Nathan wrote:
>Well, prostitution where the Johns never get sex sounds like a pretty shitty
>deal for the clients. Which just supports my theory that this is one case
>where the corporate class are the ones being jerked around by a party
>controlled far more by the working class interests opposed to the bill.
Sounds more like a lap dance. The Dems have done plenty otherwise to make the case they're not vigorous defenders of the U.S. working class. So the argument is that the Democrats really would like to be good guys, but to keep from losing they need to keep the campaign donations rolling in (and play the contributors) so they can't move too far or too fast because of the way the system currently operates. So assuming that this is the problem, what is the solution? Public funding of elections or at least a ban on corporate contributions. Which the Democrats resolutely rammed through over the objections of the Republicans ... oh no, wait, they didn't.
Even the Republicans know they're on shaky ground and can't do everything they want for fear of public outrage, but this should not be confused with having a progressive agenda.
>"At one point, the tally was 203-204. Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois,
>who usually doesn't cast floor ballots, voted for the measure, producing a
>tie. But within seconds, Democrats who had voted in favor of the bill
>started switching sides to oppose it, urged on by incoming Minority Leader
>Nancy Pelosi. Once a dozen or so Democrats had jumped ship, assuring
>defeat, Rep. DeLay released Republicans to vote as they pleased, and more
>than a score also reversed course."
>ie. Some Dems were faking support until it looked likely to pass, then they
>abandoned the bill to kill it.
>And when it came up for a vote again without the abortion provision, many
>Dems could vote for it, since they knew it would die in the Senate.
>It all fits my theory of what was going on, since if Dems were happy with
>the bill as long as it had the pro-choice provision, they would never have
>abandoned it when it looked likely to pass.
Funny, I read this as a classic case of 'I want to be for it if it passes, against it if it fails.' Kind of like Afghan warlords.
Jenny Brown