Amato on MSNBC: Challenging the House to stand up for health-care reform
John went on MSNBC yesterday afternoon to talk health-care reform. He was paired with John Stirewalt, the Washington Examiner's political editor, who was not only at a disadvantage in the neckwear department but had the misfortune of having to defend the sorry record of the Party of No.
Amato most of all issued a challenge of sorts to the House of Representatives to stand up for itself in the face of the Senate's mishandling of the legislation:
Amato: To say that it's dead is way premature, because they still have to go to conference. And the House has to make a choice: Are they actually a legislative body? Do they have a say in this process? Or is Congress just Joe Lieberman? So really, right now, it's still premature. Liberals are still fighting, progressives are still fighting.
It will be worth seeing whether the House rises to this challenge.
A commendable effort but an impossible task.
The House side of the committee will not put in what is not in the house version, which is a Robust Public Option.
Their version is already whittled away.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
may as well be blowing hot air bubbles at this point.
Marcia Angell MD on the House version at HuffPo here
The Republicans are the Party of No.
The Democrats are the Party of Not on the Table.
Take your pick and prove how informed you are.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I wish her luck with whatever it is she's trying to do.
graph you should have at least featured a screen grab that showed John's tie. And thrown in a simile.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
it's one thing to let the whores sit in the back pew on Sunday. it's another to let them take over the church.
John:
Way to tear him a new one!
Men who wear bow ties frighten me.
I wish it could work out the way we want but with the party of "no", I've kind of lost hope.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
But I'm sorry, "standing up" for health care reform appears to have been taken "off the table."
Corruption favors the wealthy.
tape, I'd say:
"Tirewalt topped his Nation of Islam neck attire with head moves that
made a Barry Bonds bobble head doll seem like a still life and lips that synched like they were constructed in a claymation studio."
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
"Or is Congress just Joe Lieberman?"
Great point. Thanks for getting out there in the hostile corporate media and speaking out for America's health care!
Is it the 21st century yet?
"It will be worth seeing whether the House rises to this challenge."
We need to start "Political Viagra for Democrats dot com" and see if that helps?
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
John,
I like your website and generally agree with mostly everything you say, but that was not a great performance, particularly in your second statement.
You should have not went off on the social security tangent.
You should have refuted the key Republican talking point that the public is against this bill. Sure the polls say that, but a lot of the negativity about this bill is coming from the left. ie. the majority of people wanted to see stronger reform.
See: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/in-pol...
The Republicans are trying to paint this as an unpopular bill because noboddy wants healthcare reform, when the opposite is true, that people may be against the bill because they want more stronger reform.
The Republicans have nothing really to argue against this bill once the public option was taken out, as they cannot really complain about a "government take-over" as much. So all they talk about is some fictious tax increases or this will add to the deficit, which are both lies.
Or you should have talked about how this bill will help working families.
Or you should have talked about how you would like to see the Republicans run on killing the bill. How you would like to see them talk about going to back to pre-exisiting conditions and letting all those people with no insurance die, etc. etc.
LOL right sure it will.
but drop the first person plural. Those of us who have believed in both since the image of Christ first appeared etched from brine on one of Aunt Bea's pickles know the power of both the medium and the messenger.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
Now, whenever I see someone wearing one, I just assume that they're an ignorant, right-wing douchebag.
Finally there's someone among the talking heads to represent my demographic. We need more goombas on the teevee.
I think I'm turning Japanese, I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so.....
One of my middle-aged neighbors just had a massive heart attack. He had a triple by pass and flat lined twice during the operation. His doctor has told him he desperately needs a heart transplant. But because he has no health insurance, he cannot be put on the list for a new heart.
I know being put on the list doesn't guarantee he will get a heart but not being on the list is a guarantee that he won't.
Since I learned this news I just keep thinking is there any other advanced country that would treat one of its own like this? It makes me sad and so damned angry.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Doctors said you desperately need this and that. He was about 62, he walked out and took his chances and lived to be 86.
There's no guarantees though.
That's what my cat's doing with her enlarged, palpitating heart.
We're just taking it one day at a time.
Embrace the day, the moment.
as Amato did when he went from the 2010 election and health care to social security.
My cat has a knot on the back of his head, but I cannot afford even the catastrophic care policy that would have prevented
it from getting so large. But that's because I gave my money to feed the starving children I saw Sally Struthers feature on TV before they were killed by a CIA operated predator drone Rahm's Israeli masters ordered up. Poor kids. They should have been waterboarded. Now they'll never know Jesus.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
Random association.
I like it.
Stoner dialogue.
just for you.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
You should see the change in this man's appearance since all this has happened. He looks like he's aged thirty years. He's totally different from the man I used to talk with when he walked his dog by our house. His wife said she would like to get her hands on anyone who doesn't believe we need a public option.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I'm sorry about your neighbor pop, I can certainly sympathize as two of my friends father's had massive heart attacks a few years ago. One made it and the other did not. Both in their mid fifties. Of course, the one that lived was wiped out financially but is still alive today.
in the U.S. Let alone life saving procedures such as he needs which can cost about $500 K.
A sad situation
but how would a public option have kept him out of the "needs a new heart" line to begin with? And, having had a massive heart attack with triple bypass that has caused him to age thirty years, what would his prognosis be if he got a new ticker?
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
1) The public option comes with hearts for everyone, at no cost.
2) Thirty years. Which would make him 90 at 60.
that things will get worse rather then better just from the confusion this bill is going to cause.
Afraid you are right.
I keep trying to picture a localized system where doctors, hospitals and patients can set up a single payer system that keeps funds local and does not get used to support a big national administrative bureaucracy.
I still don't understand this meme. The GOP is as much the party of "No" to all Democratic policy proposals as the Dems are the party of "No" to all Republican proposals; the Dems just enjoy the luxury (which they legitimately earned at the ballot box) of being the ones in the driver's seat with respect to making the proposals, which then forces the GOP to stand and say "no."
If the GOP had free rein to actually put proposals up for a vote, they'd face almost as unanimous Democratic opposition as Democratic proposals face from the Republicans. The legislative process doesn't work like that, however. The party leadership of the majority party in each house of the legislature has the prerogative of determining which measures come up for votes and when. Therefore, you're not going to see a vote on personal Social Security accounts, or the John Mackey-style health care plan, or anything else that the GOP might put forth as an affirmative policy proposal if it were a majority party, because at the moment, it is the farthest thing from a majority party.
The GOP was not the party of "no" when it was proposing the supply-side tax cuts, Bankruptcy Code amendments, etc. in the first half of this decade. If the pendulum swings back in the other direction because of better base mobilization on the part of the GOP and/or more centrist voters moving to the GOP, I imagine the Democrats will become every bit as much the party of "no," up to and including using the filibuster to block conservative rollbacks of progressive legislation passed during this zenith of liberal power, as the GOP is today.
There is much wrong with your statement. However, I only want to address one of your Republican talking points, as it is used by many.
It means nothing that more independents or as you say "centrists" are moving to the GOP. First of all with less than 20% of people now idenifying themselves as Republicans (historic low), that means that significantly more independents are now former Republicans. That means by definition independents are becoming more conservative, as the are more made up of ex-Republicans. That really says nothing about the support for the Democrats.
The Democratic base is alive, large and strong as ever. Sure there are some progressives that are disappointed that Obama has not moved faster on some issues, but there is no way in hell these progressives will ever vote Republican.
Where exactly can Republicans win? Northeast? Pacific? Midwest (Indiana, Michigan, even Ohio, after Republican said no to auto bail-out). With minorities? With women? with the youth? They still have the same narrow tent, which shrinks everyday with these teabaggers.
"The Democratic base is alive, large and strong as ever. Sure there are some progressives that are disappointed that Obama has not moved faster on some issues, but there is no way in hell these progressives will ever vote Republican."
Try this:
The Democratic base is livid, amorphous, and stranger than ever.
Sure there are some progressives that are disappointed Obama has not turned himself in to prison officials holding former leaders of the Bush administration, but there is no way these progressives will ever vote again if they can keep their boycott game face on as long as their dander is raised.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
You clearly read too many websites. If you think C&L and other represent the mainstream democratic party I think that is wrong. You tend to get the most extreme progressives commenting on these websites. Sure some anger from the progressives who wanted single payer or a public option, but I would not carry that too far.
"Where exactly can Republicans win?"
Jesusboro, Jesusland, Jesusville and of course - the state of insanity.
The GOP-baggers have a lock on those demographics.
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
will keep the GOP base strong and happy.
http://www.mohawkdave.com/172.22.134.100/pict...
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
The only thing in my post that that speaks to is whether the current state of affairs represents the "zenith of liberal power." I suppose it is conceivable that the Democrats could hold all their close races and pick up still more seats in next year's election, but I would be willing to wager hard cash against it. Would you be taking me up on that?
Also, I remain confused about the whole point of the "party of no" being directed at the GOP. Are the Dems any less the "party of no" to Republican policy ideas? And is it just presumptively better to be the party of "yes?" Considering the poll numbers that some major policy initiatives have been getting lately, including healthcare reform, being the "party of no" may not even be a label the GOP would want to try hard to escape.
Dems are 5 for 5 in congressional wins since Obama took office.
2010 will not be nearly as bad for the Dems as people think. There are also far more Republicans retiring from the senate than Dems. Things could be completely different a year from now. Get some further momentum in the economy, healthcare will be a positive for dems, and Republicans will continue to be obstructionists with no platforma and no leadership. It will be all about getting out the base. I will give you the enthusiasm of the teabaggers, but they have so far failed to elect anyone.
From January, 2001 to January, 2009 there were always Democrats who crossed the aisle to support Bush's or the Congressional GOP initiatives. Constantly! The closest we ever saw to a Democratic Party that you describe was when Alito and Roberts were nominated to the SCOTUS in that period of 4 years in the middle of Bush's two terms, when the GOP controlled both the House AND the Senate: A few Democrats threatened to filibuster those appointments, but Bill Frist threatened the nuclear option, and the Democrats backed off.
But Democrats voted for for No Child Left Behind, the Clear Skies Act of 2003, Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the authorization of military force in Iraq, and many other Republican bills during Bush's tenure, while no Republicans are crossing the aisle to vote for ANY Democratic bills now.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
speak their minds and not be subjected to PR and spin that assaults us in our day-to-day lives. Please day your propaganda to DailyKos, they'll love you there. In fact, it sounds like you were "educated" there; your line about Democratics always toeing the line no matter how badly the Democratic Party abuses them because the Republican Party is supposedly soooo much worse is straight from the Rahm playbook.
Democrats? Love em? Then leave here!
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
barely read the DailyKos..
I recommend you read http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/# by far the best political blog out there. they actually support their arguments with facts and original analysis...
...who gave you the right to tell him to leave? I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with everything he said, but I'd rather argue with him than listen to you classify people and tell them which website is the one for them.
Right or wrong, I suspect Phillip was honestly speaking his mind, which is what you claim this website is for. If you disagree with him, don't call him names, confront him rationally with a point-by-point rebuttal or just ignore him. I don't think there is anything more boring on blogs than commenters who bestow the mantle of Dictator of Taste and Opinion on themselves and then use their self-assigned powers to tell people what is and isn't acceptable opinion.
I'm referring to. It's filled with paid propagandists for the Democratic Party who have a number of standard talking points ("You better vote Democratic because Republicans are so much worse"), and phrases and words used again and again to demean progressives and generally anybody left of center-right. Time and again they hijack threads with various diversionary tactics, which include smear tactics and personal attacks intended to shut down discussions that are critical of Obama or the Democratic Party. The latest smear tactic is turning Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake into the devil incarnate and trying to link everyone critical of Obama to her. The past few weeks 1/2 of the diaries had Jane Hamsher as the main topic and whipping girl. I came here to get away from that crap.
You're talking about the same Jane Hamsher who was, up until a few months ago, along with Amato and Howie Klein, one of the movers and shakers behind ActBlue/BlueAmerica, which was set up to get more progressive Democrats elected. You're talking about the same Jane Hamsher who last week, in her infinite wisdom, decided to go after Bernie Sanders, a socialist, the most progressive person ever elected to either chamber of Congress. The same Jane Hamsher who has made a political pact with Grover FUCKING Norquist!
And then you're the one who raises the Kossack-Firebagger sniping on this site? Boo-fuckin'-hoo.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
> complete conspiracy theory if you think there is a conherent effort on Kos to trash people who do not support Obama or trash Hamsher.... maybe the site attracts people who actually think the way that you somehow oppose.
> and if you are actually someone who is a "progressive" or leftie or whatever, it is very true that Republicans are much worse. even if you think the democrats have not gone far enough to push a left agenda, who could hesitate for one second to think the Republicans would be better. that makes zero sense. you would vote for a Republican who has likely gone much further to the right... vote for a failed ideology.
->"The GOP is as much the party of "No" to all Democratic policy proposals as the Dems are the party of "No" to all Republican proposals"
Wrong, the dems reached out and included what repubs asked for and still got kicked in the teeth. The repubs want Obama to fail, they've even stated it over and over, elected officials, not just rush.
False premise, therefor everything else was moot.
Over priced and under fed?
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
Speaking of knuckleheads with bow-ties:
Tucker Carlson Plans a Huffington Post Rival
This will be as good as the Fox Spews comedy show they tried.
lol
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
no surprise he wants to copy the model.
Do you think he will get a sex change as well?
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
and having a good time the year this guy was born.
LOL . . so he's pretty irrelevant to me no matter what pitch he's spewing.
Of course I'm irrelevant as well so . .
it's a little virtual turd called 'Politico'.
is a pre-existing condition.
.
"That's fu*#ing retarded."
Big City Mayor
I heard Amato on Alan Colmes last night. The joker who was suppose to debate Amato apparently was too scared to show up so John and Alan had a love fest about how screwed up the right wing are. Good stuff.
A good talking point about whether the public is behind this bill or not is to ask the question or mention that it would be interesting to see a poll about how many of the public are willing to give it up (after it is passed of course). Krugman said this on ABC this past Sunday and it was a good point and nobody refuted him.
When's Nancy Pelosi coming on C&L again?
I want to hear how's she's fighting for women's rights and the public option.
Makes me all warm and fuzzy.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
...one whale of load of pie-in-the-sky optimism. Rather than say it's not dead and leave it there, please explain how the conference comes up with a worthwhile public option and then gets the Senate to swallow it. Obama's role now, as opposed to his previous tepid non-support support, is to make sure the public option is NOT in the final bill. He is close to getting what HE needs, which is a health care reform bill passed (as opposed to a GOOD health care reform bill) and progressives in the House are going to get zero support from him in conference.
Rather than say the public option isn't dead, why not give us some odds to ponder. Would you say the chances of a public option being in the final bill are 50/50? One in five? One in a hundred? One in a million? My own guess would be zero in infinity -- i.e., absolutely no chance at all. If, by some amazing stroke, House progressives got the public option included in the final bill, do you really think Ego Joe or Dumb Ben will vote for it? Once they break ranks, Blanche and Mary will follow, leading the way for lots of others.
Without strong support from Obama from the beginning, the public option never had a chance. Obama's so-called support was always transparently non-existent: I'm for it, but if anybody doesn't want it that's OK with me and I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time trying to talk anyone into it.
The Congress is the enemy of the people, ally to the corps.
The two-party thing is a joke and most of you people are so gullible I mostly come here for the laughs.
I'd suggest you wake-up but once you're brain-dead, it's too late.
Re the health care (?) legislation currently being shoved down our throats.
This crap has to stop, the senate bill does nothing to help anyone but big business, and the house version is too damn weak to do much as well.
In the interests of real change we can believe in, I think the president needs to be taught a lesson and have this legislation fail. It is his fault single payer was taken off the table ... his fault that a robust public option was not demanded ... his fault the finance committee (Baucus and Conrad) were allowed to screw everything up ... his fault Nelson and Lieberman were allowed to take control of the country regarding healthcare ... AND HE SHOULD BE MADE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCE OF HIS LACK OF LEADERSHIP!
If the legislation fails, perhaps next time when it comes up the issue will remind those debating it how pissed off the public is and how badly we need to get rid of the insurance industry entirely for the sake of us all.
For anyone to believe the insurance industry provides a better product than we can provide ourselves through our representative government, they have to be entirely insane.
The money currently going to big business (insurance industry) if put in the hands of the people (government) could CERTAINLY protect us better (healthcare) than the assholes at Aetna, United Healthcare, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Wellpoint.
Rocket Science isn't involved to figure it out, and the American people deserve to get the insurance giants off our back and out of our damn country.
What is required is the truth told openly and honestly to the people, something the president absolutely failed to do. Obama has failed us miserably on virtually every count and proven that he too is nothing but a liar and a whore to big business. He therefore needs to be taught a good damn lesson, and this legislation needs to FAIL!
My goodness, John. I had no idea you were so handsome! Oh, and I thoroughly agree with everything you said.
I totally agree with you ;)
:-)
:-)
far be it from me to kiss ur ass.....but day-um, boy! u look FIIIIIINE. The diet has treated u well. U gotta Superman costume under that suit?
PWNED!
'Talk to the hand'
You did great!
One of the damning things about the conservative media is Democrats are always on the defensive. The conservative media is always quoting Republicans (who's failed conservative agenda is the cause of all our problems today) and we have to counter. Shooo lets have quotes from Democrats and make the Republicans eat crow...
I got $25 bucks that say liberals will completely fold; and then say how happy they are with the Baucus, Conrad, Nelson, Lieberman shit sandwich they will be forcing the rest of us to eat.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
If the health bill is only what the Senate wants, things could get tough. Forcing manditory buy in to private health care that cannot refuse you but can price you out, then failure will be hard to accept.
Not to mention taxing employer base health care plans of working individuals that took waived pay increases to keep health care plans.
Remember how many people have such short memories? The republicans abuse these voters daily and that could be a problem. Dems are going to need more of the Alan Grayson character and get more media exposure in confronting republicans.
Most of all, there is going to be so much more that must be tackled from unemployment to jobs.
If Democrats postpone cap and trade in lieu of Wall Street regulations that seriously regulate our capitalism gone wild. They could bring in many a independent vote in 2010. maybe even some Tea baggers. The Democratic base is going to have to come out like they did in 2008.
The minority republican party is so very loud one finds it very tough to see or hear a Democratic members views. I realize they are working and republicans have alot of idle time being a party that already knows to vote NO. There is no homework in just saying NO. No studying to say NO.
Seeing more bills as Sen Al Grankin's which addressed the gang rape of a haliburton employee that now allows the victim to go to court for justice and not restricted to a corporations authouty to control the crime for PR purposes. More of this in which republicans are exposed in there "NO" voting. And the publicity is ten fold. The lilly Ledbetter act is another.
Most of all if there is a firm hand of legislation on Wall Street Banks from externalizing costs ans loses and internalizing profits. This would be very big indeed.
Comments are closed on this entry