Many of us have HAD IT with Hamsher/Huffington and their naysaying.

[RBInMaine]

We are sick and tired of it, and they will fail. Screech and complain, screech and complain. It's all they seem to know. Those people need to go back and re-take basic civics and history. Yes, about all of us here believe the health bill is flawed. I am not thrilled with it. If I had a magic wand we'd have single payer and nationalized hospitals tomorrow. But that won't happen. So in this real world we get the best we can. The government is very far from perfect. So is the country. So is our planet. But you don't clench your fists and scream "NO" when you don't get all of what you want. You get the most you can given the complex of variables, and you then build on it down the road. This is far from the end of healthcare reform. But it is a start. Just a START, and I so I am joining Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Anthony Weiner, and Barabara Boxer and supporting this bill, even without a public option, as a START. I believe the conference report will pass, and Obama and Dems will be rewarded. Americans want problems solved. The PUKES have decided to play politics at all costs. They are gambling, and they will lose. Moderate Indys control national politics at the end of the day, and they will side with those working to get something done and not obstructors either from the far right or far left. From our very independence to emancipation to social security to medicare, there have been flaws and big compromises. We must make a start, and the chance will not be possible again for a very long time. I say we take it, and then work to improve it in the future at every level of government. I have served on many private and public boards and committees. If we didn't compromise, sometimes even to levels that did not sit particulary well, nothing at all would ever have been accomplished. And "nothing" is very, very rarely acceptable.

[wndycty]

1. K&R. . .well said

:kick:

[KoKo]

98. If it bothers you why read it? There are other sites out there.

:shrug: Why do these two seem to be accused of SCREECHING... Seen a lot worse than Huff Post and Firedoglake. What's so bad about them?

[RBInMaine]

107. Yup, there are others. They can say it, and in America I and others can refute it. Tit for tat.

[yellerpup]

2. Yes, a start is a start.

Tantrums are ineffective. Compromise is difficult to achieve and not perfect but it IS a start. The opposition wouldn't have even tried. K&R

[stopbush]

3. HuffPo has really gone off the deep end.

It's a refuge for woo-woo, from mountains of wacko "alternative medicine" articles, to opinion pieces advancing the most-risible conspiracy theories one could imagine (and always with a book to promote while they're at it). Half of its articles and links are celebrity themed crap that would make the editors at OK! magazine blush.

Didn't start out that way and didn't need to end up that way.

HuffPo is off my bookmarks these days. Then again, DU is off my bookmarks these days.

[donco6]

4. Don't read them.

Unless, of course, you want to hear the bad with the good. Like an adult, I mean.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

86. Couldn't have said it better myself n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

5. This bill helps the poor but FUCKS the middle class.

That's what critics are trying to get you to see. You say we're screeching and throwing tantrums, and maybe some opponents of the bill are doing just that. But most of what I see from proponents is lectures, guilt trips, and appeals to authority.

[stopbush]

6. How DARE you say that we in the opposition are appealing to authority!

Keep it up and I'll report you to the mods. :sarcasm:

Hope you're having a lovely holiday!

[Hello_Kitty]

25. You got your precious bill signed.

You won.

[stopbush]

27. Nothing's been won yet.

You know that, and I know that.

The only real difference between us is that you want to win everything in one fell swoop, where I see a long and arduous process to win everything that stretches out over decades. I believe that this start is far better than nothing. You believe it is nothing...or worse.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. One of us may be right. And I meant to say "passed" not "signed"

Anyway, Merry Christmas. :)

[Armstead]

89. This HAS been stretching for decades....That's why the "It's a start" crap os boigus

Don;t be so high and mighty. Many peope here and elsewhere have been pushing for refiorm for years, and were ignored while the situation got worse and worse. Clinton the Democrats (not all but most) walked away from the whole damn issue after Clinton's baroque plan collapsed. No "incremental" reforms for the general population for over a decade.

We were hoping that when they finally did decide to stop ignoring it, they would at least not do more harm than good. This bill does a little bit of good, but a lot of harm and leaves the basic crap system more entrenched than before (mandates).

A "start" would have been a bill with REAL regulation -- like setting upper limits on prices and requiring approval for any futrther increases.

A "Start" would have at least done something like expanding Medicare access -- even by a few years to allow older people to get coverage.

A "start" would have been to put in place policies that would make insurance MORE affordable for EVERYONE. This bill does very lottle for that.

[OhioBlue]

120. no bill has been signed on HCR.

A bill has passed the Senate, now it goes to conference committee.

[Kber]

7. In what way?

[Hello_Kitty]

24. Most won't qualify for any subsidies and their premiums will continue to rise.

And note that the bill contains a "poison pill" - it has to pay for itself. Subsidies can be cut if it looks like the costs will exceed expectations.

[Kber]

30. Would killing the bill make things better or worse for the middle class?

[Hello_Kitty]

34. Will passing the bill make things better or worse for the middle class?

Killing the bill is out of the question at this point so let's deal with reality. The majority of Americans think this bill will not help them, according to several recent polls. If you want to sell this bill to the middle class, how will you do it?

[Kber]

39. I would suggest that "getting fucked" and not getting helped are not entirely the same thing

Your beef seems to be that the bill helps some people more than others. I wasn't really asking about how to sell it. I'm trying to understand the guts or meat of the bill and how it fucks the middle class, as you contend.

Or do I misunderstand your point?

[Hello_Kitty]

41. The majority of Americans think it will not help them.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/16/poll-health-care-reform-will-bring-higher-costs/

Lecturing me will not ameliorate that situation. What would you say to your apolitical neighbor who has misgivings about this plan? To make it interesting, assume her income is too high for subsidies. How would you sell her on it?

[boppers]

66. 75% of the population gets subsidies. 25% does not.

I agree that there seems to be a perception problem, because the 25%, one out of four, happen to be quite vocal, and are generally the ones who have the jobs as talking heads.

What would I say? I'd ask them if they were making over 44K a year (if they were single) or if they and their spouse make over 88K. If they were making over that amount I'd ask them if they'd be willing to pay less in premiums because acute care costs would be reduced by more people having preventative care.

[Hello_Kitty]

71. Guess who votes in mid-terms?

What would I say? I'd ask them if they were making over 44K a year (if they were single) or if they and their spouse make over 88K. If they were making over that amount I'd ask them if they'd be willing to pay less in premiums because acute care costs would be reduced by more people having preventative care.


If it were a couple of 40 year olds their premiums would be $7000 a year. And that's just premiums. They'd have an out of pocket max of $10k. Whether or not you think it's someone's moral duty to be insured, you are presenting them with a new bill of $583 per month. We're not talking a 5% income tax increase here. We're talking 8% of their income. Just for premiums. And that's without any kind of preexisting conditions. Plus the out of pockets. And no public option.

As for your assertion that 75% of Americans would qualify for subsidies, I'm not sure how accurate it is (sounds plausible given how wages have stagnated) but remember that the subsidies phase out the higher you get toward 400% FPL. So people making 300% or more aren't going to be getting that much. The 40 year old couple in my example at 300% FPL (about 64K) will get a whopping $632 off their $7000 premium. And remember, that's just the premium.

I'm sorry, but I just can't see people being persuaded by your statement. It's too rational and that's not how people operate. You have to get people emotionally charged up about this bill and the problem you guys have is the only thing you have in your arsenal to convince middle class people that $17,000 out of their household budget is "reform" is lectures and insults.

[boppers]

73. "It's too rational".

Oh, sorry for throwing logic and reality into the mix. I guess that whole "Enlightenment" phase of history was a fluke.

As far as a pair of 40 year olds paying $7,000 a year? They're screwing themselves. No sane person would buy into such a plan. I'm 37, and I can get plans for $46 a month.

Sure, some folks are using the shafting they've given themselves by insurance companies to justify keeping their lemon plans, but it's a lot like folks insisting that they can't afford cars, because the government won't buy them a BMW for "free".

[Hello_Kitty]

93. As someone who has sold health insurance plans in the past

I'm not sure what you'll be able to get for $46 a month at age 37 but I'm pretty sure it won't cover very much.

Oh, sorry for throwing logic and reality into the mix. I guess that whole "Enlightenment" phase of history was a fluke.

Oh sorry, but snotty pedantic insults are not going to make people like this bill. The American public doesn't like it. You have to get them to like it. Frankly, good luck with that since this bill was so skewed toward preserving the health insurance industry, which America hates, and appears to be helping ultra rich CEOs and the poor but not the middle class.

[quakerboy]

115. Where can you get a plan for $46 a month

and what does it cover?

I ask in seriousness, because the cheapest plan I could find locally was well over $100/month(157 and change, if memory serves), and it didnt cover a dime until after 10k of us paying out of pocket. And I am younger than you, a plan for some of my companies older employees went way up from there.

We looked at Aflac, the payouts of which appear to be designed to cover the co-pays if you had some other insurance, and even that was 52 per month for me, and again more for the older employees.

In the end looking at insurance plans, even the catastrophic one as described above turned out to be futile, due to the pre-existing conditions thing, but I did a lot of looking and never found anything remotely affordable, even before considering whether we could even get it or not.

[lazarus]

78. 17,000?

That'd be a cut for us, from the 19k we spent this year. And we have a household income between 50 and 60k. I'll take any subsidy I can get.

[Hello_Kitty]

94. Go sell it to your neighbors then.

Polls are showing Americans against this bill by wide margins.

[cornermouse]

10. Don't forget the attempts to browbeat.

There's been a lot of that.

[treestar]

16. How can that be?

The middle class has insurance. And how are we to feel bad for the middle class over the poor?

The middle class has it better than the poor.

You expect the poor to cry for the middle class?

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Those are some STELLAR talking points, treestar.

Why don't you take that act on the road? You and other corporatist "Democrats" can do a house party or town hall tour where you sell HCR to middle class Americans with:

"The middle class has insurance. And how are we to feel bad for the middle class over the poor?

The middle class has it better than the poor.

You expect the poor to cry for the middle class?

Brilliant.

Oh and what do we need a middle class for anyway? I'm sure you, free trader that you are, agree with the RW pundits coming out lately suggesting the minimum wage should be lowered and that all Americans should accept lower wages to be more "competitive".

[Raineyb]

59. And what about the people who go into bankruptcy because of medical expenses

You know the people who HAD insurance but the insurance companies decided not to pay up. You think mandating that everyone pays the same companies while giving lip service to regulations that the insurance companies have probably figured out how to get around already is going to change that?

You act as though having insurance is the end all to be all of health care without actually taking into consideration having actual ACCESS. If one has insurance but can't afford to get to the doctor after paying the premiums what bloody good is it? THAT doesn't benefit the poor either but that never seems to enter your thinking.

You never address these points while expecting people to celebrate this piece of shit bill. If you're going to sell this you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than you have been. I hope you're being paid well, I'd hate to think you were doing the party's job for nothing. Everyone should be paid for their work.

[tbyg52]

87. You might recall

that Michael Moore originally intended to make Sicko about uninsured people, and after research changed his focus to people who supposedly *were* insured. You can go bankrupt almost as well with insurance as without.

[Hamlette]

8. Well said indeed

the art of the possible.

My problem with the naysayers is they think we could start over and have a new bill in a few months or years. We've not even been able to talk about HCR for 15 years. If we waited 15 years from now, and passed something in 2025, how many ppl suffer and/or die in those years who would have been helped by this bill.

2025.

[cornermouse]

9. If they had really wanted to pass a good bill, they

would have crafted a good bill and passed it the first time. They chose not to. That is fact. That is reality. That's "it is what it is" or any of the other phrases and slogans that have been used recently to justify something that I honestly would have expected from the republicans, not the democrats. It's not unlike watching when Bush passed the Patriot Act and several other things he did that republicans would have fought to the death if a democrat had proposed it.

[stevenleser]

35. LOL, only if you are talking about an alternate reality.

There is no way in THIS reality where we get cloture on what you would probably call a "good bill"

[cornermouse]

37. You have to want it to get it.

They never even tried. n/t

[AzDar]

56. What you said.

:thumbsup:

[IndianaGreen]

11. American independence was not achieved by appeasers and compromisers

It was achieved by a revolution in which the people broke the chains of oppression, and not my making a deal for a few crumbs from their oppressors.

The 8-hour workday you accept today as a matter of fact, was paid for in blood at the Haymarket Square in Chicago by people tired of being exploited by their capitalist employers. The Haymarket Massacre is what gave birth to May Day, the real American (and the world's) Labor Day.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott

The Montgomery Bus Boycott officially started on December 1, 1955. That was the day when the blacks of Montgomery, Alabama, decided that they would boycott the city buses until they could sit anywhere they wanted, instead of being relegated to the back when a white boarded. It was not, however, the day that the movement to desegregate the buses started. Perhaps the movement started on the day in 1943 when a black seamstress named Rosa Parks paid her bus fare and then watched the bus drive off as she tried to re-enter through the rear door, as the driver had told her to do. Perhaps the movement started on the day in 1949 when a black professor Jo Ann Robinson absentmindedly sat at the front of a nearly empty bus, then ran off in tears when the bus driver screamed at her for doing so. Perhaps the movement started on the day in the early 1950s when a black pastor named Vernon Johns tried to get other blacks to leave a bus in protest after he was forced to give up his seat to a white man, only to have them tell him, "You ought to knowed better." The story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott is often told as a simple, happy tale of the "little people" triumphing over the seemingly insurmountable forces of evil. The truth is a little less romantic and a little more complex.

The simple version of the story leaves out some very important people, such as Jo Ann Robinson, of whom Martin Luther King, Jr., would later write, "Apparently indefatigable, she, perhaps more than any other person, was active on every level of the protest." She was an educated woman, a professor at the all-black Alabama State College, and a member of the Women's Political Council in Montgomery. After her traumatic experience on the bus in 1949, she tried to start a protest but was shocked when other Women's Political Council members brushed off the incident as "a fact of life in Montgomery." After the Supreme Court's Brown decision in 1954, she wrote a letter to the mayor of Montgomery, W.A. Gayle, saying that "there has been talk from 25 or more local organizations of planning a city-wide boycott of buses." By 1955, the Women's Political Council had plans for just such a boycott. Community leaders were just waiting for the right person to be arrested, a person who would anger the black community into action, who would agree to test the segregation laws in court, and who, most importantly, was "above reproach." When fifteen year old Claudette Colvin was arrested early in 1955 for refusing to give up her seat, E.D. Nixon of the NAACP thought he had found the perfect person, but Colvin turned out to be pregnant. Nixon later explained, "I had to be sure that I had somebody I could win with." Enter Rosa Parks.

http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/montbus.html

[tinrobot]

19. Yet, the Constitution is nothing but compromise

The House and Senate were created in something called the 'Great Compromise'... the 3/5 person status for slaves was a also a compromise... and there's many more...

[IndianaGreen]

21. To have a Constitution, we had to fight for our independence first

And the Constitution you speak of, which gave us a republic, has been torn to shreds by a unitary executive--which still exists today.

Don't forget that the original Constitution, as part of a compromise with the Blue Dogs of the day, enshrined slavery.

[RBInMaine]

108. Check your history. There was plenty of arm-twisting and back-door dealing to get all colonies to

sign on to independence. New York abstained from the vote, and an estimated 50% of the population was either opposed or neutral. There would have been no independence without help from France and the promise of financial help from Holland in the event of an American success. And France only contributed some support given their longstanding rivalry with Britain and no special love for the colonies who fought with Britain against them in the seven years war. But for Britain's insistence on disallowing colonial representation in parliament, America would likely have seen very gradual independence much like Canada.

[Spazito]

12. Well said!

Recommended!

[jenmito]

13. K&R. Well said. Those who want no change might as well all be Repubs.-the "Party of No." n/t

[tinrobot]

14. Huffington reminds me of Veruca Salt

Spoiled little rich girl who wants her golden ticket and wants it now.

[ClassWarrior]

31. That makes no sense. A "rich girl" can pay for her own health care.

:shrug:

NGU.

[jenmito]

50. She's a spoiled girl who wants everything or nothing-like the "killbillers."

[cornermouse]

15. So much for "the big tent" hypothesis....

[jenmito]

20. When someone walks out of the tent, that's it-they're gone.

[DisgustedInMN]

91. When I get a..

.. bait and switch in the "big tent"..

I tend to leave.

[IndianaGreen]

22. The only ones under the tent are the corporations and the financiers

the people are outside getting wet in the rain.

[Nancy Waterman]

17. Thank you!

I have started to turn off Arianna whenever she is on TV. She just babbles unfounded talking points and it is unbearable to listen to anymore.

On an unrelated topic, I heard her and Bill Maher on his show a few months back talking about the use of antidepressants and how ridiculous they are and how people just need to get a grip and deal with things. I am a clinical social worker and very into alternative health methods and psychotherapy when applicable. But it is clear to me that antidepressants are very necessary for some people, and to talk like that at length on national TV, in complete ignorance as if you are an expert, is very damaging and only helps to stigmatize those who suffer from depression. She has not redeemed herself since in any appearance I have seen on any subject.

[niceypoo]

18. And many of us ignore it

and move on because ultimately it affects nothing. I dont even know who, 'Hamsher,' is or what she did or said, nor do I care. Just a bunch of mindless drama.

[yowzayowzayowza]

26. “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing -

after they've tried everything else.” - Winston Churchill

Traversal of "everything else" is vewy vewy tedious.

[ClassWarrior]

29. The President can take it.

Why can't you?

NGU.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. You have no credibility on this topic.

Blah, blah, incremental, blah, blah, big compromises...

The last time you were discussing a "big compromise" you said that you don't see why YOU should have to pay for women who are too lazy to use a condom. That is what YOU said.

So who really cares what your view of this matter is?

There are many good things in the bill, but I would rather hear about them from someone without a track record as viewing atavistic personal prejudices as a basis for health policy.

[stevenleser]

36. His logic sounds good to me, regardless of what they said in the past (nt)

[RBInMaine]

104. You are full of it. I said was FOR choice but opposed to using public funds for abortion (except

in cases of rape, incest, or life threatening danger to the mother). Sexual intercourse is voluntary behavior, and those who volunteer for it can just as well volunteer their way into a local pharmacy and purchase condoms for a few bucks. Women can also get onto the pill. Stop by planned parenthood and find out what programs are available if contraception help is needed. If you want an abortion, fine. Those involved can cough up the few hundred bucks for it. Sorry if you think my support of a little bit of personal responsibility in this world damages my credibility on the healthcare bill issue, but such is life. Sounds like you would question the "credibility" of anyone with an opinion contrary to yours.

[goclark]

33. Stop it! You are making way too much sense

Just teasing ~ I loved your post and hope that it will be read and given a hint about how the real world of 2009 works.

[jgraz]

38. Fuck yeah! If people want to tear down OUR PRESIDENT they should move to the fricken SOVIET UNION!!

U S A !! U S A !! U S A!!

[vaberella]

40. FDL and Huffpost seem to have an agenda. I just don't know what it is.

Neither makes sense to me.

[jgraz]

48. We call it "democracy".

[WeDidIt]

63. I call it a poutrage whienfest n/t

[jgraz]

70. That's because you're an authoritarian.

[WeDidIt]

83. No,it'd bcause they're having a poutraged whinefest. n/t

[jgraz]

95. If only the peasants would shut up and eat their gruel.

:eyes:

[SoxFan]

92. +100

[RBInMaine]

109. Yes, they have as much right to express counterproductive and out-of-reality views as anyone.

[burning rain]

42. The comparison to Social Security & Medicare is invalid.

Those are public programs; if they were based on the values that inform the Seante health care bill, they would force people to invest on Wall Street for their retirement, and buy private health insurance, respectively. As it is, the Senate health care bill caters to the predatory, price-gouging greedheads of big insurance and PhRMA, and will disillusion the Democratic base, along with less ideological folks in the middle who want practical solutions that favor ordinary people and don't give away the store to corporations. Americans are in a dark and angry mood about the depredations of the corporate world and its near hegemony in our politics, and if Democrats don't do a better job addressing these issues, 2010 will be fought out on issues more congenial to the GOP--their usual diversionary crap about identity, resentment, fear of big gummint, etc.

[RBInMaine]

105. But Medicare only covers the elderly, and subsidizes wealthy doctors and private hospitals. Outrage?

[inna]

43. -1

[BeyondGeography]

44. +1

[krawhitham]

45. Arianna needs to report the news not make news, she is getting as bad a FOX

[totodeinhere]

54. No, she is entitled to her opinion. She doesn't pretend to be a news reporter. She is a...

commentator, and her point of view needs to be heard.

[RBInMaine]

110. Fine she can say it. And others can say she is full of it and that some of her views are nutty.

[freddie mertz]

46. Merry Xmas and an unrec for the new year.

And while I'm at it, I've had it too.

Had it with these crazy, hysterical attacks on any person, public figure, analyst, DUer or otherwise, who dares to venture a criticism of your plaster saint.

"Screech and complain" is all I hear from you and other enemies of open discourse and freedom of conscience.

Please give it a rest, and enjoy the holidays with your friends and families.

[shadesofgray]

47. I stand with MYSELF. I am a LIBERAL and I will not "stand" with ANYONE who goes against my

principles. I may be more inclined to LISTEN to Sanders, Brown or Weiner (not Boxer though - I've seen her less-than-convincing performances too many times on TV) but in the end I will not compromise on what I believe in. But I will say that the Huffpost and Hamsher are going after Obama because of HIS behavior. I may think Hamsher's behavior is self-defeating, but I also think that it is just as self-defeating to go along with the a bill that I know will NEVER be "improved." Obama has already lied about how he didn't campaign on the public option, so he's set the bar so low that the most liberal dem will never be able to raise it. Anybody who thinks they will be able to is simply deluding themselves.

I am not one to stick my head in the sand or scapegoat bloggers who point out Obama's failure, even if they do go about it in the most damaging way possible. That still doesn't negate their point, IMO.

[ChiciB1]

116. Good On You... I Agree! Obama Has Already Back-Tracked A Lot! n/t

[damonm]

117. Time will tell the quality

of your crystal ball. "Never" is a long word, and needs to be used cautiously - and "a bill that I know will NEVER be improved" misses that mark by a good way. I suspect you'd have said the same thing about Social Security and Medicare when they were initially passed - they too had large holes, but they have both been improved. IMO, history works against your prediction.

[shadesofgray]

118. Obama has already set it up to fail, though, by claiming that he never campaigned on the

public option. That's the difference. He is basically calling those of us who want the PO liars for pointing out that he did, even though it's on video. So, he obviously doesn't want the bill to ever be any better.

[damonm]

119. That's a pretty massive non sequitr you've got there. n/t

[firedupdem]

49. K&R! Well Said...

these people are in the business of making money...and if Anti Obama makes them money right now, that's the route they will take.

[Phx_Dem]

51. Thank you! And Merry Christmas.

[billh58]

52. K&R n/t

[totodeinhere]

53. Here's the problem with your OP.

You said "You get the most you can given the complex of variables." That's true, but the point is that we could have got a lot more than what we got. If Obama and the congressional leadership had played some hardball, they could have whipped Lieberman and Nelson and a few others into line and got a better bill. But rather than doing that they kissed Lieberman's ass. They should have threatened to strip him of all committee assignments and to finance his opposition in the next election. The same for Nelson. This has been an historic opportunity gone down the drain.

[bahrbearian]

55. Not me

[depakid]

57. Many of us have also had it with vacuous cheerleading and presumptuous scolding

when the administration refuses to stand up and fight for traditional Democratic values- and Congressional leaders needlessly pander to their most corrupt and dysfunctional elements.

This is how we lose elections- all the while hoisting poor public policy on the people of the United States, while enriching the coffers of corporate donors and their K street allies (who write the legislation).

I would also add that this is how nations decline- and in this nation's case- how it slides inexorably toward third world socioeconomic status.

Bottom line- the health insurance legislation didn't have to be this way- 50 +1 reconciliation was available- only the courage, integrity and political fortitude was lacking. So instead of passing legislation supported by 70% of the electorate- what comes out is policy that lacks even simple majority support.

No amount of apologia or indignation will change that fact.

[Vidar]

58. And many of us haven't.

[BrklynLiberal]

60. I think that those who criticize Obama play a very important role in this administration.

<snip>

So why not pop the champagne corks and celebrate Obama's nomination and election as a victory for what the late Paul Wellstone described as "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"? Because knowing the ideals and values of the left is not the same as practicing them. As a Senator, Obama did not take Feingold as a role model. In fact, they differed on essential constitutional, trade, and Presidential accountability issues, with Obama consistently taking more cautiously centrist positions. One of Obama's first votes in the Senate was to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Dr. Young wrote to his friend. "I told him I was disappointed in him," the veteran campaigner for peace and social and economic justice recalled. "Rice was the embodiment of everything that was wrong with this Administration. So, he called me back and he said: ‘Why didn't you pick up the phone and call me? Do you think Bush would ever send to the Senate a nominee for Secretary of State who I could vote for? I said: ‘You are the constitutional lawyer. It's about advice and consent, right? You should have denied him your consent.' "

Young was, of course, right. But the lesson that should be taken away from the Rice vote, and from the many disappointments that have followed it, ought not be that Obama is a hopeless case. In fact, quite the opposite. In that conversation with Young, the Senator outlined the relationship that the left ought to develop with a powerful but as yet ill-defined President.

<snip>

What Internet activists such as OpenLeft.com's Matt Stoller and Firedoglake.com's Jane Hamsher did during the FISA fight was roughly equivalent to what Obama told Dr. Young to do back in 2005: "Pick up the phone and call me." They were undermined by a rally-round-the-candidate mentality that protected Obama during the campaign season. Yet netroots activists made themselves heard and earned a response from candidate Obama. And they can do much more with respect to President Obama. As Hamsher notes, "We can get the public engaged."

<snip>

Franklin Roosevelt's example is useful here. After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

<snip>

http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html

[Adelante]

61. I know I have had enough

:kick:

[frazzled]

62. It's not their naysaying that I've had it with

It's their misrepresentations and lack of understanding of the actual policy provisions.

It's their lying to scare people. I've seen posts here that claim people will be really mad when they see payroll deductions coming out of their paychecks for this. Um, no: they won't see any payroll tax or deduction for this.
I see posts that make wild claims about what people will have to pay to buy insurance--without taking into account either the subsidies those people will get to purchase it (or even more important, what they are having to pay to these companies right now, which is way way worse, if they are even allowed to buy it). I've seen posts that claim that people will be paying taxes on their cadillac plans, when the taxes are on the insurers, not themselves. I could go on and on citing the mindless misconceptions people have about how this whole thing even works.

85% of Americans will probably notice nothing. And they would have noticed nothing with the Public Option, since it they wouldn't qualify to buy into it.

Yes, we did not get everything we wanted. But the lying and screaming and scaring has to stop: it's like we have our very own Michelle Bachmans and Sarah Palins here. I don't understand why people would listen to a failed ex-Hollywood producer and a former Republican socialite on these issues instead of people like Krugman, Jacob Hacker (who is the father of the Public Option idea), and a host of esteemed progressive senators.

Some people just live to be oppositional. It makes them feel powerful. But it really only exposes their weaknesses. They are like religious fanatics who want to paper over the realities of this life to promise something better in the next one.

[johnaries]

64. Agree 100%. Couldn't have said it better. nt

[Hekate]

65. Thanks RB. Too many "progressives" have lost their freaking minds over this START...

... and are having full-blown tantrums over things that are not settled at all and things that are not even true.

Do I care about abortion? Do you even have to ask? Do I think a "vagina tax" (great term, wish I'd thought of it) is disgusting? Hell yes. Do I believe that this bill is already done? No. Do I believe the Dems will continue to work at improving it over time? They better, and history tells us they will.

Yours for better days, as I used to say in the * administration.

Hekate

[merkins]

67. it's a 'thin line between comprimise and comprimised'

Props to Jane for fighting for principal rather than compromising for a seriously flawed bill

[NorthCarolina]

68. Wow, reading these posts... it's like a Rahm-Fest in here.

The DLC would be proud.

[uponit7771]

69. HuffPo's article about the two black men was disgusting

[tammywammy]

72. What article? n/t

[jeanpalmer]

74. "Obama and Dems will be rewarded"

Don't know about that. I think it will depend on the popularity of mandates. Mandates will probably be the issue in 2012. Repubs are going to say "next year you will be forced to give the government $2000, $3,000, maybe $9,000 out of pocket to buy health insurance." Hardly any of the new system will have kicked in by then, so mandates will be made to order for demagoguing. Hard to believe they will be popular. Mandates will be used against Obama like he used them against Hillary. Probably with the same effect.

[FrenchieCat]

76. Have you read the bill?

85% of Americans already have health insurance, so mandates don't affect them.

The rest, most who would like to have health insurance will be able to get it.
They will not be upset at the mandates.

Those over 65 are on Medicare....

That leaves maybe 5% who don't want health insurance...maybe (that could be on the high end)
after getting those up to 27 years old onto their parent's policy,
who is left to decry mandates but a few here on this website,
doing so just because they can? :shrug:

[jeanpalmer]

79. The Republicans will

demagogue the issue. Even people with insurance or on Medicare will be subject to the demagoguery. Think Harry and Louise. Hard to believe that mandated insurance will be a plus for Democrats. Democrats are going to have to explain the rest of the program. But that's more complicated and not subject to soundbite like "next year President Obama will be forcing you to pay thousands for health insurance."

We should get a preview of that strategy in 2010. I wonder what Democrats will do in 2011 if they suffer losses in 2010 because of mandates.

[TheKentuckian]

80. You're wrong or at least overstating here

I've been priced out of a policy before, a policy that left me on the hook for 35% of costs. Having the option to drop that piece of crap despite desperately wanting decent coverage helped me avoid an expense I could no longer afford or gain value from because I couldn't afford the co-pays or the up front contributions on top of premiums.

You seem to insist on believing that the insurance industry is not a predatory monopoly and that a healthy chunk of that 85% feels their portion of insurance costs are growing out of control.
Frenchie, people are desperate for affordable coverage that takes care of them if they get sick not just any thing that says they have a plan. Even for the 31 million that get subsidies we can't be in any way sure they will be able to afford to make use of their policy. Thats important. In order to help people we have to help them not just give ourselves the cover of plausible deniability.

Every single citizen deserves price controls, choice in any market based system, means to address grievances, and considering lives are literally at stake we need some kind of safe harbor if despite new regulations the insurance companies continue to hose folks, which history indicates they will.

Plus, we know we have a plan that we know will leave tens of millions uncovered but still elect to make those folks criminals because they can't afford coverage. Maybe some get an exception but they still need care.

Frenchie, I have tended to agree with you at a high percentage since I've been on this site but I think it is kinda sad and more than a little disgusting to just flat out belittle anyone who feels this bill isn't a good compromise. Hell, I'm not even that anti-mandate but I'm very upset with the way this deal is structured. Pardon me for believing that a system this out of control needs to be put under heel before people are forced into it by law. Excuse me for believing that people should have real choice in any market based system. Forgive me for needing enforcement mechanisms and alternatives if people feel they are getting screwed or the insurance company misbehaves.

Mostly forgive my ignorance of being highly dubious of any regulations being taken seriously when an anti-trust exemption is allowed to continue to be in effect.

[cornermouse]

77. I look for my own health insurance premiums to go up sharply.

You know they're going to demand more money once it is law that we must have health insurance. It's called maximizing profits. I wouldn't mind if we had at the very leash a large and aggressive public option; preferably universal healthcare. I think mandates will be a serious issue.

[jeanpalmer]

81. Yep

Supposedly they'll be constrained by the 85% MLR. But that doesn't prevent them from raising prices. For every $1 increase, they get 15 cents. Currently they can't raise prices without worrying about people dropping coverage. Starting in 2013, there will be no such concern. That's my understanding anyway. I'm not aware of any price controls.

[davidpdx]

75. I love how people post Arianna Huffington's columns

and forget this women is a Republican at heart. I don't care if she changed her party affilation to run against Arnold before she started her blog.

[TheKentuckian]

82. Huffington isn't a Republican or a Democrat. She is just a contrary soul

She'll turn on anyone that has the keys.

Hamsher has gone nutty as well. I'm no fan of what this bill has become but the insane lashing out at folks like Sanders demonstrates she has lost all sense of proportion and common sense. Does she think she can get someone leftier than Bernie into his seat? That approaches asshatery at best.

[davidpdx]

97. Well put

[KoKo]

99. So what...folks like to read her. I see stuff from Politico and "The Hill" and NR and other sites

posted here on DU. Some folks even post what Freepers say from their website. So why is it that Huff Post and Firedoglake bother you more?

[davidpdx]

100. Actually I've stated I use to like Firedoglake until recently

and subscribed to their emails. The answer would be Huffington Post. The point you missed is that people take what Arianna Huffington says as the true with no proof and they also seem to forget she is a Conservative and former Republican.

[KoKo]

101. I know her past...but respect what she says most times. What I don't agree with I feel is just a

difference of opinion. I'm not looking for "Lockstep." If she starts to seem like she has an "agenda" that's hidden then I would question. But, what I see here is just attacks without looking at the "whole body of her writing." For years. Same with Jane Hamsher and the others that "some DU'ers" seem to turn on if they take issue with some statement they can latch on to turn direction against folks who promote more Progressive or Populist Democratic causes or revelations of the DLC/New Democrats latest tactics to join hands and sing with the Repugs.

[davidpdx]

102. Well while I won't personally attack Hamsher

I will say I think she's wrong and that's why I've removed myself from the Firedoglake list (and anyone who promotes them).

I think her agenda is pretty clear, which is to kill the HCR bill. The best way to do that was to join hands and sing with Repugs (as you so aptly put it)

[pengillian101]

122. Arianna Huffington ...

Drives me nuts and always did. Most of all I cannot stand to listen to her.

[ipaint]

84. I fail to see how both rescuing a failing for profit business model

which has failed at providing access to hundreds of millions of americans over the last 30 years and putting them in charge of that access legally for generations to come is progress.

Left alone they are hemorrhaging customers, 160 million loss to medicare in 2 decades starting in 2011 with a declining birthrate that can't replace them. I have yet to hear an argument that justifies bailing them out and putting them in charge forever with a legal mandate as opposed to hastening their demise.

Why are we handing these folks our children and grandchildren in order to to save their sorry for profit murdering asses?

[Mass]

85. You and others spend more time discussing Hamsher than anybody else.

It is becoming an obsession, and I guess this is because it avoids recognizing that the bill is lacking by many aspects.

So, if you are tired of her, just ignore her.

[Capt_Nemo]

88. I have no problems with the "Kill the bill club"

there is a rational argument for it, although I disagree: this bill is crap but it represents a marginal
improvement over the status quo and killing it would be counterproductive in several ways, but I'm not
going into that discussion now.

What is realy pissing me off is that, inside the "Kill the bill club", a "Kill the administration"
faction is forming and that is stupid, self-defeating and unacceptable:

1. Pretending to "fight corruption" by teaming up with Grover Norquist - involved up to his neck
in the Abramoff case - is an absolute joke.

2. Putting Fanny & Freddy center stage in a supposed "corruption scandal" consolidates the right wing
narrative that they caused the financial crisis by lending to the poor and minorities.
Involving Rahm Emmanuel in this has the added "benefit" of forwarding the right wing talking point
that the Obama WH, and by extension the Democratic Party are a corrupt bunch, which bring us to
point 3.

3. There is a legitimate criticism of the Obama administration to be made of the fact that up to
now they've done nothing to investigate the dealings of the G. W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE, THE MOST
CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN RECENT US HISTORY. If the Hamsher and her followers were serious
about fighting corruption they woulld be fighting for the DOJ to open up investigations
on the Bush administration... taking us to point 4.

4. I never liked Rahm Emmanuel, his ideas and his tactics. I thought he was a bad choice for
chief of staff of the Obama administration. But going after him when none of the criminal
beahaviour of the previous administration has been investigated, much less punished,
would be a travesty of justice and a political disaster for EVERYONE to the left of
Republican Party. Want a permanent Republican majority? Well this is the ticket...

5. It is not clear at all that Obama will be any more compliant to your demands if you're
hellbent on giving him a bloody nose.

6. Blackmailing progressives into unquestioning support for your strategy is just plain wrong.
Why don't you devote your efforts instead to challenge conservative democrats?

7. Flirting with the Teabaggers... well, go singing kumbayah with them and you're lucky if they
don't shoot you dirty hippies in the face...

I could go on, but these are the main reasons why I think Hamsher is leading her followers into
the most stupid and counter-productive political strategy ever concieved in the left...

[lame54]

90. we did not get the best we can - not even close

[ipaint]

96. The current centrist definition of naysaying.

Ed Kelly , the inspector general was conducting an investigation into fannie and freddie and their part of the housing mess, which of course leads directly to Rahm's time on the board in 2000 and 2001, when Obama up and fired Kelly.
Obama also denied a freedom of information request by the chicago tribune to take a look at the minutes of the freddie board when Rahm was on it. Rahm "can't remember" what happened when he was on the board.

Obama was able to fire Kelly because of a loophole in a law written and co-sponsored by none other than Rahm, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
Obama never replaced the fired inspector general and lo and behold on christmas eve gave fannie and freddie a blank check for bailouts through 2012. Fannie and freddie are responsible for 6 trillion in loans.

No inspector genberal, no oversight, no accountability, no congress, no FOIA.



A bit of background about Rahm's time spent on the freddie board-

Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.

The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.

During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story


Is this really acceptable because our guys are doing it???
What exactly do centrists stand for, corruption our style as opposed to the other sides version?
This is now naysaying. Come on.

[backscatter712]

103. Hamsher's become the left's Orly Taitz after she crawled into bed with Grover Norquist.

She needs thorazine...

[Bolo Boffin]

106. And many of us have not. n/t

[AVID]

111. huffpo is becoming TMZ - shock and awe with boobs, ass, jon, kate & tiger

[spiritual_gunfighter]

112. you are in the minority here on DU

check the greatest page at any time to confirm this.

[zulchzulu]

113. Who?

:rofl:

Bluffington Hoax is not a place I visit unless by accident.

[Fearless]

114. Something is seriously wrong when people start telling others to essentially shut up.

This is disgusting.

[Sultana]

121. Never trust a so called former Republican

[Overseas]

123. Not me. I am glad someone is speaking out about dumb Bipartisan Games

being played with something as serious as our national health security.

That was all very depressing to me.

So yes, we got people to endorse getting some damn bill out because they had to. But things could have been quite different if the effort had been promoted from the beginning as progressive democrats would have framed it.

A very critical situation was used for stupid bipartisan games. Our very health was used for sport.

The times called for strong Democratic leadership and we got begging for Olympia Snowe's vote and groveling for Nelson and Lieberman.

Some victory.