Dark Victory

How is it possible that we can have such widely differing views of the same bill?

An Op-Ed by E.J. Dionne Jr. in the Washington Post said:

In approving the most sweeping piece of social legislation since the mid-1960s, Democrats proved that they can govern, even under challenging circumstances and in the face of significant internal divisions.

To understand how large a victory this is, consider what defeat would have meant. In light of the president's decision to gamble all of his standing to get this bill passed, its failure would have crippled his presidency. The Democratic Congress would have become a laughing stock, incapable of winning on an issue that has been central to its identity since the days of Harry Truman.

So the Democrats "proved that they can govern, even under challenging circumstances"?  In order for them to "govern" they had to resort to backroom deals, threats, accounting tricks and bribery under the "challenging circumstances" of controlling the House, Senate and the Oval Office.  The only thing they've proven is their complete disregard of the will of the people.

Dionne considers this travesty a large victory for the Democrats, since it's failure would "cripple" Obama's presidency and make the Democratic Congress a laughing stock. They've avoided that. They've chosen to cripple the economy rather than the presidency. And they aren't laughable, they are loathsome and despicable and have debased the institutions to which they belong.

Liberals celebrate this victory because as followers of Saul Alinsky they think the ends justify any means. Process doesn't matter, only the outcome. A victory cobbled out of lies and corruption is still a victory - and the winners write the history. Should the transformation to Socialist America be realized, future textbooks will praise their leadership and compassion for the people. This is their dream. God forbid their success.