The reactions on the left are gems as well, especially since most of those quoted voted for retroactive immunity for the telecoms only a short time later [1].
In Washington, "left" and "right" are two sides of the same coin. The only difference is who they pay lipservice to: the left to the "poor", and the right to the "rich". Aside from this lipservice, they are both the same.
Resolve to vote for someone not from the "(D)" or "(R)" side of the spectrum. It's time we got third parties in there.
Obama gave us meaningful healthcare reform, bringing insurance to millions of people, brought financial reform, and avoided the crippling austerity that European countries have imposed. It would be silly to say that a Republican president would have been 'the same' just because Democrats have a shitty record on civil liberties.
Actually, your example proves the very point you're arguing against. Obamacare is just a refinement of Romney's health care strategy in Massachusetts. If Romney had been elected instead, we'd have seen something very similar put into place, and the Democrats would have dutifully screamed bloody murder about it.
Everyone in Washington privately agrees that something has to be done, and even on the key aspects of the required solution and timeline. But to keep the two-party illusion alive, they alternate between taking credit for it and blaming the people who actually do it.
You just need two-party preferred voting so that you can vote first for a niche representative if you wish and preference a major party. In Australia, for example, it allows parties outside the two majors to have some influence, which I think is healthy.
While that is often the case, it is not necessarily the case. Look at France for a counter-example.
The downside is that the French "solution" was/is for the parties to enter into extensive election alliances to prevent splitting their potential voters, so it's an ugly workaround for a broken system, and you still get horrible distortions but it still better represents the actual views of the electorate.
James Risen tried to publish it in 2004 but the Times fell to government pressure and refused to make the information public until over a year later (only because Risen threatened to tarnish their image over it); when the Times did publish it but buried under other stories.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-ns...