It is not disloyal to the president or the party to want him to keep his campaign promises.

[highplainsdem]

This is such an obvious point you wouldn't think it would have to be made here, but maybe it should be explained again.

I would like this presidency to be a successful one, and Obama to be re-elected (preferably by a landslide) in 2012. I'd like the Democratic base to be so energized by proof this administration is working toward the party's core liberal/progressive goals that we have record turnout.

But I don't believe Obama can have a successful presidency, or win re-election, or energize the base for 2012 (let alone the midterms), if what his administration does is too different from what he told us he wanted to do.

People concerned about that don't need reminders that "politics is the art of the possible" or that "sometimes compromise is necessary." We're well aware of that.

What concerns us are the reports of the administration compromising without putting up much of a fight. Or, worse, sometimes actively working against goals Obama campaigned on.

At the moment, I'm very concerned that the administration is risking kneecapping the Democratic Party in this year's midterm elections by planning to tax the so-called "Cadillac" health plans that so many union workers accepted instead of pay raises. I read last night that union leaders would find this more acceptable if the administration would consider raising the level at which the tax kicks in to a point where it would affect 1 in 14 union workers, instead of 1 in 4, but the administration wasn't willing to do that since it would mean less revenue from the tax.

It's going to be hard for the Democratic Party to keep union support if union workers' health plans are seen as a cash cow for a bill that many already view as helping the insurance companies more than anyone else.

So I'm hoping the unions can finally get this administration to realize that breaking campaign promises and puncturing the hopes and dreams that Obama raised so effectively will have electoral consequences.

There's still time to turn things around. But the president isn't going to feel it's important to fulfill those campaign promises and live up to those hopes and dreams if Democrats keep quiet when they think he's going in the wrong direction. (And President Obama can't go far enough in the wrong direction to have any hope of winning over his critics on the right, as Keith Olbermann pointed out so well in a special comment pleading with the president to remember that.)

I want the Obama administration not only to have a successful 8 years, but a great legacy. But you can't have a great legacy if it's a hollow one. Passing a health care reform bill, any health care reform bill, just to be able to say you passed health care reform, is not a great legacy, no matter how much you praise that badly flawed, unbelievably compromised bill as great legislation. You can't paper over the reality. Reality has this annoying habit of breaking through no matter how much you praise a facade. I don't want this HCR bill to be Obama's equivalent of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. And I'm afraid that's what it will be if the administration simply feels it's important to pass a health care reform bill, any health care reform bill no matter how compromised and contrary to campaign promises and previous goals, so the president can tout it in his State of the Union speech.

So I will not stop noticing when this administration seems to be going in the wrong direction, rather than the one we were told it would take. We aren't doing the administration or the party any favors if we decide that we should keep quiet for fear of helping the irrational criticisms of him from the right if we point out that compromising too much with politicians on the right, and corporations who usually back those on the right, is not likely to get him one step closer to the hope and change he campaigned on so eloquently.

[hughee99]

1. It's not disloyal to WANT them to keep their promises...

but maybe it's disloyal to say so. When you don't support our president you give aid and comfort to the enemy. :sarcasm:

[donheld]

35. It's disloyal to the party and America to let them get away with these lies.

[Donnachaidh]

2. the underlying theme does seem to be *pull on your jackboots, zip your mouth and walk this way*

It's quite amazing just how much pressure is being thrown at the voices of dissent. It's as if these cretins want us to be a blue version of the blinkered repuke party. :puke:

[Toots]

3. What do you think would benefit Democrats more, passing a Health Care Bill or failing to pass one?

If they pass a Bill it can be amended down the road. If they fail to pass a bill Republicans will have scored a tremendous victory and will beat Democrats about the head with it for a generation or more.Obama can't make Ben Nelson into a real Democrat nor can he make Joe Lieberman into a humane human being but, he can get this Health Care fiasco behind him and move on to Energy/Climate legislation while he does still have a majority in Congress.

[Fumesucker]

8. The bill can be amended by Republicans as easily as Democrats..

And if the bill helps get Republicans elected, which I think it has a reasonable chance of doing, then Republicans will be amending it.

What I see happening in that eventuality is the mandate for private insurance being left in and any regulation of insurance companies or subsidies to help with premiums being deleted.

We very easily could end up *worse* off than we are with the current FUBARed system..

[rhett o rick]

44. And you better believe the health care insurance lobby will be working full time on amendments. nt

[MH1]

10. shh, you're not allowed to make sense at DU anymore.

[rhett o rick]

45. LOL, some of us never have before. nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

16. Passing a bill with the funfamentally flawed FOUNDATION of mandated CORPORATE 3rd party insurance is

.....not something that can be fixed by being "amended" down the line.

It would have to be essentially repealed, and a diametrically opposite approach adopted, which would then be much more difficult because of this bill.

Giving Liebermann & Nelson a veto, and forcing the House to abandon the will of the majority of Americans is a prescription for electoral defeat, disregarding the morality of it.

A mandatory private insurance bill is worse for Americans, and a disaster for the Democratic Party.

We can survive not passing a bill.

But passing a BAD bill, as this one is, will provide the transient euphoria of a "W", but will destroy us.

[anonymous171]

18. If the bill doesn't fucking work it won't matter. RESULTS ARE IMPORTANT! nt

[sabrina 1]

30. What part of it would be amended?

The president says he got 95% of what he wanted in the Senate Bill. That doesn't sound like someone who thinks it needs much amending.

The only thing to do now is to work on electing real Democrats and to make a Single Payer system a top issue until we get it.

[Faryn Balyncd]

38. This bill is a huge step AWAY from single payer....& if the president says he got 95% of what he....

....wanted then that can only be true if the president wants to bury single payer forever.


This bill is, however, 95% of what Zeke Emanuel wants. And, by making the purchase of private insurance mandatory, it makes the final stage of Zeke's dream (the gradual privatization of Medicare itself) easier, as Zeke's plan calls for future Medicare recipients to be required to continue in the private plans.

[sabrina 1]

40. Yes, I agree it is a huge step away from a Single Payer system.

But it has also motivated people now to see why compromising was a bad idea. If it passes, and I am not going to pretend that it won't, the Republicans have already said they will run on repealing it. If they can do that, and we know what they would replace it with which would probably be even worse, I think Progressive candidates ought to run on ending the For-Profit Health Care system completely.

Once the public begins to understand what is in this bill, I think there will be huge support for a Universal Health Care system where every single American has equal access to the same care. It needs to be framed as a Civil Right. They had their chance and they blew it. Make it a huge issue that no candidate who wants to win an election dares not to support.

Already only 33% of the public supports mandatory insurance without a PO. Enough with this piecemeal, discriminatory for-profit garbage. It is a right, and from now on, unlike this effort, that is the message that needs to be put in the minds of Americans. They need to start fighting back. We can't stop this bill, but we can protest it until it is so big an issue, that it cannot be ignored any longer. And that will require a real effort to educate the public on what their rights are, I know. And that requires money. No more money to anyone who doesn't support granting the American the right to what every other develeoped country has already. People have learned a lot already so it's a little easier now than when this began.

[chimpymustgo]

50. Faryn Balyncd, could you write up an OP about this long-range plan to privatize Medicare?

This might help some folks begin to see the light about this awfuL bill.

[jtuck004]

33. Great question, but, and I say this with all due respect,

it won't make a difference if we enter a second recession, or if we sustain the unemployment rates we have.

Note to self - It's ALWAYS the economy, when the economy is no good.

[rhett o rick]

46. Great point. Washington the state has a public option and guess what's going to be cut because of

the economy.

[juno jones]

51. I wish there was funding availiblle to it.

I am eligible, but the waiting list is somewhere near two years long to get it even now, arguably before the worst will hit economics wise. The senate bill doesn't seem to offer much hope that funds will be extended to truly public programs.

[tavalon]

48. Like NAFTA?

[sendero]

54. What utter horseshit..

... "we can fix it later". Like all of the other things that have been fixed?

I'm still hoping this piece of shit bill dies.

[seeinfweggos]

4. but calling for a third party and aligning with loons like Nader is disloyal

unless one never was really a dem.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seeinfweggos]

9. disloyal is the op's word

so you think there is something wrong with being a loyal democrat? you think talking about wanting a third party is consistent with being one?

[juno jones]

52. If the dems paid attention to their party platforms

they might just be dems. But they aren't.

They're the traitors, not I.

[seeinfweggos]

55. well then

congratulations on your appointment as judge of who they traitors in the party are.

[snot]

5. Obama betrayed us, not vice versa.

WE never promised not to diss him no matter what he did.

[abq e streeter]

7. same as I've been thinking (and saying) but laid out so very logically and intelligently

Thank you

[highplainsdem]

20. Thank you!

[napi21]

11. How much is this tax on Cadillac plans? I've searched the net

and found NOTHING that says how much the tax is! Are we talking about 1%? Are we fighting about pennies here??? I have heard that the tax would only be on the amount of cost over the $23,000 so how much money is really being taxed?

[TheWraith]

12. Why thank you for that lovely strawman argument.

Now if only it had something to do with reality.

[katandmoon]

13. K&R. Perfectly stated.

[highplainsdem]

17. Thanks!

[treestar]

14. I don't think we can expect 100% though

from any politican. We all know they are not all powerful, but each a part of it. We know thinks look different when you get in there, into the office.

Obama has kept most of his so far.

[anonymous171]

19. You would be surprised how much change one politician can enact., The only important factor is WILL

Huey Long and FDR had the will to win and change the system. Change can be accomplished, it just requires a pol with balls.

[treestar]

29. They all have balls

Including the ones in Congress.

And FDR had opposition too. The situation was way worse then.

[Faryn Balyncd]

15. NOT keeping the deal with Americans is a fast track to electoral REJECTION

k and r



:hi:

[highplainsdem]

28. I agree. Thanks for the rec!

:hi:

[leftstreet]

21. K&R

[FrenchieCat]

22. When you post articles where you leave half of what you don't like behind

so that whatever you cut and paste provides the effect that you want, then you cannot claim to "want the Obama administration not only to have a successful 8 years, but a great legacy. But you can't have a great legacy if it's a hollow one.

Because you yourself are employing hollow methods, and therefore,
you cannot hold others to a higher standard than you yourself practice....
and that sir, is what you consistently do.

Evidenced by my response of your "if it doesn't fit, don't include it" postings of stories published. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7429339&mesg_id=7429660

Using the copyright rules as a rationale to cut parts of any article in order to bend what a given article is generally stating is a poor excuse of one such as yourself who claims that..... " I will not stop noticing when this administration seems to be going in the wrong direction, rather than the one we were told it would take."

Your problem is that you have assigned yourself the job not of uncovering this Administration's going into the wrong direction, but rather, your job appears to be making it appear as if this administration has gone in the wrong direction, even when it actually hasn't....and because of that, you are not as credible as you are holding up yourself to be.

Your Hoodwinking of others doesn't make you any better than those you are claiming to be holding their feet to the fire....especially if it is actually arson deliberately set by none other than yourself and those others who want to burn this administration down to the ground, taking with it, the entire nation, while congratulating yourselves of a job well done.

[highplainsdem]

24. FrenchieCat, you might have a leg to stand on if it wasn't standard here for

people to quote the sections of articles that strike them as most interesting and relevant. And that's every bit as true of people who try to defend and praise everything this administration does as it is of the people concerned about some administration policies.

I am not "hoodwinking" people. Nor do I want to "burn this administration to the ground." You can attack me with that sort of hysterical hyperbole all you want, but all it indicates is that you don't want people to pay attention to anything the administration is doing that you find difficult to defend. And you apparently hope that being rude and nasty and attacking the messenger will keep news from getting out.

[FrenchieCat]

25. If pointing out that you post an article and leave the parts on the floor

that would change what the article is truly saying
as my being rude and nasty, then so be it.

Sorry if I'm not amicable in your efforts to appear
as though you are better than others, while knowingly
doing the same thing.

How nasty of me.
Sorry.

[highplainsdem]

27. Well, since you should apologize, I'll accept that apology. :)

And I didn't "change what the article is truly saying" in the topic that apparently set you off. The headline of the article was the "new route" Obama is taking to oppose certain parts of certain laws, and I quoted the paragraphs that explained what it is, and gave the administration's rationale for it, and also mentioned some objections to it. I provided the link for the entire article, and I did not try to tell people what they should think about it. I gave them information about an administration policy.

[mdmc]

23. +29

R

(although I never thought Obama would be anything more then just a little less corporate then McCain)
ps- I am certain that Obama will win in 2012 in a landslide.

[datasuspect]

26. it's all a big joke

most of us are the butt of it, and THEY eat better than US.

[eleny]

31. thank you, k&r

[highplainsdem]

32. Thanks, eleny!

[DisgustedInMN]

34. K & R

[highplainsdem]

41. Thank you!

[Jakes Progress]

36. But, but. He didn't never do no promises and

he's only had a year and you didn't understand and if you have quotes, they are wrong and if you have tapes then it's all the congress's fault (unless it was a good bill. Then it was all him.)

I think that about sums up the Panglossian side of DU. I worked for, caucused for, and voted for the man. I never thought he would be a great liberal (too many indications in the primaries and election that he stood close to the corporate and religious right types) but I hoped that he would fight for the things he campaigned on. I know you can't get everything, but you should at least fight for the things that are important. Maybe it inexperience and naivete. Maybe it's just an overwhelming desire to blink first at every suggested confrontation. I prefer inept and nervous to deceptive and lying, so I go with those. Either way, I had hoped for a better performer. I still hope for him to gain some form of redemption, but it will take a dramatic turn from the current direction. Without it, we are doomed to one-term of Democratic control of the WH.

[highplainsdem]

43. +1

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pleah]

39. K&R

[highplainsdem]

49. Thanks, pleah!

[cascadiance]

42. EASY, but corporately contentious! Get RID of the fillibuster and then pass REAL reform!

But of course, the lobbyists won't let us get away with that with the system we have.

Now if Obama doesn't want to be viewed as complicit, and feels he has to "compromise" HCR to the point it is now to get something passed, then he HAS to put out as public agenda that the next item of business will be to pass public campaign finance reform! REAL public campaign finance reform, not dumbed down crap that we have in place now!

Otherwise, he is part of the tumor that still is the cancer that is killing this country.

Rethugs *warned* us of the nuclear option to get through their judge appointments. It is time we did the same thing to get our legislation through, otherwise I question their real commitment.

[tavalon]

47. Thank you for explaining what seems obvious to so many of us

I sent money and I canvassed for him. I don't expect utopia. I do expect that he will work toward what he promised. I've seen little indication of that.

[JamesJ]

53. Loyalty is a two way street

Poor leaders think loyalty goes only one way. They think that they can say what they want and then do the opposite with no consequences. And, I suppose, the Repubs have just that.

But we progressives are different. We are loyal to the principles as well as the leader. And when the leader shows disloyalty to the principles we let him know about it.

It's not us who have shown the disloyalty.

[Toasterlad]

56. Blasphemy! The President Is Beholden To NO Man!

He is our Lord and Savior, and whatever he says is Gospel, even the things he says that contradict the other things he said! Everything he does is correct and just and YOU WILL NOT QUESTION HIM!!!