Awesome! The republican party is on the verge of self destruction

[Egnever]

And the far left decides its the perfect time to jump in and save them! I would be rolling on the floor laughing my ass off at the sheer rediculousness of it, if it wasnt so completely tragic.

How quickly we have forgotten how devastating the last 8 years were. How easy for us to slip right back into the waiting arms of the batshit crazy GOP.

Cant wait to hear the crying and moaning when they come back to power and we get a chance to see how unlike them our corporate stooge reps really were.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. We must obey!!

No we cannot speak out against any Democrat or the Republicans win.

Gotcha.

[Egnever]

7. speak out all you want

I see a lot of thats it i am done with the democrats posts. That aint speakin out thats taking your ball and going home.

If your goal is to fight to continue building on the gains we have made then i am with you 100% if instead your goal is to bitch and moan and sit the next election out then I say carefull what you wish for.

[Wardoc]

27. We aren't going to vote when we get sold out. No money and no votes for nonsense anymore.

I'm not just going to "speak out". I set the criteria for my vote and so far I have had it disregarded. Sometimes you have to be willing to make sacrifices in order to have any currency in your word. If we sit out, FOR ONCE, then maybe we will not be taken for granted as automatic free votes the next time Harry Reid and Barack Obama decide to give our hard earned goals away for the Insurance companies and war profiteers.

No money, no vote in 2010.

[Egnever]

29. For once LOL

you must think this is an original idea. Sometime you should look back at 2000 and see where that sort of thinking got us.

[LooseWilly]

32. I voted for Nader in 2000. At this point, I don't even regret it. If you think abandoning left goals

won't leave some of us doing it again... and again... well, don't blame us if we're driven off again... eh?
:+

[Egnever]

40. and it only took till 2006 for you to find your way here

to start crying about the results of that dumbshit move. With a response time for learning like that it doesnt really surprise me that you would do it again nor that you feel no regret for the results of the first time.

[Quantess]

2. Are they?

Someone fill me in. I've missed it.

[Egnever]

8. Here ya go

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Sept. 11-13, 2009. N=1,030 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.

.

70% dissaproval cant get much worse than that


"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?"

.

Approve Disapprove Unsure

% % %
9/11-13/09 27 70 3
3/27-29/09 30 61 8
2/20-22/09 36 56 8
12/12-14/08 25 69 6
12/14-16/07
26 68 5
8/3-5/07
29 64 7
2/9-11/07
33 59 8
6/23-25/06
33 60 7
10/21-23/05
38 58 4
4/29 - 5/1/05 42 50 8
11/14-16/03 48 49 3
10/03 51 44 5
4/02 59 30 11
8/01 49 40 11
6/01 49 43 8
8/00 45 44 11
7/00 46 39 15
4/00 42 46 12
11/99 38 53 9
10/99 37 55 8
8/99 36 53 11
6/99 40 53 7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[w4rma]

3. Progressives said from the start that we would bolt if there were no P.O. in the bill.

Everyone knew this going in.

[Egnever]

9. Fine by me

I just don't want to hear the moaning when we get the GOP back in power and they remember what real corporate stooges really act like.

[DeSwiss]

21. What fucking GOP???

Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber????

Get a grip.

[Egnever]

22. They running in 2010?

get a grip yourself.

[NanceGreggs]

4. Nailed it, Egnever ...

:kick: & REC'D!

[malaise]

58. +1

[WCGreen]

5. Well, I got you back to zero....

[Mithreal]

6. Yeah, and you'll tell yourselves the party needs to move more to the right

to make up for all the disillusioned on the left.

Far left, my ass.

Rot.

[Egnever]

12. Nope I think we need to keep moving to the left

I intend to keep supporting dems with the hopes of finding more left leaning dems to help elect as we move forward. Seems a lot on this board though are just going to give up when we almost have the power to really start making reform.

I will be sad to see that chance pissed away but I know it wont be from me giving up the fight. It will be a bunch of loud mouthed quiters who cant face reality and give up at the first sign of adversity that make that choice for this country.

[Mithreal]

15. Let people voice their frustration without calling them quitters

Even when they say they will give up, I usually just consider that a voice of frustration.

[Egnever]

17. I am not calling them quiters

They are calling themselves that.

Maybe its just frustration talking. Maybe they are quiters. Guess we will see in 2010. The trend on this board over the last year isnt one that gives me a lot of confidence though.

[Mithreal]

34. "will be a bunch of loud mouthed quiters"

I am unsure why I am getting so confused reading what you write. It is very possible I am to blame.

[Egnever]

41. maybe its cause you have to take things out of context to arive at your conclusions?

[Mithreal]

43. Not conclusions, an objection to the language used.

And why insult me by suggesting I need to take things out of context. Maybe I misunderstood, but maybe you could write more clearly. I am not throwing stones, sometimes I don't communicate clearly either.

[Egnever]

47. maybe cause you um I don't know

took em out of context?

You had to edit my sentence to make your point, pretty standard taking out of context stuff there.

[Mithreal]

48. Whatever. We'll live to argue another day. This has grown tiresome.

[pnwmom]

18. They're calling themselves quitters. But many of them

weren't actually Democrats in the first place. There are lots of third party people here; they weren't big supporters of the Democratic party, or its candidates, in the first place and they still aren't.

[Mithreal]

33. Then you accuse them of being liars or worse?

You can't quit something you never joined, what am I misunderstanding?

[LooseWilly]

36. So you're gonna be voting for more progressive Dems in local races around the country?

Pray tell... how do you manage this. Send in a PM if there are legal "niceties" involved...

Last I knew though, one could only do that sort of thing where one lived.

If that were so... then maybe the "heartland" Dems would take a hint or three from us on the coasts... but instead I just hear us being told what to do. Fuck that...

(but I do enjoy being called a loud mouthed quitter who can't face reality and who gives up at the first sign of adversity... because I enjoy watching kettles being called black... by conformist tool party hacks who would revile any who argue against caving on party ideals at the slightest sign of some half witted compromise that might possibly be spun positively if one assumed that the rank and file of the party were idiotic dupes to be used whenever convenience called for doing so...)

[Egnever]

42. In my local races you bet!

Isnt that the point?

I am not sure what yours is? It seems to be since you cant vote in every race in the country you should just give up. Am I reading that right?

[ClassWarrior]

10. Really? Rather than admitting that our brothers and sisters on what you call "the far left"...

...(which includes probably 90% of Democrats) are honestly trying to do the right thing by their own analyses, you're going to make an ad hominem attack by suggesting that their motive is to "save the republican party?" Really?? Really??!

And you're not concerned about our own self destruction??

:eyes:

NGU.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

13. i don't see him claiming that the far lefts motive is getting the right wing

back into power

What i do see him saying is that by taking their ball and going home, they are delivering the country back into republican hands. The best path is to keep fighting and expanding the influence of the progressives/liberals in congress, not going home

[Egnever]

16. Thanks! thats exactly what I am saying.

[LooseWilly]

38. Way to recycle a trite metaphor. Maybe it will help the climate...

"The best path is to keep fighting and expanding the influence of the progressives/liberals in congress..."

That is regretfully not something to be done in consonance with the activities of Obama, let alone Reid.

Their activities should be tolerated, but not encouraged. Better to find a religiously un affiliated sort... free thinker and such...

[Umbral]

11. Blaming the Left for the failures of the people they help elect...

Establishment Dems are no more able to take responsibility for their actions than Republicans.

[Egnever]

14. So hold them responsible.

just make sure you have your focus on the right targets and dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. We dont get any better off by sitting out elections.

Obama didnt create this bill , We have nelson and leinberman and landrau and a few others to thank for that. We need more left dems in congress to reduce the power they have to make trouble not sitting out and crying over spilt milk.

[peace frog]

56. [phone]

Completely agree.

[depakid]

19. Yet another fool trying to blame progressives for their own sell out to the insurance industry

Didn't learn a thing from 1996, 2000 and 2002, eh?

Much less when when the party got it right in 1998 and 2006.

[Egnever]

20. LOL do you ever get anything right?

[depakid]

23. All the time- because unlike some, I pay attention to political dynamics

and the people who study them, rather than making shallow statements blaming people for their inevitable reactions when they're repeatedly taken for granted and sold down the river in favor of corporate donors.

Good luck getting people to turn out if- as expected, the tendency continues.

Since the "leadership" already blown it with the public option and responsible health reforms (despite over 70% support) they might want consider the rest of this, instead of scolding progressive for their own inexcusable failings:

{b]How Dems win in 2010

Democrats can win the 2010 elections if they remember why they were elected in 2006 and 2008. They could lose big if they don’t.

President Barack Obama’s support for the public option has been weak at best, but behind the scenes there is a major effort to pass it. If the president fights for it, he wins with majority public support.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is holding major hearings Thursday for the bill he introduced with Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) to end credit card abuses by moving the effective date of the credit card law to this year.

If Frank and Maloney fight for this bill with the president’s support, they win. They would be applauded by voters holding some 700 million credit cards who are angry at being abused by banks that announce gigantic bonuses, made possible by gigantic bailouts, paid for by them.

Democrats could lose real or effective control of the House in 2010. If they do, the Obama program is bye-bye, kaput, and farewell. The Obama years would be a modest interlude that began with profound promise but ended with business as usual in Washington that fomented the same backlash against Democrats that defeated Republicans.

Don’t believe pundits who are brilliant at predicting yesterday’s news. They were often wrong about 2006 and 2008. They live in a Stockholm Syndrome of insiderism. Democrats can still win in 2010.

Frank Rich nailed it Sunday in The New York Times. Democrats were not elected to glorify Democratic insiders dining at plush restaurants and reaping payola selling their soul and their party for things they never believed in, doling out cash to Democratic members to entice them to vote for things they never believed in, either.

...Democrats can win if they fight like hell for things they believe in, which most Americans want, and will lose by accepting the Gilded Age abuses, which most Americans despise.

...Democrats can win if they stop being corrupted by cash and bullied by lies paid for by special interests.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/brent-budowsky/61691-how-dems-win-in-2010

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the center right is interested in this- they'd just as soon people stayed home, which is what they're on track to get.

[Egnever]

25. LOL i saw the post from Frenchie owning you and your predictions yesterday

You are never right.

[depakid]

28. You apparently didn't pay ANY attention then

What I said was right in line with what happened- up and until McCain's bizarre behavior during the financial meltdown.

YOU WERE BEHIND AND LOSING TO THE WEAKEST REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN ALMOST 50 YEARS! With THE most unpopular president ever in office!

Wow.

Sorry that I didn't predict McCain's behavior- but what I and Drew Westen (and up until the George Lakoff) were repeatedly stating regarding your campaign was spot on- just as it was in 2004.

I know that's hard for shallow acolytes to accept. Just as its going to be hard for you to accept why so many will stay home out of disgust in 2010.

[Egnever]

30. LOL and you are still getting it wrong

Its no wonder, you seem to suck up whatever the media says and spew it right back out as if you thought of it yourself.

[depakid]

45. You still fail to learn

You actually think you'd have won Indiana and North Carolina absent a once in a generation financial collapse- and bizarre performance by an incompetent opponent!

:rofl:

You were behind in the polls in mid September, ace- due to the same games you're playing now- scolding the base- and pandering to the right.

And now you seems to think that the admnistration's and the Senate's willful association and alliance with the insurance industry- and the bankster's (to the detriment of ordinary Americans) isn't going to have justifiable repercussions with the very people who spent so much time and volunteer work getting candidates elected to do just the opposite?

Apparently, you must not have been around politics very long- 'cause this one's a no brainer.

Here's how it's likely to work (since every two bit corrupt extortionist in the Senate has now been ceded power to exact tribute for the lobbyists with impunity):

The politics of disappointment

Think about 1994.

Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns. This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide. I spent that campaign season traveling to promote a book on campus activism, staying with friends long involved with progressive causes. Everywhere I went, critical races would go to the Republicans by the narrowest of margins. Yet my friends and their friends seemed strangely detached, so disgusted with Democratic politics that they no longer wanted anything to do with it. Surveys found that had voters who stayed home voted, they would have reversed the election outcome. Even a modest volunteer effort might have prevented the Republican sweep.

To prevail in close races, Democrats need enthusiastic volunteer involvement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html

The administration (and the Senate "leadership") created this dynamic again by failing to fight- or to use reconciliation to craft responsible legislation. They ought to have known better- or to have cared- not sure which.

One silver lining though- Harry Reid will likely be out of the picture in 2011.

[Egnever]

50. OMG do you ever think for yourself?

Its freaking hilarious to watch you post other peoples bloviating to try to make your point that continously turns out to be wrong. Just cause some other idiot on the net agrees with you doesnt give any creedence to your garbage it still makes you wrong when as frenchie showed time and again you listened to the wrong people for your talking points.

and read below as to how your behind in the polls till... bulshit worked in reality. They had a convention Palin was a bright shiny new toy for those distracted by such things they got a couple of weeks out of it and then it went right back to the trouncing they were geting before they put the bimbo onstage. Despite your grandios dreams that it was the base that was rebelling.

[Egnever]

35. And your wrong again , Surpirse!

Saturday, September 20, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama with 48% of the vote and John McCain with 47%. While Obama’s lead is statistically insignificant, it is the first time he has held even a single-point advantage in a week-and-a-half. One week ago today, McCain was up by three points (see trends). Results are released every day at 9:30 a.m. Eastern.


That was the 20th the Mcains financial meltdown hijinks didnt start till the 24th and Sarah hadnt even yet shown her ass to Katie. Yet it was allready over for them. The financial thing only helped Obama to be sure but he was already wining.

September 24 – John McCain announces he is suspending his campaign in order to work on the financial crisis, and says he may not attend the first presidential debate on September 26. The first segment of Sarah Palin's interviews with Katie Couric airs on CBS News.<273> Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin for president.<274>

[Wardoc]

24. If the GOP takes over it will be the fault of BO, centrists, and the "HCR" sham. How...

fucking convenient you would blame the one group that has actually kept its vows and words??

We are not here for the team, we are here for the purpose. And we won't be whipped with the threat of "well you'll hate the opposition more so you have to take our bullshit".

[Egnever]

26. So you will take you ball and go home?

Thats your version of wont be whipped? My version is continuing to fight to build the dem caucus so people like nelson and leiberman and landraus can no longer hold us hostage.

[Wardoc]

31. It is always "wait one more time" for us. No, no fucking more. There are 60 votes, a...

healthy house majority, the Presidency itself. No more waiting. We want payment for services rendered and we want it now.

But instead, we are made the scapegoat and the target of mockery by assholes within the WH like Axelrod. We are given a health reform bill that has some lip service dressing covering a big steaming pile of mandated insurance. We are given a lipservice ambigious promise for withdrawal in the future for 30k more troops for the war now.

No more. And if you think it is even remotely possible for us to unseat an entrenched incumbant in a primary that will be getting protection from the leadership you are cracked. The only clout we have is to say that we aren't going to vote for them anymore until they start honoring promises.

They work for US, not the other way around.

Now, can I ask you, is there a point at which you would say "damn, ok, maybe I'm not going to vote for this anymore"? How many more pieces of compromised legislation are you willing to endure before you say enough is enough?

[Egnever]

39. No its not

Its always keep fighting theres more work to do.

The bill that came out of the house despite the whi ning on here was a pretty damn good bill. And its because the house has a fairly wide majority and had room to work with that it was as good as it was. The Senates is not as good as the houses IMHO though I still have more reading of it to do, However it ain't that bad either despite the fact that we have no majority. A majority in todays senate is now 61 apparently due to the power of the cloture vote.

We don't have that yet and even when we do get it we still need wiggle room for the half Dem's like nelson and landrua and wanna be pukes like lieberman.If you thought just getting a majority was the golden ticket ... well then its your naivete thats to blame not reality.

We tenuously hold a majority in the senate and you pretend its a majority of proud loud progressives. It isn't and hasn't been ever. If you expected more than what we got out of that congress and quite honestly i am amazed at what we did get out of them then you are setting your expectations way too high.

We need to continue to strengthen the majority not weaken it and we need to do it with evermore progressive Dem's. This should be a wake up call to the left of the work we have left to do instead its a big fucking pity party of unrealism run afuckin muck.

And despite your statements to the effect of "We are given a health reform bill that has some lip service dressing covering a big steaming pile of mandated insurance." Theres lots more good in those bills than just lip service. Title III is chock full of good shit like new community hospitals and home care and training for nurses and doctors and a shit pot more.

Quit fucking whining like a spoiled fucking brat and get the fuck to work on achieving what you want instead of throwing up your hands in exasperation and quiting. Or do you think starting from scratch is gonna get you there faster?

[Wardoc]

The pot of gold is always just over the next rainbow...

but it never materializes. It is always "just put more of us in power one more time".

First of all, I'd like to hear what you think of Axelrod's statements? Those are cool with you?

Secondly, what is your demarcation line? At what point would you say the legislation isn't good enough?

Third, you do realize that the bill is going to be even worse after conference in order to mollify (on issues like abortion and cadillac tax in particular)? Oh, I fully expect a little face saving provision but the meat and potato substance is going to be even worse.

Finally, with this bill being so unpopular left, right and center wouldn't you agree that this is going to harm that allegedly precious majority more than anything?

No, I've donated time and money and I have gotten nothing for it. This bill is a net negative, and it is blatantly clear that we are being taken for granted, used and discarded only for a vote and a donation. No longer. From now on, when they give me some specific, unvarnished promises that they deliver on will I then resume. Otherwise, I will marshal my money and time for those I can directly affect. In 2010 they aren't getting a dime or a damn from me.

[Egnever]

51. As far as the bills popularity

Well all i can say is the majority of the people out there are told what to think by their TV's, Lets see how popular it is after the final thing passes and people who arent screaming idiots have time to explain to everyone else whats actually in it and what isnt. Right now you got a lot of noise and very little reality going on from one end of the media to the other.

I am not sure what statements of axelrods you are frefering to.

How is this bill a net negative? What makes it so for you specifically?

Cause for me its a huge possitive.

[Wardoc]

46. The pot of gold is always just over the next rainbow...

but it never materializes. It is always "just put more of us in power one more time".

First of all, I'd like to hear what you think of Axelrod's statements? Those are cool with you?

Secondly, what is your demarcation line? At what point would you say the legislation isn't good enough?

Third, you do realize that the bill is going to be even worse after conference in order to mollify (on issues like abortion and cadillac tax in particular)? Oh, I fully expect a little face saving provision but the meat and potato substance is going to be even worse.

Finally, with this bill being so unpopular left, right and center wouldn't you agree that this is going to harm that allegedly precious majority more than anything?

No, I've donated time and money and I have gotten nothing for it. This bill is a net negative, and it is blatantly clear that we are being taken for granted, used and discarded only for a vote and a donation. No longer. From now on, when they give me some specific, unvarnished promises that they deliver on will I then resume. Otherwise, I will marshal my money and time for those I can directly affect. In 2010 they aren't getting a dime or a damn from me.

[Hubert Flottz]

37. When they take over next time they will try Obama for war crimes

in Afghanistan and then they'll nuke Iran.

[Egnever]

44. Wow Nostradamus!

Thats an entirely believable prediciton. :scared:

[peace frog]

57. It will be like

Clinton's impeachment on steriods. Then a continuation and expansion of Bush/Cheney preemptive wars of choice.

[Mithreal]

49. Purposefully obtuse this one is. Have a go, I am done playing with.

[Egnever]

52. Your game was weak anyway

see ya!

[Mithreal]

53. It's not a game to me.

Happy holidays.

We'll meet again.

[Egnever]

60. Well its certainly not a discussion of the merits of the argument

[Mithreal]

65. And you know a lot about that

[Prism]

54. You have it exactly backwards

Neoconservatism would be finished if the President and the party joined with the progressive netroots to create the kind of movement that Reagan enjoyed with the fusion of the Republican Party and the Religious Right. It would be an electoral powerhouse, and the Republican party would have to reform in order to ensure their own survival.

But, no. The President instead bipartisans his way forward, adopts a neoconservative military policy and pro-corporate financial policy, and sticks it in the eye of progressives at seemingly every opportunity.

When the President should be finishing off neoconservativism for a generation, he instead gives them hand after hand whenever they fall to the ground.

He doesn't have the killer instinct, which is why he will never live up to his transformative promise.

[Egnever]

61. I would say that remains to be seen

Despite all the wailing on DU lately.

[Prism]

63. "Wailing"

All things remain to be seen. I think both sides are providing more heat than light at this point.

It's really a simple matter of asking yourself how much you're willing to put down for one man, one politician.

Many have decided HCR is their line in the sand.

Others, pitifully, have declared there will never be a line.

So the "wailing" will continue.

[Egnever]

64. I might go along with it if even 1/4 of it was informed

Sadly most of it isn't.

A line drawn in the sand over perceived grievances disregarding any factual analysis is a pretty foolish line IMHO.

[Prism]

66. The entire issue is a mess

The solid, factual posts are few and far inbetween. Basically, we've a prolonged cherry-picking of the bill happening. It isn't interesting, because it's dishonest on its face.

And both sides are totally relentless in doing it.

At this point, I object to the bill on the principle that government has zero business forcing the American people to surrender sizable chunks of their income to shallowly regulated private corporations. I cannot imagine how we've reached this point where the Democratic Party is the one introducing, defending, and passing this kind of corporate fantasy.

As for policy, tit for tat. "This good!" "But this bad!" And so on. I keep out of that.

[Egnever]

67. Well I understand your objection

I share it in fact.

However I don't have many illusions of how we got it. We have a lot of conservadems in both houses, and the pukes didn't lift a finger to do anything but put garbage into a bill they refused to vote for.

It ain't great but its got a lot of good in it just the same. There is a danger that it could be severely perverted to be sure. I also think theres a lot of room for great improvement though if we continue to push for it.

On average on the pre existing condition portion of it alone I have to mark it an improvement on what we have now. I have a 5 year old diabetic son and this is something that I have worried about since he was diagnosed 4 years ago. There is other good as well in the bill though that I see just in the reading of it I have done so far. There is a mechanism to help set up non profits inside the exchanges, i don't see how these would turn out to be much worse than a "public option"

I think health care is an issue that people are easily frightened about and i think theres been a whole lot of fear mongering around this issue.

I hope we continue to fight to make it stronger.

[ShortnFiery]

55. You trashed your credibility when you used the term "far left." eom

[Egnever]

59. Says the far left posterchild

[Kahuna]

62. When they get back in power, I'm gonna sit back and tell all the

belly-achers to STFU. The republicans in power can do far more damage to THEM than they an to ME.

[HuckleB]

68. So it's all about you.

You've got your ivory tower to protect you.

That's sounds about right.

[Kahuna]

71. If that's what you want to read into it, knock yourself out. I'm not the

one threatening to sit home so repukes can get back in power.

:crazy:

[Orsino]

69. Sure. The "far left" is to blame for compromise after compromise with the far right.

Whatever gets one through the night.

[Mithreal]

70. True, they forced the President to cut sweetheart deals with insurers and PhRMA

It was either that or risk TOO MUCH change.

We'll see.

[Orsino]

72. *Darn* those far-lefters! n/t

[dysfunctional press]

73. you must be thirsty- how about a nice big glass of your favourite beverage-

the only democrats that are 'saving' the republican party are the ones capitulating to them and giving them everything they could ask for in a bill, as well as the campaign points to destroy their democratic opponents in november.