The Nation: Obama should listen to Kucinich

[angelicwoman]

"Kucinich voted against the House bill, along with another passionate advocate for real reform, New York Congressman Eric Massa. Massa has resigned from the House, claiming that he was targeted by a White House that "(came) after me to get rid of me because my vote is the deciding vote in the health care bill." That leaves Kucinich in a lonely position. He's a progressive who favors fundamental reform, but he is not satisfied with the legislation as it now stands. As such, he finds himself targeted by an aggressive pressure campaign by White House aides and House Democratic whips.

But Kucinich's objections are sincere. And Obama and Pelosi would be wise to listen to them -- rather than simply try and "whip" the congressman to vote for legislation that can still be improved.

In particular, Kucinich has demanded that barriers to states developing single-payer "Medicare for All" programs be removed. Kucinich wants Congress to waive existing federal restrictions and to address federal laws that might be interpreted as supporting insurance company suits against states that provide more extensive coverage than is currently proposed by the president.

White House strategists and congressional leaders should know that Kucinich is not an outlier on this issue. The congressman has gained strong support for his practical proposals regarding state-based experimentation with "Medicare for All" initiatives -- on key House committees, among members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and from real-reform backers such as the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, Progressive Democrats of America and Physicians for a National Healthcare Program."

This is not to say that Kucinich's approach is the right or wrong one. The point is that Obama, Pelosi and their lieutenants need to recognize that the congressman's dissents are based on principle. He is not seeking some sort of "Cornhusker kickback" or "Louisiana Purchase" deal. Rather, Kucinich is seeking to make what he sees as a flawed bill better.

As such, Democrats ought not be worrying so much about whipping him into shape as they should be listening to him -- and working with him. After all, what Kucinich is proposing is not extreme. It's what should be in the bill.

More: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/538787/print

[mbperrin]

1. I want Dennis as MY congressman.

PLEASE?

[damonm]

2. You can have him...

I'll keep Pete Stark, thank you very much...
Every bit as progressive, and not the attention whore Dennis is.

[mbperrin]

4. George W. Bush's old partner in Arbusto, Mike Conaway, is mine.

SOMEBODY must have voted for him, but it was not me! Let's face it, Satan would be a better deal for me. At least he bothers to lie to you. Conaway is an unabashed shill for big business and no bones about it.

So, attention whore or not, I'd be far better off.

[damonm]

5. Yep, for you...

...even Harold-fucking-Ford would be a better deal. I feel your pain.

:hug:

[mrdmk]

31. You think or are you attempting to be funny? n/t

[damonm]

50. Not trying to be funny at all.

I don't think much of Ford, but even HE might be an improvement over the POS you've got - not much, but when you're at the South Pole, EVERY direction is North.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

53. Yeah, I have Eric Cantor so I'd love to have the elf.

[GreenArrow]

29. Is Kucinich an "attention whore"

because he's voting against the bill, or is he voting against the bill because he's an "attention whore"?

Not that it really matters. I like Pete Stark too, but I think Kucinch has the better position on this issue, and if I had a vote, there's no way in hell I could vote for this bill.

[Mithreal]

62. US Congressman are supposed to remain silent and out of the spotlight

I wish my Congressman was in the spotlight a little more, but he claims to prefer working behind the scenes as if one couldn't do both.

Liberals should speak only when spoken too, adults are in charge dontcha know.

Hear that, liberals, get back in your closets, in your caves or under your bridges.

[Lorien]

60. So I guess that you prefer the standard politician who spends their time fundraising

instead of talking about the issues that effect all of our lives.

[Mithreal]

63. +1 Liberals are supposed to remain silent unless their betters speak to them

[damonm]

72. So I guess you only read headlines...

And not the substance of the post, or you'd realize what an incredibly stupid thing you just said.

Try checking out http://thatsmycongress.com/house/repStarkCA13111.html
and try again.

[NorthCarolina]

56. Me too. eom

[Oregone]

3. Right now Im pouring my French wine all over my collection of The Nation issues

[JVS]

7. LOL! I think you've captured the spirit of the Kooch-haters.

[boppers]

21. Is that a bigger waste of text, or wine?

Inquiring minds and all that.

[Mithreal]

64. +1 Damn, you're good.

:applause:

[xchrom]

6. Recommend - I'm drinking my French wine. Nt

[vaberella]

8. I don't understand what people want. One moment...he's not whiping congress into action.

Now he does...he shouldn't whip them. Further more, I believe the Nation is wrong on this. And I'm not in agreement. And further more...the nation writer who wrote this is ridiculous.."This is not to say Kucinich's approach is the right or wrong one." <----HELLO!! You've just declared that his approach is the right one and Obama has to listen to it. Fuckin' idiots and their double talk.

[ClassWarrior]

9. "The nation (sic) writer who wrote this" is one of the best damn journalists working today.

Of course, given the style of what you've written here, you probably couldn't tell a good journalist from Jeff Gannon.

NGU.

[Cha]

11. I don't care how good the writer is..I

think he's wrong.

[ClassWarrior]

12. I didn't say he's a good writer. He's a good journalist. One of the truth-tellers for our side.

He, along with Robert McChesney, founded http://FreePress.net. Look up his credentials. Pretty hard to argue with them.

NGU.

[karynnj]

43. Easy to argue with him on things where he has an agenda

He has twisted facts to make the case he wants in the past. In fact, reading the OP, my first thought before clicking to see, was I bet this is Nichols. Not a fan.

[treestar]

104. I have to say this, but who cares?

We can think for ourselves, I'm sick of journalists being set up as people who know better. They don't have to actually run things. I care no more for this one than for Limbaugh. They can all criticize, but they don't have to do anything.

They have no experience and they can live in ideal worlds.

[vaberella]

32. J. D. Salinger is considered a great writer too, Catcher in the Rye his greatest. I abhor CitR. n/t

[karynnj]

42. I strongly disagree

He is a great writer, but I have seen things he has written where he has said things that simply were not true - the most glaring to me because I did not even have to look it up - was an early 2004 article, after Dean, who he supported had bowed out. He then opted to make a case for Edwards. Now, it is the right of anyone to favor the politician he wants, but it is poor journalism to say things that are blatantly false. Here, he suggested that Edwards was better on the economy. The fact is Edwards had a 60 something LCV rating, Kerry had a lifetime 96 and as Gore said he had the best environmental record in the Senate. This was a case where what he wrote was not a matter of opinion, but simply completely unjustifiable.

Now, this was not the only jaundiced comparison, but it was the most clear cut in being 100% wrong.

I know this is an old example, but it and later coverage in 2004 and 2005, by him and others, led me to cancel the Nation, so I read it less.

[Cha]

10. No matter what President Obama did it wouldn't

be perfect enough for dennis the distorter...so the writer obviously doesn't know his subject.

[Mithreal]

65. -1

[pundaint]

For me, I want a good piece of legislation. Obama gave away the Peoples benefits at the beginning.

Claimed to be hands-off, but whenever the tide turned against the corporatist solution, he jumped in to the detriment of the People. Now, after we have seen this for almost a year, he insults us by giving us campaign speeches mischaracterizing this entrenchment of the very cause of the problem, as reform. I WANT THE TRUTH, we can handle the truth, but most of elected Washington's careers probably wouldn't survive it.

[Go2Peace]

13. Kucinich had just better stay away from public showers!

or he could have real trouble on his hands...

[ClassWarrior]

14. ROFLMAO...

NGU.

[saracat]

15. Once again the same folks can't separate the man from the message.They don't like Dennis

so that means these ideas are wrong.it is too bad really. These are good ideas and worth considering no matter who says them.

[xchrom]

16. Now we have prison rape humour involved.

I'm no kucinich fan -- but there is one response that
I think is perfect for kucinich critics.

[Go2Peace]

17. you obviously are not up on the story about Rahm scolding naked senators

Apparently the right wing is having a heyday with it. I have to admit it is pretty bizarre though.

[xchrom]

18. Check up thread.

We're a little past showerus interuptus.

[Go2Peace]

19. Yes, if you are talking about my post about showers that is referring

to Rahm, who apparently thinks it is appropriate to get agressive with a naked senator while taking a shower. I wasn't even thinking about prison rape? Or was there another post? I can't seem to find it?

[bluedawg12]

30. +1 n/t

[IndianaGreen]

52. They hate Dennis because of what he represents: the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party

They expect us to remain the submissive and abused spouse as they waste our money bailing out their rich friends and corporations, while the rest of us are at best under-employed or making far less of what we made under Clinton. They hate us because we continue to oppose globalization and its feudal trade deals, and the wars that must go on in perpetuity to keep the armament industry chugging right along.

It is interesting that today the MSM, and DU, is still talking about that pervert Massa instead of discussing the House resolution to bring the troops home.

[KoKo]

103. What I don't understand is why he's allowed to be "bashed" on this Board...

It's one thing to have posters talk about why they don't agree with him, but post after post for days has been the same people saying vile things about him. The same people who seem to never sleep just post useless slurs and outright lies. It's the kind of thing that used to not be allowed against a Democrat who is not in a scandal or accused of anything except standing up for his principles. I've seen more bashing here of Kucinich than I have of any of our turn coat dems who didn't honor their promises or ignored the issues that Democrats supposedly have been running on.

[pundaint]

94. What has Dennis done to not like? I cannot remember the last big thing he was wrong about.

He puts his solutions out there early, and they're good. He consistently is pro People, Peace, and real Prosperity. He is a genuine and consistent advocate for the best America can be. Does he need to be on the football team too?

[jannyk]

20. k&r! Wish we had more like him! nt

[freddie mertz]

22. K & R. Obama should also listen to the needs of the PEOPLE...

And forget about his corporate masters, who are leading him to failure and disaster.

[denimgirly]

34. +10,000

[howmad1]

57. So what's more important to Obama?

The needs of the people or the millions of dollars he will have accumulated from his corporate sponsors when he leaves office on Jan 20, 2013. I'll take Kucinich over Obama anytime.

[phleshdef]

23. Only listen to Kucinich if you never want to see any bill pass in your lifetime.

[kjackson227]

24. We have to pass the bill, FIRST, and then the considerations for proposals and amendments...

can take place. How does the Nation know that Obama, Pelosi and their lieutenants AREN'T listening to Rep. Kucinich and other congress people??? Typical op-ed drivel.

[denimgirly]

33. Proof was shown Obama is owned by the Health Industry

He wants nothing to do with K.
Check the Sunlight Foundations exhaustive research into the matter and how Obama struck deals with the Hospitals to ensure no PO, etc..

[Cha]

38. No "proof" was not shown..bullshit was shown.

[kjackson227]

41. I read about 5-6 articles, and NONE of them said that...

Obama made a deal to sacrifice the Public Option. Did he make "Compromises" in other areas... probably. But, lobbyists wouldn't be spending MILLIONS per week in order to kill HCR if Obama was in their pocket as you would have us believe. From what I read, Obama struck these deals in order to prevent or tone down an all out ad war from them against HCR. You're making it sound as if "SLEAZY" back room dealings are going on under the table in a nasty smoke-filled motel room. Is this a perfect bill? No. Will we get everything we want? No. But, the lobbyists are not jumping for joy over this either. I'm not naive. I knew deals and sacrifices were going to be made. This is the sausage-making that apparently some of us can't stomach.

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/presscenter/articles/2009/11/06/healthcare-reform-obama-cut-private-deals-likely-f/

[saltpoint]

25. Love THE NATION but in this piece there is no stand-up acknowledgment

of the hard facts that both Obama and Kucinich were Democratic primary contestants and Kucinich lost.

"The congressman has gained strong support for his practical proposals..." -- I don't think so. It's not evident, in any case. It is not visible. It is not demonstrable. It is not correspondent to real-world vote totals. There is no discernible collaborative base in the Congress on which Kucinich-driven reforms might ride into actual legislation. At all.

What there is from Kucinich is strident yelping and belly-aching. He sounds shrill and presents as marginal. It is a sad fact that Kucinich has more support at THE NATION than he does virtually anywhere else in the country. He holds a safe or fairly safe district but as many have pointed out on this site and others, he would likely be defeated on a state-wide ballot in Ohio and after more than one try at the Democratic presidential nomination has been resoundingly rejected by liberal voters in such astonishing percentages as to render him moot.

Reform requires a mechanism and Kucinich has no toolbox.

[Cha]

40. Thank you, saltpoint..beautifully

stated.

[karynnj]

46. Wonderfully stated - as you always manage to do nt

[Mithreal]

81. Image is everything. I prefer truth.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

54. You misfire by assuming that citizens who feel Kucinich is a marginal

bellyacher are not in favor of meaningful reform. And just as a point of reference, I'm not a prude by any means, but your use of the term 'fucking' as a modifier is not all that effective.

As for Lieberman, I am not buying that false analogy. And in any case, I like Kucinich. I don't like Lieberman at all. As for posts on DU in which Lieberman is slammed, I've found that he is consistently and reliably and deservedly slammed almost beyond recognition. That he can still show his face in public is a wonderment.

I'm not exactly hogwild about Evan Bayh sometimes either. There are likely going to be public figures folks part company on.

I dare criticize Dennis Kucinich because he speaks of support he demonstrably does not have.

And one more thing, ma'am. I'm no "new" Democrat. I came with the sofa and I'm not leavin'.

[Mithreal]

68. No one talks about someone they like using words like

"strident yelping and belly-aching" except to marginalize and denigrate.

People see through it and don't believe you.

I get it, you are better at expressing your ideas but your shit has backed up to your brain. Keep your English lessons to yourself and focus a little more on critical thinking and a little less on propagating logical fallacies.

[saltpoint]

73. Sorry you're so upset.

Really.

[Mithreal]

77. Not so upset, just disappointed that a fellow DU'er propagates nonsense.

You may not want to have a conversation with me, I don't blame you. I can be irritating. Doesn't change your sloppy logic, no offense.

[saltpoint]

82. Yet the arithmetic stacks against Kucinich.

In a manner of speaking, he gains self-stature at the expense of public policy which after all he makes a point to upend.

We are given the "principled" Congressman Kucinich. But every meticulous sand castle he builds is washed away in the tide. His legislative history speaks for itself; it is mute. No major bills he has proposed have become law. None.

Twice he has offered his candidacy to Democrats across the spectrum of primary voting and twice he has been crushed in the polling when actual voters cast votes. Not by narrow, almost-won margins, but by crushing percentages. That is a rejection of undeniable contour.

Good guy. Lousy politician.

[Mithreal]

84. The imagery is good, how can anyone not like how you express yourself.

Some truth sprinkled with outright lies or distortions.

Your conclusions fail you.

[saltpoint]

86. I think the failure is a political failure and it's not my opinion that's

involved, but Dennis Kucinich's internal polling that's at fault.

Does the man even have a polling team? I think a case could be made that he probably doesn't.

What pollster could sit Kucinich down, as Caddell did Carter, and tell him that the numbers are not there? What advisor close to Kucinich is a seasoned hard-bitten realist enough, as Mankiewicz was to McGovern, to tell Dennis that he does not represent a significant percentage of U.S. voters?

Kucinich's first presidential run was as "principled" as his defenders claim, certainly; but also it was politically disastrous. A total train wreck by the numbers. A failed candidacy.

For the second presidential try, he used essentially the same model, also without seasoned advisors, also without realist consults, also with no mechanism to raise cash or coordinate grassroots organizations or find ways to prevail upon county Democratic chairpersons to ignite interest in his campaign and to raise its profile.

There's no question that he means what he says. There is a huge question of why he persists in investing in a demonstrably failed model to bear the message. He has no more support now than he did a decade ago, and arguably less.

[Mithreal]

88. Why do you persist in rehashing Presidential campaigns?

Your arguments are like the undead and hardly relevant even if I didn't question your twisted conclusion.

[saltpoint]

92. Whether he is grandstanding against Barack Obama or out in the

Democratic primary field, my assertion that Kucinich is ineffective is the same.

It can be zoom-lensed into a specific bill Obama wants passed, or it can zoom out again and observe Kucinich against his rival Democrats for the party's nomination.

In both cases he fails to make the case. In both cases nothing happens, despite the earnestness of his commitment.

He represents a safe / fairly safe Democratic district and has withstood primary challenges from more centrist candidates. I strongly opposed his last challenger for a variety of reasons.

If you want 'undead,' please see under 'Richard Lugar.' Unquestionably the most corpse-like sitting U.S. Senator.

[Mithreal]

95. Funny, personality wise, I like you, but your arguments are irrelevant.

And again you fail to take into account any situational explanations even if I found your arguments otherwise relevant and anything but diversion.

[saltpoint]

97. Mithreal, I've felt for some time that Ray Davies of The Kinks had it

right when he asserted that "reality is over-rated."

In the 1960s it seemed to me the issue was not whether taking drugs was ethical or unethical but whether the American landscape of Dwight and Mamie Eisenhower was bearable or unbearable. Depending on how someone answered that question about Eisenhower's America, one could easily answer the drug question.

I've read your posts with attention in this thread and also in other threads. You've earned your keep on a complex planet. Honors, and good music, and cold beer.

Salute.

[Mithreal]

98. Alright, until next time.

Even if I strongly disagree, I appreciate the dialogue.

[mbperrin]

101. Well, here's a list of 16 polls that all show Americans (real ones, not politicians)

favor single payer universal:

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

Single-Payer Poll, Survey, and Initiative Results

Date
Poll, Survey, or Initiative
Highlight
Details
July 2009 Kaiser Health Tracking Poll
Do you favor or oppose, "Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all?"
Favor 58%, Oppose 38%, NA/DK 3%

Link
July
2009 Time Magazine Would you favor or oppose a program that creates a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all, in which the government would provide healthcare insurance to all Americans?
Favor 49%, Oppose 46%, NA/DK 5%
Link
Feb.
2009

Grove Insight Opinion Research "When given a choice of the current system or one "like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers," voters overwhelmingly chose the latter. A solid majority (59%) say they would prefer a national health insurance program that covers everyone, over the current system of private insurance offered to most through their emloyer."
Link
Feb.
2009

New York Times/CBS News Poll Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.
Link
Nov. 2008 Ballot initiative question in Massachusetts, “Should the representative from this district be instructed to support legislation creating a cost-effective single payer health insurance system that is available to all residents, and oppose laws penalizing those who fail to obtain health insurance?” "....local ballot initiatives supporting single payer and opposing individual mandates passed by landslide margins in all ten legislative districts where they appeared. With almost all precincts tallied, roughly 73 percent of 181,000 voters in the ten districts voted YES...."
Link
Apr. 2008 Quinnipiac Poll in PA, FL, OH
9. Do you think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care, or don't you think so?
In Pennsylvania; Yes 65%, No 31%, NA/DK 4%

Link
Apr. 2008 Annals of Internal Medicine, Study of Physician Support of National Health Insurance. (Includes a comparison of 2002 and 2007 surveys.) "...59 percent of them 'support government legislation to establish national health insurance,' while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral."
Link
Dec.
2007

AP - Yahoo News Poll
Do you consider yourself a supporter of a single-payer health care system, that is a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, or not?
Yes 54%, No 44%, Refused / Not Answered 2%
Link
Dec. 2007 AP - Yahoo Poll
14. "Which comes closest to your view?
34% - The United States should continue the current health insurance system in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance
65% - The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers
2% - Refused / Not Answered"

Link
Dec. 2007 New Hampshire Medical Society, Survey of New Hampshire Physicians "Two thirds of New Hampshire physicians, including 81% of primary care clinicians, indicated they “would favor a simplified payor system in which public funds, collected through taxes, were used to pay directly for services to meet the basic healthcare needs of all citizens.”
Link
May 2007 CNN/Opinion Research Poll
30. Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?
64% - Yes,
35% - No,
2% - No opinion

Link
Feb. 2007 New York Times/CBS News Poll
27. Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn't this the responsibility of the federal government?
64% - Guarantee
27% - Not responsibility
9% - DK/NA

30. If you had to choose, which do you think is more important for the country to do right now, maintain the tax cuts enacted in recent years or make sure all Americans have access to health care?
18% - Cutting taxes
76% - Access to health insurance
1% - Neither
2% - Both
4% - DK/NA

Link
Feb. 2007 Minnesota Medicine Magazine, Poll of Minnesota Physicians "Of 390 physicians, 64% favored a single-payer system, 25% HSAs, and 12% managed care. The majority of physicians (86%) also agreed that it is the responsibility of society, through the government, to ensure that everyone has access to good medical care."
Link
Oct. 2005 The Harris Poll
“Please indicate whether you support or oppose the policy.”
“Universal health insurance”
75% - Strongly/Somewhat Favor
17% - Strongly/Somewhat Oppose

Link
Nov. 2004 Kaiser Family Foundation
Health Poll Report Public Opinion of "Consumer-Driven" Plans
Link
Oct. 2003 Washington Post/ABC News Poll
49. Which would you prefer – (the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance); or (a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?)
62 % Universal
33% Current
6% No opinion
Link


The lousy politicians are the ones selling us out. They are lousy human beings, and they see no personal profit from actually representing their constituents. The presence of all the corporate money in the political process is a moral hazard and has turned the country into a kleptocracy. So when you accuse someone of actually representing their constituents and refusing to sell out like everyone else, I fail to see that as a problem.

[saltpoint]

106. Copious stats and all that: kudos. But it misses what is problematic

about Kucinich, namely that he can't forge a coalition to reach critical mass to enact reform.

[mbperrin]

109. More of a problem of the other politicos who are going against the

public's clearly established wishes, isn't it?

They're bought and paid for by industry; K is doing what the people want as evidenced by the polls from every stripe and strata of the public. It's not HIS problem that the industry shills won't be moved, but rather, the people who won't vote them out, either through misdirection (I'm just doing what can possibly be done, don't blame me) or out and out lying (single payer is just too radical, nobody wants it but a few extremists.)

Whole thing resembles suffrage for women. The leaders are simply going to have to stick to their guns, doggedly, be made fun of, perhaps go to jail when things get closer to happening. But one of these days, the blood-sucking, sinew-eating monsters who call themselves the insurance industry will be killed, buried, and done with. People will marvel that it wasn't done sooner - like slavery, chattel ownership of women, people will question, "what was wrong with those people that they let it go so long?"

This year, next year, 20 years from now, who knows? It's really difficult to estimate the depth and breadth of plain avarice and disregard for human welfare. But it will happen. It's the only system that works to actually deliver good healthcare at decent prices. Period.

Until then, it's all a feast for the vampires.

[Generator]

102. Wow nothing makes you get the point you are

marginal as having a post deleted. Didn't even call you a name-in less pretty words is not allowed now. I was actually shocked that is was-can't say what this says about the new DU either. I can probably count on my fingers the number of posts I have had deleted in six years here.

Anyhoo-sorry "fuck" was too rough for you. For all the posts to my comment that is deleted-pretty damn funny, The fuck was how fucking dare you say that its bellyaching to call this piece of crap giveaway to the insurance industries a piece of crap give away to insurance industries. In other words you are saying that I and Kucinich don't believe what we believe. And that is insulting. It makes no sense to say you want what someone wants and then call what they are saying just complaining.

Surprised you don't even know about the New Democrats.

Obama most certainly is one. I am NOT. And Kucinich most certainly is not. Marginal, censored, smeared, and hated, maybe. But heh-unlike "new Dems" we don't back down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

In the politics of the United States, the New Democrats are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are identified with more centrist social/cultural positions and neoliberal fiscal values.<1><2> They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19862.html
~
President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.

“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.

The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

Obama made his comment in discussing his budget priorities and broader goals, also calling himself a “pro-growth Democrat” during the course of conversation.

~
But it's hard to tell what you believe, like many people on internet forums, besides that posting on a message board and manipulating words is fun. Which is why of course, I am wasting my time.

I actually care about what is in the health care reform bill. And I like Dennis Kucinich, actually believe this hcr is a piece of crap and that we can do much better. I also believe that my opinion is not the minority. We are marginalized and mocked-but not for one damn second do I believe anything Kucinich has to say about this bill is beyond the mainstream. It is the senate and Obama that are out of touch with America. He mouths about taking on insurance companies in the same way he mouths about talking on Wall Street. It's what Obama does that matters, not his pretty words.

And I, unlike, many on DU or in the precious Beltway wisdom, believe that Americans care more about their health care and lives than giving Obama and the Dems a political win.

That is all.

[saltpoint]

107. Well by god I hope you have a great St. Patrick's Day next week no

matter what.

[OnyxCollie]

66. +1

[QC]

71. +2

[Mithreal]

78. +3

[Mithreal]

67. -1 Yes, I am sure that is it. Weak, pathetic, spineless centrists

sure have won America over. Won't even really need a marketing campaign for November 2010 because the Dem accomplishments have been so obviously what Americans want and needed they will speak for themselves.

Fantastical nonsense, fallacy, and diversion, but hey you presented it well.

[saltpoint]

74. If you close your eyes there is no center. There is just what moves

forward.

You might want to reimagine a bit. Or not.

[Mithreal]

75. You might want to consider you are confused. Yet strangely confident, intriguing.

[saltpoint]

76. Comes with the territory, perhaps.

Kucinich is a valiant knight who can't even get on the horse. That's not a characterological assessment. It's a vote count.

[Mithreal]

80. territory? please elaborate

[saltpoint]

83. We are the sum of our parts and our citizen history becomes part and

parcel of the landscape.

Kucinich claims grassroots inspiration for his positions but is not possessed of the politician's poker sense to advance those positions. He's tough, witness the days as mayor of Cleveland. He's even right. But he is a political eunuch. He represents no voting block in the lower chamber. He is unable -- not unwilling -- but unable to define the rationale for reform. Seeds cast upon stone.

He plays the contrarian to thwart legislation close to passage in the present case. The longer shadow is that his own legislative initiatives never, ever reach this point. Hence the bellyacher's consolation.

[Mithreal]

87. It's the heart of the conservative to misplace blame or responsibility.

You talk about landscape and while you paint a provocative image it is not even representative of what many Progressives see. Is your image corrupted or can only you and others like you see clearly.

You are drawing the wrong conclusions and oversimplifying the situations to distortion.

[saltpoint]

90. Respectfully, it is not. Misplaced blame or projection can be manifest

politically, yes. But it is not a partisan feature of the blamer or projector.

The decidedly apolitical personality exhibits identical behavior as a political personality.

"Many progressives" indeed. The arithmetic returns here -- there AREN'T many progressives. The Right assails the "liberal media," by which I guess they mean Amy Goodman, who is wonderful, but rare. Almost no one knows who she is. My guess is that you do. I do. A few folks I hang out with do. Several here on this site do.

But that's not all that many folks. There is no critical mass for progressive reform, which makes it easy to isolate by FOX News and other Right-wing interests. It makes it easier to bully.

Ted Kennedy was an old school liberal with a strikingly effective Senate staff -- Kerry and Kennedy were smart to pick the people they did for their Senate staffs -- and Ted spent some decades in the Congress. He got a lot done. He was at least as liberal as Kucinich, who after all is an old school liberal as well. The Kennedy and Kerry models work by building consensus into coalition to affect legislative outcomes. Kucinich does not use that model. He never has. He has tried to use it but again, he does not have the toolbox.

If Kucinich is genuine in his commitment to meaningful reform then he should borrow from successful and effective models of investing in the process to bring that reform about.

To date he has not done that.

[Mithreal]

93. Distort my words to make a point about arithmetic and half-truths again.

And persistence in whether Kucinich has the right toolbox or is less than another is irrelevant.

Respectfully and I don't mean that sarcastically though it may seem, I need waders for all this bullshit.

I sense you are one of those folks who feels like he or she knows too much and to others your brain seems full. I appreciate you don't seem to take offense to my abrasiveness, but bards should sing ballads to your legendary obfuscation. You could keep this conversation going without much input from me at all, couldn't you.

[saltpoint]

96. In the next life I will in fact be a minstrel. Travel and romance will

figure prominently in the goings-on, you may be sure.

The toolbox builds the coalition machined. Legislation depends on it. It's relevant if one is invested in the political process as a voter. It's even more relevant if one is invested in the process as an Ohio Congressman.

I kind of like the Buddhists' notion of space and emptiness and mindfulness and rather endorse their notion of not cluttering up one's mind or life with a lotta stuff. John McCain met with the Dalai Lama during the 2008 campaign. It didn't appear to do McCain any good. One either has ears to hear or one doesn't. Perhaps the spiritualist's words went unheeded in the face of John and Cindy deciding which of their 7 houses they'd build new decks on.

[BlooInBloo]

108. :)

[ProSense]

26. "This is not to say that Kucinich's approach is the right or wrong one...

The point is that Obama, Pelosi and their lieutenants need to recognize that the congressman's dissents are based on principle."

What a lame attempt at an excuse.

Kucinich voted against the House bill], along with another passionate advocate for real reform...But Kucinich's objections are sincere...In particular, Kucinich has demanded that barriers to states developing single-payer "Medicare for All" programs be removed.

So why does he plan to vote against a bill that includes Senator Sanders' state single payer provision?

Kucinich is a grandstander and hypocrite.

[bluejaypdx]

79. the Sanders amendment is flawed

Under Sanders's proposal, states would have the option of using the federal funding they receive for health care services (including the new subsidies in the bill) on policies for providing universal care. There are certain restrictions. For starters, a state could only use 90 percent of the federal funds it received, and it could only spend that money on a universal system starting in 2017 - both stipulations of the Congressional Budget Office. Sanders is still working on a reconciliation fix to move the start date forward three years (perhaps by allowing blocs of states to start before others) in addition to increasing the funding threshold. But the goal, he stressed, remains providing a foundation for single-payer to grow in practice and popularity.

"One state is finally going to do it, they are going to do it well, and it will catch on," he said.

Kucinich didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The congressman has previously insisted that the law allowing insurance companies to sue states that adopt single-payer systems must be changed. And on this front, Sanders admits, his provision has a "weakness."

from HuffPo

Seems the Sanders amendment does not remove the legal issues that make it difficult for states to establish single-payer systems ("has a weakness")...plus why would the start date be several years out...why not now? Good enuff for you?

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Dennis is right, he is an honorable man who stands with my

community. With Obama, trust is filtered through his oft stated delusion based prejudice against my family, his whole concept that some groups are 'sanctified by God' and others are cursed or demonically influenced. It is an excuse for personal bigotry. Hard to take a prejudiced mind as being honest. That is just a basic thing.

[PHIMG]

28. Kos: "Primary The Nation!" n/t

[zulchzulu]

35. I remember talking to John about how much he liked Edwards for President...

...that worked out well.


:smoke:

[Cha]

39. Nichols is good but he's not always right.

As we know..nobody's perfect..I don't care what they claim about dennis.

[karynnj]

44. Same here - even in 2004, after Dean was bowing out,

he enthusiastically made the case for Edwards - completely denying Edwards (and Kerry's) respective records. He actually pointed to the environment as an issue that Edwards cared more about and had a better record on than JK. Absolutely, provably not true. Kerry is a life long environmentalist as his mother was and his wife is - and he had a 96% lifetime LCV score compared to Edwards' below 70 score, one of the lowest for any Democrat.

[zulchzulu]

48. John's a good man, but he ain't always correct...

I have had quite a few discussions with him over the years since he works near me and we run into each other shopping and whatnot...

I understand what he means by "listening to Kucinich", but there can always be discussion. It looks like Pelosi has enough votes that pass HCR anyway, so if Dennis wants to be on the wrong side of history, so be it.

I never thought he was anything more than a grandstander on most issues and you can count on one hand anything he brought to the legislative level where something passed.

Whatever...

[John Q. Citizen]

58. He was elected in 94, when Dem voters stayed home in droves and the Repos took congress

until 06.

So I'm not sure what you think he should have been getting past in congress for those twelve years in the minority. I do know that Kucinich has won more elections than Hillary Clinton and Obama combined.

Please tell me, what did Pelosi get passed during those years, just for comparison purposes? Is her record better than Dennis'?

[Mithreal]

69. -1 but really deserve a prize for wingnutty use of ad hominem

[KoKo]

105. So you are trying to smear him and by innuendo Dennis by saying that

he "liked Edwards for President." Sick....

[denimgirly]

36. If Progressives voted in Block via Kucinich's principles we'd have More today.

It appears it is the groups who vote together consistently on matters seem to have more sway in Congress. Because the Progressives are more reasonable and are willing to break ranks in hope that future amendments may make things better ("the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good") it makes it difficult for them to have any real say in congress.

if however they voted in block with Kucinich as the ringleader i think their ideas would travel further through congress and become less watered down and certainly taken more serously.

[karynnj]

45. Not true - it would have led to getting nothing

Look at the math. Ignoring that things are more complicated, if there were two mutually exclusive groups on either side of the main stream, each insisting on "their" way, where the sum of the middle and either group was too small to pass anything - there is no way to get enough votes.

So, why is it the left rather than the center that has to give? The answer is easy - they want MORE than what the middle does, so it is usually the case that they prefer what the middle wants to doing nothing. On the other end, the center wants LESS and it is possible that they prefer nothing to what the middle proposed. So, it is easier to assume that, though they want more, it is in the interest of the left to get at least part of what they want.

[Mithreal]

70. Nonsense.

Perhaps you could clarify or flesh it out a little better.

[polichick]

37. Seems pretty clear that the WH isn't particularly interested in either...

Democratic principles or what the people want - they just want a legislative victory that doesn't upset the status quo too much.

[Lorien]

61. +1. Just more smoke and mirrors, more money in the pockets of the rich and powerful

same as it ever was.

[truedelphi]

49. Every single step of the way, whether the issue be the Big Banks and their Bailouts or

The new Giveaway Legislation to Help Big Insurers, Obama has shown that he has pledged NOT to meet with someone like Dennis.

His most important appointees have ties either to Big Insurance, AIG and Goldman Sachs or to Monsanto.

He has met with some of the more conservative Republican Senators from Southern states, Republicans, over forty five times last summer.

He has continually entertained those who are allied with the Big Insurers.

He has carefully set things up so that Rahm is the one establishing the Pro Corporate patterns of this Administration, so that when/if people finally do wake up and realize that this President is great at empty and glib (although mesmerizing) speeches, he can point to Rahm and say, "Oh woe is me. If only I had not been betrayed by Rahm." And then he can fire Rahm and pretend that NOW he will be the Progressive that he ran as back in Oct of 2008. (The YouTubes exist to prove how riveting and Progressive a candidate he was.)

The Pledges that Obama has made to his Corporate Masters will not ever be broken, but the pledges that he has made to us voters always will be. Though from time to time, like last week on HCR, he will switch gears and bring out the great progressive Obama, always when it is too late to affect one F__King thing.

[bvar22]

51. K&R

FIX it NOW.
Pass it LATER.
There will be NO "Fixing it LATER", especially after the losses in 2010.
The Democratic Party is as STRONG as it will ever be (this generation).
If they can't Fix it TODAY, they will NEVER Fix It.

We will be forced to live with this bill for a long time.
Just say NO to Mandated Profits for the Health Insurance Industry.

[Wilms]

55. k

[donheld]

59. Obama's not going to listen to Dennis, so now what?

[Mithreal]

91. Make sure you are heard, pressure and show up

Their original plan, which we told you about no later than last September (and we have a published article at the time to prove it), was to lull the liberal/progressive base into thinking a "public option" was some kind of mumbling substitute for a single payer reform system (that would have represented REAL change), with the INTENTION of throwing even that option over the side before final passage. We saw it all coming, and we tried to warn you how important it was to keep speaking out to demand better.

For the corporate special interests controlling the whole legislative process (but only in the absence of your voices of course) this was a heads they win, tails the people lose, proposition. By getting the Democrats to squander their mandate and political capital for actual change, by getting them to meekly abandon their professed principles in favor of a bill that would benefit as a bottom line the insurance corporations only, the people en masse would justifiably conclude that the Democrats had completely betrayed them. And the Republicans, who by the tactic of enfeeblement of government in fact just empower the same ultimate corporate agenda, even as disliked as they are themselves, would be swept back into office in the next election. Net result ... reform and change discredited, hopes dashed, defeatism rules, the corporations win again, one grand circular tag team.

That was the MASTER plan. But then it hit a bump in the road in Massachusetts. For you see, Scott Brown was not SUPPOSED to win. What he was supposed to do was to stir the pot of public anger as a prelude to November, to build a record of opposition, to fire a shot across the public bow of the Democrats, but he was not supposed to actually hit anything. It was strategically premature. Because having lost their shaky super majority, depending even as it was on regressive bad cops like Nelson and Lieberman, the Democrats could then no longer just waltz the fatally compromised health care bill through with a unilateral conference committee.

http://www.democrats.com/democratic-partys-plan-throw-next-couple-elections

[SimonPhoenix]

85. The Nation: expensive toilet paper

nt

[Mithreal]

89. Says the "Progressive" about a Progressive publication

[QC]

99. Said "progressive" is no longer among us. He's been tombstoned many times.

You might remember him as empyreanisles, or dolphindance, or any of Lord knows how many other names.

He always registers, says a lot of hostile things to people, and then heads straight for a gay thread, like a horny teenage boy lunging for his prom date's boobies, so that he can try to crank up the tired old black vs. gay flame war. Then he gets tombstoned, only to show up again soon after.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Mithreal]

100. Thanks, that is a well deserved TS then. Yes, saw some from that numbskull before.