PS: drop by http://mococivilrights.wordpress.com, that’s where I do more writing — though I try to keep it dry and level there. Also sometimes some worthwhile video (http://www.youtube.com/user/mococivilrights?ob=0&feature=results_main).

*Some* elected Democrats wanted Medicare for all, that’s true: Dennis Kucinich, and maybe about ten other House members did any fighting at all for single payer. But elected “Democrats” as a whole and the organizations that mobilized actual Democrats for the campaign stayed in the veal pen, where the (imaginary) public option was projected as the most progressive demand possible.

The whole thing played out as I glumly predicted. Next time I’m in Cassandra mode I’ll also include this kind of memory-washing that official Democratic Party types like Van Hollen are sent out to do in election season.

I don’t mean to suggest a single February council decision made in good faith requires some sort of ‘accountability moment,’ even though I disagree with that decision. I’d much rather find some common ground about this issue with you.

I get that you, Councilmember Male, and the whole Council are elected to focus on and want to focus on — allow me to reformulate — community-related issues. I’d suggest that the impeachment resolution you supported in 2007 was in fact “community-related” even though it clearly wasn’t a “city issue.” It was community-related because those of us working for it proved, by signature gathering, by speaking at council sessions, and other means that there was a lot of community support for the resolution.

I think you and the Council are or would be right to require some kind of demonstration that a non-city-issue resolution you’re asked to consider has community relevance, community backing, or both, and I applaud your instinct to set some kind of ground rules. In your view, that didn’t happen to an adequate extent with the Citizens United resolution; I respect that judgment though I disagree with it. Going forward, though, I’d like to suggest that you might set the bar a little differently than you have so far, by adopting ‘community-related’ yardstick instead of a ‘city issue’ one. That way the community can expect that its non-city issue preferences might, from time to time and with work, be acknowledged and reflected by Council resolutions.

[I've posted substantially the same comment at Seth's blog]

Seth, http://twitter.com/takomaseth

The GOP was in a similar situation in the early to mid 70s and it might be argued that things started to change for them with the emergence of an more extreme wing in their party and a media that represented these extremes.

Maybe we need extreme left liberals getting more media exposure. I’m thinking about talking heads further to the left from Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann and their ilk.

One problem with national popular vote that an electoral college system does eliminate is ballot-stuffing by some states. If your state stuffs the ballot boxes with many more “votes” than actual, national popular vote gives that state credit for its criminal act. A system where the state’s weight is proportional to population erases this problem.