Dear Hamsher and Huffington, some points for you to ponder:

[RBInMaine]

1) Had Obama not been elected, we would have had McSAME and FailinPalin. Who's better?

2) Had Obama not been nominated, we would have had Hillary. Do you really think her policy approaches would have been much different?

3) The Republicans gave us NO healthcare reform bill in all their years in power, and any idea of theirs now is far worse than what we have from the Dems. Ever take a single second to consider that?

4) Maybe there are one or two small positive morsels of GOOD in the health bill. i.e. ending pre-existing conditions exemptions, subsidies, better funding for certain clinics, filling the prescriptions donut hole... Is there one single POSITIVE thing you can look to?

5) How about the laundry list of GOOD things Obama has done: stimulus, stem cells, ending torture, working to close GITMO, Lilly Leadbetter law, SCHIP law... any credit whatsoever for any of that?

6) Have you ever held public office at any level? Do you know what it means to be on the front lines having to work in a SYSTEM and get some things done rather than armchair quarterbacking from the side lines?

7) Do you know anything at all about basic US civics and history? Mr. Obama is only ONE branch of government. I'm sure if he could he would have a public option. But CONGRESS makes law, NOT the President, and THEIR process is what it is. Pick ANY law you'd like from Emancipation to Medicare, and I will show you how IMPERFECT each was.

8) Not happy with Obama and Dems? Consider organizing rather than incessant complaining. Go ahead. Go to those solid red districts, make them "see the light," and get
Kucinich/Nader-type "progressives" elected there. Try it in purple swing districts and even in many blue districts. In 2012, run Nader and Kucinich AGAIN and see how far you get. Let me know how it goes.


PS: Or, consider getting real and counting your blessings. Yes, you have a right to your views, and I even sympathize with your intentions and some of your positions. But this is the real world, and I for one who has served on many public and private committees, in many leadership positions public and private, and have worked on many campaigns from elective office to referendums, am damn glad every day when I wake up knowing who we have now in the White House compared to what he replaced.
And I am very pleased and proud to join Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, and Barbara Boxer in supporting the healthcare bill as a START toward some reform. The only person I have seen one of you side with lately is the despicable ultra right winger Grover Norquist on some crazy quest to replace Rahm Emanuel. Kindly find the planet Earth.

[tekisui]

1. It is not their or our roles to 'work within the system'. That is the

job of the elected office holders. It is our job, as outsiders, to keep pressure on, hold feet to the fire and challenge when we see wrong-headed or watered-down policies. I have nothing to but contempt for Norquist and teabaggers, so don't try to align me with those assholes.

[RBInMaine]

4. It is also our job to be fair and real AND to step up FOR real and not just complain.

[SeattleGirl]

2. Well said.

Armchair quarterbacking IS easy; working in the real world of DC politics is NOT. I wish more people would realize that, AND would realize that, as you said, Obama is part of ONE branch of government. He's a President, not a dictator, and as such, has to deal with people who have different agendas than he does.

[Windy]

22. They want a Left Wing Bush and Cheney governing... to hell with democracy... nt

[RBInMaine]

37. Good point.

[rudy23]

42. Original point, too. First time I've seen it from you guys.

Just impeccable logic.

:sarcasm:

[frylock]

116. because illegal wars and meaningful HEALTHCARE reform are synonymous

fucking stupid.

[jgraz]

134. As are unconstitutional power grabs and strong, capable leadership.

Teh stupid, it burns.

[JuniperLea]

146. Yup...

Sadly, they would love to see Obama pull the bullshit we all complained about Bush doing. And they don't seem to get it... it was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

[Enthusiast]

181. Yup

Those of us complaining about the HCR bill want a left wing Bush and Cheney governing. You are on to us. And here I thought we had kept our secret plan......secret.

[chimpymustgo]

183. I HATE this health industry sell-out, therefore I wanat Bush/Cheney. You folks have NO credibility.

I HATE how Obama and the Dems SQUANDERED this once in a lifetime opportunity to reform healthcare, and cooked up this shit sandwich giveaway for these leeches who will continue to suck our blood dry.

I refuse to put ketchup on it and call it sirloin.

[NJmaverick]

3. Thank you for posting this solid and original commentary

I thinking that you are a pragmatic person based on this:


"I for one who has served on many public and private committees, in many leadership positions public and private, and have worked on many campaigns from elective office to referendums "

I find that most people that have had to try and run things for real and get things accomplished tend to be more pragmatic.

[RBInMaine]

7. Thanks. As we speak I serve on a public committee, a private committee, and have one public

and one private leadership position. I know what it means at the local level what it means to have to do a lot of compromising in order to get things done. I have had to compromise in ways I didn't always like, but to move forward at all, that's the way it goes. Then you live to fight another day.

[NJmaverick]

51. That's pretty much it. No one enjoys compromise, but it's usually the only

way to get things accomplished.

[Voltaire]

184. Compromise is fine

What we witnessed was capitulation. Big difference.

[rudy23]

5. Why are Obama supporters more obsessed with Huffington and Hamsher than Lieberman and Nelson?

Those guys have done far more to thwart actual progress than two bloggers.

Or, is it that the Obama admin doesn't see Lieberman and Nelson as obstructing them, but more as helping them advance their compromised agenda?

[NYCGirl]

6. Because not being from Connectiut or Nebraska, I can't do anything about Lieberman

and Nelson. Their constituents have to make sure they are not re-elected.

[rudy23]

9. Can you get Huffington and Hamsher's blogging licenses revoked?

You can affect public opinion about Lieberman and Nelson as much as you would about the two bloggers.

It really shows which side of the fence the admin's political team comes down on, IMO.

[NYCGirl]

14. No, but I can stop reading them. NT

[RBInMaine]

17. Where is your (and their) concern about McConnell, BONER, Inhofe, DeMint...?

[rudy23]

24. They're in the minority, they shouldn't be our concern.

Especially without this self-imposed 60 vote hurdle the Dems are sticking with.

[RBInMaine]

41. In democracies, minorities still have some power. So, um, yes, they DO need to be our concern.

[frylock]

118. minorities still have some power..

unless they're democrats.

[LiberalAndProud]

83. It isn't self imposed.

Filibuster is real. And Republicans have invoked it time and time again. We need 60 and that means we need some solid Democrats. Unfortunately, I'm from Nebraska so I get a choice between Nelson or somebody far worse. I can't talk any of my progressive friends from DU into moving here and running against him in a primary, so I have to work with what I have.

:cry:

[rudy23]

93. Why didn't Bush ever have to deal with filibusters when he had 55 R's in the Senate?

Why is this the first time in American history that EVERYTHING has to pass the 60 vote hurdle at the mere threat of a filibuster?

[LiberalAndProud]

101. Remember this?

Hastert Launches a Partisan Policy

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page A01

In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15423-2004Nov26.html

Or this?

The ‘Nuclear Option’

It’s been more than a quarter century since a simple majority of the U.S. Senate has employed a parliamentary procedure ominously known as the "nuclear option" to effect a change in the body’s Standing Rules. Back then, in 1975, it was a bare Democratic majority that mustered the will to force a change in Rule XXII, the "cloture rule," decreasing the number of votes required to break a filibuster from two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 votes, to the current level of three-fifths of the body, or 60 votes.

Now, 28 years later, it might be the Republican majority that exercises its constitutional prerogative to "determine the rules of proceedings" by employing the "nuclear option" to remove the executive calendar — business sent to the Senate from the White House, such as treaties, executive nominees and judicial nominees — from the purview of Rule XXII, thus ending the ability of a Senate minority to indefinitely obstruct confirmation votes on judicial nominees who have secured the necessary majority support.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm

Sometimes I think DU has collective amnesia.

[jgraz]

108. So why aren't the Dems doing the same?

Is Obama too weak of a leader to get Congress to follow him, or is he actively in favor of seeing progressive legislation stalled?

[LiberalAndProud]

117. Do you really want them to?

I don't think it would be a particularly healthy way to run things. The difference between Democrats in power and Republicans in power, is that we are cognizant of the fact that the day will come when we are no longer in power. Some Republicans, such as Hastert, sincerely believed they had a lock on power, and were therefore more than happy to abuse it.

[jgraz]

133. Fuck yes, I want them to.

People are dying and you're worried about being nice to the Repukes? And planning for when they recapture power? How completely defeatist is that??

If the president had come out strong for Single Payer -- even if he lost in the end -- you'd never see another Republican majority in our lifetimes. But, it's no longer about Dem vs Repub. It's about the wealthy rulers vs the rest of us.

[LiberalAndProud]

137. We're not going to agree, but it isn't about defeatism.

The single thing I hated most about the Republican majority is, was and always will be, that they governed in exactly the way you are advocating. I can't and won't join that band wagon.

"-- even if he lost in the end --" ... He would have. We would still have nothing and people would still be dying. I disagree that taking a firm stand for a losing bill will have precluded a Republican majority in our lifetimes. It is my opinion that taking that tack would have put an end to any progressive legislation for the rest of Obama's presidency, paving the way for another (R) victory to follow.

[jgraz]

143. As it stands, people will continue dying until 2014

Assuming the Repukes don't repeal it before then. How is that a "win"?

[LiberalAndProud]

148. I am of an age that any reform will be too late to have any real impact

on me, personally. But I am always hopeful that we can leave a better future. We haven't done well in that regard in my lifetime. I would like that trend to change.

2014 will arrive whether or not we achieve health insurance reform. I hope for reform. Maybe those who foresee dire consequences as a result of passing this flawed bill are right, in which case I'll be proven wrong. But I really think that doing nothing, hoping for stronger leadership and more perfect legislation sometime in the unknowable future, will lead to more rather than fewer deaths as a result.

[jgraz]

151. Well, we won't know until 2014.

Which is exactly what Obama wanted.

[LiberalAndProud]

163. We won't know until 2014 or much later what the final fallout will be.

Yay! We found a point of agreement.

I've enjoyed our conversations in this thread very much, jgraz. Thanks!

[jgraz]

165. Okay, take care.

More to come... :evilgrin:

[grahamhgreen]

189. Let's do that and expand Medicare! Great idea!

[TicketyBoo]

192. I hate to tell you

that Nelson is as "liberal" as it gets out here in the cornfields. Sad, but true.

[Lord Helmet]

11. Plenty of venom for Nelson and Lieberman. Maybe you missed it.

Or maybe your version is the distortion de jour concocted to further trash talk the president.

[rudy23]

27. Please point it out to me. Didn't the Pres and staff just scold Dean for speaking vs.Lieberman?

I think most would agree with me that they haven't seen the band of DLC'ers and staunch Obama defenders go after Lieberman, Nelson and co. the way they've systematically gone after Hamsher and Huffington.

To put it this way, I've seen "Hamsherite" used as a slur far more than I've seen "Nelsonian" being used AGAINST Blue Dogs & New Democrats. That's because those guys are on Obama's side, right?

[Lord Helmet]

33. Here's Gibbs' actual quote:

"I don't know what piece of legislation he is reading," said Gibbs.

"I would ask Dr. Dean, how better do you address those who don't have insurance: passing a bill that will cover 30 million who don't currently have it or killing the bill?" he added. "I don't think any rational person would say killing the bill makes a whole lot of sense at this point."

Asked if Dean was acting irrationally, Gibbs replied: "I can't tell what his motives are, to be honest with you."

Turns out Dr. Dean had in fact not read the current Senate bill which he freely admitted on MSNBC. After he read the bill he was on board.

Jane Hamsher conspiring with Grover Norquist and bellyaching on Fox News speaks for itself. She has joined the ranks of Larry Johnson of noquarter throwing trash from the sidelines.

[rudy23]

36. Why are you more concerned w/ Hamsher teaming w/ Norquist than teaming w/ Snowe?

Wasn't Obama's whole presidency staked on his ability to "conspire" with the likes of Grover Norquist?

[Lord Helmet]

54. Aligning oneself with Norquist and using Fox News as a megaphone is beneath contempt.

Hamsher has joined the ranks of:
* Geraldine Ferraro
* Larry Johnson
* Manny Davis

edited for snark

[rudy23]

61. What about aligning yourself with Joe Lieberman & Olympia Snowe?

And your attempt to link me with Hamsher is just comical. Keep 'em coming.

[Lord Helmet]

73. As president Obama has to deal with the WHOLE Congress.

I'm not attempting to link you to anything. I don't need to -- your support for what Hamsher is doing makes the case quite nicely on its own.

[RBInMaine]

12. Actually it is because we are so concerned with McConnell, Boehner, etc.

All things in the real world are relative. Nelson and Lieberman are damn near angels compared to DeMint, Inhofe, McConnell, BONER, Limbaugh,...Our eyes are on the real ball.

[tridim]

16. Why are Obama haters more obsessed with Huffington and Hamsher's opinion than Obama's actual record?

Obama haters have done far more to thwart actual progress than the Administration.

[RBInMaine]

19. GOOD POINT !

[jgraz]

145. Yeah, because it's Obama's *critics* who are continually posting FDL and HuffPo threads

Oh wait...

[rudy23]

20. That's really some bad logic. I'm not a "hater", and you're the ones obsessed with H & H

I was pointing out your side's obsession--your comment doesn't even make any sense.

[Lord Helmet]

23. "your side" ??????

well that was illuminating

[rudy23]

28. Democrats vs. New Democrats/DLC. I didn't create the cleft, Rahm did, take it up w/ him.

I was on "their side" from day one. It was they who started attacking their own base and creating "sides" to the Democratic party. It's what they want, not me.

[Lord Helmet]

44. The sharp elbows in the party didn't begin with this presidency.

The problem is that some people don't subscribe to the real notion of democracy as in majority rules. Lieberman and Nelson proved that and they are rightfully despised for it.

It should be an opportunity for robust debate but some see it as a declaration of war. Although DU isn't quite there yet, the call for a third party has been uttered for decades.

Stay and fight or throw trash from the sidelines. Your choice.

[rudy23]

77. You're right it was the Clintons. And it was the same cast of characters firing the first shots.

Rahm brags openly about how there's no consequence for him doing this. Maybe if he wants us to calm down, he shouldn't call us "fucking stupid" for fighting for our side in this bill.

[Lord Helmet]

94. I understand and agree with you on this point.

I felt the same thing when Bill Clinton trashed Keith Olbermann's health clinics, calling them "political," and saying it was just a ruse to primary Blanche Lincoln. LINK

I would love to see "Democrats" like Lincoln, Nelson, Lieberman, Baucus, Conrad, etc. replaced with liberal/progressive Democrats.

[RBInMaine]

81. The Dem party has ALWAYS had various wings. It never started with Rahm.

Christ, but for the 1860 Dem split Lincoln would never have been elected. Douglas would have.
We are a DIVERSE party. We need progressives, AND progressives NEED moderates.

[whattheidonot]

191. elected

The main concern is to get reelected, not to push too much change. the system is entrenched. Don't send in troops, don't get reelected even though troops may not work. If the troops do not work and you lose election that is better than alternative. To have the guts to fight this war another way would have been big but you cannot be perceived as a wimp even though intelligence,and serious diplomacy is not wimpy at all. Intelligence had a lot to do with winning WW11. It takes big guts to gather intelligence on the group we are fighting.

[RBInMaine]

32. No "obsession." It is called REFUTING what we see as their WRONG comments. Can you handle that?

[rudy23]

38. Sure, just dishing what you are. To me, Hamsher and Huff aren't as bad as Lieberman and Snowe

Why the focus on the Progressives who are carping, instead of the Repubs and Independents who are threatening to torpedo the bill? Why are we seeing the same from Obama? B/c clearly, he favors Blue Dogs over Progressives. That, I have a problem with. I'm obviously not alone.

[RBInMaine]

67. Hamsher and Huff are saying we should torpedo the bill and they are SUPPOSED to be allies. Get it?

[tridim]

39. Well then, could you show just an ounce of non-hate some day?

Every time I see your screen name I know that what follows will be an anti-Obama/anti-Admin post, completely lacking any facts. Your record is pretty freaking consistent Rudy, quit trying to dismiss it.

[rudy23]

45. Are you calling me out, Stewie? I'm full of love for Progessives.

That's why I defend our values so staunchly, no matter who is attacking them.

[RBInMaine]

97. Why not train your fire on the RePUKES? They are your real adversaries, not Dems.

[frylock]

120. why not just beat your head against a wall?

same result. repubs are going to what they are doing, and there isn't jack krap we can do about it. i expect more from democrats, because i'm constantly having it explained to me that there is a tangible difference. i don't see it, and that's why i'm not a registered dem.

[jgraz]

169. We did. And we beat them.

Now, apparently, we also have to defeat the corporate toadies in the Democratic party.

[tridim]

122. No.

Just stating that you're never have anything positive to say about Democrats, as recorded in the DU archives.

[jgraz]

144. What's the minimum amount of obeisance required before one is allowed to question Dear Leader?

You seem to have some quota in mind...

[rudy23]

150. That is most certainly a LIE.

You have to LIE because you have nothing else to attack me with for criticizing our President for going against Democratic ideals.

[jgraz]

152. Lie or not, isn't it creepy how DU suddenly has its own Stasi?

This has become a common tactic in the past few weeks: people scouring the archives for any examples of potential thoughtcrimes. Apparently addressing the current argument in a straightforward manner has become too demanding for some.

[tridim]

155. Criticism is fine.

Constantly trashing the Democrats is not.

Read the DU rules, I didn't write them.

[jgraz]

157. Well, it's lucky we have you to enforce the rules, eh Comrade?

:eyes:

[tridim]

161. Plonk you very much. nt

[tridim]

153. Your history on DU is not a lie.

It's your history, deal with it.

[NorthCarolina]

180. +1 (nt)

[butterfly77]

98. Why are the Obama bashers...

more obsessed with Obama then the teabaggers and bluedogs?

Where in the hell were all of the bashers when the teabaggers began their lying,hateful,racists shit,in the beginning of the healthcare debate.

I'll bet the President was wondering where was his base too...

[rudy23]

104. I'm no basher, but maybe it's b/c he has more power over things like HCR than the right

If you remember, the teabaggers were a pretty hot topic when they came out. But they don't post on this board--that's the difference.

If they were allowed to post on this board, you'd see a LOT more focus on them. But they aren't, and the DLC is. The DLC fired the first shots against their own base, and because they call themselves "Democrats' are allowed to do it from within this (and other) Democratic discussion boards.

[butterfly77]

123. Wake up...

the teabaggers are on DU.

[rudy23]

147. This "teabaggers = progressives" thing is obviously an orchestrated talking point. Do you realize

how obvious you are? I'm doing you a favor here.

[Lord Helmet]

149. no more obvious than "cheerleaders" and "apologists"

the name calling here is puerile

[rudy23]

154. "Apologist" isn't a name, it's a thing. "Teabaggers" is a name.

Apologists describes the action of constantly apologizing for someone.

"Teabaggers" is a name you're using to try and brand Progressives as being just like Freepers on a Democratic website. Too bad the DLC has no shame about it, they could really use some.

[Lord Helmet]

160. that's a distinction without a difference - all the labeling is meant to insult

[rudy23]

173. False equivalence between the words "apologist" and "teabagger"

Teabagger is a little more...loaded, if you will.

[Bobbie Jo]

174. Let's define this properly.

•S: (n) apologist, vindicator, justifier (a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution) "an apologist for capital punishment"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=apologist


a·pol·o·gist (-pl-jst)
n.
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
apologist <əˈpɒlədʒɪst>
n
a person who offers a defence by argument
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
apologist
a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.
See also: Argumentation

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist

[ima_sinnic]

170. no, we were wondering where the president was while the teabaggers took over

to my knowledge, he never once, or maybe briefly late in the game, made an effort to address their misconceptions and distortions--he has the gift of eloquence and used it well to put an end to trash talk about Rev. Wright and his own faith and philosophy, but made no effort whatsoever to present a real vision of a single payer system (that was immediately forgotten because "it wouldn't pass"--the eternal defeatism of Yes We Can) or even of a "public option," which he coyly called a "government option" on more than one occasion, knowing damn well it would yank repuke chains. He had a rapid response team on instant alert to squelch rumors, misrepresentations, and swiftboating when he wanted something badly enough--his own election--but when it came to defining and controlling the message about a public option or even any details of a universal system (you know, like a real leader would do?), he was AWOL.

and I will not be responsible for bagging the teabaggers--sheesh--I didn't even know what Obama's "plan" entailed--I remember posts on here asking if anyone knew any specifics about Obama's "reform" because they were getting sort of embarrassed by pointed questions they couldn't answer. It was HIS message, HIS idea, HIS goal, HIS vision--HE needed to promote it, visibly and loudly. It appears that he didn't really "want" much of anything--and what he wanted turned out to be NOT what the majority of the country wants. sheesh--I am outraged at the idea of UNREGULATED insurance companies gobbling up my wallet with no guaranteed ANYthing in return, with paying for their fucking "bonuses"--when was the last time you got a 6-to-9-figure "bonus" for doing absolutely nothing, paid by the TAXPAYERS?

Obama wondered where his base was? Yeah, we wondered WHO his "base" was. WHERE THE FUCK WAS HE WHEN DRS. & NURSES WERE GETTING ARRESTED after his phony "promise" that "all voices would be heard"? People TRUSTED him to FIGHT for REAL REFORM, not enforced profits for insurance companies, and he didn't do jack. He looked the other way while Max Baucus "handled it," just another convenient way he could duck responsibility.

Instead, Rahm made sure everybody capitulated to Lieberman, and Obama ended up looking all helpless and weak--simply inept and having no real influence.

Feh. Fight your own fucking battles to extort our money, "RB."

oh, and let's see where this goes, eh--is this going to turn out to be a lie?:

"Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange...including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest." -- Barack Obama, weekly address, July 18, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83FvLjsUOJg#t=4m20s

any bets on the outcome here? does that "must" mean MUST, or is it like "never campaigning" on something--some kind of weasel-wording?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

177. I have that question as well

Arianna Huffington and Jane Hamsher are public enemy number one and while I do see Lieberman and Nelson threads, I dont see the amount of venom that you see with someone like Hamsher.

I am starting to think that maybe these people like Lieberman after all.

[WheelWalker]

8. Those are some very cogent points. K&R

:kick: I've served on our village planning commission for nearly 20 years. I know from experience the difference between a good result and a preferred result, and how competing interests must be balanced within the constraints of the law. In the immortal words of the frog, "it's not easy being green."

[RBInMaine]

34. Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[RBInMaine]

15. What grade do you give McConnell, Bohner, DeMint, Inhofe...? Count your blessings.

[frylock]

121. we didn't VOTE for mcconnell, bohner, demint, inhofe...

[jgraz]

164. Or volunteer for or donate to...

We did that for this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZG8Zq8V54k

Whatever happened to him?

[firedupdem]

13. K&R n/t

[baldguy]

18. So, you must agree w\ the current Dem strategy of totally caving to the minority GOP?

I've asked this question several times, but have yet to receive an answer.

[RBInMaine]

21. "Totally caving in to the minority GOP" where not a SINGLE one will vote with Dems on healthcare?

Like it or not, this health bill is WAY, WAY more than we would ever get with the RePUKES. Your analysis is off base bigtime. Did they cave on Lilly Leadbetter? On GITMO? On stem cells? On lifting many of the Bush era choice prohibitions? On torture? On SCHIP? On stimulus? On Copenhagen? On cap and trade? And on and on and on. Kindly see the larger picture.

[baldguy]

63. The "Larger Picture" is that the GOP needs Obama to fail.

Meaning the progressive agenda, because Obama is more than willing & eager to work with them on maintaining the status quo as he has shown again & again.

The GOP will never vote for any Democratic-sponsored bill, but they're still perfectly able to water it down so it's meaningless, or peel off a handful of DINOs to defeat it, or gum up the works so it never sees the light of day. And what about all the Bush-era shit they've not only kept, but expanded on? Like Iraq & Afghanistan? Expanding the GWOT into Yemen? Reauthorizing the God-damned USA-PATRIOT Act? DADT? Refusing out of hand to investigate Bush crimes? Timothy Fucking Geithner? C'MON!

Obama's most basic message during the campaign was CHANGE, but he's just brought nothing but more of the same in a different color tie.

[NJmaverick]

25. If the Dems had actually "totally caved" to the GOP like you suggest

they would have been busy with more tax cuts and dregulation. They never would have addressed health care reform.

[rudy23]

29. Well that's setting the bar high. nt

[RBInMaine]

56. Show me how to get the votes. Go ahead. Show me.

[rudy23]

70. Twist two or three Blue Dog arms, instead of numerous Progressives.

Use your leverage against the few who held this bill hostage by threatening to FILIBUSTER YOUR OWN PARTY.

What do you think LBJ or FDR would've done to a Senator who threatened to filibuster their own party?

[Phx_Dem]

26. Hear hear. And btw, the answer to No. 7 is "NO."

[jgraz]

31. Really. None of the posters on HuffPost or FDL know anything about basic civics or history?

Is that really the argument you want to make? Really?

[RBInMaine]

55. Want to refute it? Let Hamsher tell us how to get the votes to pass public option in the Senate?

Reconciliation? Nope. I can cite MORE than 10 in the Dem caucus who would probably NEVER go along with that for THIS bill. Go ahead. Refute away. Sure they probably know basic civics and history. I want them to INVOKE that knowledge.

[jgraz]

135. The first step is to actually be in favor of the public option

Instead of dealing it away to insurance and pharma lobbyists.

[jgraz]

30. 2) No, Hillary's policies would not be much different.

Which is EXACTLY THE FUCKING PROBLEM. :banghead:

[RBInMaine]

43. Really? How?

[jgraz]

47. Are you seriously asking why it's a problem that Obama is no different from Hillary?

Seriously?

[RBInMaine]

89. Sorry. Misread your first reply. But, you don't like Hillary either? So who could win? Kucinich?

[jgraz]

105. I dunno. Maybe this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZG8Zq8V54k

He woulda been awesome. Too bad he never showed up.

[AVID]

52. you are not a democrat...you have picked your chat rooms unwisely

find the green underground or some other place where you don't have to beat your head against the wall so much.

Just some advice to a suffering soul.

[jgraz]

71. Love it or leave it, eh?

The 1950's called, they want their jingoism back. :eyes:

[AVID]

74. you used the jingo - i pointed out your flaw in forum choices

[jgraz]

80. Oh, we're playing the "who me? I didn't say what I just said" game.

No thanks. Take your little witchhunt somewhere else.

[freddie mertz]

35. Another day, another hate fest. Unrec (for the whole thread, and all its cousins).

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

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

[jgraz]

46. Beg to differ. It has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with raw political calculus.

After all, if they weren't howling about Hamsher, a few of the sheep might notice they're being fleeced.

[freddie mertz]

57. I am begging to think it must be orchestrated, at least in part.

There is nothing else but this crap in GD:P today, and some people seem to be working overtime to keep it that way.

[rudy23]

91. Check out my post from July, where I start to call out the Kucinich bashing.

And note that Rahm's "Message Discipline" team was formed in April.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6022082
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6706609&mesg_id=6706670

Ever noticed how the language among those posters is so similar, and when one changes, they all change? Just sayin'

[NJmaverick]

48. Can you point to even one hateful comment?

I am thinking you can't

[freddie mertz]

59. In this thread? "Firebagger" comes to mind...

It's a new one today I think.

[NJmaverick]

62. I am talking about the original OP that you were knocking

of were you trying to use responses to discredit a valid opinion?

[rudy23]

64. "Kindly find the planet earth." Also, comparing Kucinich and Nader.

Using Kucinich to brand Progressives. It was full of hate, don't deny it. It was an attack on Hamsher and Huffington, and those who agree with them (not necessarily me).

[NJmaverick]

75. That meets the definition of hate?

hate (ht)
v. hat·ed, hat·ing, hates
v.tr.
1.
a. To feel hostility or animosity toward.
b. To detest.
2. To feel dislike or distaste for: hates washing dishes.
v.intr.
To feel hatred.
n.
1. Intense animosity or dislike; hatred.
2. An object of detestation or hatred: My pet hate is tardiness.


In fact I don't think it even shows dislike

[freddie mertz]

82. Sorry Charlie, but GDP is a hate-filled poop pit today.

And it's all coming from the same general direction.

[NJmaverick]

103. With your definition of hate, which appears to be any comment you don't like or agree with

I can understand why you would feel that way.

[freddie mertz]

109. i am not referring to policy disagreements. It is the personal attacks.nt.

[NJmaverick]

110. Personal attacks on other DUers or personal attacks on public figures

I think there is an important distinction there.

[freddie mertz]

112. Both. Because it's obvious that the "Hamsher and Huff" routine is a means to an end.

And that end is to try and discredit all critics by applying a broad (and viciously hateful) brush to anyone in the way.

My misogyny radar has also begun to tingle a bit.

Why are the main targets WOMEN all of a sudden?

[NJmaverick]

119. Is the public figures in question Democratic office holders or officials?

is putting them down going to hurt the party this site supports?


As for your disingenious and shameful attempt to play some sort of bogus sexim change all I can say is- BOOOOO!!! :thumbsdown:


I can't believe you are willing to sink that low.

[freddie mertz]

125. The effort is not only to put down, but to silence any and all criticism.

Which is always bad, always wrong.

IMHO, Hamsher and Huffington are just the latest straw "men" who have been whipped and wielded like clubs as part of a more general "Silence the critics" effort here.

Is it a coincidence that the targets of the most vicious attacks yet seen happen to be women?

Maybe so, maybe not.

[NJmaverick]

126. I go back an reread the original OP and the poster clearly disputes the criticism

which is very much different that trying to silence it.

Which sort of adds irony to your strawman charges.

[freddie mertz]

127. Irony indeed.

[RBInMaine]

178. BS! No one is trying to "silence" anyone. I am REFUTING their views.

[freddie mertz]

187. I was addressing NJMaverick, who is on record trying to limit free discussion.

That said.... you do seem to be contributing, intentionally or not, to the flame-fest over the straw targets.

[RBInMaine]

88. Gee. So quick to play the "hate" card. Are Ham and Huff "haters" when they bash Obama?

[freddie mertz]

90. I don't follow Huff and Hamsher that much.

And therefore am in no position to judge.

You do seem to be obsessed with them, though.

Why is that exactly?

[rudy23]

106. Neither do I. That's why I find this amount of focus odd, vs focusing on Blue Dog obstructers

Who outside of the DLC and Rahm is very concerned with what Jane Hamsher and Arianna Huffington have to say? I'm a pretty strong Progressive who agrees with a lot of what they're saying, and I'm not in the habit of visiting their sites.

[freddie mertz]

111. I visit Huffpo, but there are lost of different voices on that site.

FDL I have visited maybe twice, ever.

But when someone wants me to believe that I am taking my orders from "Hamsher and Huff," so much so as to start a thousand threads on it, my suspicions are aroused.

Also my misogyny radar.

[rudy23]

139. I think you're 100% right to be suspicious when the same crew starts 20 threads on people

no one else really cares too much about one way or the other. I have mixed feelings on both, but consider them to be on our side, generally.

I really can't think of anyone outside of Rahm's office who is that concerned with what Jane Hamsher is joining forces with. Why would ordinary citizens care that much about what she says or does?

[freddie mertz]

65. If you read my comment, I was commenting on the entire thread and all the others too.

But then, I have figured out that you are all about gotcha, which is kinda sad....

On edit: "Kindly find the planet earth" and the constant evoking of Hamsher and Nader are obviously divisive.

[NJmaverick]

72. You certainly have a rather loose definition of hate

I hardly think most people would consider any of that "hate".

[freddie mertz]

79. The whole thread is filled with it.

[jgraz]

66. You are thinking? I doubt it.

You do know that DU has a search feature, don't you?

Hamsher is a "racist pig": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=87282&mesg_id=87481

Hamsher is a "shithead pretend-lib": http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7325673&mesg_id=7325712

Hamsher is the voice of "rank fucking stupidity.": http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7325673&mesg_id=7325734

Oh gee... look who's cheering them on: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7325673&mesg_id=7325927

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

78. So by your working definition your "You are thinking? I doubt it"

would mean you are guilty of hate yourself.


What do you have to say for yourself?

[jgraz]

84. Get back to me when I call you a "racist fucking pig"

Until then, put on your big-girl pants and deal with a little snark. Welcome to Teh Internets.

[freddie mertz]

86. OOPS!

[jgraz]

87. My favorite part of NJmav is his reaction after getting pwned.

Just sit back and watch the spin. It's almost hypnotic.

[freddie mertz]

92. He seems to enjoy the "gotcha" game.

More than once I thought I was having a civil discussion with him, then I noticed it had morphed into some sort of "alert" trap.

[jgraz]

114. Until he loses.

Notice he hasn't been back.

[freddie mertz]

128. I have noticed.

[Moochy]

158. That could also just be the change in shifts

They run a 24 hour operation in Message Discipline Control.

[RBInMaine]

50. Yeah, and keep voting Nader. I hear he's popular on Mars.

[rudy23]

58. Nader! Hamsher! Kucinich! Ponies! Whiners! Haters! Leftbaggers! Firebaggers!

Which side is doing the fracturing and hating again?

[Moochy]

159. SCORE ONE FOR TEH STUPIDZ

[AVID]

60. i see no problem with hatin on the GOP - do nothing party

[madokie]

49. Right on brother

I like the man I voted for twice already and who I plan to vote for one more time. I would like to repeat, "kindly find the planet Earth" for those who think they could do better than President Obama.

[AVID]

53. kicking this to the top (and a rec too)

[NYC_SKP]

68. I'm gonna rec this OP. nt

[Undercurrent]

69. Insightful post. I agree.

It's good to see an original, well thought out, and well written post.

K&R

[Armstead]

76. Can I suggest a small exercise for you?

Try to wrote at least one post without the word "real" or the phrase "get real."

Disagreeing over the best strategy to get more people medical care at an affordable cost is fine.

But you do not have a corner on understanding "reality" and those who believe this bill will not be good in the long run are not any more divorced from "reality" than you are.

[RBInMaine]

85. I am talking about the "reality" of understanding better vs. worse & how the polical process works.

[Armstead]

96. So are we

[RBInMaine]

99. OK. Can you explain how to get the Senate votes for public option? And if you say reconciliation

I'll refute it.

[jgraz]

102. Well, you could start by not actively working to kill the Public Option.

Just sayin...

[LiberalAndProud]

124. In what way?

I know that some who criticize our president feel he should have been more vocal in his support, but this is the first I've read of "actively working" to kill the PO.

Counting votes isn't sexy, but it's got to be done.

[freddie mertz]

130. "Sliver" anyone?

The signals came from Rahm and the Prez himself in August.

They all but invited Baucus and the Gang of Six to drop it, then left the door wide open for Lieberturd.

And the minute Joe stepped in the door, on cue, the thing was dropped like a stone.

[jgraz]

131. Really, you should read the news a bit more.

07/07/09: White House open to deal on Public Option: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692407982802911.html

08/16/09: Obama doesn't mention Public Option on NYT OpEd: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8591084

08/18/09: White House signals Public Option may be dropped: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/policy/18talkshows.html?_r=1

09/02/09: White House offers "trigger" to Snowe: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/02/snowe-trigger-wh/

09/04/09: White House memo omits support for Public Option: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/white-house-polling-memo-omits-numbers-showing-support-for-public-option/

09/06/09: White House backs away from requiring Public Option: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32714404/ns/politics-health_care_reform

10/16/09: Obama's 'trigger' stance irks the Hill: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/26/obamas_trigger_stance_irks_the.html

10/18/09: White House reaffirms Public Option not a priority: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802152.html

10/23/09: Public Option near, but White House pushes Trigger: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/public-option-success-close-white-hou

10/24/09: Obama actively discourages Senate's Public Option: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html

11/11/09: White House Pushes Trigger: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/white-house-thinks-trigge_n_354380.html

12/06/09: Obama silent on Public Option in speech to Senators: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/obama-silent-on-public-op_n_381847.html


Just a few of the many reports on Obama's real agenda re: the Public Option. The picture is pretty clear.

[LiberalAndProud]

138. I see.

You mean because he didn't insist on it, he actively worked to kill it. I understand what you were saying now. Thanks. (No snark intended.)

[jgraz]

141. No, I mean because he actually worked to kill it, he *actually worked to kill it*.

Read the articles. Especially the part where the White House continually insisted on the meaningless "trigger".

[LiberalAndProud]

156. It's an interesting timeline.

05/2/09 Ben Nelson Plans To Oppose Public Health Plan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/ben-nelson-plans-to-oppos_n_194907.html

That was the day the public option died. But you are right, Obama opposed the public option when it became clear that it was a bridge to nowhere.

[jgraz]

162. Here's when the Public Option died

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

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.

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.

“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”

<...>

The drug industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also opposes a public insurance plan. But its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards.

[LiberalAndProud]

166. The public option died because big pharma didn't lobby against it?

I get your point, really. We gave up reimportation with that back room boondoggle. It wasn't one of Obama's finer moments, but I believe that pharma agreed not to actively campaign against the public option as part of the deal. It could be interpreted as an attempt to save the public option.

[jgraz]

167. Yeah, my interpretation is a bit different

To me, it looks like Obama gave them assurances that the Public Option would either be dropped or would be so weak that it wouldn't matter.

[RBInMaine]

179. He is FOR the public option and said so time and again including in his speech to Congress. But,

he also is very smart and knows that the Dem caucus is very diverse so compromise has to happen on it. It is very misleading to say he was out campaigning to kill the public option.

[jgraz]

182. I never said he was "out campaigning to kill the public option"

He made it very clear many times that he was for the public option. This is what's known in technical political circles as "a lie".

The truth is, he and Rahm were working behind the scenes to kill the public option from the start. See my post 131 for many examples of this.

If you deny this is what happened, then you have to explain the following: how was it that President Obama was completely ineffectual at pushing the Public Option through the Senate, but when Byron Dorgan threatened his sweetheart deal with Big Pharma, the White House was able to organize a filibuster to kill the drug re-importation amendment?

Why are they so powerful when protecting their corporate interests, but so impotent when protecting the public interest? :shrug:

[Armstead]

129. Are you saying Obama and Rahm "the enforcer" are helpless little urchins?

Look at how effective they have been in whipping liberals into line in the last few weeks.

You think they were helpless and could not have used the same kinds of carriots and sticks against the MINORITY of ConservaDems who were obstructing real reform?

[jgraz]

132. Look at how they killed the Dorgan amendment.

Why is Obama so all-powerful when it comes to killing prescription drug re-importation, but he can do NOTHING to save the Public Option? :shrug:

[butterfly77]

95. Kick &Recommended!

:applause: :dem:

[dsc]

100. You can't simultaniously argue point 4 and point 7

either Congress gets all the credit and blame or none of the credit and blame or at least a consistent share of the credit and blame. In point 4 you give Obama and not Congress credit for all the good laws which passed during Obama's tenure while in point 7 you give Congress all the blame for the problems in the Health care bill. Which is it?

[RBInMaine]

107. First, sure, you can say they share credit on many things. Good. Then fine, give both credit.

And make sure to give Obama credit for leadership on many bills and the good executive orders. Give the Dem congress credit for following through on the executive leadership. And where there have been changes and big compromises on something as vast as the healthcare reform bill, you can not entirely blame the President as he can only submit or suggest legislative PROPOSALS which then must be acted upon through the legislature. Your point is good but little changes my overriding point.

[POAS]

113. K&R

[HuckleB]

115. K & R.

Great post!

:hi:

[live love laugh]

136. Well said. K N R

[depakid]

140. Persistent scolding and school marmarmish behavior accomplishes nothing

though they expose the nature of certain sorts of partisans- and they doo demonstrate rather clearly why your nation is in decline.

[NJmaverick]

171. However the poster's effective dispute of their positions is certainly helpful

[Clio the Leo]

142. 7 and 8 are my faves! NT

[Windy]

168. I'm with you Clio. There is a lot to learn from those who have actually been in the trenches.

a little dose of reality and frankly maturity would go a long way with some people who deal only in emotion.

[Milo_Bloom]

172. Some Answers

"2) Had Obama not been nominated, we would have had Hillary. Do you really think her policy approaches would have been much different?"

Unfortunately, no.

"3) The Republicans gave us NO healthcare reform bill in all their years in power, and any idea of theirs now is far worse than what we have from the Dems. Ever take a single second to consider that?"

This bill is worse than doing nothing, because it creates the illusion of solving a problem, but does nothing to solve it.

"4) Maybe there are one or two small positive morsels of GOOD in the health bill. i.e. ending pre-existing conditions exemptions, subsidies, better funding for certain clinics, filling the prescriptions donut hole... Is there one single POSITIVE thing you can look to?"

No positive morsels of good, since it doesn't actually end pre-existing condition exemptions and the funding for clinics comes at a higher cost.

"5) How about the laundry list of GOOD things Obama has done: stimulus, stem cells, ending torture, working to close GITMO, Lilly Leadbetter law, SCHIP law... any credit whatsoever for any of that?"

The Stimulus is a good thing??? Wow. Nice Kool Aid. He hasn't ended torture yet, Gitmo is still opened. The Stem Cell research is nice, but since he handed over control of the health care to big pharma and insurance company, not likely to produce any tangible affordible results.


You can cheerlead all you want. The democrats lost my vote and my money for years to come.

WTG

[RBInMaine]

176. So Bernie Sanders is wrong? I could refute back point for point, but it would be like trying to

reason with a brick wall. So you will either join the Republicans, join the zero-reality ultra-fringe Nader groupies, or go crawl under a rock because you will never, ever, ever get anyone more "progressive" than an Obama-type Democrat in the White House. You are so removed from political reality in America it is astounding. You will obviously never, ever be satisfied. Enjoy getting nowhere in your world of zero-reality.

[Milo_Bloom]

185. Yep. Completely done.

When your own team sells you out and then tries to tell you that you should be happy about it. It becomes pointless.

If I ever chose to vote my own personal best interest it would be republicans, but the difference is that I actually care about what happens to the people on the planet, instead of just empty political victories and my own selfish needs.

Have fun with your party and president.

[goclark]

175. Planet Earth Found at the BO Forum nt

[cry baby]

186. yep, it's pretty easy to complain on a blog. Let one of them run for pres...

and see if they can do better.

besides, negativity sells, fear sells. they are getting themselves on tv and promoting their sites.

[grahamhgreen]

188. POINT 7 - if congress makes the law, why do we even need a senate bill?

[grahamhgreen]

190. If the bill passes, tirllions will go to big insurance to crush any real reform - it's a no-brainer

We must have a public option at minimum, or kill the mandate, although really we should expand medicare to all.