Reply #99: I guess we're the battling givers-of-no-credit.

[pampango]

:)

I just don't think Sanders is so worried about his seat that he would support the bill (not love it) if he thought that killing it and starting over was better for HCR.

"I don't know how to explain why people like Weiner, Sanders and Feingold suddenly dropped their opposition". As with most legislation, politicians argue and lobby to get what they want in legislation and try to get as much in as they can. When a final bill emerges each has to decide whether it resembles what they wanted (since no bill will ever be totally what an individual legislator wants) to vote for it.

If the bill is too much different in a bad way, he or she will vote against it. If it is close enough to what they want or they decide that getting nothing is worse than the actual bill for some reason, they will vote for it.

Will they get lobbied from the administration and others to support this bill? Sure. Will they get lobbied by those opposed to the bill to vote against it? Sure. Does that mean they throw their principles out the window on every vote? If so, why should be bother to support alternative progressive Democratic candidates, if their principles don't matter because they are going to abandon them as soon as the administration or someone on the other side lobbies them. If Feingold and Sanders can't stand heat, who can?

Basically, when progressives in Congress vote for something that every republican votes against, I try to give the issue a second look and see if I can give those progressives the benefit of the doubt. In the House many here didn't like their HCR bill (until they see what a really stinky HCR bill looks like now) thinking House Democrats caved on everything, even though 95% of the Progressive Caucus voted for the House bill and 99% of the repubs voted against it. Now it looks like the Progressive Caucus might have had some clue after all about what it was doing.