I'm tired of the media & a few vocal Democrats, too, who are telling liberals they need to grow up

[mtnsnake]

.....such as Fareed Zakaria from CNN's GPS this morning telling liberals they need to grow up and stop whining about Obama always wanting to compromise with Republicans all the time. Fareed thinks President Obama is the only adult and liberals are a bunch of whiny babies.

Someone needs to tell Fareed and the liberal bashers from either side that liberals are not complaining about compromise. Liberals are complaining about getting taken to the cleaners time and time again in the name of compromise only.

Someone needs to ask Fareed where our party would be without its base of liberals.

Someone needs to tell him and all the rest of the so-called experts that compromise isn't compromise when only one party is willing to compromise. Obviously, Fareed and the experts haven't looked into the 2009 Republicans Unabridged Dictionary yet. Had they done so, they would see that the word "compromise" is surprisingly absent from its pages.

[OHdem10]

1. Boehner will not use the word. He knows it is toxic among

Republicans.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. Agreed. I will not compromise with pedophiles, Nazis, or anyone doing harm to my country.

Repukes have been doing harm to my country for 31 years.

To REASON with them is to be an idiot.

[Supersedeas]

40. The Repubs are joking - JOKING - about holding the country hostage and CNN attacks those

who have doubts about compromising with hostage takers.

[gateley]

3. What some consider "being taken to the cleaners" others consider

"compromise".

I was made aware of this when I heard Robert Gibbs react in an astounded way that the liberals (and some not-so liberals) were up in arms about the final Health Care Deal. THEY were thinking it was a major accomplishment, they'd gotten coverage for just about all, it was the first major health reform in years and years, etc.

It just served as a reminder that we all view circumstances through our own filters and from our own approaches. Even when presented facts, figures, both sides offer compelling arguments.

It's frustrating.

[Armstead]

10. Well yes, But when very basic compromise is taken off the table preemptively, it is surrender

In the health care debate, the actual starting point was between a system based on private-health for-profit corporations as the primary source of coverage (with some supplement for a narrow spectrum from medicare and medicaid) and a system where the public sector provided universal coverage.

For people (who share the opinion of most of the developed world) who believed that the public sector should drive coverage, the "public option" as a limited expansion was already a huge compromise as the starting point. It also would have at least been a fairly modest step towards the larger goal.

When Obama and Congressional Democrats even gave up on a public option (and a modest step like lowering the age of Medicare eligibility to allow people over 55 to buy into it) tghey actually abandoned and surrendered and gave up 85 percent of what should have been the starting point for compromise. A PUBLIC OPTION ALSO HAD PUBLIC SUPPORT.

Instead they surrendered by further locking us into the private corporate coverage model.

That is the kind of thing that many find so frustrating. It is never a 50-50 compromise, but one in which liberal Democrats are forced to give up 75 percent to the GOP.

[boppers]

46. And yet, the right wing was screaming bloody murder about the final bill.

...and still is.

They believe that they gave up huge amounts in the name of "compromise"....

Some folks just believe they gave up 75% and only got 25%... regardless of the political side they're on.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Well then Gibbs was a fool, because the standards that they

failed in that health care bill were their own, Obama's campaign standards. He was strongly against the mandate, said any bill he signed would have to have a strong public option. Let me repeat- Obama said those things. Those were the standards he was setting for himself. So when it was all mandates and no public option with few cost controls, he failed his own standards, Gibbs failed his own campaign rhetoric, the WH failed to do what they said they would, they failed to try, then they failed to acknowledge that those standards had once been Obama's own, and blamed liberals for having such standards. Cynical, crass politics of the most self serving kind.

[Scurrilous]

4. No one likes a whiner. n/t

[Number23]

42. And "whiny babies" are disliked even more

:)

[ladjf]

5. Let's make this point perfectly clear, there have been NO

compromises, only capitulations. nt

[Supersedeas]

62. but compromise is what they are calling it and what they continue to fall for

[villager]

6. Especially given that it was the "liberals" who were right about the issues

corporate overreach, the futility of war, growing eco-collapse, et al...

Probably why they're scorned by both corporate parties.

[swilton]

7. Thank you!

Even if this gets unrec'd to extinction, please continue!

[geckosfeet]

8. Pleeez - sell out your soul to greed and corruption so we have some company in hell.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crim son]

11. What they mean is "give up" but they don't want to say it. n/t

[Armstead]

12. Fareed Zakaria is basically a Neo-Con (neo-Liberal) Corporatist. He is NOT a liberal

He pushes the free trade agenda, and believes that national interests should be made subservient to the whims of Big Global Monopoly Capitalism.

[flamingdem]

14. He is a pragmatist, he pointed out many truths that are painful to deal with

He was right about Obama not having the support to pass more than he has and its a fantasy that Obama can bully his policies through, as you can see if you're following the vote counts.

[Cosmocat]

20. 535 to 1

Basic math.

The final HCR bill BARELY passed, I mean one fricken vote and it had to be basically backdated to get it past the finish line.

The MSM, taking the repubican's lead spent nearly a year babbling about SOCIALISM, and people actually believe that if the president had tried to push single payer it would have changed the final outcome?

Look, I KNOW the best way to go is single payer, it just is simple common sense. But, being based in REALITY, I recognize that the president could only go where congress was able to get to.

I sent letters to friggen Health Shuler - the BLUE DOGS in both chambers were the people who definied thing.

But, sure, blame ACTUALLY GETTING HCR PASSED on BO.

Republicans call the man the most radical, keynesian, lefties president we ever had.

The left thinks he is one big sell out.

[flamingdem]

21. We would have single payer if it wasn't for resistance in congress

At least HCR left a pathway to single payer and it was intentional. We're not dealing with an incompetent president but a blue dog disaster and practically a right wing coup attempt!

[Cosmocat]

31. Yep ...

The health insurance industry had been gearing for that battle for a LONG time, and had put its money where it needed to be - they had the R party bought in total, which takes out nearly half of congress in on blow. And, the put enough money into the likes of Max Baucus to have strategic control with key democrats.

[dflprincess]

35. Requiring that we continue to purchase over priced products that we won't be able to use from

the same old crooks is not reform. At one point, Obama said we needed a public option to "keep them (health insurers) honest". So he admitted they were crooks but, in the end, had no problem selling us out to them. After the bill was passed Rahm bragged about how they "kept the private delivery system intact".

There is nothing in that scam that guarantees most of us access to care. The only guarantee is that billions of public and private dollars will be funneled into pockets of a corrupt industry that contributes nothing to our health and well being - in fact it makes more money when it makes access to care more difficult.

[Cosmocat]

36. I don't disagree on the points ...

Look, Max Baucus ran the thing on the senate end, and Baucus took more money from health insurance companies than any other congressmen, Rs included.

The senate defined the bill, and even at that the House could not even get a single payer bill pushed through.

He signed what got to his desk. Had they gotten a better bill, even a single payer system, he would have signed it.

[dflprincess]

43. He could have vetoed it

instead he chose to side with the insurance industry.

[Cosmocat]

44. Your kidding, right?

Look, the bill isn't what WE wanted, but ... You know, not allowing people to be excluded from coverage due to preexisting conditions, being able to carry your children until they turn 28 ...

It is a STEP toward single payer, and the first HCR in several generations, and obviously, the last shot in some time to make a run at it ...

Veto it?

Seriously, that is just absurd ...

[dflprincess]

45. "Preserving the private delivery system"

is not a step toward single payer. We are required to buy the same old crap from the same old crooks and all that does is dig them in deeper. The whole scam is a giant step away from single payer.

True, they can't deny you if you have a pre-existing condition, but they can jack the premium up so high the only "coverage" you'll be able to afford will have out of pocket expenses that are so high you won't be able to afford to use it.

"Children" are covered until they are 26, not 28 - assuming you can afford the premium for them.

There was an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune several weeks ago about how the health insurance companies are posting record profits thanks to the high deductible policies more Americans are getting stuck with. The article followed people with chronic conditions who are delaying check ups or trying to stretch medicine because they can't afford the out of pockets (these are middle class people, not ones who will qualify for subsidies). People with manageable conditions are getting sicker and in, some cases, dying sooner than they should. Nothing in the bill will change that.

This bill does nothing to guarantee access to care, and it does nothing to lower the number of medical bankruptcies that will be filed every year in this country - in fact, it will probably help increase that number.

Yes he should have vetoed it. Instead he decided the health of the insurance companies' bottom lines was more important than our health.

Leaving the private health insurance system intact is a major economic as well as a moral failure. Private health insurance is a millstone around the neck of small business and entrepreneurs. People simply can't afford to go into business because of the cost of private health insurace.

[joeglow3]

51. This is the problem with politics

Our immediate gratification society doesn't want to have to deal with walking somewhere. They wish they were in Star Trek and could simply teleport there. Basically, you are saying that since we don't have teleporting technology (a fact just like it was a fact that single payer would not pass), we should just sit on our asses instead of taking steps towards our ultimate destination. Simply amazing.

[dflprincess]

53. I find it amazing that anyone considers this forced support of a system

that is clearly broken to be a step forward.

The for profit middle man system we have now is unsustainable and we would have been better off to do nothing and let the whole thing collapse of its own weight. Instead, we're expected to delay the inevitable and continue to prop it up. It won't be long before we're even worse off than we are now and not any closer to an actual health care system.

We needed reform that gave us access to care instead the insurance companies got reform that gave them access to our bank accounts with no strings attached. The other big winners in this deal will be the credit card companies, as more and more people are forced to use plastic to cover medical expenses their mandated, "reformed" insurance doesn't and the bankruptcy lawyers.

[joeglow3]

54. I bet the cancer survivor looking for private coverage would disagree with you

nt.

[dflprincess]

55. I know someone in that situation

She will have COBRA for another few months but has been looking around to see what's available when that runs out. The cheapest policy she found costs $500/month and has a $10,000 deductible before the insurance will pay a dime. She's living on $1200/month disability and does not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid or any state program because her income is "too high". She can hardly afford her current COBRA payments.

Unfortunately, the odds that her cancer will come back are pretty high. Her doctors and the hospital she's treated at have waived most of her out of pocket expenses, which amounts to about $2,000/year with her current insurance but she's worried they won't be able to write off $10,000 - along with anything else the insurance company decides not to cover. She's also worried that the new insurance won't cover some of the drugs she takes.

Only in America do seriously ill people have to worry about money - and Insurance Profit Protection Act will not change that.

[joeglow3]

56. Sadly, you don't even realize you proved my point

Sadly, that change has not taken effect. However, I bet your friend would LOVE that change to take place today. Why don't you tell your friend you support that change never taking effect? I bet she would be glad to die in the meantime so "the system can implode on itself."

[dflprincess]

58. That change will not make a difference

Yes, the insurance companies will have to cover her. But they can still charge so much that she'll wind up only being able to afford something with a 10K deductible. There is also no guarantee that they'll cover whatever drugs she may need to take. My friend, long active in the DFL, and an advocate for single payer long before she got sick, is even more disgusted with the scam than I am. She needs access to care, not a mandated monthly payment to the jerks who are happy to take her money but will find anyway possible to avoid paying a claim (and she has had hassles with that as well).

My brother was also in this situation. He was on COBRA ($400/month) but his group policy was due to renew June 1 and we (I say we because I was paying the COBRA for him) didn't know how much the premium might go to. The other problem was that he was on a really expensive daily chemo pill that many insurance companies don't cover at all - we were really concerned about what would happen if his group policy moved to another company. The other problem we had was that I had been laid off and was paying $500 for my own COBRA - I knew I couldn't keep that up and if one of us was going to go without coverage it wouldn't be the one with the cancer. My brother was also receiving disability but made "too much" to qualify for any government program.

I heard a lot of stories like this from other patients and family members in the support group I joined while he was going through treatments. I heard some people fret that they wouldn't die before their families went bankrupt - it was usually the patients who worried most about money. My brother died before June 1 and I have wondered if the worries about being able to continue his care helped speed his death.

Again, the Profit Protection Act will change none of this. Unless a person is broke or old enough to qualify for a government program the private insurers will be able to charge what they want and set out of pockets so high people will still go bankrupt and, more shamefully, die because they could not afford treatment. This system will still implode - all the bill does is buy the insurance executives a few more years to line their pockets before it does.

Congress and Obama sold us out to the insurers and there is no way that is defensible.

[Supersedeas]

61. the devil is in the details

[dionysus]

64. what part of, the votes weren't there don't you understand? ppl act as if the congress would

have passed single payer if only that mean old obama hadn't stopped them. that's not reality.

[Armstead]

24. If you are a liberal, I have one basic alternative way of looking at these things

Have a little more faith in your own liberal beliefs as being a solution, and have a little more faith that people can be convinced of that politically a real case is made.

[Odin2005]

29. He's a fucking establishment PROPAGANDIST who defends Corporate Globalism.

[Fruittree]

50. Agree

[Hawkowl]

57. Bullshit

Neo-con liberals use the term "pragmatist" to mean they promote the status quo and their lack of a backbone.

[mtnsnake]

18. I never said he was, & it doesn't matter what he is

When someone generalizes about liberals in the manner that Fareed did, then they are simply trying to get attention by sensationalizing the issue instead of looking at it objectively.

[Armstead]

23. Well it does matter, although I agree with your basic point

Let me put it another way. I agree that it is a problem when liberals basically push a conservative line -- that actual liberal reform is "impractical and not politically viable."

The effect is the same whether that crap is coming from a pseudo-centrist (corporatist) conservative like Fareed, or a pseudo-liberal (corporatist) or from a real liberal who is too timid and doesn't really have any confidence in his/her own beliefs.

The effect from all of these ios the same -- to further entrench conservatism as the only "realistic" position and to further weaken the image of liberalism as a valid alternative.

[chill_wind]

13. Fareed Zakaria, Spokesperson for the Global Elite

Newsweek pundit presents pro-corporate views as the poor’s perspective

FAIR
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3593

The following are both former and current affiliations for Dr. Zakaria:

Aspen Strategy Group, Member
Bilderberg 2003, Attendee
Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Staff
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Trustee
New America Foundation, Director
Director, International Freedom Center
Advisory Board (2009), Praeger Security International <1>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fhttp://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3593areed_Zakaria

Fareed Zakaria. Not a spokesperson for me or mine.

[flamingdem]

15. However, he knows who runs the world and how its going to work in reality nt

[chill_wind]

17. Yes, I guess he does, since he is a vested part of that elite. n/t

[flamingdem]

19. Yes, but marginally. Journalists aren't that much in the elite nt

[chill_wind]

22. I think his movement within a host of the most notable power circles

of the American/global elite puts his voice as something a bit above marginal in value to those who need him.

[Maven]

33. No he knows his elitist AGENDA. Stop equating people like him with the "realist" perspective

Jus because they are for fucking over the poor.

"Realism" is what we make of it.

[bvar22]

16. The MSM has an agenda,

and that is to advance the positions of their RICH owners.
That is WHY there is no Voice of The Left in our Media World.
The owners of the Media, and our Political Parties, would be very happy
to keep the national Debate between the conservative Pro-Corporate Book Ends.

Even Rachel and the other Talking Heads on MSNBC have to walk a very thin line,
and cast Obama & the Centrist Democrats as the Liberal end of The Spectrum.



Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Supersedeas]

63. a free market press that awards those who attrack advertising dollars

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. Fareed strongly supports conservative neo-liberal economics. He used to be a Republican

and was even rumored to be in the running as a possible future Republican Secretary of State. He would probably still be a Republican if the Republican Party had not become so virulently anti-Muslim. Fareed even initially supported the neo-Conservatives until he realized that they were a bunch of dangerous crazies. So basically Mr. Zakaria is one of those people who is a Republican at heart but cannot identify with the party anymore because of their extremist positions - particularly their anti-Muslim rabble rousing which of course Fareed cannot help but take personal. So it is not surprising that he doesn't care much for the liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party - because he is in fact a jilted and broken-hearted Republican who discovered that his kind will never be wanted in the Grand Old Party - But he is certainly not a New Deal Democrat.

[Dawson Leery]

39. Most pundits are establishment tools.

That is why they are paid millions each year. It's a valuable investment.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. you know I used to wonder where on earth right-wingers got the idea tha the media was liberal

but - They really, really did seem to believe it - no matter how preposterous that sounded to most of us. Well, I think much of the media and probably most of it other than the out and out loonies like we find on Fox News probably are liberal in the same sense that that Fareed Zakaria is liberal or the typical young Wall Street stock trader is liberal. They are probably reasonably open minded about many social issues. They probably are smart enough to know that global warming is real and there does need to be some environmental regulations. They realize that getting into unwinnable warms is a bad idea and it would be best to avoid no win situations in foreign policy especially when it comes to the use of military force. They may even recognize that some social-welfare spending is simply being sensible. But they still subscribe to basic neo-liberal economics. They believe that the New Deal and Great Society are dead and buried and that the area of strong unions is gone forever. They still believe that America must maintain global military dominance even at the cost of a military budget that equals that of every other military budget of every other country in the world combined together. So they are certainly not liberals at all in the New Deal or Great Society sense or certainly the sense of the old real liberals of the late 60's and early 70's like George McGovern, Frank Church or Birch Bayh. On domestic economics they are not even as liberal as Nixon or Ford were. But when put on the screen next to the lunatics that dominate today's Republican Party or compared with nut cases of Fox News - or an evil madman like Rick Perry - this grotesque change of parameters makes them sound liberal in comparison.

[mzmolly]

26. The problem is that some will find fault

with every legislative act that doesn't meet specific standards for absolute perfection.

The Tea Party wasn't happy with the debt deal, either.

[Lorien]

30. Yeah, I guess not having that last 2% of what they wanted really upset the poor dears

:eyes:

[mzmolly]

38. That's about it.

:hi: They'll find the 2 percent, and stomp their feet for decades.

[Odin2005]

27. Zakaria is a typical establishment Globalist Neo-Liberal Corporatist.

He's in the same category as Niall Ferguson, Francis Fukuyama, and other Establishment propagandist "intellectuals".

[amb123]

32. Compromise = Liberals Lose

Every Time!

My reply to the Enemies of Liberalism (in both the Republican AND DEMOCRATIC Parties):

We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest. We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned. We have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded. We have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came.

We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them!

What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth.

Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

- William Jennings Bryan, 1896 Democratic Convention

[Fearless]

34. +1

[boppers]

47. "against the encroachments of aggregated wealth"?

You mean, like running a plantation with slave labor?
Like rampant land speculation, while forcing the land's original inhabitants off at gunpoint?
Like robbing the federal bank to invest in private banks?

That Andrew Jackson?

[ljm2002]

37. Zakaria's comments infuriated me...

...and really, it was a straw man argument. We aren't mad that President Obama compromises, we're mad that he gives away the store before negotiations even begin. We're not mad that he doesn't win big on liberal issues, we're mad that he doesn't fight for them in the first damned place.

These guys just love to spin, and they're all in the Beltway Bubble, where the deficit is the biggest problem facing America and where policies that 80% of Americans favor (tax the rich) aren't ever seriously considered -- and when liberals complain about this obvious abuse of power by the Democrats, who are after all supposed to be the People's Party, we are told to grow up.

Well screw you, Mr. Zakaria. Sorry if it's not grown-up sounding. I'm getting to be a pretty old broad at this point, and I remember politicians who fought against the odds for things they believed in. Sometimes they even won. But win or lose, fighting for principles always advanced the cause so that later, the cause could be won.

Please refer to the women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movements, for two salient examples.

And by the way, Mr. Zakaria: what do you think of the movements in the Middle East right now, like the demonstrations in Egypt? They didn't have a chance in hell of succeeding, did they? But here's the thing: if you don't try, even against log odds, you never know what you could have done. If our side had fought for something more than they could get, they may have got a lot more than they did in the health care bill, and in the stimulus package. Our Congress people were also to blame, but our fearless leader could have led with vigor and joined battle with the ludicrous loonies on the right. Instead he chose to make back room deals with them, often leaving out representatives from his own side, and ALWAYS leaving out the most liberal and progressive voices.

[Vattel]

41. Why is it so hard for people to understand

that many of Obama's liberal detractors disagree with Obama on questions of policy, and not just on questions of strategy.

[Supersedeas]

65. in so much as the strategy motivated by a necessity to reach a compromise with the

far right is also a reflection of actual policy

[saras]

48. Me, too. Tired of projection in general

Where the hell does the Tea Party and its supporters, or for that matter DLC fans of corporate infantilism, come of telling ANYONE ANYTHING about growing up?

[sudopod]

52. You just don't understand how important it is to stop the Communists in Vietnam.

If not there, then where? Real adults understand that simple fact.

[treestar]

59. Well that is usually a sign that someone needs to grow up

Being unrealistic and demanding is just what teens and children can do, because they don't understand that life involves tough choices, compromises, and dealing with other people. Of course they get "tired" of being told the facts if they don't want to hear them.

[PVnRT]

60. You're right, everyone should just shut up and be happy with what Washington gives us

:eyes: