Sorry, I missed your reply in this thread.

The "small group" I was referring to is the Stupack group of 11-12 who are willing to hold up the entire healthcare reform bill based on one narrow issue. If one is to believe what the politicians and commentators are saying, what they're holding out for isn't even in the bill.

I suppose I could have been referring to many other examples of the same type of conduct--Senator Bunning's recent conduct is an example disdained by both sides; Senator Kyle did the same thing, although I can't recall the issue; of course, there's the example of Senators Nelson and Landrieux, both of whom held out for benefits for their constituents, refusing to pass legislation for the good of the country in exchange for feathering their own nests.

The point I was trying to make is there seems to be a trend of our legislators--in both parties--to demand that their narrow needs be addressed, sometimes issues not at all related to the legislation and added only by amendment, in exchange for their vote on broader, more important legislation affecting the entire country.