Jon Stewart made a good point. The Democrats have a larger majority. . .

[Statistical]

than Republican's ever had under Bush.

"The reason it <Healthcare> will die is because if Coakley loses the Democrats will *only* have an 18 vote majority in the Senate, which is more than George W Bush ever had and he go whatever the fuck he wanted" - Jon Stewart.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards

A good clip BTW but the sarcasm oh it burns.

Actually the Democrats today have a larger majority than the Republicans have EVER had since 1923. Almost 90 damn years.

The Republicans have passed thousands, tens of thousands of bills in the last 90 years. So why is it impossible for Democrats to do the same thing WITH A BIGGER FRACKING MAJORITY?

60+ majority is a crutch. Democrats need to learn to play the game. Force a fillibuster. Film the idiots, put it on the news. Run ads. Congressman Smith is preventing a vote and in the last 30 days the following people HAVE DIED.

For too long the Democratic leadership has allowed the Republicans to operate without consequence or even challenge.

Now that the 60+ hope is over maybe they will be forced to lead. If not.... God help us in November.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. There are many conservative Democrats but NO liberal Republicans.

That's why.

[Cant trust em]

3. This makes the most sense to me.

[jgraz]

6. There were centrist Republicans. Bush whipped them into line.

The centrist Dems know that Obama will never punish them for siding with the Repukes.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. I have to look, but Republicans have been fairly lockstep since the 1980s

But I think you're basic point is right on target.

[jgraz]

15. Lugar, Warner, Hagel, McCain, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Voinovich

These are all members of the 109th Congress who have demonstrated, on occasion, sensible voting tendencies. They were all lockstep with Bush because he insisted on it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. They aren't liberal though. They certainly are less liberal than Democrats are conservative.

[jgraz]

21. Agree, but that's no excuse for Obama not leading.

[Betty Karlson]

14. Who were the centrists to whom you allude?

[jgraz]

17. See above.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. That is largely true.

There are some moderate republicans but they are far from liberal. There are many truly conservative Dems.

[Statistical]

10. Is the country really a "center right" country?

I don't think it is.

If it is a center right country then the goal needs to be to change that fitst. If conservative Democrats, DLC, and Republicans reflect the true will of the people then nothing will be accomplished until the country is changed.

On the other hand if the country truly is progressive then more time/money/resources needs to be spent on cleaning out the "shadow Democrats". If I was majority leader I would rather have 51, 53, 55 REAL DEMOCRATS than 60,62,78 fake ones in name only.

[jgraz]

20. The *real* country is center-left to left

80% support the public option, 60% support single payer, majorities are against the war, in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy, etc, etc, etc.

Washington is waaaay more conservative than the rest of the country.

[Statistical]

23. Exactly. That is my belief also.

It doesn't matter if the Democrats have 100 votes in the Senate if the Senators are further to the right than the people they *represent* nothing will ever be accomplished.

I think concentrating on the "magic 60" has been a waste. Quality not quantity.

[Overseas]

35. It does seem like the need for the supermajority was just a convenient cover story

to vote in favor of their generous corporate donors.

When Dean pushed us to give them the supermajority, we did so and then got thrown under the bus.

They told us they needed to be "bipartisan" with the party that threw out bipartisanship back in the 90's.

They threw out the best parts of the HCR bill to grovel for one little GOP vote.

The people desperately needed a bailout. 44,000 people die early. And still no. No public option even.

For a peculiar bipartisan pretend game.

[misanthrope]

28. If this is the case...

..."If conservative Democrats, DLC, and Republicans reflect the true will of the people then nothing will be accomplished until the country is changed," then the nation is doomed. As resistant as the average human is to change, conservatives are more so. If the nation can't see that the obviously failed philosophies of the current course are taking us to peril, then we're too blind to save.

[Betty Karlson]

13. There used to be.

But Nixon drove them out.

[Johonny]

24. that's pretty muc h it

you have 40 oops 41 people not willing to even play ball. Democrats under Bush always tried to legislate in good faith. I mean the country has to function. Republicans would rather you die, so they can retain power. For one night it apparently has worked.

[misanthrope]

27. BINGO!**nm

[blondeatlast]

32. Yup. nt

[tekisui]

38. Excuses are like assholes.

[Lifelong Protester]

2. I agree, nows the time to get down to business

for cripes sakes, 51 is a majority! Act like it!

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Sorry. God is not going to be there for us in November.

If we don't do it ourselves, it ain't gonna get done.

[WCGreen]

5. They need to attack and consolidate.

Very simple. Keep them on the defensive, keep them looking over their shoulder, keep them off balance...

In other words, do to them what they have done over the last six months...

[valerief]

7. Yeah, but there are still as many Congress members bought and paid for. nt

[varelse]

8. Perhaps "Democratic leadership" is a figure of myth and legend

not a real beast at all.

[Edweird]

12. "I'm getting 95% of what I want."

[Statistical]

16. ? Not following you. It has been a long day.

[slipslidingaway]

18. knr - they need to listen to the people, not the corporations...

over half the nation wanted a national health care plan, financed by taxes, in 2007.

They silenced that idea and sold the idea of choice between a public option and private insurance.

Then they embraced an individual mandate to buy insurance and dropped the weak public option.

The Dems came in with a big win for change and then backtracked on various promises and ignored many people who voted for them.

[Lorien]

22. I've said this over and over, as have many others on DU

the DLC uses the 60 votes BS as an excuse NOT to pass meaningful progressive reform and push bills to the Right. It's cover.

[Yavin4]

26. THANK YOU !!!! A THOUSAND THANK YOUs!!!!

I've posted the same thing, but here's what drives me mad.

THE DEMOCRATS ONLY GOT 60 VOTES BECAUSE SPECTER SWITCHED!!! A YEAR AGO, THEY ONLY HAD 58 VOTES WITH THE MN RACE HANGING IN THE BALANCE.

SO WHAT WAS THE PLAN TO PASS HCR BACK THEN WITH ONLY 58 VOTES?!

[Lorien]

30. And two years ago they had the majority in the Senate and BushCo STILL got

what they demanded!

And yes, I remember that you were one of those saying the same thing! :hi:

[Overseas]

36. Sorry to say it sure seems that way.

Because Dean's 50-state strategy got lots of Americans to cross party lines and vote for real change after the Bush Gang destroyed our country, and what did we get?

Grovelling for a 1% bipartisan vote. Had to toss out the most popular aspects of HCR to grovel.

Democrats grovelled in Congress and Democrats lost Teddy's seat.

[Yavin4]

25. I've Posted The Exact Same Thing in GDP

Obama does not want to offend the Senators, and the Senators don't want to lead.

[Monk06]

29. It was never 60-40 with Lieberman and the blue dogs. They kept the so called

public option, (which is just a watered down
version of single payer), out of the bill. They
also ensured that the private insurance monopoly
remains intact. You may see stricter controls on
dumping patients with chronic and pre-existing
conditions. But, by and large, the goal of anything
remotely resembling universal, government funded
single payer health care that you find in Europe
and Canada,has been abandoned for at least a
generation if ever.

So what has been gained? The answer to that is that
the existing Senate bill and the final bill signed
by the President will be the first step in achieving
the goal of Universal Single Payer Health care.

As I said in previous posts the Canadian System took
ten years of fighting to make it a national health care
plan with insurance companies and medical associations
fighting every step of the way.

I expect no less a contracted war of attrition in the US.
So think of a National Health care Plan similar to the Canada
Health Act sometime after 2020 or 2030

[Statistical]

31. Shameless kick for the morning crew.

[donco6]

33. The only reason is because the Dems don't actually WANT to do anything.

At least, this batch of spineless corporate weasels.

If we actually had Dems who believed their own platform, maybe we'd see some passion for doing what's right. I'm not holding my breath anymore.

[Overseas]

34. Brilliant segment. Shows how I feel now so very well. K&R! //nt

[Better Believe It]

37. Democrats just need 51 votes but they don't force the Republicans to filibuster