Glenn Greenwald: "to pretend that this bill is some sort of great victory is just propanganda"

[Better Believe It]

Industry Interests are Not in Their "Twilight"
by Glenn Greenwald
March 21, 2010

Now, if someone wants to argue (as Kevin Drum has) that sleazily bribing these industry interests with secret deals was a necessary evil -- a shrewd, pragmatic way to get a health care bill passed, without which it could not have happened -- that's one thing. I think that's debatable -- after all, the central promise of the Obama campaign was that it would circumvent those factions by appealing directly to the armies of citizen-supporters they had lined up -- but at least that's an honest, rational argument. Bribing these industries was ugly and sleazy but necessary.

But to pretend that this bill represents the "Twilight of the Interest Groups," that special interests have been "neutralized," that this bill is some sort of great victory over the health insurance and drug lobbies, is just hagiography and propaganda. Being able to force the Government to bribe and accommodate you is not a reflection of your powerlessness; quite the opposite. Everyone would love to be forced into a "twilight" like that. It's one thing for the Obama administration and the DNC to issue self-serving claims like this (we've stood up to the insurance and drug companies!), but those who hold themselves out as independent commentators ought to keep their feet on their ground.

As for the related Obama defense that the way this bill was crafted fulfilled his campaign promises because he said he would include these industries "at the table": please. It's true that Obama did say that, and that this clearly meant he intended to try to accommodate some of their concerns so that they didn't wage jihad against his bill. That's fair enough. But it's also true that he repeatedly railed against the Washington practice of crafting bills by negotiating in secret with lobbyists and industry interests, and his whole I'll-put-these-negotations-on-C-SPAN promise was specifically designed, he said, to prevent a health care bill from being negotiated based on secret deals with the health care and pharmaceutical industries.

But that's exactly how he ended up negotiating this bill -- using the exact secret processes that he railed against and which he swore he would banish. It was only because The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim uncovered the secret memo-deal the White House had entered into with PhRMA -- a deal they had publicly denied until then and until PhRMA demanded they publicly affirm it -- did we know that the administration had agreed to oppose drug re-importation and bulk price negotiations, measures Obama (and the Democrats generally) repeatedly promised to enact. Indeed, when it came time to vote on drug re-importation, the administration concocted false "safety concerns" about re-importation in order to whip against Byron Dorgan's re-importation amendment, rather than admit that they really opposed it because they secretly promised they would to PhRMA, which hates drug re-importation because it lowers prices. And it was only two days ago that we finally had confirmed what (at least to me) was obvious all along: namely, the White House had agreed in secret with health care industry representatives that there would be no public option in a final bill, even as the President publicly feigned support for it and pretended to be fighting for it.

In other words, this bill was negotiated using the standard, secret, sleazy Beltway lobbyist/industry practices that candidate Obama frequently condemned and vowed to defeat. And these industries extracted such huge benefits as a result of these secret deals -- a bill shaped to their liking and profit objectives -- that they are essentially in favor of it.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/21

[RoyGBiv]

1. And so it begins ...

A person can't even wait until the final vote.

The consistency of this refrain of perpetual negativity has become positively boring.

[EFerrari]

3. The Democrats and the bill supporters on DU should have their moment.

That much is true.

[RoyGBiv]

Honestly ...

I don't want a moment.

I want us all to wait for the vote(s) and, assuming passage, begin working and agitating immediately for something better using positive rhetoric highlighting how this or that will make this historic accomplishment better.

[EFerrari]

10. Well, in all honesty, I was thinking more about the hype that is raining on us all

from all sides more than what you or what anyone wants.

Okay, Roy. I'm down with that.

[Rage Inc.]

39. Right on

:thumbsup:

[Political Heretic]

58. Problem is, its not a "historic accomplishment." It's a historic failure.

[RoyGBiv]

70. I disagree ...

... entirely.

[blindpig]

131. for the People

For business interests it's a fuckin' gold mine.

[salguine]

83. Okay, I have a question for you that thus far no one has attempted to answer.

What makes you think this bill will be fixed later when it gives the insurance cartels hundreds of billions of dollars more money with which to stave off any attempts at ACTUAL reform?

[readmoreoften]

111. I don't think it will be fixed. I think the Republicans are going to "fix" it when they get in.

And we'll be paying in thrall to the insurance industry. No one whose analysis I trust--and I mean NO ONE--has any hope for this whatsoever.

[Soylent Brice]

138. take your rational thinking and bugger off.

seriously though, spot on. i agree with you.
:thumbsup:

[JVS]

38. Why? For finally getting bad legislation rammed through?

[EFerrari]

132. Because that's how groups work. n/t

[Political Heretic]

57. Bullshit.

I don't believe in giving "moments" to insurance handouts and corporate suck offs.

[liberalhistorian]

87. +1,000,000,000

Yep, that's exactly what it is.

[Xithras]

100. Do more than just gripe on DU though.

I'm already planning on donating to any primary challengers of any Dem that voted yes on this economic rape of the lower classes. Our party has sold us into economic slavery to the health corporations, and I will not donate another dime to a single one of them. Maybe if we can get some of these losers thrown out of office, they'll start listening.

"Centrist" is just another word for pro-corporate cowardice.

[readmoreoften]

112. "Centrist" is just another word for last decade's "right wing". Let's be clear:

DLC: The Right
Republicans: The Far Right
Tea Baggers: Far Right Extremists

Calling these people "centrists" and "moderate" is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. When we allow them to call themselves "centrists" they shift the entire nation rightwards. What's "centrist"? A European-style social democracy with corporations but socialized safety nets and strong workers rights. That's not "the left." That's the damn center--the center between capitalism and socialism.

[Better Believe It]

130. An American "centrist" in France would be thought of as very conservative.

[sabrina 1]

133. That's what I'm doing also. working to get rid of them.

I'm not sure it will bother too much if they get thrown out of office. I'm sure they will be richly rewarded for killing any hope of a Public Option.

[LWolf]

137. What about the Democrats who are not bill supporters? nt

[berni_mccoy]

6. +1

[Fumesucker]

7. As boring as the consistency of the Rose Colored Glasses Brigade..

Some of us get tired of the perpetual Pollyannaism too..

[RoyGBiv]

23. I see ...

So you have a problem with people who attempt to maintain a positive attitude in the face of rampant negativity? You believe that because we are surrounded on all sides by the dark obstructionism, that we should not continue to try? We should not attempt to make lemonade when handed a bunch of lemons?

Your attitude doesn't much fit your avatar nor the attitude of the many of the idealists who popularized it.

I have yet to meet a supporter of this bill who will not freely admit to problems with it and who does not willingly recognize it is not anywhere near the final goal. The most common refrain among the bill's supporters is that it is a flawed bill but provides a base on which to build. On the other hand, most of the bill's opponents (not all I hasten to add, but most I have seen or heard) denounce it as an abomination and refuse, adamantly, to admit any positive outcomes will result or that any possibility of improvement exists.

I refuse to live my life believing that the absence of the whole ideal prohibits me from appreciating the parts that provide a path by which I may attempt to find it.

[Fumesucker]

28. My avatar was championed by idealists, not pragmatists.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -George Bernard Shaw

[RoyGBiv]

36. And?

"Your attitude doesn't much fit your avatar nor the attitude of the many of the idealists who popularized it." - Me

The idealists who popularized your avatar -- that is, before the commercialism brought it to the wanna-be crowd -- were nothing if not believers in the power of working constructively and positively. They were no nihilists who sought to tear down and destroy. They were idealists who sought to create, love, and build.

Your belittling of what you define as "Pollyannsim" puts you firmly in the former camp.

[Fumesucker]

43. I don't see enabling giant corporations as something an idealist would champion..

You pragmatists are the ones who think this is a great victory.

Reasonable people can differ, I don't see this as a huge victory except for the insurance companies and they are not the ones I care about.

[RoyGBiv]

46. Good day to you ...

I learned a long time ago that some discussions are worth having.

[Fumesucker]

49. I don't see discussions in an echo chamber as worth having..

As I said though, reasonable people can differ.

[Kalun D]

116. How long have we waited?

to have a super majority in both houses and the presidency

and this corporate piece of crap is all we get?

good luck on this bill ever being fixed

cuz the politics aren't going to lean dem this far for the next 50 years.

IOW, the democratic party is a sold out corporate sham farce and a fraud

there's just a few like Kucinich, Sanders, Grayson that are real progressives

democracy is dead, this is corporatocracy.

[Odin2005]

15. Methinks Barbra Ehrenreich has a new book out on "think happy thoughts" BS.

The fanboys are no different that the corporate hucksters promoting "positive thinking" BS.

[RoyGBiv]

24. So you admit to have a problem with positive thinking?

JFK would be so proud.

[Odin2005]

25. I have a problem with Rose-Colored Glasses.

[RoyGBiv]

27. Yeah, sure ...

You could at least come up with something original, articulate your problem is a constructive way.

Or, you could throw out more sound-bites and buzz phrases that have no meaning.

Your choice.

[sabrina 1]

55. I don't think positive thinking is the issue.

Pretending something is positive when it isn't, is the issue.

It is so clear that this bill has practically nothing in it that is based on a true Democratic principle. The very foundation of the bill, the one most used to promote it, is a cynical, Republican idea based on funneling as much money as possible to the (until this bill passes) failing Private Ins. Industry. Mandated insurance with punishment for those who cannot afford it, (yes, I know 'subsidies', more public funds being funneled through Private Ins, a wet dream they've had for decades) is in no way a Democratic principle.

I can see the need to 'not let Republicans win', but I don't see the celebration of it. It is a bad bill for the people, a great bill for Private Corporations, corrupt corporations whose record of managing the health care of the American people borders on criminal negligence. It simply is not something to celebrate.

There ARE some good things in it, but there are some good things in the current system also. Eg, the poor right now have access to Medicaid without the funds going through Private Ins. But that doesn't make the current system itself good. Nor do the few good things in this bill make it any better.

But I do agree about people getting together rather than being divisive. I guess I thought when we worked so hard to get Democrats elected, we all agreed on what we were working for. I know I was not working to present a winddfall like this to the corrupt Private Insurance Industry. Next time, I will try to get more clarification on what exactly are working for.

[RoyGBiv]

73. It's so good for private industry ...

... that one of those industries has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to prevent its passage.

It is not "clear" that this bill has "practically nothing in it" based on "true" Democratic principles. (I will assume, for the sake of argument, that you're not one of these people that believe "true" principles are defined solely by what you personally believe.)

I know you and many like you keep saying that, and I know you trot out the same rhetoric utterly devoid of substance again and again as though the right phrases somehow prove anything. But I also know that independent analysts have concluded this bill, all by itself, will assist millions of Americans. I know that "true" Democrats all across the spectrum have found several things in the bill that they openly support. I know that Democrats and, yes, liberals who have for decades been fighting this fight and who freely highlight the gaping holes and massive flaws in this bill are arguing for its passage because it has much in it that is good, much in it that does fit cleanly with "true" Democratic principles.

Or are you so cynical that you believe our entire congressional delegation save *conservative* members of it and countless Democratic (liberal thru conservative) academics, economists are, each and every one of them while reading from the same script, merely putting on a show so they can say "gotcha" to Republicans and save their own political skins? Do you genuinely believe that Republicans hate this bill and have staked their entire platform on its defeat full well knowing it is exactly what they want, another handout to their corporate masters?

Really?

I know what you want. You want a single-payer system. That's what I want also. I know I'm not getting it in one fell swoop. I know that revolutionary change of that magnitude -- the full dismantling of multi-billion dollar industry with the stroke of a pen -- will not be done in one bill without real blood being spilled. I know that this bill, like Social Security before it, like Medicare and Medicaid after that, is tremendously flawed yet provides a foundation on which to build if we are courageous enough to push for it and not so overwhelmed by nihilism that we don't bother to try.

I do not accept the dark view, and no one can make me do so. I understand no one can make you see my view. And so we are at an impasse.

If you or other wish to belittle me further for actually having some hope and seeing the positive steps that have been taken, that's your choice. It only strengthens my resolve.

[sabrina 1]

94. I am disagreeing with you.

That is not belittling you. If it is then I could claim that you are belittling me.

But back to the reasons I disagree. First, the Insurance Ind. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to kill, not Single Payer since it was never an option, but the Public Option, which was a compromise.

Republican ideas, such as Mandates, were included in the bill. This is NOT my opinion. It has been confirmed by both President Obama and Nancy Pelosi during the Health Care Summit. So, in answer to your question, listen carefully to what Republicans are saying. I have yet to hear one of them state that they object to Mandated Insurance. They are lying by claiming this bill is a Government, Socialist Bill, never addressing the very foundation on which it is built, which is THEIR idea. They are objecting because they wish they could have passed such a bill, with a few exceptions.

Libertarians are objecting to Mandates, which is consistent with their beliefs. It used to be consistent with President Obama's beliefs, when he was a candidate.

'Subsidies' will come from Public Funds, tax payer dollars. If you stop there, it is a good idea. But that isn't the end of that story. Now, those Public Funds will pass through the hands of the Private Insurance Industry and will cost tax-payers whatever % they can get for profit. In the current system, people who are subsidized by Public Funds, (medicaid eg) have their bills paid directly to the hospital. Since Private Ins. has been inserting themselves into this process, they hold up payments and find every way they can to increase their profits.

I did not support a Democratic majority so that corrupt Corporations would be bailed out, especially the Healthcare Corps.

You say you know what I want, apparently you don't. I, like so many others, were willing to compromise. But this administration while giving Republicans and Big Pharma a 'seat at the table', excluded the people who supported them. They went further, through his spokesperson and COS Rahm Emanuel, the very people who gave them the WH were told to STFU and Liberal groups were warned NOT to criticize Blue Dogs, who were vehemently opposed a PO.

At the very least, this was bad politics. At worst, it was a betrayal of those who believed in them. If we had been represented in this debate, if we had been part of the discussion, and if, after that, they could have persuaded us that even a compromise was impossible for whatever reason, there might not be the opposition they are now getting from their own base.

But they chose to bully the base, cater to Republicans and ended up with a bill that will bail out an industry that should have been allowed to die a well-deserved death. This is my opinion, and stating it doesn't belittle anyone, unless they are so certain they alone are right, that any disagreement is considered to be an insult.

[Luminous Animal]

96. Thanks Sabrina. Great response.

[Kalun D]

117. ^^^^+++++1,000,000

I am agreeing with you

democracy is dead, welcome to corporatocracy, brought to you buy the current ruling party, the sold out DLC corp-a-dems.

[RoyGBiv]

139. Belittling, etc. ...

The "belittling" comment was a reference primarily to the fact that at least (I stopped paying attention at some point) three others, using eerily similar language, had referred to anyone who was even attempting to find the positive aspects of the bill as viewing the world through "rose colored glasses," only using capital letters as though this is a proper noun phrase. Those who supported passage were considered to be engaged in something called "Pollyannaism." These were intended as insults, euphemisms for naive, at best, or simply stupid.

And then you came along in the midst of this, offering at least a polite range of discourse that I acknowledge and appreciate, yet you implicitly accuse those who supported passage of the bill as not adhering to "true" Democratic principles.

Perhaps you were not aware of the word game in which you participated by using this phrase; perhaps you were not aware of the context in which you inserted this into the discussion nor how it would be interpreted. And, perhaps you did not intend it as belittlement. I will accept that and move on with the suggestion that you do consider these things in the future, much like Mr. Emmanuel should have been aware of such things before speaking inelegantly of his fellow Democrats.

That said, I understand that you are simply disagreeing with me, and I am simply disagreeing with you. I believe you have provided here a lovely bit of repetitive rhetoric that has some truth in detail that nonetheless fails to support any coherent thesis that would or should have led anyone to oppose passage. You and others who argue along this vein seem to maintain an idealized version of what "Democratic" principles actually are, and you seem to believe that the bill itself was in no way influenced by those principles. Many of those who opposed this bill claim to be New Deal Democrats who want their party back, but they do not understand a single thing about what a New Deal Democrat was. FDR was not an anti-business, anti-corporation warrior who came down from the mountain to deliver his people. The New Deal coalition, defined as a collection of political interests that managed to elect the man four times, was in fact a collection of specific kinds of business interests that New Deal policies benefited. His greatest reforms began as little more than meager handouts and what were called even at the time boondoggles to his financier and business friends, but they did something else, and that is the important point.

New Deal policies -- the ones that survived the ferocious opposition, were allowed to mature, and were modified numerous times over the decades to make them worthwhile -- began largely as mere frameworks with potential. Social Security, for instance, was almost nothing. In both real numbers and as a percentage of population, the HCR bill just passed will directly aid more people immediately than the original Social Security Act ever would have. But, that act provided for a foundation, and so does the HCR bill. We who espouse "true" Democratic principles celebrate the original passage of the act that brought us Social Security. Unfortunately, we have also mythologized it.

To make that promise of the health care reform bill have meaning, more work needs to be done, and many of the distinct, real problems you mention in between the rhetoric will have to be addressed. Granted, some among my side of the debate have already mythologized this bill as well, but I'm not among them. However, I understand why they have. They have been attacked as corporate shills, sellouts, Republican-lites, i.e. not "true" Democrats. And so we need to rid ourselves of this rhetoric and work on these real problems without all the nihilism and the accusations.

I'm willing. Are you?

[eridani]

109. Campaigning against it was the only way they stood a chance of getting it passed

If your industry is only slightly more popular with the general public than Jack the Ripper, coming out in favor of something you want would be the kiss of death for sure.

[okieinpain]

42. amen!

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[liberalhistorian]

86. Well, if you don't want to hear the plain truth, which is exactly

what this is, then don't read it. Continue to go around with your head in the sand. And when you're fined, denied access to needed care and your credit is ruined because you can't pay DenialCare, Inc., what the government says you should be able to pay, then hopefully you can pull it out of the sand long enough to look in the mirror.

[RoyGBiv]

88. Where do you get your talking points?

Do you have them tailored, or do you buy wholesale?

[liberalhistorian]

89. No, I think for myself, instead of having the DLC

or the insurance industry or annoying "don't worry, be happy" Pollyannas thinking for me. You, apparently, cannot handle anyone disagreeing with you, so that must automatically mean that they're either doom-and-gloomsayers or are fed talking points.

[RoyGBiv]

90. This is really interesting ...

Edit: Remove implicit accusation.

There are fascinating parallels here, though.

When you want to be part of the discussion rather than attempting to insult me, I'll be around. Until that time, enjoy your evening.

[liberalhistorian]

92. LOL. I don't need to "agree" on spelling because,

having grown up with two English teachers, I damn well know correct spelling, grammar and punctuation most of the time. And being "part of the discussion?" I thought that's exactly what we were doing. You are the one insulting people who disagree with your happy-pappy Pollyanna nonsense. The only discussion you appear interested in is people agreeing with you and your own interpretations.

And I'm still capable of thinking for myself, which is exactly what I'm doing here.

[sabrina 1]

95. We wanted to be part of the discussion

and expected that was what would happen after we helped Democrats gain the power they now have.

But as it turned out, EVERYONE ELSE, Republicans, Blue Dogs, Big Pharma, Private Insurance Corps, all were part of the discussion. The only ones EXCLUDED were the people who voted for them.

And it wasn't just an oversight, it was deliberate and blatant. We were called names by DLCer Rahm Emanuel, told not to insult Blue Dogs as they opposed the compromise of a Public Option, and Doctors and Nurses who tried to get a word in about a PO, were arrested.

Were any Republicans, such as teabaggers arrested? Nope, only 'liberals'.

When the WH and the Dem Party is ready to be a Big Tent again, one that includes the base of its own party, I hope they let us know.

Meantime they can celebrate their gift to Big Insurance together with Blue Dogs and the Private Insurance Industry but I hope they weren't expecting us to be there for the celebrations.

[WeDidIt]

2. I just KNEW Lord High Douchenozzle Greenwald would weigh in on this historic day

What a fuckhead.

[Hardrada]

4. Facts are facts, however, and as important to the historian as to those

who wish corporatist officeholders to be, at a minimum, truthful. Could this be so difficult?

[Luminous Animal]

34. Actually he wrote it yesterday.

[jgraz]

125. How terrible for you

Can't we just have one day when the corporatists aren't forced to read the truth? DAMN YOU GREENWALD!!!!!

[Mojambo]

5. I'm okay with the bill passing, even though I don't really support it.

But Greenwald is right. This bill isn't worthy of the celebration its going to receive, IMHO.

It's a political victory, and one that Obama and Democrats desperately needed. So in a political sense, as someone who doesn't want to see a Republican president in 2012, passage of this bill is a good thing.

And it's great to see teabaggers lose.

But other than that, I'm a bit meh about this "great" moment.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[CBR]

9. Blah, blah... I am sick of this garbage. nt

[ProSense]

11. Poor Glenn and Jane

Hoping for the Dems to fail and bitterly disappointed that they didn't

It's not only a great victory, it's a great historic victory.

[EFerrari]

17. Bookmarking.

[Odin2005]

18. No, we want Corporatists and their propagandists to fail.

And this is an historic victory for the Insurance Parasites, making us their serfs.

[ProSense]

21. Historic victory

Fact.

[Marr]

63. That's quite an argument. n/t

[Raineyb]

81. And a false one at that. n/t

[avaistheone1]

118. Oh yes, a fact.

An historic victory for the for-profit health insurers. No wonder their stocks have been doing so well.

[grantcart]

12. and finally with the highly repetitive spamming of the same bs

with particularly bad timing a rare ignore.

[catnhatnh]

13. Are some people chomping at the bit

to piss all over a Democratic victory? You'd better believe it....

[blondeatlast]

29. ...

:spray:

[Luminous Animal]

50. If you read Greenwald's article, you would realize that Better Believe It

truncated Greenwald's point and thus misquoted him.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[berni_mccoy]

16. Kucinich, Grayson, Sanders and 97% of liberals are fanboys. Right.

[Odin2005]

19. Only after the Corporate Dem Leadership twisted their arms and bribed them off.

[EFerrari]

20. 'Way to misrepresent all of the people you named.

You'd do better to stay with the smaller local win and not to keep trying to demonize everyone else or to claim that people who don't agree with you, agree with you.

There is a place here where we can be happy that we'll win today. And you're spoiling it, whether you know it or not.

[ProSense]

22. Here

Congressman Grayson: Sunday Vote Will Be The "Triumph Of Hope Over Fear"

No misrepresentation there.

[EFerrari]

26. Another non sequitur. Fyi, I don't hit your links any more. n/t

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[JeffR]

41. self-delete

since the post I responded to was mercifully pulled...

[ProSense]

32. "'Way to misrepresent all of the people you named."

No misrepresentation.

At this point, the kill the bill advocates are desperately clinging to pathetic distortions.

[EFerrari]

44. What you are doing is not effective advocacy, it's something else.

You may want to rethink what you're doing.

[ProSense]

52. "You may want to rethink what you're doing."

What, debunking distortions and mischaracterization?

[EFerrari]

53. Just as you argued against a mandate during the primaries.

[ProSense]

61. I can live with a mandate. Deal with it. n/t

[EFerrari]

64. Why do I need to deal with your compromises?

Maybe this is a conversation you should be having between you and you.

[ProSense]

66. Because it's obviously bothering you.

I'm fine with the mandate.

[EFerrari]

67. What on Earth would your compromises bother me?

[freddie mertz]

126. A good policy we all should follow. No blind links! nt.

[Karmadillo]

31. Alert! Alert! Truthmonger!!!! Attack!! Attack!!

nt

[Ramulux]

33. Like Greenwald but hes wrong

I think he should wait a year and try telling the people who will then have health insurance that this bill wasn't any sort of big victory.

[ProSense]

35. Unfortunately, that's not how it

works for distortionists. They're not interested in denouncements based on facts. They're only interested in driving home a meme that the bill sucks. They must start, actually continue, whipping up the mischaracterizations.

[Luminous Animal]

45. You didn't read the article. Instead, you read the headline of this post

and jumped to conclusions. Glenn makes zero conclusions about the suckiness or nonsuckiness of this bill. His criticism mainly focuses on two points:

1) He refutes Ezra Klein's assertion that the passage of this bill indicates vindication over corporate interests.
2) He reiterates his prior criticism of this administrations backroom deals with Pharma and the insurance industry.

Clearly, you are the one distorting Greenwald's position. From the article:
"Again, none of this is proof that the health care bill is a bad idea -- it's possible that a bill which pleases these industries also produces, on balance, more good than harm (by expanding coverage and restricting some industry abuses). But being in favor of the bill is not a justification for making misleading claims to try to glorify what it achieves or, worse, claiming that it represents a change in the way Washington works and a fulfillment of Obama's campaign pledges."

[ProSense]

51. Nonsense

"that this bill is some sort of great victory over the health insurance and drug lobbies, is just hagiography and propaganda."

His point is simply reiterating the same bullshit he's always said. The Pharma deal babble is nonsense.

Ezra Klein is right.

[Luminous Animal]

54. WTF???? The White House outright admitted it made a backroom deal.

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=3&hp

[ProSense]

56. Nonsense. The WH admitted it made a deal. There was nothing backroom about it.

Meetings, goals and outcomes were all announced.

[Luminous Animal]

60. "White House declines to disclose visits by health industry executives"

"WASHINGTON — Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/22/nation/na-healthcare-talks22

"The full terms of the White House agreement with the drug makers, like a similar deal with the hospital industry, have never been disclosed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/us/08lobby.html?_r=1

[ProSense]

65. Bogus

reality

[Luminous Animal]

68. Nonsense. The White House withheld and originally denied

CREW access to the visitors log.

What you posted was a orchestrated PR event.

CREW's FOIA lawsuit is still ongoing. You can follow it here:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/41541

[laughingliberal]

115. Thank you! Jeez, the denialists just never stop. After Obama was forced by Tauzin to admit to the

deal he made in August. Months later he admitted it when the lobbyist demanded he reveal and protect the deal. Still, they deny. And with nothing more substantive that 'did not.'

[Ramulux]

106. Your right

Probably should have read the whole article, but my statement regarding the headline still stands. This is a major victory and that is not propaganda.

[Better Believe It]

107. So this is a historic defeat for the health insurance industry and big Pharma?

Of course it is.

NOT!

[EFerrari]

40. He'd have to wait four years to do that. n/t

[Raineyb]

82. Why he can read can't he? I mean I don't think that when people realize

they'll be buying an expensive product they can't afford to use by force of law Mr. Greenwald won't really have to tell them anything. They'll already know.

[nashville_brook]

37. Erza Klein got a little carried away there.

[Luminous Animal]

47. Finally, a DUer on this thread who actually read Greenwald's article.

[Luminous Animal]

48. Why did you misquote Greenwald?

Isn't against DU rules to misquote?

[Political Heretic]

59. It's not a misquote, its a shortened quote - just needs "...."s

[Luminous Animal]

62. Without the "...", it is a misquote.

And even if the "..." had been included, it would still be a distortion of Greenwald's position.

[Ean Juan]

69. You're being too technical: The quote exactly reflects what Greenwald said

What is the difference between the shortened quote (made to fit the limited spaced available for a headline) and the real quote? Here's the real quote:

"But to pretend that this bill represents the "Twilight of the Interest Groups," that special interests have been "neutralized," that this bill is some sort of great victory over the health insurance and drug lobbies, is just hagiography and propaganda."

In fact, the OP's summary was milder than the real quote, as Greenwald added "hagiography" to it.

[Luminous Animal]

76. Because the quote in the title could lead (and did lead many DUers on this thread)

that Glenn was criticizing the health insurance bill.

Witness these responses:
"And so it begins... A person can't even wait until the final vote."
"I just KNEW Lord High Douchenozzle Greenwald would weigh in on this historic day."
"Blah, blah... I am sick of this garbage. nt"
" Poor Glenn and Jane" "Hoping for the Dems to fail and bitterly disappointed that they didn't"
"Historic victory" "Fact."
"and finally with the highly repetitive spamming of the same bs"
"Are some people chomping at the bit to piss all over a Democratic victory? You'd better believe it...."

Each of these people assumed, based on the title of your OP, that Glenn was referring to the Democratic health insurance bill when, in fact, he was criticizing Ezra Klein's political analysis.

Now I know that you can't be responsible for some people's inability to read through a post but you are responsible for the title.

[Ean Juan]

84. Now you're changing your tune. You now argue that the quote should have been accompanied by others

Previously, you spoke about misquoting, but now you are not arguing that Obama was misquoted, but that the OP did not include other quotes that you would have included.

The fact is that Greenwald said what the OP says he said.

[Luminous Animal]

85. I am not changing my tune. I've only asserted that Greenwald has been misquoted.

And he has. I've never claimed that the OP misquoted Obama and, for the life of me, I don't know where you got that.

The OP truncated Greenwald's quote. The phrase that the OP "quoted" in the title, never appeared in Greenwald's text. And that is a fact. A truncated quote is a misquote and that is a fact. Even a truncated quote with and ellipses can be a misquote if it changes the intent of the original and in this case, it most certainly did.

For instance, you wrote this: "Previously, you spoke about misquoting, but now you are not arguing that Obama was misquoted"
If I quoted you by truncating it and writing this: "But now you are arguing that Obama was misquoted." I may be writing out words that you actually wrote, but I would be misquoting you.

[Ean Juan]

97. Make up your mind

You just said the following: "I've never claimed that the OP misquoted Obama."

Then you said, "The OP truncated Greenwald's quote."

Then you said, A truncated quote is a misquote and that is a fact.

So if you think the OP misquoted Greenwald (by truncating his quote), why do you pretend that you "never claimed that the OP misquoted Obama"?

The fact is that the piece the OP cut off does not change the substance or meaning of Greenwald's quote at all.

Did Greenwald claim that pretending this bill is a victory is propaganda? Of course he did. The OP accurately reported that.

[Luminous Animal]

99. Because Obama and Greenwald are 2 separate people.

The OP misquoted Greenwald. How you derive Obama from that is perhaps something you should discuss with your therapist.

And NO, NO, NO, Greenwald did not claim that pretending that this bill is a victory is propaganda. Show me where Greenwald states that. Glenn quite clearly said that pretending that this bill is a victory over special interests is propaganda. He also, quite clearly stated that his article makes no judgment as to the efficacy of this bill. His criticism is directed towards Ezra Klein's analysis of the process.

[Better Believe It]

71. Nit picking.

"to pretend that this bill represents the "Twilight of the Interest Groups," that special interests have been "neutralized," that this bill is some sort of great victory over the health insurance and drug lobbies, is just hagiography and propaganda."

So which part of the above didn't he write?

I wanted to include the following in the caption: Glenn Greenwald: "to pretend that this bill .... is some sort of great victory over the health insurance and drug lobbies, is just hagiography and propaganda."

There simply wasn't enough room.

But that's ok. If you find it necessary to nit pick go right ahead.

Do you have an opinion on his article and would you like to refute anything he wrote?

[robinblue]

72. Yes, it is nitpicking. Thanks for the OP.

[Luminous Animal]

74. Actually, I agreed with Greeenwald when I read the article yesterday on Salon.

But I find misquotes, from any part of the political spectrum, repugnant. There is a reason why Fox News, et.al., uses misplaced and truncated quotes as a matter of course. They distort. Witness the reactions on this thread to your title. Some DUers didn't read beyond and assumed that Greenwald was criticizing the Congressional Democrats position rather than Ezra Klein's idiocy about the decline of influence of big pharma and insurance industry "interest groups."

[Better Believe It]

98. Before anyone attacks an article they should bother to read it. That's why links are posted.

Far too frequently some DU'ers go on the attack against an article they haven't bothered to read!

Not liking a caption is not a good reason to attack a poster or an article.

Deal with the substance.

Sometimes a few here even criticize a movie they haven't seen!

That also is not my fault or your fault.

It just is.

[Luminous Animal]

104. It isn't a caption. You truncated Greenwalds phrase and made up your own quote.

So, yes. The fact that you made up a quote and attributed it to Greenwald is your fault.

[Better Believe It]

105. Perhaps you're a journalist and/or English major. I'm not. Forgive me. However,

I call it a caption and all the words are in his article.

Nothing is made up.

He made the exact statement that is quoted.

There was no attempt to mislead people.

You're nitpicking. Are you familiar with that word?

You're just bull shiting. Are you familiar with that expression?

CASE CLOSED

[Luminous Animal]

114. I rarely get angry with anyone on DU and I wasn't going to respond but you are flat out wrong.

I wasn't going to respond until you I saw that you had posted again. Your claim that Greenwald made the exact statement that you put in quotes is a bald-faced fabrication. The phrase in the title of your OP, "to pretend that this bill is some sort of great victory is just propanganda" does not exist in the text of Greenwald's article. Your false quote cut out the meat of Greenwald's point and pointed the lazy reader in the wrong direction.

No, I am not a journalist nor am I an English major. I am, to the best of my ability, an honest person, and the quote in your OP is dishonest and misleading. So misleading, that it led several DUers to personally attack Greenwald based on something he never said.

[DeltaLitProf]

122. I also believe the poster doctored Greenwald's quote . . .

. . . and implies Greenwald sees the bill as nothing but a bribe to interest groups. His view is more nuanced than that. See this paragraph:

"Again, none of this is proof that the health care bill is a bad idea -- it's possible that a bill which pleases these industries also produces, on balance, more good than harm (by expanding coverage and restricting some industry abuses). But being in favor of the bill is not a justification for making misleading claims to try to glorify what it achieves or, worse, claiming that it represents a change in the way Washington works and a fulfillment of Obama's campaign pledges."

Please do your due diligence next time.

[ncteechur]

75. I, frankly, don't give a rat fuck what Glen Greenwald thinks on this one. I'm excited.

It is a beginning.

It is a start.

It is a good thing.

[Luminous Animal]

77. Another person who not only didn't read the excerpt in the OP,

let alone the article.

GREENWALD IS NOT CRITICIZING THE BILL. IN FACT, HE STATES THIS IN THE ARTCLE:

Again, none of this is proof that the health care bill is a bad idea -- it's possible that a bill which pleases these industries also produces, on balance, more good than harm (by expanding coverage and restricting some industry abuses). But being in favor of the bill is not a justification for making misleading claims to try to glorify what it achieves or, worse, claiming that it represents a change in the way Washington works and a fulfillment of Obama's campaign pledges.

[Cal Carpenter]

78. It really is

It's just a mediocre convoluted bill.

It's not a step forward for health care for all.

If anything, it solidifies the power and influence of for-profit insurance industries. Any 'regulations' it puts on them are far outweighed by the scope of their ability to grow and profit, assuming those regulations are enforced at all.

It's amazing how this is being played out as this huge epic battle and a win for 'the people'.

What a red herring.

[annabanana]

79. maybe so.. but DAMN

I intend to enjoy the party tonight... (And I will USE the extension of coverage to college age kids)

[soryang]

91. Breaking the bubble of delusion is such a downer

There is no cost containment. There is no enforcement mechanism. So called insureds will still go bankrupt. And the insurance industry will continue their sleazy denial practices because they have money, they have the lawyers and they wrote the law. See you in court. Oh you can't afford a lawyer because you're sick and bankrupt. Too bad, soooo sad!

[joeybee12]

93. CHANGE!

HOPE!

:sarcasm:

[leftstreet]

101. K&R

[amborin]

102. K&R Obama never intended to work for a PO; the hypocrisy & cynicism makes it so much worse

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Individualist]

108. +1

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[upi402]

110. Goliath ain't down, but we landed a shot

and it FEELS like a total victory...
We merely blocked a few headshots from industry for once

[Exultant Democracy]

119. I may not be the biggest fan, but I can't help but smile when I think about the republican antics

leading up to this bill. They pulled out all the stops on this on and Obama and Pelosi got it past them in the end, and now they have a whole hell of a lot of momentum and a coalition in both houses of congress that are going to live and die together with this president.

Now it's time to get down to business.

[troubledamerican]

120. Greenwald = Extremist Leftist Who Is Against TORTURE, whatta clown

He just doesn't get it -- a mandate & an excise tax, YAY, WE WON

[Echo In Light]

128. +1

[ipaint]

121. Follow the money.

The industry bought themselves a bill.

With our institutionalized system of lobbyists and bribes the people never had a chance. There isn't enough lipstick for this 600 million dollar pig and it's elite, multi million dollar handlers in congress.

Health Sector Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Totals, 1989-2009*

All Years-

Total Contributions- $944,969,972
To Current Members of Congress- $376,172,916
Total Spent on Lobbying- $3,590,912,402

2009 Only-

Total Contributions- $57,029,709
To Current Members of Congress- $40,515,330
Total Spent on Lobbying- $576,402,070


http://www.opensecrets.org/capital_eye/health.php

[ipaint]

123. Once again.

OpenSecrets.org provides these statistics:

Health PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates in the 2008 election cycle

Total Amount: $49,226,365

Total to Democrats: $27,083,922 (55%)

Total to Republicans: $22,131,168 (45%)

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector.php?cycle=2008&txt=H01



Industry PAC contributions to Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election:

Lawyers and Lobbyists: 43,755,917

Finance/insurance/Real Estate: $39,663,073

Health: $19,507,812

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=H


Real reform never had a chance and the same system that allows legalized bribery will easily prevent any "improvements" to the industry written bill. Those upcoming manufactured conflicts will most certainly guarantee that the money keeps flowing to congress while maintaining the appearance of a fierce battle to do the people's work.

[Political Heretic]

124. All I know is that Ezra Klein is a massive moronic douchebag

:shrug:

Interest groups are in their twilight.... PLEASE. :eyes:

Surely we all - supporters and critics alike - can get together and agree that's the fucking stupidest thing ever printed.

[Vinnie From Indy]

127. Bravo Glenn!

While there are legions of folks here at DU almost proud to show off the level of their willfull ignorance, the fact remains that this bill and the process by which it was crafted and passed was a con-game from the start. It is mildly amusing to read the comments profusely thanking this President for LYING to them. What a world!

[Better Believe It]

129. Give them some time and they will see the truth when most people say a few years from now ....

"what health care reform?"

[thotzRthingz]

134. Glenn Greenwald is usually "spot on!" and that is certainly the case here! K&R (n/t)

[Better Believe It]

135. Some people just can't handle the truth. 58 unrecommends!

I don't unrecommend any post because that's undemocratic.

[LWolf]

136. k & r nt