Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Rockefeller, smuckafeller ...

In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can't do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn't have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process -- which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option -- Rockefeller is suddenly "inclined to oppose it" because he doesn't "think the timing of it is very good" and it's "too partisan." What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn't pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he "would not relent" in ensuring its enactment.
Except for, maybe Grijalva, 99.9% of those who have supported the Public Option appear to have been deliberately deceiving their supporters. I wish I believed these people would get their just desserts like getting soundly trounced in an election; having their entire constituency calling up and telling them to start doing their job instead of being a paid corporate pasty; or some other miraculous intervention to turn these turds into decent people instead of public paid conmen.

No comments: