like we do and influence others who do not.
Let's make it a priority New Year's Resolution to begin and keep going through the next election and the next ...
Thank you for this, wrd. Perfect clarity!
/cm
Good post and appropriate way to look at what ails. Another observation I've come to over the past few months is how effective the "divide and conquer" thing is working. We see it a lot on this site's comments where the labels "liberals', "progressives", "tea-baggers" and any number of clever word plays on Democrat and Republican, combined with some form of name-calling and disgust have become the norm. We are supposed to be a democracy where opposing ideas are accepted and debated and discussed, with finally a majority having their way until another election. We are instead, now purposely being split into factions that cannot even begin to look at one another let alone have some respect for an opposing view. We as the little people are mostly just trying to have people represent us and our ideas and are just as innocent of those we elect betraying our ideals as are those on whatever side you wish to name. The venom against Obama and his administration, largely justified in my opinion is really no different than the hatred and venom against Bush and his administration, also justified. But we are being kept in a permanent state of division now so that nothing gets done to please anyone, while those in power continue their power and money grabs at our expense. We have to learn to stick together more instead of blaming each other and labeling each other as idiots and tools and direct our energies at getting involved as wantrealdemocracy speaks of and get rid of the leeches, no matter what party affiliation, and elect people who really do represent us and not the corporate agenda. Otherwise, civil war really is on the horizon and that serves none of us except those who sit at the top grabbing it all while we squabble.
aliensoup, thank-you, thank-you, thank-you. I've been so disheartened at the angry tone of so many posts lately, taking out our bitterness and frustrations on each other instead of the real opposition which is the rich and the corporations. The little people should stick together and stop blasting each other for not being progressive enough, left enough, radical enough. As for the tea-baggers, they are our natural allies and we should be reaching out to them not calling them "the sheeple" or stupid, or idiots. The poor will get nowhere until they band together.
Evil is evil and it is clearly winning in our nation.
Well said and quite true. Evil is winning in the world at large as well. It's time for all of us to wake up.
I bet if Joe Leiberman took a dump on the senate podium, Obamma would be happy to call that steaming pile "Health Reform" and declare victory.
"Dean said there are some good elements in the bill, but lawmakers should pull the plug and revisit the issue in Obama's second term"
I think he means Sarah Palins first term....Obama is a waste of time
Obama is most assuredly paving the way for sarah p!
Palin will win, not because she is so good, but because Obama is so bad.
And that was the plan from the beginning, a Rovian masterpiece. Stand back while the Dems elect a morally bankrupt, UN-Democratic, unqualified unknown, then reap the benefits for years to come.
Diabolical.
It's time for nothing else but Revolution!
This Government is broken and no longer serves the people.
It is no longer a Democracy it is a Corporatocracy.
Our "representatives" are bought and paid for by the Coporations.
We can longer believe that this Government will EVER serve us!
Obama is a puppet of the Corporations!
He will NEVER fight for you.
He has to serve his MASTERS.
It's time for nothing else but Revolution!
I don't think obama thought he would be found out so soon!
He has to get a lot out of the way early on. towards the end of his first term he'll begin to throw tiny bones .... "Oh look! They threw a tiny bone for us. He does love us, after all!"
They have some carrots as well, which will be used. Maybe one will be a better health care bill or a raise in minimum wage. It'll all be a sham but, as we have seen throughout the years, Shams-R-us.
With Obama having SUPPORTED Lieberman in CT when he LOST the Democratic primary, it seems to many here that Lieberman may have been doing Obama's bidding to kill what tiny fragment remained of the "public option" that was initially presented as needed to make the insurance companies hold down costs.
All pretense is gone now. The FOR-PROFIT insurance corporations have WON EVERYTHING and are now about to tap into government REQUIRED profits from those MANDATED health insurance plans.
We can now watch MORE of the corporate payoffs flood into the Democrats who have provided a continuing massive increase in profits insurance monopolies.
Everyone catch that the Dems also voted down the two bills (Durgin and Lautenberg) that would have allowed the importation of cheaper drugs?
What a record to run on in 2010!
Correct from my perspective. Additionally Obama is a sociopath. NOTHING good will come from him or Washington. Look elsewhere.
I posted 6 months ago that this was a charade.
I posted during Congress's recess that their 'townhall' meetings (devoted ONLY to healthcare reform) were a charade.
I post again that Congress is wasting America's valuable time until election season starts, when all the candidates for re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-election can tell us what a great job they did and why they deserved giving themselves their annual pay raise this year.
Instead of dealing with the MOST important issue facing this Republic since the last time we were stuck in an unwinnable and illegitimate war, our feckless idiots blather their twaddle and the country continues its descent into the totalitarian abyss.
As long as the filibuster is allowed by the rules, Congress will be forever deadlocked because the minority party can block everything.... except WAR.
song for congress:
FOREVER DEAD, FOREVER DEAD... WON'T YOU STAY...FOREVER DEAD...
it is still time to shame congress into subjecting the healthcare industry to standard antitrust legislation and abolish so their price rigging and force them to outbid each other.
additionally, as a price to do business and as a service to the nation, they should be forced to compete in states where only one insurer is active.
most importantly, a "reasonable profit" limit should be imposed on them (and on doctors, etc, who facture say more than $200k per year), a limit akin to those nominally imposed on weapons manufacturers when they sell anything to the government.
healthcare is at least as important as national defense. the government needs only to imitate the few tricks that it uses on a daily basis to keep (somewhat) in check the greed of the military-industrial complex.
even if "medicare for all" and the "public option" are killed by bribed congressmen, nobody will be able to defend the position that market-place laws meant to foster competition should not apply to a de facto cartelized healthcare sector for which competition obviously means nothing at all.
let's put the healthcare leeches and their co-bloodsucking bribed politicians on the spot using their own arguments about free markets !
and let's hear what they can invoke to justify why the weapons industry should be more heavily regulated than, and not be allowed to be as "profitable" as, the healthcare leeches.
What checks have been "somewhat" recently enforced on MIC profits?
http://www.democracynow.org
/2006/7/21/u_s_arming_of_israel_how
I agree with your idea of checks on health insurance profits.
You say "somewhat" I just don't see the some in the what.
What seems comparable is if the Insurance companies were allowed to cause sickness and spread disease to keep up profits like the MIC lobbies for war to increase profits.
----------
PS. You got me thinkin... in a way, the Insurance companies somewhat are allowed.
Never Mind
hmmmm...in place of "checking profits" or "causing sickness", you would think that Americans would see some value in having a healthy society? If they wanted to, they could let the private firms compete to see who could keep the people the healthiest, for the best price. But the health of the population isn't monetized, or accounted for in any of the Democratic proposals, is it?
I guess not.
Our War economy cannot afford our own Nation Building.
I also don't see how a 2000 page law can be enforced anyway....
Somebody has to read it and understand it and with the loopholes and contradictions, so far I see what Howard Dean sees... more profits for the Insurance Companies.
No, I don't like Bush. But obama should learn this part of Bush:
The GOP had at most 55 Senators during Bush's presidency
by makeprofilelink("John Aravosis (DC)"); John Aravosis (DC) on 12/15/2009 11:17:00 AM
I've heard people say that it's not fair to criticize the Democrats for botching health care reform because the Democrats never truly had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Sure, they have 60 votes in principle, the argument goes, but with Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, and Bayh counted as four of those votes, it's not really a solid 60.
Perhaps. But then how was George Bush so effective in passing legislation during his presidency when he never had more than 55 Republicans in the Senate? In fact, during Bush's most effective years, from 2001 to 2005, the GOP had a grand total of 50, and then 51, Senators. The slimmest margin possible.
And look at what George Bush was able to accomplish in the Congress with fewer Senators than the Democrats have today:
- John Ashcroft nomination
- Iraq war resolution
- Repeated Iraq funding resolutions
- 2001 & 2003 tax cuts
- Patriot Act
- Alito
- John Roberts
- Medicare Part D
I'm sure some people will argue that Bush had September 11, and used it to pass lots of laws. Yes. But September 11 had nothing to do with the Ashcroft nomination, the 2001 tax cuts, with the Alito and Roberts nominations, nor with Medicare Part D. And in each case, Democrats rolled over and gave the Republicans the votes they needed to ensure there would be no effective filibuster. (And let's not forget, Obama had the economic meltdown and the recent memory of the failed Bush presidency to use as his rallying cry to smother opposition, and he didn't.)
So what's the difference? Why with 60 votes are Democrats so ineffective, but with 50 votes Republicans excel?
What the GOP lacked in numbers, they made up for in backbone, cunning and leadership. Say what you will about George Bush, he wasn't afraid of a fight. If anything, the Bush administration, and the Republicans in Congress, seemed to relish taking on Democrats, and seeing just how far they could get Democratic members of Congress to cave on their promises and their principles. Hell, even Senator Barack Obama, who once famously promised to lead a filibuster against the FISA domestic eavesdropping bill, suddenly changed his mind and actually voted for the legislation. Such is the power of a president and a congressional leadership with balls and smarts.
How did they do it? Bush was willing to use his bully pulpit to create an environment in which the opposition party feared taking him on, feared challenging his agenda, lest they be seen as unpatriotic and extreme. By going public, early and often, with his beliefs, Bush was able to fracture the Democratic opposition (and any potential dissent in his own party) and forestall any effort to mount a filibuster against the most important items in his agenda.
It's not about the votes, people. It's about leadership. The current occupant of the White House doesn't like to fight, and the leadership in Congress has never been as good at their jobs, at marshaling their own party, as the Republicans were when they were in the majority. The President is supposed to rally the country, effectively putting pressure on opposition members of Congress to sit down and shut up. And the congressional leadership is supposed to rally its members to hold the line, and get the 51 votes necessary for passing legislation in a climate where the minority is too afraid to use the filibuster. When you have a President who is constitutionally, or intellectually, unable to stand for anything, and a congressional leadership that, rather than disciplining its own members and forging ahead with its own agenda, cedes legislative authority to a president who refuses to lead, you have a recipe for exactly what happened last night. Weakness, chaos, and failure.
We lost real health care reform not because we don't have a "real" filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. We lost health care reform because we don't have a real leader anywhere in our party. It's not going to get better if we elect more Democrats to the Senate and it's not going to play out any differently should we try to revisit this issue in the future.
And one final point. What do you think is going to happen if, during the House-Senate conference, a combined bill is returned to the Senate that even vaguely improves upon the garbage they're currently debating? Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Evan Bayh will threaten the same filibuster. We're not getting anything better than the crap they just came up with last night. It's over. The next three years are going to be about mediocrity, broken promises, and striving for second best. That's not the America I grew up in. And it's not what I voted for, or was promised.
Obama needs to learn from this.
I second that!
KeLeMi.....excellent comment. I agree totally.
So so true. The next three years will be very painful for democrats because without any courageous leadership, nothing of value, to those who voted for democrats will be passed in senate. I think we will have to go through another 8 or more years of the GOP rule for everything to sink in.
Well Done!
Excellent analysis of G. W. B. One reason why he was fatefully underestimated by the Dems is that they thought him intellectually defective while in reality Bush has the moxie/intelligence of a street fighter ruling his gang of secretaries and other White House gang members. The syntax of street fighters is also commonly defective. The notion that Vice President Cheney ran the show is equally flawed. Bush and Cheney ran the show together with nary a millimeter of space of view between them until GWB signed the Iraq TARP agreement which Cheney opposed.
President Obama acts more like a student who raises his finger in class because he mildly disagrees with teacher.
Lots of CD'ers saw it coming. What's the Dims excuse gonna be when they get the power? It's playing out now.
About that guy Bu$h. A new Gallap Poll is showing that 44% of the respondants wish the motherfucker was back in office. Read this please. You gotta see it to believe it!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24191.htm
"We lost real health care reform not because we don't have a "real" filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. We lost health care reform because we don't have a real leader anywhere in our party. It's not going to get better if we elect more Democrats to the Senate and it's not going to play out any differently should we try to revisit this issue in the future."
Well, you're right, there is no leadership. As for "our" party - it's not mine.
You're also right that more Democrats are not going to make a bit of difference. More Republicans might make a difference though. It just may not be the kind of difference we like.
It's a shitty corner we're backed into with the choice of losers on one side and assholes on the other (draw your own conclusions which side is which). But, here we are.
It's been reported that Einstein once quipped that the meaning of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Therefore, it makes sense to ask how many times we have to keep electing people into the same corrupt system and expecting a different outcome.
After all is said and done, maybe we really are insane.
How is that whole 'lesser of two evils' thing working out for you?
We, the People, for whom this republic is dedicated no longer exist in the eyes of those we elect to represent us. Anyone we elect does not share any interest that we may have (single payer health care, no more war, etc.)but seek office only for the opportunity to climb aboard the gravy train provided by Wall Street and K Street. Until we have election reform (publically financed campaigns) we will have more of the same corruption fueled by greed. Dennis Kucinich, Alan Greyson and Bernie Sanders appear to be the only holdouts in speaking for us. What a sorry bunch of greedy thieves the rest are. Everything provided for us by the Founding Fathers has been dissolved so that the elite can have the all of the treasury and all of the power and we have become the serfs of an ancient kingdom.
This legislation is dog do do, and I say to hell with it, Vote this down, and let's do start all over again, Barakus Obombus, you need to find your backbone,
Use the damn reconciliation procedure and stop being such weasels, Democratic leadership in congress,
AD