BS: Palin sips tea tonight

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:32 PM

Angels have a stance on immigration?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:34 PM

At least to the extent that you can believe in angels.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:45 PM

You been talking with them, Riginslinger?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 02:41 PM

Yeah, they sang -- "Swing low, sweet chariot, comin' for to takin' me home --"

                So I figured all them illegal aliens was leavin'!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:24 PM

Back to digression-
"Because of the way they were packaged, .... It was not possible for investors to know what they were getting?"
The investors were AIG, Bear Stearns, banks in Scotland, etc.
These were the big bundles, gathered up as the bigger firms bought and repackaged, but they started with local loans from banks such as "Bank of Lolita" Left Branch Savings & Loan to Joe Blow wand on up.
Of course, the individual mortgages were not identified except by name and number of instrument, but certainly the banks and investment firms at the top should have known that they were riding a bubble that was approaching the critical stage.

Old history now, the banks and investment firms are stabilized and making money again. The federal government is getting its money back with interest.
Let's hope that some controls are put in place since it is doubtful that firms such as Bear Stearns had more than a cupful of brains among their many thousands of staff.
So far, the bailout is the greatest accomplishment of the Obama administration.



(I apologise to Bank of Lolita, which is a real bank in the old gold mining country of California. I just like the name).

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:35 PM

So far, the bailout is the greatest accomplishment of the Obama administration.

Sad because of course it wasn't his doing at all. It might be the answer, years from now, to "What's the one thing President George W Bush did right?"

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:37 PM

Let's not lose sight of the fact that a lot of people lost a lot of money because of this kind of misbehavior, though. It may be true that the bailout money is being paid back with interest, but that doesn't help all of the "little people" who were not made whole by the bailouts. We need better regulation of the financial markets to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:52 PM

We had it once, but then we were afflicted with Ronald Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:58 PM

The 'little people' that lost in most cases got their money back, if they had savings in the market. Just a matter of waiting. Most of those I know who had stocks in their savings portfolio have pretty well got balanced again. Some who had some cash in the matress made money when good stocks dipped low; it was bargain time.

Of course those that took out mortgages that were beyond their means and were foreclosed lost, but that was not in "bundled" instruments but in direct mortgages.

Business losses- when people stop spending, losses are inevitable and marginals will fail or at the least jobs are cut. To me, these are the most damaging losses of all.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 06:01 PM

People with money in funds that bought heavily into these funny paper things --- didn't come out so well.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 06:13 PM

A lot of people lost a lot of money because of the economic downturn. They have not gotten their money back and they will not get their money back. A lot of them lost their jobs, and because of that, they lost their homes. A lot of small businesses lost a lot of business, and their owners and employees lost money because of that. The damages to those who are not among the economic elite have been massive, and those people will not ever get their money back.

My father and step mother lost more than $100,000 when they invested in my brother's business. It was a solid business with a solid track record until the economic downturn, and it went out of business because the products it offered were not essential enough for people in a cash strapped economy to be able to justify spending money on. There are many millions of people who have experienced similar losses. These people will not ever get their money back.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 06:25 PM

It probably ended up in the bonus check of some crook who worked for Goldman Sachs.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 06:31 PM

Rigs is right...

We used to have sanity-in-lending... It was called regulation... Then along came Ronnie Raygun and pointed his raygun at any lae that the corporations didn't like... Ya' see, the corporation and Ronnie were convinced that they could best police their own little ballgames... You know, kinda like puttin' the fox in charge of the hen house...

30 years later we now see that that wasn't a real good idea... Well, I say we see but it isn't we at all... All of the Repubs and alot of thr Dems still don't see because they get them bigass checks in the mail from the corporations so they just look the other way but it's not like they couldn't see if they wanted to see... They just like that money too much...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:52 PM

"...get new glasses".   I'm deeply hurt that the poster doesn't find my modest proposal a good suggestion. I felt sure she would see the wisdom and fairness of it. After all, we'd get answers to questions and she could still indulge her penchant for foul language. Everybody wins!

Congratulations to her for emerging from the gutter. I wonder if she will be able to stay out of it.



Returning to the topic:

Q-- if you don't think Sarah stands a good chance of winning the Republican primaries, based on her views on guns and abortion--and probably her unique appeal to women--non-liberal women, of course-- , who do you think would be stronger on those issues--particularly abortion?   The "Religious Right" has been very strong in the Iowa caucus recently as well as in several Southern primaries--and there is such a thing as "Big Mo". Consider on the Democratic side what a boost Iowa gave to Obama. Even a loss soon after in New Hampshire could not derail him.

People may now tell polls they cannot take Sarah seriously.   But if she starts winning caucuses and primaries, I rather doubt that attitude would hold up.

And it seems likely that the "Tea Party" will never be a party, in the sense of Perot's party, TR's Bull Moose etc.    There is no standard-bearer---unless they accept Palin.    And they are such a collection of malcontents nursing such a range of real or imagined grievances that they will never settle on a program.

The main question appears to be whether they actually want to stop what they see as the Obama administration's power grab--in which case they will eventually have to support a Republican.   Or whether they just want to make noise.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:54 PM

piss piss piss piss piss

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:56 PM

(Note to self: stop feeding the troll.. )

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:24 PM

Ah, Carol, glad to see you again. Hope you're happier now. I speak German and a bit of French and Spanish--and learning Russian. But I bow to your mastery of gutter speech.   

I considered trying to teach you civilized discourse. But I decided that instructing you in the importance of logic--and thinking before you hit "send" --was perhaps a higher priority. We can start that as soon as you're ready.

I'd say "you're so cute when you're angry" but you might think that was not a proper feminist attitude. So I won't say it.

By the way, do you have any of your own thoughts--as opposed to links--on whether Sarah will be deserted en masse by the Tea Party--and why? Since, believe it or not, that is actually more germane to the topic than your choice of language.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:25 PM

The "why" is the crucial question.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 09:08 AM

Sarah finds herself in a tough spot in the Republican Senate primary in Arizona. Personally, she has to support McCain. I wouldn't be surprised if privately she would like to see Hayworth win. In either event, she'll be perfectly posed to support whoever wins in the general election against the Democrat.

            If the Republicans nominate her for president they'll lose most, if not all, of the independents. Surely they know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 09:32 AM

What are "independents"? we dont have any of those over here!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 12:38 PM

No, Rig, you cannot assume that Sarah will lose the vast majority of the independents.

It depends on large part on the economy.   If there is not a vast improvement from the current situation, President Obama will have serious problems--from any Republican, including Sarah. While abortion and gun rights may win Sarah the Republican nomination, independents mostly don't care about these.   So they won't be put off.   The question will be just how disgusted and annoyed at President Obama they are.   Independents, like most voters, will vote their pocketbooks--unless there is a hot war going on.

The model Sarah would be looking to, as I've mentioned more than once, will be 1980. Also, the midterms are likely to bring a debacle for Democrats-cutting their majorities while still leaving them in nominal control of both Houses. So gridlock will probably get worse for the last two years, but any Republican can-and will--still be able to make the argument that it's a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and Democratic President--and nothing is getting done.

Then President Obama will have to run on that record.

If people don't feel better about their own economic condition--regardless of what statistics are quoted at them--they will be in a mood in 2012 to take it out on somebody. The obvious fallguy is the President.

Added to which, with Sarah as the first likely female president, she will likely have an edge with (non-liberal) women. She's already saying some of the right things: along the lines of "I'm just trying to bring my children up right--in a civilized country.".   That will resonate.





Re: independents:   it's true in the UK you don't have them, by and large. Party identification and party discipline there are far more significant.   In the US it's a joke--more every year, it seems. And you don't have the primary system in the UK--while in the US independents can often even vote in primaries--so there's virtually no downside to being an independent--not a member of any party.

And numbers of independents have been increasing hugely in recent years in the US. In Massachusetts, for instance, I understand over 50% of the electorate is independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:51 PM

akenaton, for the purpose of this discussion, I would be considered an "independent". In my state, we are called "unaffiliated", but it's the same thing. We are people who vote for candidates and not parties. We don't have any party affiliation and we vote for whomever we feel would be the best person to do the job for which we are voting. There is an "independent" party here in the US, but for the purpose of this discussion, they are not the ones who are being referenced when the term "independent" is used.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:03 PM

Ron, I have an idea (perhaps just a hope) that a stronger contender than Sarah Palen will rise after the congressional elections, although she would receive votes of a large number of those angry with the slow recovery.
I agree that most of those loosely associated with the Tea Party and the "tenthers" will associate with the Republican Party; there is little likelihood that a third party will rise in the forseeable future.

I agree that the coming elections will see a strong Republican increase in congressional seats, obviously leading to deadlock on important issues, and Obama receiving much of the blame. He will be a one-term president.

As to who will lead the Republican Party in 2012-

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:13 PM

We already have deadlock on all of the important issues (and also all of the less important issues) because the Republicans are using the filibuster to require that the Democrats have a super-majority on all votes. And Obama is already getting blamed for it. You seem to be a bit out of the loop there, Q.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:20 PM

Perhaps I was not clear- I expect increased deadlock. Of course Obama is blamed, but some posters here seem to think things will turn around and he will be reprieved. He may not even run in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 02:31 PM

The deadlock can't be increased. It's already 100%.

I really think it's way too early to make predictions about 2012. People were making similar predictions about Clinton, even right up to the end of his first term. Turns out their predictions were premature. He's only been president for one year. A lot can happen in the next three years.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:03 PM

Interesting Carol, are many of the American population "affiliated" to a political part?

In the UK hardly anyone holds a "party card" so being "independent" politically is pretty meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:16 PM

I would say that the majority of people are registered to vote as a member of one party or another. But the independents (or unaffiliated) make up an important voting block. It's difficult, if not impossible, for someone to get elected president without a majority of independents along with their party-line vote. This is further complicated by the fact that independents don't fit into any particular political niches and their political views and philosophies are all over the political spectrum.

As an example, I have views that are more "conservative" than those of many Republicans, and also some that are more "liberal" than many Democrats. And I also have views that are not espoused by either party, and some that are commonly rejected by both parties. I don't think I'm all that unusual in this respect in relation to other people who self-identify as independents or unaffiliated.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:36 PM

That's very interesting indeed Carol, but how can the electoral system be realistically described as "democratic" when you are registered to vote in a certain way.

Sorry didn't mean to highjack the thread:0(

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:49 PM

Well, I don't happen to think our system is democratic. Not by any stretch of the imagination. But they tell us it is so we'll keep playing the game. In my opinion, the whole election thing we do here in this country is bread and circuses to divert our attention away from the real issues, and to fool us into thinking we actually have any say in what goes on in this country.

But to answer your specific question, people don't have to vote for their party's candidate in the general election. When there is any restriction at all, it's in the primaries. Some states require that people vote for the party under which they are registered in primary elections (primaires choose the candidate that the parties will run in the general election). And some states do not have any such requirement. And in some states, like mine, for instance, even if the state has such a requirement, they'll still let unaffiliated people vote in the primaries as long as the state party organizations allow it. So in the 2008 primary, I was allowed to vote even though I'm not registered with either party, and even though in my state voters are required to only vote in their party's primary, because neither of the parties had any objection to my doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:52 PM

Here we go again.   Gridlock is "already 100%".   Not so.   The stimulus and other bills have been passed--over strong Republican opposition-- in President Obama's first term. If you need a list, I'm sure it can be arranged.   You may not like some of the bills. But they have been passed. Let's have some care in thinking here, if possible.

The main problem is that the electorate at large, as of now, sees no results from the legislation that has been passed--partly because some of it appears to be back-loaded.

Secondary problem is that for months now virtually all other issues have taken a back seat to trying to get a health care reform plan through. That appears to have been a conscious plan by the Administration.   But because Democrats have been unwilling to compromise--primarily with each other-- that plan is stalled. There may also yet be a health care reform bill--especially if liberals in the Democratic party are willing to compromise with non-liberals in the Democratic party.   And before we hear whining that such a bill would not be worth passing, we're back to the old "half a loaf vs no bread" situation.   You have to start somewhere.   Just remember what those stellar political analysts, the Stones, said:   "You can't always get what you want...."

However, if, as expected, there is a Democratic debacle in the fall--but the Democrats retain nominal control of both chambers-- it will take very few conservative Democrats' votes to stymie virtually all of President Obama's agenda.   And that's the way we are now headed.

And that would mean real gridlock--on virtually all issues.   Which is not what we have now.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:54 PM

Seems very strange, but has solved some points which have been puzzling me....Thank you for being so patient with me Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:55 PM

I would also mention that for a lot of people, the purpose in registering and/or self-identifying as a member of one party or another really has more to do with identity politics than it has with the electoral process. We here in this country like to approach politics and governance as if they were a team sport. We like to feel like we belong to a group and to compete with, demonize, and feel superior to the members of the other group(s). That's a big part of the reason we're so easy to manipulate by the fat cats.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 03:59 PM

Mr Troll, I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority. (Not that it was ever actually filibuster-proof), but it is now impossible to get anything passed without at least one Republican vote if the Republicans decide to filibuster (which they are consistently doing). Please try to keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:04 PM

Hmm...I understand now, why you feel it will be so difficult to achieve any sort of unity.

But folks do still retain a belief in good over evil....something which we lost long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:07 PM

Yes, but a lot of the people here believe in good over evil in the same way that people did during the times of the witch hunts. Which means that from their perspective, no evil deed is considered unacceptable if it is committed by people who are on the side of "good". Kind of a circular way of looking at things, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:10 PM

If you don't understand, Mrs. BS Banshee--has a nice ring, that, and just as valid as "Troll" if not more so-- that you have, yet again, oversimplified the situation--with a bit of your patented defeatism thrown in--,then I suspect I have more productive things to do at this point than to try to instruct you in thinking a bit more carefully.

But congratulations for staying out of the gutter, though you may feel out of your habitat.

I wonder if you will ever understand that there is in fact a difference between a troll and somebody who disagrees with you.

Ah well, we can hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:13 PM

What important issues have the Democrats been able to pass legislation on since Brown was elected?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:13 PM

And by the way, piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:58 PM

And by the way, I only need to point to the fact that we don't currently have a health care reform bill passed and signed to support my contention that the Democratic majority is meaningless. There is absolutely nothing preventing the Democrats from passing a health care bill with a public option, right now, if they want to do it. Nothing whatever. All of the polls are showing that the majority of voters want a public option, the House and Senate can pass the Senate bill with the addition of the public option through reconciliation, and there are enough votes in the House to support its passage. But they haven't done it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:01 PM

"filibuster-proof majority".   Congratulations on latching onto one of the most meaningless terms ever invented by a desperate columnist.

As I pointed out back in Nov 2008 after the election when people were agonizing over whether the Democrats would get 60 Senate seats or not. I pointed out that even 60 seats did not mean a given agenda would be passed.   Senators respond to their constituents--and votes are by issue, not by party discipline.

The illustrious poster must be imagining she lives in the UK, where party discipline does exist.

But I must away.   Life has more to offer than Mudcat at this point.

Sleep well.   See you tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:17 PM

Tea Party Bible Times for Mom and Me for sale by Amazon.
Oops! wrong tea party. (Or is it?) Perhaps Tea Time for the Traditionally Built - Nooooo.

But listed below are a few of the new books that reflect the flavor of the times.

-Taxpayers' Tea Party: A Manual for Reclaiming Out Country by Sharon Cooper.
-How Did Tea and Taxes Spark a Revolution Linda Gondolish.
-A New American Tea Party: The Counter Revolution Against Bailouts, Handouts, Reckless Spending and More Taxes Michelle Malkin and John O'Hara.
-That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mom: Team Obama's Assault on Tea-Party, Talk-Radio Americans, Michael Graham.
-Tea Party Revival: The Conscience of a Conservative Reborn: The Tea Party revolt .... Dr. B. Leland Baker.
Tenthers untethered-
When All Else fails: Nullification and State Resistance to Federal Tyranny
The Left vs. 'The Tenthers': On Gettiing States' Rights Wrong J. Eboch.

Yes, indeedy; the natives are restless.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:21 PM

As I pointed out back in Nov 2008 after the election when people were agonizing over whether the Democrats would get 60 Senate seats or not. I pointed out that even 60 seats did not mean a given agenda would be passed.   Senators respond to their constituents--and votes are by issue, not by party discipline.

All of which exactly proves my point that the Democratic majority is meaningless, Mr. troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:23 PM

"Against handouts" like Medicare?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 06:26 PM

Probably!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 06:28 PM

No, the natives are MINDLESS.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 08:51 PM

Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) meeting. Names mentioned, or otherwise suggested for 2012 Republican presidential ticket.
Ron Paul, Texas libertarian, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty (MN), Sarah Palen.
A straw vote put Paul first, but these votes are nonsense.

Other possibles?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 08:53 PM

"All of which exactly proves my point that the Democratic majority is meaningless..."

               One has to wonder if Obama had been able to seat Tom Daschle in the cabinet if things would have turned out differently. He certainly knew the workings of the Senate--seemingly better than the people who the administration had working on that part--and he seems to have a good understanding about the problems relating to healthcare.

                      If only he'd paid his taxes!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: mousethief
Date: 20 Feb 10 - 11:02 PM

Q, they interviewed Eric Ericson, editor of redstate.com (a conservative blog), on NPR today and he said Mitch Daniels, the current governor of Indiana, was his top pick for prez. No way of knowing how many people share that view but he apparently has some pull in the movement (Eric, not Mitch).

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Palin sips tea tonight
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 10:13 AM

Yes, it's the good old "60-vote filibuster-proof majority". Look, it should be obvious to even the most casual observer of the US political scene--though evidently not to the brilliant poster--that you cannot rely on the vote of Sen. Lieberman--for anything. It should also be evident that it's not reasonable to expect Sen. Tester or Sen. Nelson--among others-- to march in lockstep with Sen. Franken.

So the question arises why the poster in question even brought up the "filibuster-proof majority".

"all the polls" Wrong. More oversimplification. Some do, some don't.

"reconciliation".    Perhaps the poster is unaware that this, otherwise known as the "nuclear option" by some, does not at this point appear to have enough Democratic support. Especially by Democrats in conservative districts who would actually like to be re-elected. Nor is that situation likely to change.   And even if reconciliation does occur, the "public option" will not be part of any bill this year.

She'll have the "public option" put back in. Right.   The question arises:   in what universe is she living?    It does not appear to be the real world, where the "public option" is dead for the foreseeable future--not just this year. Partly since the Democrats--with her enthusiastic backing no doubt--refused point-blank to include Sen Snowe's "trigger".   Which was the only way to get a Republican vote.

But it seems rather clear, to say the least, that as a proud charter member of the "ain't it awful" brigade,   she would far rather complain long and loud about the unfairness of it all than actually accomplish anything.

Even compromise with her fellow Democrats, much less any Republicans, is out of the question.

In fact her attitude is a sterling example of exactly why the Democrats, with a "Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and Democratic President" have not managed to get any health care bill through Congress.

And it's also painfully clear that she has learned precisely nothing from this experience.

Sorry, compromise will be necessary.    It's called "getting something done". As I've noted earlier, not a major concern of many here below the line--to say the least.





It's also clear what the solution to the impasse would be. And I've also noted this before. The House must pass the Senate bill exactly as is.   That means no "public option" this time.   Liberal House members must line up with their more moderate and conservative members .   Then the votes would be there in the House--even without Republican support--to pass the Senate bill.   "Filibustering" would not even enter the picture. A health care reform bill would pass. And the Democrats could go on to other things--and return later to health care if possible.

But unfortunately that appears unlikely--since it would probably require the gentle lady poster--and others of her ilk--to try to pressure their House members to do this.   And that appears to be a possibility the day after hell freezes over.

Yes, I am aware the poster may have a Republican Congressman.   But her attitude is replicated many times over in many liberal districts.   And it's those Members who have to recognize reality--and probably be reminded of it by their constituents. As I have in fact done.