You are absolutely right that the real progressives and conservatives (as opposed tot he corporate progressives and conservatives – beltway insiders) cannot independently gain enough power to change the system. We need to look past our differences to fix the system. We don’t have to pretend that those differences do not exist, but we do need to focus on fixing the broken system that we both see if we are ever to slow the flow of money back and forth between politicians and their corporate “donors.”

What matters, to address Jasonthe’s point, is that neither “real” conservatives nor “real” progressives have the political strength to effect the systemic change that both, for different reasons, believe we should have. We may or may not be able to find enough common ground to start a movement for change, but unless we do, we will both continue to snipe at the powerful from the sidelines. The corporate media, aka bipartisan consensus or beltway establishment, spend a lot of time reminding us about the issues that divide us – and there are many and they are important. As long as we are fighting one another, they are laughing all the way to the bank (the one they own but we bail out).

You imply that there are only two options for my position – either I agree with the public option/Medicare buy in or else I am simply hiding my opposition to any reform behind Jane’s liberal credentials. Neither one is the case.

I have spent lots of time and energy trying to demonstrate that there are numerous reforms that I support regarding health care, some of them being the same as what Jane supports (no lifetime caps, no dropping or refusing to renew policies to name a couple of examples) while I do not agree with all of her positions. I agree with her position (it’s from FDL although I can’t remember if Jane was the author) that this bill does more harm than good. Even if we disagree about the proper solution I see nothing disingenuous about being united in not settling for something that we both think is worse than nothing.

I am convinced that there are some positive steps that a majority sized coalition of liberals and conservatives can agree on. That’s why we should kill this bill and focus on those areas of agreement. I think we all know that good reform will not happen overnight and that it won’t happen by either side ramming through what they want without regard for those who oppose them.

I know where Jane is coming from, and I know that we don’t agree on everything, but I agree that the Progressives should not be ignored in favor of Lieberman, Collins, and Nelson – neither should the Conservatives.

Because that’s where she’s coming from (and I happen to agree with her).

If that’s the case, then I would concede to the sincerity of your links and blockquotes. If you find yourself on the side of one of most liberal activists because you simply want to see the reform fail, then I find this disingenuous.

Personally, I’m still in the middle here. I can see the benefit of progressives fighting to kill this bill, even if it means the health care debate goes into the midterm election runs. We’d get a better bill (probably) if progressives can amass that much influence. I can also see the reasoning in passing this bill, and progressives making enough noise they have influence over this bill, and secure dates to readdress what it lacks (guaranteed by the White House).

Either way, the fight FDL is launching is about progressive influence, not simply adopting the GOP/Teabagger memo to see all reform fail. Anything that leads to progressives finding a voice at least as loud as Lieberman/Collins/Nelson will be better for the country overall.

The nation’s political system, at least at the national level, is broken. It is incapable of either being fiscally responsible and loyal to the Constitution (if you are a conservative) or responsive to the needs of the American people (if you are a liberal). It is capable of nothing other than serving its corporate masters by funneling taxpayer money (or money borrowed from the Chinese) to corporate special interests. Almost all rhetoric spouted by Washington politicians, beltway pundits, and the major media is designed to hide the truth and divide American opinion so we won’t focus on the fact that our government is no longer ours.

For example, we allow our entire government to be paralyzed because the Senate has set the bar for cloture so high they can’t meet it – giving the majority an excuse to fail. How many times have you been told in the media that all they need to do is pass a change to the rules by a simple majority (51 votes) to either eliminate the cloture rule, or move it to a lower threshold?

This entire “debate”, from the 2008 primaries to now has been little more than an elaborate charade. The leaders of both parties knew from the beginning that nothing of consequence was going to happen – no socialism, no death panels, no universal coverage, no public option. It was a nice show with moments of high drama (tea party anyone?). It would be Oscar material if the outcome weren’t obvious from the start.