Scott Brown Wins! Coakley concedes! Dem's lose 60 vote majority!

EDIT: ^ WTF? What the fucking fuck? The thing is, the fuckin' maroons who support small government will not see the insane amount of obstructionism and hypocrisy in this. To them, as long as a politician postures to stand for things that are harmonious with their worldview, that's enough. There's nothing to condemn here, there's no obstructionism, there's people working towards the goal of a balanced budget and reduced deficit spending by not participating on a panel about balancing the budget and reducing deficit spending.

Dopa, the thing is that it's not "Reid and Pelosi." That's simpleton talk. That's Limbaugh talk. The bills that occur under their jurisdiction in the Senate and House, respectively, are vastly different. You fail to acknowledge that, which seems to be a crucial indication of what your true motivation is here - not doing anything with health care's current woes. They are night and day, one containing a not-far-enough version of the public option and the other being more or less completed disarmed. You can not treat them as similar persons with similar proposals and expect to be taken seriously.

Proposals that restrict abortion, or seek to eliminate medicare and SCHIP are indeed proposals, but again, come on folks, false equivalency. When one side says "single player public option!" and the other says "eliminate medicare and SCHIP," the first acquiesces and says "okay, no universal coverage or individual mandate" and the other side says "why won't you compromise!?!?!" then you begin to grasp the scope of the fallacy you're asserting, dopa.

You ever had arguments with the person you share a bed with over "stealing the sheets"? You have. Of course you have. And you find that you're defending yourself over having "stolen all the sheets" last night, even though you willingly gave them up? Worse yet, they stole the damned sheets - you barely had any at all, and could hardly manage to grasp yet a micron of a portion of the sheets in order to cover maybe 3/4 of your body. Then you look over and see them wrapped up like a human/blanket tamales? And yet THEY have the GALL to tell YOU about how cold THEY were!?!?!?!

Yeah, it's kinda like that.

Though speedracer's link should tell you precisely what you got for your vote: another member of a party who plays defense 24/7 and then cries because they haven't scored at all.
 
[quote name='dopa345']...Coburn who is a physician and understands the challenges of health care better than most and should have a voice in the discussion.[/QUOTE]

Is limiting access to abortion really going to improve aggregate health and aggregate out?

Are abortions distracting you and your peers from providing health care better than most Eastern European countries?

If we made abortions illegal, would our ranking be higher or lower than 37th?

Do you, Coburn and your peers recognized that everybody within the medical and insurance industries (that would include my wife) are contributors to the problem of substandard care or do you believe all of you are victims?
 
[quote name='dopa345']I also think anyone that resorts to insults rather than rational arguments is a fool as well.[/quote]

I can't remember the last time you made a rational argument, and it is not an insult to point out that you make false assertions repeatedly.

You asked for evidence that the Republicans have tried to enter the discussion and I did.
Click to expand...

They did a little kabuki theater, that doesn't mean they ever had any intention of voting for anything.

Tort reform is a necessary component of any health care reform.
Click to expand...

Speaking of repeated false assertions... this is like the 54th time this has been explained to you but this would save some cash but it is more or less a pittance.

Every other government run health care program has caps on malpractice so why shouldn't we? Medicaid and Medicare are poorly run, unsustainable programs in the long-term. It does not bode well for what will happen if the government takes over health care for everyone.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking about.

How about providing some evidence that they've extended any attempts to work with Republicans on the issues aside from them simply saying so?
Click to expand...

I pointed out how the Democrats held up the process for months trying to get Republicans on board until Grassley said he wouldn't vote for his own "compromise".

Like I said nothing but whack-a-mole and lies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was listening to NPR on the way in today, i love how the Republicans are acting like such victims in all of this. As if the Democrats never made an attempt at bipartisanship. If that were the case the bills wouldn't have ended up being as neutered as they were.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm pretty convinced that anybody (and I mean *anybody*) who uses the names of Reid or Pelosi without providing a specific action they've participated in (such as the revelation of Reid's 'colorful' language a few weeks back) is either a fool, a troll, or both.

If you say "we gotta stop Reid and Pelosi!" and offer nothing more than that, I see that you really mean "I have an opinion on something I don't know all that much about!"

Particularly when Sen. Reid didn't do anything to stop the centrist vultures Nelson and Lieberman from leaving a real health care bill for dead and making sure they got to take leftovers home with them. Reid's a fucking pansy, he's not a villain. Democrats should be more irate with him than any Republican. Hell, Republicans should love Reid for being such a goddamned pushover bitch. You should fund his re-election campaign so he can singled handedly subvert Democrat plans from the inside.

"we gotta stop reid and pelosi!" more bumper sticker intellect, and shamefully, from someone who's capable of far more than that.[/QUOTE]
I don't get it either. If Reid was half the hammer that Delay was, the world would look very different right now. My beef with Pelosi is that she hasn't called him out on the complete horse shit coming out of the Senate Dem leadership and their antics with Lieberman, Nelson, Snowe, et al.

I just don't like Pelosi personally, but I don't have a problem with her politics. I want her out for being spineless on Reid. When a guy sucks as bad as he does, leadership needs to call him out. It's amazing how one guy is able to screw up an entire agenda in the name of bipartisanship.

They don't wanna play, Reid. They want to pull the football away every time you come up for the kick. How many more examples do you need?
 
Harry "The Hammer" Reid.

Read that and savor your immediate reaction.

Then tell me if you can continue to be afraid of Reid's approach to policy and dare claim that he's so much more partisan than anyone that preceded him.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Harry "The Hammer" Reid.

Read that and savor your immediate reaction.

Then tell me if you can continue to be afraid of Reid's approach to policy and dare claim that he's so much more partisan than anyone that preceded him.[/QUOTE]

Even if people were afraid, they'd only have to be afraid until November.
 
It's foolish to think that the Democrats will retain the number of seats it has or gain seats.

But I think it's equally foolish to think that they would suffer a net loss of 10 seats this year. They'll lose as many as 7 seats, but they won't lose majority status.

Unless you simply mean you think Reid will lose. And that's probable. To which I say good - find someone with some fucking guts to be the majority leader. I've had enough of Sweetchuck.
 
Let's pretend that the Republicans recover the House and Senate.
Then what?
Is Iraq going to turn itself around? How about Afghanistan? Yemen?
Are we going to move away from an oil dependent economy?
Will companies start hiring again just because?
Are interest rates going to drop and banks lend again?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's foolish to think that the Democrats will retain the number of seats it has or gain seats.

But I think it's equally foolish to think that they would suffer a net loss of 10 seats this year. They'll lose as many as 7 seats, but they won't lose majority status.

Unless you simply mean you think Reid will lose. And that's probable. To which I say good - find someone with some fucking guts to be the majority leader. I've had enough of Sweetchuck.[/QUOTE]

I was talking about Reid losing his re-election bid. Pelosi might lose the Speaker position, too.

As far as the rest of the seats, Blue Dogs are pretty scared right now. They are backing away from this big time. If Independents break for the Republicans in November like they did Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey (roughly 2-1), the Democrats are going to lose A TON of seats. I say that because Independents usually break for Democrats 55-45.
 
Blue Dogs just exemplify why we need more than a two party system, and a different standard for passing bills (since more parties would make it harder to build larger majorities).

Nothing gets done when you have two parties, and each party has blocs that really don't fit the core beliefs that the party represents.
 
A year ago> Obama is just another politician, just another guy, won't get anything changed, bla bla bla.
Today> Holy fuck we have 41 man mijority! REVOLUTION AM COME. FINALLY WE GET TO HAVE OUR GUNS AND EAT THEM TOO AT A BIG TABLE WITH JESUS.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Let's pretend that the Republicans recover the House and Senate.
Then what?
Is Iraq going to turn itself around? How about Afghanistan? Yemen?
Are we going to move away from an oil dependent economy?
Will companies start hiring again just because?
Are interest rates going to drop and banks lend again?[/QUOTE]
If anything interest rates would have to go up.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate.

haha.[/QUOTE]

I agree with the comments on that article. It was probably meant as irony that the GOP can now get whatever it wants done (which is nothing) by stalling and blocking anything the Dems want done.

A little sad that it takes a Dem supermajority to get anything done, and even then it gets so watered down because of special interests there is no point in passing it.

Oh well, that ship sailed. The Dems didn't do shit with their supermajority, they probably didn't deserve it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's foolish to think that the Democrats will retain the number of seats it has or gain seats.

But I think it's equally foolish to think that they would suffer a net loss of 10 seats this year. They'll lose as many as 7 seats, but they won't lose majority status.

Unless you simply mean you think Reid will lose. And that's probable. To which I say good - find someone with some fucking guts to be the majority leader. I've had enough of Sweetchuck.[/QUOTE]

I want Franken, for the lulz.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What? Interest rates can't go below 0%?[/QUOTE]

Free Hummer with every jumbo loan.

Free Bible inscribed sniper rifle with every car loan.

Free vaseline with every hospital payment plan.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']It's convenient that you omitted the fact that 52% were opposed to HCR and 51% opposed him on health care. Independents by a 2-1 margin. 59% like Obama's image, while 55% like his policies.[/QUOTE]

I'm really not sure where you're getting those numbers. (Or what you're actually trying to say.) Quote and/or rephrase?

[quote name='KingBroly']While the poll makes note of the Congressional Republicans, it does not make a note of Congressional Democrats and their approval/disapproval. This was about health care, and what he and Democrats did on Health Care.

Read the poll data next time instead of the blurb.[/QUOTE]

... and I suggest perhaps you didn't read the data very carefully, either.

"Meanwhile, the GOP brand continues to have its own problems. Just 42 percent of voters signaled approval for Congressional Democrats in the survey, while less than a third (29 percent) said they approved of the job that Congressional Republicans were doing."
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']blue dogs just exemplify why we need more than a two party system, and a different standard for passing bills (since more parties would make it harder to build larger majorities).

Nothing gets done when you have two parties, and each party has blocs that really don't fit the core beliefs that the party represents.[/quote]

+100000000000000000000000000000!
 
He drives a TRUCK.

How the hell can you vote against someone who drives a truck? That would make you fundamentally anti-american.
 
[quote name='trq']"Meanwhile, the GOP brand continues to have its own problems. Just 42 percent of voters signaled approval for Congressional Democrats in the survey, while less than a third (29 percent) said they approved of the job that Congressional Republicans were doing."[/QUOTE]

And yet Republicans are treating this like some sort Biblical mandate for their policies and way of thinking.
 
[quote name='usickenme']The more I read, the more I am convinced that Mass. voters are retarded[/QUOTE]
I guess we're all a bunch of "far right tea-baggers" to you Colorado folk.

Ignore the letter next to the candidates' names for a second. Look at each candidate and where they stand on issues that are important to you. Would you still vote for Martha Coakley? What about Scott Brown would give you pause?
 
I had the same reservations when Ken Lucas (D) took on Geoff Davis (R) for Representative in 2004.

On the bright side of that issue, I ran into an old elementary school friend when I called Lucas' campaign office to ask how in the world he considered himself a Democrat.

But that's not an apples to apples comparison with your point, dafoomie. Those two were 100% identical on the issues. Coakley and Brown are not. Both were immensely inept candidates - now, I don't know if that's your larger point or not. But in the event that it is, how does a voter justify voting for one inept candidate over another?

To put it in other words, Brown won, yes - but how can this be exciting or invigorating to you or other Mass. voters when you just elected someone to office who is not going to do a good job? How can you justify your vote when you acknowledge your candidate's severe deficiencies?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I guess we're all a bunch of "far right tea-baggers" to you Colorado folk.

Ignore the letter next to the candidates' names for a second. Look at each candidate and where they stand on issues that are important to you. Would you still vote for Martha Coakley? What about Scott Brown would give you pause?[/QUOTE]

Incorrect, I know why the baggers voted. It's everyone else. In truth, I think there was too much emotion voting going on.

I am going by specific quotes and polling data. Like the 37% of Browns voters were punishing Dems for pushing their agenda hard enough or the lady who voted for Brown and thought the Health Care bill just needed tweaking and Brown was the guy to do it.

Anyone that campaigns on a platform of obstruction would give me serious pause. Anyone who thinks a truck gives them cred is clearly doesn't think much of voters. But perhaps most offensive is he thinks a few sentences on each issue is sufficient for him to get your vote while Coakley clearly explains herself with a page+ devoted to each (going by websites). That is inexcusable for a Senate Candidate and would be embarrassing in any other Senate race.

Not to mention, opposing gay marriage, knee-jerk lower taxes BS, school "choice", pro-death penalty, notification of abortions- Despite all of the talk. He is pretty much a standard GOP candidate.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But that's not an apples to apples comparison with your point, dafoomie. Those two were 100% identical on the issues. Coakley and Brown are not. Both were immensely inept candidates - now, I don't know if that's your larger point or not. But in the event that it is, how does a voter justify voting for one inept candidate over another?

To put it in other words, Brown won, yes - but how can this be exciting or invigorating to you or other Mass. voters when you just elected someone to office who is not going to do a good job? How can you justify your vote when you acknowledge your candidate's severe deficiencies?[/QUOTE]
Why would you say that Brown wasn't a good candidate?


[quote name='usickenme']Incorrect, I know why the baggers voted. It's everyone else. In truth, I think there was too much emotion voting going on.

I am going by specific quotes and polling data. Like the 37% of Browns voters were punishing Dems for pushing their agenda hard enough or the lady who voted for Brown and thought the Health Care bill just needed tweaking and Brown was the guy to do it.

Anyone that campaigns on a platform of obstruction would give me serious pause. Anyone who thinks a truck gives them cred is clearly doesn't think much of voters. But perhaps most offensive is he thinks a few sentences on each issue is sufficient for him to get your vote while Coakley clearly explains herself with a page+ devoted to each (going by websites). That is inexcusable for a Senate Candidate and would be embarrassing in any other Senate race.

Not to mention, opposing gay marriage, knee-jerk lower taxes BS, school "choice", pro-death penalty, notification of abortions- Despite all of the talk. He is pretty much a standard GOP candidate.[/QUOTE]
Opposition is what the minority party does as it is the majority that sets the agenda in Congress. But, did you watch the debates? I thought Brown did a much better job of communicating his positions and what he would do if elected. Brown perhaps didn't take the internet as seriously as Coakley but new media has largely been the domain of the Democrats anyway. Brown was out there actually speaking to voters while Coakley was nowhere to be found.

Brown's very first ad was a proposal for an across the board "JFK style" tax cut on income and payroll taxes to stimulate the economy. Its been a theme throughout his campaign, that tax cuts are a proven way to create growth, it puts money directly into the hands of the people and the private sector as opposed to the stimulus, which largely benefited the public sector and much of it was spent filling the holes in state and municipal budgets.

Another issue of his is that terrorists should not be tried in civilian courts and granted attorneys and constitutional protections that they've never had. His position on health care is that he would bring Democrats back to the table and negotiate a deal palatable to both sides now that they can't push it through on their own. He also wants to get rid of insurance mandates that force them to provide coverage to everyone for things that many people don't need or want, such as for chiropractors and in vitro fertilization.

As for the other issues you mentioned, in order, they are about states rights, creating jobs, charter schools (that Obama and every other Democrat in the Primary supported, and which Coakley would not oppose), capital punishment (that Obama and Hillary support), and parental notification (that 45 states have).
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Why would you say that Brown wasn't a good candidate?



Opposition is what the minority party does as it is the majority that sets the agenda in Congress. But, did you watch the debates? I thought Brown did a much better job of communicating his positions and what he would do if elected. Brown perhaps didn't take the internet as seriously as Coakley but new media has largely been the domain of the Democrats anyway. Brown was out there actually speaking to voters while Coakley was nowhere to be found.

Brown's very first ad was a proposal for an across the board "JFK style" tax cut on income and payroll taxes to stimulate the economy. Its been a theme throughout his campaign, that tax cuts are a proven way to create growth, it puts money directly into the hands of the people and the private sector as opposed to the stimulus, which largely benefited the public sector and much of it was spent filling the holes in state and municipal budgets.

Another issue of his is that terrorists should not be tried in civilian courts and granted attorneys and constitutional protections that they've never had. His position on health care is that he would bring Democrats back to the table and negotiate a deal palatable to both sides now that they can't push it through on their own. He also wants to get rid of insurance mandates that force them to provide coverage to everyone for things that many people don't need or want, such as for chiropractors and in vitro fertilization.

As for the other issues you mentioned, in order, they are about states rights, creating jobs, charter schools (that Obama and every other Democrat in the Primary supported, and which Coakley would not oppose), capital punishment (that Obama and Hillary support), and parental notification (that 45 states have).[/QUOTE]

Dude, quit shifting. You asked me whose position would my vote likely reflect. I wasn't asking you to defend Brown stance on things.

First of all this is 2010. Not taking the internet seriously is no excuse.

Second, the tax cut thing is hardly proven fact. I can think of examples where it has also been "disproven". The fact that you throw "JFK" style-whateve that means doesn't make a difference.

The terrorist thing I disagree with him about.

Health Care- has Brown been paying attention? They never rammed anything through and it already has been negotiated. Just because it is not to his liking doesn't change that.

as for the other issues-

states rights? Who cares what you call it. I am for gay-marriage, Coakley is too
creating jobs- suspect reasoning (see Bush's term)
Charter schools- I don't care what Obama supported. The GOP doesn't see them as an ending to education reform but a beginning.
Capital Punishment- Again irrelevant what Hilary and Obama supported. I am against and so is Coakley
Parental Notification- irrelevant what other states have. Brown was for this and "other" notifications. I am against.

You began by asking me which candidates I aligned with best based on issues. Clearly it was Coakley. Granted, I didn't have the front row seat you did but even then, I am sure who I would've voted for regardless of party affiliation. If you feel confident with your vote, great. It's a good feeling but don't sit there and pretend that if we all just got to know Brown we would be on board with him. He is far to right-wing for my tastes even if he pretends otherwise.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']To put it in other words, Brown won, yes - but how can this be exciting or invigorating to you or other Mass. voters when you just elected someone to office who is not going to do a good job? How can you justify your vote when you acknowledge your candidate's severe deficiencies?[/QUOTE]

How do you know he's not going to do a good job? I mean, I don't have high hopes either -- he is a Republican, after all -- but he hasn't had time to do a good or a bad or an average job yet, has he?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Why would you say that Brown wasn't a good candidate?[/quote]

We've been here before already. He was elected to run interference and he has no platform.

His platform positions that were available on his website were tissue-paper thin. Like thinner than that weird edible paper on Botan Rice Candy. A couple dozen words on major issues that amount to little more than "I support school choice." Okay. Tell me more. Got a proposal? No? Why do I need to know this, then?

His lack of proposals show me a person who doesn't intend on proactively doing anything while in the Senate. The biggest thing he'll do is co-sponsor some bills, free-riding on the work of others. The effortless, un-thorough way he describes what he believes in shows me someone who doesn't think or believe in much.

I feel like if I asked him to write a 1000-word essay to summarize why he wants to be elected to the Senate, based on his work I've seen (and I have seen it), it wouldn't be too far a stretch from reality to see an essay turned in to me that consists of the following:

"If elected, I aim to protect shit from stuff."

I see no more complexity in his platform - again, my jaw was on the floor when I first saw his stances on issues, because they're hardly there. It's as superficial as someone trying to demonstrate their thorough knowledge of the Japanese language by saying "KAWAIIIIIII, NE~~~~~~~^_^" and peppering their english sentences with "DESU." I don't see a candidate, I see someone who is either unfit for this senate seat or someone who isn't willing to put forth the effort to demonstrate their fitness. Both are lamentable positions.

And don't get me started on the contempt he showed for voters with his pick-m-up truck. Don't get me wrong, it worked for him and helped his image (as it did Fred Thompson, and outside of politics as it helped Sam Walton's image). People are fuckin' pants-on-head retarded (wicked retahded, as it were), so it works - members of the power elite are one of us if they own a Ford F-150.

But it does say a lot of what Brown thinks of MA voters. "I GOT ME A TRUCK, HURRR, NOW I WANT ME A VOTE, HYUCK."
 
I honestly think this might be the best thing. The bill was raped by so many different people to get the 60 votes that it looks like a mess.

I think that if Congress took Bill Maher's advice and just proposed the most liberal thing imaginable, that by the time it got shit on to get 60 votes it would at least be something to make people like Kucinich and Weiner happy.

Weiner (and Sestak, my congressman) are great, they appear on O'Reilly every now and then and do a pretty good job defending the liberal point of view on issues like the KSM in NY trials.
 
I also agreed with Maher about how the reform should have been phrased. Calling it "medicare for everyone" probably would have gone a long way to help people understand what they were really talking about.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Dude, quit shifting. You asked me whose position would my vote likely reflect. I wasn't asking you to defend Brown stance on things.[/QUOTE]
But you asserted that he had no platform other than opposition, and I just disproved your point. Job creation through tax cuts is the pillar of his campaign.

[quote name='mykevermin']We've been here before already. He was elected to run interference and he has no platform.[/QUOTE]
And you too. Both of you are basing this entirely on what he has on his website. Did either of you watch the debates? Have you seen either candidate speak substantively on any issue?
 
Incorrect, I never said he had no other positions. I said he campaigned on obstruction which he did. That doesn't preclude the fact the had other generic R positions.

(I would wager every other GOP candidate who has run against Kennedy (hell everywhere) has made tax cuts a pillar of their campaign.)
 
I somewhat agree. I don't need Bill Maher to tell me to ask for something grandiose if I want something mediocre.

The way Democrats handled this bill, you'd think they were newbies to Washington, expecting bipartisanship, compromise, and starting with the exact bill they wanted.

They need to operate like Republicans - start with something off the charts extreme in scope, don't compromise with any Democrats, and ram that shit through congress. Virtually nothing changed between the Military Commissions Act McCain refused to vote for and the revised version he did (nothing of substance, mind) - same with the FISA Immunity bill from September 2008.

But this health care bill is just the Democrats showing, again, they don't know how politics are done.

EDIT: for the record, "Tax cuts stimulate growth" is not a platform that wows me. It's lip service to greater deficit spending. While you're correct that the stimulus bill has been disastrous in terms of its management (well, TARP at the very least), tax cuts will perpetuate those gaps in the state budget. Gaps that are already far too large, in a time where public services need to be cut - in education, in higher education, in public works, in police and fire departments. They're all strained beyond capacity at this point - and you support tax cuts that will reopen the hemorrhaging wound of deficits at the state level.

"Tax cuts" is not a policy position, it's an undefeatable ideological mantra. Why? People who support tax cuts *never* vary, wave, or falter in their support of tax cuts no matter the climate. That's why I don't consider it a platform. I'm not impressed by that, and I don't believe it will work at all.
 
My point is the Democratic party definitely has a bigger tent. They've got the Bernie Sanders as well as the Joe Liebermans, Nelsons, and Landrieus.

They had to know it would get watered down to get to the 60 votes needed. They needed the Liebermans and the Nelsons to get to that 60 votes.

I think Reid did the best he could with the card he was dealt.
 
But they did not need 60 votes, they needed 51.

If they started off with "here's the bill: single payer universal coverage," do you think we'd have ended up with the same senate bill?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But they did not need 60 votes, they needed 51.

If they started off with "here's the bill: single payer universal coverage," do you think we'd have ended up with the same senate bill?[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

They should have aimed high and been aggressive to the point of pushing it through with 51 votes if needed.

But that won't happen as politicians care more about getting re-elected and making politics a career vs. getting in and forcing the change they purport to say we need.
 
^ The irony of the re-election argument is that the more progressive version of the bill passed in the House and had died in the Senate.
 
Well that could be that Senators as individuals draw more scrutiny than the average member of the house since each state only has two. Thus it's easier for people to follow how their senators vote, for state groups (and even national groups) to attack them and get the message out.

Wouldn't matter in a small state like WV that only had 3 congressmen, but in a state like CA that has 53 and few people even know who their congressmen is, they probably have more "immunity" in how they vote on a major bill than either of the two senators does.
 
Yeah I think Senators draw more attention because there are only 2 per state.

I think Reid wanted the 60 instead of the 51 because he didn't want it to look like he was 'ramming the bill down our throats' as Hannity likes to say. Sadly as a result, it ended turning into a bill that didn't do as much as democrats wanted.

Whatever. Now that they don't have 60, the 51 option is wide open. And now they don't have to appease the Liebermans and the Nelsons anymore.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Whatever. Now that they don't have 60, the 51 option is wide open.[/QUOTE]

It's not wide open, it's the only option (aside from killing the bill or watering it down even more - eek!).

I'd like to see the Senate enforce the filibuster rules of protocol (I believe 40 senators must be in the chambers at all times in order to remain a filibuster, but it's not something that's enforced for no good reason at all) or make it harder to perform. It's too easy right now to be a minority and permanently halt/stall any progress.

Also, point made about senators and public visibility. but they all have to be re-elected, no?
 
Yes, it's just that most voters aren't paying that much attention to politics at all. So these people are more likely to know how their senators vote than how their congressmen vote.

Also senators have to garner enough support state wide to be re-elected, while congressmen only have to worry about their district.

So a congressmen has the benefit of being under less scrutiny, and some are also from districts that are more liberal than the state-wide average (i.e urban districts etc..--or more conservative for republicans from rural districts) so they can vote for more liberal (or conservative) bills and not lose support from their constituency. Vs. senators who have to drift toward the middle too keep enough support state wide.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah and its much easier to gerrymander congressman.

And yeah if they want to pass something liberals want, 51 is their only option. I'm just saying they have other options like start from scratch (which would look terrible) or water it down even more (which would also be terrible).

The current bill has like 30something % support. People fail to mention that people who are against this bill are people who want a public option or some kind of medicare expansion. It isn't just people who are against reform who think the current bill is bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top