If I were a senator I would vote for this bill... but why?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The reasons I would vote Yes:

1) There is no chance of fixing or improving anything. There will be no reconciliation manuever... no magical conference. If there were any fighting chance that killing the bill would lead to a better bill I would pursue the chance but with an utter failure of WH leadership the idea of sudden discovery of resolve, imagination, integrity, etc. seems delusional. Any deviation of process from our speedy race through the iceberg field would require Presidential leadership. This president is incapable of leadership and also not so inclined... he doesn't want to do it and if he did want to do it he still couldn't do it.

2) Failure of this bill would end the Obama presidency on the spot. This guy is not a very good politician. (If that raised your eye-brows then you need a new hobby. Obama's political brilliance will go down in history alongside Saddam's WMD... a media conventional wisdom fantasy in an echo chamber of amnesiac certainty. Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere with a clever primary strategy and a message for the moment and became President. Thus he was a great politician... except he was about the worst politician we've ever seen. Winning primaries doesn't make a person a great politician in the sense of being able to lead a nation, a party or a legislature while in office. Different challenges, different criteria.)

There is no second-act for Barack Obama so we must stretch out the first act as long as we can. See... here's the funny position we are in. Even if one argues that this bill is a step-backward that is actually worse than doing nothing we still have to ask "Okay, but how much worse?"

Even if the bill is bad we have to ask whether it is worse than effectively ending the Obama presidency.

Obama's shtick is superiority and Americans enjoy that only when backed by results. If he goes down Americans will line up around the block to throw dirt on him.

3) The long-term effects might be malign but there probably won't be a long-term. Republicans will take over the legislature, nominally or effectively via de facto pug-conservadem coalition. It will be better for us if the pugs have to dismantle this bill because that will have a positive political effect. The American people will probably hate us for this bill, but will later hate the pugs for trying to take this bill apart.

And, if nothing else, if pugs take over they will have to expend political capital dismantling this bill that would be otherwise spent dismantling something else.

[zipplewrath]

1. I hate to agree

I don't dispute much of what you say. I could quibble around the edges. I'm not sure I could still vote for this bill as a senator because I suspect it will entrench much of what we all hate about the current system. Furthermore the blue dogs and others are "winning" because the rest of the democrats fear it not passing as much as you describe. If the progressives were as hard over as the blue dogs, they could demand as much or more than the blue dogs. Lastly, I'm still not convinced the dems did anything wrong in '68 by chucking out LBJ.

Obama, as you suggest, is confirming my worst fears. When he was running, I couldn't get away from the fact that he basically had no executive branch experience. That is playing out in the worst way possible. As you say, it's gotten to the point, a bit like an old lemon you owned in college, where I'm just trying to figure out how much I can get out of her before I leave it by the side of the road.

[GreenArrow]

2. If I were a Senator I'd vote against it

due to the fascist mandate, the piece of cheese in a rat trap.

[cali]

3. those are some very astute comments.

smart is such a relief when you stumble across it here.

[stopbush]

4. I look forward to seeing every one of your points refuted by reality.

Obama will be reelected in 2012, and the Rs will not be in control of anything after 2010.

Bookmark this post for later reference.

[Laelth]

5. Carry on, good soldier. I salute you. n/t

:patriot:

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Oregone]

6. "Even if the bill is bad we have to ask whether it is worse than effectively ending the Obama presi"

But if the continuation of the Obama presidency will exist perpetually on the backs of bills this bad, is the continued existence of the Obama presidency justified? If people are supposed to hold their nose to ensure the administration continues, should that continuation hold real promise of beneficial and tangible future legislation?

This position really puts people in quite a little paradox.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. We have two elderly liberals on the Supreme Court to replace... etc.

Control of the executive branch matters a lot.

Since we are going to lose at least *effective* control (if not formal organizational control) of the legislature the executive is even more important.

Yes, someone deserves to lean a lesson over this deal but these people are not lesson-learners. So punishing the weaselocracy is futile.

If I thought this bill failing would make everyone shape up, cool. But they would just get worse... more self-centered, more scared, more desirous of campaign funds, more "centrist"...

It's a bad set of options, IMO.

[kenny blankenship]

7. Pugs dismantle a bill that gives subsidies and GUARANTEED PROFITS to a major financial sector?

Never. Happen.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Not dismantle every bit of it...

Just the parts that anyone likes, hence the potential for political down-side.

(The stuff everyone hates is, paradoxically, completely safe no matter which party runs the show.)