TOM TOMORROW TOON: Last week in #Fail

[bvar22]

25. I didn't want to believe it at first,

but began to verify that it was always Just Enough Democratic Senators joining with Republicans to block ANY progress,
and they usually took turns,
and it was always just enough to ensure that the 1% ALWAYS got their way.

One of the most ubiquitous re-appearing threads on DU is the one posted right an important measure fails,
listing the Democratic Senators who opposed,
and asking WHY did (insert your favorite) vote NO on this issue?
It doesn't make any sense.
He/She can usually be counted on to support these issues.

Oh Well. They have a 96% record of voting with the Party.


If you want to read something even MORE disturbing,
try the following piece.

I was in Arkansas in 2010, working to
[font size=3]replace the DINOs in Democratic Primary elections and give President Obama GOOD PROGRESSIVES to help him pass his agenda[/font]
...and what happened there really opened MY eyes.
Remember, Lincoln had NO CHANCE of beating the Republican in the General Election.


White House support for Anti-LABOR Lincoln in Arkansas Democratic Primary

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln. Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure. Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests. The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

Ordinarily, when Party leaders support horrible incumbents in primaries, they use the “electability” excuse: this is a conservative state, the incumbent has the best chance to win, and the progressive challenger is out-of-step with voters. That excuse is clearly unavailable here. As Public Policy Polling explained yesterday, Lincoln has virtually no chance of winning in November against GOP challenger John Boozman. And while it would have also been difficult for Halter to beat Boozman, polls consistently showed that he had a better chance than Lincoln did. That’s unsurprising, given how much better non-Washington candidates are doing in this incumbent-hating climate than long-term Washington insiders. And it’s rather difficult to claim that Halter is out-of-step with Arkansas given that they elected him their Lt. Governor. Whatever the reasons Washington Democrats had for supporting the deeply unpopular Lincoln, it had nothing whatsoever to do with electability.

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face. Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/