Behold the GOP's 41 seat majority in the Senate!

There are many things I could say about the results from last night. I am disappointed no doubt. Cruelest of ironies that Sen. Kennedy's vacant seat could be the death knell for his life long crusade for Health Care Reform, for another generation.

I think this post by Ezra Klein sums up the my feeling about the Democratic Party right now (cross posted in full):

Demoralized Democrats

Reader MK writes:

I've voted for Democrats all my life. I've campaigned for and donated to the Democratic Party. But if they say they can't or won't go any further on health care because they only have 59 votes in the Senate, they deserve to lose.

I'm hearing a lot of this. Last night, I was talking to a committed Democrat. A Massachusetts Democrat, in fact. And her despair was persuasive. "I didn't vote for a party that would abandon my agenda because it lost one seat in the Senate," she said. "The party I voted for, and want to be part of, would recognize political opportunity in the waning days of its supermajority and pass what it could pass, and then keep coming back for more."

The loss in Massachusetts was a terrible disappointment to Democrats. But it can be explained away. Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate. Scott Brown ran an excellent campaign. These things happen.

But the reaction congressional Democrats have had to Coakley's loss has been much more shattering. It has been a betrayal.

The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn't like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That's why those voters believe in them. That's why they're Democrats.

But the party looks ready to abandon them because Brown won a special election in Massachusetts -- even though Democrats can pass the bill after Brown is seated. What that says is crucial: Whereas the base thought it was making these hard compromises and getting up early to knock on doors because these issues are important, the party thought all that was happening because, well, it's hard to say. It was electorally convenient? People need something to do? Ted Kennedy wanted it done?

If Democrats let go of health care, there is no doubt that a demoralized Democratic base will stay home in November. And that's as it should be. If the Democratic Party won't uphold its end of the bargain, there's no reason its base should pretend the deal is still on.

That is pretty much it for me. They asked me to help them get elected so they could enact an agenda I believed in. Make our country a little more humane and our policies a little more sane. Now they want to abandon that? Change is hard. It always has been. Moreover, they blame me for its failing (Greenwald shows the absolutely cravenness involved here), this is just too much to stomach. They asked me to compromise on the Single-payer. I did. Compromise on the Public Option. I did that too. All to satisfy feckless moderate democrats and disingenuous moderate republicans. This health care bill was not too liberal. No fair reading could call it that. It was moderate and conservative to the extreme. To placate the Evan Bayhs and Ben Nelsons of the world. So do not blame me for your lack of vision and weak spine.

I stood in the rain, and canvased in the cold. I phone banked, and logged hours registering people to vote. So I echo the refrain Ezra quoted, if this political party can not even stand up for its core beliefs. Then I want no part of it and will not support it. I will not support a President who is unwilling or squeamish about getting his hands dirty. Compromise is great when you have a willing partner. But sometimes you have to fight. Even if you finally lose.

-Cheers