So, today in the Senate, the public option was killed in the Senate Finance Committee. While five `conservative` Democrats were the votes, the public option defeat is a Democratic Party, as a whole, failure.
This utter failure by the Democratic Party is why they are going to go “four and out”; four years in power and done. But, lets chronicle the total meltdown…
The year is 2006, midterm elections, and Democrats are swept into power. It is marginal power, true, but power nonetheless. This is where the beginning of the meltdown begins, as it always does for the Democrats, before any battle is joined.
“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.
Pelosi also said Democrats, despite complaining about years of unfair treatment by the majority GOP, “are not about getting even” with Republicans.
She said the GOP, which frequently excluded Democrats from conference committee hearings and often blocked attempts to introduce amendments, would not suffer similar treatment.
“Democrats pledge civility and bipartisanship in the conduct of the work here and we pledge partnerships with Congress and the Republicans in Congress, and the president – not partisanship.”
Way to go, Nancy, you surrendered before you even gained power. Harry Reid has been just as cowardly. The defining issue of the 2006 election was the Iraq war. Harry Reid called the war “lost”, he threatened the cut funding, and in the end?
May 25, 2007 — The U.S. Senate has approved $100 billion in new funds for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without a timetable for withdrawing combat troops.
Just hours earlier, the House of Representatives also approved the bill. U.S. George. W. Bush is expected to sign it into law promptly.
Passage of the legislation capped a four-month struggle between Bush and the new Democratic-led Congress over the increasingly unpopular Iraq war, now in its fifth year.
Underscoring Democratic division, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California voted against it and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada voted for it.
Yep, that’s right, Harry Reid surrendered. But, all the public heard was, “we don’t have the votes“.
WASHINGTON – Lacking the votes to end the war, Democratic leaders said yesterday they will try to make the US troop surge in Iraq “irrelevant” by shifting the war debate away from the impact of the recent US offensive and instead make the case that the price paid in lives, treasure, and military readiness was not worth it.
Reuters reports Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats lack the votes to block Judge Alito’s confirmation:
“Everyone knows there is not enough votes to support a filibuster,” Reid said, referring to the procedural roadblock that some Democrats wanted to use to put off a vote on Alito.
That was the whine coming from the wambulance that was the Democratic Party after the 2006 midterms. The votes just weren’t there to do anything. Well, America heard the whining come the 2008 election.
What are we hearing now?
Senate budget committee chairman Kent Conrad said Sunday on U.S. television network ABC Democrats do not have the votes to pass a bill despite holding a 60-seat majority in the 100-member assembly.
That the Democratic Party doesn’t have enough votes even with 60 votes, is a complete failure for the Democratic Party. But, don’t worry, there is enough blame to go around come 2010.
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama has never been wedded to a government-run health insurance plan.
The will-he-or-won’t-he obsession over how hard Obama might fight to include the so-called public option in a health care reform package has been, let’s be honest, mostly just noise.
Obama settled that Washington parlor game in his speech to Congress and a television-watching public Wednesday night. The president praised the public option but called it only a means to the end of providing more competition, not crucial on its own.
“We should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal,” he said.
It was vintage Obama, the political realist who knows it’s not worth going to the mat for something when the votes aren’t going to be there. It was Obama the conciliator, using soaring rhetoric to try to get warring sides to come together around common sense. And it was Obama the ever-willing negotiator, unfazed by abandoning many specifics on the road to a larger goal.
A Democratic House surrendered. A Democratic Senate surrendered. The Democratic President surrendered. Forget 60 votes. Forget electoral landslide. Forget public opinion on issues. So, forget having your majorities come 2010.
Oh, don’t worry, those who voted the Democratic Party into power in 2006 and voted to give the Democratic Party huge majorities and both the Executive and Legislative in 2008 aren’t going to vote Republican. They are going to do worse than that; vote independent or stay home.
Yes, as bad as the Republicans are, they will still win elections if enough people simply don’t go to the polls. And let’s be honest, why should we? We gave the Democratic Party all the power they needed, all the votes they needed, and they have proven they simply will not govern.
You wanted Republican votes? You got them, not in the Senate or House, but, at the polls where it counted. How do you think you got such huge majorities and an electoral landslide for President? What did you think would happen when you f@cked it up not even a year past the election?
You wanted time? Bullsh@t! Democrats have been whining for years about how they simply can’t govern. Time is up.
Oh, and as far as those five Democrats who simply cannot bring themselves to vote with their Party, well, here’s an idea, tell them they will get NO FUNDING from the Democratic Party UNLESS they vote with them! What a concept that would be! They would have no chance to win re-election without that funding, yet, it’s the progressive politicians that have been threatened.
Will health care reform be the Democratic Party’s “waterloo”? Yes. But, not because of the GOP. It will be their “waterloo” because the Democratic Party simply surrendered from day 1.
10 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
anyone who thinks a third party is a bad idea needs to have their head examined.
Because we don’t even really have a second party.
We have one.
We have actors who play at “opposition” to the ruling class, but it’s just an act. They usually have (D)’s after their names, but it’s just the role they play.
in our system unless we radically rethink what a “party” actuall is. First of all it definately should be a party to belong to it — and I mean paaarty. It should be fun and exciting — then it will gain adherents. People like to enjoy themselves so let’s look into what sorts of things make people happy. Also, people like to have tangible things like places to meet, venues for concerts, education, health care. There is the opportunity. We shouldn’t be spending money on fucking pols–the evidence is in and that simply does not work.
It’s like Red Sox vs Yankees. Until we start tracking the real political forces in this country it is pointless to get involved or interested in the shadow play of Congressional politics.
If we want we can actually put a lot of dots on the board that make connecting them not so hard. We have access to many fine reporters and writers who have mapped out the actual situation that the MSM has not. We are in a historical period that is dominated by what Loretta Napoleoni calls “Rogue Economics”. The rules that once fettered the establishment no longer apply and we are moving quickly into a system that will be indistinguishable from organized crime. Already Misha Glenni has said that 15% of the world GDP belongs to organized crime — and that means what he calls the McMafias. He does not include what we know as the financial industry which is now dominated by criminals who will not and cannot ever come to justice.