And it turns out that the comments from Howard Dean that I labeled unadulterated idocy and that completely got my knickers in a full twist– he never made them:
Several outlets, including the Huffington Post, reported Dean’s comments in the context that he had soured on the president because of the concessions made on health care. The former DNC chair reached out to the Huffington Post to correct the record.
“I said I was going to vote for him and that I support him vigorously,” Dean said. “It wasn’t your fault, Joe heard me wrong. When I looked back and looked at it I can see what happened. But I said I was going to support him and I am.”
The footage from the show does clearly show Dean uttering the word “not” before “vigorously.” But there is enough of a pause in there to suggest that he had been trying to start a different train of thought before changing course. And Dean’s reaction to Scarborough’s confetti line suggests he wasn’t entirely sure what the laughter was all about.
So my apologies, Gov. Dean. You didn’t say anything stupid.
But for all of you who pooh-poohed me when I thought it was disastrous politics and really bad form for the former chair of the DNC to be trashing his own President, you know who obviously agrees with me? Howard Dean, who reached out to correct the record because it would have been terrible to have that out there.
Sentient Puddle
Sentient Puddle reporting in from Chrome to let you know that the embedded video crashed the fuck out of Firefox for me. I also get the “sad plug-in” icon here in Chrome, something I didn’t even know existed.
HumboldtBlue
So it’s the end of the world as we know it if Dean had said he wouldn’t be all that jazzed to support Obama in the next election but at the same time we’re supposed to shut the fuck up because Democrats, elected Democrats currently serving in Congress are giving the middle finger to their supporters?
You think Obama is going to get volunteers next time around? You think folks are gonna jump off the couch to get him re-elected? Maybe if they work for Goldman Sachs or Aetna. Three years is a long time, but it’s always a good time to tell the looney left to sit down, shut the fuck up and eat the shit sandwich placed in front of you.
lutton
Dammit, John. I wish the Steelers were doing better so you could bask in that.
John Cole
@lutton: Life sucks when the Steelers are playing poorly.
cleek
if they don’t, then they’d better not come around whining about how bad the shiny new GOP President is.
this is not an ideal system. deal with it.
DougJ
Who got to him? Was it Rahm?
arguingwithsignposts
Dammit, I go away for a while and JC throws up the open thread I requested. Dammit! Dammit! Dammit!.
Anyway, nym teh kitteh.
PS – some great suggestions so far, including smudge, mo and maya.
Just Some Fuckhead
Maybe it’s time to change the slogan to “Consistently wrong since 2002 but Howard Dean agreed with me once.”
jeffreyw
@Sentient Puddle: Mine too.
El Tiburon
You know maybe this country wouldn’t be so fucked up if the former head of the RNC would have said Bush was screwing up by invading Iraq.
You know this healthcare reform is supposed to be THE DEFINING cause for the Democratic Party. Yet it appears that President Obama is doing his best to piss it all away.
And for politics Dean has to STFU?
I wish more would come out and call it.
Sentient Puddle
@arguingwithsignposts: I must say that no matter how maddening the rest of the day has been, you constantly prodding us with that pic makes it all OK. Thank you!
Michael
Sit down and shut the fuck up.
In my lifetime, progressives that came of age in the 60s didn’t do jack shit for me. They whimpered, they whined, they made progressive causes look fucking ridiculous to the public at large. Thanks to that festering pustule Nader and the bullshit he engendered, y’all decided that the good would in fact be the enemy of the perfect – and as a result, I live in a goddamned third rate banana republic.
And now that we have a chance to upend all those decades of mental conditioning, your fucking whiny assed titty babies throw a tantrum? And Dean gets caught saying something really goddamned stupid and realizes he has to walk it back in an unconvincing way?
He needs to shut the fuck up. Schultz needs to shut the fuck up. Hamsher needs to shut the fuck up.
They’re killing the momentum, and I won’t get another chance like this in my working life.
Every goddamned paid pundit out there needs to swallow some cyanide, crawl into a hole and die. I’m sick of the mouths – the “oh so brilliant” souls who get paid to use TV time to spew nonsense.
dmsilev
OHMYGOD, Rahm Emmanuel just threatened Howard Dean and made him retract I1eleventyone!
-dms
General Winfield Stuck
There is still enough to go around.
@arguingwithsignposts:
Wee haa. A real cutie!!
JenJen
Hey, at least Dean knows he was practicing bad politics. It’s a start.
cleek
@Michael:
seconded
Cat Lady
No one, no one is more left than me, but after being beaten over the head by political reality for 30 years, I’ve come to understand that most of politics is lived between the 40 yard lines. I am an O-bot, because as I’ve said before, I remember EVERYTHING ABOUT THE LAST EIGHT YEARS OF BUSH! If all of you thumb sucking pony hunters want to sit out 2010, then when the repukes steal another election for Sarah Palin who will be Bill Kristol and Randy Scheunemann’s sock puppet, will you say to yourself it’s Obama’s fault because you didn’t get your pony? Fuck you, is what I will say to you. FUCK YOU.
Michael
Stealing.
asiangrrlMN
@cleek: I have mostly stayed out of this because I don’t quite fit in anywhere, but I have to agree with you on this point. The system sucks. We have to work with it as is. I would take Obama over any of the prominent Republicans any day.
Believe me, I understand the frustrations of the more lefty left. I share many of them. In the end, though, I have seen this happen far too often on the left where holding out for something ideal crushes something that is better than the alternative (see, 2000 presidential election).
I am not happy with everything Obama has done, and I have no problems criticizing some of his decisions. However, the bottom line is, he’s actually thinking about issues in multifaceted ways and doing the best he can at the given moment with what he has. I don’t have to like it (and believe me, I don’t much of the time), but I have to acknowledge that there is a lot of shit that needs to be done–and there are no happy solutions to any of them.
That said, I will now step back out of this endless loop/debate and just ask, hopelessly, I’m sure, for a picture of Tunchie.
arguingwithsignposts
@Sentient Puddle:
You have no idea how hard that was to get after she’d gotten two shots. tomorrow to the vet, and Sat. morning I pick her up. I’m on litter patrol now.
General Winfield Stuck
Maybe not.?Who knows?
The worm turns the way it will, and there will be a health care bill in existence (hopefully) maybe decent, maybe a little short of that. But more people will be alive that wouldn’t have, and they will help, Because they will still be breathing and grateful. Trade em for KosKids any goddamn day of the week.
asiangrrlMN
@Cat Lady: And this, too. Thumb-sucking pony hunters, indeed.
Lev
Didn’t Dean bless the bill when it still had Medicare buy-in? So it was worth passing then, even though it would add no public competition for anyone under 55, but now it’s not worth passing, even though it’s the exact same bill for anyone under 55.
Call him out.
The Raven
Folks, I know to vote for the lesser evil. But I would rather vote for the good, for what the majority of Americans want (PDF). There’s no way, now, for progressives to be enthusiastic about Obama, unless he does some miracles by the next election.
And when the mandates hit…? When women start dying of attempts at self-induced abortions…?
JenJen
@Cat Lady: Word. Could’ve even thrown in another “fuck” or two, but that’s just me.
@Lev: No, it’s all about the mandates. Ketchup!
General Winfield Stuck
@Lev:
Yes
MikeMc
I should apologize too. I called Dean creepy on one of the other threads. Although, when he’s on TV he sometimes has crazy eyes!
Malron
@HumboldtBlue:
According to Howard Dean? YES. How do we know this? Because he went out of his way to make sure people knew that’s not what he meant to say.
Anybody know what the prescribed treatment for manic-progressive psychosis is?
Tax Analyst
John Cole said:
Oh, well then nevermind the 800-1000 comments that thread (and it’s descendants) eventually generated.
General Winfield Stuck
@The Raven:
Obama will refreeze the Polar Ice Cap after the mid terms. Just wait, you’ll see.
Clutches plastic Unicorn.
asiangrrlMN
@The Raven: You don’t think it’s good that he’s closed Gitmo, made America the number one country worldwide again, signed the Lily Ledbetter Act into law, has slowly tried to return the rule of law to the country, treats Americans like adults, and is embarking on a road of diplomacy rather than bomb ’em? Oh, and got Russia to sign the nuclear disarmament treaty (someone else can be more specific on this, I am sure). No one ever mentions that.
Look, he’s not perfect. No one is. But he’s not the lesser of two evils, either. He’s doing real good. Give him some credit.
GWS, argh. You beat me to it, AND you were funny.
MikeJ
Take the rest of this comment as a blockquote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSoOrVWepu7eXENtB5ohsgAI7_lAD9CLAG9G0
Democratic Sen. Al Franken took the unusual step Thursday of shutting down Sen. Joe Lieberman on the Senate floor.
Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, currently is the target of liberal wrath over his opposition to a government-run insurance plan in the health care bill.
Franken was presiding over the Senate Thursday afternoon as Lieberman spoke about amendments he planned to offer to the bill. Lieberman asked for an additional moment to finish — a routine request — but Franken refused to grant the time.
“In my capacity as the senator from Minnesota, I object,” Franken said.
“Really?” said Lieberman. “OK.”
Lieberman then said he’d submit the rest of his statement in writing.
General Winfield Stuck
@MikeMc:
Yeeeeeee Haaaaaa! I do loves me some Dr, Dean, even though he don’t always think before he talks. Just like Moi”
Dreggas
@Lev:
Yep Dean was for the bill, despite all these flaws it supposedly contains, so long as it had the medicare buy-in. Therefore, if he was for it he must have sold out to the insurance companies and big pharma and the rest because all of the mandates, supposed drug company give-aways and everything else was there. If it’s as bad as people make it out to be then it screwed over everyone else who wasn’t x amount above the poverty line or who wasn’t over 55.
JenJen
@asiangrrlMN: If we’re at the point where this President is considered one of the “evils” in a choice between the lesser of, then I’m going to have ask for the check even before I get my pony, you know?
Midnight Marauder
@HumboldtBlue:
No, it’s not the end of the world, but it’s still a stupid thing to say out loud on national television, especially on Morning Joe of all programs.
There is just really nothing smart about it. Again, the way the sentiment was expressed; not the sentiment itself specifically.
arguingwithsignposts
@asiangrrlMN:
This.
I’m still waiting for my unicorn. ;)
Lev
@Dreggas: Q. E. fuckin’ D.
This is why I’ve never been a big fan of Dean. He’s an opportunist. He might be a progressive opportunist, but he’s an opportunist nonetheless. And I suspect the reason why Obama didn’t include him in the Administration is because he’s untrustworthy.
Objectively speaking, what he’s doing is what Lieberman did, just in reverse.
lutton
Looks like some snow for the mid-Atlantic back into mountains of WV: http://ow.ly/NbCp
WARNING! Major Snowstorm for Mid-Atlantic
The Moar You Know
@Michael: Michael speaks for me on this one. In many respects.
As far as the health care bill goes, y’all need to figure out which end of the gun is pointed at your face before you pull the trigger.
arguingwithsignposts
Dang, I know I had my foam finger here somewhere…
USA!11!! eleventy-one!
Seebach
@MikeJ: Call it petty, but I’m glad someone is treating Lieberman like an asshole. Everyone’s all to willing to be his fucking friend when lives are at stake.
Tax Analyst
@MikeJ said:
“…Democratic Sen. Al Franken took the unusual step Thursday of shutting down Sen. Joe Lieberman on the Senate floor….”
Excellent! If only we could have more of this. Just matter-of-factly use the Senate rules to shut Humble Joe’s lying yap.
I really do like Franken. If he’s not my favorite senator he’s certainly real close.
HumboldtBlue
@Michael:
Fuck you right back Michael. I’m not in my 60’s I didn’t grow up in the 60’s and just what the fuck do the 60’s have to do with modern Democrats fucking over their supporters? You won’t get a chance in your working life? Well fuck you, tell that to Lieberman and Landrieu and Nelson. And what the fuck does Nader have to do with this? Is his name Ralph “Supreme Court” Nader, because if it isn’t what’s your fucking point?
We haven’t had Democrats since the 1970’s. The few we can honestly call Democrats, those who would use the political process to improve the lives for as many Americans as possible died the fucking day Reagan took office ar have become so endangered in the halls of Congress as to be wholly ineffectual.
You want a modern Democrat, look at Clinton. Wasn’t it Bill who took some time off from fucking around on his wife to sign welfare “reform”, the telecommunications act releasing the regulations in place to monitor television and radio, the banking “reform” act that repealed Glass-Steagall? If you answered yes to any of those questions then admit that you support men and women wholly bought and paid for by interest that are severely damaging to our nation. If you answered no to any of them you’re as ill-informed and about as fucking stupid as a Palin supporter.
I got yer 60’s right here bitch.
Mnemosyne
@asiangrrlMN:
Yep. We have something within our reach that’s better than Clinton’s plan, better than Dean’s plan, but because it was presented as something that came from the center and not from the left, it MUST DIE!
cfaller96
I humbly suggest Digby’s latest is definitely worth the read. Money passage:
Co-signed. I’m usually a lurker here, but goodness I didn’t realize how hostile this crowd is to actual liberals. Y’all just love punching hippies, don’t you?
WereBear
As another segment in the popular show If It Were Me, I would tie a jobs bill with all that repaid TARP money to go to small business loans, and they can have health care, too.
Pitch it directly to the working poor/lower middle class of whatever stripe.
That should appeal. Because if we don’t start making things and selling them to each other right about now, we will collapse as an economy, only this time it will be a consumerist Thunderdome, where people fight to the death for a working toaster.
gbear
asiangrrlMN, did you see our junior senator’s small smackdown of Joe Lieberman at TPM? I’m just leaving work so I’m not going to deal with the link. Link is on the BJ list.
gwangung
@HumboldtBlue:
As someone who grew up in the 60s and did work in the Third World student movement and civil rights, I have NO idea what either of you are talking about. Neither description matches my experience in activism at all.
Midnight Marauder
@MikeJ:
Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. More of this please. I mean, it’s not petty, really, because the Senate is all about courtesy, right? That’s the default, isn’t it? Fair fight, as far as I’m concerned.
flavortext
@HumboldtBlue:
I find it really hard to blame Obama. In any other country Obama would be a PM with a 79 seat majority and health care reform over and done with. Even with our insane political system that almost happened here – the House passed a bill, and with the exception of the terrible Stupak amendment liberals were happy.
It’s the Senate that’s the problem. Next to the three-fifths compromise the awful and antidemocratic U.S. Senate is the worst idea to come out of the constitution. I don’t think there’s any way Obama could have overcome an institution where each member thinks they’re God’s gift to America, and one grumpy Senator is enough to kill any hope of even voting on a bill put forward by a majority that holds 60 out of 100 seats. I don’t think Howard Dean could do it. I don’t think anyone could do it.
Maybe one day progressives will realize that killing off the Senate will do more to further their goals than electing different people to the same stupid system, but even if they do they face extremely long odds.
Mnemosyne
@HumboldtBlue:
So we haven’t had Democrats since the 1970s but the politics of the 1960s had nothing to do with that?
At least try to be consistent, dude. Either the current Democrats are fuckups all on their own, or they’ve been fucked up since the 1970s, which requires looking at the events of the 1960s (like, say, the 1968 Democratic convention) to understand why they’ve been fucked up since the 1970s.
Len
To paraphrase Ronnie Reagan… Never speak ill of another Democrat.
Say what you will about Howard Dean. He’s a smarter man than you or I could ever hope to be.
HumboldtBlue
@gwangung:
Whic is why in my very first sentence I wrote —
Mnemosyne
@cfaller96:
Only when the hippies start saying, “See, we told you electoral politics were all useless. Just do what we did and stop voting. That’ll show ’em.”
johnb
so let’s say that the powers that be ceded to the left side of the party. what would happen then?
it certainly wouldn’t gain any votes for cloture. which would kill the bill. that is why the powers that be are capitulating to the right end of their contingent. because that’s what they have to do if they want a bill passed.
i mean they could take a moral stand. but what good would that do? this is truly a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. but at least if a bill passes, further improvements could be made to that framework (hell even through reconcilliation — like the medicare buy-in that klein has been talking about).
also, this makes me happy
Da Bomb
@Lev: YES!!
@General Winfield Stuck: LOL!!
@asiangrrlMN: This, also too.
Zifnab
@Dreggas:
He considered Medicare Buy-In a good trade for the public option, because it was a foot in the door to Medicare For All, which is the program the progressive groups really wanted. The public option was a compromise and the Medicare Buy-In was (arguably) a better compromise.
Now there is no compromise, just capitulation. And capitulation is bad, m’kay? I don’t know how much more of the health care bill can be bargained away.
It was always a devil’s deal. Handing the insurance companies 30 million customers in exchange for modest regulation and an alternative if the insurance companies decided to dick us.
The progressive dream was that the public option would be just good enough to get the general public to abandon private insurance en mass. And then we’d be on our way to Single Payer. Now that whole dream is crushed, and we’re just left with hand outs to industry.
PeakVT
Teabagger pwnage (in a very polite manner).
Midnight Marauder
@cfaller96:
Can we please end this “Wow, you guys just love shitting all over hippies around here, don’t you?” bullshit once and for all? If you really think that is what people have been articulating around here, you either have some of the poorest reading comprehension skills I’ve ever encountered OR you’re just a goddamn moron. I really don’t think there’s an in-between anymore on this issue. Telling people “Sure, you can be pissed off, just don’t go around firing aimlessly and recklessly at the wrong people” and “Learn some fucking effective strategy for once in your goddamn life” isn’t the same as telling people to just STFU and like it.
Do you really not see the difference there?
Jay B.
Surprisingly, that’s usually the case when people are misconstrued and seek to correct the record.
Either way, what Dean says about Obama 3 years before 2012 doesn’t matter a fucking lick. And you still went ballistic.
NobodySpecial
@cfaller96:
Absolutely. Makes you wonder what hippies ever did to them.
Oh, wait, the other guy said. Hippies destroyed the liberal world and made it GOPLand. Ok, got it.
EDIT – Oh, yeah, us DFH’s still have something to vote for – our state elections. To control redistricting. But nationally? Maybe our fine feathered friends can learn the phrase ‘one hand washes the other’ before 2010.
Zifnab
@asiangrrlMN:
In all fairness, the biggest beef isn’t with Obama nearly so much as it is Lieberman, Nelson, and – by extension – Reid. But no one is counting on Lieberman or Nelson. Only the truly naive are trusting in Reid. The person we were expecting to fight more aggressively for a public plan was President Obama.
And now we don’t have it. Who do you think we are going to blame?
All that other stuff is great. And at the end of Obama’s turn, I’m sure we’ll look back on it fondly. But right now it’s about health care. And the health care bill is looking pretty sucky.
PK
No offence john, but I laughed when I read that because for a moment I had an image of a 7yr old! You forgot the “I told you so”!
Da Bomb
News of who the possible Senate Conferees members will be:
Tom Harkin
Chris Dodd
JD Rockefeller
Max Baucus
Harry Reid
http://planetpov.com/2009/12/17/conferees-on-the-senate-side/
gwangung
@HumboldtBlue: Well, I’m confused, because a lot of my fellow activists are in government, non-profits, and, oh yes, politicians (all Democrats). Now, none of them are in the Senate, which is where people quite rightfully feel backstabbed, but it’s also true that not all Democrats come out of the activist camp–but they’ve felt they could work with fellow Dems on things (at least on the local level).
Huff Po, No, No, No
Huff Po No No should be sung to Amy Winehouse “Papa wants to send me to rehab. I said NO NO NO”
Methinks our Arianna is no longer is in love with Barry – Maybe she should have been invited to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. Oh well, loves labors lost and all that.
Who would have thunk that you’d need to fact check Huffpo like Politico. How far we have come in so little time. If only democrats could all become batshit crazy like Shelly Bachmann – then shit would get done. I think legislation should be passed based on a cage match. Where’s the Master Blaster when you need him? THUNDERDOME!!!
Jay in Oregon
@MikeJ:
Uncivil! *ducks*
harlana pepper
Oh, the bad progressives who finally have a microphone are stirring up trouble and trying to sway the debate to the left. Naughty, naughty progressives. Oh, and the 60’s, yeah the Civil Rights movement and all those wackos, yeesh, what colossal failure that was.
MattR
What a logical fallacy. Just because someone corrected the record to accurately reflect what they really intended does not mean that they believe the initial interpretation was terrible. It simply means the initial interpretation was not what they intended.
Lev
@Zifnab: Well, duh, I know that. Most liberals want single-payer, true. But if what you’re saying is true, then by supporting a healthcare plan that he believed to be a terrible deal for most people to get in effect a public option for people over 55, Howard Dean placed ideology over helping people.
I hardly think that speaks better of him than what I said.
Jay B.
Weak. Think of it this way, even though you seem unable to understand it, some people are just terminally frustrated and want to give up. Others are so discouraged they think it’ll be very difficult to gin up the same level support they had from 04 to 08 in upcoming elections because they feel lied to — with more than a little justification. Still others are committed Democrats who see this as a shitty bill which not only won’t attain the aims of universal health care, but actively works against it in the long run, with the additional concern (again, justified) that it will kill the Democratic majority. Think France during the run up to Iraq. They kept saying “friends stop other friends from making poor decisions”.
I can’t speak for the first two groups, as much as I understand their anger. But I’m in the 3rd. You keep talking about the “purists” and trying to scare them into supporting the bill with the specter of Palin in 2012. Well, in a sense, I’m doing the same, but in a totally different direction. The Republicans will win in 2010 and 2012 not because progressives are eating the shit sandwich but because this bill will ensure the American public will.
Right. From Post #12 in this very thread, to people who think this bill sucks:
“Sit down and shut the fuck up.”
Want some strategtic advice, champ? Try the simplest yet — dance with who brung ya. The Senate Dems and Obama seem to have ignored this completely.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
Yep, this health care bill is sooooo gooooood that the insurance companies have lined up to support it wholeheartedly and are committing millions of dollars towards getting it passed. What? They are still fighting to keep anything from passing? This does not compute.
This DFH who has proudly worn his ponytail for over forty years now (and it is still over two feet long) wants this bill to pass, even as imperfect as it is. IMO the “progressives” who are against this bill are not being progressive, they want what they want or they want nothing. All or nothing, that sounds familiar to me. Oh yeah! Our kids used to be just like that.
Then they grew up.
Mnemosyne
@harlana pepper:
You did sway things to the left. That’s why the bill being debated is far more progressive than what was proposed by Clinton or Dean. The problem is that you guys want the credit for it, but you didn’t have the strategic sense to wait until the fucking thing passed. You insisted on having your asses kissed right now and if they don’t get kissed, you’ll blow the whole thing up.
Obama co-opted your idea and now you’re pissed off that he didn’t credit you when he did it. Boo hoo.
cfaller96
I don’t concede this point. If the standard is to make it to cloture, then a liberal holdout is just as important as a conservative holdout- either way, no bill gets to 60. If giving in to Lieberman loses Sanders, then you’ve done nothing except anger and demoralize the base…and you still don’t have a bill passed.
So then it’s about getting around the filibuster, either through wearing down the opposition by increasing the cost of filibustering, or going through reconciliation. Either way, I don’t see how making the bill more progressive is a worse strategy. Maybe I’m wrong about that.
gwangung
I’m not so sure that your example is going to say what you want it to say. Progressive incrementalists played a great part (and were reviled by more radical elements).
Lev
@Jay B.: Blogopsism. Gallup’s poll yesterday had 76% of Democrats supporting HCR. Speak for yourself.
John Cole
@harlana pepper: Where is this crap coming from? I think almost everyone here agrees with the provision that most of the DFHer’s want in the bill. I think most everybody here wanted the public option. Hell probably almost everybody here wants single payer or more.
The schism is over those who think the bill should be killed because we can magically spend an election year with 10% unemployment arguing what we just argued for the last eight months, and for some reason or another, Lieberman and Nelson will change their minds this time, and those who think yeah, Nelson and Joe are dicks, progressives really have taken a hit, but this bill is still much better than doing nothing.
Christ- is this a Drama Queen contest between the DHFer’s and Lieberman/Nelson?
MattR
@John Cole:
There is a third group. Those who think this bill is worse than doing nothing and who are ready to move on to the next legislative topic and come back to health care in a couple years when Americans are even more fed up with the status quo.
Mnemosyne
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal):
No, but see their super-secret strategy is to publicly oppose the bill and pour hundreds of millions of dollars into opposing it but secretly be in favor of it because it’s a huge giveaway to them and they’ll reap the profits down the road. And we have a single line taken out of context from an e-mail by a healthcare lobbyist to prove it! After all, doesn’t every company spend hundreds of millions of dollars to oppose legislation that they’re going to profit from?
And these are the same people who poo-pooh the idea of 11th dimensional chess.
Lev
@gwangung: Of course, the greater the risk, the greater the reward. But emphasis on the greater the risk.
Going through reconciliation would have been a risk.
Making veto threats would have been a risk.
Manhandling senators would have been a risk.
In my opinion, the White House has some of the best political tacticians in the business, and they have a pretty good idea of what’s doable and what’s not. After decades of health insurance nightmares, Obama’s team clearly made the decision to do as much as possible without seriously risking failure. The costs to failure were deemed too high.
It’s debatable whether they would have gotten more if they’d tried a riskier strategy. But it’s not debatable that it would have been riskier. And given the nightmare state of health insurance in the individual market (and not in the individual market) if you should accidentally happen to get sick, I find it hard to disagree with them.
Dannie22
@Michael. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Mnemosyne
@John Cole:
Yep. Once Lieberman poked his head up, Hamsher and her allies went to war on the principle that Joe should never look good ever, and everything went to shit.
I hate Joe as much as the next DFH, but I’m not willing to continue letting 45,000 Americans die every year because he’s a whiny asshole.
Comrade Mary
@MattR:
__
Numbers?
(Catsy never provided any in the last thread, but hey, hope springs eternal that someone insisting that the bill is BAD can back up their claims.)
Lev
@MattR:
If people are fed up with the status quo in a few years, they’re going to vote Republican. Not everyone is a political junkie.
What you’re saying is exactly what Democrats said in the early 1970s when Nixon offered UHC. We can wait and get a better bill, they said. It never happened. Unacceptably risky to my tastes.
MattR
@Da Bomb:
That is pretty much as good a group as we could hope for, right? Obviously I would prefer to see Baucus replaced by Ron Wyden or Sherrod Brown, but that was not that realistic a possibility.
Lev
@Mnemosyne: Pride is a very, very expensive commodity if you want to get something done.
cfaller96
What if it is, John? Then what do you do? Who should the Democratic leadership side with? Remember, that 2010 canvassing isn’t going to get done by itself. And who’s going to man those phonebanks? And oh by the way you probably want some donations going to Dem candidates, don’t you? Oh and you probably want us to vote too, don’t you?
You can name-call all you want, and you may be right, but Get.Over.It. At the end of the day, you yourself said the top priority is to keep the Republicans out of power in 2010. So what are you doing to make sure that doesn’t happen? (hint: it doesn’t involve making Progressives bow down to Lieberman)
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@Mnemosyne:
Well duh! Playing 11th dimensional chess is hard whereas super-secret strategies involving hundreds of millions of dollars is easy.
;)
srv
You know, Green Balloons and Balloon-Juice just don’t fit any more. Given Dean always reminded me of Edward Woodward, I really think you should rebrand the site as The Wicker Man.
There will always be a DFH to roast.
NobodySpecial
@John Cole:
I disagree. There have been plenty of commenters who have (in pretty derisive terms, too) commented how irrational and impractical single payer and/or the public option were, and damned Kos/Huff/FDL/whoever in comments dared stand up for it. There’s also been plenty of advice for us DFH’s, too, including that infamous post 12 up there just being the latest version.
Da Bomb
@Comrade Mary: You know that will never happen. Because whenever you ask for numbers, they are never accurate or they just give you figures from an alternate universe.
MattR
@Comrade Mary: I was actually very careful to not include myself in that group. I am waiting to see a final bill before I dig into the details enough to make a decision. I am currently more concerned with pushing to get as much “good” into the bill – whether that means applying pressure to Reid, et al from the left or it means trying to convince Lieberman, Snowe or some other Republican to vote for cloture.
Regardless, I think that the question of whether or not the bill is good should be separated from the fact that there are those who believe that way. You can try to change their mind, but don’t dismiss their existence as John did.
Midnight Marauder
@Jay B.:
Well, he didn’t say “and like it,” now did he?
/snark
All kidding aside, I don’t think “Sit down and shut the fuck up” is the best way to characterize things, but the people he was referring to aren’t accomplishing too much with their current furor. They mainly want to target President Obama as being the source of their disappointment and discontent. Things like this:
@Zifnab:
sound kind of ridiculous to me. If the biggest beef isn’t with Obama, then why he is the one that progressives have fixed their guns on? Why is he the one constantly labeled as a “sell-out” and a “failure”? I don’t hear, read, or see anywhere near the volume and magnitude of vitriol currently being aimed at Obama, being directed at Harry Reid or the inherently flawed structure of the Senate or how things should play out when the bill reaches conference. It always seems to be “FUCK THAT MISERABLE TRAITOR! DOWN WITH OBAMA!”
How are you naive to expect the Senate Majority Leader to do his job? Now, yes, I understand fully well just how feckless Harry Reid is at his job; but that doesn’t make it naive to put the onus on him and pressure him accordingly to come through on that front. And any beef that you have with Lieberman or Nelson have to come back to how Harry Reid decided to handle his bill in the Senate. I just don’t get how you can be more upset with Lieberman or Nelson or any one of those assclowns in the Senate, in comparison to the man that enabled this clusterfuck to reach the point it has today. That is just completely nonsensical to me.
cleek
clearly, it isn’t. the liberals are all on-board, and have been the whole time. it’s the “centrist” attention whores who need placating, as usual.
MattR
Semi-related to my last comment, but does anyone have any info on new Florida Senator George LeMieux and whether there is any chance he can be flipped on the cloture votes.
Jay B.
@Midnight Marauder:
And it’s easy enough to argue with the opposite. The ones who think going along with the bill as it stands aren’t accomplishing much in the way of actual health care reform, driving costs down or providing better health care.
I totally disagree with this, but even if we argue it from your perspective, Obama is the President and the putative leader of the Democratic Party. The buck stops here? Ring a bell?
As for the Senate, you could power Pittsburgh with rage, if you were able, over the years, to funnel liberal anger at Lieberman and Reid into power. I don’t know how you don’t see that.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
Anyone with a functioning brain who remembers what happens when Republicans are in power. Any progressives who sit out an election because they didn’t get their pony deserve the inevitable disaster that will come if the Republicans regain control of our government.
Angry because you didn’t get your pony? When the next election rolls around then don’t vote, or heck, vote for a third party. I am sure that will get you everything you have ever wanted and then you can wear a smug, satisfied grin on your face with pride just to let everyone know that you got your way!
Comrade Mary
@MattR: Thanks for a reasonable response.
But I still find that many people who want to kill this bill are either spouting spurious, unsourced numbers or are going all limbic brain on us. (Not you, Matt, in case I’m not clear.)
You know, there are also a fair number of progressives — many of whom read the HuffPo — who are batshit insane about the risk of vaccines. (Not just a little concerned or cautious about the timing of their kids’ shots — BATSHIT.) Just because someone is otherwise smart and progressive doesn’t mean they can’t be spectacularly wrong when you hit their sweet spot.
I don’t think many of the typical Dem voters are freaking out about the bill yet. But the more that bloggers and batshit pundits freak out in the media — without supplying numbers or any reasonable support for their views — the more spooked those less-involved voters are going to be. And I can’t fucking forgive anyone capable of doing some research who chooses instead to get the vapours in public about the POOR and my PEERS and WHY DOESN’T BEN NELSON GET SENT TO THE NAUGHTY CHAIR?
I will not hold their hands. I will not coddle them.
So those of you who are yelling at us mean old hippie-kickers can take a breath. Reasoned opposition? OK. Innumerate frenzy? Fuck that.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@Jay B.: …I’m sorry. But this is woefully incorrect, in my experience.
I worked the Obama Campaign in Southern NC for a time, both in the Primary and the General. I didn’t see a lot of MoveOn folks there, or met a lot of folks who had DailyKos Accounts.
Met a lot of disaffected GOPers, though. Met some Democrats who we have to move the needle on, because they didn’t think Obama could make it, or were committed to Hillary. Didn’t meet a lot of activists with experience with campaigns, but a lot of folks who hadn’t paid much attention to politics before Obama.
I’m mindful of one “soccer mom” who’s still working with OFA on this Health Care bit, who organized pretty much an entire county in NC by herself. She wasn’t anything like a “flaming liberal”, or a hippie — and I know plenty in my little chunk of NC, and they pretty much didn’t work the campaign, except on the margins. For example, I can’t think of a “hippie” friend in the packed-with-’em Asheville NC region who worked it there.
And the post-election books I’m reading, well, DailyKos and groups like that don’t get much attention. Maybe that’s a mistake, but I don’t believe so. I think being online gets you kind of myopic, make you think this is organizing, this is the power center ’cause you can raise some money — but you need boots on the ground, as well, and that’s where I tend to see the netroots fail, and that’s where Obama succeeded. And that’s how OFA is applying pressure now — not fancy and flashy in-your-face stuff writing online and “winning the media battle” in ways you see, but nuts-and-bolts door to door and calling Congress.
So no, the people griping now, not too much the day-to-day folks who bootstrapped and self-organized the Obama campaign. They aren’t the ones who brought Obama over the top — at least, from my study and experience.
General Winfield Stuck
@Da Bomb:
Yippee! Game On/
cfaller96
cleek, do you really want to take that chance? And more importantly, do you honestly believe that’s going to be true no matter what Lieberman and others do to the bill?
There is a breaking point with liberals, we’re awfully awfully close to it (if not already past it), and I think a lot of people sense that. That’s why you see all the whining coming from Ezra, Nate Silver, John, and others- they know that they may have gone too far, and nobody wants to have to make a concession to a DFH.
This isn’t theoretical, we’ve all seen the polling. The Democratic base is demoralized right now, and movement to the right and then yelling at the liberals to sit down and STFU isn’t going to reverse that. We can argue all day long about how “right” or “wrong” it is that the base is demoralized, but it doesn’t matter because it’s indisputable that right now the base is demoralized.
If you lose your base, you lose elections. So if John’s superduper #1 priority is to not lose elections in 2010 and beyond, then he knows damn well what the remedy is- take care of the base. But, strangely, he’d rather call liberals names, fearmonger, and vomit up guilt trips. That won’t work. See: 2000 presidential election.
cyntax
@Comrade Mary:
Not that these are necessarily the numbers you’re looking for, but just to show that there are some very good faith attempts being made by emptywheel, Jon Walker and some of the others at FDL to put numbers to their positions:
To be clear, I’m not advocating wading into the comment threads over there…
; )
cfaller96
It seems to me that a bad 2010 result would disturb the likes of John Cole a lot more than it would liberals. Also, the Blue Dogs would definitely be ejected, and so would the likes of Blanche Lincoln. So yes, while no one here wants Republicans back in charge, the more important question is: who fears it more, the liberals or the moderates?
I speculate that it’s the moderates, but I’m not sure liberals realize this. I don’t think liberals understand how strong their negotiating position actually is vis a vis President Obama and the ConservaDems. The former wants HCR, but the latter needs it.
MattR
@Comrade Mary: Yay reasonable dialogue :)
I would say that the left as a whole is more reality based and sane than the right, but I completely agree that the left still has its fair share of whackos.
I have followed some, but not all, of the HCR threads (it is too frustrating, depressing and blood pressure raising to read them all) so I may have missed it, but it seems that the arguments for a mandate are never followed up with numbers. I understand the arguments for a mandate and that forcing insurance companies to eliminate coverate caps and to cover those with pre-existing condistions will raise costs.
But how much extra are those costs and can they be abosrbed by insurance company by cutting the fat, rather than raising premiums or by forcing healthier people to buy into the plans? How much extra money would the insurance companies put into the system if they had to spend 90% of premiums on medical costs compared to their current practice? Would that amount be greater or less than the cost of covering those with pre-existing conditions and without caps?
Admittedly I have not actively looekd for the answers to these questions. But at the same time, those who are arguing in favor of mandates never seem to provide the numbers to back up their claims either.
harlana pepper
@Mnemosyne: what the fuck are you talking about?
Lev
@cfaller96: All activists think they speak for the base. And the base thinks that they represent the average voter. And they’re both usually wrong.
Yesterday’s Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124715/Majority-Americans-Not-Backing-Healthcare-Bill.aspx
The amount of Democrats who support HCR is unchanged from a month ago. In fact, it’s been rising.
SiubhanDuinne
LOL. Ed Schultz seems to think that Lanny Davis invented the term “circular firing squad.” I can’t stand to look at my TV screen right now: a three-way between Ed, Lanny, and Jane Hamster.
Mnemosyne
@cfaller96:
Funny, there’s an echo from 1994 in here telling me again that I should withhold my vote and that would totally show Clinton and the Democrats that they couldn’t just ignore the concerns of the left.
How’d that work out for us? We must be in a liberal paradise by now, right?
MattR
@cfaller96:
I am getting close to the point of wanting the Republicans back in charge if it gets rid of “bad” Democrats in the process. If I have to wait two (or six) years to get a “good” Democrat to replace the Republican, so be it. There always seem to be good reasons why the present is too crucial to focus on long term thinking, but without long term thinking there will never be long term change.
Mnemosyne
@harlana pepper:
I’m talking about the fact that the healthcare bills being debated and the one passed by the House are far, far more liberal than anything proposed in the past 20 years, but you just won’t be fucking satisfied until Obama kisses your ass and gives all of the credit to the left.
Remember that whole thing Obama used to say about taking progressive causes and moving them from the left to the center? Now he’s done it and you couldn’t be more pissed because now healthcare reform is a centrist idea, not a progressive one. He co-opted you.
Da Bomb
@Lev: THIS.
Midnight Marauder
@Jay B.:
Sure, he’s the putative leader of the party, but tell me again, how does that extend to his ability to handle the United States Senate? The plan from the White House was always to get both bills to conference and hammer it out there. President Obama was very explicit about this strategy from the beginning. That’s why the White House was so against Reid putting the opt-out PO in the bill, because they knew that he didn’t have the votes and that what would ensue would be a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
And what exactly do you disagree with? That people are shitting on Obama more than they are Reid? You really disagree with that? Given what we know about the strategy Obama and the White House wanted to pursue in the Senate, and how Reid just shucked it all off and did his own thing–because, again, he had the votes for the PO in any form, right?–how does it even make sense for Obama to be the focus of all this mindless rage? And speaking of rage…
What the fuck does that even have to do with anything that I said? And who said that I didn’t see it? Liberals are furious at Lieberman and Reid. Great. Good to know. So how come I don’t see FDL blasting Reid every day for fucking this whole thing up with his “Trust me, I have the votes for this” routine? If you listen to the narrative from the progressive side of things, you would walk away thinking that Obama was some kind of soulless charlatan who just wanted to put together some crazy giveaway to the insurance companies, and that’s not accurate in any way, shape, or form; there is nothing intellectually honest or respectable about that criticism.
And “if you were able…to funnel liberal anger”? I think that goes back to the point of why they haven’t been able, because when they start firing, chances are it’s at the wrong targets, or their intentions are obviously nobel, but the execution of those intentions is misguided at best.
The Raven
asiangrrlMN@31
The Obama administration supported and signed the Ledbetter act, and Obama is more diplomatic than Bush II (though the Tasmanian Devil might be more diplomatic than Bush II.) & there is finally, after a century, an anti-lynching law. So far, so good.
But.
Gitmo is still operating. It appears the prisoners will eventually be moved to Illinois, but it looks like it’s going to be indefinite detention without trial in Illinois rather than Cuba. And then there’s torture in Bagram airbase Bagram.
The Obama administration, to the astonishment of many observers, has continued the Bush II administration’s claims of executive privilege. The immigration authorities have cooled it a bit, but the bad cops are still having a field day.
And he let the bankers get away with looting the financial system, and now it looks like he’s going to let the insurance companies do the same thing to the US middle class.
harlana pepper
My point has been completely missed and bastardized by you guys in your fury against progressives who dare to criticize the WH, carry on
Jay B.
@ Woodrow from #100
You have your anecdotes, I have mine. Obama’s campaign was certainly revolutionary and for sure, he tapped those disaffected by the Bush years and brought new people into mix. He did it through old fashioned canvassing — but also by leveraging the netroots to new places.
But the reason he resonated with so many new voters is that he campaigned on hope and change and promised something new.
Now, to many of us, even many who really admire him, well, we’re not new voters. We didn’t need to believe in that to believe in his candidacy, because he, mostly supported things we supported.
I didn’t vote for “hope”. I voted for “results”. To that end, i supported Obama and worked hard over the years for a Democratic majority. I don’t expect “change”, I expect things to change that can be changed.
And all through the last year, health care was something that COULD be changed. And what’s being delivered is not the result we worked for and told that would be changed.
He’s losing those people. Maybe he can rely on people new to politics to make up his base — but he’d do so at his risk.
The Raven
The CBO has the numbers, of course. IIRC, insurance prices have risen 3.4% during the period that Medicare prices (covering an elderly population) have risen 2.5%.
See also Ian Welsh’s reply to Nate Silver. (Full disclosure: when I went to check the link, I find he’s cited me downblog.)
Jay B.
Me: As for the Senate, you could power Pittsburgh with rage, if you were able, over the years, to funnel liberal anger at Lieberman and Reid into power. I don’t know how you don’t see that.
You: What the fuck does that even have to do with anything that I said?
This, from you: I don’t hear, read, or see anywhere near the volume and magnitude of vitriol currently being aimed at Obama, being directed at Harry Reid or the inherently flawed structure of the Senate or how things should play out when the bill reaches conference.
I don’t read FDL, so while I’m sure Obama is taking it on the chin, I see anger being mainly leveled at Lieberman and Reid for letting Nelson and all the other conservadems walk all over him. I think people, rightly or wrongly, are also blaming Obama because while he can’t control the Senate, he could show a little leadership or even strong sentiment about something that progressives want in the bill.
It’s great he laid out his strategy in a phone call to bloggers, but it would be even more helpful if he got out in front of the issue if even to gently, ever so lightly, show where Joe Lieberman is wrongly holding up the process. Or that someone other than liberals are wrong for what they’d like to see in the bill.
cfaller96
@lev, I was thinking more about this poll that shows 1/3 of Democrats are less likely to vote in 2010 if a Public Option isn’t included in the HCR bill. Here’s a post offering some perspective on those numbers.
This isn’t a fantasy, it’s a problem. And yelling at liberals isn’t going to solve that problem (looking at you, John). 2000 (and arguably 1994) happened because nobody believed that the liberals weren’t going to “be there” when the chips were down and it all mattered. “Good old liberals, we can make them capitulate and still take them granted on election day!” Yeah.
No, the result wasn’t pleasant or “right” or whatever, but that’s totally beside the point. The real point is this: it’s happened before and it can happen again.
Why would moderates in the Dem leadership want to risk another 2000 (or 1994)? Why not lock the base up and remove that risk from your electoral balance sheet?
Midnight Marauder
@Jay B.:
Funny. I see that same anger being directed at Obama for letting Lieberman, Nelson, and the rest “walk all over him.” I don’t see Reid’s ugly mug on the front page of HuffPo every single day, with a different picture of him frowning or pouting or looking like a tool with another screaming headline of “FAILURE!”
Who gives a fuck about bloggers? That’s the same strategy they laid down to Reid and Pelosi. Because Reid never realistically had the votes in the Senate to do what he attempted to do. It would be nice if Obama was more “out in front” on the issue–I guess like he was when was doing town halls during the summer and things of that nature–but again, would you not classify “getting out in front” of the Lieberman problem as trying to avoid it in the first place? Because that was the reason for the strategy they crafted.
I hate President Snowe just as much as the next person, but when Harry Reid shit all over her by putting that opt-out PO in there, it was a major turning point in the process, and not for the better. But good luck wooing her back now, so that you don’t have to tow the line with Lieberman. I’m sure that will work out incredibly well for everyone.
LTMidnight
@MattR: If I have to wait two (or six) years to get a “good” Democrat to replace the Republican, so be it..
I’m gonna give you 15 minutes to figure out for yourself why this is the very definition of “cutting off your nose to spite your face”
Starting now…..
Comrade Scrutinizer
@Zifnab:
__
I dunno. I’ve had all I want of Presidents mucking around in legislation. He’s the President, he’s not the Senate, or the House. Keep the onus where it belongs, right on Reid’s shoulders. With the cats he has to herd, it’s practically impossible to get to 60 votes on anything without giving up a lot—but it’s his ball, not Obama’s.
MattR
@LTMidnight: There is dead weight in Congress that is preventing this country from slding backwards but stopping it from moving forward as well. The idea of cutting out the dead weight and accepting a short term slide backwards is not unreasonable if it allows us to eventually replace that dead wight with Congressmen who are willing to work with us to pull the country forward. Two steps backwards followed by six steps forward is much better than standing still forever.
As I said in the other half of that comment: There always seem to be good reasons why the present is too crucial to focus on long term thinking, but without long term thinking there will never be long term change.
I will counter your analogy by asking you to figure out why defending the status quo is similar to the behavior of a battered spouse?
Comrade Scrutinizer
@Jay B.:
__
You’re under the impression that it was the progressives that put the Dems in the Senate and in the White House. It wasn’t. They were always going to vote for the Dems, or not vote at all. What swung the election was the switch of moderate-right independents and disaffected Republicans to the Dems in 2008. That’s the group the Dems have to play to, not us wild-eyed radical leftists.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@SiubhanDuinne: “I can’t stand to look at my TV screen right now: a three-way between Ed, Lanny, and Jane Hamster.”
I hope someone is recording it so they can post at some smut site, I sure would like to see that!
Oh, not that kind of three-way? I feel your pain.
@Midnight Marauder: “Funny. I see that same anger being directed at Obama for letting Lieberman, Nelson, and the rest “walk all over him.” I don’t see Reid’s ugly mug on the front page of HuffPo every single day, with a different picture of him frowning or pouting or looking like a tool with another screaming headline of “FAILURE!””
Daily Kos is another great example of this. It has been almost non-stop Obama bashing with Obama supporters being insulted and shouted down while there are random outbursts of anger at Nelson, Lieberman, Stupak and the like, which are quickly displaced by the more popular Obama/supporter bashing. If Daily Kos had over 200,000 people posting there every single day it would amount to less than one-third of one percent of the people who voted for Obama last year.
But hey, they’re the base! Everyone else is wrong and if we don’t admit it they are going to make us pay when the next election rolls around.
mo
@Lev To me, evaluating Obama’s MO by thinking about the risk-reward calculation seems to explain a lot. And I think it’s probably the right approach for a president (as opposed to activists) who is facing monumental problems, a fractured and nearly dysfunctional political system, an incompetent media, a virulent and incoherent opposition, and a divided, unsure public.
Of course that means he’s going to be overly cautious at times and often seem to be ignoring the base. But in his position, I don’t know that swinging for the fences would be the responsible choice – the cost of failure is too high and could cripple not just his presidency but our country. We’ve got to start simply heading in the right direction again. And getting the uninsured coverage is too important, even if it has to be done at the expense of a little bit more in the coffers of the insurance companies.
I felt like this during the bank nationalization arguments too – I understood the theoretical arguments for nationalization but also saw that it would be a huge risk. That no government had ever managed bank takeovers at that scale, and that messing up the implementation (let alone the politics) could have severe consequences for our financial system AND the progressive agenda. On this topic, most of the vocal pro-nationalizers said the current plans and actions would never work. Well, when was the last time you heard zombie banks? And TARP has been less expensive than forecasted.
Of course, nationalization IF IT WORKED WELL would have been less of a good deal for bankers, but it was very risky and the downside was potentially significant. (To be clear, this is not an excuse for the administration if it doesn’t – now that the situation is stabilized – focus on getting regulation done right and reining in banks’ powers.)
mo
@JayB
I think there is misguided for two reasons:
1) One thing we all agree on here is that Joe Lieberman is a tempermental prick who is more than willing to hi-jack this process for personal vendettas. Any gentle scolding by Obama could likely lose Lieberman for good. And while we’d all enjoy that, not sure what sort of “results” that actually gets us. (Stupak 2, maybe? At least now we can try to get either Snowe or Nelson. If we had to get both…)
2) Obama does seem to clearly believe the public option is a “nice-to-have.” This may frustrate activists who have made it their sword they’re willing to die on but every health wonk I’ve read on this basically agrees. Obama has always been more of a wonk than activist and he has never shown himself as one to take on a progressive warcry that is primarily symbolic (which the weakened public option became). His position is reasonable and logical (which is the president we elected) – he just doesn’t see the public option as something he’s willing to kill healthcare reform for. Yes, had he come out more strongly for it, it would have increased the chances that it was included BUT it also would increase the chances that we had no bill at all.
LTMidnight
@MattR: Because you’re exhibiting the classic flawed human mentality of “bad things happen to other people and not me”.
In other words, you’re not thinking of the bad things that could happen in 2 – 6 years if these republican regain power.
cleek
@cfaller96:
by definition of “base”, those people aren’t “the base”. “the base” is the group of people you can count on.
fair-weather Democrats are not the base.
D. Aristophanes
What a load of shit. Clearly, Dean was willing to swallow assorted crap sandwiches (no full public option, Stupak, etc) up to the point where Lieberman got blown by Obama et. al. and the whole thing, from a liberal point of view, ceased to be ‘compromise’ and has become straight-up concession to insurance-backed assholes.
Put this through your thick skull – the Medicare buy-in was better than fucking nothing, which is what this shitpile is. Dean went along to get along a whole helluva lot longer than you are giving him credit for. Now the ONLY argument for passing this thing is to play the Ted Kennedy card and say we’ve got to get something passed to build on it later.
I actually buy that argument and think they should pass the thing. Not going to go into fucking freak-out mode like some people here if they don’t, though.
Anyway, here’s the rub – I would stake my firstborn’s life on Joe Lieberman STILL not voting for cloture on this bill despite getting every obstructionist wish of his granted.
mai naem
I think the Obama WH thinks the base is like a bad bad dog that needs the crap beaten out of it to get it trained just right, get it to respond to commands. They should have thrown the dog a bone instead. And it doesn’t help that they threatened every freshman Dem with withholding all support unless they voted for the War funds. They didn’t think HCR was important enough to do that to.
As far as the bill, if you have insurance for a 30 yr old at $250(not unrealistic) you can charge the 55 yr old with high cholesterol $750. Also you can buy insurance across state lines which means that the 30 yr old is going to go with the bare bones high deductible one from Alabama for $100 just to avoid the fine meanwhile all the high cholesterol old farts will go on the expensive one. How long do you think the expensive plan is going to in existence?
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@cleek: “fair-weather Democrats are not the base.”
rAmen to that.
The Raven
We were the people the Democratic Party counted on. I wonder where they will go for replacements?
Croak!
amk
@Cat Lady:
thumb sucking pony hunters
So stolen.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
I have seen some stupid shit said around here but this bit just made me laugh at the idiot who posted it. I understand what is meant by that ‘sacrifice’ this idiot is willing to make should they be proven wrong but it just dilutes everything else this person says.
Sorry, but I just can’t take some imbecile seriously when they make a statement that states their willingness to kill their child should they be proven wrong in an attempt to show how right they are. I’m still laughing at it.
Talk about overdosing on hyperbole.
itsbenj
“But for all you who poo-pooh’d me…” – not really, saw the interview, obvious pause, obviously not what he was saying at the time. That’s where the ‘Hippie punching’ thing comes from! People willing to just stuff words into the guy’s mouth because it fits their pre-determined narrative about him. Part of my annoyance yesterday over this was simply the mis-attribution and apparent willingness to ascribe to Dean motives that he clearly doesn’t have.