The Death of Parties

A while ago, I blogged about the benefits of a multiparty system, something most Americans would never think of applying to their country.  Well, now I'm here arguing for something even more radical: The abolishment of all political parties.

Right now, political parties seem to be the bane of America's existence.  They are causing endless gridlock in Congress, enraging voters, and bringing some truly frightening people (Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, et al) out of the woodwork as people fight to be the "most" Democratic or "most" Republican on the ballot.  Intelligents and moderates are being shoved aside, normal citizens are being ignored, and radical and harmful views are being covered as viable alternatives by the media, allowing them to become popularized and widespread.  So what's the solution?  How about something really radical, something that's never been considered.  How about doing away with political parties?

I wrote once before in support of a multiparty system, like many European governments have.  I still believe that is much better than our current system.  But might a party-less system be even better?  Might it eliminate the "I support most of that bill, but I can't vote for it because I'm a Democrat/Republican" mentality that so many moderates are forced into?

Oftentimes, the main difference between the two major parties in this country is rhetorical.  No matter how much the Democrats pledge that they’ll turn the country around, they’ll stop the corporate welfare and secrecy and fiscal irresponsibility and gutting of social security that occurs under Republican administrations, the changes that happen are miniscule.  Often, the choice between Republican and Democrat boils down to the choice between evil and slightly less evil.  Look at the choice in Nevada during the midterms: on the one side, the racist let’s-let-preachers-endorse-candidates-from-the-pulpit-and-dismantle-the-department-of-education Sharron Angle, and on the other hand, the bumbling, compromising, bored and boring Harry Reid.  

The most principled members of Congress are Ron Paul, a Libertarian, and Bernie Sanders, a Socialist.  While they might caucus with the Republicans and Democrats respectively, they break with their caucus when they support something that runs contrary to their beliefs (look at Sanders’ vote against the tax cut “compromise” bill).  The few senators who are willing to break party line on important issues (McCaskill with earmark bans, Snowe and Voinovich with DADT) are either lame ducks or far enough from their next election that they feel that they won’t unduly upset their base.

With no political parties, there would be no nebulously defined “base” that politicians are beholden to simply because of their party affiliation.  They would have the satisfaction of knowing that they were elected based on their views, rather than disinterested voters voting party line and then becoming upset because of one or two votes.  Current Democrats who, say, support gay rights but oppose the START treaty would be able to run on a platform including both those points of view and the public would know exactly what they’re getting.  There would be fewer unpleasant surprises for constituents and Senate leaders.

This would also eliminate party line votes.  Often, members of Congress are forced to compromise their beliefs because they’re afraid of losing their party’s backing.  Whether it means losing a chairmanship or losing financial backing in the election cycle, you can bet that most of your Senators and Representatives are far more interested in that job security than they are in voting their conscience.

A lack of parties would also throw the electoral system wide open to more involvement by the citizens.  It would eliminate many of the issues that have kept third party candidates (such as Greens, Libertarians, Peace & Freedom party members) who usually have new, viable suggestions from even being considered.

There are, of course issues with this system, mostly with what would happen to Congress.  For instance, how would the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate positions be filled? (Majority/Minority Leader and Majority/Minority Whip positions would be obsolete.)  The position of President Pro Tem would simply fall to the most senior senator, rather than the most senior senator from the majority.  Since the Speaker of the House is elected directly by the House, choosing a speaker is not dependent on the existence of political parties (although since the Speaker is the person who receives the most votes,  How would committee chairmanships be designated, and how would members be assigned to committees?  Currently, members request assignments, which are approved by a party committee in charge of committee assignments (I mean ... what? No that’s actually what they are). The assignments slates are then sent to the full Chamber for approval.  But this has not always been the case, political parties have not always had say in committee assignments.  Until 1911, the Speaker of the House handled all committee appointments.  Reverting back to this practice would not be overly difficult.  Until 1846, committee assignments were handled by the vice president, the president pro tem, or party leaders.  Probably the simplest thing to do would be to let the president pro tem handle assignments, since party leaders wouldn’t exist and letting the vice president make assignments - even though he or she is technically the president of the Senate - seems to be mixing the two branches of government more than they should be.

All of this, of course, is simply procedural.  There is little possibility that the abolition of political parties would ever gain any traction in the hearts and minds of anyone, be it Congressmen or the American public

Would our country even function like this? I think it's possible. But it is also entirely possible the answer is "no".  Then again, you might say that our country doesn't function now, with two parties (the only goal of the Republican Party, according to Mitch McConnell, is to defeat Obama), so a lack of political parties couldn't do that much more harm.

Why Democrats Will Lose in November

To start off, let me just say that I hope I'm massively wrong about this.  I'm a Democrat and a committed progressive, and I die a little bit inside as poll after poll comes out shifting more House and Senate races towards the Republicans.  And not just the Olympia Snowe Republicans, the "yeah, it sucks that they usually vote party line, but at least they can be counted on to have common sense" Republicans.  No, these races are shifting to Rand "The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional" Paul, Christine "I use campaign donations to pay for my house" O'Donnell, Sharron "let's allow preachers to endorse candidates from the pulpit" Angle, Jim "Single mothers and gay people shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools" DeMint, and Joe "Social Security has stolen all my money from me" Miller.  Scared yet?  That's how they want you to feel.

Now, pop quiz: How many Democratic candidates have such easily recognizable positions?  They don't even have to be as far out as these ones, just . . . recognizable.  If you answered "none", sad to say, I'm right there with you.  Democratic candidates are unwilling to embrace with such fervor their positions and programs that they've worked on these past two years.  Why?  Because the Republicans have succeeded in spinning programs like TARP (which wasn't even an Obama program), the bailout, and the healthcare bill as evils.   People who say "TARP worked!" or "The healthcare bill is going to help bring about better lives for us and our children" aren't heard, because that's not what the public wants to hear.  It doesn't make good stories.  The airwaves are a battlefield, TV ads are skirmishes, and oftentimes I feel like Democrats have surrendered before even trying to fight.

If Democrats lose badly in November, it won't just be because the party who hold the presidency usually loses in midterms.  It will be because they have been unwilling to embrace their successes.  It will be because they have let the Republicans take their accomplishments and spin them into unrecognizable caricatures of themselves.  Republicans laugh off climate change, refuse to accept equality for gays and lesbians, paint TARP and the bailouts as failures, and flat-out lie about some of the most important issues  facing America.  And, somehow, all the Democrats can come up with is "Things are awful now, but they'll be worse with the Republicans in charge"?  Well, guess what, people should have a very clear picture of what America would be like with the Republicans in charge just based on their ads.  We don't need all the Democratic ads to be saying that.

We need Democrats to be out there counter-spinning the Republicans.  We need them to be a voice for truth, for justice.  We don't need all of their negative ads that just repeat "so-and-so outsourced jobs, so-and-so's a birther" because we already know that from said candidate's own statements.  What the Democrats should be doing is talking about their achievements.  We need Barbara Boxer talking about her environmental protection legislational achievements, Harry Reid to talk about why healthcare is good, Kirsten Gillibrand to talk about her leadership on repealing DADT.  Democrats don't need to show why Republicans are worse, they need to show why they are better.  And yes, those are two very different things.  Let the Christine O'Donnell's self-immolate on their own pyres of ludicrousness.  You don't need to do their jobs for them.

If Democrats lose in November, it won't be because the Republicans have more mainstream appeal, or better ideas on how to fix the country.  It will be because they lost the media/PR war.

Elena Kagan: To Be or Not To Be?

Anya’s opinion:

Elena Kagan is perfectly boring. And that is why she is the perfect Supreme Court nominee for this time.  President Obama cannot afford another knock-down drag-out fight with Senate Republicans, not after the battle over healthcare, the will-they won't-they of financial reform, the vortex of doom that is Arizona's immigration law, the Times Square bomber, the non-handling of the BP oil spill . . . the list goes on. And a SCOTUS nominee fight is an especially unsavory concept in an election year, when many Republicans will be looking to seem as conservative as possible in order to pander to their base.

Ashley’s opinion:

I find that she doesn't really have any record very scary/very exciting. It is a bit horrifying in general to see anyone without much of a "paper trail" because we are so used to everyone being on the map and instantly knowing everything about them (hello...twitter) and thus comes the exciting part...it's unique. Now, maybe going with the trait "unique" isn't the best way to nominate someone for a seat on "the supremes"(sorry, I'm cheesy sometimes); but it's golden in my book. Personally, not having a "paper trail", yes means you are a wild card and that's bad for a president who wants to push his agenda and wants what he wants when he wants it, but you also get the rare chance to be excited about the decisions the Court makes. It's like Christmas...if you knew what the presents were already you wouldn't be that excited to open them...anticipation is the best feeling. And also I must admit, I wouldn't hate it too much if Obama were to pick someone who was a wild card and she ended up not always siding with the "liberal side". Generally, the President wants to put someone with their ideologies on the Court. However, agreeing with Anya, this may be the closest he can get to a "liberal" because the Senate won't confirm anyone more liberal. So, in that sense it's good that she doesn't have a paper trail because it will give her some leeway when the Senate Judiciary Committee takes a shot or two at her. I think she'd be an okay candidate, but not great, but I think for right now "okay" is all that Obama is going to get.

Also, there is a great West Wing episode that shows how they pick the candidates for the Court. It's called "The Supremes" (special thanks to my classmate who brought it in to Government class).

Information/Facts:

Kagan has spent much of her career in academia (professor at University of Chicago Law School, dean of Harvard Law school), with a brief foray into politics during her years working as associate White House Counsel during the Clinton years. She has little paper trail and has never served as a justice, even though she was nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court in 1999 (her nomination was never brought to a vote). She was also the first female solicitor general. But,since she has never been a judge one might venture to say she lacks experience in that area. Although being a lawyer and being a judge both involve knowing the laws, they are different jobs. A judge is stoic and calm and interprets and enforces the law by how the law is written. The judge, in a courtroom, holds all the power and is the mediator and voice of reason during disputes. Attorneys have to be strong and argumentative as well as convincing to make their point and shoot down the other sides point simultaneously. They have to be one-sided, and the right side is the on they are arguing. I would definitely be more comfortable with Kagan if she had held the position as a judge before becoming a justice of the "highest court in the land."

Overall, we are very excited to watch the Senate confirmation hearings (because the SCOTUS nominees are nominated by the President and then confirmed or not confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee) on C-SPAN. No matter who it is, they are always exciting to watch and the candidates are always sure to be "grilled". They start June 28, 2010 and you can watch on C-SPAN (if you don't have the channel no worries, they have a live feed on their website and that's where Anya and I spend too much time).

Republicans Running Against Boxer: Brief Synopsis

I would like to briefly talk about the Republican candidates running against Barbra Boxer for the Senatorial election in California. I have decided to talk about their views on the economy as well as their history and will post the links to their campaign pages so you can learn more about these qualified candidates.

Tom Campbell: He was a Congressman, state budget director, law school professor, economist and the nominee in 2000. He believes in reducing our spending so we don’t cause inflation, which may hit after there are more jobs and people start spending more money. He was one of six Republicans to vote against the bill that reversed the Glass-Stengel act because he feared the merger of investment and commercial banks would create too-big-to-fail institutions that the government would have to bail out if there was failure (guess he was right).
Website: http://www.campbell.org/ideas.

Chuck DeVore: He is a state assemblyman and was an Irvine city commissioner and aerospace executive. He follows the basic platform of the Republican Party and believes the government should let businesses create jobs and not heavily tax them. He is a member of the Tea Party (who believes in small government and lower taxes) and seems the most “Republican” out of all the Republican candidates, which doesn’t seem to be helping him in the polls.
Website: http://chuckdevore.com/n/issues/.

Carly Fiorina: She was CEO of Hewlett Packard and the 2008 McCain Campaign adviser. She proposes focusing on small businesses and on cutting their taxes to help create jobs and fix the economy. She also wants to address the debt. She is endorsed by Sarah Palin which might be a plus to the more grassroots Republicans but a big minus to the more liberal Republicans (which seems to be a lot of the Republicans in California) and she seems to me, politically, the least qualified out of the three.
Website: http://www.carlyforcalifornia.com/

I think I would endorse DeVore because even though he is too conservative for my taste his economic ideals match up with mine, he’s experienced, and he seems like the best out of the three. I feel like he could be the next Reagan of California (or at least that’s what people are calling him. . .)

On a side note: I am encouraging all of the people of voting age to please register and get involved in picking the people who hold power and who change our lives. I know this sounds cheesy, but your votes really DO count. To make it really easy for you: http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register.html?source=rtv.com-homegraphic. Please Vote!

AND . . . the other candidates for this election and others: http://www.politics1.com/ca.htm

Barbara Boxer: Profile of a Senator

Elections are coming up, and in California, we have one Senatorial election coming up in November. Barbara Boxer, the state's junior senator, is up for re-election for her fourth term. As a Democrat, a woman, and a Californian, I support Ms. Boxer's re-election efforts, and I hope I can convince you to as well.

First, her background. Barbara Boxer was elected to public office in 1976 when she ran for a position of the Marin County Board of Supervisors. She served there for six years and was the first woman to be the president of the board. She was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and served for five terms. She won the open seat (vacated by Democrat Alan Cranston) in the 1992 elections for US Senate. Before going into politics, she worked as a stockbroker (her degree is in Economics) and a journalist.

Currently, Senator Boxer is the chairwoman of the Select Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, as well as a member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Foreign Relations. She is also a member of numerous subcommittees as well as the Democratic Chief Deputy Whip.

I will not repeat every single one of Boxer's accomplishments in the Senate, because that would take forever and a day (and my AP Calculus homework is reminding me none too gently that that is time I just don't quite have!). Instead, I will focus on her broad legislative record and a few of her most important initiatives. For more detailed information, I refer you to her re-election website, http://www.barbaraboxer.com/issues.

Economy: Senator Boxer supports California's high-tech, entertainment, and biotech industries. She is also dedicated to preventing military base closures (thereby keeping jobs and increasing the stability of communities) and to convincing the Pentagon to allow disused bases to be refurbished into a community asset. She also recognizes that a good economy today means little if there is no future; to that end, she has fought for an increased use of technology in the classroom, wrote legislation that provided for tax deductions for companies who donated new or almost-new computers to schools, and supported an increased tax deduction to offset the cost of college. These initiatives are especially important to us young voters and almost-future-voters. Finally, and most importantly, she voted for President Obama's stimulus bill, which preserved or created hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Environment: Senator Boxer has fought for legislation that would keep all of the Arctic and many parts of California protected wilderness areas. She is also a leader in the fight against damaging offshore drilling on the California coast. She has worked on many bills to improve the quality of drinking water and set safe standards at levels that would make the water safe for children and the elderly, not just healthy adult men. She also supports California's laws on reducing tailpipe emissions, and has stopped the EPA from testing pesticides on women and children.

Healthcare: Senator Boxer is determined to expand healthcare coverage and reduce costs. She introduced legislation to create a tax deduction to help pay for the cost of insurance premiums and supports giving all Americans access to the same type of healthcare that members of Congress receive. She has consistently supported and authored legislation to promote research into many life-threatening diseases, as well as legislation to crack down on insurance company abuses. She also voted for the healthcare bill that passed Congress earlier this year.

Women's/Children's Rights: Senator Boxer has worked to expand children's access to healthcare and education. She has been involved in legislation to improve school safety and increase prosecution for people who commit crimes against children. She has also continuously fought to protect a woman's right to choose and right to reproductive healthcare. In her role as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, she is in a position to fight for women's rights all over the world.

Senator Boxer has been a consistent voice for equality and progressive issues. Her policies are not just good for Democrats. They are good for Californians, and for Americans. While she faces no serious primary challenger, she has three potential Republican challengers (the Republican primary has yet to be held). When deciding who to vote for this November, I hope you will support Barbara Boxer.

Logo by me.  I am, unfortunately, in no way affiliated with the Barbara Boxer Senate campaign, I just think she's awesome & you should vote for her :)

The Filibuster Problem

The story with the filibuster is always the same: if you are in the minority party, you adore it and if you are in the majority party you despise it. And of course, senators tend to change their positions depending on which party is in power along the Beltway, throwing red meat to the packs of political commentators and lighting up CNN's news tickers. But one thing a surprising number of senators agree on is that, love it or hte it, the filibuster is broken. I happen to think that it's high time we start thinking about filibuster reform. One only has to look at the recent Jim Bunning debacle to wonder about the wisdom of giving one single person the power to cost thousands of people their unemploymet benefits and even thousands more their jobs.

First, some history. The filibuster is a power peculiar to the Senate, written into the Senate rules to protect minority rights. Simply put, it allows one person (or a group of people) to virtually kill a bill by refusing to stop talking about it. In more technical terms, it allows unlimited debate on a bill, which can only be ended by a cloture vote. With 60+ votes, the bill passes; any less, and it is officially dead. The filibuster is in essence a way to protect the rights of the minority and ensure that all sides are heard in a debate. But of course, if the party in power has a 60+ supermajority, a filibuster is ineffective even as a threat (unless senators in the majority party join in the filibuster).

Like many tool made with good intentions, the filibuster has changed -- for the worse. In the old days, a senator who wanted to filibuster a bill had to stand on the Senate floor, stare his or her colleagues and the American people in the face, and say exactly why he or she opposed the bill. Senators has to speak, nonstop, until a cloture vote was called. That happens no longer. The Senate has evolved a 2-track system for legislative business, so that one senator can simply declare that bill X -- say, on environmental regulation -- is being filibustered, while work on bill Y -- say, on equal pay laws -- continues. This removes a lot of the personal accountability from the senators launching a filibuster. And no matter how much Jim Bunning complains about missing basketball games in order to stop the COBRA extension bill, he has it much easier than the Strom Thurmonds and Henry Clays of days gone by.

With this change in how the filibuster is implemented has come a seeming change in its purpose. Not only is it being used as a way to protect the minority, extend debates, and kill potentially damaging bills, it is being used to bring the senate to a virtual halt. Now, Tom Coburn might love gridlock, but as a normal citizen, I despise it. The gridlock was so bad recently that the Senate was sitting on upwards of 200 bills that had passed the House but couldn't be acted on because of filibusters, real or threatened.

So I propose we reform the filibuster. Because it is impossible to get rid of it (at lease from a common-sense point of view, because the Republican "nuclear option" of a few years ago would have allowed a simple majority to override a Senate rule and stop a filibuster). The point is that the filibuster has a defined and useful purpose. It is the constant abuse of the filibuster that must stop. The following reforms would do much to move along the legislative process in the Senate while still allowing the filibuster to serve its original purpose.

1. A filibuster should only be brought by more than one person. This ensures that there is a real, reasoned-out opposition to a bill, rather than one person acting in their own interest, or that of special interest groups.
2. We must return to the one-track system. If some senators want to talk a bill to death, they darn well better be prepared to, well, talk . . . for as long as it takes. Not only will this make people think twice about filibustering, it will also re-instate the degree of responsibility and accountability that comes with bringing a legislative body to a complete halt for hours.
3. Filibusters should not be used on judicial or other presidential nominees. This not conflicts with the powers of the executive branch, it nearly brought the Senate down once, and could possibly do so again. That is one thing no one (except possibly Mr. Coburn) wants to see happen.
4. If senators choose to filibuster a bill, they should be required to speak on topics related to the bill. This one is common sense, guys. The purpose of a filibuster is unlimited debate over a bill. If you're reminiscing about Grandma's mint juleps, you're not debating a bill (at least, I hope you're not! That would be one strange piece of legislation). If a senator is that eager to delay a vote on a bill, he or she should put a hold on it. Not filibuster it.

Healthcare Has Passed the House!

The House passed both the Senate bill and the Reconciliation bill (a package of changes to the Senate bill)

Anya is elated.

Ashley is disgruntled.

Both of us are disgusted that we've read more of the healthcare bill than the actual people who voted on it.

We were trying to call C-SPAN when they were taking callers on-air, but neither of us got through. Look for detailed responses from both of us tomorrow!

Oh Massachusetts!

Oh Massachusetts! The seemingly blue state! However, on Tuesday January 19, the people of Massachusetts decided to vote a different way; they decided to vote for change…again. So, the candidates were R-Scott Brown and D-Martha Coakley. I found it odd that the seat the late Edward Kennedy filled for almost half a century is now held by a Republican, however that’s how politics works. To quote a TV show, “no one owns a Senate seat.” If you want to keep it you have to work hard for it and the political winds have to be just right (however the incumbent does have an advantage, usually).

Anyway, what does this signify? Well, if you’re a Republican it means your party is doing something right, it’s coming back, and finally Democrats will have to listen and take into consideration your ideas. You also will take any chance you get to say it has to do with Obama and shows his political future. For a Republican, this is game changing. If you’re a Democrat you’re trying to keep it from touching on the President, meaning it doesn’t foreshadow anything for Obama in the future. Also, you might feel some of your agenda will be centralized and you are definitely feeling wan from a fall from power. I suppose your front is it’s no big deal, but you might be panicking a bit on the inside?

The facts: Democrats don’t have that 60, that impenetrable number, to override filibusters (a filibuster is when a member talks, reads, etc. for a certain amount of time in order to “back up” the Senate and then a cloture vote is called for, where 60 votes ends it. More details:http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm. Republicans have been very much on the defensive this past year about Healthcare reform, etc. and this was mainly because the Democrats had the 60 votes and they didn’t need Republicans for anything, so excluding them was best. Now, Harry Reid WILL have to change his strategy. He didn’t really try to reach out to any of the Republicans in the end, even Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who were open to working with him and were very much centrist on the ideas proposed. Gosh, now he’ll have to deal with the very conservative Republicans as well. I’m sorry Mr. Reid but the way you’ve been doing things is going to have to change it will be a very bumpy ride. Republican ideas will have to be present in the bill to get some votes. And there are just some Republicans who won’t be won over. I either foresee some Republicans really being listened to and trying to work with the Democrats or I see stubbornness on both sides, which will make it impossible to accomplish anything. I am planning for the latter and hoping for the former.

Other possible effects: We can only guess at what this means for the President. Some say it’s an indicator of where people think his government is going and they don’t like it, and other’s think you can’t really apply what’s happening in one state to the whole of the Presidency. I think it may be both. I feel like people turned up to vote and wanted this change because they didn’t like where the Healthcare Bill was going (especially the December vote) and were scared of what cap and trade would do to their small businesses, and maybe didn’t want new taxes. All of this is controlled by who wins that Senate seat, and that’s now Scott Brown. Also, we can’t look at this and say Obama is finished. Not everyone feels the same way about him like the people in Massachusetts do. Some people love what he’s doing and some people hate it so it’s hard to get an accurate read on where he’s going.

How did this happen? It looks like a combination of a lot of things. Coakley had one thing going for her; it was Ted Kennedy’s seat and therefore people might think it just “belongs” to a Democrat. However, that may have also hurt her because if people think that and don’t want the seat to go to a Democrat then they will have even more incentive to go to the polls and vote. I think the “60 vote” mentality of the Senate contributed to Coakley’s downfall because people felt ignored, excluded, horrified, etc. at what was getting passed and wanted to put a stop to it. Part of this comes from Republicans not being listened to because not one Republican voted for the Healthcare Bill in December and that looks bad and I think people were turned off by it. Also, having Obama endorse her (Coakley) might have backfired just a bit. She thought he would change people’s minds and he didn’t; so basically she counted on him changing people’s minds too much.

I just think it was a time for change. I feel that maybe the Democrats were getting too lax on the Healthcare Bill by not trying to appeal to both sides of the aisle. I think this challenge will produce a better and more accepted Healthcare Bill, if one gets passed. It all depends on how well the Republicans and Democrats can work with each other for a common goal. This should be interesting.

My sources:

1. http://www.npr.org/watchingwashington/2010/01/seven_things_at_stake_in_brown.html
2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_massachusetts_senate
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatuzIwL.TBs

Anya is horrified, but morbidly intrigued to see how this plays out. I do know it will mean a very centrist healthcare bill, far less liberal than I would have liked. Hopefully more bills will have bipartisan support now while still making the sweeping reforms we need. Congrats to Ashley on a very well written post :)

Am I a Bad Democrat?

Why, of course I was paying attention in AP Government today!  Whyever would you think I wasn't? :)  Anyway . . .

Is it bad for Reid that he has the "magic number" of 60 in his caucus?  Did it get his hopes up too high?  With 60, he might've thought that he could get a very liberal bill though without needing to compromise with the Republicans and that the more conservative Democrats and independents would fall in line just because of party loyalty.  In any case, when all is said and done, it would look very bad for Reid if the vote fell completely along party lines.  That would very quickly become the favored punching-bag for the Rush Limbaughs of the Republican party, who would immediately jump on Reid/Obama/Democrats in general for "forcing the bill through Congress", etc.

Anyway, going back to what was my main point.  I've been cheering for the negotiations going on in the Senate lately, especially surrounding what I see as the "big four": Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman, whose yay or nay votes are going to be absolutely critical when the bill in its complete form is debated on the floor.  Ultimately, I think we're going to have a better/more widely accepted healthcare bill because of it.

Obviously, I'm not happy with all the compromises.  There are places where I think we Democrats have bargained away too much, a la the public option being completely axed.  Honestly, I think private insurers have had their day, and squandered much of their goodwill on ineffective plans, discrimination against women, and obscenely high premiums in the name of profit.  But that's a topic for another day.  On the other hand, if Joe Lieberman wasn't willing to stand up and risk the anger of his Democratic colleagues and denounce the Medicare expansion, we'd have people ages 55 to 64 buying into Medicare while cutting the already underfunded program even more.

I suppose that's where I break away from the really liberal Democrats.  Well, that, and I support the trigger option.  I think a nonprofit corporation handling insurance with a "trigger" option for a plan with more government is a good idea.  Why?  Simple.  It comes from the center.  And . . . it has a really good chance of passing the Senate.  More than a straight-up public plan would.  It's a decent compromise which promises both bipartisan support (even if the only Republicans to support it are Snowe and Collins, it gives the bill more legitimacy) and improved healthcare (which is the most important thing, really).

But at the same time, I think that the liberal Democrats in the Senate have no excuse for not supporting the bill.  It's not going to be the best thing to come out of Congress, and it's not going to make everyone happy, but it's progress.  Howard Dean, the former DNC chairman, has said that the Senate should kill the bill and go back to the drawing board.  With all due respect to Mr. Dean, that is very five-year-old of him.  Opportunities like this for total overhaul only come around . . . well, much less frequently than Mr. Dean seems to think.  It was a fight to get the different committee bills written, it was a fight to get the bills reconciled, it was a fight to agree to debate the bill, the amendments are fights . . . and on and on.  The only things that will be accomplished by sending the bill back to the drawing board/refusing to pass the bill is we'll have wasted months of work, millions of Americans will still have little or no healthcare, and maybe there'll be even less chance of a bill getting passed.

So, at the end of the day, am I a bad Democrat?  No, I don't think so.  I've just got common sense, an eye for what direction the Senate's leaning on different issues, and a head full of Economics knowledge from last semester's econ class :)