The Fed Shutdown Poll and Megathread

[grumbler]

Which I think is a way of restating what grumbler said.  Universal heath care has long been a totem of the Democratic party, yet with absolute control of all the levers a sizable number of representatives wanted to scupper it because it wasn't ideologically pure enough.

Correct - and i would further argue that this was because Obama distanced himself from the process and so left the Democrats with 60 (later 59) chiefs in the Senate.  No one risked anything by raping the system because the only person they would irritate was Broken Reid.

[grumbler]

Even then it's a questionable comment.  It assumes that Democrats are organized in the same way that GOP or CPSU are, and will always obey the orders from the top when it comes to voting.

No, it assumes that 60 senators form an irresistible majority.  Which is true, btw.

[MadImmortalMan]

Kennedy had a seizure after the inauguration and was virtually incapacitated within a couple months of Obama taking office.  I don't think that gave them much time with an irresistable majority.

Pat Robertson's prayers answered.

[DGuller]

I guess the flaw in my logic is that I think of in effective terms, not nominal ones.  Democrats may have had the irresistible majority to pass anything that Democrats unanimously agreed to pass.  That's a true statement, and tautological to the point of idiocy.

The important question is whether Democrats had the irresistible majority to pass something that only a majority of that majority wanted to pass.  For those that remember those distant years, the answer is no, whether before or after Kennedy's death.

Ultimately, when it comes to voting, it doesn't matter who claims to be on your side, it only matters who votes with you.

[Habbaku]

That's a true statement, and tautological to the point of idiocy.

Ultimately, when it comes to voting, it doesn't matter who claims to be on your side, it only matters who votes with you.

[DGuller]

My tautological statement was making a point, or rather driving a point home.  Grumbler's tautological statement was meaningless. 

We can have a unity party tomorrow, to show the country that we're united.  Instead of having Democrats or Republicans, we'll have 100 "Unitites" in the Senate.  Would saying that "Unitites" have an irresistible majority have any meaning?

[Admiral Yi]

My tautological statement was making a point, or rather driving a point home.  Grumbler's tautological statement was meaningless. 

We can have a unity party tomorrow, to show the country that we're united.  Instead of having Democrats or Republicans, we'll have 100 "Unitites" in the Senate.  Would saying that "Unitites" have an irresistible majority have any meaning?

It would have none.  Apart from the probability that a unity government would form around a particular issue, such as a large war.

But the Democratic Party didn't form the day before Obama was elected.  And they've been preaching and wailing and gnashing ever since the end of WWII (or thereabouts) on the desirability of universal health care coverage.  So the fact that a considerable minority of the party were threatening to kill a bill that 100% of the party leadership and rank and file agreed was a net improvement over the fact that insufficient numbers of insurance company executives are going to be impaled on PBS tells you something about the relative importance attached to improving conditions in the country as oppose4d to presenting oneself as ideologically correct.

(See that last sentence?  That's a 1480 sentence.)

[DGuller]

What Democrats did do, though, was to reach out to the conservatives, and try to rack up some "D"s in places thought to be hopeless.  That did work on upping the "D" count, but as a side effect, that count did not represent the true level of support for the core Democratic agenda, and that showed when it came time to vote.

[Berkut]

The Dems just screwed up. I don't really blame it on Obama.

They confused disgust with Bush and a national love affair with the good looking and well spoken black guy for some kind of ultra-left mandate, so they thought they didn't have to bother getting the not so nutbar left in their own party on board, and instead let the most nutbar of the nutbars call the shots.

They saw the bailout and the recession and the war and Bush as their shining moment to grab all that they could not get for the last 20 years, and they wanted it all. They got quite a bit of it, but they over-reached.

I am not really certain that leadership from Obama could have stopped that - he simply did not have any real power within his own party. His lack of experience meant that he was not an actual power with the Democratic Party - his power was simply that he could get a Dem into the Presidency.  Beyond that, they didn't want or need him for anything. They certainly did not want him telling them what they should do.

I don't think Obama ever had any real chance of leading the Democrats anywhere.

[Admiral Yi]

What Democrats did do, though, was to reach out to the conservatives, and try to rack up some "D"s in places thought to be hopeless.  That did work on upping the "D" count, but as a side effect, that count did not represent the true level of support for the core Democratic agenda, and that showed when it came time to vote.

That narrative works if you describe the core Democratic agenda as universal coverage with public option instead of just universal coverage.

[garbon]

I am not really certain that leadership from Obama could have stopped that - he simply did not have any real power within his own party. His lack of experience meant that he was not an actual power with the Democratic Party - his power was simply that he could get a Dem into the Presidency.  Beyond that, they didn't want or need him for anything. They certainly did not want him telling them what they should do.

I don't think Obama ever had any real chance of leading the Democrats anywhere.

And it is sad as that problem was apparent from the outset.

[DGuller]

And it is sad as that problem was apparent from the outset.

I'm sorry, I'm really sorry, Hillary was a better candidate.  Is that what you want to hear?  If it is, then you won't hear it from me, I'll keep that thought to myself.

[garbon]

And it is sad as that problem was apparent from the outset.

I'm sorry, I'm really sorry, Hillary was a better candidate.  Is that what you want to hear?  If it is, then you won't hear it from me, I'll keep that thought to myself.

No that's not where I was going. I was simply thinking about the notion that Obama could have faced down Pelosi & Reid.

[DGuller]

Oh, ok. Forget what I said then. 

[DGuller]

I do think that Obama should work on Plan B.  He should replace Biden with Clinton, and then produce a birth certificate.  From Kenya.