If leftist critics of HCR are so irrelevant, according to Joe Klein et al.

[Hello_Kitty]

Why do Joe Klein et al spend so much time writing about us? :shrug:

[Enrique]

1. because we make fun of him

we know how much of an idiot he is and we laugh at him. (though I liked his Woody Guthrie biography).

[QC]

5. Lately, Klein has become a DU icon, along with Andrew Sullivan.

Meanwhile, good progressives are denounced as lying commies.

Interesting what has happened to this place, isn't it?

[DJ13]

13. The conservatives have long planned on taking over our party

That was why they created the faux Democratic group the DLC in the late 80's.

With the GOP fracturing they must feel its now or never to seize full control over our party.

They know Obama wont be an impediment, so its time.

[QC]

35. They might not have the party yet, but they are making great progress

in taking over DU.

[girl_interrupted]

14. "Sullivan stirs anti-black sentiment among gays, then condemns it"

Andrew Sullivan stirs anti-black sentiment among gays, then condemns it

"Today, there are more reports of the fallout from recent gay and liberal efforts to blame African-Americans for Tuesday’s gay marriage ban in California, Proposition 8. At a No on 8 rally earlier this weekend, a number of black UCLA students who were marching to protest Prop 8 were subjected to racial slurs and harrassment by the very people they were marching alongside to support.

Here is Sullivan in late September discussing a study that said ”A majority of younger white evangelicals support some form of legal recognition for civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples” Black evangelicals are another matter. There is, alas, no ethnic community as homophobic in America as African-Americans. Which is why the ballot initiative in California could be close"

So for those of you who are confused, here’s Sullivan’s argument in a nutshell: African-Americans are the single most homophobic group of people in America, they are the reason the Prop 8 vote was even close, and their attitudes on this subject have literally killed countless gays. But, you know, we shouldn’t demonize or blame them. http://trainwreckpolitics.com/2008/11/09/andrew-sullivan-stirs-anti-black-sentiment-among-gays-then-condemns-it/

I'm not even going to go into how many times Sullivan has quoted from the "The Bell Curve" or how he condemned other gays for their "immoral" sexual practices, when he was found trolling, looking for the same kind of "immoral" sex. And Women, they have no right to choice, because it doesnt follow the dogma of his Catholic Church.


But according to some posters on DU..we should listen to this guy. I think not.

[QC]

17. Yes, I remember very well when Sully was touting The Bell Curve,

and publishing falsehoods about Clinton's attempt at health care reform, and condemning the "libidinal pathology" of gay people while trolling for bareback sex under the name RAWMUSCLGLUTES, and accusing "decadent" liberals of mounting a treasonous "fifth column" in the aftermath of 9/11, but many people here seem to think that none of that matters, since he has said some nice things about Obama.

He is one of the three or four most loathsome people in American public life, but lately a lot of people here treat him like some kind of oracle, and only a few days ago I had a post deleted for referring to his barebackcity.com escapades. Heaven forbid that anyone should speak ill of him!

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Yeah, this is the guy who wrote Primary Colors too.

Which was popular right around the time of Whitewater and helped to perpetuate the rumor that Bill Clinton had fathered an illegitimate child.

[girl_interrupted]

15. Yup!

Nothing like lending the Republicans a helping hand in getting rid of Clinton. The way Klein drooled over bush, really had me wondering about his political leanings. And who knows, Hello_Kitty...maybe Klein has stock in a few insurance companies. Nothing surprises me anymore.

[KoKo]

26. Early "Turn Coat" out of Clinton Administration along with Stephanopoulis...who went first.

He's one of those "Dick Morris Turncoats" who like to work both sides for money "under the table" in all probability. Spy who comes into a campaign...makes jollies with everyone...works hard, earns creds with rest of campaign and then immediately dumps candidate when they win (or shortly after) so they can go to the "other side" and make money from "insider secrets." The lowest of the low...these kind of turncoats. Always been around...but they should be called out when they are "found out." Because they are slime...

[SharonAnn]

32. No, it was Joe Klein who wrote "Primary Colors".

[BeFree]

2. PITA?

They know that a unified party is the only way to conquer the lies and deceit from the pubbies?

And because they spread so much knee-jerking its fun to make fun of them?

[Hello_Kitty]

22. Let me fix that for you:

They know that a unified party is the only way to conquer the lies and deceit from the pubbies shove DLC corporate horseshit through?

[freddie mertz]

3. Because they are afraid of being found out. Seriously.

These are very small, very scared little campers.

[Cha]

4. Why do leftists spend so much time

attacking Obama?

[beachmom]

6. Yup. And bashing the biggest domestic achievement since the Great Society

[Cha]

7. ..

S'up, beachmom!

:hi:

[beachmom]

33. How are you, Cha? Hope you had a great holiday season.

Not much xmas cheer in the Great Liberal Blogosphere Flame Wars, though, is there?

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Obama? That's funny.

Y'all keep telling us it's not Obama's fault. It's the fault of Congress. I take you at your word and I blame Congress. You know, people like Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak, who are actual members of Congress with the actual ability to kill the bill and threatened to do just that if they didn't get to sniff womens' panties.

[girl_interrupted]

10. Maybe because Liberals don't march in Lockstep?

Because they dare to actually stop and think issues over, to question? You know maybe express some discontent about no single payer, no public option, no medicare buys in in a health care "reform"? The things the "little people" shouldn't concern themselves with, according to Joe Klein.

I have watched Joe Klein drool over George Bush so many times, it has made me sick. So I'm beyond caring what Joe Klein says.

[Moochy]

23. "He just does what he thinks is right" So Sayeth Peggy Noonan

To your point about Joe Klein and his irrelevance, Peggy Noonan has also recovered from her under the bus accident.. despite her Reagan Foot Fetishism. :rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x101168

[QC]

24. Yes, I have noticed Peggy's new status among the faithful.

Will wonders never cease?

[girl_interrupted]

25. LMAO!!!!!

[Enrique]

11. so that people know he's not a leftist

we need to get rid of that mistaken idea, which happens to match the GOP's characterization of him. Not good for him and not good for progressives.

[ProSense]

16. "so that people know he's not a leftist" Actually, that's done

for the critics benefit. While the critics are declaring Obama is a centrist, he's busy being one of the most progressive Presidents ever.

His record on transparency, thus far, is unprecedented.

[DJ13]

18. lol

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. One of the most progressive presidents ever?

Only by the definition of the DLC's horribly misnamed Progressive Policy Institute.

[AnOhioan]

20. Thanks for the chuckle

"one of the most progressive Presidents ever" Now 'that' was funny!

[ProSense]

21. Care to list all the progressive presidents?

Also, point out who implemented a transparency policy that rivals Obama.

Thanks in advance.

[craigmatic]

27. i'll take the bait

Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, Truman. no president has been that transparent but I'd put Carter ahead of Obama

[ProSense]

29. Let's see

Obama is the 44th President. You listed four you consider more progressive (debatable), which puts Obama in the top five. That means he is one of the most progressive Presidents ever.

[girl_interrupted]

31. "FDR's solution to the Banking Crisis - a model for Obama"

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/fdrs-solution-banking-crisis-model-obama


So, no I don't think Obama is the "Most" progressive. Progressive, yes. "The Most" no

We will have to wait until the end of his 1st term, to decide. And that's only fair to him.

[craigmatic]

34. That's only partly true because we're talking about progressivism as a whole whereas some presidents

did one or 2 progressive things. Lincoln freed slaves, Grant started reconstruction, Nixon proposed a deal for universal health care through employers and gave us the EPA, JFK proposed national healthcare and a civil rights bill but it went nowhere, Ford was the last openly pro-choice repub president, Carter made education a cabinet level post, Bush41 passed legislation that helped the handicapped, and Clinton's healthcare bill was better than Obama's and he passed hate crime legislation. In this country there's been few progressives to hold that office that doesn't mean that Obama is really all that progressive at all it just means he's to the left but he's no LBJ or FDR.

[ProSense]

41. "Clinton's healthcare bill was better than Obama's"

No it wasn't. Obama also has to clean up a lot of the messes left by Clinton.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[tranche]

28. "cock sucking health reform"

I knew there was a reason no one took you seriously around here. The internet makes such jokes of people.

[Oregone]

38. Posting here is merely cathartic

Only a megalomaniac is concerned about being taken seriously. We are all empty and ignored voices in an isolated echo chamber. Deal

[Armstead]

40. That's a cheery thought.....probably true though

[jgraz]

30. Beats me. From what you guys say, he's the most powerless person in D.C.

We should probably spend our time going after President Lieberman and Vice President Snowe. :shrug:

[ima_sinnic]

46. +++1 yes, those mean congresspeople over whom he has no influence whatsoever!

funny, though, how everybody capitulated to Lieberman when Rahm told them to.

of course, being AWOL all summer while Max Baucus was "negotiating" behind closed doors (after drs. & nurses were arrested for trying to get "a seat at the table") and teabaggers were distorting and trashing his ideas and his plan (never really well defined IMO) and getting a lot of media attention, giving repukes plenty of backing for "obstruction"--that didn't seem to help very much. It was quite different from when he campaigned, when he had a ready-response team on instant alert to counter any distortions and swift-boating--then we thought that when he really WANTED something, he was good at mobilizing people and getting things done.

is it any wonder Russ Feingold remarked that this health care bill seemed to be exactly what Obama wanted? He sure seemed to lose his fighting spirit early on. Was he beaten down that easily?

Were people right that Obama is too inexperienced? He doesn't have the connections needed to get anything done?

[KakistocracyHater]

36. because maybe he's a Neocon & they always SAY the OPPOSITE of the truth

just saying.........

[burning rain]

37. Good point.

One can't at the same time be a ranting nobody, and a destructive fiend who must be stopped!

[Armstead]

39. Because he's an attention whore?

[WT Fuheck]

42. because we, not the fascists, are the enemy.

[Hello_Kitty]

43. Wow, must've struck a nerve with these unrecs! eom

[TheKentuckian]

44. I dunno. Probably similar to why its cool when actual people with votes

like Stupek, Nelson, and friends go way off the reservation and hold the country hostage in the process or if Lieberman campaigns against Obama and at the RNC but a few bloggers are destroying the party. Or why literally millions of "Reagan Democrats" aren't blamed much for bouncing and leading the country into 30 years of destruction of much that we have built over 200 years and massive generational theft but the "left" (whoever that is today) best not make a peep or else, like or lump it.

I haven't been to kind to the Naderites, the Greens, and their relations but damn if this little charade ain't a bunch of bullshit. The real problem children/prodigal son's are on the right end of the spectrum electorally and legislatively.

There is also the factor of people (probably rightfully, most fair minds would admit) kind of feeling like one might if their parents routinely and literally took food off their plates to feed their sister's asshole boyfriend you beats the shit out of her and stole the family's rent money a couple of times. People can reasonably be upset and tired of being expected to surrender to accommodate douchbags that are always wrong and sell us all out on a whim or for their own profit.

I don't think you be objective and not at least understand that there are reasonable concerns and a lot of earned frustration.

Certainly, there are more than a few here that always had it in for the President and maybe more that have been fairly unrealistic but that sure doesn't mean that everyone that hates this bill or more can't stomach it since few can pretend to be happy, is devoid of rational and serious concerns in good faith.
Hell, I like Obama a lot but I'm not going to pretend shit is roast beef for him, eat it, and tell him it is better than my Grandmother's.

Of course I don't exclusively blame him for this Frankenstein monster but if you're in a position to deserve credit then you also have to accept some blame. Mitigating circumstances are in the eye of the beholder and one should be heard out to explain why they think things didn't go as planned but outcomes are not exempt from judgment nor should they try to revise history to justify results.

All of us probably have some similar sinking feeling about how off the tracks things are and it just isn't going to keep us above water putting little patches on broken systems.

We didn't make Obama our #1 overall pick at quarterback to hand the ball off to a lousy, lazy, fumbling back and a few safe throws in the flat. Circumstances dictate he be a more aggressive Executive than we'd ideally like to see and a more independent Commander in Chief than the hawks can tolerate. We're down big and three yards and a cloud of dust ain't going to make up the ground. The President HAS to take on the big money and the neocons or we never make up any ground.

I hate the whole unitary executive deal but without at least leaning a little more in that direction and on the behalf of the people not the profits we aren't going to even be able to hold our ground.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. [phone]

I'm hoping next year or next term, he pulls an FDR on us. Even though much of dumb ass Amurka will be kicking and screaming against it.

[ima_sinnic]

47. +++1 excellent, cannot add to that

[mmonk]

49. +10

[Enthusiast]

51. Dang nice post. nt

[ProSense]

54. "hate the whole unitary executive deal but without at least leaning a little more in that direction"

Politics is not football. When your team scores a touch down, that makes you feel good. Doesn't do much for fans of the other team, who'll probably not accuse your team of cheating. Even if the fans on the other side do accuse your team of cheating, and some people on your side agree that the referees made a bad call, your team still won.

In politics, the unitary executive may score a win, but when people start accusing him of cheating, that's when the problems arise. For example, think about what happened during the initial stages of the health care town halls. There were a lot, a lot, of Democrats siding with the teabaggers in their right to voice their opinions, disgusting spewage bordering on actual violence.

I can guarantee that if people get the impression that Obama is adopting the unitary excutive approach, some people on the left will begin criticizing him for hypocrisy, emboldening the RW. Also, laws are a much better and more sustainable approach to change.

That said, those who believe that Obama's influence could have led to a different outcome have yet to explain how that influence could have been applied. This also assumes that he held back his influence. He did what he did---some people will credit him with doing enough, some not enough---to ensure passage of a strong health care reform package. Congress did what it could: The House passed a bill with a public option and the Senate passed a bill without a public option.

Congress' influence cannot be overlooked, but it's unrealistic to claim that Obama could have influenced the Senate to pass a public option just because he influenced the House to do so. In fact, do those assuming that Obama could have changed the outcome in the Senate, credit him with the outcome in the House? If not, why? If so, why did he fight for a public option in the House and not the Senate?



"Hell, I like Obama a lot but I'm not going to pretend shit is roast beef for him, eat it, and tell him it is better than my Grandmother's."

Another problem, hyperbole.

It's also an analogy that doesn't work. This is the first time that this country has ever come this close to reforming the health care system. While there are a few similarities with other bills attempting to reform the system, this is a first-ever piece of legislation. No one is asking you to pretend it's perfect. Everyone who supports the bill acknowledges that it could be better.





edited typos

[TheKentuckian]

57. You don't have to warn me on the dangers. I acknowldge them and have preached them

However, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

I'm saying the President has to do what FDR did and if he overplays his hand then he won't be the first but pretending we can play this little game the Republicans and blue dog types have trapped us in or even to clearly know who is and who isn't on the people's side, the heat must be turned up in the kitchen.

I'm not talking about a public option or any government program, I'm demanding a functional and approaching fair bill. Anything less blows this shot, when do you think we'll have another trillion to work with in this looming age of deficit reduction and low revenues?

You call it hyperbole, I call it the way it is. Being the first doesn't magically transform a bill into something that isn't apiece of shit. It isn't designed to work for the people so it fails. What I expect is far, far less than what I'd say is even near perfect. I know you've got it into your head that you won't let the acceptable be the enemy of well...anything that says health care on it but we can't just settle for something with no realistic chance of working.

What you won't admit is that the reform demands reform just as much as the status quo. The system is already broken and it hasn't been signed yet. Your concept of 'perfect' must be anything with better than a snowball's chance in hell of fixing the broken system. If so then I'll cop to demanding perfection by your rules but you'll have to live with the fact that I see a pretty expansive range beyond what I think might plausibly work.

[mmonk]

48. Because they fear us like the Republicans do. They use the same language

to describe us and they say we are loony, unreasonable, and misguided.

[vaberella]

50. Maybe it's the many, "Kill the bill" screamers that make up quite a bit of the crowd?! n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

53. What difference does it make what we're screaming?

We don't matter so why bother writing about us? :shrug:

[QC]

55. You know, it's really funny how we're an irrelevant lunatic fringe

yet at the same time we have such awesome power that if we complain about the most powerful man on earth on a politics discussion board, then civilization itself might come to an end.

What an amazing paradox we are!

[Hello_Kitty]

56. Stunning, isn't it? eom

[vaberella]

58. It does because kill the bill stifles any progress the bill might make.

Considering the bill has much to offer. I think the other reason why it's talked about because for a group who stands on progress, when a bill (even though not perfect would never be perfect or good enough for anyone---really) that is currently more progressive than anything before it since and has been trying to be pushed for a year now, seemingly uses the same talking points as the Repubs have used----or terminology. The lines become blurred as to who is what.

[Enthusiast]

52. The reason the HCR bill

has lost popularity in the polls is because it has been stripped of the Medicare buy in and the public option.

These provisions were popular, not just with 'liberals', but with a majority of the country. That is why the arguments that it is just these wild eyed liberals that are making trouble for HCR just don't hold water.

If the HCR bill included a strong public option it would be wildly popular with the American people. The American people know full well that they are being abused by the insurance industry and they are sick of it.

[cornermouse]

59. kick