Why are all the congressional "progressives" suddenly on board?

[Stinky The Clown]

Have the prospects for solid, real reform suddenly gotten better?

Have they caved?

Are they being blackmailed?

Were they convinced?






I think its pretty simple. The party is about to fracture over this. What should have been a happy walk to the finish line has turned into a fiasco. Rudderless and leaderless from the start, knowing that a few overly conservative MUTHAFUCKIN ASSHOLES who call themselves Democrats, or who have been allowed the privilege of caucusing with the Democrats, suddenly have serious control of things, they are, each one of them, all in for the greater good. Forget ideals. It is political calculus and raw pragmatism. They got punked and now they have to go along just to survive. It is either that or a bloodbath in 2010.

And the hell of it is, even this may not avoid the bloodbath.

[tridim]

1. Because they're being rational.

[Stinky The Clown]

So ... by that measure ....... "rational" ........

....... is what? When assholes win?

Excuse me. Going along with the OP ..... that would be MUTHAFUCKIN ASSHOLES.

[tridim]

12. Yes, rational. Eventually you'll come around too.

Probably the same day you realize that you are benefiting from this historic legislation.

[walldude]

22. ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Yeah me and Goldman Sachs's new Insurance arm...

[truedelphi]

26. No one over the age of fifty benefits from this piece fo crrap

Legislation.

Unless they are very very rich, in which case they did not need this wrangling inside the political tent.

And depending on where you live and how much you make (And pay for rent, and how many kids you have etc.) you might not benefit all that much either!

[Egnever]

64. Absolutely untrue and you couldnt support that statement if you wanted to.

[glitch]

28. Resistance is futile. nt

[AnOhioan]

37. Historic my ass....

unless, by historic, you mean a complete collapse of Democratic values, then I agree with your wording.

[LostInAnomie]

24. +1

[Cleita]

Backroom deals. n/t

[DJ13]

2. I would rather see the bloodbath than capitulation

Its always the weak sauce progressives doing the caving in, and they'll never get anything they want if they never stand on principles and let bad bills fail.

[pnwmom]

3. No. Because they're planning their next steps rather than wasting their energy

bemoaning the fact that the bill is flawed.

[Goldstein1984]

4. Calm down Stinky!

Take a deep breath.

It's just politics.

Close your eyes....relax....let Corporate America make things better...

[CreekDog]

5. that's part of it and the other part is that progressives want to help people

and we will take a lot of crap to help millions (and millions will be added to Medicaid) among other good outcomes.

[bvar22]

17. You clearly have no concept of what enrolling in Medicaid is like.

*

[CreekDog]

23. I'd rather people get care through Medicaid than not at all

Disclaimer: as a kid I had a medical condition that was not paid for by my family's health insurance and got care through charity.

Please lecture me some more about what I don't know.

[dflprincess]

52. Do you have any idea of how low your income has to be to qualify for Medicare

and how few assets you're allowed to have? And will the new bill allow singles with no children to enroll? A lot of states currently don't permit that.


Federal Poverty Guidelines

[CreekDog]

53. are you saying you prefer Medicaid not allow more enrolles?

if you like we can cancel the whole program.

what do you say?

just get rid of all of it.

[dflprincess]

54. You know damn well that's not what I'm saying

You cheerleaders who are claiming that more people will be eligible for Medicaid are ignoring how very few that will be and what the limitations are for eligiblity.

One DUer, who would be eligible, posted his/her current income and they are in a spot where, if their hourly wage goes up by even a lousy $0.25, they will be above the income limit. We'll wind up with people who are not only afraid to change jobs for fear of losing "coverage" but will have to worry about earning just a little more for fear they will lose their medical assistance.

Thom Hartmann pointed out yesterday that this encourages more employers to pay Walmart wages so they can use Medicaid as a "benefit" and to keep their employees poor.

[CreekDog]

55. well then what the heck are you for?

Medicaid is how we cover people with limited income in this country. It has crappy aspects, it is less crappy than getting no healthcare or doing the "i hope i don't get sick routine" that will be the route millions currently take and will continue to take if the Senate Bill fails. If it passes, Medicaid, with all its flaws, will cover many of those people and it will be better than what they have now.

But are you arguing against Medicaid expansion or not? That's what isn't clear.

If all you could do was support opening Medicaid to more people (without insurance) or oppose that, in and of itself, would you oppose that?

[dflprincess]

58. I'm arguing that the caps on Medicaid and the requirements to qualify

are so ridiculous that to proclaim this "expansion" a victory is disingenuous. Yes, a few more people will be eligible and that is a good thing but it's a long way from being an even an adequate response.

You are aware that a single person, working 40 hours a week and making the Federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr) would be making "too much" to qualify for Medicaid? They are also very limited on assets permited currently that varies from state to state but some have caps on those as low as $1500 - including a vehicle.

If the income caps had been raised to a realistic level then it would have meant something.

[CreekDog]

60. well i don't get how you oppose going halfway there

when you support going all the way there.

i mean, do you think there will be another bill that raises Medicaid eligibility in the amount you want it raised?

[dflprincess]

63. It's hardly half way

and all it does is encourage outfits like Walmart and Target to keep wages down so their employees qualify for Medicaid.

This is a disgraceful bill for Democrats to support.

[CreekDog]

65. No it's not

it's disgraceful to do nothing to change it.

[CreekDog]

70. Well, your argument is probably well intentioned but extremely helpful to Republicans

who would love to eliminate Medicaid altogether and/or take this opportunity to defeat any attempt to let it cover more people.

so you may have a point, but because of the larger argument, there's no way i'll side with you. i'll take expansion of people covered by a less than perfect program any day over the argument that it holds wages down.

if you eliminate the program, wages won't go up --they haven't anyway, but you will have less medical care for people in those low paying jobs.

your cure is worse than the disease.

[LostInAnomie]

27. I bet it's a lot better than dying from lack of medical attention...

... or going bankrupt from medical bills.

[lapfog_1]

6. The President is the Leader of the Democratic Party.

If you are "someone" in the party, you have to tow the line to stay in the party.

You can bet that if Howard Dean was still Party Chairman, he would have zipped it.

They have closed ranks.

They hope we will all close ranks with them.

I don't think so. Not this time.

[BzaDem]

7. Usually, the party doesn't fracture when progressives vote unanimously one way.

Just saying.

[martymar64]

8. Maybe they were promised something later for their support today

Maybe they were promised something like support on expanding Medicare and moving towards single payer via reconciliation next year.
That is my hope as to what caused this turnaround.
If they are giving their support without getting a return payoff somewhere down the line, then I would say they just punked out like Democrats usually do.
I'm going to hope that they are better than that this time, but I won't hold my breathe.

[Blasphemer]

9. They got their marching orders... nt

[Individualist]

10. DLC has already achieved their goal of fracturing the party.

[TorchTheWitch]

11. arm twisting

When it comes down to doing the right thing or having their career destroyed they choose saving their career every time. Progressives in congress have no power.

[BP2]

13. Based upon the payola we've seen with LIEberman & Nelson, they must be

just finding a place in line to stick their hands in the revenue stream.

Even .00001 percent of a trillion dollars is a lot of money if you're going to sell your vote - and your soul.

[mmonk]

14. It will be anyway I'm afraid unless they can get it off the news

during the primaries.

[whathehell]

15. Because they concluded that the senate was hopeless and

they may as well send it off to the House where it stands a chance at improvement?

[glitch]

29. Most likely. Not that I believe their conclusions are correct, just the most likely. nt

[bvar22]

16. AFIC, this very public capitulation to the Health Insurance Cartel....

...guarantees a "blood bath" in 2010.

How can anybody who voted for "CHANGE" vote for "The Democrats" after this stomach turning display of venality and cowardice?

The sad part is that the handful of REAL Democrats left in The Party will suffer for the lack of leadership and commitment to Democratic Ideals from the Party Leadership.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[sandnsea]

18. Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, Dorgan - and Lieberman

And yes we should have done a better job EDUCATING their constituents. Except Lieberman who isn't listening to his constituents.

Apparently progressives in Congress can count better than progressives at DU.

[LostInAnomie]

19. Because they are adults and realize that sometimes ideology has to bow to pragmatism.

[GreenArrow]

38. "Ideology" always bows to "pragmatism."

Generally with the result that problems don't get solved.

[EFerrari]

59. Translation: Principles alway bow to political expediency.

Didn't you hear? Political gain is the new pragmatism. lol

[onenote]

20. because more than anything else, they are realists

Label them with whatever term you want, but most elected lawmakers are realists. They recognize that the process of legislating is a process that involves both brinksmanship and compromise and that in the end, no one gets exactly what they want. Sometimes its a fairly even split, sometimes its one sided, but most elected officials recognize that if there is something they want and they can't get it all, they should go along with getting some of it, because if a bill goes down to defeat, resurrecting it later is one of the harder things to do.

If you've spent as much time around the Hill as I have (more than 30 years) you come to recognize that its an ugly, imperfect process. But its the process that, particularly in the Senate, has ruled the day for a long time and will continue to rule the day for a long time.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[walldude]

42. if he is the prototype, it won't happen again.

So no white man will ever be President again? AS angry as I am at Obama he's not nearly as bad as Bush. So using your criteria, no white male will ever be president again because Bush was a total and abject failure on a level that Obama can only dream of reaching.


Or were you just being racist?

[HuckleB]

25. It's NEVER "a happy walk to the finish line."

Why would HCR be any different?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. They are still career politicians and fear breaking with the system, however corrupt it is. .

They would much rather be on the inside because that's where their ambitions lie.

[femrap]

31. WH told them 'no money

for campaigning if you don't get on board.'

I pray the House will KICK SOME ASS! That's our only hope.

[Orangepeel]

32. because they believe it is better than nothing and the best they can get

it's like the story of King Solomon and the baby. Conservatives don't really care if the baby gets cut in half. Progressives do care so they are willing to sacrifice.

Obama's not a King (and, many would hold, hasn't been acting particularly wise) and he doesn't have the power to decree that the progressives get the baby because they are the one's that really care. So we're stuck with getting what can be got.

[Lesleymo]

33. I've been wondering the same thing ...

Just when I was starting to really enjoy the sensible, strong, principled statements from Anthony Weiner and Jay Rockefeller, they all turned into robots echoing the same lines. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." "This is real reform we can really believe in." "We'll go back and fix it later."

Please. Do they think we are complete idiots? (you don't have to answer that)

[GreenArrow]

44. yeah the change in rhetoric from the Weiners and Graysons

was nauseating. And yes, they do think we are that stupid.

[Barack_America]

34. Because those who care will always be at the mercy of those who don't.

They know that if they don't agree to this the rest of the caucus will simply say "oh well" and walk away.

[Kahuna]

35. Probably tired of waiting all these decades to get something perfect and

decided to take what they can get and fix it later.

[PufPuf23]

36. The reality of being marginalized in the Democratic Party

where DLC/Third Way/New Democrats now rule.

This is one time I approve of the Progressives keeping their powder dry.

[Dr Fate]

39. Unlike Blue Dog & DLC purists, progressives actually do compromise w/i the party.

On the other hand, I've never seen a centrist purist give up anything for the benefit of something the left wants.

[rucky]

40. Maybe they examined the bill?

At least I hope that's the case. Otherwise I would have to believe that several people I respect have stabbed us in the back - all at the same time.

[gravity]

41. Because it is their best chance for reform in generations

and they aren't going to fuck it up. As flawed as the bill is, they may never have the opportunity to pass something like it again.

[bullwinkle428]

43. Like Norman Goldman said today, we should have just given Lieberman

and Nelson a pen and ruled notepad, and said, "Go ahead guys...write the bill the way you want it written!" Because that was the end result after 6+ months of work for every Democrat in Congress!! :banghead:

[Vinnie From Indy]

45. Politicians at this level know when the battle is lost

A cardinal rule in politics is to fight battles that you can win or have a chance of winning. This battle is over and to oppose Obama now is political suicide. That is the reason so many will hold their nose and vote "Yea".

[placton]

46. 2 kindsa Dems

skunks and enablers

[Motown_Johnny]

47. they were bluffing

[Tigermoose]

69. Dingdingding!

But they really didn't hold much power so their bluff was not all that effective.

[Wardoc]

48. They pass this and they guarantee the bloodbath, cause we are not selling out for "team colors" sake

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

49. Most of them were on board all along.

The opposition to this bill by progressives in Congress has been greatly exaggerated. One need look no further than the vote tallies to realize this.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. The progressives in Congresss lack the spines that the Liebermans and Ben Nelsons have

[Kingofalldems]

61. Again, you must be so proud of your boy Joe

I understand he will possibly run as a republican next time. I am sure he can count on your continued support.

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. Please review you booksmorks for when I supported his election after the primary

[Kingofalldems]

62. Only a republican would call an act of treachery courageous

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. 'courageous' is your word, not mine

[unkachuck]

51. "Why are all the congressional "progressives" suddenly on board?"

....that's easy....it says right in the Senate Rules that only corporate Dems and repugs are allowed to hold-out for something better and be obstructionists....just like progressive Dems need 60 votes to pass something they want when the corporate Dems and repugs only need 50....

....progressive Dems are expected to go-along and do what they're told....that's if they expect to continue keeping their powder dry....

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

56. Let's look at it this way..St. Bernie Sanders cut a deal to get more money to his state.

Where as, my two pom pom bearers, Gillibrand and Schumer got less than zilch because they were on board all the way.

[SOS]

57. Why even pay attention to the US Senate?

The outcome is 100% predictable on every piece of legislation.
Wall Street wins, we lose.
Every time.

America is governed from Wall Street.
The Senate is just a wholly-owned subsidiary.
Everything that happens in Washington DC is just a marionette theater.

by David Graham Phillips, 1906:

"The treason of the Senate! Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rather too weak, to characterize the situation in which
the Senate is the eager,resourceful, indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army
could be, and vastly more dangerous; interests that manipulate the prosperity produced by all, so that it heaps up riches for
the few; interests whose growth and power can only mean the degradation of the people, of the educated into sycophants, of the masses toward serfdom."

[blindpig]

68. Perhaps because the term 'Progressive' means nothing,

nothing at all.