Ben Nelson, (D) of Fucktardia, has lots of fascinating thoughts to share on the healthcare fight:
Voters should be able to evaluate “what’s been done and what remains to be done” before they go to the polls, Nelson said.
“Public debate can occur in the context of an election,” he added.
So, then, the outcome of the 2008 elections, the one held less than a year ago, in which healthcare was a central, if not very nearly THE CENTRAL issue, which came up in debates at the primary and national level…those elections: not to be counted. There should be several more elections, and if healthcare proponents can win each in a landslide: then and only then we can begin to consider taking up real reform.
But stopping with that sort of vaguely insane talk isn’t enough. Not for Ben Nelson:
But Nelson said 60 votes isn’t enough. The Nebraska Democrat said he’d only feel comfortable voting for a bill that he knows can get at least 65 votes.
“I think anything less than that would challenge its legitimacy,” he said.
Why stop there? Why settle for some interim position? The only possible outcome here is full commitment: that’s it, unanimous vote. Anything else would be unacceptable. And, presumably, after a unanimous vote and a Presidential signature, you’d need to let the states decide, unanimously, whether or not to implement. Why, it all makes perfect sense. It’s the only way for it to be legitimate.
Lemkin 