home

The Real "Kill The Bill"-ers

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:26:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By now it should be apparent to anyone that without a contemporaneous fix of the Senate health bill, the Stand Alone Senate bill is dead. No matter how many times Village Dems and bloggers chant "pass the bill," the math is inescapable - there simply is no possible way to get 218 votes in the House to pass the Senate bill WITHOUT a companion fix via reconciliation.

That may be "monstrous" or "politically stupid" or anything else anyone wants to call it, but it is the political reality. With that reality staring people in the face, the continued strategy of "punching the hippies" employed by Village Dems and bloggers is irresponsible, from THEIR perspective. It is nothing more than a juvenile temper tantrum now. Want them to "pass the bill?" Then push the Senate to agree to a companion fix via reconciliation. Anything else is nothing more than a de facto "Kill the Bill" movement.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Night Open Thread | Roman Polanski: Should the Swiss Deny Extradition? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Real "Kill The Bill"-ers | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    And you could do some really cool things (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:33:01 AM EST
    with a reconciliation fix--including a strong public option (assuming 50 votes).

    Temper tantrum, indeed.

    Of course, there isn't even support in the House (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    for a strong PO.

    It really should be quite easy to get this worked out, assuming we don't have even more extreme political malpractice.

    Parent

    The Trojan Pony (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    as [a|the] [strong|robust|triggered]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan], as it's dimunition from Hacker's initial Medicare-style proposal, with 130 million enrollees, to its last gasp, at 10 million, while still being sold as the same policy by its "progressive " advocates, proves.

    I'd say it was dead, if it were ever alive. In reality, the so-called "public option" was a Trojan Pony, successfully designed to do exactly what it did do: Take real solutions off the table, and suck up all the oxygen on the left.

    Parent

    Well, that's what you've always believed (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    I disagree.

    Parent
    SP should have been (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Pacific John on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 02:27:41 PM EST
    "on the table," open enrollment Medicare for All could have had some air.

    It was clear months ago when the CBO scored the House public option as having zero effect on private premiums that it's sole purpose was to be shrunk small enough to kill. Honest people optimistically supported it as a camel's nose, but the cynics negotiating on behalf of insurers knew better.

    Parent

    CBO can not score the effect on private premiums (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 02:59:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Darn close (none / 0) (#51)
    by Pacific John on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:58:02 PM EST
    It determined that the House PO would have no effect on costs.

    Parent
    So, you think, then... (none / 0) (#33)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    ... that an incredible shrinking policy -- 130 million to 10 -- is meaningful, then? Why?

    Parent
    nah, single payer had no chance, (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by observed on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 01:41:01 PM EST
    sold as such. But the right Medicare or Medicaid expansion could have leveraged it for the future.

    Parent
    Obama's Inertia (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:12:18 PM EST
    This is a temper tantrum considering Obama's inertia about the bill and allowing Pelosi,Baucus, and Reid to do the real work.

    And you saw where that got us. A compromised corrupt bill that moves the peoples wealth to private insurance. And the backroom secret deal Obama cut with BigPharma is more than disgusting. The sneak attack on women's right to equal protection and freedom of choice by both the House and Senate is unacceptable and evil.

    The Senate performed like fighting children as we saw them sell out on Nelson,Landrieu, and of course Lieberman which was the final straw as he trashed the public option. The arrogance and hubris of this fiasco was sickening.

    Rham had gone down to Reid and told him to give "anything that Lieberman wants, just pass this bill".

    Obama was never transparent in his backroom deals,avoidance of clarifying this bill and properly fighting for it, and by ceding power to Baucus,Pelosi and Reid. This became a circus  of political farce,sellouts, and political decrepitude.

    We are looking at a president who has been living in an alternate universe. He still thinks this bill should go through. Obama is surrounded by old crony Clinton advisors, along with the guys who helped get us into this mess, including his appointment of some Bushies.

    His fixation with "bi-partisanship" is a delusion made  of  naive  pretense that  boggles the mind. His timidity in facing off to Republicans and to special interests has been shocking.

    Losing Mass. was what the Independents and Democrats told him if he'll listen. The tone deaf White House never saw it coming until it ws too late.

    Obama's loyalists and Villagers aren't helping him. Holding Obama responsible for his economic failures, climate control failure, and HC debacle
    could help Obama course correct and save his presidency and his party.

    The American Idol worshipers have become so off the rails  that I've actually read a few blogger's who insist that FDR never had to face the odds that poor Obama has. Really?

     Well I was around during FDR's administration.  The very first thing FDR did was to immediately take on the Banks,Wall St, and corporations along with STRONG condemnation of Hoover's policies and how badly the Repubs had governed.

    FDR  often said, "I welcome my enemies, and welcome fighting them". He created a banking
    commision with tough controls and instituted Federal Insurance for Depositors [FDIC]. Then he implemented many federally funded work programs,and a terrific fighting cabinet. And much more.

    At no time was Roosevelt deterred by his enemies, and he never hesitated calling them out time after time and laying the previous failures at their doorstep.  FDR had great political instincts, and had an acute ear for the american people's needs.

    FDR was continually smeared as a Communist, traitor, spy, and everything you can think of some of which I cannot repeat because it was so racially repulsive.

     This started from day one and continued throughout FDR's terms, but unlike Obama who foolishly believes that making nice to an occasional Republican will endear him and somehow elevate him is naive and not worthy.

    Roosevelt NEVER felt that the Republicans would do anything but block his agendas but his guts,courage, and passion never wavered.

    The Obambots who have been likening Obama to FDR
    are whistling trolls from the Village who have no idea about the Great Depression and what it took for Roosevelt to face down and CHANGe the status quo. They are also not helping Obama as this idolatry is dangerously inaccurate and tends to hold Obama unaccountable which will take him down. Fast.

    Mr. Cool's euphoria has fortunately come to and end, and I would like to see the Obama I voted for make good on his promises, rework his cabinet, take on the establishment, and get america back to work quickly and correct his stalled mortgage relief program.

     He just cannot inspire with words.  A reinvigorated cabinet that can create policy, explain policy and implement successful strategies would save this administration and dull a Republican rout that is sure to come.

    Continuing to waste time and stoke the rage in the country over the  flawed and corrupt HC bill is a mistake.  

    Let's hope Obama has begun to listen and can take actions to correct.

    Parent

    Obama can inspire with words. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by observed on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    If he gave a speech that was about something besides saving his a$$, he could accomplish something.
    I am in a real minority when it comes to Obama's speeches. Good or bad is irrelevant, to me: the problem is that he can't give  a speech that moves policy forward!
    He won't take a stand to say where we are, where we are going, and what it will take to get there.
    I am sure Obama could sell the excise tax, if he wanted to, but he won't even take that much political risk.

    Parent
    Too bad your REAL reality isn't the reality (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by seabos84 on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:32:02 PM EST
    of the droolers and the sell outs profiting so fabulously from selling out the bottom 90%% ++ of us.

    rmm.

    Parent

    My Nobel, My Olympics, My Cairo speech, My (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kidneystones on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:55:48 PM EST
    Climate Fix, My Health Reform Legislation, My Promise to Close Gitmo, My Promise of Transparency, My...

    A full year devoted to gloating, boasting, posture, and preening has brought Dems and the American people to this unhappy pass. I don't think voters are going to be fooled and I don't think any Dem up for re-election is going to be fooled.

    Forcing companies to cover preexisting conditions is going to force premiums up, confirming to middle-class voters (who are already seriously unhappy) that Dems are using the 'promise of historic reform' as a boondoggle to deliver new customers to Big pharma, big healthcare and big insurance.

    Dems badly overestimated their capacity to bs the American public and the worst part is that new villager wisdom (Sorry BTD, that's you) seems to be that the lesson of MA is: tell the same lie, only this time in secret.

    There is a profound disconnect separating Inside- the-Blogway Dems from ordinary voters who are now 61% in favor of shi#canning the entire farce.

    Dems should be grateful that's all voters want to do at this stage considering how many lies and broken promises clutter the road from January, 2009 to now.

    The TPM reel of Obama broken promises just over health care is exhibit A of just how deluded Inside-the-blogway Dems have become. Evidently Matt, Josh, and Ezra figure the bovine herd wasn't paying any attention to all those promises to 'change the way politics is done', etc.

    The storm of discontent over the broken promises hasn't broken yet. Individual Dems up for election know that. BTD knows the numbers far better than I, but just working off the 61% number, my guess is that less than 30% of Dems up for election will go anywhere near this pos.

    In fact, look for this crowd to run harder against the WH and all Dem legislation than Republicans.

    Dems fuc#ed-up bad. Losing MA to a nameless GOP pretty boy whose entire platform consisted of promising to say no to the president's signature plan. BTD may not be able to read the writing on the wall. But every vulnerable Dem can.

    The silence and shell-shock of the Dem blogosphere over the last few days is testament to the fact that Inside-the-Blogway Dems are just starting to figure out that maybe they're not as 'smart' and 'plugged-in' as they thought.

    Let me put it in perspective: for most of the folks that Dems 'promised' to help, things are only starting to get bad.

    Once voters start seeing those ads of Obama picking up his peace prize, 'winning' the Chicago olymipics bid, speaking to the Muslim world in Cairo, or flying over to the Global warming summit, (in the middle of a snowstorm, no less) while unemployment soared past 10%...

    Well, you get the idea. All politics is local. Running against Obama's twisted, out of touch, agenda is the only path to victory for plenty of Dems. And Dems up for election know it. They'll paint their GOP opponents as creatures of big healthcare and big pharma. But that's going to be a hard- sell.

    Just ask Coakley, or Corzine.

    HCR is dead.

    This is bulls#it.

    Parent

    Sorry about the final (none / 0) (#52)
    by kidneystones on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:58:33 PM EST
    several lines. It is bs and it is dead, but I should have checked the edit.

    Parent
    hey, you didn't say HRC is dead (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by observed on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:59:33 PM EST
    this time. Good post.

    Parent
    Laser like concentration (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by kidneystones on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    saved the day.


    Parent
    Obama is loved, not trusted or (none / 0) (#54)
    by observed on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:58:58 PM EST
    respected. To lead, he needs the last two.

    Parent
    Not going to happen, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:06:32 AM EST
    It's like asking a frog to be a bird.  He can't.  Obama is not FDR.  He doesn't have that personality.  He doesn't know how to do the things that you suggest.  He has no experience in any of it.  

    Parent
    Andgarden (none / 0) (#5)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    Please list the Senators that would be problems in this regard.
    In my list the iffy Senators are Lieberman, Nelson, Webb, Bayh, Conrad, Baucus, Lincoln, Landrieu, MacCaskill. Pharmaceutical corporation interests are strong in Delaware and New Jersey. There are a number of other senators from red and purple states; I won't be surprised if they develop cold feet when its time to deliver, irrespective of what they said in the past. Will Sen. Byrd be a yay for for what you would like to get fixed through reconciliation?

    Parent
    Silly exercise (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:56:35 AM EST
    because if there are not 50 votes for a fix (forget the details for a moment) in the Senate, then the Senate bill is dead.

    Pelosi is probably 80 votes short on the Senate Stand Alone bill.

    If the Senate is 3 or 4 votes short today, that is the easier haul. Pelosi can not pass the stand alone Senate bill and will never ever be able to.

    I think you need to stow your analysis on whether a reconciliation fix can pass the Senate and first accept the political reality, the stand alone Senate bill will NEVER pass the House without such a fix.

    Parent

    What BTD said (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 12:00:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Conrad is on board, and Webb, Baucus, McCaskill (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:59:26 AM EST
    will be gotten. Byrd can bluster, but I don't think he'll buck the party.

    And honestly, if you think there are going to be cold feet in the Senate for this, just try to imagine the House. That is the problem with you and the "pass the Senate bill" caucus: the House isn't even close to having the votes.

    Parent

    Unhappily, political reality is not (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    a popular concept.  It is overshadowed, by default or design, by 'stuff you can believe in.'

    And MAKING political reality... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 03:25:26 PM EST
    ... is even less popular than accepting whatever it is that the kewl kidz are saying.

    Parent
    To quote W, it's hard work. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:55:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Psychological reality (none / 0) (#76)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:08:35 PM EST
    I suspect some of the Obama criticism (though not all) is because some of the kewl kidz from the Vietnam and Clinton era are gobsmacked that their kids and grandkids do not think that they are kewl any more :-) :-). Peace!

    Parent
    Silly again (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    and backwards.  It's the Nu Kewl Kid Demz who are beginning to see that maybe experience, at least as voters if not as a candidate, does matter.

    Parent
    Feel free to imagine whatever provides you solace (none / 0) (#87)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:59:43 AM EST


    Parent
    Are you nuts? (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:57:38 AM EST
    Really.  Why would I need solace?  I didn't vote for Obama.

    Parent
    "Staring the face"? Hardly: (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 11:42:11 AM EST
    But if Grijalva feels the need to take out some anger on the Senate, he should pass health care then go find a particularly annoying Senator and punch him in the face. Just--bam!--pop him.

    Not a helpful analysis.

    I'd rather he punch Yglesias (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:54:50 PM EST


    Parent
    I always like to (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by JamesTX on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 12:03:15 PM EST
    look at the bigger picture -- the futility. They have kept all possible public forums congested with argument over this legislation for an entire year while those of us who voted for change were told this was the most important thing to worry about. Now, in the blink of an eye it's all over.

    The only possible political topic for a year now -- the topic that was so important that we couldn't even think about beginning to address the most serious injustices in our society -- turns up moot overnight. And now the conservatives are crowing about how "the long, terrible, destructive liberal reign" is finally over. I'm not sure how conservatives have had enough time to be "tired" of anything. We are still living in the exact same world they left us in January 2009. Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- has been accomplished by the Democratic majority. There is nothing for wingnuts to be tired of. Nothing happened. The only change that was even hinted at was this health nonsense, and it's now dead -- period. So, it looks like, after eleven long, horrible months of leftist extremism, during which liberals destroyed the entire world known to man, we are headed back to the sanity of the Bush years.

    My intelligence is insulted. I'm angry. I know politics is dirty business, but I was lied to and duped in a serious way. We all were. I think it is about time for American politics to evolve. I think we need a new party.

    I think it is a watershed week for me. If there is (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by seabos84 on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    ONLY 1 candidate worth voting for this fall, that will be the ONLY candidate to get some combination of:
    1. time,
    2. money,
    3. a vote.
    And, that will be a win.

    I was commenting on dd the other day, I just remembered outta the blue what was attractive to me about the DLC in '88 when I was 28, cooking in boston for 10 bucks an hour -

    After the Dim-O-Twits colossal loses to that right wing lying fascist lackey Raygun, I thought the DLC was offering a combination of policies, strategies, tactics, actions and messages which were going to:

    1. politically obliterate the lying fascist message,
    2. make sure that the Raygun leadership crowd ONLY represented those who they truely worked for - the top 1/2% of pigs who need us all as serfs, cannon fodder, catchfarts and boot lickers.

    What did we get - decades of conventional wisdom blather which has lead to dud-kakis, clinton, gore, kerry, pelosi, reid, the Big 0 and is w0w speeches ... a plague on all their houses.

    I live in Seattle,

    and while I could never bring myself to vote for a flat earther in a general election (i've crossed in lots of primaries to 'help' a thug win in the neanderthal wing)

    and I will NEVER willing skip an election,

    I'm DONE voting for political pathetics, sell outs, or those who are mix of each (patty murray, cantwell,  jim mcdermott, gregroire ... good riddance)

    It has been a good week for me.
    IF there is only 1 to vote for, to give to, to work for, then it is a win.
    rmm.
     

    Parent

    We Were All Duped (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:20:53 PM EST
    We were all sold a story that has not materialized.

    Hopefully the White House can be reorganized and some grownups put in charge. Obama will have to step up if he can. If not this adminsistration's failures will doom Democratic chances for dominance or even relevance for a long time.

    It's in all of our interests that this doesn't happen. But there's a lot to make up for, so it has to fast if anything positive can be implemented.

    There is a shred of hope left in my soul.

    Parent

    I can't believe, really, that anyone (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kidneystones on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:37:40 PM EST
    thought one individual could reverse gravity.

    HCR has always been about big money for big companies. The banks, insurance companies, et al realized that the GOP brand was dead and that they needed to put their guy in the WH. They did. The left never has a seat at the table. Ask Kucinich.

    A Republican state senator whose entire campaign consisted of 'This is my truck. There is no transparency in Washington. I'll vote against HCR' just beat the Dem establishment candidate.

    The Dem candidate devastated her opponents in the primary, enjoyed the full support of the Dem establishment, had the approval of the majority of both the inside the beltway and inside the blogway Dems until the final days of the campaign, and who had Bill Clinton and Obama campaigning for her in Ted Kennedy's former seat lost to a guy with a pick-up truck who promised to vote 'no' on HCR.

    The only people dumb enough to even employ the term health care reform are pundits and a few inside the bunker Dems. The toxicity is only going to increase and spread as the unemployment numbers stagnate. If unemployment creeps up?

    Ben, Timmy, and Larry are either going to be singing out of the 'tax the banks' songbook or finding new jobs. Obama wants ordinary Dems to throw themselves on their swords to protect his a hand-out to the insurance companies.

    Ain't going to happen.

    Parent

    Power can only be countered by (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by observed on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:44:17 PM EST
    power. It's revealing that Nixon was brought down by the FBI (through  Feit).
    The powerless never win battles.
    So who is powerful enough to battle the insurance and pharma companies?
    Dumb answer: how about walmart?
    How about using WTO rules to open up the pharmaceutical business in a way that allows reimportation, for example?
    This is probably total BS, but I'm just going crazy with the lack of ingenuity from the White House.

    Parent
    You were expecting what, exactly? (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by kidneystones on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:23:46 PM EST
    This has been the best week in more than a year.

    The final tally of Dem ineptitude won't be completed for months, which means sensible self-interested Dems now have a good excuse/reason to 'explain' to President ME that the universe does not revolve around his legacy.

    The Obama agenda is destroying the Democratic party, plain and simple. He managed to sell out to big business and screw the poor, bury the nation in debt, expand two wars, and drive unemployment past 10%. The only thing missing is a punitive tax on banks to tank the stock market and doom any prospect of keeping unemployment manageable.

    Remember, the same folks who swore unemployment would not go past 8% no matter what; and who just organized Coakley's defeat and cap and trade are currently in charge of keeping unemployment below 10%

    I'm saying there's a much better than 50% chance the economy of 2010 is going to look worse in many respects than 2009.

    President 'I give myself a B' won no academic honors as a university student that I'm aware of. He got a big wet tongue bath at Harvard Law School.

    And that's what he thinks he deserves now. The only conversation he wants to have is about what a great job he's doing.

    True. It's that bad.

    Parent

    The sadest part of the (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:20:53 AM EST
    story is your comment about the campaign. We seem to be stuck in a world just that shallow in terms of political engagement. Part of Lakoff's story is in it, though. Premium factors, poverty cutpoints, pre-existing conditions, future tax credits, 1200 page bills that nobody has read or understood, and union elevator repairman insurance premiums, are all complex details buried in even more complex systems of empirical facts. "This is my truck", on the other hand, is a metaphor that activates a subjective  value -- a simple metaphor that activates a whole system of the values which our typical intellectually impoverished voter gets all identified with and excited about. I can just see George Lakoff's wide smile as he whispers "I told you so" under his breath! It's a lot easier to campaign on the pickup truck platform than on a list of hundreds or thousands of policy details. It also works better. It has won elections for the last 40 years, and Dems can't seem to understand it and refuse to admit it.

    My problem isn't that they couldn't beat out one of the richest and most powerful economic constituencies on the American business scene. Anyone with realistic expectations should have known they weren't going to cut into the doctorin' and medicine machine and drug profits with a razor thin Senate majority, and they sure as heck weren't going to get the military industrial complex proprietorship, who now have all the money that we should have spent paying our inevitable doctorin' bills, to pay for humanitarian aid to powerless American workers. I'm not at all mad at them about that. That's like getting angry with a frail child for failure to defeat the Chinese army.

    What irks me is that they wasted the precious time slot we worked like the devil to give them -- painfully exerting the last few calories of energy and resources and faith of our dying middle class -- under the implied agreement that they were going to stop the death march toward military and corpoarate dictatorship and restore some part of the values behind our Constitution. They were going to change some basic ways our government was behaving after being taken over by thieves and murderers. They could have spent the time chipping away at some other equally or more important reforms which might have been more achievable than slaying Goliath and moving mountains all in the same day.

    While they were running this grand distraction, their groupies hatefully and forcefully admonished the entire population of the battered and bruised left to shut up and forget about their own very valid issues, and to throw all their support behind this impossible cause (else we were racists).

    Now, we get nothing. We're going straight back to 1999 to revisit things like the ethical system where the highest human value is a pickup truck and "the truth" is whatever Rush Limbo said this morning.

    I am hurting. My children are also hurting. I am losing my grip on railing that separates the middle class from impoverished masses of human misery. I didn't raise my children to live in cut-throat poverty, because I didn't have those skills. I don't have the skills to survive where we are all about to be sent. I gave money that I could have used for other things to Democrats running for office because I believed in the system. I campaigned and worked. I blogged. I believed. I thought George Bush had finally awakened the giant, and that we were putting together a populist movement like Americans have done before, so that we could be a country again that held up a torch of hope and justice to the world. And I was flat out burned. Just now I am feeling like William Wallace at the moment he pulled off that helmet of his battlefield adversary to discover the face of Robert the Bruce.

    I don't know what to say to my children. Perhaps these pols could help me with that?

    Parent

    One of the most eloquent and (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 06:34:36 AM EST
    accurate posts I've read in a long time. Sorry, really, about the circumstances that led you to it.

    Spot-on observations all the way through. For me, losing is a given. I don't expect to win every or even most of the rounds. I just don't feel comfortable with a corporate broom handle shoved into my hand or anywhere else.

    I don't know what you should tell your kids, but I'll tell you what I tell mine: it's a great, big wonderful world out there full of hope and possibility. I tell them that treating other people and themselves with respect means more than anything else.

    I tell them if they're really lucky, they'll grow-up to meet someone and have kids just as wonderful as ours are. I give them a hug and tell them I love them every day and to be safe because it's a crazy world outside our door and some folks just aren't thinking.

    My wife tells them her stuff and does all the heavy lifting chez kidneystones.

    I enjoy your posts very much and those of many others here. True.

    Parent

    I've noticed that everybody, bloggers, (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    op ed writers, economists and pundits are calling for the passage of the Senate Bill. Except for the actuall voters, who are hugely against this.

    It's like everyone is trying to get the Democrats to kill themselves over a mediocre piece of legislation.

    Don't think that the number of (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    bloggers, op ed writers, economists and pundits is sufficient to win in November.

    Parent
    Haw (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 01:25:47 PM EST
    Coincidence? You be the judge.

    Parent
    Passage Of Bill Is Democratic Suicide (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:30:24 PM EST
    I have never seen Democrats behave this stupidly and ineffectively. I have never witnessed Democrats behaving as badly en masse as the Republicans. But without  Republican's fire and
    fervor at opposition and obstruction non stop.

    Well maybee Jimmy Carter, but this is far worse as Carter was never American Idol.

    If Obama & crew insist that by some legal maneuvers this bill is to rammed through, kiss the Democrats goodbye for a very long time.

    Parent

    The Pundits, bloggers and "experts" (none / 0) (#38)
    by dainla on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 04:27:05 PM EST
    have accepted that our government cannot function as is.

    The people have not.  I guess it will take a few more Massechusetts for them to get the picture.

    I think we're going to be in a twelve year cycle of voting parties in and out of power with each election for them to get there is a problem.

    Parent

    Folks, we're going to get a much better bill (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 12:27:02 PM EST
    That the Senate bill can't pass the House is just the first political reality.

    The second is the Dems need to pass a bill.

    The third is Dems need a bill that is much more easily understood (extend Medicare availability to folks under 65, for example) and that provides these more easily understood benefits to voters more immediately.  A bill that provides to a majority of voters benefits they can quantify as they head to the voting booth in November.

    Thank you teabaggers and Scott Brown (who, although wrong on many issues, was a strong candidate, listen to his victory speech).  Brown is going to be a problem for McConnell, much more so than Snowe and Collins.  If he is not he will be out in 2012 and progressives will have a better Senator from Mass.

    As I said in other comments, give it a few weeks for Dems to work through their grief and accept/process these political realities.

    I agree with you BobTinKY (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    on each of the things you wrote above. I was thinking the same thing about Scott Brown and McConnell yesterday.

    Parent
    Then what in the world (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 12:44:27 PM EST
    is your disagreement with me?

    Parent
    No disagreement with you (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 12:47:30 PM EST
    also, Andgarden. :-).

    Parent
    They should lower Medicare eligibility... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 01:31:06 PM EST
    ... progressively. As it were. That was how Kennedy implemented single payer.

    None of this buy-in stuff -- that makes adverse selection worse than ever.

    I mean, what's wrong with the Dems? Say they lower from 65 to 60; again, not buy in, but just lower the age of eligibility. Don't they want the votes from an entire 5-year cohort? Oh, wait... The legacy parties aren't responsive to the electorate. Sorry.

    NOTE * This even works on the right. Remember, Medicare isn't a government program!

    Parent

    go for it. Lower it to 50 (none / 0) (#23)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    I also think Stupak's amendment (I am in no way supportive of it) wouldn't be an impediment as pregnancies are rare among women over 50.

    At the same time  work for 1) greater private insurance (not subject to Stupak) coverage of the "up to 26" living at home, crowd, and 2) wider Medicaid coverage for working poor.  

    Let Stupid, err, Stupak, have his symbolic language and seek practical ways to limit the actual impact on women's reproductive rights.  

    Parent

    Progressively lower... (none / 0) (#35)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 03:26:19 PM EST
    until all are covered.

    That was Kennedy's original plan.

    Parent

    Don't forget raising the age for covering young (none / 0) (#64)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:32:00 PM EST
    folks, whether S-CHIP or the at home college grads/young adults.

    Parent
    Stupak -Nelson intentions (none / 0) (#63)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:29:59 PM EST
    You guys don't get it.

    What's at stake here is a very clear assault on women's rights. It's obvious you don't understand the limits and true actions  of these bills intentions.  You haven't read the large let alone the fine print. Age has nothing to do with this.

    Has it ever occurred to you liberal male
    democrats that using women for political pander is  mysogynist,humiliating, and definitely illegal?    The remark here about women over 50 proves there isn't a shred of knowledge of either Stupak or Nelson and its intentions.

    Imagine the process [in Nelson] of being billed separately and paying separately for abortion insurance?  Why is it separate? Abortion is a mater of a medical decision between Dr and patient like many other  medical/health decisions.

    This act alone in spite of other issues in these bills discriminates against women as separate medical humans because our bodies have been captured by the Government.

    So it's ok for women to be considered lesser human beings and second class citizens without men's rights to protection because you may not like what I might do with my body?

    Apparently I thought much of that had been settled inspite of the hatred from right wing bats, but now I see that many Democrats [male] really don't understand any of this but pretend to. More ever they don't even care and will find any rationalization that suits them. This kind of behavior from so called liberals?

    Parent

    your questions (none / 0) (#70)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    1) "Has it ever occurred to you liberal male
    democrats that using women for political pander is  mysogynist,humiliating, and definitely illegal? "

    Yes as to mysongynist and humiliating.  I am not sure what is or is not illegal given today's SCOTUS.  Nevertheless, I quesiton whether the House will  pass the Senate bill or anything new coming out of the Senate through reconciliation without Stupak's or a similar amendment, if we can get the votes jettisoning Stupak fine, show me the votes.

    2)  Is it ok for women to be considered lesser human beings and second class citizens without men's rights to protection because you may not like what I might do with my body?

    Of course not.  But I do not get a vote in Congress and if I did I would, in the absence of any evidence suggesting a bill could pass without Stupak's amendement, still vote to expand Medicare to those 50 or 55 and older and expand Medicaid to cover more folks of lesser means.

    And if Congress passes and Obama signs a bill that includes Stupak but also expands Medicare to men and women over 50 or 55, expands Medicaid to more men and women of lesser means, and requires PRIVATE insurers to include dependent up to age 26, how many women would in reality, and relative to today's status quo, be denied access to abortion by virtue of that sort of bill?

    Zero?

    Parent

    Bob T please blame Obama (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:44:36 PM EST
    You don't hold Obama responsible or accountable for this debacle of deception and corruption?

    FDR took on all of his enemies [many] and enacted huge social programs that effectively saved this country. Republicans stop the Democrats when they hold the majority?  Nomesense.

    The president was doing his work hidden in backrooms and the Senate just followed his lead.

    Baucus,Pelosi,Reid,Nelson,Stupak,Landrieu,Lincoln,
    and Lieberman [who was rewarded early on by stupid Democrats with Chair of HSecurity Comm] are just a few of the jackals that trashed the public option,women's rights,lower priced drugs, etc.

    Obama never responded proactively about "death panels" and this allowed him to cede the framing and control of the Healthcare debate to the Republicans.

    This is self immolation by the Democrat's dose of  political fear,constipation,and a web of backroom deals that offered no transparency or honesty.

    FDR took on  Republicans and held them and Hoover
    accountable.  He overhauled Banking and gave us FDIC. He knew they had to be fought all the way, and they were. He relished facing his enemies and said so.

    Mr. Change must be held responsible for all the
    f***ups, the timidity, and fairy tales.

    Parent

    I do blame Obama (none / 0) (#61)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:26:04 PM EST
    I voted for him over HCR and in the general obviously, but like many I have been disappointed in his Presidency, to date.

    I just think political reality will force Obama & Congressional Democrats to become more progressive, populist for his/thier own political survival.  Pols are pols.

    Had Coakley won, neither Obama nor Congressional Democrats would have had any reason to re-examine or reflect upon their continuous capitulations to the GOP.

    Parent

    I meant HRC, or Hillary as most call her (none / 0) (#62)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:28:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Harry and Louise say it makes (none / 0) (#67)
    by observed on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:38:01 PM EST
    sense if you voted for Obama over HCR.
    Sorry, couldn't resist.
    A lot of people mixing those initials on here.

    Parent
    Medicare Expansion is Dead (none / 0) (#24)
    by Michael Masinter on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 01:50:14 PM EST
    There weren't 60 Senate votes to expand Medicare before the Brown fiasco; what makes you think his election will improve the math?

    Reconciliation can be used only for budget neutral options; expanding Medicare is hugely expensive and without a revenue offset can't be part of reconciliation.

    Dems can only pass a bill by securing 60 votes for a new bill or by using reconciliation to fix the Senate bill.  Andy Stern gets it; the best way to proceed is to work on a reconciliation fix and pass both the Senate bill and the fix.  To be sure that has to mean passing the reconciliation fix in the Senate before the House passes the Senate bill to prevent a Senate doublecross, but I don't see any other way to enact a bill.  If you do, I'd like to hear it, with due regard for the current makeup of the Senate and the 60 vote requirement to defeat a filibuster.

    Parent

    You can expand Medicare in reconciliation (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 01:52:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Medicare (none / 0) (#65)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:32:22 PM EST
    Where is the money for Medicare expansion, and pray who of this miserable group would even touch it now? You're dreamin'.

    Parent
    Medicare Buy In is revenue neutral (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 02:58:13 PM EST


    Parent
    That's a Big Buy In w/o Subsidies (none / 0) (#39)
    by Michael Masinter on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 05:14:31 PM EST
    Given the rapidly approaching insolvency of Medicare, wouldn't a buy in sufficiently high to be revenue neutral be beyond the reach of those who need it most?  The subsidy required to make it affordable has to come from somewhere for reconciliation to work.  

    Citizens United makes the likelihood of a more progressive Congress in my lifetime look remote; billions of corporate dollars will flow into election campaigns, and those who wish to retain or obtain office will respond accordingly.

    Obama failed to use what power he had when that power was at its maximum.  Whatever the reasons -- inexperience, a foolish belief in Kumbaya bipartisanship, infatuation with senior Senators -- he let the time slip away last summer.  The question is where can we go from here.

    I get the sense that progressive voices are coalescing around fixing the Senate bill through reconciliation rather than voting it down and relying only on reconciliation.  I'm too far removed from the day to day machinations to be certain of that, but it's hard to see how else to do it, and its far from clear that the votes are there any more.

    Parent

    NOW says "Kill the Bill" (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    Here.

    Of course, they're just a special interest group who want women treated as fully human. How crazy is that?

    Imagine? Women want equality? (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:58:50 PM EST
    Thank you Lambert. Democrats aren't concerned about the atttacks from the House and Senate in the end runs on RoevWade?

    Apparently these clueless Democrats don't give a crap about women who voted for them [me],but are indifferent to the inclusion of portions in this bill that severly limit women's right to equal protection, freedom of choice, and the right to privacy under the law.

    These guys don't know women go to the polls?
    Or do they think we are so enthralled by American Idol that we will overlook their contempt for us?

    Women spent decades fighting for the right to vote and the right to choose.

    We are not the weaklings that Obama and the Democrats we have believed would protect our rights believe us to be.

    The Catholic Council of Bishops decended on Rep. Stupak, and the House was able to allow this to morph into a bill that doesn't even allow women to pay for their own abortions with their own funds if the company or org. they work for or are insured with get any amt of fed. funds.

    The Hyde law banning federally funded abortions has been on the books since Clinton days. Stupak and then Nelson taking this futher is an open war on women's rights.

    No one in our party said a word. No one.

    The IRS grants tax free status to Churches and groups providing they do not interfere with the State.  The Catholic Council of bishops should lose their tax emptions as they are in contempt of the Constitution.

    How much for granted does Obama and the Democratic party take us?   As far as I can see a lot. The NOW has their work cut out for them.

    Parent

    NOW Should Worry about SCOTUS (none / 0) (#26)
    by Michael Masinter on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 01:56:16 PM EST
    NOW should recognize that the real threat to abortion rights is SCOTUS, not health care reform; Roberts signaled in Citizens United that the Court may be ready to overrule Roe v. Wade with this language:

    ...we must keep in mind that stare decisis is not an end in itself.

    * * *

         Likewise, if adherence to a precedent actually impedes the stable and orderly adjudication of future cases, its stare decisis effect is also diminished. This can happen in a number of circumstances, such as when the precedent's validity is so hotly contested that it cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases, when its rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence in related areas of law, and when the precedent's underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new and different justifications to shore up the original mistake. See, e.g., Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. _, _ (2009) (slip op., at 10); Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U. S. _, _ (2009) (slip op., at 13) ( stare decisis does not control when adherence to the prior decision requires "fundamentally revising its theoretical basis").

    Parent

    Roe v. Wade has been nibbled away to (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 03:26:33 PM EST
    the point where I'm sick of the continuing threat that is used to beat people over the head at election time and wish the Court would just make it official, kick it back to the states, and be done with it.

    Clearly, we live in a country where there is a large segment of the population that simply is not willing to allow people to make personal, private and difficult decisions by themselves, and some of those people sit on the bench - and one of them sits in the WH.  Oh, Obama will tell you he's all for abortion rights, but he doesn't trust women to make these decisions without a committee of trusted male advisors, so as far as I'm concerned, Obama would not be upset to see Roe overturned.

    What seems to escape people, either as a result of insufficient intellectual capacity or of willful denial, is that a woman's reproductive system should entitle her to a full range of CARE, and abortion should not be excluded because some people find it immoral or distasteful.  It's so simple: opposed to abortion?  Don't have one.  Don't have a uterus?  STFU.

    NOW is not at the top of my list of favorite organizations; its leadership has proven that it is just as susceptible to smooth-talking politicians, and just as craven in looking to make some of their decisions with an eye to fundraising - and if they hadn't been so moony-eyed over Obama, their brains would have registered what their ears were hearing and known that Barack Obama is no friend of women's reproductive rights, and would not fight for them.

    As for the Senate bill, let's stop pretending that some kind of legislative magic is going to transform it into a good bill; it won't.  They settled, and compromised and conceded and marginalized and ignored and closed their eyes and ears and managed to cobble together exactly the kind of bill that Obama wanted; knowing it was garbage from Day One is inexcusable and should be enough to send them all packing.

    And, gee - won't it be fun to find out how Obama and his Committee to Cut and Gut Entitlements plans to screw us over some more?  I can hardly wait.

    Parent

    So let's give up? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Michael Masinter on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    >>It's so simple: opposed to abortion?  Don't have one.  Don't have a uterus?  STFU.>>

    Snappy, but people who have a uterus, otherwise known as women, are just as likely to favor restricting the right to reproductive freedom as people who don't.  Excluding men from the debate means excluding a lot of us who are uterine challenged but who believe strongly in reproductive freedom.  And Roberts et al are not likely to STFU anyhow.

    >>As for the Senate bill, let's stop pretending that some kind of legislative magic is going to transform it into a good bill; it won't.  They settled, and compromised and conceded and marginalized and ignored and closed their eyes and ears and managed to cobble together exactly the kind of bill that Obama wanted; knowing it was garbage from Day One is inexcusable and should be enough to send them all packing.>>

    To be replaced by teabaggers and republicans?  That's Lenin's recipe, and it didn't work so well before.  

    The Senate bill is deeply flawed but insofar as it makes insurance available to those who cannot get it, it is not garbage.  Reconciliation can make it better but can't make it perfect.  So what would you do?  Waiting for a progressive uprising that will sweep conservatives and moderates from power won't help anyone now or in our lifetimes.

    Parent

    Abortion and Obama (none / 0) (#68)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:39:48 PM EST
    Anne I simply admired and agree with all of your comments re: RoevWade and NOW.

    They hardly have been proactive,direct,and honest. You are also right that NOW carried water for Obama knowing he is very uninterested in women's rights and would be happy to see Roe disappear.

    Yet I still believe women have to take more action to receive the right legal considerations. NOW is certainly not the only solution.

    Obama's pretense about this entire issue needs more exposure.

    Parent

    Now it is patently ridiculous (none / 0) (#73)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:54:42 PM EST
    to say Obama "would be happy to see Roe disappear."

    What is the basis for that claim?  What is Obama's pretense?

    I have a lot of issues with Obama but some secret desire ot overturn Roe v. Wade is not one of them.  That is pure fantasy.  

    Parent

    Did you hear Obama making any noises (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:49:17 PM EST
    against the Stupak or Nelson amendments?  No?  Me, either.  Seems like someone who unequivocally supports reproductive rights would have pushed back, but Obama didn't.

    Have you ever heard Obama declare that the decisions is the woman's, alone, period - or does he pretty much always go on to say that the decision should be between the woman, her doctor, her partner, her clergyman, and so on?  He likes to lecture us on the decision-making process, just to make sure we know how serious a decision it is.  What does this tell you?  It tells me that he doesn't trust women to make the right decision on their own.  When that's how someone feels, it's easier and makes one more comfortable to use people within a woman's inner circle as a fail-safe against making a bad decision.  

    Obama also has more than a few anti-choice individuals within his administration, some in positions that could have some effect on policy.  Why would he have people like that in his administration if he was interested in protecting and fighting for the right to choose?

    Does he have a secret desire to see Roe overturned?  I don't know - that's not what I said.  I said I thought he would be happy to see it go - but maybe "relieved" would be a better way to describe it.  I think he's uncomfortable defending and supporting it, he's not comfortable being honest about his position, nor do I believe he has the courage to be honest, and he always has to have it both ways.  

    I made a snarky comment, above, to the effect that if someone was opposed to abortion, she shouldn't have one, and if one did not have a uterus, one should STFU.  While I could have packaged that in a much more touchy-feely-sensitive way - something I have done here from time to time - I'm tired of having to explain to those who are opposed to abortion why what I or any other woman wants to do, or not do, with respect to this issue is just none of their business.  And I'm tired of having to explain that if you don't have a uterus, you don't get to impose your opinions on those who do.

    People are entitled to have whatever feelings and beliefs they want on this subject, but when it comes to whether a woman should or should not exercise her choices, it's no one else's business but hers.

    Parent

    Mistaking Obama's (none / 0) (#91)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 06:39:37 AM EST
    avoidance of confrontation for sexism is a delusion of persecution.  He won't stand up for any classical progressive issue or group. He isn't the enemy of any one progressive cause in that sense. For some reason, he just won't fight for any of us.

    At first I wasn't sure how to interpret his abandoning us, and I bought into the hyperspace rationalization (11-dimensional chess -- remember that?), but now I just don't know. If it were 11-dimensional chess you would have expected him to take a couple of unprotected pawns by now. Also, the hyperspace theory isn't a good theory for progressives. The hyperspace theory would fit for Republicans, because they have something close to a unitary goal. They know what a won game looks like. Progressives don't, because a won game looks different to all of us.

    Progressives are best thought of as being organized in the way Lakoff has referred to as SILOS (Single Issue Liberal Organizations). To say Obama is attacking women is like saying the the earthquake in Haiti was after diplomats. It's like mistaking a random massacre for planned murder. Obama seems to go out of his way to leave proponents of every individual progressive cause out in the cold when they need him most. We elected him as a broad and loosely affiliated coalition of people who seem to share very little with each other besides our common disdain for conservatives.

    Conservatives all believe three things, and they can articulate those three things to motivate their base. Progressives believe many different things, to the extent that we often have little in common with each other. That is what makes us politically weak and vulnerable, which is why we couldn't muster a serious challenge against Republican infrastructure for over 35 years.

    I hate to think of it this way, but I am beginning to believe he is making use of the fact that the progressive base is so entirely disjunctive and diverse. That is, he can afford to avoid the cost and risk of challenging any traditionally powerful conservative position by simply capitulating, because only a small part of the progressive population will be seriously offended. That is, he only has to give up one SILO at a time, and that usually involves risking less than the fight would risk. He then retains the support of the larger part of the progressive movement, because we progressives don't generally invest heavily in each other's causes. We pretty much stay within our SILOS, and only go into combat mode when something threatens our particular single issue. Then he has time and resources to do damage control on the isolated group he offended. If the offenses are spread out over time, he keeps the larger population under control.

    That is where Lakoff's ideas become very important. Progressives have no integrated set of abstract values which tie us all together and which would cause us all to react as a population when he throws one group under the bus.

    Parent

    At least Pres. Obama did a press release (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    re Roe v. Wade anniversary.

    Parent
    See Digby today. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 02:00:01 PM EST


    Parent
    When the bill is already dead (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    .... jump on it.  So brave of them.

    Parent
    I'd say it's undead, not dead (none / 0) (#40)
    by lambert on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 05:16:24 PM EST
    Rather like a zombie.

    Parent
    It's Schroedinger's Bill. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by steviez314 on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 05:48:36 PM EST
    It's neither dead or not dead, until you observe it.

    Parent
    NOW jumped on Stupak (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 06:11:36 PM EST
    when it still was alive and kicking women in the a*s.  Check the site.

    Parent
    Now replaced Obama? (none / 0) (#58)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:06:05 PM EST
    NOW is expected to react. They don't make law.

     The point is women were trashed by their very own democrats. Stupak should have been stopped by his cowardly fellow democrats and certainly by Pelosi and other women Democrats who voted for the House bill with this undemocratic sneak add on.

    NOW is not around to steer the Healthcare bill.  Team Obama was, and failed.

    Parent

    Of course not. Please use "parent." (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:49:03 PM EST
    I appreciate that you're ballistic about all this, as am I.  But please use "parent" to understand my comment in its context as a reply to a previous comment.

    Parent
    If the bill is killed it will (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    have been by its own hand--"Murder on the Orient Express'-style, with President Obama and the Democrats "sensible center" wielding the blade.  Those on the left who looked for a healthcare program rooted in social justice that provides affordable, accessible coverage were labeled extremists. Extremist being Medicare for All advocates, or just those who do not think it wise to further enrich greedy insurance companies. Those of the right, well, no need to go there. And so, the Senate bill belongs to the "level headed" Lieberman, Snowe, Baucus and Ben Nelson. And, the House version is saddled with the zealotry of Democratic Congressman, Bart Stupak. Moreover, its "centrist" foundations are built on shifting sands.: Medicare will finance half of either bill, although the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid says that in 2017 (three years after the new and improved program kicks in) the Medicare trust fund will be exhausted.  Yet, vague "savings without cuts" will cure Medicare's own problems and finance half of the new program.  Cadillac plans are based on health economist's fancies in terms of pass through of premiums to new wages, cost controls through the sin tax model without any concerns for care or false economies, and the snake oil pitch that it will only affect the very rich.  We do need effective health care for all and meaningful health insurance reforms, but the "centrist" product is suicidal.  

    Thanks (none / 0) (#56)
    by norris morris on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:00:57 PM EST
    KeysDan for your great post.

    Parent
    Yglesias should be thanking the House (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:53:00 PM EST
    for saving the Senate from itself. Passing that bill as-is would be the act of political suicide Yglesias seems to think not passing it is.

    If nothing passes, it will be a little embarrassing but the Dems can say they tried, and 'see who complicated it is?' and promise to come back to it another day - this 'once in a generation chance ' talk is just ridiculous. Who says it has to be that way? It was only that way this time because we had Bush for 8 years. Are they admitting they plan to lose in 2012 or 2016? Just one of the many mistakes they have made around the messaging of this whole thing.

     If they pass something everybody hates, and nearly everybody does hate that Senate bill, they will be paying a political price for a long time.

    2012 and 2016 (none / 0) (#80)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:38:38 PM EST
    I will vote against any Democratic candidate who even utters the phrase "health care reform" in 2012 and 2016, if they cannot improve the present bill and get it passed this year. I am sick and tired of HCR and a section of the Democratic Party's obsession with it. Many other important issues need to be fixed in our country; HCR is consuming too much time and energy.
    With the new SCOTUS decision regarding campaign finance, good luck in keeping the interests of insurance and pharmaceutical companies at bay from HCR in the future.

    Parent
    My blame scorecard (none / 0) (#59)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:06:59 PM EST
    Republicans : 50%
    Obama : 30%
    Dem Leadership : 15%
    Left wing bill opponents : 5%

    Do you blame the scorpion for (none / 0) (#60)
    by observed on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:15:04 PM EST
    his sting? I blame the person who brought the scorpion in.

    Parent
    If the scorpions are part of the landscape (none / 0) (#71)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 07:51:32 PM EST
    they are going to limit what you can do.  It's not like we can wave a wand and get rid of them.  Clearly the scorpions were not dealt with effectively but their existance places constraints on the situation. Blame is probably the wrong word.  Cause for the bad result is more like it.

    Parent
    Can you imagine how (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by observed on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:21:24 PM EST
    effective FDR would have been if only he'd thought to invite the  Republicans to the table, promising to work across the aisle for bipartisan solutions to national problems?
    He wouldn't have been such a failure compared to Obama then!
    He might even be considered one of our greatest Presidents, if only he'd been more like Obama.

    Parent
    The FDR political landscape was very different (none / 0) (#81)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:39:42 PM EST
    Filibusters were not used as much and the strong presidency was just getting started.  Nowdays Congress is trying to reassert itself.  In response to FDR, a powerful conservative coalition consisting of Republicand and Southern Democrats arose which managed to brake (but not stop) the New Deal.  The conservative coalition facing Obama is well entrenched and fully formed. Unfortunately, the Great Recession of 2007-2008 did not sweep out enough members of the conservative coalition.  Furthermore some members of the current conservative coalition (blue Dog Dems) are nominal allies of the president.  FDR didn't have such constraints.

    Parent
    FDR (none / 0) (#86)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 09:05:10 PM EST
    did not also have to worry about capital and jobs moving out of the country in a global economy if he became a populist President. Only 7% (and that too is shrinking) of our workforce in the private sector is unionized. Any new manufacturing activity in the America is mostly moving to right-to-work states in the South or out of the country; many companies find it cheaper to also open R&D facilities in China, India, Russia and Eastern European countries. And never in our nations's history did we owe so much debt to foreign countries.
    FDR did not have to deal with these realities during his Presidency.

    Parent
    Btw, I like a lot of your comments, but (none / 0) (#79)
    by observed on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:26:32 PM EST
    I can't agree with not blaming Obama for the mistaken emphasis on bipartisanship.

    Parent
    I do blame him for that. (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Manuel on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 08:44:27 PM EST
    I am just acknowledging that his task was very difficult.  I am disappointed with his performance.  He should have done much better.  Given how close he came, just a little improvement here or there would have made the difference.

    Parent
    sick (none / 0) (#93)
    by jedimom on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:39:39 AM EST
    so so sick of anyone who disagrees with anything being childish, having a tantrum etc

    we are not children no matter what position we are taking, not even those following Obama down the rabbit hole, I think they really believe in him

    give it a rest on the childish, tantrum talk it just alienates people

    tea party patriots are not ignorant racists and 49% of union voters didnt vote for Brown b.c they are stupid or childish, they do not want this crxpulent bill!!!!!!!!

    plouffes wapo says they need to fight and just explain to us all how wonderful the stimulus really is, b.c we just are too stoopid to know what with that fabulous 10% UE rate and all

    Plouffe is full steam ahead damn the torpedoes, it will get realluy ugly now, he is the genius who phrased every single campaign email as an attck on the evil Hillary...

    The Real "Kill The Bill"-ers | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment