We are lucky to have this Gentleman working for us. I feel he truly cares about Oregon and the Nation. The Senate has sold Health Care out to the Industry that is shoveling big bucks into their coffers and it just seems to me that the fellows in DC don't give a rats ass about this country. They have theirs, to hell with the rest of the folks.

tj

Thank you, Rep. DeFazio.

All right! Pete da man!!!

Can't wait to see if we get another spin or if the "you are SO naive and stupidly idealistic" bunch care to level those charges at DeFazio.

Pat, t.a., I believe you're first up.

I think that is the key quote too. Based on past history, how do we know that Pelosi won't roll over again to get her belly scratched? I mention that because I think any hardball by Dems should be considered in that light, before it's disparaged. A "no" vote is about the only shot at protest you get.

Are we still to accept that taking single payer off the table before the battle was joined, was smart politics?

Funny, this story was really irritating back when, but after the constant drum beating for M66/67, it actually is refreshing change.

Thank you Pete DeFazio. I could understand the R's unanimous rejection of this abomination of a bill. At the same time what's to like if you call yourself "progressive"? The proposed bill will does nothing to lower health insurance costs on the middle class and it doesn't resemble a single-payer system at all. Seriously, what's to like?

Yes Dave, but, respectfully, you also think that the answer to high school reform is learning Mandarin, and the answer to higher education is more laptops. So we need to consider the source here.

Just sayin'.

Thank you Rep Defazio.

Good to see there is one honorable man in Washington who doesn’t ask “how high” when his party says jump. I for one am tired of the Obama Administration serving up a turd and telling us it’s an appetizer.

This bill does nothing to reform health care, it does noting to lower the cost of hospital stays or medical procedures. It is an obscene giveaway to the health insurance complex while creating yet another unwieldy government bureaucracy.

Kill this bill now!

"I think the Senate bill is better than no bill."

Tell us then what is so great about? No cost controls, no public option and Medicare is still bleeeding money.

At least DeFazio is honest. I wouldn't even compare these bills to sausage anymore. At least sausage looks better coming out than when it goes into the factory.

This is sausage that has passed through the digestive tract and out through the alimentary canal and excreted.

"I think the Senate bill is better than no bill."

This represents an understandable attitude, but the problem with it is that it very likely means that the nation will be stuck with a sub-standard system for a very long time taht will be a disaster for the 20-odd million people left outside the system. It also has an element of divide and conquer. Something like 50 million people want health reform for themselves, but the oligarchs and their paid accomplices in Congress are not all that enthused about it, so to reduce the problems they are prepared to split the difference. Give something (for which the fine print has not been read, if written) to 30 million who will become allies against the remaining 20. That's progressive????

"the nation will be stuck with a sub-standard system for a very long time"

Great, let's replace with another sub-standard system that costs even more money. Plus lets let 435 reps, 100 senators and 1 President shove it thru as fast as they can without any public input. This is the best we can come up with?

Remmeber, if you think health care is expensive now, wait until its free (not my quote).

Why is the House bill so much better than the Senate bill exactly? Does he prefer the Stupack anti-choice language? Sounds like grandstanding to me.

The bill is likely the worst thing of any size ever produced by our congress.

From both sides it sucks.

So why in the world would progressives insist on passing it anyway?

Simply for political posturing and saving face? That't it? Come on. If you really want to help those in genuine need of health care this isn't how to do it and you know it.

Do you really want to your controlling congress to spend their majority political capital by playing hardball to pass this horrible bill on a total partisen basis?

Keep digging.

Posted by: Richard | Jan 13, 2010 9:39:57 PM

So why in the world would progressives insist on passing it anyway?

You've nearly caused me to lose all hope. So the tepid Dems have convinced you that "since we won't say liberal anymore we say progressive" is the same as "progressive"? Real progressives are the ones that gave all the up front critique, like "Toilet Half Full", and Bill B.

I think DeFazio's real point is that more time, more bargaining, and more uncertainty will improve the final product, assuming that it passes. I think he's pissed off that Senate gets to dictate the outcome and he wants the game to continue.

I doubt that many people on either side of this issue would agree with that premise.

At this late date, I believe the case to put up or shut up is a very strong one.

I also think, respectfully, that DeFazio sounds like he needs a vacation. Some of you are hearing feistiness; I'm hearing whining.

Can't wait to see if we get another spin or if the "you are SO naive and stupidly idealistic" bunch care to level those charges at DeFazio.

I also think, respectfully, that DeFazio sounds like he needs a vacation. Some of you are hearing feistiness; I'm hearing whining.

Now here's an interesting point! What people that take DeFazio's stance keep hearing from Dems is that they're whining. I've heard the word in the last month enough for a lifetime. I'll admit, I totally don't get it. Please explain how what he is saying translates into whining. I'm serious. You use the phraseology in such a way that you definitely DO get it, so please explain! What is the unwritten rule that we are violating?

The Baseline Scenario, a mostly-economics web site, has an interesting graph and article "United States Health Care Spending" The graph shows health care costs (presumably, per capita) and life expectancies for several nations, mostly European. The United States has a health cost figure of $7,290 with a life expectancy of 78 years. Switzerland has the next highest cost figure of $4,417 with a life expectancy of 81.5 years. South Korea comes in with a cost figure of only $1,688 but manages to edge slightly above the U.S. in life expectancy. 12 nations managed to beat the U.S. in life expectancy despite spending much less on health care.

What Congress is trying to foist off on the American people is unlikely to make much of an improvement in the above figures, but the insurance corporations should get a boost in their stock prices.

Pass the bill, it is a start and a net improvement over the status-quo.

Start a new bill immediately, how about Medicare at 55, via reconciliation?

Every new congress, start a new bill (or bills) with additional reform.

One step at a time, we'll get something decent eventually.

Dear White Whine;

What people that take DeFazio's stance keep hearing from Dems is that they're whining....Please explain how what he is saying translates into whining. I'm serious.

Honestly? I just wrote my immediate reaction when I heard the DeFazio in the video.

In his case, I think I meant it literally. Listening in those few seconds, he seems overwhelmed by the process, uninterested in building a coalition, and frankly, seems like a guy who can live with the status quo, and doesn't know who his real opponents are.

Like I said, maybe he just needs a vacation; it's just an impression.

This isn't a larger Dem-to-leftist critique. This is pointed at the congressman and the tone of those few seconds.

DeFazio and the "progressive" nimrods on this thread are willing to let thousands die needlessly every year until they get their "perfect" health care reform.

disgusting.

I am finally starting to understand that whining is standard Congressman DeFazio. I used to really like him because he sounded all populist and angry, but after a decade of listening to him I can't come up with a single example of when his talent for getting quoted sounding all angry resulted in a different, better result. If he wants to pledge to vote against the Senate bill and organize enough House Democrats to join him, he will move from whining to effectiveness.

Once again Peter DeFazio shows us that he is not only a prima donna of the first order, but he is not the power broker he claims to be. The negotiations are nearly complete between the House and Senate and there will be a bill. Real legislation comes from coalition building, and not irresponsible posturing. DeFazio has his health care paid for by us. If he wants to feel righteous then he should decline his own benefits if he is so opposed to passing a bill at this time.

If this was about not letting thousands die needlessly every year because they have no free insurance then vouchers for the truely needy could remedy that.

The idea that a horrible bill is the only way is a lesson in programs of mass dysfunction.

If Democrats wanted, they could create some credibility first by passing a bill which finds Medicare savings first, opens states to more insurance competition, reforms law suit abuse and establishes vouchers for the needy. Among other things.

But demanding the passage of a horrible bill is accomplishing the opposite.

More problems keep mounting.

EDITORIAL: Obamacare's marriage penalty THE WASHINGTON TIMES

"So much is so wrong with Capitol Hill's two versions of government health care that it's hard to focus on yet another poison pill in the bills. Hard, but important. It turns out that in addition to unconstitutional measures, unfair individual mandates, higher taxes, penalties for lifesaving medical devices and a potentially devastating rationing of care, Obamacare also contains several penalties on couples for getting married. Those penalties make government the enemy of both good romance and good finance."

Go DeFazio - Kill the bill.

Hey t.a.barnhart, Ian MacDonald, Bill R, Urban Planning Overlord: DeFazio represents the sentiments of the strong majority of his district, the DPO, and by all indications the country on this bill, which continues to shape up to be nothing but a giveaway to the insurance industry, period.

What's so disgusting about people like you is that you go so far as to try to represented the condescending pittance this bill would offer to SOME of the uninsured as well as everybody else is a good thing rather than the back of the hand that it really is.

It's interesting how others around here who were as prick-headed as you attacking informed critics of what was happening as it was going down are kind of quiet. Just fools like you are now still clapping. One wonders if you even really know much about this issue at all.

For the rest, over at FireDogLake we see just how trashy the politics around this have become:

Union Exemption from Excise Tax is a Bad, Bad Idea

We are watching certain factions of the Democratic Party tear what's left of the party apart apart for their own selfish agendas. What the unions are doing cutting a deal for their support is no different than what Nelson did in getting a deal for Nebraska. (And by the way, if the excise tax was part of the scoring of this bill, how is this exemption going to be paid for?) It's time to stop this fight before the damage is permanent by NOT passing what is going to be the worst of the Senate and House bills, and starting over going down the right path, after internally cleaning house in the Democratic Party.

This has nothing to do with health care or even health insurance REFORM at this point. This is just all the power players trying to get their piece of a ripoff of the American people writ large. Only some leaders like DeFazio are finding the guts to stand up and tell it like it is.

truth burns like a hot coal: I repeat, THOUSANDS WILL DIE EVERY YEAR while you wait for perfection and kill anything less than that.

disgusting.

Urban Planning Overprick - And I repeat to you, scumball, you are allowing even more to die using the lesser numbers who this bill throws a pittance to. We can do much better right now if jerks like you actually got behind the right thing like DeFazio is doing. Don't you dare accuse me of not caring, you disgusting, dishonest fool.

Your argument is pretty much that of the self-interested that defend the paltry wages and exploitative working conditions of corporations when they go into developing nations are claim what offer more then people would have without them. No, the people would be better off if those actually benefitting were forced to do the right thing, rather than defended for doing what benefits them.

Cite the source of the assertions about the uninsured and underinsured you are just selfishly using as pawns for your own agenda. Presumably you are making your scummy argument, unsourced as it is, based on the study from Harvard where the PNHP researchers responsible for that study have said both the House and Senate bills are bad bills and the Senate bill should be defeated because it helps so few.

Does anyone (for or against what might emerge from Congress) have any idea what the details will be? How much will people have to pay for premiums? What will they get (or not get) in return? How about deductibles? What's covered and what isn't? Given how much money the insurance industry has pumped into campaign coffers, it's a good bet the leaders in the house and senate will be taking care of their donors first and the people second.

"Once again Peter DeFazio shows us that he is not only a prima donna of the first order, but he is not the power broker he claims to be."

If I recall correctly, Peter DeFazio was among a small minority of Democrats who opposed the bailout bill that the committees led by Senator Dodd and Representative Frank tried to ram through Congress on behalf of Wall Street. DeFazio was right then, and he is right now.

Once again DeFazio is just a gasbag, blowing hot air. The deal is virtually done and by this weekend will be submitted to CBO according to Charlie Rangel. DeFazio isn't going to kill anything except perhaps his own diminished credibility. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/house-chairmen-say-health-care-deal-imminent.php?ref=fpa

Bill R, you are exactly right. All of the reports this morning say the White House will produce its House and Senate compromise bill tomorrow. He is out of the loop on this one, has no influence, and is trying to get credit with the netroots for doing something when he is doing nothing at all.

OK, Ian, I think I've got it. You're saying that when all is said and done, we will pass this. So complaining, knowing that, is just whining. That seems to be the variable that discriminates from UrbanPO at one end, to the pure progressives at the other. Namely, "what is the probability that we can have a better bill"? If you say, "zero", then it's whining. But the "whiners" don't think it's zero. That's the charitable way of looking at it. It also could be reduced to "any talk beyond the agenda set by the DP" is whining, again, because it ain't gonna happen. In sum, I have to conclude that all the whining that DP loyalists are hearing is a symptom of the party's move to the center and adoption of Republican business as usual tactics.

There's also idealism involved. If it came down to my dying of some stupid little thing that early care could prevent, and this bill is the only way I could get it, then I would rather die than transfer tax dollars directly to the reprehensible health care industry. Most think every life that can be saved should be regardless of the cost. I don't.

I think where you stand on those two considerations determines your tone in this debate. It's funny that Obama ran on "we can do better" and his party is trying to sell this with "this is the best you're going to get".

Sorry you're so upset UrbanPO and I think you're on rather a high horse, but I'll give you character points for showing and repeating your lines, where other major proponents of the point of view have been...what's the silver tongued lady's phrase...raw chicken! They seem to be taking the attitude that they explained it to us before, now they'll ignore our behaving badly.

DeFazio isn't going to kill anything except perhaps his own diminished credibility. ... If I recall correctly, Peter DeFazio was among a small minority of Democrats who opposed the bailout bill that the committees led by Senator Dodd

And who isn't running next time? I'll take Whine a step further and say that not only do party faithful think there's no chance to do better, party faithful don't WANT a chance to do better. That is why Dems, while more fit to lead than Reps, lack the critical mass of character to lead as well.

@ Rudy V. "why Dems, while more fit to lead than Reps, lack the critical mass of character to lead as well."

What I would say in reference to DeFazio is that it takes no character at all to simply stand on the sidelines and throw rocks and posture. DeFazio doesn't lead anyone, except his own mouth. He isn't a player, he doesn't legislate, he postures. Period

Dear White;

You don't quite have it. My remark about whining was pointed straight at Peter DeFazio, not the position you articulated.

The position you describe isn't a whine, but as far as strategy is concerned, I disagree quite strongly. I think it's time for this chapter in the health reform saga to come to a close.

How much longer does DeFazio suppose we should drag this out? If I were him, I would take stock of the strategic mistakes that were made last year, get a deal, and move on.

This is from the new thread about Wyden signing on to a letter to end the anti-trust exemptions for health insurance companies:

"Of course, as the Washington Independent notes, the House bill already has the anti-trust exemption - but it was removed at the behest of Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE). One thing I learned from the item - Nelson is a former insurance company president."

That looks like another reason to agree with Peter DeFazio.

I would like to ask the folks who feel that passing this bill (either form) is the better choice because it is a start and can be improved over time to question that assumption. The reason this issue is even being considered is that at 17% increases a year for small businesses the present system is destroying our global competitiveness and deeply, deeply hurting our growth in non-health care areas. If this bill is allowed to pass it might allow the "body Americana" to bleed to death at a slightly slower rate, effectively allowing the lobby to bury the issue again under a cascade of cash/bribes for years to come. Do you believe that after this brutal fight, if it is not absolutely imperative to the economic survival of the country, they will address it again any time soon? I submit to you that this is an all or nothing battle, in that whatever we achieve today is all we will get for decades. The fight is now. Kill the bill.

Bill; I think you're making a plausible connection, but I think there is a big difference between Wyden and DeFazio (aside from status and chamber).

It depends what you mean by "agree with DeFazio". Do you get the sense that Wyden expects an open-ended window of time? I don't. I think DeFazio expects that, or at least, he expresses that expectation.

With Wyden, I see, instead, consensus building, urgency, and a strategy. With DeFazio, I see hurt feelings and peevishness. Which is more effective? I guess we'll find out.

Re: "I for one am tired of the Obama Administration serving up a turd and telling us it’s an appetizer."

and: "This is sausage that has passed through the digestive tract and out through the alimentary canal and excreted." :

The Senate bill is a toilet three-quarter-full as opposed to the House bill, which is a toilet half-full, and they both are a lot better than the purity/perfection that progressives whine about.

It's a scoobie oobie doobie scoobie doobie melody.

Uh, guys, we already had the Wyden vs. DeFazio battle, and Wyden won. That was a long time ago, and I think they are on the same team now. If Wyden were still talking about his bill as if it had a chance of being adopted by the House and Senate, I would say he is grandstanding. Today, it was DeFazio grandstanding.

Darrel Plant, you seem to be leaving off the fact that the majority of Wyden's cosponsors were Democrats. You are also conveniently disregarding the fact that the majority of the Republicans rejected Wyden's bill. I wish when people with agendas went after their favorite whipping boys around here, they would at least fully state the objective facts and then go on to smack their targets.

Defazio is still right, I think the latest news about dropping the cadillac tax provision is going to make this the ugliest thing you have ever seen.

So now people with great health insurance (which is income) won't be taxed to pay for it plus every state is going to ask for the exemption on Medicare Nelson got to vote for it.

Sausage is at least edible no matter how ugly.

"Bill; I think you're making a plausible connection, but I think there is a big difference between Wyden and DeFazio (aside from status and chamber)."

I couldn't agree more. That's why I have a lot of respect for DeFazio but very little for Wyden.

"With Wyden, I see, instead, consensus building, urgency, and a strategy. With DeFazio, I see hurt feelings and peevishness. Which is more effective? I guess we'll find out."

What good is consensus building if he is are working on a bi-partisan plan with the likes of Bob Bennett and Joe Lieberman who are more interested in taking care of their campaign donors than the people they are supposed to represent? Same goes for Wyden and the lobbyists who donated to his campaign. You can bet there was a wink-wink consensus that the lobbyists would donate funds and Wyden would propose health plans that would be beneficial to the insurance corporations the lobbyists represent. Which helps to explain why he took so long to get around to mouthing support for a public option.

As for DeFazio fighting, he is not alone. There are several progressive (independent progressive, not Democrat progressive) organizations still soliciting people to call Congress and let their representatives know they want a good health plan and not a second-rate piece of crap. If the people are silent and silenced now the negotiators will take that as surrender and a green light to tilt more to the insurance corporations before the draft is finalized into a bill.

Poll: Americans think standing for principle is more important than bipartisan compromise

There are many reasons why Congress and the Obama administration will be foisting a disappointing "reform" of the national health care system(?). Two of the most absurd and revolting are (1) the influence of corporate bribes to fund political campaigns, and (2) the willingness of so many people, especially Democrats, who let their politicians know right from the first skirmish they were willing to compromise to an almost point of surrender.

"the influence of corporate bribes"

Those pale in comparison to the pork doled out to reps and senators.

"willing to compromise"

Compromise on what? Obama didn't know what he wanted besides a victory, any kind of vicotry to make him look like a winner. No one ever had a basic bill to start off with becasue it would take too long and we need to get it done before mid-terms.

Do you really think he knows what is inside of that bill? Do you really think he cares what Reid and Pelosi pass? Do you really think shoving it thru for symbolism is the best we can do?

Ian MacDonald, onafrey and the rest in their whiny rant group is clearly an example of that low character, morally bankrupt segment of Oregon society that just can't stand it when from time to time some elected official actually stands up for an important principle. This bill is a travesty and an utter sellout of the American people to the health insurance industry, perpetrated by some of the most morally bankrupt elected Democratic officials to disgrace our party in a generation.

What's amusing is those who defend betraying scum like Wyden, many to advance other political agendas they actually put ahead of health care reform, prove that by how they are now depending on some of the very Democrats they formerly criticized to pass it. Winning to preserve their political power is their overriding goal:

House Dems who voted ‘no’ could support final healthcare bill

The lede says it all: "Some centrist Democrats who voted against the House healthcare reform legislation say they may vote yes on the final bill if it closely mirrors the Senate-passed measure."

I'm actually starting to look forward to the division of the DPO and national party will experience we are going to see if this bill is passed, a division helped along in no small part by the repellent, piggish attitudes of supporters like Ian Macdonald, donafrey, Bill R, t.a.barnhart, Urban Planning Overlord, and their type. A lot of people like to poke fun of the GOP's problems, and it is tragic that Jack Roberts' party has become as disgusting and dysfunctional as that part of the Democratic Party these people represent. If the GOP hadn't fallen into such a failed state that it can only nominate freaks, Wyden would join Smith as a defeated incumbent this time around. As it is, no Democrat I know is going to vote for Wyden, they just aren't going to vote in the Senate race at all.

What lies ahead if this passes is that we are going to find out just how easily and how much quicker the kind of "leaders" like Wyden, Merkley (remember how he said he was against a mandate and for a public option?), Schrader, Wu, Blumenauer, and even DeFazio, if they vote for a bill that sells us out to the private health insurance industry as we are now hearing will betray us the next time and every time after that if they can benefit by doing so.

lies burn like a hot coal: OK, I get it now. You're one of those idiots who thinks world capitalism should be overthrown and replaced with ??? - the latest millenarian fad that will inevitably morph into Stalinism? That sounds about right.

Leave it to a nutjob like Urban Planning Overprick to rant like a mad man against those calling out corporate corruption of our Congress for what it is. This ought to drive you completely out of your tiny little demented mind:

John Shadegg Gives Mike Stark a Preview of the GOP 2010 Campaign

It's funny that Obama ran on "we can do better" and his party is trying to sell this with "this is the best you're going to get".

By "his party", presumably you mean all these "shaddap an' sign it Dems". You know, I can understand why clownfish and lampreys hang out with pols, but I don't get the motivation of the ones that whine "whiner". You care more about politics than the average person. When you dream about making a difference is it explaining to progressives why they should shut up and swallow a corporate hand-out, because it will save some of their neighbors a more grisly fate? Does that make you feel accomplished? Why the hell do you bother?

Add this to Bill B's link and I think it's fair to say that in 10 years most Americans won't remember what that hair was that divided the Reps and Dems, as they'll all be lumped together and junked for their hacky, self-serving corporatocracy. I think a lot of these guys and gals really think they'll just change their stripes for spots if that happens. Ye are doomed. Real progressives have very long memories and can be just as vindictive to their detractors.

"Frank goes on for 288 pages plus notes to illustrate how business has subverted government and squeeze it dry as a return on investment in the right candidates. All the while the movement has deliberately repopulated government with saboteurs anxious to prove that government is ineffective or to destroy its attempts (since 1886) to control capitalism's worst excesses."

This is a pattern that has existed in the human condition throughout history. Someone or some small group seeks to rule their territory then expand it. If it isn't capitalists motivated by greed (not that all capitalists are so motivated) it is religious zealots or political ideologues. If death doesn't intercede it is up to the people to stage a revolution either by the Gandhi non-violent road, at the ballot box or by taking to the barricades.

But the battle is just not against these putative dictators but against their courtiers and enablers in their organizations and the media.

"Wendell Potter worked for CIGNA health insurers for more than 15 years, including a position as head of communications. He left that job, in a 180-degree switch, to fight for the rights of all Americans to affordable health care. He now serves as Senior Fellow on Health Care at the Center for Media and Democracy, and he joined Laura in studio today to give us a quick update on the health care reform process, explain the so-called "Cadillac tax," and remind us all that the battle isn't over yet -- there's still time to fight."

Still Time to Fight for Health Care Reform

"I think it's fair to say that in 10 years most Americans won't remember what that hair was that divided the Reps and Dems, as they'll all be lumped together and junked for their hacky, self-serving corporatocracy."

Case in point?: As Massachusetts goes, so goes the nation?

Given Dems performance on this, I don't see where the hubris comes from. It's obvious the Congress has become an extension of Shitcago politics.

What's with the posts appearing and disappearing?

"In America ... conservatism has always been an expression of business."

And in America, there is one business party with two wings.

It's not whining when you speak out loud what the corporatists and the bought out ones don't want people to hear. I sure would like to hear a few more Dems whine like DaFazio. This bill is turning out to be a wet dream for the insurance companies (30% jump in their stock?). I think we have a much better chance of getting some real reform sooner if it doesn't pass.

I am curious about the lack of outrage on BO about the Democrat behind-closed-door backroom deal that exempts Union members from the tax on high-cost health plans until 2018.

No blatant pandering to deep pocket campaign contributors here.... Yeah, lots of hope and change.

Seriously. Why even have that in the bill. The only people who have expensive health insurance plans that would qualify are the Union/Government workers anyway. This clause is now irrelevant. Buying votes, that's all they're doing.

I sure miss the old days when Democrats believed in Democracy instead of backroom deals and cronyism.

Well, when you are a socialist or liberal I guess you believe the end justifies the means to ram your idea of how the world should work down the throats of the majority.

I miss the Democrats acting within Constitutional limits also. But the more Pelosi, Reid & Co. keep this up, the better the 2010 elections are looking. Hope is on the way!

Here is another examples of Democratic hypocrisy: This is from ThinkProgress, usually a reasonable good site with the proviso it is focused on the sins of the right: Wall Street Investors Lavish Scott Brown’s Campaign With Money, Get Out The Vote Operations which exposes the money Scott Brown is getting from Wall Street for his senatorial campaign in Massachusetts. The same criticism applies to some of the bloggers' comments. Compare that with the link above on Massachusetts.

It could be argued this is in response to exposure of corporate funding of Brown's Democratic opponent except there is no reference to her sucking up to the corporate teat.

The question now is, "Which corporate candidate will the people of Massachusetts choose?"

I sure miss the old days when Democrats believed in Democracy instead of backroom deals and cronyism.

The "Reagan Revolution" coincided with Dems and Reps having the same average "net worth" in the Congress. First time in history. Since then, it's been the two-faced, one party system. The long lamented rw, put it best, "the Janus Party".

@Rudy

Preach, nigga, preach!