Tweet
On September 5th, before Obama’s speech at a joint session before Congress, I wrote the following:
If Obama really does punt on the public option, it will be a disaster for him and for us. And not because of policy. No, this will be our Waterloo moment because emotional truth and actual truth will collide.
Those of us who feel the most passionately about this, the "left of the left" if you will (although, I live in Venice, there are people here who equate me with George Bush, honest to god), will see a President who did not respect, empower and include them. We will feel that we have no more voice in this administration than we did the last.
That will be our emotional truth.
Worse, Republicans will see that bullying, being disruptive, and tapping into people’s worst fears and instincts works, and will use it on each and every piece of legislation the White House tries to pass for the next 3 years. It’s happening on climate change legislation now. Combine that with a disillusioned, disempowered activist left and I’m seeing damage to the Democratic Party well past the 2010 election cycle.
So on Wednesday night, the only thing I’m going to be watching for is the narrative our Story-Teller-In-Chief brings to the American people. I will be watching for the emotional truth.
That is what the fight over the public option is all about – it is not about policy. When we helped elect Obama, we entered into an implied agreement. We expected Change, we expected to respected, empowered and included, we expected him to fight, and we expected to join him in that fight.
Wednesday night will be a promise kept or a promise broken. It will be our moment of truth.
Today, with this interview in the Washington Post, he broke that promise.
He said the Senate legislation accomplishes “95 percent” of what he called for during his 2008 presidential campaign and in his September speech to a joint session of Congress on the need for health-care reform [...]
Obama said the public option “has become a source of ideological contention between the left and right.” But, he added, “I didn’t campaign on the public option.”
He could have saved us all a great deal of trouble if he had just said from the outset, "No public option, no way". Instead, he decided to play a shell game of "Now you see it, now you don’t".
You can’t claim you didn’t campaign for it if you put it on your website, signed onto HCAN’s health care principals, included it in your white paper on health care reform, and talked it up as a candidate to the Washington Post. This is being too clever by half and an insult to those of use who have been paying attention.
I, and millions like me, upheld our end of the bargain. We organized, made calls, canvassed, and defended him against the worst the Tea Baggers had to offer.
With this one interview, Obama didn’t just break a promise, he shredded the entire social contract with us.
As my good friend Robert Cruickshank pointed out to me, take a look at the Drew Westen must-read article on the failures of Obama’s communications strategy. Westen argues that people are beginning to tune Obama out, and I’m here to tell you right now it’s absolutely true.
For myself, I’m looking forward to taking a nice, long break from all things Obama come the New Year and once that weak-tea Senate HCR bill is finally signed.
Feel free to label me a purity troll, but my New Year’s resolution also includes not donating one thin dime to the DNC, OFA, DCSS, or DCSS, not one phone call for the OFA, not one precinct walked, not one rally attended.
My energies are better spent on change I actually believe in.
316 Comments
Well, it can’t be Obama’s fault if we failed to correctly discern the subtext of his campaign statements, something to the effect of, “I’m going to screw all you average Americans to the wall while my corporate friends loot your bank accounts.”
The worst part, when we elected him, I actually felt proud to be an American again. Something I haven’t felt for awhile.
Now, I am ashamed I voted for him.
Every time I see him on TV lately I yell “YOU LIE!”
Economists including Paul Krugman support the passage of this bill. But then again when have teabaggers (even “liberal” ones) ever cared what the educated and intellectuals think.
Ever wonder why no policies in congress are ever considered to Conservative? uMMMM?
THE BIGGEST ENEMY OF THE CORPORATE STATE IS GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE.
If politics is all about getting re-elected, why does Barack Obama and some of the Dumb Dems in congress promote policies that their progressive base hates.
In 2010 the MSM will begin to run stories daily about how the mid-terms elections are going to be a disaster for DEMS. (you got to put this information into people minds now, so they want be surprise when the GOP comes back to power. Wink, Wink, the USA stop being conservative naiton a long time ago ask the middle class, if you can find them.
It does not take a rocket science to figure out the USA stop being a conservative nation a long, long, time ago. How many people in the middle class like getting rape daily by the current govt. and corporations, so what you have to do is make the conservative movement look bigger than it actually is. All progressive should just look at the Tea Party and ask themselves is this the America you see everyday? By the way not many of these people like the fact their America move to China.
What the Dems are doing in congress is the same as a football team telling their running backs to fumble the ball every time we hand it to you so the other team can score.
Obama with the help of the Dems could have use 2009 to become this century FDR. He did not, instead he gave us more Bush.
Every Body in the USA with a brain knew the only issue in 2009 was JOBS!!! Obama did go to Harvard.Yes, Yes, I know we had to Bail out Wall Street, Harvard does have a couple of smart students left.
Instead Obama done the following:
Expanded the Wars (for Oil)
Gave BIG Banks a Trillion Dollar Bailout
Gave Health Insurance Companies and Pharma a Trillion Dollar Bailout.
People if Obama acts like a Republican, promotes issues like a Republican, OBAMA is a REPUBLICAN!
Welcome to the Hope A Dope 2009 style!
By the way the MSM has started the big year for republican campaign early.
The questions of the day is why don’t Dems do what their base wants, because “Govt. by the people, for the People, is not good for Big Business.” Bernie Sanders basically said this yesterday on Morning Joe.
I’m finished with Obama and the Democrats after voting Democratic for 43 years. This health care issue was the only thing I cared about, the one thing that could transform this nation in a heartbeat, relieve hundreds of millions of us from fear. OBAMA LIED. He could have punted on everything else, but not this.
A very transformational moment for this 64-year-old…
It is completely our fault for being stupid enough to think any politician would care about the country over money and power. /s
Well, now I’m sold. If Paul Krugman likes the bill it MUST be good. The Nobel Prize Committee wouldn’t have awarded him if he didn’t deserve it…
He knew damn well what kind of Hope dope he was selling… many many times.
Hope sucks!
I thought we don’t negotiate with terrorists. But isn’t that what we are doing with the enemies within both WH and Congress, who are making law which will kill tens of thousands of Americans a year for many years to come and trillions in profit for doing so?
I guess I should quit following politics and start selling wire hangers on ebay.
And a list of notable economists that includes Nobel laureates; not just Paul Krugman.
But that is the normal teabag response: Bash educated people.
According to SCOTUS money = free speech, so perhaps we should conclude that greed = patriotism.
Robert Kutner put this very well on the Bill Moyers show last week.
We just been witness to what I would call the “politics of the not possible.” The White House, in order to pass incremental reform and score a win, made a deal with Pharma and with the Health Insurance Industry last spring. The deal was simple – we provide you with millions of new customers and you let us enact reforms that will initially eat into your pocket book but that will, in the end, be more than offset with the income brought to you by millions of new customers that would have no choice but to buy your product.
Of course, not everyone in the industry was on board with this, and the Republicans certainly weren’t, because they saw this as a golden opportunity to damage Obama – thus our summer of tea parties. But folks, when you saw the insurance industry trot out the original Harry and Louise, this time in favor of reform, in hindsight, doesn’t that look at least a little suspicious?
So sure, I believe Obama when he said he thought the pubic option was the most effective way to control costs through competition, but he never said he’d fight for it. Clearly from reports we’re hearing from Capitol Hill he never did. But he also never took it off his OFA materials, and he would alternatively downplay it or champion it, depending on how loud we turned up the volume from the left. It was a recipe for confusion, but it did help keep the faithful with the program and making calls.
In the end, he disowned the public option, hoping we’d never notice. And you know, for a lot folks, I’m sure that worked. But for those of us on the ground, making the calls, organizing the phone banks and getting the petitions signed, this was a slap in the face.
I’m happy to use OFA as an open source tool platform for as long as that lasts, but I will never again be part of “the President’s Field Team”.
There are many ways to be active and contribute without being co-opted by an organization whose only interest is to advance the President’s agenda, wether or not that agenda lines up with why you elected him to begin with.
I get the anger and such and I’m surprised that Obama is taking this tactic (denying the impression he gave in the primaries).
However, two things:
1. Let’s not confuse how hard Obama did or did not push for a public option with whether a public option was going to be in a final bill. If you are arguing that Obama should have fought hard and lost just to lay the ground work for future battles or to keep his promises, I think that’s fair.
If you are arguing that he should have pushed harder because yelling a lot would have made Lieberman and Nelson magically change their minds, that’s a load of [insert correct term here]. We did not have the votes to get the public option through the senate under any scenario. Period. Full stop. I’ve asked repeatedly how Obama and others were going to do the impossible, and no one can really answer. They simply claim that Obama should have yelled more for it and then magic would have occurred and Lieberman’s weird grudge would disappear and pigs would fly and dogs and cats would live together and Al Sharpton and David Duke would exchange XMas presents, and . . .
2. There is a unusual parallel I see between former Hillary supporters who never really liked Obama and dems who suddenly see Obama as a “corporatist” triangulator (which is kind of funny when you remember that the name Clinton is synonymous with triangulation).
At the end of the day, you can hear the offline calls of “Hillary would have done X” or “Hillary never would have done Y”. Now some of those claims are fair. Most of them are [insert excrement]. But more importantly, let’s stop pretending that some folks still haven’t gotten over the primaries and this is their time to vent. Let’s just not put them on a platform as unbiased liberal commentators. They don’t like Obama and never will but tolerated him because he won. This provides cover for them to unload all of their frustrations without seeming anti-liberal.
I think when Obama’s getting credit next year for all that happened this year, you’ll be able to tell the real objective liberals by the ones who are happy to see it.
I am an Obama fan. I don’t like how all of this went down. But I have to say that the venom is getting out of control. There are republicans to attack you know.
And yours is a normal troll response. How is life under your bridge to nowhere?
Marta, you’ve expressed my thoughts EXACTLY.
I’m a pretty big softy when it comes to giving people a second chance, but I’m tired of rationalizing Obama’s actions–thinking there’s a layer behind the obvious that I’m not catching.
But his latest interview comment leaves me absolutely dumbfounded–I HEARD candidate Obama support a public option, more than once. And it was in the talking points that volunteers were given by his campaign office in order to enlist voters. It’s one thing for him to lie, but really, I was asked to lie for him and this does NOT sit well with me.
The saddest part of all is that this issue is–or should be–at the very core of American values. We should expect our government to look out for the well being of its citizens, especially those who are ill, instead of increasing their anxiety.
What a huge disappointment Obama has turned out to be!
Yes, and Sanders voted for it, too. Thanks Bernie, you sellout. God damn we need primary opponents for EVERYONE up for selection in 2010. Is there a list of them somewhere? And yes ratfood, Krugman’s just another Broder or Klein. I heard him referred to as a ‘thought leader’ by Axelrod, ‘propagandist’ is a more direct definition.
I think we still have to work to elect better people. Yesterday when the DCCC called, I told them I would not contribute to them but to candidates I myself select. I railed about the health care bill/bull.
I continue to hear the Dems say this is the best that could be done. I don’t know if Joe was there to help them punk us, but I do know the corporations are in charge of what happens in DC. I know Joe and his wife are out for themselves/the people who pay them. Joe is for Joe.
If we give up, we lose it all. I am not giving up.
The Climate Bill IS as crappy as Obamacare, because just like Obamacare further empowers the health insurer leeches, Crap and Trade grants Wall Street the ability to make megabucks off of trading carbon.
These people believe that free market capitalism would work in practice simply because it looked good on paper in a school in South Chicago. Of course, human nature has proven otherwise, but they sure throw around wads of cash to the Emmanuels, Axlerods, Summers and the like, so we won’t be seeing anyone killing that golden goose anytime soon.
What part of “when you pass legislation that screws your base, screws your opponents and serves the narrow interests of a narrow set of actors, you’re going to get fucked” is Obama missing?
“I have to say that the venom is getting out of control.”
Copy that.
Buddy, I’m educated. I laughed when Krugman made the ridiculous suggestion the the fed should ‘do more’ about unemployment. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the fed is doing and how it can affect unemployment. Krugman’s a hollow fool.
Well said. And I completely agree with the last sentence.
The sense of betrayal is quite palpable and understandable.
But I learned many years ago that there’s no such thing as a successful revolution. By that I mean, every revolution sooner or later betrays its lovers, its ardent supporters.
I too contributed and worked my ass off for Obama’s election, but I also understood what comes in a Democratic package. It is not organic, whole-grain goodness. It is also not what comes in a Republican package.
This is a coalition government, except that there’s no vote of ‘no confidence’ that would force new elections.
A demoralizing sense of betrayal, yes. But let’s remember, LBJ had to resign. He could not simply end the war. And it was popular pressure, not the Party, that forced his resignation. We got Nixon because the democratic process in this country is worse than broken, it’s a charade.
This does not mean that as a matter of tactic or spite progressives should “stay home.” What it means is to actually develop strategies that will facilitate the change we need to survive with.
If you’re looking for something to believe in, that is an exercise of faith, not political struggle.
What did they promise us?
Change!
what did they give us?
Shit!
Now, Mr O, what were you saying about the people who voted you into that office you now have? And do you really expect them to vote for you again?
“Read My Lips”
No Mandate
No Tax on Insurance Policies
not a great kickoff to 2012.
I have nothing against Krugman but even a Nobel winning economist can’t be right 100 percent of the time. His calculations don’t take into account the actual pain this package will inflict on many working Americans.
Oh, no!
I can’t believe the callous insurance industry hasn’t yet considered that mandates won’t be imposed on noncitizens.
In terms of citizenship status and birthplace, the Census Bureau indicates that 44.7 percent of noncitizens and 33.5 percent of foreign-born residents were uninsured at a given moment in 2008, compared with 18 percent of naturalized citizens and 12.9 percent of native-born residents.
How can the greedy insurance industry have overlooked this point? I suppose any day now Obama will backtrack on his “no coverage for illegals” policy. /s
Obama did technically campaign on the Public option. But it was hardly a central plank in his platform, and I can promise you 90% of the people who voted for Obama did not know what the P.O. was on election day. So it is not like he broke a huge campaign promise. And guess what, almost every politician makes millions of little campaign promises that they never follow through on. Sorry to burst ya’lls bubbles.
Anyhow, I think there is a 50/50 chance the Public Option is going to be revisited in a year or so and passed through the reconciliation process. Tom Harkin even said he would bring it up in the near future.
Trusting economists to reform healthcare is like trusting them to build a bridge. They study money, not health. I tend to trust the PNHP and the National Nurses Union and groups that have actual health care expertise over even well-regarded economists on the issue of health care reform.
Tired of donating to Corporate Democrats? Try this:
http://www.publicampaign.org/
Public financing for federal campaigns is the only way to promote real change.
So let me get this straight, you don’t think that the Fed was correct in its quantitative easing measures?
romo2austin suggests that all who oppose the bill are uneducated. Classic troll baiting tactic, not intended to foster intelligent discussion.
Revolutionary tactic #1: Everyone encourages everyone else to run (or at least file to run) for everything (or anything).
This would produce a political “Denial of Service” attack, overwhelming the system.
I understand what you are saying but it’s not just the healthcare fight that he walked back on. He has literally gone back on every campaign promise he made. As far as backing liarman, we all know what he’s about. His whole goal is to blow up the dem agenda. He should have been stripped of is committees and sent packing to the other side of the isle where he belongs.
IMO it is a shame that we spend three times the amount on healthcare than other countries but see far worse outcomes. If you’ve never had to use your healthcare you have no idea what a crying shame it really can be. When Obama had the chance to fight for americans he decided to fight for corporations instead. That is going to leave a very sour taste in the mouths of millions when they find out what this congress pressed upon them with the approval of the president.
Just because you can name all the cranial nerves doesn’t mean you know jack squat about future healthcare costs, that is where economists come in.
But of course this is a common thread in the pseudo-populist teabag movement. Discredit intellectuals and give the “common man’s” uneducated opinion more value than it is worth.
No kidding. Not one penny. Not one second. Done.
I still plan on volunteering going door to door for Obama’s reelection. I will be handing out literature that points out the failures and broken promises of this empty suit. The literature that the Democratic party provides will end up in the recycling bin and never reach the intended targets. A mass guerrilla campaign to undermine Obama/Rhama would seem to be just payback for the betrayals to the American public.
Obama’s backed off on a number of campaign promises with regard to healthcare, not just the PO.
In his campaign platform on healthcare he also pushed importing drugs from Canada and allowing Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices, for example.
Those positions were dropped months ago with the backroom Pharma deal.
It’s doesn’t matter what he ‘could have done’, all he did do was hide in the white house after selling us out to pharma. That’s all. He’s a straight little punk.
Although he won’t come out and say it. Obama must be feeling the heat.
His normal line would be; I am doing what I need to do, politics of the possible, blah, blah, blah…
To out and out lie, especially an easily verifiable lie, seems out of character. But, then again, maybe he is just settling into the Washington ways.
Now you are talking my language!
Including a list of 24 very well respected economists that includes Nobel Laureates?
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/12/health-care-dear-senator-reid.html
You’re the one being anti-intellectual here. I haven’t bashed economists, merely pointed out that the provision of healthcare is not generally their area of expertise. I’m sure there are a few economists who do in fact specialize in healthcare costs, but Krugman was not and is not one of them. His Nobel was not related to this subject in any way, so using the prize to back up your beliefs is a pathetic appeal to authority and a sure sign that you’re out of arguments.
That is a good idea too!
Wars ended: 0
Detainment facilities closed: 0
Economy salvaged: inconclusive
Jobs created: negative numbers
Health care reform: proposed massive reallocation of wealth from working Americans to private insurers in exchange for junk policies
Yes, I hope Obama does receive full credit for his accomplishments.
You wrote:
This is more or less what I’m talking about. Look, we’re all adults here, and I knew something like a public option was going to be a climb, but I don’t appreciate Obama playing the revisionist history game with people he claims to respect. It’s an insult to everyone’s intelligence and we all need to say so as loudly as possible.
Now, as for the Hillary supporter thing – never have been, never will be. She was never my candidate. Frankly, because I thought she’d behave as Obama apparently is now.
Once the backroom deal was cut with the insurance cartels and big pharma re-importation had to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Well I guess the powerless on this site feel empowered to spew venom against Obama and generally piss against the headwinds they perceive “so clearly”. You anti-Obama “progressives” sound like reactionaries on the right, devoid of cogent ideas but full of complaints.
As I’ve said before:
If Obama governed like he campaigned, there wouldn’t be a problem with him today.
If Obama campaigned like he’s governing, he wouldn’t be President today.
That’s a different issue, don’t be cute. Krugman called on the fed to do more about unemployment by ‘increasing the availability of credit’, lmfao! Like they aren’t desperately trying to do that already. Pure editorial rhetoric with some misdirection of his readers on the side. Krugman’s a useless mumbler for many people who don’t understand economic issues.
I don’t understand why it wasn’t clear to all of you that whole Obama candidacy/presidency was a sham to begin with. The entire American system has proven itself a giant failure. The Constitution is a document designed to protect the rights of the wealthy. American “democracy” has exposed its true nature in the post-WWII era. Money is your master. But hey, label yourself a “progressive” and keep voting for the democratic candidate of every two-candidate election in this twone party system. You’ll bring about change eventually. Right? Nope. Obama was just what the doctor (system) ordered to make you b e l i e v e again. Money will never allow a true people’s candidate to be elected. The window of opportunity for genuine improvement is over… has been over… probably since Kennedy. Stop spinning your wheels. It’s time to break the democratic party. But certainly you’ll insist- that would be terrible! Wouldn’t the Right take over and run the country into the ground? “You betcha.” But least the blame could then be properly directed instead of being refocused on the Left during the administration of an artificial left-wing messiah. Only a Right-run country will drive people further to the left. The time has come to put forth a progressive candidate. No doubt, the immediate outcome would be a Palin/Fetus victory in 2012, but consider it a political investment. After all- even Jesus can effectively fill only so many cabinet positions. By 2016, you’d see the largest 3rd party turnout in history.
Indeed. Dorgan was out in the wilderness on that one.
But disagreeing with Paul Krugman means I’m an anti-intellectual.
Gruber of MIT does specialize in that area, and he is listed as one of those economists that support the bill.
Ditto. I am amazed that anyone is still defending potus. How could anyone who listened to candidate Obama not feel as though he is a lying corporate shill.
I hear you? sort of
You do know Rahm Emmanuel is a Clinton Guy
Rahm is the one that said Liberals and Progressives don’t matter.
I know that Hillary and Obama probably would have followed the same path. Why? if you read the find print on HCR, this is Hillary Bill in a lot of ways.
My question to you is what made the HCR issue bigger than Jobs?
Obama received 20 million from Big Health Care. the most of any candidate.
Money not only talks, it SCREAMS!
Let me tell you this little story:
Men Lie
Women Lite
NUMBERS DO NOT LIE!
Health Insurance stocks are Soaring!
Good try with the Hillary vs Obama game.
One of the huge letdowns is those of us who distinguished between Clinton and Obama and chose not to support the Clinton platform … ended up with Clinton results! Gah.
The intellectual dishonesty and the disrespect by someone so full of respect for his opponents is a real slap.
As I’ve stated previously, if this bill contained anything positive, the truth would suffice for it’s supporters. It would not be necessary for Obama to claim he never supported a public option and it would not be necessary for Axelrod to state that the administration won a victory over the insurance industry who HATE this bill… even as insurance stock prices go through the roof.
I have to defend Hillary on one point. At least she had the balls to get in front of everyone and tell the truth. Obama is a liar.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Right on!
c’mon hippies, romo2austin’s right, let’s have a toast
to Barack Obama, the richest man in town !
clink
I hear you? sort of
You do know Rahm Emmanuel is a Clinton Guy
Rahm is the one that said Liberals and Progressives don’t matter.
I know that Hillary and Obama probably would have followed the same path. Why? if you read the find print on HCR, this is Hillary Bill in a lot of ways.
My question to you is what made the HCR issue bigger than Jobs?
Obama received 20 million from Big Health Care. the most of any candidate.
Money not only talks, it SCREAMS!
Let me tell you this little story:
Men Lie!
Women Lie!
NUMBERS DO NOT LIE!
Health Insurance stocks are Soaring!
Good try with the Hillary vs Obama game.
Robert Kutner put this very well on the Bill Moyers show last week.
We just been witness to what I would call the “politics of the not possible.” The White House, in order to pass incremental reform and score a win, made a deal with Pharma and with the Health Insurance Industry last spring. The deal was simple – we provide you with millions of new customers and you let us enact reforms that will initially eat into your pocket book but that will, in the end, be more than offset with the income brought to you by millions of new customers that would have no choice but to buy your product.
Of course, not everyone in the industry was on board with this, and the Republicans certainly weren’t, because they saw this as a golden opportunity to damage Obama – thus our summer of tea parties. But folks, when you saw the insurance industry trot out the original Harry and Louise, this time in favor of reform, in hindsight, doesn’t that look at least a little suspicious?
So sure, I believe Obama when he said he thought the pubic option was the most effective way to control costs through competition, but he never said he’d fight for it. Clearly from reports we’re hearing from Capitol Hill he never did. But he also never took it off his OFA materials, and he would alternatively downplay it or champion it, depending on how loud we turned up the volume from the left. It was a recipe for confusion, but it did help keep the faithful with the program and making calls.
In the end, he disowned the public option, hoping we’d never notice. And you know, for a lot folks, I’m sure that worked. But for those of us on the ground, making the calls, organizing the phone banks and getting the petitions signed, this was a slap in the face.
I’m happy to use OFA as an open source tool platform for as long as that lasts, but I will never again be part of “the President’s Field Team”.
There are many ways to be active and contribute without being co-opted by an organization whose only interest is to advance the President’s agenda, wether or not that agenda lines up with why you elected him to begin with.
Which is why Krugman won the Nobel prize in economics. A prize voted on by his peers. Like I said this is the typical teabag response: bash intellectuals.
“Now, I am ashamed I voted for him”
Me too. God were we duped.
I voted for Obama and gave money. I have the right to expect him to govern according to his campaign promises and the platform of the Party. I want him to succeed. I thought he was going to be a great President and I am so disappointed. He had almost the entire country behind him and he blew it. I feel sick about it and will continue to attempt to push him in the right direction. We do have at least 3 more years.
Does Gruber address the biologics loophole or explain how a family of four making 54k comes up with 9k for premiums and out of pocket a year?
These macro-level analyses are avoiding any discussion of the devastating human costs of this bill at the individual and family level. I think too many economists deal with people in the abstract, divorced from their lives and their pain and their suffering.
Hillary is as capable of deception and misdirection as anyone. A recent example was her refusal to even acknowledge that the U.S. conducts Predator airstrikes in Pakistan.
That is not exactly a defense of our lying president, however.
Next you wigged-out hippies will be claiming Obama camapaigned on “hope” and “change.” Get real, losers!
Here’s what we’ve lost. BHO could have fought the fight for the public option, persuaded most Americans it was desperately needed, castigated (and politically destroyed) those who were opposed to it, lost that battle, created a groundswell for it in the future, and STILL have this POS Senate bill — and his integrity.
There’s a fundamental lack of a moral argument here as well. Even if a plan that causes untold human suffering was, in fact, ‘fiscally responsible’, deficit-neutral, cut costs, what not, that doesn’t make it right.
Welcome to the conversation, romo2austin.
We’ve also seen the article Seizing the moment on health-care reform (Dec 22, 2009) by Eugene Robinson at The Washington Post:
Gene’s a great guy, but he couldn’t be more wrong on this one.
Helping 30 million Americans buy junk insurance from private insurers with govt subsidies isn’t a good deal. Taxpayers (you) will help reduce the costs of health care for families (you), as little-to-nothing is done to bring down costs for the American people (you).
Polls do not show “widespread wariness” for a public option; they do, on the other hand, show “widespread wariness” for the Democratic Senate’s bad joke on the American people.
Frankly, I’m getting a little sick of efforts to tag unhappiness on Progressives, as if doing so will help dismiss widespread opposition among Americans at the Democrats for screwing us all over.
The vast majority of Americans are unhappy with Obama’s failure to fight for real reform.
Obama’s record of coming down on both sides of any issue: oops wrong button, present, my plane was late was well documented and on display prior to your voting for him, so your new found sense of an Obama betrayal, for me at least, is bewildering.
I agree with you Rat. Just saying durring the campaign she was truthful about her stance on war and she came out and said her healthcare plan included mandates.
They are talking about restricting credit due to inflation fears.
I’m bashing a propagandist.
Back…..just in time for Christmas……tinman
tell me about it. Skipped out of votes just happened to be absent. Just could not see what everyone was so excited about based on his record. Just could not see it. But once he was the candidate got on the bus big time.
Could not figure out what people were hearing between “Hope” Afghanistan is the war that is necessary and “Change”
No surprises based on his record
Lieberman? Neither he nor Nelson are essential to getting a(ny) bill passed. Please. Enough with the “we need 60″ myth/meme.
The filibuster ain’t in the Constitution-it’s a custom. A bad habit, really-but an effective cover for DINOs (“I wanna, but Holy Joe won’t lemme!”)
Fuurther-the only arms that got twisted were Progressive. He did not even try.
“There is a unusual parallel I see between former Hillary supporters who never really liked Obama and dems who suddenly see Obama as a “corporatist” triangulator.”
Please. As an ACT UP! member I had been deeply immersed in the last HCR battle. I was unimpressed by how she handled it then, and had little faith she’d learned (what I thought was) the actual lesson of that defeat. No PUMA here. Quite the contrary.
I choose to support Barack in February ’08 based on his HCR plan-no mandates, a PO, reimportation, etc…
And of course no secret meetings with the lobbys-”they could air on CSPAN.”
I missed that braodcast-any reruns coming up???
I got played.
Is that you Rahm???????????????
We still have millions of people in this country that believe they will become millionaires overnight, and that they will benefit from the republican form of giveaway. Many break the law in their work daily, and know that the gop doesn’t punish people if they pay the bribes properly and quietly. They get caught, nothing ever happens. Only to democrats do they put them away. Seems folks think democrats shouldn’t have these moral dilemmae, but they accept if of the others automatically.
Since all these stupid people are subject to garbage health care that they know they can lose at the whim of the insurance company, they support it. They don’t want their taxes paying for their care. The don’t want their taxes paying for anyone’s care. They don’t have the mental acuity to see they are being stolen from by the club they think they can join someday.
There just isn’t enough smart to go around the country. Education is forbidden to most people. We have colleges and universities that still give degrees for religion. We have religious institutions creating colleges where they give out degrees in other disciplines for which they have no competence, and have purchased accreditation.
We voted for the guy from Illinois that promised all the things that the country requires to get started on the road to recovery. Instead, he gives all the money away to the same guys that talked the idiot cheney into giving them before.
It’s a pretty good sign that the government is collapsing. Total stagnation in government is what they want for health care. But total compliance is what they want for the pentagon. The facts add up to a conclusion that ignores the talk. There are no positive indicators but for the collapse of industrial production and what that may do to prolong life on the planet.
Fair enough retort. I disagree with a lot of it, but I can see your point.
At the end of the day there is are a few facts that are irrefutable:
1. Millions of people who do not have healthcare today will be able to get healthcare ass a result of this bill. It is estimated that thousands of lives will be saved and improved. When I hear screaming about failure and betrayal I always remember that there will be a 6 year old somewhere that will live because of what is happening now. There will be a breast cancer patient who is benefiting from early detection, etc. The bill does not live up to my highest hopes but it is a long way from being a failure. Perspective: If Bill and Hillary had passed this bill in the 90s they’d be seen as heroes for it. Take a step back and look at what’s been accomplished in less than a year.
2. There are a lot of really good people (Feingold, etc.) who don’t like this bill but they voted for it. They voted for it because the bottom line above is true. I think that if the bill was really damaging to americans, there are senators that would not support it. All of the people I trust voted for this bill. That should say something.
Now if your position is that they are all crooks and there is no one good in elected office, you’re on your own.
3. I just can’t help but feel that if hillary were POTUS and she did the exact same thing, you wouldn’t see some of the folks here making such accusations. You’d be arguing as I am.
A lot of how you see this comes down to whether you like Obama and believe that he’s a good guy. I can admit that as an Obama fan. It would be nice if his haters did the same.
I did alot of hand wringing because I didn’t want to vote for HRC or BO. I really wish alot more people would have looked at is record in IL. It doesn’t matter now.
Well said.
Progressives will continue to be marginalized and dis-empowered by the corporatist/Blue Dog faction presently in control of the Democratic party and the White House unless we acquire a majority voice within the party. In order to gain some control over the legislative battles ahead, we need to organize a strategy to replace the Blue Dogs with Progressives in the 2010 primaries, and/or subsequently to support them as independents in the general election if we don’t win the primaries. All of our vocalizing and petitioning NOW is clearly inadequate to effect the changes needed to re-insert reforms into the legislation. We need more votes. We need to have more Congressional seats occupied by Progressives than Blue Dogs. The recent defection of the congressman from Alabama shows that the Blue Dogs are essentially Republicans using funds and infrastructure of the Democratic party to pursue a right-wing corporatist agenda. Our donations helped elect the Stupak squad! We will have to target donations and volunteering to Progressive candidates, and starve the Blue Dogs.
The Democratic party is the Progressive party, not the Corporatist party. We need to push the Blue Dogs out of the driver’s seat, because they are taking the party in the wrong direction.
Clearly, POTUS is brilliantly using 11th dimensional chess strategy. How could anyone not see it?/snark
I’m pretty sure the kids of that family of four would be on s-chip. Secondly they would probably be given subsidies to help pay for it. Thirdly, I know individuals won’t have to pay a penalty if the premiums are over 8% of their income, so I doubt they would be mandated to buy health insurance in that case. There are just a lot of problems with that hypothetical and I doubt I listed them all.
Like I said typical teabag response: discredit educated experts.
They’ve lost control. The fed is just jawboning back and forth because no one with any sense believes them anyway. Keeps their options open, if they can find any.
Welcome back Tin!!
Do you know of a single Senate vote that Obama lost on the proposed public option or the buy in on medicare? Your comment is thoughtful and correct, nonetheless. However, I respectfully submit to you that this site has lost sight of the realities faced by Obama. I would expect that Obama was told from the gitgo that the Senate is populated by very mediocre careerists and that 60 cloture votes are not there. If it were not for Al Franken’s win this would be a non-starter. The “reconciliation” analaysis is not persuasive. To me the 60 vote cloture rule is the problem. We clearly have over 50 Senate votes for a public option, just not 60 votes to cut off debate.
Well, both Obama and the Progressives have turned out to be completely worthless. They folded on the wars, Gitmo, the public option, and everything else.
We have two corporate parties and neither of them are worth a damn. Nader is unelectable.
Are the any alternatives to third parties? So what exactly is the answer then?
This has nothing to do with liking Obama dude! Wake up!
I’m sorry, what PR firm employs you?
lolz!
Thinking back on the campaign, it seems that Dennis was the only one actually meaning what he said and the one with convictions.
Reality
My comment @1 was snark, my apologies if that was not self-evident.
I do not feel betrayed, I took his campaign promises with a large measure of salt, knowing that even if he had the noblest intentions changing the culture of Washington would likely be impossible.
I am a little surprised at the speed with which it has been revealed that he is not just another corporate tool but possibly the biggest corporate tool to ever hold the office.
I could have forgiven a lot if he had tried harder. He seems to have shied away from actually pushing, even for his own nominees. I want him to be tough and to let these wimps in Congress know that HE is in charge. And that punishment will follow if they don’t shape up.
If Medicare for all had been introduced or if a very strong public option was included in the language or if a health insurance reform bill that actually reduced costs and reformed health care had been pushed through, how many economists who specialize in the economics of health care would be out of work? How many associate professors of economics who teach at the various graduate schools of public health would be out of work with the rest of us?
This isn’t being anti-intellectual and I suspect if you’ve been around here for awhile you know there aren’t many of that ilk here. This is being realistic. Brad DeLong is an establishment economist. While he was very opinionated about John Yoo’s tenure at Berkeley and he is quick to point out Mankiw’s errors he is still a Democrat with a big D. This “reform” is going to further impoverish people who are barely clinging to financial solvency while providing the insurance industry with new profits.
Obama used the rhetoric and cadences of a very dedicated person to ensure people that he was going to change how things in this country are done. Instead, he enlisted the help of Emanuel, Summers, Gates, Holder, and other fixtures from previous administrations to make sure no substantive change occurred once he was sworn into office. Failure to prosecute war criminals within the US in contravention of US law is not change; escalation of an already illegal war is not change; continued imprisonment of people who are innocent of any crime except being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not change; and, bailing out the FIRE sector of the economy on the backs of working and middle class people, what’s left of them, is not change.
I’m an old guy, have watched with dismay the gradual demise and destruction of the US in a process which, to my mind, commenced on or about the date of the coup d’etat, November 22, 1963. First came LBJ’s escalation in the Nam, then the Nixon travesty, four years of relief under Carter, and then the cliff edge: the fascism of Reagan Conservatism. Then Pappy Bush and the resurrection of the American Imperialist war machine, a respite of sorts under Clinton, then the total terrorism of the Dubsy Bush regime. I thought Obama was our last chance. I voted for him, walked into 2009 optimistic for the first time in 45 years. And now, not even a year later, I’ve about decided screw it, I’m done. Too old to leave, too young to die, old enough only to suffer the lament of having been able to do nothing, in my lifetime, to slow or deter the destruction of what was once my country, now become a strange, frightful, and alien land. I think I’ll drop out, frankly. Grow a garden in the spring, photograph flowers and hummingbirds, write some poetry, and hope that I don’t live much longer.
Thanks, Barack. And all the other shitheads out there who have no imagination, no character, no honor, no love of nothin’ but themselves, their power, and their fucking bank accounts. AMF.
Exactly!
I’d be hailing Obama, Reid and Pelosi for having reformed our health care system, a historic achievement, rather than working my ass off in the hope that there will be even the slightest bit of reform in the piece of shit they’re trying to sell the American people.
They’re failing miserably.
Total disappointment.
One is left to wonder why this 2009 version of BO was so deep in camo during 2008 election given since taking over the WH BO has talked and walked in ways he clearly was not during 2008.
Focusing alone on this HCR crash and burn courtesy of BO’s WH doing AHIP and Big Pharma requested fixes and required graft only grows more odious when larger stage of what BO has not done,done or seems ready to do more of is considered and put to BO’s WH record. BO has done walk backs and flip flops on torture,CIA/Pentagon malefactory and Bush DOJ truth dredging. Doubtful he would have won D Party primary talking and walking like he is now in 2009. He can game the slow to pick up types perhaps for awhile but already many of us have marked him as a charlatan or worse.
Longer view of BO and his WH now being does he even care about a second term in the WH? Or is the fast tracking he demonstrated in jumping from being a U.S.Senator to POTUS now also point to a one term corporatist tool and enabler BO WH and then back to the private side for the cash out for services rendered?
What was said by BO during 2008 is not very hard to find and do the replay on. Does BO really think he can deny the BO of 2008?
As this seems to be the growing possibility it will prove interesting to see how HRC frames her response to BO’s 2008 denial setup.
HRC took big hits because of BO’s 2008 run for the WH.
BO seems now oddly comfortable with changing his feathers.
At this point going forward I hope HRC begins to show some ruffled feathers. That would serve BO right and may open on HRC going for WH in 2012. At this point I would not view that outcome in negative ways.
Wall street is worried about inflation so the fed is too.
Feingold. Franken. Sanders. Weiner.
I just can’t help but feel that if hillary were POTUS and she did the exact same thing, you wouldn’t see some of the folks here making such accusations. You’d be arguing as I am.
A lot of how you see this comes down to whether you like Obama and believe that he’s a good guy. I can admit that as an Obama fan. It would be nice if his haters did the same.
If you were expecting to find Hillary supporters here, you have come to the wrong place. Hillary basically said she would do what Obama is doing now. Had the been truthful his platform would have mirrored her’s and he would have had an ice cubes chance in hell of getting elected.
My personal opinion about Obama matters not, I do not hate as a matter of personal and spiritual conviction. I have alot of skin in the healthcare game as I have a child who’s life depends on medical intervention. I voted for Obama based on what he said in the campaign. What he said then, and what he is doing now bear no resemblance to each other.
All I can say is LOL @ the first paragraph.
Yes, don’t you know that only republicans can use reconcilliation to pass the largest tax cuts to the rich in american history…. /s
Hey romo2austin
I notice that you’re ignoring my comment @ 69.
What’s wrong with my counterarguments to Eugene Robinson’s weak analysis on this issue?
He’s got a Pulitzer.
Not good enough for you?
To his credit, he didn’t campaign on “Change you will experience”
I’m old too but I’m quitting. Dont you either!! You have alot to bring to the table, this table here at FDL.
“Change is gonna come”
romo2austin is a troll, possibly of the paid variety more likely an amateur. This particular troll’s chief points are:
1: Nobel prize winning economists support the bill, ignoring the fact that many economists do not support the bill. Not to mention the fact that Nobel prizes are not what they used to be, just look at the war-monger who received the last Peace Prize.
2: anyone who disagrees is an uneducated, anti-intellectual tea-bagger (sniff, words HURT, romo…)
Don’t waste your time.
Actually, if you’re being paid to express views here, you should disclose that fact.
This blog was generally speaking, anti-Hillary and pro-Obama during the primaries. Just an fyi.
I am not paid. I’m just not a teabagger.
We have been inflating for years, that is how the fed blows bubbles (tech, housing, oil), they are desperate to blow another (greenstuff, capntrade) to save the banks and wall streets sorry asses. They are trying to inflate not prevent it.
Except for Jane Hamsher who went on a war path destroying every Obama supporter (Caroline Kennedy) in sight after the election.
And personally, I was anti-Hillary because I did not want to see the White House filled with Clintonites and Rubinites, and even if Obama wouldn’t be very liberal policy-wise, there’d be a breath of fresh air in the West Wing.
Oops, I miscalculated.
LOL – what part of coming on and in the first post calling everyone present a “liberal teabagger” did not scream Timewaster Troll to everyone? And what is it about Austin that brings out the “everyone is stupid but me” in people?
The peace prize is decided differently. The rest of the prizes are decided by their peers.
What???
Oh please. Krugman does not “like” this bill at all. He’s criticized up one side and down the other over all this. But now they are at a point of voting on it with no other option, he supports it more than the status quo. To try to adopt the pretense that Krugman has been cheerleading for THIS bill and that Krugman doesn’t think we need the public option and should have fought for it etc. is the same as your friends the teabaggers showing up with placards quoting blurbs from Jefferson and Franklin and Paine. It’s co-opting a byline from someone who is indeed educated (and more importantly) without any study of their actual positions.
The most notable thing about Obama’s relationship with Krugman, btw, is how Obama has consistently chosen to shun Krugman and his advice (and that of Stiglitz and Roubini and other economists who, unlike Summers, have a track record through recent years of getting things right). When Krugman pointed out during the campaigns that Obama was being disingenuous on mandates (when Obama was flat out attacking Clinton for having them in her plan and disdainfully explainin that mandates were distasteful and unnecessary) and that Obama’s approach would never work without mandates, the Cult of Obama went balistic. They frothed that Krugman was taking sides with Clinton and against Obama (instead of recognizing that he was just smarter than Obama and more aware of realtity). As a result, despite how willing someone like Krugman has been to be an asset to Obama’s administration – Obama has been petty, resentful and short sighted and consistently blocked input from guys like Krugman and Stiglitz to set the course.
To now pipe up that Krugman “likes” the plan is either being truly uninformed or is simply being shamelessly opportunistic of any grab-able talking point. Go read what he’s written on this from the get go. He thinks this bill is better than nothing – like saying he thinks rape is preferrable to rape/murder.
Troll now reveals itself as a likely kossack, enraged by Jane’s suggestion that we might share some common ground with folks on the right.
As I recall, there was no official endorsement for a candidate in the primary on this site. However, commenters initially seemed to support Edwards. After he dropped out, many supported Obama and some supported Hillary. There was no consensus here about who should be the nominee. I recall thinking that our blog hostess wrote a bit about Hillary, but I may be projecting because I had a slight preference for her.
Caroline Kennedy – and most Kennedys for that matter – was a huge supporter of Obama. When the Kennedy clan threw their support behind Obama that gave him the institutional support he needed to win the primaries. Hamsher wanted retribution, so she helped take down Caroline.
Ah, yes. :)
There has been alot of that over the past few days.
As I said before, no one should look to Krugman for analysis, he is a propagandist, like bobo or sully, et al.
Michelle Obama was a corporate lawyer. Barack was happy living with her anyway. That made me suspect he would prove out to be a corporatist all along, but of course I had no choice but to vote for him. Since his election, he’s removed all doubt–he’s just another in a long line of ratfuck Dems who decided to sell his soul to the corporations.
There is no party representing the people, there are two parties representing the corporations.
The only political message that can be considered coherent at this point in history is: CORPORATIONS vs. PEOPLE.
Righties and lefties, liberals and conservatives, all ordinary people, should recognize their own self-defense interests and organize along these lines. The old labels are meaningless now.
We’ve got to do this. “Divide and conquer” is the eternal tactic the corporations and their lackeys use against us, to confuse us into thinking that the immediate enemy is someone, anyone, other than the corporations themselves. There is only one supreme enemy, and that is the big corporations who are determined to make livestock of us, to reduce us to insect status. And they are more than half-way to that goal already.
Let’s get it straight, folks.
I read his blog every day. To point you to a few blog entries that proves my point (and shows his disdain for the “liberal” teabagging crowd) here is a few of his most recent entries from the past few days:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/what-has-health-care-reform-ever-done-for-us/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/simulating-single-payer/#more-6219
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/grant-lee-and-me/
I’ll say, too, that on completely non-political chat sites I am on, the only thing that the wide range of people mostly agreed on was the public option. All kinds of people who even parroted the Foxlines of “they’re going too fast” etc. would still mostly say, “but public option makes sense – why dont they just do that” Not having the public option as a centerpiece of what they were doing took away the one thing that coalesced agreement among person with very disparate interests.
Now they see the whole process as bought out – even the Republicans noticed how pharma/insurance stocks reacted to the news of the Dem strategy “working.” They feel completely disenfranchised from the process. Even those who want reform and want Obama to be a success also are just mortified by the Nebraska deal. That doesn’t give the gloss of anything but corruption to the bill.
That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Retribution against whom? As I recall the most that was said about Caroline Kennedy was that she was not qualified just because her name was Kennedy.
Nice to see you, Twain.
Off to enjoy more tranquil pursuits. See ya later.
Righties and lefties, liberals and conservatives, all ordinary people, should recognize their own self-defense interests and organize along these lines. The old labels are meaningless now.
Say it loud, and say it again… Truer words were never spoken.
Oh well, a slight change from the wingnut trolls at least.
Actually Michelle quit the corporate lawyer shtick a while ago and most recently worked for the University of Chicago Hospital system. I’m sure you meant to include that little sugar plum in your post, but I’m sure you just forgot…
Well, simplistic history, but essentially correct.
But the tactical conclusions I don’t agree with. Like the spurned lover having an impractical affair just for spite.
Here I go again… this is a coalition government, without the proper political mechanisms to call for new elections. Running a third party endeavor will do nothing, because the fundamental structural flaw remains. Short of a complete and very risky Constitutional Congress to rewrite the whole thing, what is needed is to destabilize the DP and move it from the Clinton model of Blue/Red to Blue/Green. This was essentially what the Missisippi Freedom Democratic Party did to move the national party toward real civil rights action.
The Clinton electoral strategy of Center Right alighment just won’t work anymore. Not to mention it produced bad policy. The current social alignment is increasingly Center/Green (not Center/Left). One only has to look at the Charlie Christ campaign to see how the Center/Right territory has been deforested. There’s no water there.
For the sake of the planet, the Party must be moved. No, it’s not revolutionary with flags and heros. It’s survival.
Michael Whitney has a cross-post already in progress: “Introducing the FDL Health Care War Room”
romo2austin
You’re not a teabagger? Then surely you think you’re capable of responding to my comment @ 65 re Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post. Don’t come here and ignore arguments just because you’re wrong and can’t debate like an adult.
Click to comment @ 105, and it’ll take you to the comment @ 65.
Looking forward to your response.
The FDL Health Care War Room is AWESOME!
Almost all of that goes to the mandate that Obama (were you calling Obama a liberal teabagger – while wearing your purple bandaid – when he was adamantly opposed to mandates and denigrating Clinton for including them and Krugman for supporting the analysis indicating they would be required? yeah- I kinda think I know the answer to that one) campaigned against.
Any broad based reform does need a mandate and big surprise – Krugman who always knew that is now coming out and being supportive of that aspect (he’s glad to see something more like single payer). But go find his rejection of the public option, ever. It’s not there. Even in what you link, he mourns the failure to have a public option. So yeah – that means he’s all about not having a public option and giving up on fighting for a public option. And oh yeah- the point of the original post as well was how much Obama did lie, was willing to lie, and continues to have contempt for those who worked hardest for him. I don’t really see Krugman, who wasn’t out campaigning for Obama based on Obama’s promises, chiming in on the social contract issues raised in the post.
Of course, when that purple bandaid in placed over your own eyes, that might be hard to see.
I’m not Eugene Robinson, and I don’t read him, so I don’t feel the need to defend his arguments. Anyhow gotta go. It’s been fun guys! :-)
I would prefer the P.O. too as would Obama. But one must be practical, not a teabagger.
romo: “criticism of Obama = Treason,
Selling out all of America to the corporate bastards that have corrupted healthcare = politics”
It seems to me that Obama DID campaign for a public option. This is quoted from his 59 page “Blueprint for Change” campaign literature booklet:
“Obama will make available a new national health plan so all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, can buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.”
“Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.”
“The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage”
“Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.”
So what is this myth going around about him Not campaigning for a public plan???
It’s corporate america against the people.
With margins so close on votes in the senate, a single progressive could make a difference. I think Sen. Sanders is great, but he’s been there a long time. A single strong progressive – call it a 1 state strategy!
Just saying the fed’s excuse for not doing anything about unemployment is inflation fears (by Wall Street). I get the impression Obama doesn’t care about other Democrats and will happily sacrifice them in 2010 to win re-election. But, at some point he will need to do something about unemployment.
BTW I think the next bubble is going to be commodities (Oil in particular).
Goldman Sachs screwing around with Oil Futures triggers this whole mess. But they weren’t able to suck all the money out first and have been trying to re-inflate it ever since.
Considering Liarman was allowed to hold the bill hostage it is at least an idea to consider.
Franken. Sanders. Feingold. Weiner.
From that article on the nurses union yesterday this bill would have a family of four two adults, two kids with an annual income of $54,000 paying $9,000 to insurance companies WITHOUT EVER USING THE INSURANCE. Yeah the gov will give them a credit to funnel money to the insurance companies, but they’re on the hook for the deductables. The senators above voted for this scheme and people claim they’re lefties? No guts sellouts. They didn’t stand up, they sat down.
I agree with Marta’s decision to no longer support the Democratic party. In, fact I made that decision a while ago. It was interesting standing outside the two party system during the 2008 campaign and seeing the issues and candidates I believed in utterly dismissed by the two parties and main stream media and even some “progressives”.
Progressives need to wise up. The Democrats aren’t our party. We don’t have a party. We need one.
It’s been a veritable parade of low level targets wandering in and out of the Lake the last few days. Have to do a lot of reading to sort out the sincere commenters from the chafe. Then there are the ones who wander in waving a banner.
The people that support this bill do so because it will benefit some people at some point in time in some specific situation. But is will also continue to do harm to other people as rates rise, drug costs rise and access remains unavailble to others. It does little to nothing to tackle the real problem. This is a political bill and nothing else. Obamas betrayal is blatant on several levels to anyone that supported him. This will be the moment his Presidency is lost. Whatever else he does, he won’t get those he lost over this back. I was in the hospital this weekend. The nurses are not allowed to talk politics, yet several made no secret that they feel betrayed. They see things getting worse, not better.
The fed has no control over unemployment if the liquidity it’s providing never gets used for anything that creates jobs, which is what is happening. No one wants to take on debt, and no one wants to lend. For Krugman to whine that this is something the fed can control is just softminded bullshit. Where’s MY Nobel Prize???
That warpath crap is just that. It’s of a par with Obama getting giggly over how unqualified Clinton was in foreign policy and then appointing her to head State. I say that as someone who voted for Obama in the primaries.
No one wanted or wants anything other than for Obama to BE the decent man he pretended to be – for him to fight for right. You want to be proud of, not disappointed in and worse, disgusted by, your President. Especially one you worked to get elected. If your response to people being unhappy about lies and Chicago-style politics is that they are trying to “get back at” the liar/back stabber, then fine. YOu are who you are. That’s all about you, not the arguments, not the facts.
Fiengold?
You’re not Eugene Robinson? No shit. You’re not Paul Krugman, either, but you come here spouting nonsense and throw his name around. I provided you the link to Gene’s entire article, as well as a key piece from the article. Can’t think for yourself? No? Then don’t denigrate teabaggers, moron (sorry mod!).
Soon enough they will crawl back to where ever they appeared from. If the sincere choose to hang around they will find they stumbled into one of the best places on the toobz.
This whole “kill-bill” disaster really leaves me fearing for the sanity of my friends on the more unrelentingly outspoken side of our progressive wing, as exemplified by some posters and commenters at FDL. Worse, it makes me fear for the ability of those same “progressives” to work productively, and with discipline towards accomplishing real world progressive policy goals.
Let me elaborate on the latter. When it comes to actual policy, I would guess the difference between me, a so called “realist” – and you, a median FDL poster/commenter – is pretty much nonexisting.
I want single payer. If I can’t get single payer, I wan’t a strong public option. I wan’t the public option because:
1) It would deliver unrivaled value for americans.
2) It is genuinely progressive policy that would deliver this for americans, and thereby it would make the case for the superiority of progressive policy, and the bankruptcy and impotence of the conservative paradigm in dealing with the real world policy challenge of our national healthcare.
Agree so far?
I can also appreciate the need for a credible challenge from the left, for the left wing not to lay down flat on stomach with ass in the air on this issue. We should all work all means available to us to get the maximum payoff that we possibly can, otherwise we haven’t done our job. But – I think it’s fairly obvious by now – the stated position and demagoguery of the posters and commenters here at FDL goes quite some way beyond this, beyond staking out a negotiating position.
FDL has become a mouthpiece for bitching on Obama and democrats in congress, for discrediting elected democrats in the eyes of the progressive grassroots and driving a wedge between them, for arguing – not only that democratic losses in 2010 are likely – but that they are well-earned, appropriate, even “good”. This is freaking insane.
When it comes to the public option, Obama quite obviously originally wanted to see it in the bill. Why, he was carrying water even before it is likely that you – the median FDL commenter – even knew what it was. But here’s the thing:
- In the United States of America, the president does not have the power to make legislation.
Yes. The house and the senate, together, has this power. Presently this means, in the end – given republicans united in obstruction – all 60 democratic senators need to vote for cloture of whatever bill will become law.
A candidate for POTUS gets to go out and make promises, but in the end he actually does not have it within his own power to chose on what he’ll deliver.
Yes, yes, that’s trivial you say, but actually there’s many countries where this is not the case, where one party goes into a general election with a policy program, they win, they pick a prime minister, a cabinet and they promptly implement their full policy program without worrying about filibusters, “blue dogs” or anything else.
What I’m saying is: take the first 20% of your frustrations and use them for advocacy for congress reform. There’s no point in blaming Obama nor Harry Reid for something that is a direct consequence of our form of government. Because focusing your anger at the wrong target can never yield result.
Ok, so we don’t have a public option because there were not 60 votes in the senate for a public option. But isn’t that Obamas fault? Wouldn’t there have been 60 votes if Obama had used the bully pulpit of the president more assertively? Couldn’t the republicans be made to suffer the price if POTUS had more aggressively pushed an “up-or-down vote” meme?
Maybe. But I see an all to common progressive sin in this line of thinking, the sin of expecting one progressive hero to magicly do all the work, with no grassroot groundwork needed. It’s all so convenient and it’s a copout. We want to be like the republicans, in the respect that we recently saw them (during Bush II) strongly and without excuses pushing for their ideological agenda, publicly bullying and intimidating the democrats to cave.
Why can’t we do the same? That must surely be because our former hero is really a pussy, right?
This latter thought is a huge freaking fallacy, and like I said, an uninformed cop-out w/r to personal responsibility as well.
The reasons that republicans have an easier time bullying us with messaging are (amongst others):
1) Republicans have for a long time and methodicly built a well oiled infrastructure that effectively gets there talking points out.
- The solution is working on a better progressive infrastrucure, and above all: be a good advocate (mouthpiece if you will) for the superiority of progressive policy (first) and democratic politicians (second)
2) That infrastructure includes mechanisms that will promptly punish people who stray from current conservative orthodoxy. This includes financial incentives. The rightwing is good business, getting kicked out is bad business.
- The solution is to reward good progressive pundits and (realistic) primary contenders, and to punish traitors (like lieberman) or people who can be (realisticly, see nate silvers post on this today) replaced. To make it clear through our consumer choices that we expect “our” talking heads, pundits and columnists to be “progressives”, and “partisans” first – then they can go and be “journalists”, “intellectuals” or whatever. Just as is the case for conservatives.
- The solution is NOT to visibly cut off the head of your own king (bitch on our president), when it will serve no actual purpose, and will not pay off in policy wins. Not in chess, not in real life.
3) A strong contributing reason to why the republican infrastructure is effective is that republicans are willing to
a) take talking points from “above”
b) root for “the team” first, i.e. general loyalty is (or was before the tea party movement i should say) held in high regard
- If you want what they have, then you got to start being a “supporter”. Pretend it’s baseball or something.
4) Conservative talking heads, as well as conservative voters are often more effective advocates than progressives for several reasons
a) Progressives are contrarians, and value “intellectual honesty” highly.
b) core conservative groups of base voters, i.e. fundamentalist christians, undercover racists, and big business conservatives have long and well motivated experience of being advocates first and intellectually honest second. To work hard as hell for every little win however small and always publicly say whatever it takes to get there. This is because fundamentalist christians are in their mind fighting against a deceptive satan by any means in a hostile, modern, secular world; because undercover racists are very used to not being able to be outspoken and still welcome in civilised company; and because anything that helps big business bottom line is motivates any measure and any indignity, and in addition they have experience in marketing.
- If you want what they have, you got to start being an “advocate”. Get used to talking about “what you want” as “what the american people want”. Get used to actually doing the work of – publicly – framing our policy goals in how they are benificial to “americans”. Get used to being a majority party, and a majority ideology – rather than some hipster fringe movement.
5) We are timid and humiliated, ever since the indignities of McGovern 72, Carter 80 and Dukakis 88. This lack of confidence is ultimately b/o the southern realignment and can only be rectified with electoral wins.
- The solution is delivering electoral wins for progressive politicians. Obama in 08 was a good step, Obama 12 will be the next step as will congress in 10. The next reallignment is already happening; the south is becoming marginalized. If we don’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory now, by embracing and facilitating dishonest conservative talking points in a rough economic environment, then the republicans and the “tea partyers” will once again lose at the balot. You lose enough time, you lose your confidence, and you lose defectors. A conservative fringe with no self confidence will eventually lose their ability of being good advocates and obstructing the progressive agenda.
- The solution is NOT embracing the strategic mistakes of Nader 00 or Kennedy 80. Infighting, maximalism of the moment will only reinforce the already existing perception of democrats as weak and unable to get the job done. The proper and constructive way forward is that when and if it’s appararent that we will not get the public option now, then we cannot, ever allow the public option to dissappear off the policy radar. This is the one point on which i’m prepared to critisize Obama, in that he – in wanting to defend the accomplishments of the current bill – are trivializing the value that a robust public option would deliver to the american people. That’s not what we need to do; we all need to keep on publicly advocating it, talking it up, get someone else in Liebermans seat, and eventually get it done. But it is the progressive wing that put him in the defensive position by making it his personal problem.
So… thats my 2 cents basicly. The political value of the FDL community for implementing progressive policy as it stands now is zero. You guys need to wisen up and learn how to be a tactical force towards accomplishing our common goals. That requires smartness.
Hi there:
I supported Obama from the beginning. I thought Hillary was a corporatist and I knew Obama was pretty similar. But for some reason, however flawed, I trusted him more. Now that’s over. And not just over healthcare–what a distraction! Obama has done everything in his power to keep the executive abuses of the previous administration going and the corporate state lifeblood flowing. He’s advanced state secrets, he’s given our treasury to those who have already sold us out, and he continues incessant American imperialism (to be fair, he said he’d do this in the campaign). If that’s how he’s going to be, he’s no better for this country than either Bush or Clinton, or Nixon. He’ll just give us a few bones (Guantanamo “closing”, incremental financial reform, etc.) to please us and then we’ll be required to act like good doggies and follow the leader.
In response to the troll romo2austin #132–Are you actually stupid enough to believe that only the last thing someone does defines who and what they are? You should work for the mainstream media, buddy, your shallowness and lack of memory would be an asset there.
It takes a special mindset to be a corporate lawyer. And to tolerate one. And I say that as a lawyer (non-corporate).
Purple bandaids are so practical – yeah, right. You are one funny commenter. BTW – once you start lumping everyone together as teabaggers because you lack the skill sets to differentiate and actually enjoy taunting and provoking more than engaging and uniting – umm, you end up with a war in Iraq because bin Laden organized 9/11.
If you want to call all Arabs, Indonesians, Persians, Afghans, etc. “al qaeda” because it gives you a tee off for your giggle box, that is, again, who you are so there’s not much to do about that, but don’t think that the same people who realized that Hussein and bin Laden were different people to be impressed by your taunt tactic.
You can’t defeat trolls by overfeeding. Particularly after they have announced their departure and thanked you for your gullibility.
Well said.
We are not convenient tools for use as barganing chips, we are Americans and we are fucking DONE with bullshit excuses.
At least I am.
Hold on now. I don’t think you can imply that the man is unwilling to take a bold move. This entire UHC thing in the middle of the second depression was a bold move. He could have easily said “the economy is too bad, let’s wait” but he didn’t. Back up and look at the big picture. We’re in the weeds of whether the bill looks as liberal as we want it to look and forget that the fact that we have a bill of any kind is the most significant thing a democratic president has done in decades.
Making it a priority now took a lot of courage.
I think Obama has proven that he won’t hide from anyone if he wants to get something done. The fair question is whether he hid on this particular issue.
But it is the progressive wing that put him in the defensive position by making it his personal problem.
Excuse me, but when you run for office and your whole platform turns out to be a pack of lies don’t be surprised when people who worked their asses off to get you elected are hopin mad. If Obama would have been truthful during the campaign, he would not be POTUS today. Period!
mary, krugman’s post today where he writes, “what we’re getting will, in its overall results, work a lot like a single-payer system. ” is just wrong. i don’t know why krugman sometimes goes off the rails, but today he did. the house bill is, in almost all ways, worse than what we have in MA (confirmed to me by my rep’s aide after the vote who assured me that because we already have a waiver from the hhs, the house bill would let us keep our own reform (exchanges, rules, etc). and what we have in MA is in NO way comparable to single payer.
marcy’s post, 21% of People in MA Still Forgo Necessary Medical Care, is a good read.
Take your two cents and save em for the monumental insurance bills you’ll have after this bill cements the for-profit oligopoly we hoped would be reformed.
Not to beat a dead horse, but,
Isn’t that Krugman’s main argument?
We are in a liquidity trap and pumping all this money into the banks isn’t doing any good because it just sits in their vaults?
I’m taking my kids and I’m moving to Canada. Fuck this.
I was sitting with my wife last night watching the Daily Show and then Rachel Maddow. My wife, who is admittedly disinterested in American politics, was appalled by what’s going on. We had a very lengthy conversation during which I explained the pros and cons of the public option and the effects on our economy and our populous. We talked about what I feel are the shortcomings of Obama in this situation. We talked about the reasons our Congress is destroying the current change for real reform. We talked about Teabaggers and Progressives and Jane Hamsher and on and on. The end result of this conversation is we were both left feeling disgusted and hopeless.
Jane, I admire what you do here. I made phone calls, donated my hard earned money, rallied friends and family and strangers to vote last November. All because I believed that what Obama had promised would be delivered.
We gave the man the White House and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate and they’re still too chickenshit and money hungry to do anything. It truly sickens me.
Again, I’m left with a sense of hopelessness. What the fuck do we do in the face of such blatant disregard for American health and welfare? By our elected officials? Our caretakers? The people we trust to provide a safe and stable life for our families? I just don’t know what to do short of sitting back and watching in horror. Or building a fallout shelter.
I don’t think it will ever get to him, but I think it is probably important that we all send e-mails to the White House, fully expressing the end result of his betrayal to the progressive base of his party.
Anyone who knows Rahm Emanuel’s history of open disdain towards progressives (and his embrace of Blue Cross Dems as the future of the party), should have expected it. But then, who figured Rahm would be the Dick Cheney of this administration…the man who is running the show?
Because of this, I am convinced that this is the deal that Obama wanted. In return for pharma and Aetna money to help Dems get elected in 2010 (Dems will lose…big time).
The most telling thing to me that Pharma and UHC are orchestrating this was the deliberate defeat of the drug reimportation bill. Could there have been a bigger betrayal against what we thought we voted for?
I was an ardent Obama supporter who now believes that, if a progressive from either party is not running, we either vote a 3rd party, or write-in a candidate. The only way we can get our party back is to humble them by showing them what happens without us.
I will not support Obama, or work for him again, in 2012. If we fail to beat him in the primaries, I will sit it out.
As much as I hate the GOP, this is the only way we can take our party back from the DLC (who are essentially, moderate Republicans). They have destroyed the spirit and morale of the Democratic party. It is time for them to go.
FDL has become a mouthpiece for bitching on Obama and democrats in congress
There are plenty of non-political sites that have nothing but unhappy people (many of whom voted for them) bitching about Obama and democrats in Congress. The bitching about Obama and democrats is a widespread symptom of the malaise they are spreading, not a virus originating at FDL or elsewhere.
I think it’s not that you are bugged about the bitching – it’s that you are bugged that the bitching has so much accuracy. It’s been the same as the bitching at GWB about going into war in Iraq. The bitching about Obama and the democrats selling out the public option goes way back to when – they started selling out the public option. The problem is that on pretty much everything – from Obama going into court to defend torture and torturers to Obama selling out healthcare reform, the complaints lodged have been accurate while all the whines from the beginning that “on, noes, Obamas does wants publics options” have been proven over and over to be unsupported by fact.
This is the sheerest tripe. Obama could have campaigned much harder. He could have told the public loudly and clearly who was at fault and who was not. He could have worked with the Senate to strip recalcitrants of their committee chairs, or to deny pork to their states.
He did none of those things.
So you have absolutely zero backing for your statement that things would still have turned out the way the did. The only way to make this case is if the administration had really tried . . . and then failed.
Well, if you want to be anything more than a bargaining chip, could I suggest that you:
1) Identify your priorities, i.e. what you’d like to see happen in our common society.
2) Start being a smart bargaining chip by taking whatever course of action that maximizes the probability of your wish actually coming true.
Thia ia phony junk here at this stupid website. No one who was for Obama now thinks he betrayed anybody.
It’s a simple fact that Lieberman and Nelson had the final say on this bill…THAT IS THE MAKE-UP OF CONGRESS.
Obama did all he could and this is the very best he could get…
DID TOM HARKIN BETRAY US TOO?
Of course not.
My faith in all that is good has been restored. Thank you.
It is telling to me that the posts that spend time actually conceding points, trying to find common ground, etc. are the posts by the realists.
When you hear someone say “Obama is no different than Bush” or “Obama loves corporations more than he wants to help the poor” you know you’re in for a rough read.
I appreciate well reasoned critiques of Obama. He deserves to be critiqued. That’s why libs are better than conservatives. They follow blindly. We don’t.
But what we’re seeing here is Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh in reverse. That’s absolutely terrifying. I have this sick feeling that I’ve been laughing at conservatives and their “litmus tests” while people on my side were gearing up to do the same thing.
Not good. Not good at all. We’re the good guys. We’re better than that.
What a wonderful encapsulation of the Obama Doctrine. This is the true meaning of “Yes, we can!”
To the contrary, I think it’s becoming easier to impute spite and pettiness to Obama. He won’t brook disruption from the DFHers, and he’s letting them know it.
No, that is not obvious at all.
He cut a deal with big insurance at the start and traded it away.
That WILL be NOT voting for the wolf in sheep’s clothing anymore.
I think the reason he’s off the rails on this one is the mandate aspect. It’s something he’s been very tight on for a long time. Now that it is going to be a part of the program, he wants to tout positive aspects of it. I can understand why he is doing that, but I agree with you that it leaves all the many points points Marcy hits on unanswered. I also like the way that so many are ignoring how likely it is that many will end up paying the tax (which is less than the coverage) and still end up basically uninsured.
Dude, come on. He had the ‘courage’ to stand up in the middle of a depression and sell us to insurance companies, and that is all he did. None of this is about helping you or me or our kids, it’s about funneling cash money to the insurance industry. Look back on the whole fiasco, first he makes a deal with pharma, then the PO is a sliver, then sits on his ass with Baucus and Snowe in charge, then caves to Lieberman and Nelson. Now he claims he didn’t ever campaign for a ‘public plan’, and there isn’t one! Does this sound to you like helping people get better health care (not die) motivated him? Or that injecting cash into the insurance industry did? Please.
You were never for Obama and I know that for a fact. Come out of the closet neo-con.
[Mod Note: please focus on ideas rather than the motivations of other commenters]
Excuse me, but when you run for office and your whole platform turns out to be a pack of lies don’t be surprised when people who worked their asses off to get you elected are hopin mad. If Obama would have been truthful during the campaign, he would not be POTUS today. Period!
As already pointed out, congress legislates. Obama went for what was in his preferred bill and ultimately the major differences between Obamas proposed health care and whats in the senate bill are a result of senators (Lieberman, Nelson) using their leverage to take it out. The only feasible solution is to make those senators, or others in their seat act differently.
Calling Obamas platform “a pack of lies” because of this, make you look either dishonest or uninformed on how our form of government works.
There are a lot of impatient folk.
When Bill Clinton left office, this country was in the black. Waaay in the black. His decisions regarding the debt and economy were vilified. I remember seeing a pre-drug addled Rush Limbaugh whine about his decision on short-term bonds, yet who was right? It took many years to get the country where we found it when he stepped down.
I’m not defending Obama’s apparent about-face, but we are becoming a nation of instant gratification. Much of the legislation we see now will not have a profound effect, either positive or negative, for years to come.
While it looks like he’s a shill for corporate interests, only time will tell. There are some positive things he’s done, besides what is going on now with healthcare reform. It is not what the Democrats wanted, but how has this country done things up to now? Incrementally.
We saw a ramp-up of actions by the White House during the Bush administration which, as time passed, were found to be ill-advised, ill-conceived, and poorly executed if not entirely illegal.
Now we expect the same from a different President? I could be wrong, but I’m not just going to bounce on the wagon just because everyone else is running to it. The guy’s been in office for only a year. We let Bush screw this country for 8, and I don’t recall many whining and complaining then, like they are now.
The birthers, deathers, baggers, and the like are all examples of the instant gratification crowd. What are we to call ourselves in the history books?
Why should we attack Repugs? They’re not the reason why we lost and let’s be clear, this is a huge loss. Obama not only lied and played with people’s emotions during the entire year, but now he’s lying about campaigning for a public option. I honestly don’t understand what is wrong with this White House. I don’t know what constituency they think they’re winning by being a bunch of lying, quisling, turncoat, doubledealers, but they apparently think it’s the key to success. They can’t seem to do a single policy the base wants or do anything without trying to figure out a way to disrespect the base. From the Rick Warren episode forward, all we get is dissembling, disrespect, a pretty speech, and then when they take any “corrective measures” they just rub more salt in the wound and kick more dirt in the eye. Now he has the audacity ( I guess this was the audacity part we promised last year) to tell bold faced lies about how he didn’t campaign on this? The Left is constantly being told it doesn’t matter, irrelevant, not needed. So I don’t understand, if we’re so irrelevant, why do you care if our venom is focused precisely on the person most deserving? I mean you don’t need us right? Good Luck in 2010 bucko.
I’m not interested in your advice.
The “this is as close as we’re ever going to get (even though it’s FAR worse than what we’ve got and we’ll never get out of the strangle-hold once it’s enacted)” argument from the Obama apologist crowd is starting to really piss me off.
That piece makes no sense at all. Comparing those two charts is trying to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. The second chart assumes that no taxes are paid that go into health care. What, he thinks the Medicare payroll tax was just gonna go away?
This is incorrect. With all likelyhood, and as estimated by the (nonpartisan CBO) very few americans will see their HC expenses increase while a LOT will see them decrease.
That posters at FDL spout sophistry and conservative talking points to the extent that it’s readers become misinformed is only one more reason to question it’s value.
In other words, if you disagree with the CBOs estimates, it’s incumbent on you to explicitly and specifically point out where and why they are wrong. You haven’t read this kind of transparent and explicit case from your favourite FDL poster? Go figure.
You sir, are a genius and you are right with every word of your brilliant posts.
I wasn’t trying to defeat him, at least not by winning an argument with him on this thread. Anyway, it can’t hurt FDL to keep him talking while smacking around his bs.
So his outright support for the public option before the “median” FDL commenter even “knew what it was” (I’d just love to see the math behind that) is why he is saying that he never campaigned on it?
Who do you truly think did more to put the public option on most people’s radar (not FDL commenter, but people in general who do have some idea about it) Obama or the “supposedly leftwing” segment of America that has was in favor it? You agree it shouldn’t drop off the radar and that Obama is too willing to let it drop off, but the fact is that he never even helped get it on the radar to start with.
No one who was for Obama now thinks he betrayed anybody.
It’s a simple fact that Lieberman and Nelson had the final say on this bill…THAT IS THE MAKE-UP OF CONGRESS.
Obama did all he could and this is the very best he could get…
DID TOM HARKIN BETRAY US TOO?
Of course not.
Make those senators act differently!? Are you effing serious?! LOL
Watch Barack give Joe a nugie and a fist bump and say that with a straight face.
He did? Really? Then you should be able to show us all of those TV appearances, town hall meetings, etc where he made his preferences clear these last eight months. You should be able to show where he leaned on wayward Congress critters, working with both houses to strip them of plum assignments or their constituencies of pork. So let’s see what you got.
Crickets. Whadda surprise.
Argument by assertion. The people calling his campaign promises a pack of lies are actually backing up their statements. Like the very start of this post:
So how about you actually start to make some cogent arguments rather than emoting all over the place?
What did the CBO have to say about the cost of the Iraq war?
Obama, NOT congress sold us out to the drug companies. Obama, NOT congress has moved heaven and earth to protect war criminals. Obama, not congress has chosen to go back on his promises about GITMO. I could go on and on. Don’t call me dishonest or uninformed because you blindly follow people who willful lie to you. I choose not to be that stupid.
good point, i’d forgotten that about krugman from the primary wars (tried to avoid them at the time and forget them since).
are you liberals nuts
I do not want the gov messing with my social security or medicare.
this is america and if we cannot make huge profits off the sick and needy then where are we going to make our billions.
capitalism is of god and socialism is of the devil
there is either god or the devil and I know god was a capitalist
if you want nationalized health care move to venice or anywhere in europe where they take care of their sick and needy
this is a religious nation and as a religious nation we dont need to do such a stupid thing
besides jesus said you will always have the poor and if we will always have the poor why not milk them for all we can get
god bless america truly the best nation on earth
we bring our moral values and freedoms to the entire world if they like it or not.
besides we deserve that oil in iraq and iran. we are freedom loving christians.
signed
just another christian repub in america the greatest country on earth
besides our church had a bake sale last week and we gave a family with a medical bill of 140,000 400 dollars to help pay for that bill.
at least they have a roof over their heads now and not on the street since they lost their home they are living under a bridge.
god bless america truly a nation under god and not one of those horrible atheists as we southern bapists from the south are repubs and loving people..
god is a repub you know. :-)
Progressives need to get together and come up with a strategy most of us can agree upon so that we are working toward the same goal.
There has been way to much anger flung in the direction of those of us who have been trying to get the attention of the Democratic Party’s establishment class for years. Way too much of it has come from progressives who believe in differing strategies. It is very frustrating.
completely agree (it pisses me off too, because i’ve had a year to hear propaganda about how the po was like sp — which as a matter of policy and politics is completely false).
A bit long winded but have you considered standup? Bush ran all over the Democrats even when Republicans were the minority party in Congress and his own job approval ratings were in the toilet so this idea that Obama is helpless in the White House is total BS as is your concern troll fears for progressives.
Maybe you should be concerned about the country which is not served by a President who talks like a progressive and acts like a conservative. Even if Obama were as weak and helpless as you portray him, no one is forcing him to lie about what he can and cannot do. If he can’t do something, he could just say so and keep his integrity at least. But as I said this is all BS. He didn’t just decide to keep the status quo in Afghanistan. He escalated. Sure seems he can act when he wants to. Same thing at the DOJ. You probably haven’t been reading the noxious bilge of recycled Bush era arguments on state secrets, immunity for torturing, pro-indefinite detention without trial, and anti-habeas screeds these contain but absolutely no one is forcing his Administration to be making them.
What really gets me about concern trolls like you though is that you wander into this site, apparently with no knowledge of its history or its discussions, and proceed to tell us the “truth”. This usually consists of talkingpoints that we have kicked around here and often dismissed a year or more ago. So if we seem unimpressed, it is because we are.
Kinda fun navigating between the cowpies, isn’t it? *g*
The fact that the Obama administration does not allow Americans to save money by buying pharmaceuticals from Canada (to evade the price gouging) is proof that Obama is corrupted by pharmaceutical interests. One could say our basic purpose in life as citizens is to buy whatever corporations put out there, and in fact subsidize them if need be. You could call this “corporatocracy” but I think some might call it fascism. Obama has gone too far to be credible anymore. I’m 67 now so at least I can maybe avoid much of the awful downhill slide this country is on.
@angryblackguy: I have two responses to your “two things”
1. What Obama could have done is bring the full force of public opinion down on the Democrats blocking the public option. I’m in the kill the bill camp because I have been in healthcare for 30 years, and I can guarantee you that mandates without cost controls and a public option will result in increased health insurance costs (born on the backs of the poor, the middle class and taxpayers in general)! And apparently this is pretty obvious to the wall street types as well given that we have seen stock prices of for profit insurance companies shoot skyward since the public option was in essence fully defeated.
So what could Obama have done? He could have said sorry, I can’t sign this bill because these Democrats (naming names) are more interested in kow-towing to their corporate campaign contributors than they are interested in you, the voter. Please help us win their defeat so we can get a bill that helps you, the public instead of the fat cats. Then he could have trotted out all the myraid of examples of the fat cats and how they are benefiting from this.
All politicians know that if you raise enough money in a campaign you can defeat ANY opponent. And the public at large would have helped him to get these DINOs out of the way, yes, even in NE and CT. And in fact the nation would have heralded him as having the balls to do it — particularly his base and the independents who brought him the presidency.
Unfortunately Obama doesn’t even seem to believe his own campaign rhetoric about “Change you can believe in.” It’s now “Change we can bereave in” instead.
2. I am sick to death of the supposition that Hillary can’t have a thought or political opinion of her own separate from her triangulating husband. It’s sexist and ingorant to boot. Hillary is and has always been much more liberal than Bill, and is definitely more liberal than Obama, particularly on social and civil/public rights issues.
All through the primaries we were told that there wasn’t a dimes bit of difference between their stated positions on the issues. “Stated positions” being the key phrase. There was, however, ample evidence that Obama would say one thing and do another, from FISA, to repeal of the patriot act to telecom immunity, support for GLBT issues, not taking lobbyist money (hell up until the presidential campaign he built his entire political career on lobbyist money, and once the campaign started he had them bundling money for him instead of writing checks to him directly — a complete crock of crap). His entire record is rife with this stuff.
With Hillary, what you see is what you get. She takes a position and sticks with it. Not the constant say one thing, do another that has ALWAYS been Obama’s MO.
Obama was elected because he was the perfect vehicle for people to project their hopes and dreams on, DESPITE the all to clear reality that folks refused to see. Color me completely, utterly and totally unsurprised by his current actions. I have voted democrat exclusively for 30 years in every election, and I said during his campaign and I say now, he is our party’s George Bush.
LOL! maybe if you can figure out how to make some good compost from them.
Wow, just wow, I can feel myself get stupider reading That Krugman post.
Talk about spin.
I am fully on board with that. I do think we need to draft a 3rd party candidate for 2012 that reflects our values. Dr. Dean? Rep. Kucinich? Or, my personal favorite, Sen. Feingold (who will never do it, though I wish he would).
Economists including Paul Krugman supported the massive bank bailouts while being completely unconcern with the fraud that is was built upon or the cost to the taxpayers. He also currently wants to seee another 2 trillion dollar job stimulus because the last $700 billion worked so well. He is an open supporter of Bernanake and has basically said that whatever the cost of bailing out the massively rich who puked the financial system the cost would be less than the alternative. We should be happy that trillions have been spent and billions misplaced so long as we continue to have Goldman Sachs alumni to our financial system. From time to time they might even need someone to shine their shoes.
Anybody can make a mistake or two.
the thing most disappointing is his sense that there was a need to make a case for his having been true to his campaign messages…
but he doesn’t have a sense that there is a need to explain what the Senate has wrought and what stands to come out of reconciliation…
that betrays something fundamental and I’m not yet sure what it is, but right now this is all very troubling…
marta, apparently not even hcan cares about it’s “health care principals.” i think we’ve been conned and now the dem leadership is going to get what they wanted — to continue the gravy train of $$ from the insurance, big pharma, etc industries.
There are plenty of non-political sites that have nothing but unhappy people (many of whom voted for them) bitching about Obama and democrats in Congress.
I’m sure there are. What my argument is about is whether the bitching is
1) justified
2) serving the interest of the bitcher, insofar as the bitcher genuinely longs to see progressive policy become law
The bitching about Obama and democrats is a widespread symptom of the malaise they are spreading, not a virus originating at FDL or elsewhere.
The “malaise” (nice touch with the kicking at arch-progressive Carter), insofar as there is malaise is due to a fucked up economy. The fucked up economy is due to misguided conservative economic policies.
I think it’s not that you are bugged about the bitching – it’s that you are bugged that the bitching has so much accuracy.
You may think so, but in reality what you’re hearing in your head is your poorly executed attempt at amateur psychology. In other words, you’re trading in sophistry and you’re wrong. The fact that you have to resort to these kinds of arguments should tell you something of the strength of your general argument.
It’s been the same as the bitching at GWB about going into war in Iraq.
No. Bitching about GWB in Iraq was right on the merits. Saddam did not have a plausible way to acquire nuclear weapons and we knew it. Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and we knew it. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq (before the war) and we knew it.
You’re just making a specious and fallacious argument consisting of the facts that 1) you opposed the Iraq war and 2) now you oppose the health care bill and Obama and therefore (2) must be right and proper.
The bitching about Obama and the democrats selling out the public option goes way back to when – they started selling out the public option.
Translation: You think Obama “sold out”, but even while I took the time and trouble to argue at length why that accusation is unfair, you will not give me the same courtesy, you will only assert that that’s the case. Not persuasive.
The problem is that on pretty much everything – from Obama going into court to defend torture and torturers to Obama
Granted, but OTOH he actually stopped us from actually keeping on torturing, and paid a political price for it.
selling out healthcare reform
Your opinion; you’re wrong; and you can’t be bothered to argue for it.
the complaints lodged have been accurate
Opinion as fact
while all the whines from the beginning that “on, noes, Obamas does wants publics options” have been proven over and over to be unsupported by fact
Have they? Not by you they freaking haven’t. You’re just parroting assertions, and accusations. Take a clue, and realize that likelyhood is that your right when you can make an actual convincing case for it. See that’s what GWB could not do in the run up to the Iraq war II. He could not make a case, he could only trade in sophistry, demagoguery and misinformation. I’d rather keep on the left of GWB where it matters.
researcher,
After that litany of I, me, my, you outline the very idea of healthcare reform. So your church helped a family with their medical bills? Same concept.
You’re a proud Republican. Good for you, but know what you are thinking before you post. Makes you look a little less ignorant.
Third party candidates are fine by me, but there is a tremendous amount of resistance from a large portions of progressives to building 3rd party momentum. It will probably be easier to get everyone on board to retake the D party rather than work from the outside. IMO.
Not one republican voted for the bill (or any bill with UHC) and the enemies are the democrats who couldn’t get an independent to change his position?
If Lieberman supported a public option, we’d have a public option. It’s really that simple.
It’s not like most democrats were fighting against it. We didn’t get it because of a guy who was mad at liberals. That’s the long and short of it.
Hear, hear!
We appear to be making a dent in Wellpoints stock price.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=wellpoint
Except of course the Nobel is not awarded by the Nobel Committee. Nobel hated economists and specifically said that no such prize should come from his money. The economic prizes comes from some Swedish bankers.
Parroting assertions?!
Please tell us about the historical accuracy of the CBO, there Polly.
Stupid is a condition.
Ignorance is a choice.
My counter:
1. If Obama did that, we’d have no bill given the timing of the mid-terms and no chance of doing it in the next 3 years. We’d have to roll the dice that we’d keep or increase our majorities in the house and senate and do it after 2012.
In other words, that is a dumb a$$ idea. You take the deal that gives you 30 million people covered and fix it later.
2. If everything you say is true, Hillary completely sold out by working for a guy she implied didn’t have the heft to answer the 3:00 AM call. I assume that Obama is picking up when she’s making that call now. And if I am not mistaken, hillary was heavily involved in the healthcare efforts the last time they failed so please stop trying to separate hillary and bill when it is convenient. On this issue in particular, they were working together on UHC.
Actually I am not neo-con. I believe we should get out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not believe that the US should be militarily engaged as it is around the world or that it should be so reliant on military power in its relations with other countries. I believe that if we ever should use our military power, it should be according to the dictates of the Powell Doctrine, and even then I would add in conjunction with the full support of our allies and the international community. I also believe that our armed forces should be much smaller than they currently are.
I really don’t think you know either what a neocon is or who I am. Obama was not my first choice. I did support him from about January 2008 to July 2008 largely because I thought he would win the nomination and I wished to avoid dissension within the Democratic party. I broke with Obama over his position on the FISA Amendments Act. I had been growing more disappointed in him but that was the final straw. I was either the first or one of the first on the web to write about how Obama was not about change but the return of the status quo Establishment. Like many, I knew Obama was not a progressive, but even I was surprised, at least initially, by how anti-progressive he was. Since then on most issues, including healthcare I have been right about where Obama was coming from, what he wanted, how he was going to do it, and how things turned out. If you don’t believe me you can ask others here for their opinion. When I start being significantly wrong in my predictions, then you can take me to task. But until then I have a track record and you have words. Note the difference.
Sorry but Lieberman, not being elected as a Democrat, only has his power because Democrats gave it to him.
He was elected in part because Obama and Clinton helped with his campaign against a Democrat.
That is the long and the short.
Well, CBOs estimates are smoke and mirrors.
While the insurance costs keep going up it score the bill as holding down costs. How? By forcing companies (through taxes) to offer poorer insurance, higher deductibles and co-pays. Sure they will keep spending down, but you are also getting worse insurance.
There is nothing to actual control medical costs.
Thought of the day:
If the dems wanted to immediately started working to get the public option done through reconciliation, now wouldn’t be the time to admit that, would it?
My faith in all that is good has been restored. Thank you.
It is telling to me that the posts that spend time actually conceding points, trying to find common ground, etc. are the posts by the realists.
When you hear someone say “Obama is no different than Bush” or “Obama loves corporations more than he wants to help the poor” you know you’re in for a rough read.
I appreciate well reasoned critiques of Obama. He deserves to be critiqued. That’s why libs are better than conservatives. They follow blindly. We don’t.
But what we’re seeing here is Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh in reverse. That’s absolutely terrifying. I have this sick feeling that I’ve been laughing at conservatives and their “litmus tests” while people on my side were gearing up to do the same thing.
Not good. Not good at all. We’re the good guys. We’re better than that.
Well, thank you. Though I have to concede that I’m enough of a partisan to feel that we on our side could use some more of the raw persuasive power of the wingnuts, even accept getting our hands dirty to a certain extent – but only if it makes progressive policy become law. Mainly because i have a strong faith in the power of implemented progressive policy to make this a better country. YMMV though, I respect your position.
OK. So we strip Lieberman of power and make sure that he doesn’t vote with dems at all.
That way, we’ll be certain that he’ll always vote for our . . . hey, wait a second.
lol, me too. i’d better go walk it off.
later friends….
I took it that was all just hyperbole and parady. Nobody could be that ignorant. At least, I certainly hope not, or at least, that they wouldn’t visit here.
No, that is not obvious at all.
He cut a deal with big insurance at the start and traded it away.
That’s an interesting (conspiracy) theory. Care to substantiate it with actual facts? Obama kept up pushing the PO all through the town halls of august and after that as well, albeit eventually with less fervor. Thats exactly the reason why he’s paying a political price now, he put it on the map from the start. Why would he do that, when he’d stand to lose political capital in the end?
Sorry, missed your post:
“Isn’t that Krugman’s main argument?
We are in a liquidity trap and pumping all this money into the banks isn’t doing any good because it just sits in their vaults?”
I don’t know if that’s his argument, it’s true, but the part I find ridiculous is his assertion that the fed should be ‘doing more’ to combat unemployment. It can’t because of the liquidity trap that you mention, but it doesn’t ‘control’ unemployment even when that is not the case. It’s unbelieveable to me that Krugman would not know this, y’know the prize thing and all.
I’m not interested in your advice.
Duly noted, I will offer it – to you – no more.
Glennzilla makes the case.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/16/white_house/index.html
If one assumes that there is a cap on out of pocket costs and that the additional moneyy comes out of the taxpayer kitty then there is a lot of motivation to push additional tests and procedures and get paid by the government for the additional work. Kind of a reverse incentive to control costs.
The technique of cost control comes from trying to motivate the person who controls the spending to spend less. When the spender is the government then they must take an active role by defining acceptable costs. As far as I know this bill has gone out of its way to not do that. The so-called death panels problem.
The “this is as close as we’re ever going to get (even though it’s FAR worse than what we’ve got and we’ll never get out of the strangle-hold once it’s enacted) argument from the Obama apologist crowd is starting to really piss me off.
It is FAR better than what we got. If you think otherwise you have been misinformed. I’d love to argue the point, WHEN you try to back up your opinions with clearly laid out substance. If you cannot, then you should realize that that is an indication of something.
Bush did more with a smaller majority.
You’re thinking that there was no long term plan and that is not correct.
Because he’s a lying little corporate puppet, he lied to his base then sold them out.
Good link, dead on. Whoocudanode??
“UPDATE: It’s also worth noting how completely antithetical claims are advanced to defend and excuse Obama. We’ve long heard — from the most blindly loyal cheerleaders and from Emanuel himself — that progressives should place their trust in the Obama White House to get this done the right way, that he’s playing 11-dimensional chess when everyone else is playing checkers, that Obama is the Long Game Master who will always win. Then, when a bad bill is produced, the exact opposite claim is hauled out: it’s not his fault because he’s totally powerless, has nothing to do with this, and couldn’t possibly have altered the outcome. From his defenders, he’s instantaneously transformed from 11-dimensional chess Master to impotent, victimized bystander.
The supreme goal is to shield him from all blame. What gets said to accomplish that goal can — and does — radically change from day to day.”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/16/white_house/index.html
I agree, there is actual incentives to increase medical costs.
I was just saying the CBO score was bogus, because it scores reduced coverage as reduced spending.
Wow, Jane Hamsher destroyed Caroline Kennedy?
Was that on Celebrity Deathmatch? What was the Finishing Move? It involved fire, surely, given the name of this blog. Amirite?
Substance:
What we have: barely affordable insurance that denies coverage and gives people the run around for the cost of 30% of their premiums.
What we’re going to get: barely affordable mandatory insurance that will still deny coverage (through the loopholes in the legislation they helped write) and will still give people the run around for a 15% skim off of their uncapped, jacked up insurance premiums.
Your job at doing damage control is seriously compromised by the reality of the situation.
As far as I know the Fed, the Treasury and Krugman have all been past supporters of the idea that this was a liquidity problem. Thus ZIRP, TARP and all of the other backdoor mechanisms that put free money in the hands of the banks. The problem being that we are probably in a debt crisis. Nearly every business that might want to borrow already owes money they may not be able to repay. Which means that the banks sit on the free money or try various short term gains including putting money into the stock market and commodities. If banks, individuals and businesses have too much debt then loaning money is not safe because the banks might need it and they can’t be sure that anyone else is safe. Thus Fannie and Freddie now are the mortgage market. They are the buyer and the government owns them.
So his outright support for the public option before the “median” FDL commenter even “knew what it was” (I’d just love to see the math behind that) is why he is saying that he never campaigned on it?
Isn’t it fairly obvious that what he is saying now – that there is no material difference between what he campaigned on and what’s in the senate bill – he is saying for political reasons? So that people like you will not abstain from voting because he was not able to achieve the maximal result?
Like I already stated, I think it is a strategic mistake to trivialize the public option now, like he does, and I’m perfectly willing to critisize him on that (narrow) point. Because I see a battle lost and a war still going on.
So, no that is not “why he is saying that”; he is saying that for (IMHO) shortsighted political reasons. Put another way: deducing Obamas strategic goals one year back from how he acts after it is apparent that not all of them will be attained is a fallacy. Deducing those goals from his actions one year back or half a year back is more reasonable, wouldn’t you say? And then he was talking up the PO, just like I said.
Who do you truly think did more to put the public option on most people’s radar (not FDL commenter, but people in general who do have some idea about it) Obama or the “supposedly leftwing” segment of America that has was in favor it?
Obviously, I can only speak for myself. The first time I ever heard about the PO was from Obama talking it up. Of course I now know it was originally pushed by that wonk (Hacket?) who some days ago wrote an opinion piece in TNR arguing the absolute opposite of your and FDLs position, i.e. that we should support the senate bill as an imperfect first step.
Still, for me at least, Obama used his pulpit to make it an issue.
You agree it shouldn’t drop off the radar and that Obama is too willing to let it drop off, but the fact is that he never even helped get it on the radar to start with.
Yes I agree he is, because he wants progressives to feel ok with the bill, now that it was not possible to put the PO in the bill. Lieberman and the Repubs (=41!) made that impossible.
My point is that it costs us absolutely nothing to keep it on the radar, all the while giving props to Obama for whats in the bill. That’s the way forward.
Then I have to ask you to actually back your assertions up? If not Obama then who? Who got the american public to think about the public option, and how did they do it?
Well maybe you should start first. Nothing you offered was backed up by any evidence. You just made a statement without any proof and then said if the other guy doesn’t prove theirs they can’t say anything. What? I can tell you with all sincerity though with no proof since it still is a projection, that foisting a mandate on people with NO cost controls is a recipe for electoral disaster. That’s kind of easy and common sense. As opposed to your argument that telling people you are going to decide what’s good for them and they’re going to have to agree to it or be penalized. That’s just a terrible argument to make. I still hold to what I’ve been saying: this is the Democrats’ “Mission Accomplished”. They may look good at first, but then all the holes will start appearing between what they promised and what they’ve delivered and this will be a permanent disaster. You can’t be the party of “the little guy” and have put into effect the biggest corporate welfare package in US history. After that, you have absolutely nothing to run on because no one takes you seriously.
And let us not forget the ability to charge those with pre existing anything they want. But hey, at least no one can deny them coverage right?
You do know that the burden of proof is on you, right? Show us these impassioned town hall meetings that you say exist. Give us actual quotes. I don’t remember any of this. But since you say they exist, you should have no problem posting links, right?
trigger happy finger, will post anew…
Your “counter” is nothing but a bald assertion of opinion with no facts to back it up. It’s also a blatant attempt to move the goal posts.
Tell me again how we know that “60 votes just weren’t there” if Obama applied no discernible pressure.
As already pointed out, congress legislates
As Hugh pointed out ever so eloquently the reason everyone is upset has very little to do with congress aside from the HCR debate. Stop spewing your Orahma talking points and ignoring evidence given you by fact.
You are 100% correct.
Ann,
Yes, I wondered the same, except it was a bit too sincere. Just covering the bases!
Paul Krugman also thinks that keeping the Fed interest rates low in an unreformed financial market that is creating myriad little speculative asset bubbles with the easy money is also a good policy. Apparently not realizing that the whole point of expansionary monetary policy is for the money to reach Main Street, not to shore up insolvent banks. Raising rates would be disastrous, but only because it would induce a financial crisis, not because it’d kill the underlying economy; the money isn’t getting to us anyway. Taking the paper cover off of our “resolved” financial crisis is going to have to happen in order to see real recovery.
Paul Krugman isn’t an idiot, but he’s sometimes trapped in his own limited narrative, by not taking his ideas far enough. He isn’t infallible.
Of course I can appreciate your appeal to authority, it absolves you of the responsibility of actually deconstructing and understanding the concepts and details. Unfortunately it is still a logical fallacy.
I also wonder…sure disappeared fast, no?
He did [go for the public option]? Really? Then you should be able to show us all of those TV appearances, town hall meetings, etc where he made his preferences clear these last eight months.
I recall him saying as a standard line in his speeches, his adresses to the nation on the web, his talk show appearances that he thought that the bill should include a public option to provide proper competition for the insurance industry, “to keep them honest” I think the prefered choice of words were. Correct or incorrect?
You should be able to show where he leaned on wayward Congress critters
I should be able to show what was said behind closed doors? Even granting that he did not – in your view sufficiently – lean on congress… What does that prove exactly. There’s an implied assumption that there were leverage and a clear path with high probability of success in the view of the admin. How do you know this?
My point is that I think it is pretty clear that Obama wanted the public option as he originally put it on the radar. But second guessing strategy after the fact is deceptive. As it were, the PO became an ideological focal point which made bluedogs like Nelson and Laundrieu chicken out and Lieberman see a nice opportunity to be a bitch and fuck with the democrats. What if they’d just quietly left it in the bill and pushed something else? Maybe it would still be there. Hindsight is 20/20 when you’re prone to magical thinking.
working with both houses to strip them of plum assignments or their constituencies of pork.
1) Committee chairmanship, in case that is what you mean is in the demcratic caucus voted on democratically. It would be preferable if Reid had the power to take it away, so as to wield armtwisting power – like the republicans. However, I assume that the democratic caucus would have to vote to effect that change. In other words what exactly do you freaking expect Obama to do here?? He’s not Harry Reid, and Harry Reid does not have this power.
2) “Constituencies of pork”. So in “reality”, he would have to get Lieberman. What exact leverage would work on Lieberman in your humble opinion? If you can’t offer it then you have to realize that you expect Obama to dream up what you cannot yourself deliver.
Argument by assertion. The people calling his campaign promises a pack of lies are actually backing up their statements.
It most certainly was not, it was properly argued for. You may not agree with the argument but do us a favour and learn the meaning of the terms before jumping in the water.
The ultimate implication of calling Obamas platform a “pack of lies” (because of the inability to get the PO signed into law) is that any candidate for POTUS is always campaigning on a “pack of lies”. Because they campaign on proposed policies that has to be effectuated by acts of lawmaking. And the POTUS does, de facto not have powers of lawmaking. So it will always be – to a certain extend and specifically in the ultimate end – out of his hands to see to it that any and every detail in his proposed policies will in fact become the law of the land.
If you like to argue the latter (everything is all a pack of lies, etc), fine, but that rather makes the whole exercise kind of pointless, wouldn’t you say?
So, to summarize, my argument was NOT that Obama did not campaign on the public option and were not able to achieve it. That’s most obviously true. He did campaign on it and he wasn’t able to achieve it. My point was that it is disingeneous and incorrect to characterize those facts as “a pack of lies”, rather it should be called “a reality of US politics”.
In other words: “strawman”.
I am so very angry that this man is so phony and such a liar. He is a tyical politician but he lies better than most, is nothing more than a charleton and a snake oil salesman. Now this is what we have ot look forward to for the next 3 years from the RahmObama Administration, more lis and deceit. Obama gives new meaning to throw the bums out.
As outraged as I am with the way Obama has been playing this, at least you’re making a reasoned argument and are open to multiple possibilites as to why this is gaming out the way it is. It restores some of my faith in the discourse.
I’ll now brace myself for the invective and shrieks of ‘OBAMABOT!!!’
yellowsnapdragon,
I absolutely agree. There is a growing discontentment now, and not undeservedly so. I got from another website the phrase “malcontent party”. Is that what the Democrats want to be known as?
There is altogether too much want for instant gratification. Politics has never operated that way. Incrementalism has been the only effective way of legislating.
I realize the healthcare reform fight is measured in American lives, just as in war, but to be lumped in with the birthers, deathers, baggers and Palin sycophants?
I’m beginning to sound like a broken record, but the anti-trust exemption must be given a hard look once more. So much time and energy has been spent on the Public Option, that that is the only arrow left in the quiver?
Since there are only two entities that enjoy the exemption, Baseball and the HII, the “playing field” must be leveled. Baseball never killed anyone (at least not purposely), so why no outrage about the HII? That is my question to everyone.
What service does the insurance industry provide that’s worth handing them control over 1/6 of our economy?
Why, they help control costs. That’s why. In fact, they’re so good at it, they’ve managed to double them in the last 10 years. They’re SO great. Let’s give them 30 million more customers and CIGNA’s CEO $73.2 million. YAAY OBAMA! Pat yourself on the back some more. Hey Tom Harken, call Harry an historical figure for blocking any serious reform! Now get out there and spread the word about how great this Protect the Profits Act is so we can either get re-elected, OR even better, land a SWEET job through the revolving door.
You do know that the burden of proof is on you, right?
This is incorrect, once again. It is the person pushing the conspiracy theory as fact who is weighted down by the burden of proof to back it up.
-”The CIA killed JFK”
-”What proof have you got?”
-”Prove they didn’t”
I think not.
Show us these impassioned town hall meetings that you say exist.
I said nothing about “impassioned town hall meetings”, did I? I said he pushed the PO actively, for most of the year, town hall meetings and all. And he did. “Keep industry honest”, remember?
Give us actual quotes. I don’t remember any of this. But since you say they exist, you should have no problem posting links, right?
Sure, no problem. Why should I not do all the work because of your ability to remember or not remember?
Obama address July 18th, public option keep industry honest
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17458981/President-Obamas-Weekly-Address-July-18-2009-Transcript-and-Video-Link
News conference july 22, public option, keep industry honest
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/23/politics/main5182101.shtml
Town hall august 11, public option, keep industry honest
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Town-Hall-on-Health-Insurance-Reform-in-Portsmouth-New-Hampshire/
Axelrod sept 6, public option, keep industry honest (arguably starting to walk back a bit in face of political reality, well noticed at the time) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32703935/ns/meet_the_press/
Does this mean that you will now concede the point like a good (and intellectually honest) boy?
Thanks
Ann,
One shot blunder. Maybe you’re right, after all.
Razorbrain wrote:
I guess you don’t know what her job for the CHI University Hospital system was then. She was a PR flac for them, and one of her major functions was to promote a program that dumped patients without insurance to other hospitals (yes, patient dumping). And for that she was paid $300K a year. That should have been your first clue that Obama was on the wrong side of the healthcare issue.
It means of course that he lies, tells falsehoods again, and that you were foolish to have put your faith in him doesn’t it. But the real stunt, is his statement keeps us talking about him emoting at each other instead of discussing the disaster this bill will be for our economy our families as a nation we can not afford a new entitlement such as this no matter how noble sounding another way must be found. Our countries debt limit is a 56% now. My belief, confirmed in my view by his statement, was that Kennedy, Obama and Pelosi, and Brown were always about passing a Social Health Welfare bill and the health care BS reform stuff was just a cover the ole okey dokey to string you along and it worked, again.
Well maybe you should start first [providing proof why the bill is FAR better or worse than the status quo]. Nothing you offered was backed up by any evidence. You just made a statement without any proof and then said if the other guy doesn’t prove theirs they can’t say anything. What? I can tell you with all sincerity though with no proof since it still is a projection, that foisting a mandate on people with NO cost controls is a recipe for electoral disaster. That’s kind of easy and common sense. As opposed to your argument that telling people you are going to decide what’s good for them and they’re going to have to agree to it or be penalized. That’s just a terrible argument to make.
You are correct, I did not provide proof. That is because I responded to a very lazy poster who thought it was ok to assert that the bill is “FAR worse” without offering evidence. If I would start to dig up proof why it’s not “FAR worse” then I will do the work that the other guy is to lazy to do and just because he is to lazy to do it.
You digg?
So the reasons it’s not “FAR worse”. It subsidizes everyone making up to 44k$ per year. Those people will get affordable health insurance. People under 120% of the poverty line will get medicaid. Everyone will get a whole range of new consumer protections, i.e. they will no longer get dropper b/o preexisting conditions. Insurance companies will be forced by law not to charge women more than men. They can only charge the elderly up to 300% of young people vs. today up to 1200%. Cap on out of pocket costs for moderate earners vs. today no cap. The subsidized, individual market purchases will be made on new insurance exchanges – if the insurance companies frivolously hikes premiums they will get kicked out of the exchanges and loose business, — Price Control! –. The insurance companies must use 80-85% of premiums to pay for actual care, — Price Control! –. Etc….
The “individual mandate” is in my view justifiable because: the median income is below 44k$ / year. Given the free choice there will always be people who, even though they could afford it, prefer to gamble. This is a bad gamble, for them, for their families and for me. It is a bad gamble for them and their families because if they loose they may go bancrupt and get bad care and they might die as a consequence. It is a bad gamble for me because they will have to get extremely expensive care (i.e. through ER) and the tab ends up on my tax bill. Furthermore, without the mandate, new insurees will be across the board more unhealthy than with it, which will make premiums in general go up, which may make the bill unpopular. Furthermore, the mandate, is – all else equal – liked by HC providers because it increases their business. Reality in our lobbying sensitive form of government is that you can’t get anything done without having at least some business interests on your side. I.e. if you dislike it, the solution is reform of our form of government and campaign financing – not bitching at the flawed but good holding out for the perfect.
That’s all I can be bothered to produce right now, let’s hear from the other side.
I still hold to what I’ve been saying: this is the Democrats’ “Mission Accomplished”. They may look good at first, but then all the holes will start appearing between what they promised and what they’ve delivered and this will be a permanent disaster.
On the politics, I can’t say honestly. Most people have insurance, they’ll see the new consumer protections and some high earners and/or ppl with expensive coverage will see taxes. Most newly insured will see subsidized affordable insurance. Some people will see the 2,5% penalty. How will it play out? Not sure. How much of a difference would a weak PO make? Not sure there either. Are you?
You can’t be the party of “the little guy” and have put into effect the biggest corporate welfare package in US history.
It insures 30M new ppl who will get good care when they are sick. The “corporate wellfare” is b/o political reality we could not pass this without “corporate welfare”. Should we not insure the 30M then? Easy choice huh?
Sherwood’s argument is that poor Obama has no control. He wasn’t able to achieve a public option because politics are so damn hard and he can’t help it if Harry Reid and the rest of the pack of back door deal makers can’t deliver what the public wants, so now we need to support Barack for ushering in what no thinking, conscientious person should ever want: mandatory, government-enforced privatization of our healthcare. If you thought a public option (a POPULAR concept) was out of reach before this bill, it will be unquestionably out of reach after. The guy (leader?) who stood by and let the rape take place without so much as a peep (screw the campaign “keep industry honest” rhetoric, where has he or his henchmen been during debate over the content of the bill?) in defense of the public option, is now giving himself kudos.
Sherwood is trying to parse words and break through the apologist position by saying we need to sacrifice integrity for practicality even if the practicality is an abomination. Wrong. This is a take-over, pure and simple. The president enabled it and will pass it gleefully.
That was more like your $20 than your 2 cents, but for the value. You are clearly an unabashed, shameless apologist for the Democratic Party. To blame the failure of the current legislative exercise in health care reform on our form of government and give the politicians a pass – not just Obama but all the fake “progressives” who will hold their noses and vote YEA – and to suggest that the deep frustration of true progressives who express themselves on these pages – the median FDL poster/commenters, as you call them (or put them down) – is misplaced, that it isn’t politically realistic, as you claim you are, is to not recognize that rage and frustration, politically ineffective as you wrongly believe it is, was at the very foundation of every great movement, was at the very foundation of our nation. To draw a line in the sand, unlike you would do, unlike the crafters of the bill including the “progressives” did, unlike Obama did, is to express a political reality which can be respected. A line in the sand was the necessary pre-condition of every positive change this country, and I dare say the world, has ever seen. What was right became what was right politically, not the other way around. To not draw that line, as opposed to what you seem to believe, is political suicide. The Dem’s will die, stick in hand, because they chose NOT to draw the line in the sand. (Hey don’t steal that, I’m going to use it in a lyric!)
Rage and frustration, and a positive vision, can and must be the basis of political change and of a new political movement. Being sick and tired of being sick and tired of a system which continually screws over laborers, women, gays, blacks, Latinos, in short, the working class, can be the basis for the greatest democratic movement the world has ever seen.
You are NOT a progressive, no matter what you call yourself, because you still trust this system which has proven over and over that, regardless of whether Dem’s or Repub’s hold majorities, it doesn’t work for People but for Money and for propagating the status quo Power structure. Your failure to recognize why so many contributors to these pages are outraged actually makes you a bit of an anachronism. You fail to recognize that this so-called health care reform simply is bad for us, that it’s just another shock doctrine corporate payday, the transformation of a tragic condition in which people suffer on many levels for lack of health care into Big Insurance profits, less reproductive health for women, etc., etc. and, in the end, we probably still wind up with people suffering for lack of health care; you fail to recognize that rage and frustration is the appropriate response. What you mistakenly call political realism is just selling out. This bill is not an incremental step to some future bill that will really help people but a big step away from such a bill.
The time is coming to overthrow the Democrat/Republican political duopoly because it isn’t working. It’s that simple. This failed administration – yes, it already is failed – guarantees the Republicans will regain power, perhaps as soon as 2012. And it’s not just this anti-people health care bill – which the majority of all Americans now oppose – that will be at fault. Consider the absence of any new controls on Wall Street and the banking industry, consider Obama’s Greenspan-ian (if I may coin that) world view with regard to this industry (at least Greenspan admitted he was wrong), consider Obama’s Orwellian War is Peace policy and his weakness with regard to climate change policy. Stick a fork in him. But this is far from the entire picture.
The Dem’s who will leave your party in droves – some of whom have posted their heartfelt frustration here – who are finally seeing the light, are still hungry for political change, and not just the kind of change which occurs at the ballot box. Rather, real progressives recognize that the change we need is much more elemental than what electoral options presently offer. I hope you eventually realize that change won’t be coming from the party to which you seem to have pledged your allegiance, that your candidate has been shown up as a kind of Manchurian candidate, and that your administration of Hope already has proven to be the administration of Nope.
Hotdog, i’d like to respond at length to your post. Unfortunately, I have argued very outspokenly for an (on this site) unpopular position, and as I like to post well argued, well supported posts that takes up very much time.
Now it’s 1900, i’m on my vacation, and in one hour I will go to dinner with my friends.
Seeing that I have to take a shower, and seeing that your post:
- contains various accusations, assertions and conspiracy thinking about the big boys and backdoor deals, with nothing to back it up.
- although it comes in response to a number of posts by me where i – by investing a considerable amount of my time and energy – have tried to make an honest and open case for what i believe and then you cannot be bothered to respond in kind, nor respond to what i have said so far, through the correct use of quotes and intellectual honesty.
…Seeing all that, I won’t bother. I’m going for dinner. Anyhow, FWIW I offered you the arguments of one “realist”.
Until next time
Marta, and others who are planning not to donate to candidates or help…can I point out the fundamental unfairness of what you’ve said, and propose a better New Year’s resolution?
First, this election is crucial for redistricting. If Democrats stay away from the polls, the consequences will reverberate for a decade, making it far, far harder to regain losses in the Congress.
Second, let’s be clear that the head of the DNC, Howard Dean, had nothing to do with the failure to include a public option. He argued as hard as a man in his position can do for the public option.
That doesn’t mean you should necessarily give money to the DNC, but don’t withhold it over the public option.
But more to the point, there are good candidates out there, many of them not incumbents and therefore innocent of any wrongdoing, and some of them not in a primary against a Democrat, and therefore certainly not going to cost a seat. Some of them will replace Democrats who have not represented their districts well.
I’ll have no trouble supporting Democrats, but I’ll be very, very selective about which ones. And I will tell every one of them that I’m donating in hope that they’ll work for public campaign finance, because this last Congress has proven that it’s so corrupt that it can no longer serve the people.
ETA: the same w/r to your post. Also “true scotsman”. Spare me your interpretation of “progressive”. Read my posts. You are presently confused. Learn to distinguish between policy goals, the road to get there, and compromise.
As you clearly stated you are an “Obama fan.”
I vote on issues and i do not care who supports them or who opposes them. As they say, that’s just business. Now, if you lie to me and pretend to support the issues they I do and then it turns out you do not and then act as if you are doing what I wanted in the first place, I will always take that personally. I will never forget. It also makes it easier to listen to the Libertarian positions. Ultimately, they believe in small government because of corruption.
So do I! Obama may end up being a worse president than Bush. He is certainly willing to take the democrats over the cliff with him on this one. The best thing about Obama being president and the dems having the majority is now we know for certain that they are both full of sht.
“those people will get affordable health insurance.”
Are you writing the policies sherwood? Define affordable.
“if the insurance companies frivolously hikes premiums they will get kicked out of the exchanges and loose business”
Collusion is real. How are you going to shop around when your employer says, this is what you get, like it or find another job?
“80-85% on actual care”
An accountant’s dream and an impotent, overworked auditor’s nightmare.
“some business interests on your side?” You mean like 6 lobbyists for every congressman? Subsidies is another word for free-pipeline-into-taxpayer wallets i.e. corporate welfare.
You can’t be dropped for a pre-existing condition, but you sure as hell will be if you can’t pay your premium.
Insurance is nothing but an extortionist middleman getting it’s cut because it can hold you and your family’s health hostage using a you’d-better-pay-up-or-else threat. They will now have complete control.
I’m thinking you can’t be serious. “Who” got the American public to think about the public option if not Obama??
The idea of citizens being able to buy into a government sponsored program ahs been kicked around since at least when I was a kid, several decades ago. It was discussed heavily during Clinton’s admin when he took his failed pass at healthcare. It’s been a cornerstone of the healthcare delivery systems of several western nations. Not only did Gore not invent the internet, Obama was NOT a formative force on the public option front.
If you truly FIRST heard of the public option from Obama, when? During campaigning (btw, if lieing about what he did or did not campaign on as a politcal ploy to get people “like me” to keep voting for him is a part of his political strategy, I think you’ve very clearly explained why he can’t be looked to for competent leadership going forward) or the health care debates in connection with the legislation or – when? I think the “median” FDL reader (if not commenter) has heard the public option concept bantered about for years stretching into decades.
As to where most Americans(not otherwise enmeshed in healthcare issues) got exposed to the public option, I think it is from coverage of the “fight” over the public option. Guess where that “fight” came from? Hint: it wasn’t the White House. I know for my part, a lot of discussion of the public option I have seen comes in social networking and internet communities – not just political blogs but forums where people with shared interests like dogs or religion or green spaces etc.
I know my experience with social sites is that everyone from unabashed Palin supporters to Paul supporters to Obama-ites were all pretty much in favor of the public option (including some doctors) after the discussion was underway. A lot of them didn’t know much about it originally and most either heard about it from the site discussions or heard that there were “liberals” and the “left wing of the Democratic party” who were fighting over the public option and went to their social board/site to see *what the deal was with that.* I have yet to hear anyone in any conversations or cyberconversations I have participated in – until you – say they first heard about a public option from Obama. I have heard many say – (including the Palins and the Pauls) *why don’t they “just” pass the public option and slow down the rest of it*
Where obstructionists lose cover is the public option. When you put the Dems and WH on the side of not passing a public option – and you couple that with a really offensive deal where all the non-Nebraskans are saying “why do WE have to pay Nebraska’s healthcare costs” and seeing the deal as nothing but corruption – you shoot the package in the foot.
And people ask why the one thing that those from Palin to Kucinich backers mostly agree on in a bipartisan fashion – the ability to buy into a government program – is the one thing that neither party is going to give us. Dems could have made “we will let you buy into the same healtcare coverage your Rep and Senator have” their centerpiece and defused most of the teabagger situation as well as turned fire on those Senators and Reps “who don’t want you to have what they have” and the whole tone would have been different. Instead, they did what they did. Which was to basically widen the base of citizens (not dems or repubs)who feel disenfranchised by and angry with their govt.
Anyone who thinks it’s a good tactical decision to alienate citizens from gov on the way to increasing the market for private insurance companies has goals that are hard to sell to any “base”
In response to ltrs #260–thanks for bolstering my argument with additional details about Michelle’s heinous work at the Chicago hospital, but please note that you erroneously attributed romo2austin’s lamguage to me in your comment.
Aside from that, sending you love lol.
redwein,
This is not to denigrate you, but what are your alternatives? Much of the disparity of the Liberal/Progressive movement is justified, in my opinion, by Obama’s recent actions, and those of Congress and the Senate, but if you present rhetoric without some solution or avenue to work from, you are sounding like a teabagger.
angryblackguy:
1. Like I said I’m in the kill the bill camp. I’m already paying $13K for health insurance per year for a family of two, and this bill isn’t going to help anyone get “coverage.” Coverage? Forcing you buy insurance you cannot afford at sky high rates is not coverage — it’s just forcing you to buy insurance at sky high rates OR fining you (taxing you) if you don’t. By the time this kicks in 3.5 years from now the subsidies won’t even cover the increase in rates from today’s costs.
The health insurance industry stocks are not shooting up right now for no reason, I would remind you. Basic logic should inform you that you don’t force 30 million people to buy something from a private, for profit entity, and expect the price to go down. Not going to happen. Show me where auto insurance rates decreased when it was made mandatory? Didn’t happen. Show me where tort reform resulted in lower malpractice insurance rates? Also didn’t happen.
Why the mandates? So the premiums of healthy people will pay for the healthcare costs of the pre-existing crowd. I’m a liberal and that’s fine with me. What is not fine with me is throwing us all to the for profit wolves as part and parcel of the plan. There is really nothing you can say to justify that, I don’t believe.
2. I’m sorry, but it’s laughable to suggest that Hillary would have commanded herself in the same way as Obama when it came to healthcare. And history refutes you on that point as well. Clearly you didn’t pay attention at the debates when she practically smirked him out of the room with his naive or just plain BS answers to those questions.
The country did not have the political will to advance healthcare reform legislation when Bill was in office, and frankly he didn’t have the balls to do it. Particulary given the fact that a) things were no where near as bad as they are now, and b) Bill was completely and totally committed to getting his economic agenda passed, and felt that healthcare reform could wait. It is not Hillary’s fault that Bill failed totally in that regard, and quite frankly, her approach of shutting the door on the special interest in healthcare would be exactly the right approach right now, now that the public is in full agreement that they are the major problem.
What a difference 16 years makes, eh?
I got it. I guess you fail to realize that. I suggest that your strategy will not, not ever, lead to your goals. That you are an anachronism. That your party is dead and an obstacle to change. And that you have a royalty complex a mile wide – you really talk down to people, none of whom care that you’re going out to dinner – and so it’s no wonder you’ve adopted such an elitist, pseudo-progressive posture.
Afraid I have to disagree. Another example–a small but telling one–of President Obama taking a dive was on the issue of releasing the torture photos. He was for it. Then Dick Cheney started going around accusing President Obama of hurting the troops, threatening national security and President Obama folded.
I agree completely with Drew Westen. I no longer have a clue what his core beliefs are, or if he has any.
hehe. I still believe that if you parse the president correctly, you’d find that he never endorsed the public option in any real sense and always intended to screw us. Nope, he didn’t lie. He just parsed his words carefully. He always planned to see us burn on a cross of blue ;-P
“This is not to denigrate you, but what are your alternatives? Much of the disparity of the Liberal/Progressive movement is justified, in my opinion, by Obama’s recent actions, and those of Congress and the Senate, but if you present rhetoric without some solution or avenue to work from, you are sounding like a teabagger.”
You ask a fair question but I first want to clarify a couple of things. First, what do you mean by “Much of the disparity….?” Do you mean despair? Or do you mean that a disparity exists between progressives and Obama along with the Dem-controlled Congress due to what progressives perceive as the implementation of policies which are antithetical to progressive goals, and that that perception and rejection is justified. (Sorry to make that so long, and I’m not even a lawyer.)
Second, what’s with the “teabagger” tag on everything which rubs some people the wrong way? I’m not even sure what defines a teabagger but, having seen them do their thing, I can tell you unequivocally I’m not one. Granted, spouting rhetoric and being a nonconstructive critic might make me many things that I wouldn’t want to be, but teabagger isn’t one of them.
So, if you’ll allow me dangerously to assume my second interpretation of what you asked, I believe in changing our political and economic structures to engender mass redistribution of the wealth of our nation to the People. Ownership of businesses by workers rather than by a Capitalist class, but not precluding individual ownership of small enterprise. I can go on and on but, in brief and essentially, I believe in Socialism. How this comes about is simple but, need I say, far from easy. I’m not sure but maybe it begins with workers who, based on recognition of their condition as this country’s second class and as victims of a system steadily moving toward totalitarian plutocracy/fascism, are willing to break the law, to have mass strikes in violation of current labor law (Taft-Hartley, e.g.) with the goal being to wrest control of business from the Capitalist class, and to reorganize the current form of government to one which first and foremost serves the People, which by definition means non-Imperialistic, fully transparent and accountable, in which our elected leaders represent an agenda which is truly democratic lest they be replaced whenever necessary. We’re as far from or as close to that kind of world as we are willing or unwilling to settle for our present condition. Is the means to that end revolution? Probably. But if you believe, as I do, that our current system never will yield (to) true democracy, then this might be an alternative worth fighting for. (And to preempt all the closet McCarthy-ites in the house, I unequivocally reject Stalinism, Maoism, this-ism, that-ism, give peace a chance-ism [sorry JL, though I love you dearly]. I favor democratic Socialism.)
I would call Obama snake-tongued, but I don’t want to malign snakes.
But would we even have gotten this far in re: health care reform if Libertarians ran the show? Please note – read my other posts – that I oppose the bill with all my heart. I basically agree with Marta, though I’m to her left and would have been happy to know her as a neighbor when I lived in Venice long ago. Not always but in re: Libertarianism, “Better the devil you know…..
The progressive dems like Krugman are ultimately being used to force us to fall in line behind Obama. This is among many reasons I have quit and joined the greens. I don’t think their are any better democrats. I think the progresssives just pretend to be on our side like Obama did.
What I think Obama’s compromses represent is the political weakness of the left. It is the political right that controls talk radio, and much media. The political right basically represent working class people –the tea baggers are working class people. The political left, on the other hand, for the most part are educated, middle class people who won’t be too adversely affected by the healthcare bill that is about to be passed by the Senate.
The political left is more righteous than political. It is the political right that has been organizing over the past thrity-forty years; the politica left has been mostly complaicent, and still is.
The political right speaks to America’s working class. It is anti-abortion, anti-gay, favors prayer in the schools and guns, and believes in America’s long standing faith in individualism. The political left is easily gullible because all it has is its righteousness. It doesn’t really have any “skin in the game.”
Now you guys are defending teabaggers? Case closed.
You are not progressive then what are you?
I wish you wouldn’t conflate “progressive” with “Democrat”. Two different animals unless the word “progressive” is to become meaningless.
I wish you wouldn’t conflate “progressive” with “Democrat.” Two very different animals. If “progressive” means moving toward a more democratic society, I would argue there is no such thing as a progressive Democrat. Though some would be progressives are still members of the Democrat party.
I didn’t conflate anything or mention democrats. Look at that quote from Dameocrat.
You guys have become Teabaggers, and now that Hamsher is colluding with Norquist and Faux News the transformation is complete.
The self reported demographics of the teabaggers do not show them to be working class. Most of them are middle class to upper class.
Neither party is representing the interests of the working or middle classes. You culture war issues are fights between two college educated upper middle class groups in washington.
I erred in responding to you and not Dameocrat and then corrected that to the best of my ability. But please can the “teabagger” name-calling. It serves no positive purpose, first of all. And with regard to me, you have no idea who I am and obviously have read nothing I’ve written previously.
redwein,
The disparity (maybe that was the wrong word) I speak of is that there are so many differing attitudes among the Dems, myself being one of them, that it is hard to delineate who believes in what anymore.
The teabag reference was made, because there are those who can only grouse-no solutions or answers (I realize as individuals, we can do only so much), just more of the “I want”. You are not among those, but post after post, no one has even a dim idea of what to do. I suppose I’ve been at this for too long.
I agree with your last paragraph, but if you see my other posts, I am of the belief that incrementalism is the only way we get what we need (wants have never entered the picture, except in the case of the baggers). I suppose marches and the like work for some, but I need more info on who, what, where and how to begin the changes you speak of. Believe me, I’m more in agreement than you may think, but before I commit, I need to see that I’m not doing what most of us did during the last election cycle.
I don’t feel as betrayed as some, since I didn’t vote for Obama (I registered as a Dem after the election, to get into the healthcare reform movement), but the House and Senate (especially the Senate) have basically done nothing but disappoint.
So I guess my question is, how do we get to point “B”?
Also most climate skeptics, which are part of the teabagger demographic are shown to be well off highly educated white men, and these were also the people most likely to listen to rush limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html#P
Exit polling data continues to show that the richer you are the more republican you are and the poorer you are the more democratic you are. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
Rush and Beck’s audience are not the “poor white trash”
I should have specified “progressive democrats.” I am a progressive but unlike “progressive democrats” I mean it, so I have quit. I don’t believe in the big tent. I don’t believe the neoliberals are our friends or that we can achieve anything through them. We need our own party, and the greens are the best candidates because they are biggest progressive party. I believe the democrats are the new republican party. The republicans are the new dixiecrats.
Thanks for your reply. I guess, with regard to your belief in incrementalism, I’d have to start by asking when this approach has ever worked in attaining a great political goal. Consider the great movements throughout American history, e.g. woman’s suffrage, the 8-hour day, the right to organize unions, civil rights. A philosophy of incrementalism was at the root of none of these movements. While change in these areas didn’t happen all at once, that wasn’t because those leading these movements were willing to accept half measures in attaining their democratic goals. Every step was toward the ultimate goal as opposed to the health care bill which really is a step away from the ultimate goal and a gift to the very entities whose power the grassroots wants to mitigate, namely Big Insurance and Pharma.
As far as what to do in the face of the total failure of our system of governance, the first thing to do is learn about alternatives. If you’re in a big city you could find a meeting of the ISO. If not, to get acquainted with what a Socialist perspective is all about, online you could at least check out Socialist Worker or the ISR (International Socialist Review), which you also could pick up at a good indie bookstore (not Borders, etc). A good starting point might be the book, Alan Maass’s Why You Should Be a Socialist. There are so many misconceptions about what Socialism is, along with powerful remnants of McCarthy-ism still floating about, it’s probably best to start with the basics and without assumptions.
How we get to point B? That’s a bit like asking how you get from Ptolemy to Einstein. It’s a question for a lifetime. But an inevitable part of the process is this: Struggle!
redwein,
Thanks for the info. It appears I have some studying to do (I’ve never been afraid of that), and thanks for not going off the deep end at my comments, as has happened to me before.
I have only a “working” knowledge of the term socialism or socialist. That’s about to change.
As for your last paragraph, I didn’t know the question was so deep (or stupid)!:)
Hardly stupid. I just think there are very different opinions even among Socialists as to how we create the change we want though general agreement on some of the basics. My original post suggested one – mass civil disobedience by the working class – the precondition of which is to really understand where we are now. You have to have knowledge of where you are before you can set your course. I think we have the level of discontent in this country to make a difference but not yet the awareness as to how to turn this into a positive movement for change. That’s partly because of how unfairly discredited Socialism still is, not on the radar even of most progressives.
[end italics]
redwein,
In my area, there are many in the community who have written to the op/ed page of our local paper who identify themselves as socialist. I never paid much mind to it until this conversation.
At least in my area, it won’t be so hard to “mobilize”. There are those in this community who will fight for social justice. I guess in that regard, it’s just a matter of when.
Thank you, sir, for your time and patience. It’s nice to know there are those who take the time, instead of denigrating those who want to learn, spouting off about things they know little to nothing about. You may not be a lawyer, but you are a good reference source, which certainly makes you a teacher!
Obama didn’t just break a promise, he has betrayed all those who voted for him
On May 14, 2007, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, seeking support from labor union members in New Jersey, vowed to make health insurance available to all Americans by the end of his first term in the White House.
”We can have universal health care by the end of the next president’s first term, by the end of my first term,” Obama said, bringing 600 union workers to their feet during a question-and-answer session with members of AFL-CIO affiliated unions.
The discussion was part of the labor organizations’ presidential endorsement process, and Obama used much of it to pitch his plan to bring health insurance to the 45 million Americans who lack it.
”This is an issue whose time has come,” the Illinois Senator said.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/385287,051407obama.article
VIDEO of Obama making campaign promise to provide a national healthcare program
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Back from dinner, will respond briefly.
–> “those people will get affordable health insurance.”
Are you writing the policies sherwood? Define affordable. –
As in more affordable than it is for them now. Long answer, what you pay and the subsidy depends on how old you are and what salary you make. If your 45 and make 20k/y then the government will pay $3,210 and you will pay $1,153, without the subsidies (a.k.a “status quo”) you will pay $4,362. (using this http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator tool from the Kaiser foundation and the latest senate plan – why don’t you try it?)
–> “if the insurance companies frivolously hikes premiums they will get kicked out of the exchanges and loose business”
Collusion is real. How are you going to shop around when your employer says, this is what you get, like it or find another job? < --
Those are separate issues. This specifically gives the government the right to kick misbehaving companies out of the exchanges where insurance buyers on the individual market will buy insurance. If they get kicked out, then they loose access to all subsidized insurance buyers who will all be there. Employer provided insurance is not the issue.
--> “80-85% on actual care”
An accountant’s dream and an impotent, overworked auditor’s nightmare. < --
This is a matter of proper enforcement and proper resources. Other countries does not seem to have a huge problem enforcing what they put into law, why should we have it? Or rather, is the argument that we are impotent to successfully regulate any industry through the instrument of lawmaking and we should therefore give up?
--> “some business interests on your side?” You mean like 6 lobbyists for every congressman? < --
I mean like the difference between Hillarycare which is now a worthless piece of paper and Obamacare which may soon be law. Hillarycare took on the insurance industry and the HC providers and got 0% of the job done Obamacare (moderately) took on the insurance industry and got (disclaimer: not scientifically measured) 35% of the job done. Welcome to the real world of two party politics with a form of government unreformed since the 18th century and a powerful corporate lobby.
--> Subsidies is another word for free-pipeline-into-taxpayer wallets i.e. corporate welfare. < --
Why am I even responding to this.
If you are a family of 4 & you are presently making 40k between the two of you parents, and you are 45 yo, then today you pay 11k dollars per year for coverage. Thats over 25% of your family income. Then with the present bill you would be paying 2,200 $, that is 5% of your family income. (Kaiser calculator) Yes you ARE right. That makes no difference at all for the moderate income family, it's all about the big corporate giveaway. Stand proudly for your principles, those guys will love what they have now over this HORRIBLE bill.
--> You can’t be dropped for a pre-existing condition, but you sure as hell will be if you can’t pay your premium. < --
This is true today. Is it not true today? Is it not? Furthermore if you are under 120% of the poverty line, with the bill then your on medicaid. And if you are over 120% then you get subsidies. And if you make over 44k a year (for one adult) then you get no subsidies and it's exactly the same as without the bill, but you have the new penalty which you may not like.
So
1) who exactly are you talking about that "can't pay [their] premium" with the bill.
2) would they be able to pay their premium if the bill is killed - as you wish see happen?
--> Insurance is nothing but an extortionist middleman getting it’s cut because it can hold you and your family’s health hostage using a you’d-better-pay-up-or-else threat. < --
I agree that private HC insurance, in the US works this way at present. That's why I'd like to see the government act as the sole insurance provider through a single payer system. This bill does not provide for this, but it is a hell of a lot better than what we got.
--> They will now have complete control. <–
Cue the black helicopters.
I too, tire of the vindictiveness. It’s pointless and self-defeating.
Where I would disagree is on some minor points like running “realistic” progressive candidates (a lot of unrealistic progressive candidates are more effective than a single selected ‘realistic’ one); the idea that writers ~pundits they’re now called~ should be propagandists first and journalists later in the end solves nothing; that there needs to be institutional mechanisms to immediately punish unorthodoxy… little stuff like that. Mussolini made the trains run on time – particularly difficult when Italians are involved – but I don’t mind some flexability.
But I do agree, if some folks who post on FDL were half as creative as they are nasty, we might be there by now.
Oh well, people are the same everywhere.
I like it Bluetoe. I keep wondering about the best way to discuss this with my kids, who helped me go door to door for Obama. They were so hopeful. I thought, naively, I suppose, that we had a chance with this guy. Albeit depressing, in the end I think it’s a good and sobering object lesson about keeping one’s values at the center and not falling for media images and personal charisma. I feel your sense of betrayal. I honestly feel like going back and apologizing to some of the people to whom I talked up Obama–in our very swing PA area. I did them a disservice. I want to make up for it, though, by finding ways actually to challenge these f**kers. As they say, don’t mourn, organize!
Thanks. If there is some way to share contact info other than making it public I’d be glad to share my email w/you. If not, best wishes….
FYI it was labor organizer Joe Hill who said that. He’s an American hero who you might want to look up. There’s also a pretty good song about him which Joan Baez sang at Woodstock. Anyway, don’t feel too bad about what you did in your community with the best of intentions. After all, the other guy was worse. But you might consider that there may be political alternatives outside the Republican/Democrat duopoly that are way better than outright despair. If you track down my posts you’ll see what I’m referring to. Joe Hill would approve. Peace.
So colluding with Grover Norquist and soliciting to the teabaggers who watch Fox news to sign your silly little petition is not betrayal?
redwein,
I’m not that versed with the computer well enough to do that, but I know someone who can-Let me find out what I can do, and I’ll get back to you.
I like what you propose.
Nobody has ever called me a starry eyed optimist, but comparing the way I felt when Obama was elected (with my personal and financial support) and the way I feel now is pretty depressing. Betrayal is not too strong a word. There’s got to be a place on the political spectrum for people who care about integrity, compassion, progress and reason. As opposed to unprincipled vacillation, cowardice, hatred and obfuscation.
Thanks, redwein. And also for the reminder of Joe Hill. Let me tell you I’m right there with you. I’m a person of the left and have been for some time. But I think what I’d say is I’ve been asleep at the wheel for a few years. No longer. It feels like coming home! Another world is possible…
I’d like to elaborate on what I mean by the stuff I wrote above (@155), and which you had some issues with. I.e. about “our” columnists / pundits etc should be partisans first and journalists etc later, and about institutional mechanisms that “punishes” contrarianism and so on.
Personally I don’t value partisanship over independence nor conformity over contrarianism; not in society at large. Actually, it’s the other way around.
My problem is rather with the realities of promoting policy in a two party system. In the two party system that we now have, intellectual honesty, not taking orders from above, not being a mouthpiece, and general questioning of the “powers that be” have become to a large extent the monopoly of one of the two parties, the Democratic party.
At the same time, being a moralistic simpleton, taking orders from above, spouting the same talking points, punishing dissent and viewing the world in black and white have to a large extent become the monopoly of the Republican party.
But since there are only two parties to chose from this means in practice that you have to chose between the party of efficient, obedient moralbots who ALSO want to lower taxes go to war and deregulate big business or the party of unefficient, intellectually honest whiners who ALSO want a humane and measured foreign policy, a strong social safety net and personal liberty to make your own moral decisions. (Disclaimer: simplistic characterizations for effect)
And I just dont think it’s in the interests of democrats or progressives to monopolize the values of intellectual honesty, and plurality – or rather that those values have to reside one hundred percent in the party of social safety nets, personal liberty and moderate foreign policy.
Let me give you an example: When I read a progressive / liberal columnist, then I know beforehand that chances are that they in their writing will value intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity over advocacy of progressive ideology and policy. That means that even when their aim is actually to advocate their instinct is to be fair. They all to often needlessly even acknowledge the opponents arguments and they often do so fairly.
The conservative columnist, politician, talk radio host or pundit: he is always an advocate first and an “intellectual” who worries about being “fair”, rarely – if ever. The first order of business is promoting a set of talking points and doing so effectively.
Now, as I mentioned, I like honesty and fairness, and I like the institutional safeguards that protect them in our society. I think that partisanship and advocacy is a real long term threat to our free society.
But honesty, fairness and journalistic integrity should not be the monopoly – even the responsibility – of one political party while the other party happily goes about spouting streamlined, often truth-challenged, and ultimately effective advocacy.
Today, prominent progressive columnists and bloggers often are firmer believers in, and practioners of, the traditional media ideal of fairness, journalistic integrity and reporting then the actual journalists are themselves.
This is a problem.
Not uncommonly will you see conservative establishment figures feeding dishonest, well orchestrated, streamlined talking points straight into the news media which just reports them (see Palin, Sarah, facebook), while progressive columnists, bloggers etc performs actual investigative reporting on the conservative talking points, and then whines about the media not doing their job.
This should not have to be our sole responsibility. Investigating and questioning is what journalists get fucking paid for. If the conservatives get to spend their time and energy on being superiorily effective in pushing their talking points, why should we not? We condemn ourselves to always being at a tactical disadvantage. If this was only about the battle over the value of intellectual honesty in society, I could live with that disadvantage, but when it also have an impact in promoting progressive domestic policy, progressive foreign policy and progressive economic policy, then it becomes a problem.
I think the way forward for progressives is learning to some extent to be just a little less honest and just a little more effective. It does not even have to be an either or choice. You can be perfectly honest and fair and still advance the strength of your beliefs and your solutions with maximum impact. You just don’t have an obligation to acknowledge or in any way promote your adversarys worldview, that’s his responsibility.
I think the hard reality is that it’s much easier to rely on existing institutions and on the false hope that they can be fixed, or that a savior will come along to straighten things out, than to face the realization that we need completely new institutions which will truly do justice to the democratic ideal we hold in our hearts. Such Messianic hope never did a thing for democracy (or, in a broader existential context, for Free Will). Hope can be a wonderful companion but she also can be a whore if the object of that hope is unattainable. Not based on ideology, but on the evidence, I reject our Capitalist system and our representative democracy in which we, the People, are not represented. Democracy essentially means power to the people. With Patti Smith I say “Right on!” Now it’s time to get busy.
As a lover of music (and democracy) I have to correct myself: “Power to the people, right on” was John Lennon. Patti Smith’s song was “People have the power…..”. And Descartes thought “To do is to be,” Sartre pondered “To be is to do,” and Sinatra sang “Do be do be do….” Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
It’s just a matter of whether this website allows access to private communications. I haven’t found a mechanism for it on this site.
Well, personally I could lose the old school communist revolution and settle for a nice representative democracy, with tax financed political campaigns and a solid welfare state with single payer, dependable sick and maternity/paternity leave etc. Like, eh what? Most of Europe? Scandinavia? That just have to be impossible, right?
Actually I think that at this particular moment, with the ascendancy of the anti establishment tea party movement on the right, there would be a golden opportunity to launch a populist movement for constitutional reform and push us just a little bit in that general direction.
I’d call it “Radical Washington Reform” or something like that.
The explicitly stated goal would be an end of the two party system. The sole policy would be to elect members to the house of representatives in proportion to the vote total of the party in question in the given state.
And how do you launch that populist movement? Just something to ponder.
Also I would hardly characterize the tea-brains as you just did. I think they, in fact, are a populist, establishment (not anti-establishment) movement, though they’ll die a quick death – I hope – because there’s no firm ideological basis for their actions. (Well maybe that’s hoping for too much; the evil-doers lol can always get a rabble together.)
I would also settle for a nice representative democracy but the problem is we can’t, as you believe, get it from within this system. If we could, it would have already happened. Nobody, not the most committed Socialist, wants upheaval; sometimes it just happens to be necessary and, if you look at history, upheaval was the sine qua non of every great movement to head the nation in a more democratic direction. When Malcolm X said “By any means necessary….” it wasn’t a threat but a mere statement of fact.
How do you do it? Well, you start out by trying – if you have the time, resources and will I guess. If it has true populist potential, it should succeed ;)
Re the teabuggers I mostly agree; but I perceive them as antiestablishment in the narrow sense that they are to some extent pissed at the republican party, candidates that are not “conservative” enough and stuff like that. Like in NY 23, and so on. Right now they seem to have no big problem with bitching at the republican party and save their real love for koscher “conservatives”. Thats obviously not so different from what you might hear at FDL w/r democratic party and “progressives”, but my memory is just that before Bush II really crashed and burned we wouldn’t have heard that so much on the other side.
My belief and hope is that the teaparty “movement” will as you say “die fast” with more electoral loss for the republicans. Preferably in 2010. Now they’re fuled by holy rage and the feeling that usurpers have stolen the trone that rightly belong to them. Because by god this country loves Ronald Reagan and hates the govvernment thats just how it is. That was proven to them in 80, 84 and 88. Everything else is the Bushes fault and they are not “real conservatives” anyway so it doesnt count.
But if and when they get their ass slapped again, then they will splinter. Some of them will feel humiliated & rejected and lose interest, others will defect to the winners. The rest will radicalize and further discredit conservative ideology with the american people.
That’s what I hope happens at least.
(Or maybe we lose out to a wave of teaparty candidates in 2010, the US of A is once again a center-right-right nation and in 2012 all the baggers get to jerk off in symphony as their queen Sarah kicks out the socialists in a landslide…)
But about constitutional reform: I think the only thing we can say with certainty is that it has not been possible so far. Incidently that is also a nice, positive way of looking at it.
Look: history is full of things that were “not possible” for hundreds, thousands, ten thousands of years. Some of them eventually changed fast and violently and some changed slow and incrementally.
I have no problem with the fast and violent way, as long as it leads to the same goal. But I’m not interested in the “revolution” insofar as it:
1) becomes a pie-in-the-skye thing to talk about and justify giving up any incremental work until the revolution comes – since “it’s pointless anyway”. Thats just a cop-out. That just means that your head hurts to much from trying to think out ways to make actual progress so instead let’s just declare it impossible and wait for the revolution.
2) Is a mixed bag w/r to the end result actually being better. And when the revolution goes wrong, then it really goes wrong (see: Reign of Terror, Stalin, Mao, Pol-pot etc)
3) In the more down to earth sence that if reform is a (politically) hard sell then I imagine “the revolution” is a fucking hard sell especially to all the childrearing families that you need to convince to wield political power. Most of the time I guess, but granted there’s some lynching in the air, what with record unemployment, deficits, fat bailouts etc…
Anyway, no disrespect to Malcolm X, afaik he’s had a huge impact on african-american and popular culture, etc. But what did he get done – politically – really? It was rather King and Johnson who ended segregation and in much the same messy way including those same cloture votes and with the same imperfect but seminal result.
…but seminal result [as now, with the HC bill].
@redwein
I also see that you elsewhere ask another poster, rhetorically, which big change ever came about through an “incremental philosophy”, or something similar.
I think you make an unfortunate choice of terminology, confusing the issue. Incrementalism is afaik not a philosophy, rather a tactic or maybe a strategy, or just a description of something that happens in a drawn out way.
Let’s take the concept of “universal suffrage”. That idea, in the context of f.e. 17th century european states I think we can characterize as “revolutionary”.
But the way “universial suffrage” actually came about in this particular country where we live was in fact very much incremental – as we all perfectly well know. First white men could vote. Eventually white women, and african americans got to vote as well, but it was a matter of > 100 years before that actually happened.