Reid Takes The Bullet?

Perhaps this is as it should be given Reid's ineffective tenure as Senate Majority Leader:

Senators emerging from the special Democratic caucus confirm that the Medicare buy-in proposal will have to be stripped from the Senate bill in order to achieve 60 votes.

I am not seeing how Reid survives next year's election if this is true. He needed to make Obama do the dirty work. Then again, maybe the "achieve 60 votes" part is the key. Maybe Reid will propose reconciliation now. (Reid says bill will pass next week - no reconciliation then.) I seriously doubt it. I think he just signed his own political death warrant. As did Chris Dodd and others.

Speaking for me only

< First They Came For The PO. Next They Came For Medicare Buy In . . . | It's the Dom Rel Crowd That Doesn't Get It >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    IMO, they're both toast already anyway (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:33:00 PM EST

    Now burnt to a crisp (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:34:11 PM EST
    I didn't really expect CT to have two (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:41:06 PM EST
    Republican Senators so quickly.

    Know of any Dems who can plausibly (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:04:16 PM EST
    primary Reid? I think that's our only shot at holding his seat, honestly.

    Impossible (none / 0) (#41)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:13:16 PM EST
    You will not find a Democrat to run against Harry Reid in Nevada.  He controls all the state machinery.

    Is he doomed?  Well, I certainly wouldn't bet money on him.  But he doesn't even really have an opponent yet!  Bear in mind that John Thune was an exceptionally strong candidate.


    Pretty much (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:17:05 PM EST
    I would bet that any Republican who can raise just a little money will beat him next year.

    I can always count on you (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:34:43 PM EST
    to transform the conventional wisdom into an iron-clad prediction.  I love that boldness.

    You also should not underestimate the importance of pork when election time rolls around.  Heck, Ted Stevens almost won after he was convicted!


    Whose conventional wisdom? (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:37:45 PM EST
    There's an alternate strain that says passing any healthcare bill will save the Dems. I believe that is Rahm's position.

    In any case, I don't discount the possibility that any incumbent could somehow pull it out of the fire in the end. But that seems especially unlikely in this cycle. I think the writing is on the wall for Reid.


    Everyone thinks Reid is doomed (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:41:25 PM EST
    the beautiful thing is, if you take everything that is 80% likely and proclaim it to be an ironclad lock, you'll be right 80% of the time!

    Well, I don't have any money riding on this (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:44:46 PM EST
    I'm just some guy commenting on a blog.

    lowden GOP (none / 0) (#78)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:44:55 AM EST
    Sue Lowden will take it IMO, she has been building the NV GOP in the state

    Wonder if the Dem base (none / 0) (#39)
    by Spamlet on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:06:19 PM EST
    will jettison the (post-1980) unwritten rule against primarying a sitting president.

    We have an unwritten rule? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:35:50 PM EST
    I thought it was more a case of having only one sitting president since 1980, and no one was interested in primarying him.

    Maybe the SOS (none / 0) (#58)
    by domer5000 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:10:46 PM EST
    will run again,

    Inconceivable (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Spamlet on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:22:17 PM EST
    that she would primary Obama, even if she were to leave the Obama administration before 2012. As for her running in 2016, who knows?

    I agree (none / 0) (#63)
    by domer5000 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:29:03 PM EST
    she would not want to go 0 for 2 against him

    BTD's post on refighting the primaries (none / 0) (#64)
    by Spamlet on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:34:19 PM EST
    went up earlier today, if you're just interested in trashing Shrillary.

    yeah (none / 0) (#79)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:45:44 AM EST
    God Forbid we got a fighter in there, that would be awful

    just amazing.... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by kempis on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:34:18 PM EST
    If nothing else, this whole debacle illustrates just how far removed our government is from its citizens, how it is responsive first and foremost to deep corporate pockets.

    Without real campaign finance reform, we can't have real anything reform in this country.

    The Supreme Court (none / 0) (#59)
    by domer5000 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:11:32 PM EST
    is about to strangle campaign finance reform

    Whew! (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:33:46 PM EST
    Hey, look on the bright side, we have a B+ President evrybody!  I would have hated to see what kind of wretched failure healthcare might have been with a "D" President.  (There is no snark tag big enough for this post.)


    oops (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:34:26 PM EST
    everybody instead of evrybody.

    Hah....a B+/A- (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    self-grandizing assessment against a miserably poor approval rating. Now, that's exactly what I expected from him.

    Whoopi (none / 0) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08:16 AM EST
    Goldberg gave him a C on "The View."  Good gal.

    She's (none / 0) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:19:10 AM EST
    very generous.

    Ummm . . . . (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:39:46 PM EST
    We will now have an A- President {big disgusted grin} He's sharpening his signing tool as we type . . . .

    Time to start the popcorn, I feel a speech a comin' . . . . drinks anyone?


    Yep! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:55:06 PM EST
    Like Jurgis (Yurgis?  I forget the exact spelling.) said in Sinclair's The Jungle:  "Leave the bottle, I want to get drunk."

    I was moved by his '04 Convention Speech, but his subsequent string of "Best Speeches Evah" have left me colder with each speech to the point that I can't watch them.



    I responded to that speech also (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:09:08 PM EST
    I do know that part of it was his ability to speak (compared to our current chimp at the time). Still, he didn't hold a candle to Clinton.  ;) I also think that many of us interpreted the speech in a slightly different vein than you see it now, knowing what we learned along the campaign. When he first threw his hat in, I thought he should have waited and gained experience, but I wasn't opposed to him in general. Then the campaign started and it wasn't long . . . .

    I'm actually off to the store to pick up some various liquors for candy making, I think I'll add in "a bottle" to leave for myself ;) I guess with our popcorn and drinks speech, we should pull out some nice warm blankies. I doubt the speech will have any warming effects . . .  


    Better that (none / 0) (#57)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:52:34 PM EST
    than the C+ Augustus we just had.

    In some ways not (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:10:15 AM EST
    The prostitution of the promise is devastating long-term.

    I now officially give up after 50 years of intensely caring about politics.


    Not only Reid (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:50:18 PM EST
    If this fiasco goes through as bad as it appears to be heading, ALL Democrats better run for cover. There's going to be a lot of young wide eyed idealists that are going to go back to ignoring politics.

    They were ignoring politics the whole time (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Spamlet on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:57:35 PM EST
    There's going to be a lot of young wide eyed idealists that are going to go back to ignoring politics.

    The election was American Idol to many of them. The same is true for some who are not so young, and who should be old enough to know better.


    Yes, as my niece in Iowa said (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:20:21 PM EST
    as she headed off to caucus, "it's so cool to do."

    Btw, she was and is not an Iowan. . . .


    In 2004 (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:52:21 AM EST
    I voted in PA instead of MA.  I guess since I lived there temporarily it was OK, but I still had a MA ID and everything.  I never once felt guilty about that.  In fact, I kind of wish I'd driven 30 min west and somehow figured out how to vote in Ohio that year.

    Honestly, I see it as more a problem with the whole electoral college & primary system than voters.  Why should it matter what state you live in for a presidential election?

    It's actually kind of infuriating.  The only reason you shouldn't do it is local elections, but if national elections were 1 person = 1 vote, like they should be, this wouldn't even be an issue.  It gets frustrating knowing your vote for president will never count unless you live in a swing state.  And frankly, it's wrong.

    So I do not begrudge your Iowa neice one bit.  She was just making her voice heard.


    You do not know my niece's status (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    in Iowa.  Not the same as your status in PA.

    Some states do their job, some states get done to.


    Looks like the Dems are going for (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:25:54 PM EST
    the absolute minimum, which I am calling First Aid Kits For All; I mean, who couldn't use a nice big box of band-aids, some Neosporin and adhesive tape?

    And even that the Dems would probably just find a way to weaken.

    I have a feeling the turnout for 2010 may be the lowest in years; how could it not be?  Is the only argument for voting (D) that it's better than voting (R)?  That's just not going to cut it, sorry.

    That's the (none / 0) (#71)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:26:52 AM EST
    likely trend in coming years, an ever smaller percentage of eligible voters turning out on election day.

    No one could have predicted (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by pluege on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:10:22 AM EST
    that when obama insists on bipartisanship what he really means is replacing democrats with republicans. Obama: the very best thing that ever could have happened to the ludicrously insane republican party.

    Reid is an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CST on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    If CNN is correct here, he is the one who won't consider reconciliation due to concern of a "major political pushback" against Dems up for re-election.  He should be a lot more concerned about what happens if they pass a crappy bill than how they pass it.

    From the article:

    "Two sources have told CNN that White House Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to use the budget process known as reconciliation to push through health reform - and that Reid has rejected that request."

    As someone old enough (2.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:53:09 PM EST
    to take the long view, I favor something instead of nothing. We have waited too many decades for reform to turn back now even though we haven't reached the Nirvana of single-payer.

    Part of me wants to say, "Eff this, I'm taking my marbles and going home!"  But the more rational part of me is saying, "OK, this ain't so great, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we now have."

    If we get insurance reform where the Aetnas of the world can no longer cherry pick, can no longer cancel people who have the effrontery to get sick, where employees don't lose coverage when they lose their jobs, well, that's hugely important for millions of Americans.

    The increasingly impressive Sherrod Brown was on Olbermann tonight and he is favoring a move forward even if the bill isn't a great bill.  I agree, although I'm not ecstatic.

    You have no idea what is in the bill (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:56:19 PM EST
    When you know what that "something" is, let's talk.

    According to MSNBC (none / 0) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:00:28 PM EST
    Lieberman is getting his revenge against the left wing of the democratic party for beating him. Or at least that's howard fineman's take on it...

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by hollyfromca on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:08:08 PM EST
    And they specifically mentioned Jane Hamsher and Markos, among others

    Hamsher (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:52:04 PM EST
     was particularly obnoxious in that election. I said at the time that FDL & Orange Blossom were the best two friends stink'n Joe could have prayed for. People just don't like outsiders swooping into their state. screeching and hollering against one of their own. NY 23 proved that, among other things.

    Yeah,,,No.... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by progrocks on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:05:37 PM EST
    That is not even close to an accurate take on that election.  People vote for incumbents.  Lieberman got the votes of those who supported him in the primary plus the conservatives in the state.  Lamont losing has nothing at all to do with Firedog or Kos, nothing

    No, I don't. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:30:48 PM EST
    And you don't either.

    I'm going by what Sherrod Brown said tonight.  


    And we certainly dont know (none / 0) (#60)
    by domer5000 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:16:15 PM EST
    what bill will come out of the conference committee, so while it's fun to speculate and bash, we will just have to wait and see.

    The (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:07:22 PM EST
    only way that employees won't lose coverage when they lose their jobs is when they pay for the mandated insurance themselves.

    How is mandating insurance going to put food on the tables for the unemployed who can't afford insurance?  You're gonna say "subsidies" to which I'm gonna laugh.

    As for the rest you've mentioned (no rescission, etc), the "health" insurance companies are already buying up Mac trucks to drive through the loopholes in those policies....and no doubt the Congresscritters have ensured plenty of room for those Mac trucks.


    So where does this leave us? (none / 0) (#4)
    by katiebird on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:35:27 PM EST
    There are still subsidies -- but, for who & for what (I don't remember what the minimum plan is anymore)

    More concessions to come (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:36:33 PM EST
    the flood gate are open.

    What I want to know- Do they think they're fooling (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by katiebird on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    Do they think they're fooling anyone?  

    Because, I'll tell you that everyone I know (from all over the political/ideological spectrum) is totally disgusted by this.


    The "pass anything" school (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:45:46 PM EST
    will inevitably find a way to blame the 2010 loss on other factors.

    It will be the lefties fault. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:01:08 PM EST
    The plausible answer would be (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:02:41 PM EST
    "crappy economy." And of course that won't be wrong. But they'll never honestly discuss what might have been.

    Their hope is that the delay (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:27:53 PM EST
    in implementation dates will save them as well as the White House spin machine running at full speed---we achieved what no other president ever did.   And, do not forget the best speech ever is on its way.

    And... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:44:16 PM EST
    they will have the MSM pumping and shilling Obama's great victory. (Of course, actually  reading the bill is waaay too much work for our "reporters.")

    Yes, for example, Ezra Klein (none / 0) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:43:38 AM EST
    argued on Olbermann's show that all that public option and Medicare for More, was just "cost stuff", but the passage of the bill is all important since it will save 150,000 lives (and, of course, this whole bill is crafted by health care professionals and not health care economists, right; and "scoring" of proposals is done by the health care professionals, not the budget office, right?)

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:46:42 AM EST
    the timing on HCR was terrible.

    If the administration had made a truly aggressive assault on unemployment/trade policy and was getting some discernable results real HCR would have stood a much better chance.

    The feeble attempts at economic recovery, ignoring trade reform, etc. doomed Obama to poor job ratings.  As the old saying goes, 'it's the economy stupid.'

    A President with poor job ratings has little clout with Congress even if determined and this President wasn't determined to enact any real reform.

    Inasmuch as strategy is concerned this administration couldn't be more inept if they were trying to screw up.


    Bush ....why not its worked so far. (none / 0) (#22)
    by coast on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    Excise Tax still in? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Andy08 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:33:57 AM EST
    What will happen with this? It's devastating to tons of middle class fox definitely NOT with "cadillac plans" at all!-- This excise idea is just as bad if not worse than the Repubs. one of taxing health-care benefits. How could DEMS come up with this unfair tax is beyond me.

    That was my question, what's left? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:05:17 AM EST
    No public option, no expansion of medicad, some limits on what insurance companies can do, great expansion for insurance companies and fines for anyone who doesn't give the insurance companies more money for more policies.  

    Is there anything else?  The bill will help 10 to 30 million by forcing them to buy health insurance that they don't want to buy.  So health insurance company makes lots of new money.  But there will be no extra coverage for those ho cannot afford to buy health care coverage., No expansion of Medicare or medicaid,  Do I have that right?  

    I agree with Daily Kos, shut it down.  This bill ain't worth a warm bucket of spit.  


    58k (none / 0) (#80)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:48:52 AM EST
    last I heard was a 58k ceiling for couples on the subsidies

    but that was from Bachmann R


    i know this is o.t. horsesh*t (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:35:52 PM EST
    but damn if i would love to be a freudian fly on the wall in all these idiots' heads.  like a gawdamn circus in there.

    i agree, i think he is toast if this plays out to its sniveling end.

    hat tip to vodka tonic (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:36:59 PM EST
    So we're back to the Progressive Block (none / 0) (#8)
    by s5 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:37:02 PM EST
    Or are they going to cave to Emperor Lieberman too?

    No one has ever bet against a Dem cave (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:37:56 PM EST
    and lost.

    Er, *for (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    Obama will lose most of the base (none / 0) (#12)
    by Coral on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 07:41:13 PM EST
    with a bill this bad. I'm phoning the WH, Senators, Congress tomorrow AM.

    "No" on the travesty of the remaining HCR bill.

    So where is Grijalva on this? (none / 0) (#24)
    by s5 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:29:16 PM EST
    At this point, House Progressives are the only people who can save reform from Joe. Will they?

    Outcome after conference report (none / 0) (#28)
    by NealB on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:40:21 PM EST
    From David Waldman's Congress Matters post on conference reports (re the stimulus bill) in February, 2007:

    The reports are not subject to amendment, and in the Senate, motions to proceed to consideration of conference reports are not debatable, and therefore not subject to filibuster, though  the report itself can be. But because conference reports are also not amendable, any filibuster would have to be a straight-up talkathon, as opposed to the less obvious filibuster by endless amendment (which you saw in miniature this week as the Senate worked its way through the stimulus package). That's one reason you rarely see conference reports filibustered.

    Is it possible that Reid may have one last chance at restoring the Medicare expansion in conference? Ultimately, that vote will be the "historic" vote; the one that finally passes the bill and delivers it to the Executive branch.

    Oh ray of light (none / 0) (#30)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:46:34 PM EST
    About the conference report: Please address this further NealB. Are you saying that, once the conference report comes back to the House & the Senate, the vote is essentially a straight majority? What exactly is the difference between debate on the report and motion to proceed to its consideration etc.? I need some hope here.

    Ray of light? Hope? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:57:10 PM EST
    You realize that would be counting on the same spineless folks that sold us out, right?

    Ooops...there goes "hope and change" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Coral on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 08:58:27 PM EST
    My daughter, for one, worked 24/7 for 3 months straight in swing state to get Obamba elected.

    Guess what?

    She just lost her health insurance with loss of job!

    Is this ironic, or just a travesty, or what??!!!!


    Well, at least she got what she wanted (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:26:19 PM EST
    in the White House and had a bit of fun before the reality hit, compared to a lot of others of us who saw what was coming and got hit, too, with the job losses and pay cuts and furloughs and more because of all those starry-eyed campaign staffers and volunteers who didn't listen closely.

    Listening closely in the campaign as some of us did, we are not surprised by all this in the least in terms of health care, Afghanistan, FISA, the economic advisors, etc.


    Amen (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:11:55 AM EST
    Well said.  In some ways, I envy the folks with their experience of ecstasy, even if it's now been horribly crushed.

    Don't (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 01:03:49 AM EST
    forget the support of the finance industry.  A major clue that change was 'just words'

    Budget point of order in Senate (none / 0) (#42)
    by NealB on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:14:21 PM EST
    will require 60 votes to pass. I missed that first time through. So conference report won't help.

    Ah well, you tried (none / 0) (#44)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:17:59 PM EST
    2010 is not going to be a good year for Democrats. (none / 0) (#49)
    by AX10 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:29:26 PM EST
    The GOP is much worse and they will make gains based upon a discouraged Democratic base.
    Reid's seat is gone.
    Hopefully, Richard Blumenthal will put LIEberman out to pasture.

    dodd (none / 0) (#81)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:51:05 AM EST
    I think it more likely that Dodd will step down and Blumie will run for his seat

    but that would be the smart thing to do so maybe not


    I Swear that I Will Never Vote for . . . (none / 0) (#52)
    by Doc Rock on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:34:50 PM EST
     . . . another Democrat or Republican for the Senate. I will never give another nickel to the Democrats. They have sold out Americans' health for the last time. I am an adult, life-long registered Democrat, but no more. And you can have one-term Obama, too. I'm fed up. Don't ask me for money!

    Why not wait and see (none / 0) (#61)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 10:16:16 PM EST
    what happens before deciding to bolt?

    Not that I should care.  I bolted many months ago.


    Not voting is still voting (none / 0) (#77)
    by pluege on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:16:25 AM EST
    Not voting is a vote for the worst of two candidates. Its the way the system works - it has been proven over and over again - it is indisputable.

    So while no one can make anyone vote, those choosing not to vote should be very clear that they are still voting; they are improving the chances of success for the greater of two evils.  


    Until we shatter the power . . . (none / 0) (#82)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:45:25 AM EST
    . . . of the idea that "not voting is a vote," we will be chained to disaster. Democrats need to fear for their power or else they will continue to sell the American people out.

    RIP (none / 0) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:19:26 AM EST
    Reid and health care reform.

    I Called my Senators today, did you call yours???? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:46:14 AM EST