Governance should not be one party or the other. That mentality you express in the first paragraph is part of the problem IMO. We need to get back to expecting our politicians to work with people of all political persuasions. Some of our best legislation is when one party's central idea is bolstered by ideas to make it better from the other side. So I'm with glunn - we don't need the Dems to dance on the ashes of this defeat, we need them to inject some of their ideas in the ultimate solution. Otherwise, what's the alternative? They just hang around, waiting for Republican failures to bask in, waiting for "their chance" to govern? And we repeat that brutal cycle over and over again? One of the things that bothers me most about Ryan's rhetoric is how he talks about "the governing party" vs. "the resistance party". That is an enormously problematic way to frame this and I feel like your criticism buys into that. Also, on your last paragraph, we had money in politics long before Citizens United. That decision was a bad one, but let's be real. Those problems have existed for a long time. Personally, I think some brave politician should stand up and talk about single payer with a well worked-out, sustainable way to pay for it. I think there is an appetite for that in America. Especially if it's sold well.