No, no, no.
The Democrats were elected after promising health care reform, yes… but in November 2008, there was a couple of pages were of position statements, not a 1,000 page bill. The electorate may well have supported the general idea of health care reform but rejected this specific atempt at it.
I’m a registered independent but, sadly at the moment, a Nebraska registered independent, so Nelson is one of mine and I cringed upon learning what he’d done. In the attempt to gain an advantage for his constituents he’s managed to become an embarassment and weaken support for the bill overall. And given the number of poor farm families in Nebraska, his state desperately needs real healthcare reform to work.
It’s like he’s gone back to Lincoln and announced that he got everyone upgrades to First Class…on the Titanic.
Wouldn’t the electorate have to have a halfway accurate idea of what’s in the bill before they can reject it?
I mean, they can make reject-y noises in it’s direction, I guess.
It’s moot now, but this is not true. Paul Kirk remains the Senator from Massachusetts up until the moment that Brown is sworn in. cite
I can’t find the article I read yesterday, but it said the “and qualification” part meant the temp remains in office until the Senator-elect is sworn in.
Wouldn’t they have to have a halfway accurate idea of what’s in the bill before affirming it?
And what the basis for the implicit assumption that they don’t?
Why is it, if the electorate embraces Democrats, they do so out of enlightened analysis of the benefits for themselves and the nation, but if they embrace the Republicans, they do so because they are easily-led fools, victims of the Republicans’ lies and deceit?
I’ve often wondered that myself.
Reap and sow.
I think you would have to expand on why these “ideas” are being presented before you can call one or the other weaker.
“Let’s not, because we’ll be damned if we let the Democrats have a win” is not exactly substantial.
But I don’t agree that that is their primary motivation (although I do acknolwedge that it’s floating around back there as an undeniable aspect of political reality).
Of course. (Why would you think I would think otherwise?)
It’s an impression that’s formed in me based on overheard conversations, talk radio, discussion forum posts and editorials. The state seems to be one of confusion.
I don’t understand the relevance of this comment.
And your evidence that they have done so is what, exactly?
“…and this song goes out to Bricker, its that golden oldie, Oooooh, the Hypocrisy of the Left…”
I think he listened to Obama.
December 5, when she met with Obama, was one specific date she put out a press release about that I linked to.
Yeah, Obama just invited her over for courteous pleasantries. Was feeling lonely and wanted to chat.
Senator-Elect Brown.
A zillion polls.
Pelosi’s announcement this morning that she doesn’t have the votes in the House to pass the Senate version unchanged. (Ha!!)
Bolding added.
That’s always possible, but that’s not really germane to my point. Which is that you’d like to believe that the Congressional Dems believe their own ideas are stronger, because they’re the ones representing the rest of us Dems out here. If they don’t, then they really need to switch party ID, or find another line of work.
If it was just this one issue, that would be one thing. But it’s across the board. They’re looking for excuses to avoid dealing with climate change - and regardless of how you feel about variants of cap and trade or carbon taxes, I hope you believe that something pretty substantial needs to be done, and soon. They’re talking about focusing on ‘jobs, jobs, jobs,’ but any cost-effective solution will involve spending, and spending means either higher deficits or increased taxes, and you know the ‘centrist’ Dems will balk at either one.
At any rate, if we don’t deal with climate change pretty soon, we really ARE screwed, and that’s the big ‘we,’ not just people who would normally benefit from Democratic policies. And the GOP seems to be mostly in the denialist camp on this issue, so if the Dems don’t deal with it, there’s really nobody left.
Which is why I’m all of a sudden feeling the way I felt after the 2004 election. I knew then that Bush’s win meant it would be at least four more years before we dealt with the increasingly urgent problem of climate change. 5+ years later, it looks as if the likelihood that the Dems will address it this year are barely above zero - and after this year, who knows how long it will be before we have as favorable a political moment to deal with it as we have right now? The world - literally the world - cannot wait that long.
Like I said, we’re fucked.
So, that means that OBama didn’t win? All those elected Representatives and Senators…poof! Gone? Should Frenken call Coleman and concede, since Brown won in Masse…Massi…Boston?
A zillion? Well, I won’t ask for a cite on that, you’d crush the servers! Really? A zillion?
Congratulations. Know anybody sick, without insurance? Gonna go tell them how happy you are?
You know and I know that a big part of Pelosi’s problem is not opposition to health care reform, but opposition to weak health care reform. You know this, but are willing to pretend that you don’t. Tsk.
Wasn’t the elction in 08 and the death panels remark in 09?
Sure.
But in my cynical way, I suspect that some Congressional Dems adopted positions based on the necessity of their party membership, not out of actual conviction. (Of course, the Republicans don’t share that flaw; they are all committed to their ideology in toto.) (Ha! Ha! I slay myself.)
This was brought anew to my attention reading the complaint memo from Coakley’s staff adviser to the national Democrats. It said things like:
and:
So Coakley was “forced” to take positions. Nothing about what her views actualy were… just the views she adopted because she was a Democrat.
I don’t believe Coakley is alone in this practice.