I woke up this morning in the "the bill is still worth passing" category, but I'm starting to be persuaded otherwise.

I say stick the public option back in and see if they can set a new record for longest filibuster.

I'm hesitant to give an opinion on a work-in-progress. I don't want them to pass something worthless just to pass it. If people want to block a non-crippled bill then at least make them go through with it.

i want to say 3, but really im more of a 4.
but im not a 4 for the reasons my right wing neighbors are.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Leave the public option in- let it go to the floor and let the proper people take the blame for its death.

Do you really want to ask this? You just know some right-wing nutjob like myself is going to give his opinion, and then it's gonna get all political up in h'yar.

Or maybe I'll just echo dag. I like the cut of his jib.

(P.S. Dag: Pls send more pictures of your jib, thx.)

I'm a solid #5 now.

The activists are pretty loudly saying we should be pushing the leftmost Senators to withhold their vote -- try to get concessions made back to the left. Hold the individual mandate hostage, since we know the health care industry is salivating over that more than anything. Make them give us little people some real concessions in return for it.

There's a huge amount of blaming Obama for being essentially silent and invisible on this topic since, oh, July. What little we've seen from him has been a diplomatically phrased STFU to the progressives about the public option, and most recently a very undiplomatic "shut the fuck up you stupid, crazy motherfucker" to Howard Dean, who really sparked this firestorm.

There's some pretty anemic arguments coming from our wonkier members, mostly saying #1 -- the status quo is so bad, we should eat crow on the public option just for the improvements in the existing bill, though they aren't pointing to something we hadn't really heard about before, they're just stoked about the mandate, subsidies, and the exchanges.

The problem with that is that it means that all political positives of the bill disappear. Maybe I shouldn't worry about that so much, but it seems to me that the Senate bill looks a lot more like the McCain health care plan (tax employer benefits, subsidize individual insurance, and enable national competition in the individual market) than what Obama talked about (which always included government negotiation of prices, which didn't make it out of any committee).

There's no clear road forward with the bill as it is now, other than we're going to set things up for a bigger crisis in the future, which will hopefully give us the clout to make things right later.

That too seems like the Republican modus operandi (i.e. run up deficits to create perpetual budget crises with the hope that people will empower Republicans to cut popular liberal programs), and I don't care for it one bit.

Normally I'm happy to play armchair quarterback, but I don't see a win in killing the bill, nor in passing it as is. We need more options, and quickly.

Got to Europe, hippie.

im so sick to death of politics.
its like having sex with blankfist
itll always leave you disappointed
wishing it had done more for you
and
a shit stain on your sofa.

#3.

I'm with Dean.

A bad bill is worse than a good bill, and a half-assed bill might be worst of all.

I'm 6:
Not even THEY know what they're voting on...

They're rushing it beyond reason for no reason. Something so large, so extremely risky, and so experimental ought not to be dived into with such reckless abandon. They spent FAR more time on "no child left behind" and even with that amount of time, it was still less than ideal to be generous. I vote dump the entire thing and start over with some actual bipartisan consideration. As with any bill this large, I say if you can only convince half of those whom we've elected to lead us that it is a good idea, the whole thing is a failure. In addition, last I checked, a large majority of US citizens don't want it to pass. The Dems are worried they'll lose their political capital if they can't pass it? Maybe, but if they DO pass it, they'll anger an enormous number of voters, more or less sealing their fate in 2010. Meanwhile, the media is only interested in the craziest loons on both sides. After all, they make good headlines and talking points. The people with their heads screwed on straight aren't getting their message out 'cause no one wants to feel like their watching CSPAN.

Piss on em.

Those are the same fucksticks who thought GW Bush was a good idea.

>> ^Doc_M:
if they DO pass it, they'll anger an enormous number of voters, more or less sealing their fate in 2010.

>> ^Doc_M:
I'm 6:
Not even THEY know what they're voting on...

No, you're #4, with "DIE HIPPIES!" written in the margin.

I love that you think there's such a thing as untapped bipartisan consensus. What idea isn't in the Senate bill that you think would be supported by more than 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the Senate?

What Republican alternative plan do you think would earn support from more than 5 or so Democrats?

I'll side with Psychologic and Dag. I wasn't at all impressed with the bill even when it -had- a public option. Without it, it's worse than nothing, just a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the health insurance industry.

Put it back in, and make the bastards stand up there and publicly filibuster. Then we can run that footage against them during their next campaign.

>> ^Stormsinger:
Put it back in, and make the bastards stand up there and publicly filibuster. Then we can run that footage against them during their next campaign.

That's just it. The split is up to 16% now. So if they DO filibuster, you'll have 40% going NOOO and 56% going hooray.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Doc_MI love that you think there's such a thing as untapped bipartisan consensus. What idea isn't in the Senate bill that you think would be supported by more than 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the Senate?
What Republican alternative plan do you think would earn support from more than 5 or so Democrats?


^ Reasons why a two party system is not productive or useful, number one. Republicans did propose amendments and changes that would convince them to get on board. They were broadly rejected with the exception of the ever-unpopular public option that was a deal-breaker for many people. Without that option, it might pass; with it, not a chance. That is clear. Of course I should add that some of those amendments were probably worthy of the circular file.

They were broadly rejected with the exception of the ever-unpopular public option....



"Ever unpopular" to the corporations, the rich, and the Republicans who lick their boots.

"Ever unpopular" to the American citizen chief. Sorry to disturb your dreamland, but there are people that disagree with you to the extent that freedom means.

AND, I am NOT rich dude. Not by any means. It is likely that I make less than you dude.

>> ^rougy:
They were broadly rejected with the exception of the ever-unpopular public option....

"Ever unpopular" to the corporations, the rich, and the Republicans who lick their boots.
You say this like there's something wrong with it.



Oh, that's right. Your assumption is that "corporation" = "evil" and "rich" = "greedy".
You can find examples of the above, sure, but they're not the rule.
If you're going to argue your point, argue it on its merits, not through some straw man.

>> ^Doc_M:
"Ever unpopular" to the American citizen chief. Sorry to disturb your dreamland, but there are people that disagree with you to the extent that freedom means.


Go google the public option polling again, you are grossly misinformed.

The public option always polled in the 55-70% support range, and has been more popular than the reform package generally in every poll I've seen.

As for your lament about the two party system being broken, do you really think more parties would help? The likliest "new" parties would start on the extreme right (libertarian/tea party) or to the left of Democrats (green/progressive). Neither would be more likely to compromise, given that their entire existence would have come from their otherwise uncompromising ideological stances.

Without changing the overall adversarial nature of politics these days, there is no such thing as bipartisan agreement.

As for the argument that the Republicans offered amendments that would've let them vote for it, that's horseshit, and I hope you already knew that. Republicans were never going to vote for this bill unless Democrats accepted their first amendment, which would've stricken the entire bill and replaced it with one penned by the insurance industry Republicans. They were never willing to truly compromise; they would never agree to let us make the bill more liberal in one area in exchange for it getting more conservative in another.

For example, what could we offer Republicans to get them to vote for a bill that allowed every American the choice of buying into Medicare? Anything?

It's simply naive to think that there were any Republicans who would've ever voted yes for the final bill. At best, we might have gotten Snowe or Collins to vote for cloture, but given the pressure they got from the right, I doubt there was a compromise that could have been made that would've won us either of their votes.

For that matter all Snowe said she wanted was the public option to be triggered, but now it's gone entirely. Why didn't she announce she'll vote for cloture and prevent Ben Nelson from making the bill more anti-choice? It's not been a big focus in press coverage, but it's not like they haven't asked her.

I wish it were something a lot different, but pass it as it is, make it better over time. I'm with Krugman on this one.

The bill so far, is a lot better than the status quo. Soon, 30million people will have health-care who don't today. That is with or without the public-option. From all accounts, the bill is better than the system we have today, and we can pass this, declare victory, then keep on fighting. "Don't let the perfect be enemy of the good".

The Republicans will never, ever, ever, in a million years vote for "socialized medicine". There will never be bi-partisanship on this issue. The conservatives will never bring a bill that vastly regulates the financial and insurance industries. Never.

Fortunately the debate over health-care right now is not left vs right. It is liberal vs conservative/centrist democrats, and one droopy Lieberman.

There is no evidence that this bill will get better once it's passed, and every indication that--over time and in particular under Republican-controlled governments--it will get worse.

In essence, this bill will force every American working adult to pay about 10% of his or her wages to big insurance companies.

>> ^NetRunner:

As for your lament about the two party system being broken, do you really think more parties would help? The likliest "new" parties would start on the extreme right (libertarian/tea party) or to the left of Democrats (green/progressive). Neither would be more likely to compromise, given that their entire existence would have come from their otherwise uncompromising ideological stances.


That's where you're dead wrong.

They would have to compromise more.

They would be forced to compromise precisely because there are more points of view being represented, not in spite of the fact.

The two-party system is the punchline of our already fucked up system of government.

Apparently a deal was reached. Here's a DKos diary running down the changes.

For people allergic to the great orange devil, it includes:

• Annual and lifetime benefit caps are banned
  
• Insurance companies will be required to spend at least 80% of their revenue on medical costs (85% for large group/corporate plans)
  
• States may opt to ban abortion coverage from their state's exchange
  
• Public option is now a framework for privately run non-profit plans which can operate across state lines (but has to comply with the regulations in all client states simultaneously)
  
• People meeting certain income/cost requirements may be able to use exchanges, even if they have an employer plan available (big improvement, IMHO)
  
• A bribe to Ben Nelson, in the form of federal money to Nebraska's Medicaid program.
  
• Penalties for not carrying insurance are increased slightly for those making more than $37,500/yr.
  
• Lots of tax breaks/extra funding for adoption and teenage pregnancy programs
  
• Dropped provisions which would have revoked health insurance companies' anti-trust exemption (not sure if that was for Nelson or Lieberman, maybe some Republicans could offer that as an amendment *guffaw*)
  
• Most everything else like subsidy levels, bans on denials for preexisting conditions and recissions are still in place.
  

I'm not as annoyed as I used to be.

If we have 60 votes for this, I say pass it.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^NetRunner:
As for your lament about the two party system being broken, do you really think more parties would help? The likliest "new" parties would start on the extreme right (libertarian/tea party) or to the left of Democrats (green/progressive). Neither would be more likely to compromise, given that their entire existence would have come from their otherwise uncompromising ideological stances.

That's where you're dead wrong.
They would have to compromise more.
They would be forced to compromise precisely because there are more points of view being represented, not in spite of the fact.
The two-party system is the punchline of our already fucked up system of government.


Let's game this out. Say we have a horribly broken health care system. Democrats want a moderate/conservative reform that will mostly re-regulate the existing private system, with a public option. The Greens want single-payer. The Republicans and Libertarians would rather see the country burn than see government create new entitlements or regulations.

On a lark, let's say the partisan breakdown in the Senate is something like 10 Greens, 50 Democrats, 30 Republicans, and 10 Libertarians.

How would things be even the slightest bit more conducive to compromise? The Greens could join the right-wing caucus and defeat the bill, but that could happen now if people like Sanders, Feingold, or Brown jumped ship. We'd still have to find something that pleased them as well as the furthest-right person in the left-wing coalition.

Maybe if the right would only use the filibuster only in extreme cases (say, if we had 50 votes + Joe Biden for single payer), we'd be okay too.

The problem is the filibuster, and Senate rules generally. There used to be a bit of a gentleman's agreement in the Senate that filibusters were only to be used in extreme cases. That's a thing of the past now, and Republicans use it on everything.

Personally, I say we just eliminate the Senate entirely. The House seems a lot more functional (and representative) than the Senate.

>> ^NetRunner:
Personally, I say we just eliminate the Senate entirely. The House seems a lot more functional (and representative) than the Senate.

Yeah, screw those tiny states! Let's let California, New York, and Texas decide what's what.

(Ok, so you need the top nine most populous states to reach 50%. Still.)

^ Democracy is one person one vote, not one state, two votes.

California and New York have tons of Republicans, Texas has a ton of Democrats.

I don't see why Democrats who live in Idaho or Utah shouldn't ever get represented in the Senate, nor why Republicans are essentially never going to be heard from if they live in Vermont or Wisconsin.

For that matter, I don't see why the people living in DC get no vote in the house or Senate at all, even though more people live there than do in Wyoming, which gets 2 Senate votes and a House vote.

I'd settle for us just dropping the filibuster (the Constitution sets up the Senate as a majority-rules body, after all), but I'm game for ditching the Senate entirely.

Let's be honest, the Senate was a bribe to get the small states to join the union. But that's the way it is.

But I'd like to think that if we had multi-stage elections, that would allow for more rational centrists. They wouldn't have to appeal to the lunatic fringe of their party to get elected, they could afford to appeal to a little from the left and a little from the right.

And yeah, the filibuster rules have got to be changed. But if we had more than two parties, would there really be a reason left to have filibusters at all? To be honest, I don't see how it's useful right now...

But on to the reform package. In my mind, the most important changes are "no more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions", and "affordability respecting the individual's income bracket".

I see movement on the first, but not the second. Is there something in the bill that will prevent insurance companies from raising cancer patients' rates to unaffordable levels?

>> ^NetRunner:
^ Democracy is one person one vote, not one state, two votes.

America is not a pure democracy. Pure majority rule isn't advisable for anything larger than small communities. The US is republic and there are very numerous essays and such out there on the advantages of that system with all its characteristics such as the Senate.

BTW I did bork up the polls. I missread and article which actually was talking about Obama's Healthcare polling, not the public option. Recent polling... and old polling too places the public option at just over 53% on average, but it did recently take a dip to lower numbers. Bloomberg says 46%... whatever. The only number that matters at this point is 60. There's a number the Dems should enjoy while they have it 'cause it's not going to last.

^ "The only number that matters at this point is 60. There's a number the Dems should enjoy while they have it 'cause it's not going to last."

Yeah, you cons just can't wait to get back in control so you can fuck everything up again.

^Don't be a douche rougy.

Anyway, I found out where the polling confusion really came from:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

>> ^Doc_M:
^Don't be a douche rougy.
Anyway, I found out where the polling confusion really came from:
http://www.rasmussenreports
.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform


Well, it's true.

You're beating your chest as if the cons are going to take over in 2010 or 2012 and fix everything, and it's PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THEM and the people who support them--that's why we're in this mess.

And you appear to be one of those people.

And despite the manipulations of the conservative "fuck em all" right, most Americans do want public health care.

"You're beating your chest as if the cons are going to take over in 2010 or 2012 and fix everything, and it's PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THEM and the people who support them--that's why we're in this mess."

Psh. What has the completely Democrat-dominated government done? Nothing. Unemployment is higher than it's been in almost 30 years, the deficit is staggeringly enormous, and we're still at war... This "change" has failed by every measure of the word.
"Fix everything?" Unlikely. Correct the Democratic monopoly on our government? Yes. ...but God help us if they get their own monopoly back in 3 years.

This healthcare bill will probably benefit me personally so I'm not gonna cry if it passes. I'm more concerned with the tendency of our current (and recent) government to just buy businesses that aren't up to snuff. If they start buying news agencies...

@ReverendTed – Yes, there's something wrong with it because the corporations are fewer in number than the general population, yet it is the corporate needs that are being catered to. It's wrong because the few who have wealth and power are being served while the common man and woman are being ignored. That's not a straw man.

@NetRunner - Let's “Flesh this out” instead. This is not a scientific study, but it basically holds true. The following is a list of countries that have universal healthcare and parliamentary forms of government where three or more significant political parties are represented.

Australia, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Austria, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Belgium, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Canada, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Czeck Republic, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Denmark, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Finland, parliamentary, universal healthcare
France, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Germany, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Greece, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Hungary, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Iceland, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Israel, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Italy, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Japan, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Luxembourg, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Netherlands, parliamentary, universal healthcare
New Zealand, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Norway, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Poland, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Portugal, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Slovakia, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Spain, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Sweden, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Switzerland, parliamentary, universal healthcare
Turkey, parliamentary, universal healthcare
United Kingdom, parliamentary, universal healthcare

Yes, I concede it's a loosey-goosey correlation, but it would appear to me that a form of government that offers real representation as opposed to our vaunted two-party joke is a form of government that demonstrates cooperation.

@Doc_M – You make me laugh. Who you gonna vote for to save the day? Sarah Palin?

>> ^rougy:
Yes, there's something wrong with it because the corporations are fewer in number than the general population, yet it is the corporate needs that are being catered to. It's wrong because the few who have wealth and power are being served while the common man and woman are being ignored. That's not a straw man.

Your argument here assumes that the public option is a good thing. This is not a universally-accepted position. Yes, it's possible that the evil corporations and the greedy, uncaring wealthy and those heinous, inhuman Republican monsters oppose the public option because it threatens their wealth and power. It's also possible that the public option is opposed because it's not a good idea. Even if it WAS a good idea, it's also possible that it's none of the government's responsibility, at least given the current Constitutional framework.

Sure, it's -possible- that the corporations, the wealthy, and the Republican party all oppose the public option because it's a bad idea (let's ignore the recorded statements by Republican figures that show it to be a purely political move to weaken this administration)...

It's also possible that there is an invisible teapot that orbits the sun directly opposite the Earth where we can't observe it.

But anyone with half a brain (and a smidgeon of honesty) can tell you which is the -likeliest- possibility.

>> ^ReverendTed:
>> ^rougy:
Yes, there's something wrong with it because the corporations are fewer in number than the general population, yet it is the corporate needs that are being catered to. It's wrong because the few who have wealth and power are being served while the common man and woman are being ignored. That's not a straw man.

Your argument here assumes that the public option is a good thing. This is not a universally-accepted position. Yes, it's possible that the evil corporations and the greedy, uncaring wealthy and those heinous, inhuman Republican monsters oppose the public option because it threatens their wealth and power. It's also possible that the public option is opposed because it's not a good idea. Even if it WAS a good idea, it's also possible that it's none of the government's responsibility, at least given the current Constitutional framework.

There are a lot of differences between our system and a parliamentary system. For example, they don't generally have an upper house which lets the minority party veto everything that doesn't have a 3/5ths majority.

Also, I believe all of the nations you listed have runoff votes whenever candidates fail to get >50% support. Without runoff elections, people are unlikely to ever vote 3rd party out of fear of the Nader/Scozzafava effect.

Then there's there's also the aspect that under a parliamentary system it's possible to trigger a new general election of parliament for various reasons.

Personally though, I think a lot of it has more to do with our wacked-out psychology here than the structures of our democracy (though the filibuster in its present form is exacerbating our issues).
>> ^rougy:
@NetRunner - Let's “Flesh this out” instead. This is not a scientific study, but it basically holds true. The following is a list of countries that have universal healthcare and parliamentary forms of government where three or more significant political parties are represented.

[snip list of 100% correlation]

Yes, I concede it's a loosey-goosey correlation, but it would appear to me that a form of government that offers real representation as opposed to our vaunted two-party joke is a form of government that demonstrates cooperation.

>> ^Doc_M:
"You're beating your chest as if the cons are going to take over in 2010 or 2012 and fix everything, and it's PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THEM and the people who support them--that's why we're in this mess."
Psh. What has the completely Democrat-dominated government done? Nothing. Unemployment is higher than it's been in almost 30 years, the deficit is staggeringly enormous, and we're still at war... This "change" has failed by every measure of the word.
"Fix everything?" Unlikely.
Okay, let's recap:


You support Democrats being kicked out of office, to be replaced by Republicans, because after less than one year, Democrats haven't fixed all the major, catastrophic problems Republicans have caused over the last decade?

Add to this that you are having a back and forth in the first place because you smugly voiced support for the filibuster primarily because it is effectively blocking Democrats from instituting real reform?

Accountability, Republican-style:

1. Run a campaign to take over a nuclear plant based on sticking to the highest standards of safety
   
2. Once hired, skirt all safety restrictions for years until the plant melts down
   
3. Once fired, do everything in your power to sabotage your replacement's cleanup efforts
   
4. Run a campaign to take over the cleanup because your replacement hasn't cleaned up your mess fast enough
   

Bonus points for claiming throughout that you think nuclear plants are the source of all evil in the world, and that when they fail on your watch it just proves you were right, and therefore should always be in charge.

What I'm reading here is that what you really want is a purely democrat government with no possibility of Republicans blocking anything. I don't see that as the intentional design of the American government. Checks and balances are needed either way no matter who has a majority. I'm in favor of the option of a filibuster for this very reason. You say this option, when executed prevents any real reform from getting done, but that's an oversimplification. The point of the filibuster is to demand that bills and laws that are acceptable to more than just one party and that sufficient debate occurs before passing a bill.

If the republicans have the option to do it and decide not to do it, than in my eyes, that is fulfilling the requirements of a proper bill to be passed. Equally, if enough of both parties can agree to vote on cloture, than the bill can potentially pass. Democrats have used this filibuster often in the past to block bills that Republicans tried to ram through the governmental system without due consideration. It's a great option to have in place even if it tends to piss some people off in some cases. "What do you mean we don't get everything we want no matter what?!" is what that anger boils down to. I've frequently and openly opposed the idea of either party having a monopoly in our government and frankly I don't know how anyone here could think otherwise, because when the opposite party has that power, they must regret having ever thought that way. It seems to me that liberal Democrats are feeling upset that after 8 years of a republican president--4-5 of which were under pure republican rule (none in which they had the universal ban-hammer that is the 60 vote supermajority)--they didn't get everything that they wanted when the power changed hands. Of course they didn't. Now, they can. With 60 votes, cloture is imminent on any filibuster.

I'm not doing what you have said above by any means. I'm not opposing everything to be left in the right when anything fails. I'm supporting something and opposing parts of it... as are many. The intention is not to block legislation. The intention is to pass quality legislation.

I suspect that the supermajority that the Democrats possess is not going to last... Their simple majority likely will however.

Okay, you invoke the phrase "checks and balances" -- at least in my civics education, that was always defined as the interactions between the 3 co-equal branches of government, the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, aka The President, The Supreme Court, and the Congress, and the various ways they can veto (and override) one another.

The Constitution sets up the Senate as a majority rule house, that's why there are two Senators from every state, and a Vice Presidential tie-breaker. The filibuster itself is more of a bug in the rules of the Senate that has been exploited, and never has been exploited this much at any other time in the history of the United States. The only major legislation that was held up before the 1990's by filibuster was the civil rights act. The period for debate on the Senate health care bill was the second longest in history -- the only one longer was the debate on entering World War I (the debate on de-funding the Vietnam war, Civil Rights, and Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton's impeachment...all shorter).

Now we can't even get Republicans to agree to a vote on confirming Obama's appointee for the TSA (though that one's a hold, not a filibuster, at least not yet).

You say the bill would've been improved by the minority. In what way? I've followed this process closely, and I've heard of no proposal Republicans have made that would have included something they wanted, in return for something Democrats would have wanted. They were all proposals that would've only gutted a core aspect of the legislation, or they were non-controversial and passed on a bipartisan or unanimous basis. Despite the latter amendments (of which there were many in committee), Republicans have demagogued throughout about how they'd been "shut out" of the process. Republicans outside the process (like yourself) have echoed this, loudly, despite the basic reality of it -- they had a seat at the table, they just weren't willing to make any concessions at all.

For example, Obama literally said to Republicans that he's open to incorporating their version of tort reform into the bill, but wanted to know what they'd be willing to give him in return for it. Their answer: nothing.

As far as the mid-terms, I do think Democrats are likely to wind up losing a net of 1-3 Senate seats in 2010, meaning they'll still be at the exceedingly large majority of 57-43, and they'll probably still have a 50+ seat majority in the House. So what then?

What incentive is there for Republicans to work with Democrats if being obstinate pricks gives them electoral success? Their maximum incentive to make deals comes when they're so far in the minority it's the only way to influence legislation -- a 60-40 Democratic majority, say. But the Republican party of today is still refusing to compromise even under those circumstances. If they win elections based on that in 2010, why wouldn't they just double down, and hold Congress hostage from 2011-2013 and force Democrats to either pass nothing, or pass Republican legislation? Then, after that shoot to win the White House on a campaign that says "kick those do-nothing uncompromising socialist Democrats out"?

Personally I think the filibuster needs to go precisely because of that dynamic. A time will come again in my lifetime where the shoe is on the other foot, and I guarantee you that I'm going to be telling Democrats to filibuster everything Republicans do, big or small (unless Republicans transform into a very radically different party). I'd rather see the Republicans and Democrats pass their legislative agendas, and let the American people hold them accountable for the results, without letting our representatives wiggle out of their promises with "but the minority party we crushed in the last election wouldn't let us do it!" I think it would moderate the campaign promises, as well as break us out of this cycle that keeps us perpetually saddled with a status quo that few are happy with.

Also, remember how angry you were that they pushed Bush's tax cuts through via reconciliation rules because it broke down the fundamental checks and balances of our Democracy?</snark>

I wish they would've had the balls to privatize social security that way. We'd have wound up with President Howard Dean in '04.

"I'd rather see the Republicans and Democrats pass their legislative agendas, and let the American people hold them accountable for the results, without letting our representatives wiggle out of their promises with "but the minority party we crushed in the last election wouldn't let us do it!" I think it would moderate the campaign promises, as well as break us out of this cycle that keeps us perpetually saddled with a status quo that few are happy with."

That's probably one of the better arguments on this topic in quite a while. Perhaps dangerous, but a good argument.