The liberal case against Dennis Kucinich

[JamesA1102]

http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/03/10/kos_kucinich">The liberal case against Dennis Kucinich

War Room Progressive hero wants to kill healthcare reform. Is it finally time to give up on him?

By Alex Koppelman

The left has been torn over healthcare reform this year. Some liberals argue that Democrats' current proposals are a major step forward and worth passing despite their flaws, while others argue that the bill should be scrapped because the flaws outweigh the good, and because of the lack of progressive favorites like a public option.

On Tuesday night, two liberal favorites got set up to butt heads. Appearing on MSNBC's "Countdown," DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas was asked by guest host Lawrence O'Donnell about Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich's opposition to President Obama's reform proposal. Moulitsas didn't take it easy on Kucinich in his response.

...

Moulitsas argues that the congressman hasn't accomplished anything at all, and -- though I know I'm going to get slammed for saying this -- I have to agree. Sure, it's good to see a politician standing up for his beliefs and fighting for a point of view that might not otherwise be represented. But there are ways to do that and simultaneously be an effective legislator. Kucinich simply isn't, and he's never really tried hard to be. (You could also argue -- I would -- that the way he goes about things makes him pretty ineffective as a spokesman for his ideals.)

...

In fact, according to the Web site GovTrack, of the 97 bills Kucinich has sponsored since taking office in 1997, only three have become law. Ninety-three didn't even make it out of committee.

The three that were enacted are, in chronological order from first to last: A bill "to make available to the Ukranian Museum and Archives the USIA television program 'Window on America,'" a bill "to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14500 Lorain Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio as the 'John P. Gallagher Post Office Building" and a bill "proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously."

[TwilightGardener]

1. Ouchie. Ow.

[elocs]

2. I don't see this going over well here at DU. n/t

[sabrina 1]

47. Why would it? DU is a Democratic Blog. Slamming real

Democrats is usually what you find on FR.

Go Dennis! Keep telling the truth, it lifts up the rock under which the fake Democrats hide.

[krabigirl]

3. Ugh..especially since this bill is not health-care reform, but mandated insurance.

[MadHound]

4. Misleading headline, he doesn't want to kill healthcare reform,

He wants to kill this bill in particular because he realizes, as do many liberals, that this is a horrible bill that will do more harm than good. Dennis has been working for healthcare reform for over thirty years, so he's not giving up on it. But he's not going to throw it all in just for a crappy bill.

I'm of the same mind, this bill is absolutely horrible and we need to kill it and start over with something that is truly meaningful reform, something that will help the people first and foremost, not hand a mandated monopoly over to the insurance industry.

[NJmaverick]

5. Good FACT FILLED article

I think it's time for Dennis to find another line of work that doesn't require RESULTS. Something like liberal blogger or political pundit.

[MadHound]

10. That you think this article is fact fill onely goes to show just how disconnected from reality

You are. You've let your irrational hatred of liberals and progressives color your thinking to the point where you've disconnected from reality. One has but to read your posts to see that.

[Lil Missy]

12. So, what in the article is not true?

[paulsby]

27. so , support your argument

which facts aren't true, so to speak?

[NJmaverick]

63. Wow! just WOW! So facts are not facts if you don't like them

that explains a lot of things

[sabrina 1]

39. Well, now I know Dennis is right.

The DLCers are out in force against this 'irrelevant' Congressman today. All of a sudden he's extremely importan! How dare he tell the truth. That is not the way things are done in DC! How naive of those of us who know he is right and support him fully. :eyes:

Time to send him a donation! The fake progressive blogs are joining their Republican allies in going after the only real Democrat left in DC.

Reading around the blogosphere today and talking to people in RL, Dennis has the support of the people though.

The usual tools for the DLC, as expected, have received their calls and are doing as they were told.

Go Dennis. You have all the right people riled up! Cowards and sell-outs are terrified of an honest Congressman.

[NJmaverick]

64. I don't have an irrational hatred for the DLC

[bobthedrummer]

6. I'd say it's the neo-liberal "case" (especially the DLC) that are in opposition to DK

[berni_mccoy]

9. As a liberal Democrat, I'd say it's the green/socialist case that puffs up Kucinich like they did

with Nader.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Yep. Neoliberalism/Third Way/Triangulators

[berni_mccoy]

7. First comes grandstanding... then comes crashing reality.

[cali]

8. and that's my problem with Dennis. He's ineffectve

he plays well to a small group of people, but he doesn't really get anything accomplished. glad to have his voice in Congress, but that's about it.

[Political Heretic]

56. Ineffective for who and by what definition?

I'm not sure that "how many bills have you sponsored that passed" should be the litmus test for a representative. Maybe it should, but it seems to me that the real people who's opinion matters most are the people in his district, and they keep reelecting him, even when he's had a primary challenge.

It could be that they've just never had any really good choices - but that's not the impression I get. The impression I get is that these people feel pretty good about their Representative...

There's something a little disturbing about calls to vote out a guy who is reelected by his district because he happens to be right on every point he makes in criticizing this insurance reform fiasco, but didn't get the memo that after you've pointed out the obvious truth, you are supposed to then fall in line...

That said, I swore to myself I wasn't going to wade in thick on this week of DK bullshit, which will all blow over in a few days as DU moves on to other things. He's not Jesus Christ reincarnate, neither is he the base sum of all evil. He's just zis guy, you know?

[sabrina 1]

68. He is as effective as a majority of other Democrats in Congress.

Do the research and you will see that most members even if they sponsor hundreds of bills, are lucky if they pass 6 or 7 of them over a 20 year, or more, period.

The lie, by omission of that fact, is still a lie. Kucinich's effectiveness regarding sponsoring, co-sponsoring and getting bills enacted over a 15 year period, is about the same or better than hundreds of other members of Congress. He is way MORE effective at informing the public than most, and that is part of his job. Taking that into account, he's probably more effective than the average member of Congress.

One example:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400080

John Conyers has sponsored 290 bills since Jan 6, 1987 of which 232 haven't made it out of committee and 13 were successfully enacted. Conyers has co-sponsored 3,639 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Conyers and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

In 23 years, with hundreds of sponsored bills, Conyers, like most members of Congress, didn't get most of them out of Committee and only 13 were enacted. And his record is better than most.

I wish people check their facts before parroting the DLC talking points.

[Lil Missy]

11. Yes, it's time to replace him. n/t

[G_j]

13. wrong.. he does not want to kill healthcare reform

article gets off to a very bad start with a falsehood in the title.

:thumbsdown:

[557188]

14. Let me get this straight...

The Neo-Liberals new buzzword is to call Kucinich ineffective.

YET

If Kucinich kills this awful insurance bail out corporate mandate....well that kind of makes him very effective in helping protect progressive, anti corporate, views. Ooops.

[cali]

30. I'm not a neo-liberal, dearie, and though I like Dennis

he is, when it comes to legislation, ineffective. Bernie was far more effective when he was in the House than Dennis has been.

And sorry, lousy as this legislation is, I believe- as Bernie does- that it's better to pass it. I suppose you think that Bernie is a fucking neo-liberal, genius.

[Political Heretic]

57. I think Bernie is a better politician than Dennis. But I think Dennis is right.

And its hard to come down hard against someone who you think is pretty much telling the truth on damn near everything. So I'm trying to leave it to his district voters.

[557188]

74. Bernie is a sell out

How he can say he is a socialist with a straight face is utterly disgusting. Socialists aren't for mandatory CORPORATE health insurance. Sanders has no credibility anymore.

Obama sure had an impressive legislative history before everyone gifted him the presidency! You were a huge Obama supporter so I am not surprised you would be an apologist for mandatory corporate insurance.

A congress representative should be viewed how they vote. Not the new laws they create. Even more so since Dennis has faced 3 right wing administrations (two Bush and one Obama). I'd rather have a rep that has has created zero laws, but gave a vote to the right causes (like killing mandatory corporate health insurance), than one who creates laws that restrict our freedom.

[Politicub]

15. What is the measure of someone in Congress?

It's a good question, and I appreciate this article presenting facts. People can draw their own conclusions.

My opinion is that the record doesn't support Kucinich as an effective congressman.

He's not a junior congressman. He's been in office for 13 years and should know the ins and outs of wrangling to get bills passed that are important to his constituents. The only thing in the list of bills he's authored that remotely relates to helping his district is the renaming a post office building.

And judging from the threads about him as of late, it seems he is against many more things than he is in favor. I haven't thought about that until now, really.

[Cleita]

16. There is nothing liberal about this. Sorry but I grew up with

FDR and Truman. I was a young woman through Kennedy and LBJ. I know what liberal is and that is what Dennis Kucinich is. I resent the DINO wing of the Democratic Party attacking him this way. Why are they afraid of him?

[Iggo]

18. Wait 'til they turn on Grayson. (n/t)

[Cleita]

19. They will. Give them time. n/t

[laughingliberal]

31. Oh, back when he made his excellent statement on the House floor, we had some here who

were saying he went too far and he needed to stop before he got marginalized as a whackjob. Seems it's been so long since we saw a Democrat play offense with effective messaging some did not know what they were seeing. All that handwringing was ludicrous. Yeah, he got marginalized alright. The largest amount of money raised by any candidate in the last FEC reporting period. And winning among Republicans in his conservative district. Maybe the centrists need to take lessons.

[sabrina 1]

48. Time to send him a donation. Every time

they smear him, it reminds me to send him some money because I'm sure he's not going to be getting any from Big Pharma as his colleagues will. A man who can't be bought, very rare in DC.

[YOY]

21. One doesn't even need your experience...but it helps.

Taking a simple PoliSci 101 class is all one needs to do.

[donco6]

22. +1

[paulsby]

28. attacking him with facts! how dare they. all worship the great dennis

seriously. 3 pieces of legislation in 13 yrs?

and you saw what they were.

that's frigging SAD and PATHETIC

i had no idea

[sabrina 1]

45. What a shame that Democrats would not support

bills put forward by Kucinich. The failure of Democrats to fight for the issues that he has fought for, is THEIR failure. In fact, looking at those bills, the question is why were Democrats against a progressive agenda? I used to think it was just a few here and there, but every real progressive in Congress, like Dennis, has been unable to persuade their colleagues to fight for the people who elected. In fact, it would be instructive to compile a list of the bills put forward by progressives to see how far they got with their own party.

This information is very revealing, not about Dennis, but about what we thought was our party. They had no problem supporting Bush's agenda though. His SC nominees, his wars, his war funding, his anti-civil liberty policies. And you are upset over a real Democrat for pushing a real Democratic issue.

When Dennis voted against the war and then being consistent, voted against the supplementals, his cowardly colleagues voted for Bush.

Thanks for the information, it is definitely something people ought to know about their Party. And I can't think of a more clear demonstration than the progressive bills they would not support. Just like now, they will not support a Public Option.

[njlib]

50. Excellent post!

You said what I've been thinking the last few days. Thank you!

[sabrina 1]

71. I think I'll have to write an OP to correct the misinformation you

spreading as I'm getting tired of responding to these deceptive posts.

Meantime, for your information, Kucinich's record is normal for a member of Congress. I have provided, AFTER taking the trouble to do a little research, the important omissions from this lie.

Most members of Congress sponsor sometimes hundreds of bills most of which do not get out of committee and of those that do, only a very small number are ever passed.

Here's an example. John Conyers who has been in Congress for 23 years, eight years more than Kucinich:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400080

John Conyers has sponsored 290 bills since Jan 6, 1987 of which 232 haven't made it out of committee and 13 were successfully enacted. Conyers has co-sponsored 3,639 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Conyers and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

Now, if you want to smear someone do it with facts, not lies because lies are easily debunked as you can see.

[whistler162]

20. Get your single issue score card here....

can't tell who is acceptable this issue without one.... Get your single issue score card!!!

[DevonRex]

23. Oh my. Those are the only 3 of his bills to actually become law?

There's just nothing anybody can say to justify that.

[MilesColtrane]

59. He does tend to cosponser other's bills though.

GovTrack generates a LeaderFollower score based on the number of bills sponsored by a Congress member and cosponsored by the other members of Congress divided by the number of bills by other members of Congress that were cosponsored by that particular member. This is a measure of who is following who.

Kucinich's LeaderFollower score, and other stats in relation to the rest of Congress.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/repstats.xpd

[Raineyb]

78. Perhaps if the party wasn't filled with so many triangulating cowards

more of his bills would get through.

The idiocy of the argument that DK is ineffective because he hasn't gotten a certain number of bills passed while the party who is SUPPOSED to be progressive doesn't bother to act on his bills speaks for itself.

Damn disingenuous as well as stupid too I might add.

[Edweird]

24. More DK bashing with a one way ticket to Zero Town. Too bad the actual number of negative recs isn't

shown.

[laughingliberal]

44. +1 nt

[Individualist]

26. "liberal" case

:rofl:

How disingenuous! It's clearly the DLC case against DK. Unrec for disingenuous bullshit.

[avaistheone1]

29. Moulitsas is a tool.

Kos is full of crap.

[sabrina 1]

46. He always was, a 'former Republican' who suddenly became

a liberal! He was against gays before he was for them. He called women's issues 'pet issues' that are not important and well, he's a waste of energy. And not important as few people even know who he is. But he has been consistently against liberals. I am amazed anyone still listens to him at all. And always hated Kucinich which is not surprising for a 'former' Republican.

[MuseRider]

32. There are very few real liberals left

and soon there may likely be none. Old style liberals were for the people. Neo libs are disgusting and may as well call themselves Republicans.

It is pretty damned hard to be effective at anything when you stand alone and don't take the pay-offs so you can't run a big, snazzy campaign. All the things he stands for stand in the way of the DLC or the Dems that have been slowly, and now quickly moving right. How could he be effective?

He has almost always been proven right.*****You notice I say almost always, he has been very wrong before. We know that and we will not stand beside him when he does these things. So stop with the insults. We are every bit as valid as the rest of you think you are.***** I stand with him and the very very few who are still people oriented politicians. The rest can go pound rocks as far as I am concerned.

[LanternWaste]

33. We are being scolded...

We are being scolded by those already standing in the metaphorical corner.

We are being told in so many words that a man with the courage of his liberal convictions has no place in a leadership position because it interferes with the machinations of the status quo and less progressive agendas.

[MuseRider]

34. As I said

they can go pound rocks! I find it all so funny. How on earth could someone with no real change be so cocky about their "new ideas"? Blech.

[G_j]

35. imagine turning down corporate contributions as Kucinich has always done nt

[MuseRider]

38. And spending

most of his time with things his constituents need! How absurd is that? I mean he should be spending all his time fund raising, paying for great venues to give his speeches written by someone else, none of them actually true or intended to be done. Gosh, he is soooo ineffective and certanly not a Democrat since he votes with the Republicans!

[Lil Missy]

36. A lot of grandstanding with very little to nothing accomplished. Useless as tits on a bore.

[donco6]

41. LOL. "bore". n/t

[Lil Missy]

42. boar.

;)

[donco6]

43. I was considering all sorts of funny comebacks to that one.

But I thought the wiser of it.

[sabrina 1]

49. Give us an example of an effective Democratic, progressive

member of Congress who has accomplished something that benefits the people who elected them? I'm trying to think of one bill, going back to 2006 when they got a majority, that was something to cheer about. Maybe I missed something. I do remember the minimum wage bill, which they compromised on and ended up with a pittance that didn't go into effect right away. One Bill, in two years, and it was watered down, and they had a majority.

But other than that, name some bills put forward by 'effective Democrats' otherwise you statement is empty repetition of a DLC talking point, and not a very 'effective' one at that.

[JamesA1102]

51. I guess you forgot...

The stimulus bill
The credit card bill of rights
Expanding State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
$2 billion in new funding for child care
The hate crimes bill
Rebuilding schools in New Orleans
The Lily Ledbetter Act
Extending unemployment insurance benefits
Reversed restrictions on stem cell research

Just to name a few.

[sabrina 1]

54. I guess YOU forgot:

Extend unemployment compensation during recession
.
Kucinich co-sponsored extending unemployment compensation during recession

A bill to provide for a program of temporary extended unemployment compensation. Provides for federal-state agreements under which a state will make temporary extended unemployment compensation payments to individuals who:

1. have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under state or federal law with respect to a benefit year (excluding any benefit year that ended before one year before the enactment of this Act);
2. have no rights to regular compensation or extended compensation with respect to a week under such law or any other state or federal unemployment compensation law;
3. are not receiving compensation for such week under the unemployment compensation law of Canada; and
4. filed an initial claim for regular compensation on or after one year before the enactment of this Act.

Source: Emergency Unemployment Extension Act (S.2544&H.R.4934) 2008-S2544 on Jan 22, 2008

~~~~~

Kucinich also co-sponsored:

Congressman Kucinich has cosponsored a number of bills that would increase consumer protections and protect his constituents from deceptive practices. In the 110th Congress, he was a cosponsor of the Credit Cardholder Bill of Rights Act, which would require advance notice of any rate increases, eliminate double-cycle billing, and prohibit universal default, when servicers use changes to a consumer’s credit score (or other adverse information) to increase the annual percentage rate (APR) on a card that remains in good standing.

The Congressman has also cosponsored bills to amend the Truth in Lending Act to protect consumers from certain unreasonable practices of creditors, which result in higher fees, or rates of interest for credit cardholders, and to require credit card issuers to mail monthly statements at least 30 days before the due date of the next payment.

Kucinich has co-sponsored 2922 bills since 1997.

Kucinich also signed the Lily Ledbetter Act

Rated 100% on his voting record by the AFLCIO.

If Kucinich is a 'failure' because of the number of bills he sponsored V the number that were enacted, every member of Congress is a failure.

For example:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300060

John Kerry has sponsored 485 bills since Jan 6, 1987 of which 399 haven't made it out of committee and 13 were successfully enacted. Kerry has co-sponsored 2,711 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Kerry and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)



Interesting how that lie about 'ineffectiveness' is what is used to smear Kucinich rather than explain why he is wrong about his position on healthcare. The reason for that tactic is clear, he is not wrong and those who simply want a 'win' for their team, rather than decent healthcare for the country, don't have the guts to say he is wrong on the issues, so they attack him because he's not willing to lie to the people so 'he's going to make the make the team lose'.

My comment about the passage of bills by other Democrats was misinterpreted by you. I am aware of the bills that passed after the Nov. election. With a majority for the two years before that, only one bill was passed while Democrats helped Republicans pass Bush's agenda.

What I want to know is how many other bills did those members who sponsored the bills you listed get passed during their time in office? One hundred? Three hundred? Ninety? Ten?

Babara Mikulski sponsore the Lily Ledbetter Bill eg. Here's HER record:

Barbara Mikulski has sponsored 163 bills since Jan 6, 1987 of which 141 haven't made it out of committee and 7 were successfully enacted. Mikulski has co-sponsored 2,237 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills actually sponsored by Mikulski and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)

So she's ineffective also? Only 7 bills enacted in 23 years?

Kerry, ineffective. Only 13 bills passed in 23 years.

Kucinich is right on this bill. It would serve everyone better if people would just explain why he is not, why this the American people should not have a choice to NOT buy a product from a corrupt industry and get punished for it if refuse to do so. Explain why he is wrong, and put down the DLC talking points.

[JamesA1102]

60. I didn't forget anything.

You beef is with Alex Koppelman who wrote the article.

Interesting that you were so quickly able to cite so many democratic accomplishments that Kucinich was involved in after you said that the Dems had no accomplishments.

[sabrina 1]

65. No, 'other' Dems had no more accomplishments

than Kucinich. My beef is with the lie that his record is different than anyone else's in Congress. His record is about the same as most of the other Democrats.

[JamesA1102]

66. Not even Ted Kennedy??? NT

[sabrina 1]

67. Ted Kennedy was in the Senate for over 40 years.

He was also a nationally known politician and he had the aura of the Kennedy mystique which made people listen to him. He received a lot of media attention on a national level and the leadership of the party did not dare do to him what they are doing to other lesser known progressives. He basically inherited a leadership role in the Senate.

Other politicians who went against him would have to answer to the public. This is not the case with literally hundreds of good members of Congress who are known only in their own districts.

Kucinich IS finally getting some recognition now and there is no way he should back down from what is right. He should use his vote as leverage to get more in the bill that will not only benefit the American people, but the Democratic Party itself.

It is up to the leadership to either include a strong PO. which the public is overwhelming in favor of and let the WH know that they are an equal branch of government and that they represent the American people, NOT the corrupt Insurance Industry. They should, but most likely won't, support Kucinich, because so many of them are also on the payroll of Big Pharma. They should use their bargaining power and fight for a PO which could be passed by Reconciliation. There is just no logical reason for them not to do so.

Also, oynly a handful of longtime Democrats have records like Kennedy's. The average member of Congress even if they sponsor hundreds of bills, are lucky if the get just a few of them enacted, like Kucinich.

If people oppose him simply because they want their team to win, regardless of the consequences to the American people, that is one thing.

But let me ask you this ~ what has he said about Healthcare that you disagree with. Do you agree that we don't need a PO eg? Do you agree with forcing the poor to buy cheap policies which will have such high co-pays that they will not be able to use them? Or, do you agree with Kucinich but think that 'winning' is more important than substance?

Also, one more question. Do you not agree that this is the perfect time for progressives to push for what is best for the people? While the bill is being negotiated? Why do you think members of Congress should go along with a bill that they know, and most of them do, is going to end up like Romneycare and will not solve most of the problems of our HC system?

[JamesA1102]

70. Please don't change the subject and hijack the thread.

That's not he issue here. You said the Dems had accomplished nothing and I showed that they had. Then you showed that Kucinich had been involved in some of those accomplishments and I noted how quickly you backtracked on your earlier claim. Then you claimed that "'other' Dems had no more accomplishments". Then I asked about Ted Kennedy and you backtracked yet again. So the issue is you making statement that are so easily refuted you have to backtrack and change the subject.

And just for the record, I'm for the public option. And I'm proud to say that my two Senators (who's offices I've called many times) are part of the group of 41 Senators who are committed to voting for the Public Option in reconciliation.

[sabrina 1]

75. The thread, which was started by you, linked to an

an article that contains at least two lies. Here they are:

On Tuesday night, two liberal favorites got set up to butt heads. Appearing on MSNBC's "Countdown," DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas was asked by guest host Lawrence O'Donnell about Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich's opposition to President Obama's reform proposal. Moulitsas didn't take it easy on Kucinich in his response.

...

Moulitsas argues that the congressman hasn't accomplished anything at all, ....

The first lie is that Marcos Moulitsas is a 'liberal favorite'. He is pretty much despised by most liberals and is barely known to the average person. His opinions, which have flip flopped from one side of an issue to another over the years, have destroyed his credibility with most liberals. In fact, he himself has made no secret that he despises libersals, so there is no love lost.

The second lie, was predictably told by Moulitsas himself, repeating a DLC talking point that has no basis in fact which I have pointed out. If you post an OP that has lies in it, and you consider corrections to those lies to be thread jacking, that is your problem.

For the record, this is Marcos Moulitsas in Dec of 2009:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/15/814776/-Remove-mandate,-or-kill-this-bill

Remove mandate, or kill this bill Hotlist
by kos

Remove mandate, or kill this bill My take is that it's unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status. It'd be like forcing everyone to attend baseball games, but instead of watching the Yankees, they were forced to watch the Kansas City Royals. Or Washington Nationals. It would effectively be a tax -- and a huge one -- paid directly to a private industry.

Without any mechanisms to control costs, this is yet another bailout for yet another reviled industry. Subsidies? Insurance companies are free to raise their rates to absorb that cash. More money for subsidies? More rate increases, as well as more national debt.

This is why Kos is not a 'favorite of liberals'. He is a flip flopper. Two months ago, he agreed with Kucinich before he decided he didn't. Too bad O'Donnell wasn't aware of his record.

The second lie:

Moulitsas argues that the congressman hasn't accomplished anything at all,

I have demonstrated how untrue that statement is in several posts since Kucinich's record is average for a member of Congress, who often sponsor hundreds of bills, most of which never get out of committee and very few of which, like Kucinich, are passed into law.

If Kucinich is ineffective, so is Russ Feingold, John Conyers along with many others who have been in Congress far longer than Kucinich.

If you want to stand by that article, you can do so, but not without the knowledge that you now have.

[JamesA1102]

76. And it is good that you pointed them out.

I didn't know they were lies until you did.

[sabrina 1]

77. Thanks, sorry for not being as clear as I could have been.

My fault for not communicating my points more clearly ~ :-)

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Number23]

40. Good and interesting read. Thanks for posting.

[tonysam]

52. I gave up on him a long, long, long time ago

He's nothing but a grandstanding, self-aggrandizing, New Agey freak of a politician.

[Marr]

53. Here's what I can't understand. When Lieberman, Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu,

and every other corporate lobbyist/politician refused to support the bill as proffered, the self-proclaimed "moderates" demanded compromise. 'We've got to have their support', they would say, 'this is the way politics works'.

Well, here's another Democrat who refuses to support a bill in it's present form, and suddenly the compromisers don't want to compromise anymore. Where's that spirit of 'working together' and 'bringing people into the fold', "moderates"? Why are you smearing this man instead of dutifully taking down his requests?

[Raineyb]

79. That's what *I* would like to know.

I haven't gotten an answer to that question yet. Maybe you'll hear something besides crickets.

[Political Heretic]

55. The people of his district are the ones that need convincing.

Since they keep reelecting him, even when he faces primary challengers...

Maybe they feel like representing their interests is about more than authoring bills that have fuck-all to do with them?

:shrug:

[eridani]

58. Good explanation of why legislation that does get passed is either

--a corporate giveaway or a piddling bandaid for the resulting damage.

[ShortnFiery]

61. Such Bullshit. This shitty Senate Bill is not "Reform" it's a "Heist" for the Insurance Cartel ...

and Big Pharma.

Wake up and smell the snow job?!?

[kctim]

69. The only people who matter

are those who Kucinich represents and it is they who decide when it is time to give up on him.
I am not a Kucinich fan at all, but these guys are whining assholes and Kucinich should be applauded for putting his people before a party.

[mmonk]

72. You mean neo-liberal?

There is no liberal case.

[aikoaiko]

73. I don't think liberal means what Alex Koppelman thinks it means.

It sounds like he is making a pragmatic case against Kucinich, if that.