Let's stop pretending that 60 members of the Democratic caucus = filibuster proof.

I keep hearing this in the media over and over, and I realize it's part of their storyline as trying to paint congressional Democrats as weak and ineffectual wusses who don't have enough political will to back up Obama, but come one.

We still have to deal with Ben Nelson.
We still have to deal with Mary Landrieu.
We still have to deal with Max Baucus.
We still have to deal with Joe Lieberman.

They may be Democrats, but they certainly don't support some of the most important parts of the Democratic agenda. And we're gonna have to deal with them somehow. So anyone expecting that now that Franken is seated that things will radically change, think again. We can't force healthcare and cap-and-trade
through the Senate now much more than we could yesterday. Simply, it means we have to appease one less corporate conservative Dem. The others are not gonna just go away quietly.

As if the cable news chatterers would ever admit this, though.

/rant

we shout all day about how so many democrats in congress are conservatives or DINOs, yet we wail and moan when they do not all vote in lockstep for progressive issues. Which is it?

And the problem is not when they vote their conscience, or what they think is best.

It is when they are never put in a position to have to vote that way, so their position is not known. Many Times compromise is good, but not when it is just used to protect people that do not believe in fighting for something.

On another note, not voting for all progressive issues,

is not the same as

Voting against 70% majority of American people, and not standing up against money interest.

Although you are right, people should vote for what they think is right, but they should be honest to why they do it. If they believe in aristocracy or predominately money rule, they should campaign on that. Voting your conscious requires being honest about the reasons also, or they know they are not voting for what people would think is best. If they vote a way and then lie about the reason, then they are saying they do not believe what people think should matter.


Personally I do not see a social contract mandated with private monopolies as a viable option without a public option also. Private companies with 'one share of stock one vote' system are not, nor never will be, an acceptable social form of governance.

The thing is that they can save face with their narrow-minded constituents by voting against the bill. But we should be using the "up or down vote" mantra like the Republicans did to at least get them to vote for cloture.

President of the United States.

rammed through a lot of crap with only 52 senators. We have 60 Senators and the "leadership" in Congress is still caving to the Repukes. Bi-partisanship should be removed from them democrats vocabulary.

I bashed them more on the content of the Bush agenda that they mindlessly voted for. Providing health care and pulling us out of the depression by using a bottom up strategy is a different than starting two pointless wars, destroying our constitution and running the economy into the ground.

Now the Democrats don't have anymore excuses in the eyes of the public or media. The Presidency, huge majorities in congress, public opinion on their side, so I ask this when:

Is it time to admit the Republicans are powerless and rest the blame for inaction and subpar legislation at the doorstep of the Democratic Party?

Like it or not we're are in charge now and are going to have to start taking the blame when the media gets bored and turns on us.

All filibusters end.