Here’s hoping Obama strides into the Blair House HCR conference and challenges the Repubs:
If you’re not in it for love —
If you’re not willing to give it all you got…
Let me make it clear to you, my dears: I’m OUTA HERE!
P.S. Anybody got advice on how to get Microsoft Silverlight to load on Firefox?
mcc
Anne please excuse the negativity but I think that if Obama were to open the health care summit tomorrow by singing country music it would be a mistake
Bart
You need to install Silverlight first. Best to surf to http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/downloads.aspx or http://silverlight.net/getstarted/ (“Install Silverlight” in the box on the right) with Firefox and follow the instructions.
SiubhanDuinne
@mcc: On the other hand, why bother with C-SPAN when the moment would live forever on YouTube?
Ravi J
Earlier it was annoying Flash. Now its Silverlight.
Please wait until a ‘Silverlight-block’ plugin is writter for FF, like Flashblock.
Matt
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/business/global/25swaps.html?hp
I didn’t know you could short a country’s economy. How are these people not in prison?
valdivia
Just because the WSJ piece seems to be making the rounds as the ‘Obama is throwing HCR under the bus’ proof, I am linking here too, not just the Dengre HCR thread.
Here is the refutation I did not have even if I knew the story about a Plan B was bs.
Xenos
@Matt: There seems to be no legal conflict for investment bankers to do, well, anything. I guess now it is public it is not a matter of inside trading.
So it is all good, then.
Anecdotal information I have heard is that every Euro in Greece that is not nailed down has been swept up and deposited in Swiss banks. So these bankers are not the only ones shorting Greece. The elites in that country have been doing so for decades.
Platonicspoof
A diarist at GOS reviewed Joseph Stiglitz’s recent book, Freefall: . . . .
The review makes a (one of many) counter argument in a nutshell against glibertarians and teabaggers who think that there is a “free” market and that it will correct itself (in a good way) if gov.t, unions, etc., would just stay out of the way.
However, the diarist also references two Stiglitz articles in The American Economist that require a subscription to read. From reading the introductions in those two A. E. issues, the two articles are actually the first and second halves of Stiglitz’s Dec. 8th, 2001 Nobel lecture.
Pdf, but it loaded quickly for me, and no subscription required.
I’m not signed up to comment at DKos, but maybe someone here could let them know about the Nobel.org link.
demkat620
If the Barack Obama that showed up at the GOP retreat comes, game on.
If it’s Uncle Fluffy…
kay
@valdivia:
Thanks, valdivia.
From your link: why hasn’t this part of the process been explained better?
I think people who are upset about the final shape of the legislation might be less upset if they knew it had to get through Finance. That while Baucus held it up in Finance, we weren’t getting to a Senate vote without Finance, because they have jurisdiction over Medicaid and Medicare, and that committee is stacked with conservative Democrats.
In other words, while the Baucus hold-up was disgusting to watch, there was no procedural way around him.
I’ve seen 2000 word posts explaining the filibuster, but nothing on jurisdiction of these committees. Jurisdiction helps to explain how we got here.
kay
@valdivia:
I was afraid they were going to pass a pared down package with increased regulation for those who have health insurance, and just lop off the expensive parts: those provisions that benefit people who don’t have health insurance.
They could put together a really lean regulatory bill, in terms of cost, and that would be politically popular and an easy out because most people have health insurance, and every pundit and opinion-driver has health insurance.
The expense in both the House and Senate bills comes in when you cover the uninsured. Lop that off, and “reform” gets cheap.
I was afraid they would take the politically expedient route, which would be regulation with little or no expansion.
The punditry and media elite would approve, better regulation of their existing generous plans, and it would cost next to nothing.
El Cid
I’m a bit more afraid of what happens if Republicans put on a serious act that they really, really will go along with the plan if just X, Y, and Z, maybe even promising to, and the White House and leading Dem’s then join hands while running at the football Lucy’s holding.
kay
@El Cid:
I feel pretty strongly about tort reform, I think it’s a sneaky way to keep individuals out of state courts and deny people who have damages their constitutional right to a jury, and I’ve never understood why physicians should get special protection from paying for errors, unlike any other service provider or professional, BUT I’d trade some conservative tort reform measure for comprehensive legislation. That’s a compromise I’d make. Because I lost the tort reform fight way back in the propaganda stage, and we’ve apparently decided as a country that physicians alone shouldn’t be held financially responsible for mistakes they make.
I don’t think Republicans came to deal though, so I don’t have to worry about that.
El Cid
@kay: The Republicans would demand some sort of tort reform addition, they would demand something else be left out, and in the end would not vote for the bill. They would lie. They would demand things that Democrats could not support, and my fear is that a rabid desire for the fantasy of Republican support would throw such a wrench into the works. I don’t think it would be that hard for them to do.
On the other hand, if the Republican clown car shows up instead, we may be spared this threat.
I really don’t quite understand your comment, as it seems to be predicated on the notion that Republicans would support Democratic plans for comprehensive health care reform if it included some of their concerns. That is pretty opposite to all available evidence.
kay
@El Cid:
Well, it’s what I’d do in if I had a honest opponent.
I agree with you.
I have to say, and you can jeer at how naive I am if you wish, I negotiate all day long as part of my job and I always start with the assumption of good faith. Always.
I think it works better. I haven’t had success with this straight to hard-ball tactic that seems to be so overwhelmingly popular, in theory, on both the Left and the Right. I don’t think that’s how human beings work. I really believe that the end result is better if you start with no assumptions about motive. This has been my actual experience. I give the other side good faith at the open.
I do, at some point, acknowledge a bad faith actor, though. I’ve given up on Republicans, and it takes me a long time to do that.
They’re dishonest and can’t be dealt with. There’s no practical upside to dealing with them at all.
I’m not going to change what has been a successful approach or change my ideas about negotiation because I encountered a bad-faith actor, though. 90% of the time, my way works better.
But, I agree with you. Finally :)
MikeJ
@Ravi J: Noscript blocks them both on my windows machine.
MikeJ
OT: I know DougJ had a story last night about Ford addressing the Stonewall Democrats. Video up on NY1 now.
http://www.ny1.com/1-all-boroughs-news-content/top_stories/114258/crowd-heckles-ford-jr–on-gay-marriage-stance
R-Jud
@mcc:
Especially country music by a Canadian.
I can’t stand Shania Twain. I was the social director at a family resort one summer when I was in college, and had to remove “That Don’t Impress Me Much” from the karaoke selection because hearing it four times a night was giving me hives and an overwhelming feeling of stabbiness. It could have wound up being a My Way Murders situation.
kay
@El Cid:
And, then, if I go to motive, and gaming, I have to go both sides.
I think some of the objections in the House to the Senate bill are sincerely predicated on the lack of a public option. But, the House rejected a triggered public option out of hand, when they knew that was all they were getting out of Finance. That makes me think there’s something else in the Senate bill that they’re balking at.
I think they object to the excise tax. There’s nothing wrong with them objecting to the excise tax: Democrats are dependent on union support. They can’t really say that, though, because unions, although they are a group I wholeheartedly support, are a narrow sector of US workers.
So, instead, they say they need a public option, or, if they’re Stupak and from Michigan, or Marcy Kaptur and from Ohio, they inject a poison pill abortion restriction, one that makes it “impossible” for him to accept the Senate bill. He’s not objecting on behalf of UNIONS. No sir! He’s objecting on behalf of LIFE.
I think if I go to motive, and I will speculate, happily, it’s naive not to go to Democratic motive.
To the Democrats credit, although their motive might not be pure, or as straightfoward and principled as they are letting on, they are, at least, negotiating, unlike Republicans.
arguingwithsignposts
CNBC is running the gamut of GOP blowhards this morning about health care. Why is Eric Cantor on my TV?
Cantor says he wants to hear the president say “the bill is unacceptable.”
There is no way this summit is anything more than Kabuki for the GOP.
ETA: The GOP has framed this as the president and the democrats vs. the American people. liars and the lying lies they tell. I need to turn the channel before my BP explodes.
The Raven
For Silverlight on Firefox, try here.
I called my Senators yesterday. The Washington state Senators, both Democrats, haven’t even taken a position on passing the bill through reconciliation, let alone making substantive improvements to cost containment, by a public options or some other means.
These Senators aren’t wholly owned subsidiaries of the financial services industry, but I think the industry has a stake.
Croak!
WereBear
@arguingwithsignposts: When have the Republicans done anything but Kabuki of late?
Releasing a budget with no numbers was a real jump the shark moment.
demo woman
I have a dental appointment at ten for a new crown and I’m counting on you to have good comments. Hopefully The Rock shows up today. Yesterday someone linked to the Kaiser report showing the different plans as well as former Senator Chafee’s plan. Here’s the link again.
The Republicans have nothing.
arguingwithsignposts
@WereBear:
Agreed, however, what irritates me is that they get no pressure from any of the “journalists” on these shows, who just let them spew their talking points. I know it’s nothing new, but I don’t usually catch it on the TV in its unadulterated form. But I was watching Sweden/Czech Republic last night when I went to sleep, so it was on this morning.
Brick Oven Bill
As the Republicans control neither branch of congress, why is Barack worried about them?
Oh wait, never mind.
mr. whipple
I’ll be able to tune in at 10 and watch all day if I wish. I’m wondering if it’ll be compelling enough to watch for 6 hours.
electricgrendel
I did not have any problems having Silverlight load in Firefox when I watch Netflix streaming. I think I am running one build behind on Firefox. I’m the world’s worst at updating.
AxelFoley
@Brick Oven Bill:
Yeah, never mind, scrub.
You know your President (yeah, Billy-Bob, he’s your President, too, LOL), isn’t afraid of the Repubs in Congress. Hell, he even kicked their asses on their home court.
Linda Featheringill
To Kay:
You are probably correct in that dealing with normal human beings, you can get further if you come to the table in good faith.
I think I give up on people quicker than you do.
Listen – life is short. We don’t have to spend the small allotment of time that we have with egomaniacs, drama queens, manipulators, and liars. If people get too crazy, walk away. Go outside and interact with the squirrels. Any interchange you have with the squirrels will probably be honest.
Hell, any exchange you have with a self-respecting rat will probably be honest.
El Cid
@kay:
No doubt, if we had a real, serious, credible opposition party in this nation, good faith negotiation efforts would be sensible. I’ve no personal predilection for a particular style of approaching policy — nor do I think it is the wisest course to always follow an apparent path of moderation. All depends on the circumstances and the available evidence about the situation and the players.
But that’s certainly not what we have. We have tons of empirical evidence on both the behavior and structural incentives behind the Republican party.
I actually think that as a whole the Republican party is a criminal (in spirit, whether or not in letter) organization dedicated to as much theft and to as much destruction of the core liberal principles of the Constitution and democracy as they can possibly get away with, most of which is for their betters — the short-term minded super-rich.
And I do understand that there’s a mix of true good faith and negotiating tactics and plain-out skullduggerous trickery (from approximately 1/10th of the Democratic Senate which desires no comprehensive health care package beyond de-regulating insurers and Big Pharma, and maybe privatizing Social Security and looting Medicare) on the Democratic side, particularly WRT the “public option” (couldn’t anyone have thought to call it something like “public service [or federal, or whatever] health insurance”?).
One of the reasons I’m less torn up about the lack of a PO (or Medicare buy-in, etc), whatever the risks Democrats may be taking politically with the individual mandates, is that I never, ever thought I’d see anything like that in this time period any way. Frankly, I was shocked it got as far as it did. Which suggests to me it may still happen someday.
kay
@Brick Oven Bill:
Obama’s still standing, Bill, and you guys threw everything you had at him. He may very well fail at this, but he didn’t run away.
Meanwhile, your hero, Sarah Palin, a person you have told us repeatedly is the the very definition of tough ‘n gritty determination, blew her credibility wad on a battle with a cartoon character, which she lost. She’s now a cartoon character.
I’d rather have Obama in my corner. Showing up counts.
arguingwithsignposts
@mr. whipple:
Peter Segel from “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me” recently said that he watched the Obama/GOP q&a three times because it was that good. I chuckled, but I think I watched it twice myself.
I somehow doubt this will be as good.
Anya
@Brick Oven Bill: why is BOB always making comments when clearly he does not have a single decent idea, cannot make a coherent point, offer any original opinion without restoring to repetitive, tired old talking points? Oh wait, never mind.
El Cid
@Anya: They keep telling me he’s a spoof. Myself, I think people who think it’s fun to seriously imitate right wing dipshits are crass turds. Hence, cleek’s piescript via Greasemonkey.
mr. whipple
@arguingwithsignposts:
LOL. I know I saw it at least 2x. My feeling about Obama and these big events is that I always seem to go in doubting him, he hits it out of the park, and I feel foolish for second guessing because, you know, he always hits it out of the park.
Today I have more doubts about Congressional dems and all the accessory spinners to the thing. This strikes me as like a campaign debate wherein you have the event itself, which can be overshadowed by the spin around it, since only a small % of people will actually watch. And the Democrats have never shown the unity and discipline to be able to come up with a unified, coherant message that they will stick to. It too often is just self-promotional blustering.
Anya
@El Cid: If it’s a spoof, he would have slipped sooner or later. How can anyone keep up the act this long?
kay
@El Cid:
Absolutely. But I think predilection matters. I think how you approach a problem can act as a blinder.
Approaching Snowe the same way you approach a legit bad faith actor just isn’t wise, in my opinion. Obama could have used her as an ally. It made sense to pursue her. Had he succeeded, it would be a big win, not short term, but longer term. Because he (apparently) failed, it’s now considered a stupid move, but that’s an easy after the fact analysis, and it ignores what his long term and short term objectives were: develop a relationship and get a bill out of Finance. He failed at one of those things, but would it have gone better if he had designated her as “bad faith” before negotiations?
I don’t think so.
El Cid
@kay: I think you could have given Olympia Snowe her trigger and she still wouldn’t have given Obama the vote. I don’t care what she said. The likelihood of going through a harsh revolt at the primaries from ultra-conservatives is simply too high.
I don’t mind making publicly minded attempts at looking like you’re seriously reaching out to the opposition.
I think it’s incredibly dumb if anyone seriously thought it would work, or if they didn’t simultaneously plan with the assumption that it wouldn’t so that one could move forward.
But then, you’re also dealing with that faction of the Democratic Senate which just didn’t want to do it.
Particularly not when Max Baucus vanishes into the cellar with his hand-picked sub-sub-sub-Committee of 3 Republicans and himself and 2 other Dem’s in order to, in my view, destroy and delay as much as possible of the HCR effort. It was that ridiculous “f*** you” gesture which led to the TeaTard summer.
El Cid
@Anya: I could keep up the act. You just create a persona that you yourself think is awesomely hilarious. And clever. No, you don’t have to slip. Anyone can pretend to seriously be a right wing space cadet.
No one ever slipped in Letters From A Nut.
mr. whipple
I’m not so sure. She did vote for the stim, after all, and Obama won the state by like 18 points. I don’t think a teabagger rw challenge to her would work.
kay
@El Cid:
Okay, but what if the goal was narrower than that? To get it out of Finance with a trigger?
Not to depend on Snowe’s vote for cloture or final passage, but to get it out of Finance with some version of a public option?
Because Finance was the toughest nut, and that committee has exclusive jurisdiction over two important components.
I don’t know how they get around that jurisdictional issue, procedurally. So, they make a determination that the best coming out of Finance is the trigger, and then look for 60.
Step by step.
MikeJ
@mr. whipple: Does Maine have open or closed primaries? It might not matter how much Obama won by, only what the majority of Republicans in Maine want, and as a a rule, Republicans are insane.
cat48
valdivia
Guys check out this poll of SC were Obama does better than Demented and Graham!
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/25/88258/in-south-carolina-poll-obama-does.html
GReynoldsCT00
I’m waiting for this morning’s post: Hungover.As.Hell.
geg6
As a non-O-bot proponent of HCR and Dems in general, I think our President has this in hand. He is not doing this out of fear or lack of commitment to his agenda. He’s doing this because he knows he’s right, knows policy and process backward and forward, is sure that the GOPers are nothing but obstructionists, and that the public will see that. I don’t quite have his faith in the public, but it was the Republicans who begged for a forum like this and if they don’t deliver something concrete, they lose in the eye of the great majority. So I am completely comfortable with this event and the only reason I am not popping popcorn is that I am home sick, recovering from a horrible, horrible digestive flu/virus. Which is also why I have the leisure to watch.
Napoleon
@El Cid:
I happen to agree with this but I have really come to believe this White House really is this dumb (and congressional Dems as well). The Baucus thing would have never happened if they went into the process knowing the Reps were bad faith actors. It is as if they have all been asleep since 1994 and can not see what should be as plain as day.
kay
@El Cid:
So, Finance has exclusive jurisdiction over Medicaid and Medicare, and exclusive jurisdiction over taxes. The power to modify.
I see no way around that. I don’t know how they get in without Finance.
So, that’s the big hurdle. That alone might be worth the Snowe boot-licking, because they’re stopped without that.
cat48
I think everything will be very controlled today–not that watchable.
Did you hear the Repugs won’t let Obama bring his podium with him? No more looking like a professor they said during negotiations.
valdivia
@cat48:
that is funny. as if the podium is what makes him speak well, look commanding. next thing you k now there will be podium jokes too not just teleprompter ones. idiots.
AxelFoley
@Napoleon:
Then why don’t you run for office, if you’re so damn smart? Armchair quarterback much?
cat48
@valdivia
My husband and I cracked up last night when we heard that.
Also, too, more good news in the SC poll you mentioned. It is very hard to live here sometimes, but today I’m proud.
kay
@El Cid:
I loathe Max Baucus, but why take the trigger off the table?
There weren’t more than 42-44 votes in the Senate for a robust public option, that I saw evidence of, anyway, so why discard the trigger out of hand? It was a compromise on a public option and, Snowe aside, might have been useful to have.
Our justified dislike for Max Baucus aside.
It’s all water under the bridge anyway, I guess.
danimal
@GReynoldsCT00: I think threatening to shoot groundhogs is serious hangover territory.
Michael D.
I was just watching President Obama strolling into Blair House, shaking hands with everyone. I just LOVE watching Old White Republicans shaking his hand and saying, “Good Morning, Mr. President.”
It must take every ounce of energy they have to call him that.
And I love it.
Ash Can
@Michael D.: Old white southern Republicans, yet. :)
El Cid
@kay: No — the Finance Committee had jurisdiction. Not Baucus’ hand-picked Republican-favoring sub-shit. This was flat-out absurd and an insult. And Baucus knew exactly what he was doing, and didn’t give a shit. And the rest of the Democrats on the Committee and in the Senate caucus — what did they say? What did they think would come of Max Baucus’ denial of the actual Finance Committee for his hand-picked bag of kabuki players?
kay
@El Cid:
Well, I don’t know what they thought, but it’s this wildly powerful ‘n prestigious committee that they all jostle to get on.
I would think they could handle Max Baucus.
I agree that Obama should have stepped in and shut Baucus down, when it became clear that Senators were helpless before him, but I think when you’re this close to getting over the first hurdle, you tend to get caught up in your own game, and see things as progressing. I have done that myself.
Personally, I think Obama’s tenure as a Senator hurt him. I don’t know what the fuck happens to people when they enter that Chamber, but it’s corrosive.
I blame Obama for his part. I’m just not willing to simplify this into villains and heroes. There were a lot of actors, and they all had different motives and objectives. Some of “our personal favorite” Democrats have acted in ways that make me suspect that they are not being completely up-front about their objectives. I’m okay with that.
I am enough of a realist to know that Obama gets the blame though, and that’s part and parcel of that office, but I’m not telling myself that story to feel better.
He’d get the credit, so he should get the blame. I accept that. Is it what happened? I don’t think so. Not completely.
Cheryl from Maryland
The Attorney General of Maryland, Doug Gansler, steps up to the plate and says Maryland will recognize same sex marriages from other states. That’s my AG. Go Doug.
So all of you out there who think this is great, go vote at the Baltimore Sun’s poll on this issue – http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bal-md.samesex25feb25,0,7371381.story
Either I have forgotten how to make a linky or Word Press Fail. Sorry.
kay
@El Cid:
I have to work now, so if I don’t respond, that’s why.
I enjoyed our discussion. Watch the summit, and report back.
SenyorDave
I think the White House was far too slow to react to changes in the debate. I thought Obama was smart to not immediately say “here’s what I want as a finished product”, but they were hands off to a fault.
For example, when Palin started with the death panels, and that took root, he could have specifically addressed it and said either she is misinformed or she is lying.
Because that ended up being a game-changer, death panels became part of the narrative.
At this point no sane person could believe the Republicans are capable of negotiating in good faith on any substantive issue. I assume today is all for show.
Catsy
Don’t.
Zuzu's Petals
Obama sitting there looking all Presidential, okay maybe a little professorial too.
Meanwhile there’s some idiot staffer stealing the show from Coburn et al by chawing his gum … classy.
Zuzu's Petals
CNN just ran a “Dem health care plan is lipstick on a pig” attack ad sponsored by the ethical folks who brought you the Swift Boat and Willie Horton ads.
Ruckus
Shoe gets it right. Again.
Mac from Oregon
Screw the football! Kick the piss out of Lucy. Then knee drop onto the body.
See if the bitch tries that again.
Cain
@SenyorDave:
We are really living in the dumbest country in the world if something as stupid as “death panels” would be believable. I mean who would write such a bill? The fact that people could believe such a thing shows that something is wrong with this country.
I can understand if Obama thought that people would not believe such crap. I mean the damn thing started from a facebook sentence. Jeezus!
cain
Barry
Kay, @19: “…So, instead, they say they need a public option, or, if they’re Stupak and from Michigan, or Marcy Kaptur and from Ohio,…”
I would not only not assume that a right-wing democratic politician is pro-union, but I would also assume that a right-wing democratic politician is strongly anti-union.
IIRC, Stupak at least is from some rural Michigan Militia county; there ‘union’ is probably spelled with ‘n*gger’.
Spork
Just testing to see if I can post…
Spork
Testing again…