-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/10/obama-administration-officials-says.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Gosh, I'm getting confused just like I have been with the Senate, anonymous folks, Obama, the White House ... mama mia!
I think the moon is waxing.
Barack Obama, July 27, 2004, DNC Convention Keynote address:
"...Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there's the United States of America....... The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America...."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/demconvent...
And I should have sold the tee shirts I got from the Obama campaign on Ebay while they might have still been worth something.
Funny you should say that. I noticed over the weekend that the words "vintage" or "discontinued" attract a lot of bids. Doesn't matter what the item is. It could be an old sock, just say 'vintage' and it becomes priceless!
Don't worry. It probably wouldn't be worth my time or energy to list them.
From your descriptions, I really like your son.
:)
They would NEVER be acting the way Obama is. They would be fighting for We The People instead of for the corporations like Obama is.
Is Obama willing to take a hit in his approval ratings to make the Dems in Congress look even better by "defying" him in presenting a public option even better than the one he supposedly prefers?
I know, probably not.
But what if he did?
But he didn't.
Did he?
I was just about to post the same thing.
No accident...They have the technology to know about things like that.
Ok...but tell when has Obama ever taking a courageous stand on anything? It seems to me that that should be a MAJOR concern for the White House...
Why would things be any better in the Senate with the conference report than they are with the main bill coming up now?
I hope you don't have to negotiate for a living.
I hope you don't work in politics for a living.
These are real people with real issues and concerns about healthcare, illness, foreclosure, bankruptcies, dieing...
Why should they have to suffer more than those in the blue states?
It's just wrong.
Period.
What a wonderful obituary quote for the uninsured children who will die in those states.
The idea that you wish to gain office over the graves of potential deaths due to insane policy reveals you to be much more conservative material than progressive.
(On background, you're kind of an asshole and an intellectual midget - and your mom is too.)
But please don't take my background comment the wrong way, you pessimistic-proto-progressive. :-)
Do you feel better now? Feel more like a tough guy. You want to talk about politics, then you need historical perspective, not hysterical distrust. I don't believe any politician, but I do believe in my knowledge and experience. You're playing the same silly games I watched in the 60's as we self-destructed against a bunch of stupid pigs because we were so pristine in our purity. Calling names like asshole is childish and counter productive, but I guess whatever floats your boat and it is your blog.
This has happened with every administration for the last
60 years that i've been politically aware. Was President Obama my first choice for the job, no, my tastes run more radical. Is he a definite improvement over the Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, Carter and Clinton? Damn right he is. When it come to Obama I'd listen to Michael Moore, who really does have proved progressive cred.
Stop doing what we did in the 60's, by tearing defeat from the jaws of victory.
Because there will be a test, motherfuc*ers.
Rahm needs to go!
You can't take any administration in this corporatist system for granted. However, the leak phenomena is as old as politics and to take each one as gospel is being just like the Beltway Pundits, who read tea leaves and entrails, before pulling conclusions out of their collective asses. They are the Corporate Nobility's Coutiers. However, we on the left pull the same crap and we too bow down to our elites. The deal is to get beyond it and see it for what it is.
As for not protesting, I can't count how many angry WH calls Ive made, congressional calls and letters, petitions signed and money given. I've been doing it for the last 60 years and put myself on the line years before you were born. My politics haven't changed but the wisdom of experience has informed me about what works and what doesn't. I don't want you to kiss Obama's ass, but I would expect better sourcing from you than they do at Politico and CNN.
As FDR told his supporters, if you want me to do something, you have to MAKE me do it. If we get a decent plan out of Washington, it will be because we MADE them do it - all of them.
Citing Michael Moore is merely a less-than-convincing feint in earnest of avoiding any evidence or outlines of concrete Obama accomplishments.
However, there are a host of Obama outrages that, as with your brethren defenders, doubtless you are quite ill-prepared to reconcile.
Start with telecom immunity. Then explain preventative detention, paying particular attention to the Unconstitutionality of both and the dark, comedic irony of a Constitutional scholar's stellar indifference.
Extra credit if you manage a clever contortion to extract yourself from the fallacy of 'Appeal to Common Practice,' that you've employed to justify Obama's incompetence and lack of engagement on this desperately urgent issue by referring to the completely irrelevant idea that others have behaved similarly in the past.
It's acceptable if you disappear; it's the trend in this line of discussion.
Good Ad hominem attack. Your arguing style of throwing up a bunch of issues is so Republican too. I thought the idea was not to be like them, but you are just a mirror image.
The man inherited a country teetering on fascism, involved in two ridiculous wars, an economy stolen by the rich and a news media that has all the independence of Pravda. He has to deal with a system that runs on payoffs to office holders to allow them to campaign and an MI Complex that will kill before they lose their profits and your disappointed that he hasn't solved it all. Grow up, get real and fully understand that this person is doing all he can to deal with all of it, but you don't overturn 40 years of the elite's counterattacks in 10 months. If you think you can they you are smoking the wrong herbs.
Maybe you need to step back a little. All of your posts are smarmy, nasty attacks on our motives.
You have no credibility here. I do not even believe your alleged progressive roots. No progressive would engage others in the manner you have demonstrated.
I think I speak for many on this board when I say you are coming off as bitter, petulant and nasty. If you think that persuades anyone, you are way off base.
And what has he done? Continued and defended the use of said fascist tactics (indefinite detention, torture, warrantless wiretapping), continued and even ramped up wars of convenience, handed the keys to wall street to the very people who were involved in its downfall AND appointed industry flacks to positions where they can gut any meaningful reform, including health care (blue dogs and republicans paid for by the industries)
Spare us the "poor obama" crap, he's furthering 90% of the past administrations horrors and you're here to guard his flank?
YOU might want to wake up.
Telecom immunity.
Preventative detention.
Obama reneged on both. Both are clearly unconstitutional. Explain please.
I do wonder if these sources are kind of a cabal within a divided administration (team of rivals). That reflects just as poorly on Obama's leadership, btw. In any event, can you get the permission of your sources to name names. All these guys who run to the media anonymously are a bunch of cowards.
Only recently have they bothered giving halfhearted blurbs of support (which in NO WAY means they actually support it, unless you take politicians at their word, which is hard to do given that super secret pharma deal Obama tried to keep secret and then had to admit) when they realized that support wasn't going away for it, and they couldn't be seen ACTIVELY opposing something so popular.
Good lord, all this is patently obvious and elementary.
There has been much written that points to a pretty strong body of evidence that Obama is not doing much to support a public option.
You might want to read Jane Hamsher's blog at Firedoglake. It has all been spelled out before.
Good lord, all this is patently obvious and elementary.
Here's a timeline for you.
1) dump single payer immediately
2) make deals with pharma and insurance industries to dump GOP candidates and back Dem candidates in exchange for reform that either doesn't hurt their bottom line or significantly improves it
3) hand off health reform to 3 blue dogs and 3 rethugs who are in the pocket of the very industries they're supposed to reform, and who do their best to kill the public option
4) When support for public option stubbornly refuses to die with progressives, send out Rahm and other spokesbitches to make the public option seem non essential and mock anybody who disagrees as a fringe "left of the left" extremist, all the while keeping YOUR own nose clean by stating publicly that you really want the public option, like a sackless coward.
5) When all other options have failed, and progressives have rallied around the public option (much to your dismay), cling to the lone GOP senator who *might* support a health reform bill as long as it doesn't contain any actual real reform because her 'trigger' plan is the one that, amazingly enough, will result in that trigger NEVER BEING PULLED, thus preserving your blown deal with pharma/insurance. Continue stating your preference (in public at least) to a strong public option all the while trying to undercut any effort which would see your pretty pharma/insurance industry deal fall apart .
Kinda like gay marriage.. suddenly it's off the table because "god is in the mix" but more platitudes about how the gays should get some kind of rights.. no commitment, no timetable, no actual position.. just hot air.
Thank you for succinctly making my point, with more clarity.
Indeed, "Ravenback". BTW, did your parents give you that name, or did you have it legally changed later.
Worthless.
To quote Sam Stein & Ryan Grim:
"LEADERLESS!"
"Reid hopes his compromise will appeal both to liberal senators insisting on a public option and to conservatives wary of a government-run plan, several Democratic sources said.
The sources said Reid does not have firm commitments for the compromise from 60 senators, the number required to break a Republican-led filibuster.
It is likely he would need that number for even a vote to begin Senate debate.
Reid's strategy of publicizing his intention is risky, multiple sources also said. A Reid aide said Sunday, however, that the majority leader is cautiously optimistic, based on a series of conversations with Democratic senators, that he will ultimately find the votes.
"I believe we ... will have the support of my caucus," Reid said Monday.
An administration official went so far as to call Reid's move "dangerous" but quickly followed by saying Reid knows his caucus better than anyone and will therefore have the support of the White House."
The WH said Reid's move (when sources say he doesn't have committed votes) was 'dangerous'. The WH did NOT say that including a public option was 'dangerous'.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/26/heal...
John, you are becoming a joke.
Where does it say what you imply it does?
Sigh...
Reid hopes his compromise will appeal both to liberal senators insisting on a public option and to conservatives wary of a government-run plan, several Democratic sources said.
The sources said Reid does not have firm commitments for the compromise from 60 senators, the number required to break a Republican-led filibuster.
It is likely he would need that number for even a vote to begin Senate debate.
Reid's strategy of publicizing his intention is risky, multiple sources also said. A Reid aide said Sunday, however, that the majority leader is cautiously optimistic, based on a series of conversations with Democratic senators, that he will ultimately find the votes.
"I believe we ... will have the support of my caucus," Reid said Monday.
An administration official went so far as to call Reid's move "dangerous" but quickly followed by saying Reid knows his caucus better than anyone and will therefore have the support of the White House.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/26/heal...
Boy, I'm convinced.
Instead of insulting the poster, why not actually present a persuasive argument to support your position?
I was once a fervent Obama supporter. After 10 months, I have seen enough. WHAT has this man done to really try and make a robust public option happen?
Appeasing Olympia Snowe is not an acceptable answer.
That is a FACT, something that is lacking here.
You still manage to comment a lot on it, despite it being 'no better than Fox news'
Perhaps just a garnish of apologist then
As I've posted before, I'm a progressive, but not a hysterical "IT HAS TO 100% MY WAY RIGHT NOW OR I HATE YOU" progressive like so many seem to be in here...
Sad.
Compare the confusion to the alacrity that everyone blindly and with absolutely no oversight handed over our billions to the banks.
They had no problem whatsoever being clear what they wanted. Suddenly, the capital has morphed into the Waffle House.
Such timely disarray.
Sad about all the shots fired at the messengers.
I know firsthand the issue with insurance companies, but my personal story is none of your damned business.
The truth is...without a public option, the Baucus plan would have forced everyone to be insured by the same companies that were gouging everyone else. There were many pundits that indicated that the only way to lower prices was to have competition...hence a public option.
You want to be an apologist fine. But if you think I, or any of us, are gonna put up with your holier-than-thou sanctimony, think again. We will gladly hand you your head on a health care lobbyist platter.
Wit is proven by actually stringing some sentences together, not by facile attempts to turn the tables. It is you who miss the irony because I was only responding to the attitudes that were expressed by those commenting. They were both sanctimonius and "holier than thou." No irony there just the plain facts of the matter.
Ever stop think that the reason people ARE riled up enough to have heated debates on this issue is because they DO have empathy and are pissed off on behalf of the country, and all the helpless being jerked around, themselves included?
Probably not. You're too busy being wrapped up in your victim complex. Take your meds.
You allude to "my victim complex" but it is you who really play the victim. i.e. That bad President man hasn't changed the world in 10 months. I'm so angry I'll have a hissy fit.
You're riled up, please? I spent my whole career working with the people who were poor, oppressed and victims of racist policies. Besides that, I was active politically all that time as a real progressive, not the kind that thinks it makes him/her attractive to the other (or same) sex. You don't think I'm riled up. I've lived the talk, not talked it. However, being an intelligent human, I learn from experience and ten months just isn't enough time to stave off the fascist forces in this country, despite your stamping your feet. This is a fight of long duration and small victories along the way. Health Care will be our first, DADT our next and then come the banks. You can either learn enough to be of help with the battle, or stand on the sidelines blurting out your petty frustrations.
I await with bated breath your next nyanh! Nyanh!, NYNANH! comment. you must have cut some figure on the elementary schoolyard. As an adult, not so much.
That's what pisses me off and somebody has to let people know that they should do a little research before they wholly accept the next "sky is falling" headline.
George? Is that you?
"but it does mean realistically assessing the problems he's facing and understanding the difficulty of resolution."
Fair enough. Please explain the rationale behind the backroom pharma deal that disallows price negotitation and perpetuating a closed forum after promising an open conference around a big table where the public could see whom was advocating for which corporation. On C-SPAN.
Please clarify the conditions upon which such an astoundingly self-serving, corruption-appearing covert deal was necessitated.
"Also, think about it the "Opt Out" would be greast for us politically. Let Alabama, Texas and South Carolina opt out and guess what the conservatives opting out will get their hats handed to them and progressives will get new venues to succeed in."
So much for "possessing empathy" for "real people undergoing real pain and death in their lives."
I'll accept your obvious capitulation on Obama's unconstitutional stamps of approval concerning telecom immunity and preventative detention.
Pity.
There was so much more; such as Obama's unwillingness to commit to the public option via veto threat. The Guantanamo sham, the blocked bush emails. That's not hope'nchange, by a long shot.
I surmise that you think your point is logical. You simply don't get that the people, even in the Red States will demand the public option and will punish their legislators and government if they don't get it. This issue is viral nationally, across the board. Forget the polls, forget the MSM and talk to your friends and neighbors. Everyone knows someone who is suffering from lack of health insurance, I used my savings to pay for my adult daughter's insurance while she was in college. Why do you think the MSM polls, to their creator's chagrin, show such high support for the PO?
It is bound to pass or the whole Democratic Party goes down. You just don't understand finesse. By the way I didn't even vote for Obama in my own State's primary, so I'm hardly the Obamanic you all would think I am.
My number one hero tfor the 20th century is Sol Alinsky and you should read some of him before you so disparage the President. He was trained in Alinsky's methodology.
"There was so much more; such as Obama's unwillingness to commit to the public option via veto threat. The Guantanamo sham, the blocked bush emails. That's not hope'nchange, by a long shot."
There's also the elimination of the national debt, a 10%+ unemployment rate, two bad wars, a bloated military intertwined with the private sector, financial reform, and many other issues. Do you really have such a poor understanding of political systems that you think this should all have been changed in 10 months? The "veto threat" also came from an unidentified source, but you just threw it in there. Don't you get that this is mainly Republican disinformation? This was a technique started by a man name Donald Segretti in the Nixon administration, with help from Pat Buchanan and others. It was perfected during Reagan by Lee Atwater and then followed by his disciple Karl Rove. Know the history, understand the process and then free your mind from pre-suppositions. They perhaps you can be of some assistance in this struggle.
It is less logic than faithful transcription and thoroughly accurate interpretation of the very real consequences of your ill-considered political scheming.
"You simply don't get that the people, even in the Red States will demand the public option and will punish their legislators and government if they don't get it."
Your statement completely overlooks the time period between their theoretically not getting it, and their opportunity to mete out punishment, notwithstanding the further time wasted installing someone else who may or may not comply, yet further adding more time that those unfortunate children in those states are put at extreme risk.
"This issue is viral nationally, across the board."
Not to the rural areas, nor does this pathetic version of an option even cover anywhere near a sufficient percentage.
"It is bound to pass or the whole Democratic Party goes down. You just don't understand finesse. By the way I didn't even vote for Obama in my own State's primary, so I'm hardly the Obamanic you all would think I am."
No, I'm inclined to view you somewhat of a political halfwit.
"My number one hero tfor the 20th century is Sol Alinsky and you should read some of him before you so disparage the President. He was trained in Alinsky's methodology."
Apparently Alinsky encourages continuation or outright indifference to egregious Constitutional violations, torture, injustice in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of families in the interest of political gamesmanship.
"There's also the elimination of the national debt, a 10%+ unemployment rate, two bad wars, a bloated military intertwined with the private sector, financial reform, and many other issues."
You aren't even cognizant of the gulf of difference between issues that Obama has almost exclusive executive power over, and issues that involve coordination of several departments. Obama has pointedly not been honest, having trumpeted the "closure" of Guantanamo, while simply and dishonestly moving the detainees, some of whom have been court-ordered to be released, and confining them in a hole called Bagram where they have absolutely no rights whatsoever.
That is pure unscrupulous propaganda.
Obama's very first day in office, he issued a block to the recovery of bush's emails by CREW. Seems he's not too busy to protect bush's war crimes from emerging. Telecom immunity is unconstitutional, but Obama, as party leader led the vote despite his promise not to.
These are actions that Obama had crystal clear choices, and he chose to continue bush's affronts to the Constitution; the very affronts he spoke out against as Candidate Obama. With the stroke of a pen Obama could suspend DODT and halt dismissal of a host of invaluable soldiers, translators and officers who have served with honor. He doesn't.
Obama is a liar and a charlatan.
Your fallaciously reeling off current circumstances, wars and a recession, to give the appearance of a "full plate," none of which bears any hindrance whatsoever on the aforementioned actions available to Obama, is both disingenuous and revealing of your desperation to brush aside Obama's many and varied instances of bald corporate collusion, war crimes cover-up and apparent hallmark dishonesty.
"The "veto threat" also came from an unidentified source, but you just threw it in there. Don't you get that this is mainly Republican disinformation?"
No, that comes from Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald. He well understands the parliamentary slight-of-hand that is the political landscape and calls out the offenders whenever possible. Obama has always had this option, yet he plainly refuses to exercise it. Most telling.
I am still waiting for your reconciliation of Obama's betrayal of our Constitution and the promises he made to gull an abused nation out of their votes. You will not answer, of course, instead preferring to frame this hand-grenade duel as one big political monopoly game.
A game Obama swore not only to disrupt via the removal of lobbyists from his administration (which lasted almost until he walked into the WH); but to stridently uphold the concept of transparency, which he has never displayed, opting instead to quickly adopt and defend the very bush policies he so convincingly protested.
Perhaps more befitting Obama's accomplishments rather than a peace prize, would be an Oscar.
So I take it from this that you have no knowledge of the greatest American progressive thinker of the 20th
Century and are trying to cover that lack of knowledge with persiflage? Your catchup possibility is Wiki, which I guess is about your speed knowledge wise.
As to your other points they're the same old same old. Childishly stamping your feet because magic hasn't been performed. It's too bad that you have only rudimentary knoledge of process, politics and the evils of the corporatist state. Had you you might realize that great progress has been made. However, like Rush, Billo and Glen its' much easier to criticize than constructively suggest.
That opinion of Alinsky is both subjective and absolutely irrelevant, however much your obvious endeavor at continual evasion from answering my original queries offers you cowardly cover.
You are no progressive.
You have no answers and resort to a number of worn rhetorical distractions to divert attention from your huffily defended, but ultimately barren carpetbag.
You could have saved a great many pixels by honestly admitting this and simply going away rather than demonstrate your lack so loquaciously.
So I take that to mean that you who holds himself out as a judge of who is and who isn't progressive, has no knowledge of Alinsky, lacks the ability to admit it and then ripostes with saying I'm no progressive. Shall we get into an "am not-am too" argument? That seems your speed.
You remind me of the people I knew in the Progressive Labor Party (Maoists for people like you unaware of progressive history) who would constantly be purging themselves and their leaders for not being pure enough.
after awhile they were left with only two, or three, but boy did they agree with eachother. That kind of behavior reappears with people like you. Don't follow Griffon's (macho pseudonym by the way) party line and you're politically bad. Good tactic for winding up alone and ineffective like the PLP people I knew.
Pointedly, I never claimed the ability to judge "who is and isn't progressive;" nor do I require such an encompassing skill to easily recognize one who does not display the traits, but rather cites others in a craven effort to appropriate unearned status and bask in reflected legitimacy.
You cannot and will not reconcile Obama's unscrupulous behavior with your laughable assertions of his noble intent. Absent this, you repeatedly degenerate into character assassination commingled with hints of your purported progressive pedigree; the cardboard domain of the pretentious.
Unless it involves compensation for an animated feature film, it's a waste of my time to argue with a cartoon.
It the V Man getting angry? It seems so. Sadly though as your anger grows you lapse into the psychological defense mechanism of projection. That is you accuse others of what you are incapable of admitting to yourself is your own behavior. You accuse LynnDee of making unproven assertions and yet your opening sentence is an example of unproven assertions and opinion.
"Absent this, you repeatedly degenerate into character assassination"
Projection again since fully 3/4 of your written production here are simply character assassination.
"Pointedly, I never claimed the ability to judge "who is and isn't progressive;" nor do I require such an encompassing skill to easily recognize one who does not display the traits,"
A skunk by any other name still smells. You do little but judge others. You are like a scavenger fish on this blog, lying in wait for someone to judge and insult. At the same time you add nothing of interest content wise.
You have the equivalent though of a rhetorical "glass jaw," you can dish it out and play the bully, but you can't take being treated the same way you treat others. You should get another image, because you are undeserving of the one you use, yes I saw the movie too and your true role in it would be one of the oppressors, rather than liberators. It is a reflection of your own inner conflict that you use an image that ill suits your behavior.
The truth is there are few here who could even lay a glove on me, to extend your slapping metaphor. However, I am admittedly and old fart, who prefers the message board style of commentary, rather than this which is almost like instant messaging. I don't text, nor do I twitter, so this instantaneous back and forth is somewhat a grind for me and my disabled heart. That's stating fact, I ask no pity my life has been very good so far, but then that's because I am a very good man, with great Karma. If you're interested in taking me on in a less hectic and more intellectual venue, try me and the other folks at Jonathan Turley's site and I'll be glad to accomodate any and all of you in depth.
Mike, you may be a decent chap in "real" life, but I don't think you have any idea how arrogant you come across here. Sweeping statements like the one above, based on nothing, since you no one here really knows anyone else here, just makes you sound like the old drunk at the end of the bar, who'd lick us all if the damn room would just stop spinning.
Here's an experiment for you: next time someone says you're being rude, imagine what it would mean if it were true. Could be a revelation in there for you.
Phil,
An experiment for you might be to read all I wrote on this thread and then was rudely attacked upon. None of the comments addressed my central point, which was that an easy perusal of the story behind the headlines showed they were anonymous sources lacking credibility. However, your collective responses were in fact measured insults and questioning of my motives. Being treated rudely, without an attempt to refute my points, or even deal with my central thesis, led me to return the rudeness. I do not suffer fools gladly.
You all have a nice, insular little group here. A bunch of disaffected progressive wannabees who really lack the context for understanding what is going on and certainly do not realize the difficulty of going up against an entrenched system of corporate governance and changing the game. In your mutual frustrations you lash out at even those you must ally yourselves with to ensure change. In your pessimism and cynicism you use every bit of false news about this administration to reinforce your innate skepticism. That was what I was posting about. What occurs is that everything is viewed through the lens of pre-judgment, rather than as new data to be digested, accepted or rejected for lack of substance.
I've been through this before 40 years ago, only then I was a youthful know it all, believing the pronouncement
of the progressive intellectual leaders, even as my gut told me there was a fallacy. The fallacy is that although
Progressivism is on the rise among the populace today we represent only about 20% of the total.
Curiously, or perhaps not so curiously, the crazies on the right represent a similar 20%. Where they're screwing up is in rejecting anyone who doesn't fully follow their party line. This does not bring allies, only isolation. When I see the same dynamic happening on my side it disturbs me and so I take the time to comment.
Many of you here have become insular, adopting an us vs. them siege mentality model. You respond to each unsourced story as if it gave you deep insight into the "Machievelian Machinations" of the Obama Administration that certainly means to do evil. You use as evidence the sick detritus of the past 8 years (actually more like 40 years) and its' remainder as proof that Obama is Bush arisen.
Not only is that contrary to the facts, but it is harmful to the cause. The more you repeat the meme, the more harm you do. That you're unaware of your errors in political assessment and strategy is a factor of your own inability of self-assessment. I mean this generally by the way and the you refers to the collective, not you personally. Had to put that in because so many of you seem to parse your reading of posts distasteful to them.
Now you have every right to think of me as an "outsider" coming in here to your nice insular group and not going along with your collective "group think."
I'm hardly an outsider and have been reading this blog daily for a long time and observing the dynamic. As I previously stated I post often elsewhere, in an environment more conducive to actual discusssion, rather than self congratulatory agreement and/or flaming arguments.
I have no doubt there are many intelligent and committed people posting here, but many of you suffer a flaw that diminishes the effectiveness of your intelligence and knowledge. That flaw is the inability to accept as genuine those that don't completely follow your reasoning pattern. This is a flaw that hinders learning and keeps one from refining their own viewpoints as new data is received. It also allows incorrect data to become facts in your minds, if it agrees with your pre-judgments.
I imagine that many of you will find the above to be insufferable and reject it out of hand and unfortunately that is your collective problem.
Had they fought for a strong, robust public option from the start, then there would have been a decent chance of getting a somewhat healthy version in the final compromise.
But they chose to throw the PO under the bus early. Because of this, the only public option that will likely emerge, is one that only folks without insurance will be able to get. Those with bad insurance at the workplace will be stuck with it.
I was an early, and passionate Obama supporter. But no more. He has disappointed me on every single issue from the telecom fiasco to his not even being able to issu4e a stop/loss order on DADT to health care.
What I did not realize when I was doing my own part in trying to help him get elected, was that Obama and Emanuel are so entrenched in the DLC wing of the party that they come off as GOP-lite. They are far closer to the Blue Cross Democrats than they are to progressives like myself.
Obama, in fact, has been such a disappointment, that I no longer will associate with, or contribute to, the Democratic Party. I will only support progressive candidates.
In a national election, I would have to support a Democrat over a Republican, but I plan to be a strong advocate for a lot of progressive challenges during primary season.
I still speak out against the lowlifes from the right who attack Obama for the absurdist of reasons. But I will not give him a free pass for betraying the trust of the left, who expected much, much more.
Why is it that we Mike's get this and most of these people don't? By the way that was succinctly and beautifully put. Maybe you're right though we shouldn't be giving away the strategy, although it is really so obvious that it's hard to fathom why real progressives wouldn't get it. Could ego be getting in their way? Perhaps. By the way i live nowhere near Iowa and was last there more than 30 years ago.
My cousin had a mole that could have been cancer btw she live in North Heaven in Canada, the doctor said she should see a specialist so he recommended her, it took three months to get an appointment, then the appointment wasn’t until the next year, then even, this is the best part, she had to drive 500 miles to Halifax where the appointment was. If you think that’s better then what we have now something is terribly wrong with you.
Countries that have a universal or single payer system have more longevity than the US.
Lower infant mortality.
Lower cost per person.
No medical bill bankruptcies whatsoever.
It is simple. You are wrong.
Lower infant mortality that may be I don't know
Cost per person your stupid their taxes are outrageously high thats your cost person right there, have you ever looked at their gas, food tax, entertainment tax, death tax, they tax everything you can think we pay nothing compared to them.
medical bankrupcies your right, because the government rights them off with tax payers money which also in turn increases their national dept...
but your right I am wrong i don't know anything about infant mortality you may be right there, and your also right, because it is simple you are wrong.
This is a fabrication. I presume you'll produce your source for this fantasy claim?
"Lower infant mortality that may be I don't know"
Among a long list of things you don't know, apparently.
"Cost per person your stupid their taxes are outrageously high thats your cost person right there, have you ever looked at their gas, food tax, entertainment tax, death tax, they tax everything you can think we pay nothing compared to them."
For some unknown reason, there's a species of poster that is determined to proclaim his bottomless ignorance to the world. The cost per person does not pertain to taxes, it pertains to real medical cost per patient.
"medical bankrupcies your right, because the government rights them off with tax payers money which also in turn increases their national dept..."
I notice as your desperation thickens, your typing wanes. You are simply fabricating rationale, and not convincingly.
The trouble is, you ran headlong into your biggest nemesis: and informed person.
Do you disagree with this, John? If so, why? I'm genuinely curious and trying to sort this out.
Folks at huffingtonpost, talkingpointsmemo, firedoglake and here seem genuinely upset. But booman and Jon Cohn seem fine with what the W.H. is doing. Why the difference of opinion? Who's right?
Obama is a forceful speaker, and utilizing his strengths to advance a policy beneficial and long overdue would be of inestimable value.
Obama, however, does not avail himself of his arsenal to stand up for the public, signal his commitment, or strongly and publicly exhort congress to pass a landmark bill; additionally, Obama surrenders his credibility via backroom pharma deals that further unfairly and dishonestly burden the public.
Obama also does not exercise his prerogative by reassuring and committing to the welfare of the electorate by stating unequivocally that any bill without a public option or universal healthcare provision would result in a veto.
To summarize; an issue that has had some 75% of national support does not motivate Obama to display any hint of strong, committed, visible and unambiguous support; rather choosing to display his allegiance to the pharma and insurance lobbies
Obama is and has been substantially MIA, leaving communications to anonymous administration officials and the requisite WH sieve.
Transparency, Obama style.
Booman's post after Reid announced the opt out public option would be in the bill was congratulatory as long as Reid has the 60 votes -- because if he doesn't, then Obama has made a big mistake that he didn't have to make.
Folks need to read that. Not that booman is right and everyone else is wrong, but simply that to simply assume that Obama is hedging to protect the corporate stakeholders is simply wrong.
He may be being more risk averse than is necessary or wise, but it's not to protect the insurance companies or pharma.
Go to boomantribune.com and read. You don't have to agree, but you'll be more informed.
It must have been that backroom pharma deal that fooled everyone.
We just emerged from the most horrific 8 years so far in US history. The absolutely least suitable choice was a risk-averse, hedging politician.
You've not in the least answered or reconciled any of my legitimate points and surrendering to an intractable 'system,' when it has been conclusively demonstrated that this 'system' stands in the way not at all when the legislators are motivated by their banking masters, puts the lie to your postulation.
I'm well aware there was a backroom pharma deal and have many times myself been disappointed by what I thought was a failure to lead on Obama's part. I am now entertaining the possibility -- not that Obama is playing 3-D chess while everyone else is playing checkers -- but that no one can know how this is going to play out. Obama may hedge to the point that come spring, we'll all be saying, "Jesus, why didn't he just freaking lead??!!"
Or, we may get another month down the road and find the bill stalled in the Senate and wish Sen. Reid had saved deploying the whip for the final bill.
I don't know, and YOU don't either.
Further, I am not advocating for any particular point of view on this. What I'm advocating is reading opposing points of view, if only because more information -- and yes, opinion -- is better, IMO, than less.
For example, everyone's wailing now about Lieberman's latest stunt. Well, it helps a little to know, for example, that he's talking about filibustering the final bill, not the bill that will presumably be voted on in the Senate in the hopefully not too distant future. Not that that makes Lieberman any less of a jerk, but it does change the calculus a bit.
So, if you want to be embittered, be my guest. But I'll thank you to save your sarcasm for another target.
Better be careful or Griffon will say you're not a progressive. After all if you think differently than he, you must be bad. Like George W. Bush, Griffon has set himself up as the "decider" here. He tells people what to think or else. As far as him respecting your knowledge and opinions, not so much. I truly think he doesn't bother to read any other views besides his own, except to find attack points. It's know as having a closed mind, a concept which you, I and others here understand, but is totally lost on him.
By the way in my opinion, although we may disagree on some points, you ask very credible questions and raise some good issues. Some here though, seem to only want you to dance to their tune.
Apparently unsatisfied with one-to-one discourse, you now seek defamation to broaden your 'progressive' bona fides.
And you question how it is so easy to distinguish you from a Progressive? Let's begin with the plain and indisputable evidence that you are a skulking coward.
Coward? I'm not the man with the "V" face, used to bolster your probably failed self-esteem, or who hides behind an alias, also chosen to denote toughness.
"Summarily declaring 'someone you don't know' as wrong out of hand is equally if now moreso offensive."
There was no false declaration in her statement, just your inability, through deceit, or ignorance, to get what she was saying. Nor did she declare you wrong, she disagreed with you and your ego is too fragile, as your totalitarian nature is too intolerant, to brook disagreement from the Griffon party line. It doesn't matter whether your politics are left or right wing, give you power in either iteration and you would be a tyrant and not a redeemer.
'Again, by your own assertion, you cannot know this. Yet somehow, you use simple and unsubstantiated declarations to contend that others are simply wrong."
She was quite clear that she was stating her opinion and in doing so, had you reading comprehension ability,
you would have understood she was merely giving her thoughts, which all but you seem to know is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You, however, who does nothing but make barbed assertions, are so caught up in your own vain attempts at self-glorification, that you lack the minimal awareness to understand that you are projecting your disordered thought patterns onto others.
"Your position is predicated on condescending and unsourced speculation"
The irony of this statement is delicious. You do understand irony don't you Mr. V pretender? My original comments here, for which I was visciously attacked, were making the point that many were using unsourced speculation as fact. As with many petty minded people,
usually Republicans these days, you accuse others of your own sins.
You implicitly have continually questioned why people don't engage your arguments directly. The answer is that you are incapable of mustering cogent arguments and then when you get replies you simply ignore and attack. You sadly try to play the bully, but your lack of
self insight and the ability to actually dialog, simply makes you a silly person with intellectual pretentions that don't measure up.
Summarily declaring 'someone you don't know' as wrong out of hand is equally if now moreso offensive. Additionally, claiming a position of certitude while contrarily dismissing other's positions is also offensive. To wit:
"Not that booman is right and everyone else is wrong, but simply that to simply assume that Obama is hedging to protect the corporate stakeholders is simply wrong."
Since you state plainly that you can't know this, you are extending to yourself an authority of certitude that you deny for others. This, also, is offensive; but not so much that you refrain from repeating your error:
"He may be being more risk averse than is necessary or wise, but it's not to protect the insurance companies or pharma."
Again, by your own assertion, you cannot know this. Yet somehow, you use simple and unsubstantiated declarations to contend that others are simply wrong.
Your position is predicated on condescending and unsourced speculation, the very sin you accuse in others with whom you disagree; nor can you reconcile Obama's unethical choices such as perpetuating bush's policies or telecom immunity.
"And to whine that I haven't answered any of your legitimate points? Please. Save it for those you know."
Those that I know would answer the question or admit they are unable rather than resort to clumsy rhetoric to avoid the obvious.