Nate Silver hates hippies:
In December, I posted ratings for each Democratic Representative based on how they voted on 10 key agenda items in 2009. The idea was to see how each Democrat voted relative to the partisan slant of his district; a Democrat voting for the cap-and-trade bill in a Republican-leaning district would get quite a bit of credit for that, for instance, while one voting for the same measure in a district with a PVI of D+15 would get almost no credit for the vote since almost every Representative from such a district voted for the bill anyway.
[….]But what if we don’t build in an exception for the so-called “liberal no’s” — that is, simply take every vote at face value? It turns out, then, that Davis is no longer the least valuable Democrat. Instead, it is Dennis Kucinich, who voted against health care, the hate crimes bill, the budget, the cap-and-trade bill, and financial regulation — all ostensibly from the left — in spite of coming from from the strongly Democratic Ohio 10th district near Cleveland.
Nate goes on to mention that, indeed, Kucinich may be moving the Overton windows somehow.
My question: couldn’t Kucinich do this on less important votes? And why do so many wank about Overton windows while mocking eleven-dimensional chess? A pony plan is a pony plan is a pony plan…..
Pass the fucking bill and you can fuck around Overton windows all you want to, Dennis.
Napoleon
Wow, I just came over here after reading Nate to post on this in the open thread.
I have seen people say that people, like Dennis the Menace, are trying to move the Overton window and for a reason I could never put my finger on the argument seemed odd or wrong, and it finally struck me that voting in and of itself does nothing what so ever to move the Overton window, but getting your face in front of the the public and discussing your issues does. So voting yes or no does nothing to move the window one way or the other.
Dennis is simply screwing the Democratic caucus. He isn’t even effectively setting himself up in a position where the leadership thinks his vote is gettable and so may pander to him. He is so far out and such a purity troll I have a hard time believing Pelosi or Hoyer would bother with him.
Uloborus
The time has come, Doug.
KUCINICH IS JUST LIKE BUSH ONLY WORSE!
Thank you. If anyone needs any more memes tonight, I will be out hunting for urchins.
The Grand Panjandrum
Glenzilla and Jane Hamsher of the Left are going to make you sit on the naughty chair for this one. Tsk, tsk. Thou shalt not say mean things about Saint Dennis.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
The only constituency that matters to Dennis is Dennis.
Hopefully with the fall of Dimora and Russo, we may get some serious change in the local Dem establishment. I’m not sure if Cimperman is running again this year, however, so it looks like we’re stuck with D. Kucinich (K – Kucinich) for another two years.
de stijl
It works out fine in the aggregate since Kucinich is balanced out by Ron Paul.
Cat Lady
Can someone please just push him out of the fucking Overton Window?
kthxbai.
Linkmeister
/sputter
“But, but, he’s standing up for his principles!”
/end sputter
burnspbesq
Kucinich is the love object of all of those people who still defend voting for Nader in 2000 because they were correct that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
Ah blow mah nose at you. Your mother was a hamsher, and your father smelled of Greenwaldberries.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
As one of the commenters at 538 noted, Bernie Sanders is a bloody Socialist and he gets more shit done than Kucinich.
bayville
All together now…. NADER!
gnomedad
Just … wow.
Nellcote
@de stijl:
If they both vote the same way, how is this balance? Or were you making a funny?
valdivia
The Overton Window will move when legislation that actually enacts progressive goals (ie insuring 30 million americans) passes. That is: success is what moves that fucking window.
Ailuridae
If the White House political operation were the ruthless, brass-knuckles operation many insist they are they would have gone after Kucinich in the 2010 primary once it was realized that he was an unreliable vote from a reliable district.
demo woman
@Cat Lady: Well said cat lady!
Davis X. Machina
For those of you who are curious enough to make a pilgrimage to the mother church of the faith, there’s always DU, DemocraticUnderground.com — more like D(K)U to be accurate — to check out.
In January, a post consisting of “KUCINICH!” — and nothing else — found its way onto their ‘Greatest Posts’ page on the strength of reader recommendations.
John Cole
@valdivia: Bingo.
Sadly, our progressive betters think what moves the window is screaming about Rahm Emanuel selling out progressives or how Obama is just like Bush.
BR
Bernie Sanders knows how to move legislation to the left. He holds out for good stuff, secures it, and then votes to pass the bill.
valdivia
@John Cole:
Yes, I know. I find it exasperating. Why can they not see that actually enacting progressive goals into law is what makes progressives be winners.
I think maybe they are confused between sticking their heads out the window and screaming about said window and actually fucking moving it?
Crone
I’ve got no problem with Kucinich–or anyone–voting against a bill from the left when the bill is a lock for passage. Symbolic votes are fine when they don’t affect the outcome.
I’d held out hope that his no vote on the original bill was something coordinated with the leadership, but this recent action from him deflates that little hope.
Roger Moore
When somebody votes against his party that often, I think you have to start asking if he’s really opposing these bills from the left, or if that’s just his schtick to avoid negative consequences. Is there any evidence beyond his own claims that Kucinich is actually a DFH and not just another corporate whore?
mr. whipple
Report card, Dennis Kucinich
Acheives goals: Fail
Gets along well with others: Fail
Effectiveness: Fail
Chakra and Crystal Balance: Pass
mr. whipple
@valdivia:
By definition, no legislation can be progressive enough, so there is never any posibility to ‘win’, therefore it’s best to do nothing but complain.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
That’s not how you move Overton windows. Stupak didn’t get his amendment by voting for a bill and then politely asking for an amendment afterward.
Is this blog going to become as deranged about Kucinich as it has been about Hamsher? If so could we christen a new tag, Hamsher/Kucinich Derangement Syndrome? It will help in identifying the pointless 400 comment bitchfests beforehand.
Matt
The difference between 11-dimensional chess and the Overton window is 9 dimensions. Perhaps Overton interval would be more accurate.
Uloborus
@mr. whipple:
…you may have a point. I mean, it’s the idealist’s classic problem. Reality will simply never measure up, ever. If you’re not willing to compromise, and free universal complete government run health care is only likely to happen when Canada conquers us, what useful options can you have?
It is, to probably invite controversy, not all that different from abstinence-only education. After all, if the kids stop having sex before marriage, STDs an teenage pregnancy largely cease to exist, and anything else is a betrayal of our(their) principles!
Thoughtcrime
@BR:
Not lefty enough for Kucinich, Nader, Hamsher, and all their followers.
Must be because Sanders is the only certified Socia1ist(R) in Congress.
anon
So Dennis gets in front of the media with a no vote that doesn’t matter. He then gets to make his case. Individual votes don’t matter unless they change the outcome. So, in his defense, if his vote doesn’t matter AND a contrary-wise votes gets him a sound bite or a media mention where he advocates for more Progressive legislation then he does Progressives a service when he votes no. Nancy can count and knows whether Dennis is screwing with her or not. We don’t.
gbear
@mr. whipple:
Babe wife: Pass.
sean
I’ve been wondering the very same thing. Do some people actually believe that Dennis Kucinich is smarter than Barack Obama?
Ailuridae
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Is this blog going to become as deranged about Kucinich as it has been about Hamsher? If so could we christen a new tag, Hamsher/Kucinich Derangement Syndrome? It will help in identifying the pointless 400 comment bitchfests beforehand.
When the most progressive legislation in four decades hangs in the balance and one of the House’s most liberal members is refusing to vote for it while telling egregious lies about the bill in any venue that will have him I think that’s a good source for outrage. If you want to call well-justified outrage “derangement” because you are as much of a dead ender as Kucinich so be it. I simply don’t hate poor people enough to be that pure.
JBerardi
@Uloborus
Interesting point. In a broad sense, both are examples of idealism triumphing over less-ideal but more realistic solutions. Of course, the difference is that abstinence-only is a terrible idea that has actually been implemented to some degree, whereas single-payer heathcare is actually a great idea, it’s just never going to happen.
NobodySpecial
This might be a valid complaint if there wasn’t a veto-proof majority in the House for most Democratic legislation. Of course, we allow ConservaDems to wander off the ranch all the fucking time with weak tea excuses like ‘that’s the best we can do in that district.’ And, of course, we forget just how many times Sanders himself has gone and made a big public stink about some bill before voting on it, either for or against.
But that’s ok, because these things don’t fit the narrative of the post, which is ‘No one has said today how useless progressives are to the Democratic Party’.
Davis X. Machina
Babe wife: Pass.
When it happened, I thought it was a little like Joe DiMaggio marrying Marilyn Monroe. Now I think it’s a little like Marilyn Monroe marrying Vince DiMaggio.
Uloborus
@JBerardi:
True, but I consider that a detail. The ideal that’s not being achieved in abstinence-only-education is the abstinence *itself*. Both are still examples of an idealistic stance that either doesn’t help or actively makes things worse because what you really want cannot be achieved.
former_friend
Honestly, concerned people, what ever was gained by demonizing Ralph Nader and dividing Progressives? Anything? Did it stop one bomb from falling, one bankster fraud? If so please explain.
And how is this bizarre crusade (yeah I said it) against Kucinich going to help improve politics?
St. Dennis is too Pure … so he must be cast out of the Party by Moderate Pragmatics. Good thinking! Very serious!
Try to remember which side your are on, or at least pretending to be on. There are a lot of Senators not voting for HCR who are not named Dennis.
JAHILL10
@NobodySpecial
If Rep. K is from a reliable D district shouldn’t the leadership be able to count on him voting for the party’s signature legislation? It’s not like he’s accomplishing anything voting against it except making the “perfect enemy of the good” crowd happy…except getting himself on television. Hmmmm …
And seriously, who takes Kucinich seriously? All the MSM has to do is point out that he believes he saw a UFO and boom, Mr. Overton window just looks like another crazy liberal crank on TV.
Uloborus
@former_friend:
Well, yes. That’s part of the point. Removing politicians who are so idealistic they are standing in the way of health care reform because it’s not as good as they’d like does in fact save lives.
I mean, we’re not actually removing him here, but that’s the kind of sentiment driving the topic. We were already in favor of removing the Republicans, and spend no shortage of threads griping about how awful they are, too.
DougJ
@NobodySpecial:
When conservative Dems vote against liberal bills, they are called Blue Dogs, not True Progressive Believers.
I want progressive legislation to pass. If Kucinich votes against it, he’s no better than Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman. The same way that if Jane Hamsher makes common cause with tea baggers, she’s no better than Lanny Davis.
Actions and votes have consequences. If these people want to be held up as liberal icons, they ought to act accordingly.
Ted Kennedy didn’t pull shit like this.
DougJ
@former_friend:
Honestly, concerned people, what ever was gained by demonizing Ralph Nader and dividing Progressives?
Nader got Bush elected.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Ailuridae:
…after having gone through the multiyear cuisinart of the Democratic Presidential primary process, negotiations between the executive and legislative branches, secret negotiations with industry insiders, Republicans, blue dogs, conservadems, anti-abortion dems, lobbyists, town halls, Tea Party protests, TV pundits, beltway pundits, and Joe Lieberman it makes perfect sense to focus all of the opprobrium on a single individual. It makes thinking so much easier.
NobodySpecial
@DougJ:
Did it pass the House, with or without his vote?
Did the other legislation you mention pass, with or without his vote?’
Us REALISTS know that people are allowed to wander off after you’ve got the votes to pass a bill all the time. Kucinich is no different.
Well, except for the fact that he’s a hippie, and ya gotta punch one, right?
JAHILL10
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Rep. K put himself out there in very loud public opposition to his own party’s legislation. He is officially fair game. If he wanted to be left alone he could just vote to pass the damn bill.
Just Some Fuckhead
@former_friend: This is the predictable result of absorbing so many former Republicans into the party after they fucked theirs up. The funny thing is that Democrats as a whole have long been derisive and dismissive of Kucinich but now it’s elevated to the worse thing ever in order to continue to foment division in the Democratic party.
Mnemosyne
@NobodySpecial:
Yes, let’s compare Sanders and Kucinich.
Sanders made a big public stink about the Senate healthcare bill not being progressive enough and asked for additional money to be added to fund public health clinics so people will actually be able to access healthcare after the reforms kick in. He got what he asked for, and he voted for the bill.
Kucinich is making a big public stink about not voting for the healthcare bill, but can anyone tell me what he actually wants? Is there anything that could possibly be added to the bill that would get him to vote for it? If not, then Kucinich is not making a principled stance like Sanders did in order to improve the legislation. He’s just wanking for his fanboys.
NobodySpecial
@Mnemosyne:
Sanders is a Senator and until Brown was elected, was desperately needed to keep the veto-proof majority. Therefore he got what he wanted, despite not being a Democrat. Which is also why Ben Nelson and Max Baucus and Blanche Lincoln got repeated analingus from Harry Reid.
Kucinich is a Representative and is not the magical 218th vote on anything, therefore he is not needed for anything. Unless, of course, your entire objective is to keep ridiculing and isolating progressives from your own caucus. Then he’s needed as a soft target for DLC-types.
MIchael
Bruce, the point is that he comes from a D+8 district, which means he SHOULD be a reliable vote for the Dem Party platform. Instead, what we have is someone who Consistently. Votes. Against. Our. Platform.
Overtown Window or not, I want someone who’s a reliable vote on important legislation from a district like his. Period.
The fact that he goes on TV and actively lobbies against the bill? And that some hold him up as a progressive icon? He’s drawing that attention on himself, and I think it’s a little disingenuous to pretend like some on here are singling him out. Joe Lieberman, Blue Dogs, they all get their share of hate, but Dennis brings this on himself, both with the way his votes match up with his district, AND with his very common, very public, very self-righteous crusades.
Mark
I have a wonderful story that ties everything together:
I went to see the sneak preview of Sicko in Santa Monica. While I was waiting in line, some woman came up and starting harassing everyone to donate to Kucinich for President.
This is years ago, but I already couldn’t stand D.K. and match.com profile and his vegan dance parties. So I told the woman she was wasting her time with a guy who was so unelectable – and that Democrats might as well nominate me.
She snaps back: “Do you have a coherent plan for national health care like Dennis does?” I said “Yes I do.” She said: “I don’t believe you.” and storms off.
MIchael
NobodySpecial:
What makes you think Democrats currently have the votes in the House? And how do you know that Kucinich couldn’t be that last vote?
Last time I checked, the general agreement is that Pelosi is scratching and clawing for every last vote, because it’s going to be incredibly close.
EDIT: and I’d add, all the hate has started to focus on Dennis PRECISELY BECAUSE we’re looking at an incredibly close vote, and he’s voting ‘no.’ I don’t recall reading all this stuff after the cap-and-trade bill, hate crimes, etc. If we have the votes, whatever, go for it.
But who says we have the votes right now? How do you know we can afford his defection?
ruemara
I knew he didn’t want to vote for the HCR bill, but knowing he didn’t vote for the hate crimes bill? Man, I used to admire the little idjit. I supported him for president. Disappointed doesn’t begin to cover it.
blackwaterdog
He’s pushing us all out of the freaking Overton Window. He is just as bad as Ben Nelson, and he’s a fake progressive. You can’t be progressive if you don’t believe in progress.
JAHILL10
@NobodySpecial
“Kucinich is a Representative and is not the magical 218th vote on anything, therefore he is not needed for anything.”
So here we go again with the frame shifting. If not even the Dems take Rep. K seriously how’s his vocal opposition supposed to move the Overton freaking Window? Either people take the guy seriously or they don’t. And if they don’t, he’s not opening or changing any minds with his opposition. His is simply as Mnemosyne so eloquently said “wanking for his fanboys.”
Maybe if he tried to improve and pass legislation rather than take the lazy, “principled” stand against everything because it isn’t pure enough, people would take him seriously AND he might actually help someone in the real world. You know, what legislators are supposed to do.
But my guess is he’ll go on being pure and “not really needed for anything.”
NobodySpecial
@JAHILL10:
You’re absolutely right – he is worthless. He can’t improve legislation because nobody rightfully gives him the time of day, being only one vote out of 435 or so and not bringing anyone along with him like Stupak.
So why waste hate on him? Because that’s not the deal.
The deal is to make anybody who speaks up on the left think twice before refusing to go along with any legislation.
And you’re helping that along just fine, as are many of the commenters.
NobodySpecial
@MIchael:
Then why focus your hate on one lone progressive vote rather than the Conservadems who are voting as a bloc?
Has any Conservadem been threatened at all by Pelosi with bad consequences if they don’t come through?
Has any Conservadem been promised any bennies by Pelosi or the WH if they do come through?
There’s a reason Pelosi has ignored him – because he’s not worth the effort. Spend the effort where it helps the most.
Sly
I assume by “health care” you mean the House bill. Which is true. But he also voted against SCHIP along the same lines. Fine with the House version, Senate limited it somewhat, St. Dennis balked. But he ended up supporting the veto override anyway because Bush needed to be “held accountable” or some nonsensical tripe. So he was for it before he was against it before he was for it, I suppose.
The guy sponsored three bills since 1997 that were enacted into into law:
1) Making available to the Ukranian Museum and Archives the USIA television program ‘Window on America”.
2) Designating the United States Postal Service located at 14500 Lorain Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio as the ‘John P. Gallagher Post Office Building”.
3) Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States posthumously.
That’s what you get with a “my way or the highway” attitude.
Napoleon
@NobodySpecial:
Because, Dennis’ vote should be an automatic and gives you the wiggle room to deal with the conservadems (or tell them to f-off). Dennis is a plague on the Democratic caucus.
Mnemosyne
@NobodySpecial:
You may have missed this part, but we don’t actually have 218 votes for healthcare in the House right now. Kucinich is in a perfect position to go to the leadership and say, “I will vote for the healthcare bill if you give me X, Y and Z.”
And, instead, he’s going on the Sunday talk shows and whining about how not-progressive the legislation is and how he’s just forced to vote against it instead of doing the actual principled thing and getting the stuff he thinks the legislation is lacking into the package of amendments in exchange for his vote.
Kucinich is in the exact same position in the House that Sanders was in the Senate. The difference is that Sanders actually wanted the legislation to pass and make people’s lives better and Kucinich doesn’t give a shit about anything but himself and his public image. That’s why Sanders negotiated to get the changes that he wanted and Kucinich is wanking for his fanboys.
I’m sorry if it gives you a sad to find out that your progressive hero has feet of clay and is actively blocking progressive legislation from moving forward, but don’t expect the rest of us to lie to you and tell you everything’s okay and that St. Dennis really has your best interests at heart when he plainly doesn’t.
JAHILL10
@NobodySpecial
I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention but Rep. Stupak has also been getting his fair share of bashing here lately. The point being made by me and others is that the time is now to pass progressive legislation. EVERY vote counts and Rep. K and Stupak and a handful of other grandstanders are saying “No” at the possible expense of millions of people.
You act like there’s some vast pool of liberal legislation that has recently been passed that Rep K could have made better but everyone ignored the poor man. There hasn’t. This is it. The time is now. The bill is before him and he’s throwing tantrums. So, yes, I pour scorn on him, on Stupak, on Lierberman on all the obstructionist assholes who think their personal fame or personal grudges are more important than helping the American people. Because he can say whatever he wants, he’s not progressive if he votes against progressive legislation. That is the record against which he will be measured. And he doesn’t measure up.
balki
You people have gone off the deep end. This is fucking ridiculous. Take note that you’re all in agreement with Chuck Todd–that should tell you something.
The claim that this is “the most progressive bill” in decades, or whatever the claim was, is absurd. This bill does not give anyone guaranteed health care. It mandates that they buy insurance. Having insurance doesn’t mean that you’re going to be able to afford care. The currently uninsured who have to buy in to some shitty plan with low premiums but astronomical deductibles will still avoid seeking medical care unless there is an emergency, subsidy or not.
I’m currently unemployed, but still pay for insurance. My last doctor’s visit (just to screen 3 moles-entire visit took less than 10 minutes) cost me $500 out of pocket (insurance picked up $80. Nice!). Even with subsidies, how many of the 30 million (or whatever the number is) who will now have to buy insurance can afford that?
All that the Dems in Congress and the WH care about is losing as few seats as possible and getting Obama his first achievement, so they’re going to push through whatever crap they can and call it a win. You’re all happily volunteering to help police the rest of us by telling us we’re unserious, unrealistic, and dangerous when we demand that officials who said they would not pass anything without a public option be held at their word.
But hey, if the Dems hold their majority in November, I’m sure that THEN they’ll pass financial reform, outlaw torture, and improve the current shitty bill to make it less shitty, right? Just keep on stepping up to that 3 card monte table. You’re bound to win eventually.
NobodySpecial
@Mnemosyne:
No, he’s not. Because the House, at this moment, is second fiddle to the Senate and everyone knows it. He can ask for the first seat on the next Moon landing and it doesn’t matter, because it all comes down to the Senate. That’s why Sanders (who, again, isn’t even a Democrat) gets bennies and Kucinich gets zip.
He’s not MY progressive hero, anyways. He’s a fucking clown. Always has been. I’ve been an Obama guy since I helped fucking elect him to the Senate. But this orgy of blame-heaping on Clownshoe isn’t meant to do anything but shut the hippies up. Congrats, mission accomplished.
@JAHILL10:
Absolutely right. But I’d rather see that scorn directed almost 100% at those Democrats who rally around the Stupak language who are in districts even MORE Democratic than Kucinich’s, like Doyle who’s in a +19 district.
Mike Kay
[flute] All we are saying…. is give Kucinich a chance…. [tambourine]
Mike Kay
@balki:
answer me this: why did Kucinich vote against the Hate Crimes bill (aka the Matthew Shepard Bill)? why did he vote against SCHiP?
See. Kucinich would have voted against Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, simply because the bills weren’t perfect. After all, nothing is perfect.
Mike Kay
@NobodySpecial:
I disagree, because after all, the very same people who dislike Clownshoe LOVE Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, and Howard Dean.
trizzlor
This seems fundamentally backwards to me – the only way to shift the Overton window with votes is to do so on contentious issues. As others have pointed out, Stupak didn’t get his bullshit into the bill by promising to vote for anything and work on it later.
The best example of this is the 2000 election, where Nader’s split finally made people start thinking about third parties. Of course, in response, the Greens agreed to play nice (not run in tight races) and have been completely marginalized because of it.
Sly
@balki:
You probably don’t know that the Exchanges mandate that insurers have caps on deductibles and co-pays based on a percentage of current HSA requirements, mandate that all plans have a specific actuarial value (X% of benefit costs paid for by the insurer), and that this actuarial value increases the further down the economic ladder the enrollee is found. You probably also don’t know that reconciliation will likely increase the range of premium subsidies offered and, if the Obama proposal is to be considered as a template, cost-sharing subsidies could (and likely would) be added as well.
Mike Kay
@trizzlor: The Greens are kooks. They ran a third party campaign against…. wait for it… Howard Dean in 2000. When you feel the need to take Howard down from the left, then you’re a clownshoe. Hell, even Nader disassociated himself from the Greens and ran as a independent in 2004.
ruemara
This may be the onion fumes from my escarole & onion pizza, but are progressives on here, complaining that we’re complaining about a progressive Representative who fails to vote on even marginally progressive legislation? You know how it’s offensive when the party of family values is inevitably found offering snorkling sessions in public restrooms wide stancing in 2 wetsuits? That’s what it’s like when a bold progressive fails to take a step towards a goal because that first step isn’t in 7 league boots.
arguingwithsignposts
@trizzlor:
There is NO WAY TO SHIFT THE OVERTON WINDOW WITH SINGLE VOTES! Sorry to scream, but this whole idea that a lone representative stomping his feet and voting against popular legislation (like SCHIP) isn’t moving any damned window.
The Republicans (and the social values cons like Stupak) move the window through propaganda and FOX news (I know, redundant).
If the House had actually voted for single payer as a chamber, then somehow got the P.O. into the Senate bill, that would have been moving the Overton Window.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@MIchael:
Ah, the Silverification of the center-left.
I don’t live within two time zones of Kucinich’s district, hence I only give 1/434th of a fuck how he votes. Chances are you have no say in his district either. You could set up a PAC to draft a primary opponent against him. So why don’t all you Kucinich obsessives get to work on that, otherwise quit your bitching.
JAHILL10
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Great suggestion. But primarying him isn’t going to affect how the Honorable idiot from Ohio votes on the single biggest piece of progressive legislation before Congress this week, will it?
Or look at it this way: We bitchers are just trying to move the Overton Window so that something progressive might get done this legislative session.
gwangung
TOTAL BULLSHIT.
They’ve been marginalized because THEY CAN’T GET PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR THEM.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@JAHILL10:
Then you’d better hurry the fuck up.
In some of the amateur psychologizing of Kucinich that I read here it seems that the more he gets criticized the more motivated he is to act out. So for your sake I hope these remote diagnoses are incorrect.
Napoleon
@balki:
In case no one else has told you this, you are a fucking moron .
gwangung
Well, if you get movement from your behavior, maybe.
What changes in behavior is being prompted by Kucinich?
DougJ
@NobodySpecial:
Did it pass? Two words: Stu Pak. That might not be there if Dennis had gotten off his high horse and voted for the fucking thing.
JAHILL10
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
It’s called sarcasm. Look it up.
Mnemosyne
@NobodySpecial:
Really? Because I’m pretty sure that if the House doesn’t pass the Senate bill, healthcare reform is dead. The Senate can pass whatever budget reconciliation bill they want but, unless the Senate healthcare bill passes the House, then the entire project is dead.
Right now, the House is the first fiddle. If they’re not happy with what the Senate does, healthcare reform dies. They have a gun to the puppy’s head, and the Senate has to keep them happy for a change.
So in this climate where the power has tilted in favor of the House, explain again how St. Dennis is just so powerless and helpless and can’t possibly influence the legislation any other way than by voting against it because the Senate holds all of the cards.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@DougJ:
Ah. Dennis was dressing provocatively.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
I thought my posts were pretty much swimming in sarcasm, but perhaps I’m subtler than I imagined.
craptractor
Those bills passed anyway. The more relevant question is whether he could’ve been counted on to vote yes if needed. Is he an freelance asshole or one who coordinates with the Speaker? This is particularly relevant to the current situation.
Or, what @Crone said.
craptractor
@DougJ:
The Supreme Court got Bush elected bro. In the end the recounts were showing Gore winning when SCOTUS shut ’em down.
Even if we set aside the court stuff, Gore didn’t have any part in that eh, it was entirely Ralph? Isn’t it perhaps possible that had Gore done a little less agreeing with Bush and a little more differentiating and staking-out of progressive/liberal/sane/whatever positions he might’ve fired people up enough that the margin wouldn’t have been close enough for SCOTUS to step in and work its magic? Hindsight’s 20/20 and obviously looking back it’s ludicrous (imo) to say Gore would’ve been the same President. But on the campaign trail what did Candidate Gore do to distinguish himself in the eyes of the average voter, let alone the average Nader voter? If Gore presents an unattractive case to a group of people who subsequently choose not to vote for him then that’s a two-way street.
Blaming Nader for getting Gore elected makes no more sense than giving Kucinich a pass as a progressive icon.
MissKG
Can’t Kucinich stick to his principles only on the unimportant stuff?
burnspbesq
@craptractor:
I will defend to the death your right to be delusional and fact-free.
However, the reality is as follows:
1. Nader’s run for the presidency was a pure vanity and ego play. He never had a snowball’s chance in hell of being anything but a spoiler, and there is no reason to doubt that he knew that before he started.
2. Nader got over 92,000 votes in Florida.
3. As part of its exit poliing, CNN asked Floridians who voted for Nader who they would have voted for if Nader hadn’t been in the race. The responses split better than five to one for Gore.
4. (3) means that had Nader not been in the race, Gore would have carried Florida by better than 70,000 votes – a margin that no amount of Republican perfidy could have overcome.
Just Some Fuckhead
@burnspbesq: If Bush hadn’t been in the race and taken all those votes and states, Gore woulda walked away with it. You cold hard realists are a hoot.
Ailuridae
@balki:
I’m currently unemployed, but still pay for insurance. My last doctor’s visit (just to screen 3 moles-entire visit took less than 10 minutes) cost me $500 out of pocket (insurance picked up $80. Nice!). Even with subsidies, how many of the 30 million (or whatever the number is) who will now have to buy insurance can afford that?
The Senate bill covers all preventative care free. I’m the youngest of six in my family and solely because of that the only one who has never had skin cancer. I’ve already checked this. If your plan had been purchased after the bill were passed those screening would have cost you $0. Mole screenings are very much preventative care (catching skin cancer early is much, much cheaper than late.)
http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill45.pdf
CTRL F on “preventative care”
Ailuridae
@craptractor:
Somerby, Bob. Look him up.
Ailuridae
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Wow. You’re the worst analytical thinker in history, aren’t you?
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@DougJ:
In the next three closest states Gore won by less than the total votes for Buchanon. Total electoral votes: 23. Next closest state after that was Oregon (7 EV), which Gore won by less than the total votes for Buchanon+Browne (Libertarian). The only other state that could have been flipped by third party votes was New Hampshire, 4 EV.
When will this ridiculous meme die?
balki
@Mike Kay:
I don’t know. Maybe because it was attached to the defense bill? Oh, but he’s somehow a bad guy because Democrats were too big of pussies to have a straight-up vote on the Shepard bill.
@Napoleon:
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Very worthwhile.
balki
@Ailuridae:
Thanks for the clarification (not being sarcastic).
Ailuridae
@balki:
All that the Dems in Congress and the WH care about is losing as few seats as possible and getting Obama his first achievement, so they’re going to push through whatever crap they can and call it a win. You’re all happily volunteering to help police the rest of us by telling us we’re unserious, unrealistic, and dangerous when we demand that officials who said they would not pass anything without a public option be held at their word
I’ll be polite. The reason you provided (anecdote actually) for the bill being shit turns out to actually be covered and your response is “Thanks for the clarification” and that’s it? Not something acknowledging the bill actually directly addresses the issue you had with it. See you may be new here but your arguing tactic isn’t. Say something brazenly untrue about the Senate health care bill, have it capably refuted and pretend it was all accidental. Problem is, you are the 20th new poster that has taken this tact.
I provided you the bill. I also know it inside and out at this point from correcting posters. Feel free to ask questions. Don’t lie. This isn’t FDL; there are people here who know what they are commenting about.
balki
@Ailuridae:
Sorry, I’ll stop posting so much, but I just checked into this a bit further, and I’m not convinced that this is correct. Please let me know if I’m misreading it (a high possibility). According to the Senate bill, preventive care measures will be covered if they are graded “A” or “B” by the Preventive Services Task Force. The USPSTF has graded both screening and counseling for skin cancer as “I”, meaning they have insufficient evidence to make a recommendation. In other words, I don’t think this wouldn’t be covered. In fact, it appears to me that a very large percentage of preventive measures would not be covered.
For example, it looks like diabetes screening would only be covered in those with sustained high blood pressure. For breast cancer screening, it appears that it’s covered only for women between ages 50 and 74. No testicular cancer screening, no lung cancer screening, no ovarian cancer screening, etc. Again, I may be incorrect on this, but I’d appreciate any insight.
balki
@Ailuridae:You provided a summary of the bill, not the bill. Regardless, please see my last post.
tenkindsagrumpy
There seems to be a lot of name calling on this thread. Do we think that this will foster a clearheaded debate? I rather doubt it. For myself, I see this demonization of Dennis as a perfect example of why you normally cannot get an elected official to actually vote the way he says he will vote and not be bought off. Where is the reward for doing what you say you will do. Perhaps we don’t really want what we say we want in a politician.
Ailuridae
@balki:
That’s for a full body screen which no insurance should be covering unless you are in a risk group (like I am and I presumed you to be). If you only went in to have three moles looked at presumably it was on doctors advice and yes, indeed, this will be covered.
On the science of it I agree with the diabetes parameters and limiting mammograms to those over 50 (where the science is nothing short of overwhelming and public ignorance is forcing horrible legislation)
The broader point is simple: if the government decides something is worth the investment, private insurance in the exchange has to cover it through the Senate bill. Now we can all quibble with what an independent agency of the government argues is or is not cost effective necessary (and we say a little of this with the colonoscopy the President received that is still graded ‘I’) but the far greater chances that they are under someone’s thumb is the supplier/doctor side and not the insurer side.
balki
@Ailuridae: I guess I’m unclear as to what you mean when you say that, if it was on a doctor’s advice, then it would have been covered. I had the 3 moles that I thought were both unattractive and possibly changing shape/color. I went to the doctor. He removed them and sent them to the lab. I got the bill. Was I supposed to see a different doctor first to get his recommendation? That’s kind of what I thought I was doing in the first place. I appreciate that your tone in responding to me has become more civil, so if you choose to respond, please keep in mind that I’m not picking a fight. You do claim to be an expert on this, so I’m asking politely for help ironing out this preventive care issue.
I’m not arguing the science regarding diabetes, etc., but your post said that “all preventive care is free”. I simply fail to see how that’s anywhere near accurate, considering that very few things seem to be “free” unless you’re referring only to people in risk groups. So it sounds like I’m still stuck with the $500 bill after the bill passes. I’m also not clear what the full body screen you’re referring to is (that term is not in the bill, so maybe you’re suggesting I had a full body screen? For the record, I did not. He only looked at the 3 that I pointed out.
Overall, I guess I’m just more optimistic than most on this board as to what the Democrats are capable of, if they had the true desire to reform the system. The private insurance industry is a middle-man with no reason for existing other than to provide jobs. This seems like it be could one of many reasons single payer was killed instantly. They couldn’t be seen cutting thousands of jobs with the rampant unemployment problem we already have. Now, I understand that most people on this board would probably prefer single payer over what we’re getting, but everyone is absolutely convinced that it’s politically impossible. Maybe it is. But it just seems so counterproductive to me to viciously attack Kucinich because he’s doing what he promised to do (unlike Pelosi, Reid, and yes, Obama), when we should be outraged at the Dem leadership for not making the case AT ALL for single payer, for capitulating to conservatives and the insurance industry at every turn, and for completely disregarding the demands of the public. It seems easier to just attack one guy rather than all of the conservadems, especially since they never commit to a position. This misdirected rage reminds me more and more of the Tea Partiers.
drillfork
@craptractor: Gore just might have done him some good with a better VP candidate, too.
Seriously, fuck you all who still blame Nader. Christ…
Mike Kay
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
And if Gore had won New Hampshire, he would have won 271 Electoral Vote and the election.
If Gore won, based on Richard Clarke’s book, I doubt 9/11 would ever had happened.
balki
One last thought, since I’ve hijacked this thread already (and at this point, nobody is reading it.)
Our economy is in a very dangerous place right now. Maybe you think it’s unlikely, but it’s not hard to find economists who say we’re heading for an even bigger crash. While I completely understand that this bill will provide relief to many people who are in desperate circumstances, it only reinforces the biggest problem, which is that taxpayer subsidies to massive corporations with monopolies (who now can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections–in the open, as opposed to the way they used to do it) are what has caused most of our biggest problems. One reason we’re unhealthy is because we subsidize corn growers, giving them incentive to make even more sodas and chips and other shit to make us fat, sick, and inactive. We subsidize oil companies to speed our imminent ecological disaster. Banks are taking money given to them by the people interest free, and are charging us 30% to borrow it back. Investment firms like Goldman, well, you know all about that. I’m not saying anything any of you don’t already know, of course. So now we’re going to increase subsidies to an insurance industry where they make more money if they can find a way to deny your coverage. Again, they have an incentive to screw you, and those corporations are, by their fiduciary responsibility, required to do whatever they can to increase the value of their stock and profits. I recognize that there are some new safeguards in this bill to combat this, but you must realize that the insurance companies have armies of lawyers working on ways to handle that.
While this will undoubtedly help individuals and families currently suffering, it will give insurance companies tens of billions in new profits over the next few years. Sure, the newly-covered people will be subsidized and won’t have to pay out of pocket, but that just means the government will borrow more money from a foreign country to pay private corporations acting as middlemen to allocate care to us. Tens of billions of dollars in new profits (even with the new limits on profit margins). And it’s all coming from us whether we’re sending it from our checkbooks or through the government.
Rant and thread hijack over. But please rethink your burning hatred for Kucinich. He’s one vote out of hundreds, and he’s one of the very few people in Congress who is serious about dealing with our massive problems with bold solutions.
les
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Sorry, this is just fucking stupid. Republicans got elected, passed radical right/conservative legislation and the “public” (read punditors) said, “geeze, the elected reps passed all this right wing bullshit, the country is center/right.” Kucinich’s absolute ineffectiveness moves nothing except the naughty bits of the purists.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@les:
The Overton Window is not my concept. It was thought up, oddly enough, by a guy named Overton. I was just pointing out to Doug that to whatever extent you accept it as a concept, it doesn’t operate by politely asking for ten minutes of face time on CSPAN-3 at 2 AM.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Mike Kay:
Hang on a minute while I write this down… Nader responsible for 9/11. Got it. What else? The anthrax mailings? Diebold machines in Ohio? Killed the last living descendant of Jesus Christ?
Mike Kay
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.): At the very least, for ALL those people (probably you as well) who think 9/11 in some way was an inside job, then yes by definition, Gore’s election would have prevented the disaster. Nader is just as guilty as Scalia in enabling Bush’s “sinking of the Maine”.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@Mike Kay:
You think wrong.