Skip to main content

View Diary: Four gutless Dems kill single-payer in California (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it is worth pointing out (17+ / 0-)

    that when we had a republican governor guaranteed to veto any such legislation, there were a lot more dems voting for this stuff. but the moment that we have a dem governor, suddenly there are just enough dem votes to make it close, but falling just a vote or two short.

    it's the same bill, so why did those votes shift? because the dems were forced to choose between voters and donors. the charade was up.

    •  It's interesting that there are always JUST enough (11+ / 0-)

      villains on "our side" to prevent true, needed reform from taking place on issues that affect the profits of the powerful.  "Rotating villains" some call it.

      What a charade 21st century American politics is.

    •  Not "THE Dems", But 6 Dems - 19 Stayed True (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I know that 1 bad apple can ruin the whole bunch, but blame the bad apple and not the whole bunch.

      For example, 60% of White-Americans voted for the TeaBigots in the 2010 elections, giving the Repubs control of not only the House, but many State governments.

      So I should blame ALL White-Americans for this? After all, this is a case where the MAJORITY of White-Americans voted for Repubs.

      The CA single-payer case is one where a small MINORITY of Dems voted Nay, yet you blame "the Dems".


      I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

      by OnlyWords on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:16:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the party is torn, in a zero-sum game (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anonyman, FogCityJohn

        between the demands of its voters and its donors. the party will pass all sorts of legislation when it is safely under veto threat, but then somehow comes just a few votes short when the threshold for passage changes.

        one reason why i would like to see the 2/3 threshold for taxes gotten rid of here in CA, and the senate filibuster in the federal government junked as well, is to reveal just how many dems are actually willing to pass their own platform, and how many are just playing games and cashing checks. after enough of these close votes, that shift depending on the different barriers to becoming law, it makes one a bit cynical as to whether any of them have any intention at passing anything they campaign on.

        i know there are good democrats, my state reps lois wolk and mariko yamada certainly count among them. but let us not kid ourselves about the fact that the party as a whole is beholden to two very different set of interests, and our interests appear to be on the losing side when there is no GOP veto to blame.

        i do not see this as a hopeless pyrrhic task, not at all. by all means let us try to hector them into doing their jobs. i just think it a bit naive to pretend that this is a few bad apples, and that insurance industry money doesn't buy democrats as easily as republicans. we are fighting uphill, and the fight is harder now that it has a chance of passage.

      •  There are ALWAYS just enough "bad apples" (0+ / 0-)

        to spoil it for the 99%. The Democrats just take turns. No matter how many Democrats there are, the plutocrats will be able to buy, intimidate, coerce just enough to win...

    •  It happens that way in the US Senate all the time (7+ / 0-)

      as well.  They just change the obstructing Senators so nobody is consistently the anti-Democrat when all the vote tallies are done.  They don't want to ever be the one who consistently votes with the Republicans, so they take turns.

    •  what legislative aides and insiders predicted (0+ / 0-)

      some sought cover from the guaranteed Gov veto, and when that was removed, they'd show their true colors..

      "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

      by fhcec on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:38:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's roughly the same principle (0+ / 0-)

        that governed the senate from 2009-2011. what had only taken 50 votes to pass under bush became supermajority requirements for everything, with the greatest point of absurdity being the "we want this stimulus to pass with 80 votes" insanity.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site