No it wasn't it totally missed the point of having M4A. The point isn't that it responds better to a crisis naturally its that the people don't have to worry about doing their civic duty of helping respond to that crisis. Just like having all employees having sick leave and vacation time. It makes these decisions easy as opposed to completely fraught with difficulty.
Some bills are so awful that they cannot be voted for.
The point was that the question asked wasn't about M4A. Biden used the question to make Sanders look like a head in the clouds "idea guy" rather than someone who could be the leader in a crisis, and it worked. At the same time he remade his more important point, which is that he isn't opposed to M4A in the first place, he's just got an actual practical path to get there rather than the "okay, burn health care to the ground and then we'll do this" approach that people associate with Sanders the self proclaimed 'revolutionary.'
Sure. But that doesn't make voting against them a boastworthy stand for a better day. It's just token resistance.
Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul had my admiration for voting in the House against the package of high legislative contempt, violation, and treason against the U.S. Constitution that was the "Patriot" Act, despite overwhelming support.
Great. Just notice that such votes don't demonstrate their "leadership."
But they have the courage to point out flaws and betrayals in Bush's, which can be just as important in the long run.
Somehow "well, I cast a meaningless dissenting vote that had no impact on the course of events" has just never struck me as being high on the list of heroic claims.
That's because you only see results - not convictions. In some circumstances, the former is blatantly impossible, but the latter speaks volumes to people who might gauge your leadership and the strength of your beliefs later. I thought that was a well-known and obvious factor of politics...
I do admit that I appreciate my representatives actually accomplishing things.
Well, that's only possible if they're part of a political faction with the upper hand at the hand at the time, or otherwise have absolutely AMAZING powers of persuasion. Otherwise, it's not, unless they're going to sell out and abandon the principals they stand for, and campaigned on, to side with the faction(s) who hold power to be able to this claim. Standing up for what one believes in, and what one promised one's constituents, even against a great majority faction(s) of power and overwhelming popular opinion at the time, is far more valuable and admirable of political public servant than towing the line to take part of the credit for "actually accomplishing things."
I think Biden made an excellent case study illustration. The GOP was going to pass their bankruptcy "reform" bill no matter what. Sanders "stood on principle," meaning he cast his meaningless vote. Biden pushed through an amendment that prevented deadbeat dads from using the new bankruptcy law as an avenue to abandon responsibility for their kids. While Sanders is trying to paint that as "selling out," it did in fact make a bad bill that was passing anyway less bad. So who served their constituents better?
You just don't seem to get it. It's almost 2:30 AM here, and I don't have the energy or desire to bang my head in vane against a brick wall here. Good night, and sweet denial and delusions - excuse me, sweet dreams...
I do admit that I appreciate my representatives actually accomplishing things.
I do admit that I appreciate my representatives actually accomplishing things.