Reply #5: Your last paragraph is correct. And just like Rahm, Heritage could care less about if the policy is [View All]

[John Q. Citizen]

a good one for the country as a whole or if it sucks.

The bottom line is whether the corporate dollars will flow to their respective parties, and whether what passes or doesn't pass will be useful in exploiting voters to give them their votes.

Both the Dems and the Repos played this exact same game. The Dems won, the Repos lost.

Either way, the country was going to lose, from a policy perspective.


Obama did pass a Repo bill. Not because it's great for the country, but because it's good for the Dems in 2010 and beyond.

But the article clearly shows that Heritage is perfectly willing and capable of taking or switching a position based solely on calculations of whether it will help or hurt the Repos in upcoming elections.

It has nothing to do with sound policy.

Romney care was bad policy when pushed by Romney and it is still bad policy when pushed by Obama. That's my opinion.

We need a tax based single payer universal coverage system.