|
Edited on Wed Feb-10-10 01:16 PM by AllentownJake
:rofl:
Here is the deal, with everything the administration has wanted to do in 2009 the progressives/liberals have voted it for it and the funny thing is their survival depends the least on it.
I don't recall in August a group of liberal Senators dragging out the Health Care Reform process as long as possible.
I don't recall there needing to be negotiations and pork handed out to liberal Senators and House members to get their vote on stimulus.
I don't recall the liberals throwing a temper tantrum and delaying Finance reform in either body or stripping the rather moderate provisions from the administration's request.
Even Afghanistan. If the liberals really wanted to, they could have made more noise about it in either houses.
I don't recall Dennis getting a bunch of people together to throw a temper tantrum over his single payer amendment and demand a vote on the house floor before the vote on the overall bill, I do recall Bart Stupak doing that.
From what I've seen it appears they've been relative team players. Also, from what I've seen, they are cheaper to the cost of bills than the so called "budget hawk moderates"
Nope, it has been the "moderates" who have slowed everything down to a standstill and demanded things for themselves, and the ironic thing is they claim to have done it in fear for their own "survival" in re-election.
Feingold isn't that worried about re-election and neither is Bernie Sanders, Al Franken (he's got 5 years), Barbara Boxxer should be OK as well. Scott Brown would have never beat Ted Kennedy, but he sure had his way with Coakley who was partying with Health Care lobbyist two weeks before election.
I tell you who is worried. Evan Bayh, he's scared. Mary Landriue terrified, Blance Lincoln, scared. Ben Nelson, might as well start looking for work now buddy because 2013 looks like your last day. Joe Lieberman, he's going to be the GOP nominee in CT.
See here is how it is going to work in November. All the moderates who have been watering down, watered down legislation further, are all going to have tougher races than most of the "liberals" and here is the deal, the "moderates" are going to be tagged with the watered down legislation regardless if they voted for the watered down of the watered down version. Lastly, if it appears the race is close, their fund raising edge is over because their sponsors aren't giving money to them because they like their ideology, they like their access to said Senator/Representative, and access to another lackey in the Senate or House is just all right with them as well. They should know that, that is how they got there in the first place :rofl:
However, I expect the "liberals" and "progressives" to be blamed for everything.
Good policy is always the best case you can make for re-election.
|