Guess I'm just a glutton for punishment.

[Atticus]

I posted here last night about my disgust with how difficult it has been to even get the public option within striking distance of being seriously considered despite Democratic control of Congress and the clear majority which supports it. I stated that "if Baucus and Lieberman and their ilk are allowed to define "what we stand for", then to hell with it. I don't want to be that type of "Democrat" and I won't be sending a check or knocking on doors or hanging signs or manning a phone for them."

Is this considered sacrilege at DU? I am a liberal Democrat. As long as the Democrats will allow me to be both---a liberal and a Democrat---I intend to remain both. But, if I MUST choose---and, I hope I never have to---I will choose to be a liberal.

You can call Lieberman a Democrat if you choose to, but I think that is craven hypocrisy, i.e., old-style "politics as usual", at its worst. Personally, I wouldn't piss on the man if he was on fire, let alone give him a chairmanship.

Ed Schultz's poll tonight had to do with which is more important: a Democratic majority in Congress or passage of the public option. One of Ed's guests yesterday (sorry, I don't recall his name) argued that we should be willing to sacrifice the public option in order to keep our Congressional majority. The poll result (sigh, yes, I know the poll is totally skewed and unreliable) was 93% in favor of the public option.

Two points need to be made: 1.) Who says standing up for the people and the public option most of them want will cost us our majority? 2.) If we can't use it to implement OUR policy, what the hell good is our "majority"?

The reason for the title of this post is that last night's offering received several recs and then the UA (Unrecs Anonymous) swept the post off the board. Not one posted the reason for their displeasure. I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinion, but I guess I was naive enough to believe that most who posted here had the spine and integrity to disagree "in the open". What happened to my post was worthy of Rim Job's disciples.

Clearly, my views aren't popular, but being right makes up for that.

[Robb]

1. Unrecs "sweep posts off the board" now?

I'll have to look into that.

[Atticus]

4. Not literally.

The post remains accessible, but once half a dozen recs are nullified and the post stands "<unreccommend" for a while, it dies. And, all without one word of actual criticism or refutation. As I said, its not the disagreement that I find offensive. It's the fact that no one has the integrity to "take credit" for their differing point of view.

[sandnsea]

2. This post stands up for nobody

In case you thought otherwise. There are senators fighting like hell for the public option, you might want to consider helping them, you know, picking up a mop.

[Atticus]

6. Can I not do both?

Can I not support Durbin and Whitehouse et al and still criticize Lieberman and Baucus and their ilk? Is Ol' Joementum "fighting like hell" for us now?

As for "picking up a mop", I have repeatedly written and phoned my Democratic senators and even my Republican Congressman to support a public option. Have you?

I have financially supported organizations which are running some great ads on TV in support of the public option. Have you?

I was in DC on 9-13-09, in a sea of Teabaggers, marching in support of a public option. Were you there?

Regardless of your answers, thank you for having the integrity to disagree "in public". I'd bet that what we agree on greatly outweighs our differences.

[sandnsea]

7. Not really, bitching depresses people

It doesn't motivate them to believe they can change something and pick up the phone and gather their friends and do what needs changing.

There's a time for bitching, certainly. It would be nice if CT would rise up against Lieberman in no uncertain terms.

Otherwise it seems useless to yell at Senators who have constituents who oppose the public option because they've got no one educating them otherwise. Seems like it would be more useful to find a Louisiana poll that proves Miss Mary wrong and then help her constituents confront her with it.

[Atticus]

9. "Bitching", huh? So, am I supposed to be locked in to "cheerleader" mode, 24/7?

And, just when is the "time for bitching" in your opinion? After liberal support has been taken for granted AGAIN? Or would some DU-approved well-mannered "bitching"---just a little of it---be OK BEFORE the fence-straddlers cast their votes?

It would be "nice" if several supposed Democrats would contact "Rent-A-Sac", too, but I'm afraid that's about as likely as CT "rising up against Lieberman".

[sandnsea]

8. dupe

[gleaner]

3. I agree with you ...

That is why I am always telling people who say I "hate" Obama if I don't support everything he does, not to tell me what to feel or think.

It is nice to have a Democratic majority, but if they do nothing but sit on their hands what is the point? I want my majority to fight for me and for the base as a whole on everything from health insurance to banking regulation to building decent safety nets and a more bearable life for all Americans.

You're doing fine, and your thinking is clear. You can be both a Democrat and an independent thinker, and I think it is time everyone realized that. And I gave you your first "rec," though I don't do that very much. I haven't been here long enough to feel worthy.;)

[Laelth]

5. Hear, hear. I am a liberal first and a Democrat second.

Well said, and yes. Those who see politics as a team sport often attack those of us who don't. Nothing can be done about that, honestly.

:dem:

-Laelth

[eridani]

10. If the public option doesn't benefit anyone until 2013, it may well--

--cost us the majority. As written, it won't. Let people into Medicare right now!

[Atticus]

11. This Democrat would vote for that. nt

[eridani]

12. You and elderly teabaggers too

What would be the downside from the standpoint of getting votes.

[Atticus]

13. I have heard several commentators mention that Medicare reimbursement rates are

ridiculously low in some--- mostly western---states. Supposedly, doctors and hospitals simply cannot survive if most of their patients in these rural, low-income areas are Medicare patients.

For senators or Congressmen from these states, anything associated with Medicare is a "poison pill" and guarantees their opposition.

But, I'd still support it and just resolve to fix the rates.

[eridani]

14. Yes, I live in WA, and Cantwell in the Senate and Inslee and Dicks in the House

--have actually introduced legislation to fix that. It could be done separately if not attached to current legislation. Letting more people in would be a driver for fixing that problem. I don't even think it's a poison pill--they are pursuing this regardless of what else is going on.