Today was another day in which a number of news articles caught my eye. They warrant additional context, especially the connections between some of them.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has been working behind the scenes to talk with what the corporate media likes to term "centrist"/"moderate" Democratic Senators regarding health care. He will continue to try to convince CorporateDems to vote to allow debate on the Senate health bill. What's the center position between corporatist lackeys and principled public servants anyway?
Another very popular Washington buzzterm came into play: Salazar is involved because he was involved in several bipartisan agreements while a Senator. He was at the forefront of what I term the Gaggle of Gangs in the Senate - joining with other "centrists" to keep the filibuster around but ensure Democrats wouldn't use it while in the minority. Which is part of the reason why Salazar is being sent back to work on his former colleagues: the Cons are threatening to filibuster the health bill (though Democrats won't actually force them to carry one out) and (gasp!) Democrats might join them. That's the answer to "How did that bipartisanship end up working out". Whatever happened to the Cons' "Upper-down-vote!" they couldn't get enough of?
One person of concern is Sen. Lieberman, the man who campaigned for Sen. John McCain in last year's presidential election and is doing everything he can to keep himself in the news this year. Salazar was "mentored" by Lieberman when he joined the Senate, so I'm sure Lieberman can be convinced to play nice - aren't you? Oh, and after watering down the bill with nonsense to appease "centrist" Republicans, where are their votes to move to debate? MIA? Remind me - why did we negotiate with them? They're not going to vote for the final bill.
The 2009 election is now behind us. The 2010 election is moving toward us quickly. What have I picked up from this year's election results? That Democrats, especially those which I label CorporateDems, who run away from the Democratic base will lose, and deservedly so.
If CorporateDems want to chase down Con votes, I say go for it. The Cons won't vote for them and there's now proof that progressives won't turn out to help them. Having a (D) after their name isn't enough.
RSS Feed
