Holy Joe Wants These People To Die--And The Senate And White House Leadership Are Okay With That
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Dec 16, 2009 11:00am
That beautiful, sunny, smiling face belongs to Jessica Bucher, a twelve year old middle school student in Northern California.
At a time when most parents are worried about their twelve year old's grades, or first forays with the opposite sex, or cell phone usage, Jessica's parents have a much more urgent goal: keeping Jessica alive and pain-free.
Jessica Bucher was diagnosed with a rare disease that is almost always fatal: juvenile onset Sandhoff Disease. Thankfully, Jessica has responded well to an experimental umbillical cord stem cell treatment, but not without saddling her parents with astronomic health care bills. Those bills are now threatening their home to foreclosure. It's every parent's Faustian nightmare: save your child and lose your home or save your home and watch your child die. Jessica's classmates have opted to run regular fundraisers to help offset these medical costs because we as a country offer no such safety net to the Buchers.
Likewise, Brian Holben of Chester, Virginia, has a similar dilemma and thankfully, a community willing to step in where the government won't:
Improve Your Game, a Richmond-based youth fitness and conditioning organization, will raise money for the Holben family with the first IYG Kid’s Fitness Challenge, which will be held Dec. 12 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Sports Center of Richmond.
Brian Holben, who lives in Chester with his wife, Sheila, and their three sons, Zachary, Tanner and Nash, was diagnosed with a brain tumor during the summer. Two of the family’s sons play on baseball teams sponsored by IYG, which also offers fitness training for kids, said Charlene Frostick, who owns IYG with her husband, Joe.
Brian Holben is responding well to treatment, but his recovery will be a long process and medical bills, which are not all covered by the family’s insurance, will continue to mount, she said.
The stories grow exponentially. PleaseCutTheCrap, from whom I read about Jessica and Brian, also mentions an uninsured Kansas teen who needs a heart transplant. Or the attorney I spoke to last month, afraid to go to the doctors to confirm the diabetes diagnosis he suspects, because he's sure he'll be dropped from his insurance, like one of his colleagues. At this point, he admits he's controlling it with diet and careful monitoring of his glucose levels, but for how long will that work?
This is America. The "shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere", but we can't offer our citizens something that every single other industrialized nation does: health care. And why? Because Holy Joe would rather Jessica and Brian and the others die than give any little bit to the Democratic Party.
And even more obscenely, the White House and the Senate leadership are okay with that, willing to capitulate to the resident tantrum thrower for the sake of passing a bill, no matter how it actually affects Americans.
What can Holy Joe say to the Buchers? How can Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel face the Holbens? How can they justify mandates to that attorney when the insurance companies get all the benefits and little restrictions?
Joe Lieberman thinks nothing of damning Jessica Bucher and her parents to the hell of that existence of choosing between pain now or pain later. Worse, the Democratic leadership in both the White House and the Senate is letting him get away with it.
Login or Register to post comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNuCfD5bICQ
i have had it with the democrats being stupid.
i am a livelong registered democrat, but
if they fuck up the health care reform,
they will have lost me forever.
it appears that stupid has again taken
over congress and the whitehouse. and we
had such hope.
...maybe if these people worked harder, they would be prosperous enough to survive. You, know, like Jesus intended...
Exactly. The poor should die, so the rich may live.
I know! Let's give them healthcare at reduced rates if they also allow themselves to be used for human experimentation. Everybody wins!
allow themselves to be used for human experimentation
You call lieber mon "human"?
Nice try to bait me...you'll have to be smarter than that.
However, Lieberman is a corporatist cock sucker.
I'm sorry to offend you. I'm just so damned disgusted with this whole healthcare thing that I can't think of these creatures as human.
And there in lies the problem with progressives.
We want to believe the best of people and think that they cannot be as heinous as they appear and that they will "do the right thing".
Well, how'd that work out?
There's a difference between the "right" thing and the "correct" thing. I prefer the "correct" thing.
It doesn't seem like anything is working for the good of America.
I never thought I would think like this toward the end of my life.
A sociopath and a malignant narcissist. A man who is so lost in a prison of self-justifying lies as to be functionally insane. A pathological opportunist. A predator. A man who cannot demonstrate from his deeds that he possesses, or is subject to the moderating influences of, a functioning conscience. A man who is bereft of a capacity to experience shame. A man who, despite the power he currently enjoys, is pathetic and utterly debased. A man worthy of no person's trust.
Then you'll have him 5 x 5.
..sounds exactly like a rabid dog. Old Yeller comes to mind, maybe little billy should get his .22 and put him down.
where the rabies has made wobbly like a drunk. At that point, the rabies will take him down all by itself, in a matter of only a day or two.
...perhaps they should die then, and decrease the surplus population. I'm sure Lieberman and his cronies would agree with that sentiment, them being so GODLY and all.
Merry fucking Christmas! -- Denis Leary
is a murderer plain and simple.
Reid, Emmanuel and Obama are his enablers.
working in concert to gag any discussion of Single Payer in the United States.
Right now on the Senate floor the clerk is reading Sanders 366 page amendment because a Republican Senator asked that it be read in full. This is an obvious delaying tactic that will cause the bill to be read well into the night and if another Republican asks for suspension of the reading and if Sanders is still present he would have to have another 20 senators there in order for there to be a quorum to even call a vote.
Obama nor most of the Democratic Congress do NOT want any discussion of Single Payer. This has been made clear from the beginning.
So, let's not just blame Lieberman here. We are infested with a Congressional cabal of corporatist snakes that do not care AT ALL about the health or happiness or well-being of the American People.
Time to stop shopping and to boycott every freakin' corporation in this country. They have to be brought to their knees. Money is what sustains them.
We all have to stop "going along to get along" with "the program".
working in concert to gag any discussion of Single Payer in the United States.
Abby...I like you, but c'mon...that was OBVIOUS from the get go.
Pelosi only got the bill through the House cause the deal with Reid was that he would get the public option eliminated.
And Gov. Dean is an imbecile for not knowing that. His backing off the public option, and accepting the Medicare buy in deal which any SANE person knew would be reneged on by LIEberman, is what's caused this debacle.
And C&L is guilty as well, for the same reason.
In politics, you stick to your guns on the things that are important to you. You don't negotiate and compromise with yourself. You wind up with NOTHING. Which is exactly where we are.
I like you too.
"my distinguished colleague"?
Because they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the parent, The Corporatists.
When government becomes stubbornly unresponsive to the will and well-being of the People, and when the electoral system - as you pointed out to me in another thread - is so compromised, it really narrows the options. This kind of shit keeps up, and I don't see a good ending for it all.
"Time to stop shopping and to boycott every freakin' corporation in this country. They have to be brought to their knees. Money is what sustains them." Wed, 12/16/2009 - 10:25 — Abbybwood
How about a movement to create Stop Payment Month. Every body gets a spine and withholds payment on all credit accountants for the month of X. The only weapon we have is our ability to give them the only thing that obviously matters in this fucked up country, $$$$$$$$, and lots of it. So what if your precious credit rating takes a hit, most of these fuckers aren’t lending any money way and prolly won’t be for quite awhile. Then we present a list of demands. Plus all that money not sent into Satan Financial Services can be used to buy consumer goods and the economy a boost. Crazy, stupid? I don’t know. You tell me. Desperate situations call for desperate solutions.
simple bargaining point, yes?
I've come to believe that the entire thing was a fraud from the beginning, just a backdoor way to force everyone in the country to buy health insurance. Because it's just too fucking obvious how easily the supposed "reform" turned into everything the insurance companies want - no public help, no restrictions on their actions (except for a few that won't go into effect until AFTER Obama and the Dems are out of the high seats), penalties for anyone that doesn't spend obscene amounts of money on their shitty, poisonous, often life-threatening products.
It was always about the mandate, nothing else. The rest was just glitter and window-dressing to get the liberals to fight for it, never realizing it was always doomed to become an insurance industry victory.
their mandate could well backfire. It amounts to a requirement for citizens to pay tax or trbute to a private enterprise instead of the government. I'm not sure that would hold up in court. If they actually try and foist this travesty upon us, I hope some enterprising group of lawyers, maybe the ACLU, is ready with a challenge the day the bill is signed into law.
I think the senate bill needs to die. It is a crime against the People, in my estimation. Start over once some of the crooks have been booted from office in the next cycle.
Dean is right (and when has he ever been wrong?) This has turned into exactly the opposite of what we were told it was, and it's time to kill it. That would be the clearest way to let the insurance vampires know they are not going to get to tap into our veins unreservedly. They can go feed off rats if blood is what they like.
to introduce bills that will help people like these. Call it, say, "Medical Emergency Relief Fund" "MERF". Establish a billion dollar fund, paid for with, um.... marijuanna taxes? Abortion taxes?
They do introduce such bills. But nobody supports them. Introducing bills does no good if you haven't got anybody else onboard.
...a billion dollars wouldn't even touch the problem. And adding a new program, getting the word out, figuring out who qualifies, etc...
Also, just a question... what would entail an 'abortion tax'?
Let's use the Limbaugh solution. 300 million Americans donate $1 to solve a $30 billion problem.
Why "abortion tax"? Why not "plastic surgery tax" or "penile enhancement tax"? Oh, I forget - those would tax RICH PEOPLE. Can't have that, can we? No, let's tax teenagers, and poor women in desperate straits, and married women with too many kids. Yeah, THEY can afford it.
Try thinking before you suggest such asinine measures, ok?
And these families are lucky that it's a CHILD that's sick. If it were a teen or an adult, they'd have a fuck of a lot harder time trying to get any help at all. Everybody wants to help a little kid, but who'll open their pockets for, say, a 45-year-old single woman with leukemia who can't afford treatment? or a 36-year-old divorced man with a rare brain disorder? Try putting together a fundraiser for THEM.
This country is so utterly fucked. I'm disgusted to be American. AGAIN.
...just take the pussy from Democrats. When I saw Max Backus proudly standing behind Obama yesterday as he spoke about Health Care "reform" being right around the corner, I knew that the President was never for actual reform.
Lieberman isn't alone with his hatred for Progressives.
is worth the sacrifice of your kids. not their's mind you, but yours.
He was on MSNBC with Mrs. Greenspan savaging Howard Dean (D-SPINE) for saying the health care "reform" stripped out bill was not worth passing, saying Dean doesn't know what he is talking about (really?) and that Dean is wrong (really, sounds right to me) that the bill is worth voting for. Oh these spinelss Jellyfish (D-WV)(D-Everywhere) who we once thought might fight a little for meaningful health care reform. He sucks. I once had a little respect for him--none now.
their positions. They will never meet this little girl nor the hundreds of thousands similarly beset.
during this whole debacle about the crushing and life destroying cost of medical treatments. Nope.
In an otherwise well written blog, Nicole Belle shows us how to lose a winning argument. By claiming that Lieberman somehow "wants" the uninsured to die is a sure-fire way of shutting down minds and giving the opposition the easy out, which is to claim that liberals are overly emotional (i.e., unrealistic drama queens).
Fellow liberals, lend me your ears! Calling our opposition monsters is NOT how to win this argument. Rather, we should point out that to not make a change to our health care system is tantamount to turning our backs on the sickest in our society. There can be legitimate debate about HOW to change the system, but those who argue against change--in the form of "slow downs" or filibusters--are choosing the one option that ignores the evidence. Whenever the argument is made against change, we need to push back the argument, not it's current mouthpiece.
Joe Lieberman is not the problem, he's only the symptom. The real problem is the power behind the status quo. But status quo is a proven failure and we have to reject it.
NicoleSusie Madrak was for this bill before she was against it.So who exactly is the "power" behind the "status quo"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
...is the monied interests who benefit from the status quo: insurnace companies (obviously), lobbyists, politicians, etc. But also more insidiously, it is the disinterested (healthy) folks who won't engage in the debate. Ever wonder why the "surveys" that ask people how satisfied they are with the current health care system target the general population and not the sick? That's like asking folks to rate their public schools and including people who don't have kids--the disinterested skew the data to suggest everything is fine.
And you are hiding behind vague phrases like "the power behind the status quo"? Who is that, exactly? Some nebulous non-physical entity that is controlling the craven with weird X-Files mental rays?
THESE PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM. They are the ones blocking meaningful legislation. They are the ones putting their campaign contributions above the lives of others. They are the ones hogging the spotlight and sneering at anyone who actually wants to help others. When we call them monsters, we are doing nothing more than TELLING THE TRUTH.
It's time to stop with the "politeness". Your kind of courtesy is STALLING WHILE PEOPLE DIE. You don't get things done by being fucking NICE.
You want to play Miss Manners, fine. The rest of us are sick to death (literally, in hundreds of thousands of cases) of this namby-pamby crap that gets nowhere. Would to god that America had been smart enough to elect Dean back when he ran for the WH. We might actually have gotten something DONE with a FIGHTER in the high seat. As it is, it's time to take off the gloves and get in the ring. FIGHT OR DIE.
"People" are always the problem. Especially the greedy, corrupt ones.
I'm mad too, and I think Lieberman is a serious douchebag, but calling him names doesn't change a thing. And let's say for argument's sake that we succeed in having Lieberman lose his next election, then what? His argument will live on, unchallenged.
Because being nice and polite has won us so much? Interesting. I look around me and I see people dying by the thousands every year. I look around and I see more and more people falling into horrifying poverty, losing their homes, losing their jobs. I look around and I see the entire fucking EARTH choking on shit.
So how has your polite language and niceness helped to prevent any of that?
As much as we like to pat ourselves on the backs for being smart and wise and charitable, has the liberal argument for healthcare reform really been made? I don't think so. That's why we're seeing a backslide in the Senate. Who is the clarion voice of healthcare reform since Ted Kennedy passed away? Obama? Pelosi? Reid? Please.
We all have to be careful not to attribute the failure of a single-payer system to individuals like Lieberman. He's a nothing. An empty suit. The reason healthcare reform has not happened is because the argument for reform so far has been no match for the institutional resistance thrown at us by monied interests. The logical flaws in their arguments and the lack of evidentiary support go unchallenged.
And bloggers like Nicole actually do have a role to play because soon after good blogs go online, the stories and argument are picked up by the media and broadcast to the very people we are trying to sway: Moderates. The middle class. People who make less than 100K per year.
Being nasty, calling people names, and making endless emotional pleas undermines the seriousness of this issue and it simply adds to the din that so many of our neighbors find annoying and useless. So argue like that all you want, but it will do no good.
That's the crux, isn't it? YOU don't think so. Well, when you can point me to whomever it was that made you the King Of Policy For All Liberals, then I'll take your judgment as valid. Until then, I'm going with all those people who are sick and tired of the namby-pamby, don't-be-mean, business-as-usual "liberal" carpet mentality. The GOP and their hired thugs can walk all over you, if that's your idea of a good time. Me, I'm over it.
why don't we ditch the moniker "progressives". I've always seen that as a concession to the assholes who've made a dirty word out of the term, liberal.
The time for softball is long gone. If you're serious about attacking "the power", you'd better take off the gloves and thicken up your skin.
In a democracy, it's ideas that are important. And we have to sell these ideas to a confused and anxious populace. Roaming the streets with pitchforks and torches will only reward the opposition with a veneer of respectability.
Lies and fear are always easier to sell. Water flows downhill...
Tell the Buchers I'm being a drama queen.
Tell the Holbens I'm not pushing back against the argument.
I'm putting faces to the numbers. This isn't about some generic concept of health care and public options. This is about very real people, in very real and heartbreaking situations, made worse because ONE member of the Senate has decided feeding his ego is more important than anything else.
I've tried giving logical and factual arguments. That doesn't fly when you have hysterics over deficit spending, death panels, socialism and every other lie thrown back. These people don't deal in truth.
I want them to see the faces they've condemned. I want them to be answerable to Jessica Bucher and Brian Holben. Maybe they need a stark slap of reality to their temper tantrums.
All of your argument here is good, and it is what the so-called 'tea-bag partiers' need to hear, but pinning all of this on one snivelling little politician like Lieberman kills the larger argument. In truth, you give the man too much credit. Attack his argument--prove him wrong.
The only name I called Lieberman is "Holy Joe"
His argument has already been proven wrong. By the CBO and HIS OWN WORDS. We've shown that in other posts. But that didn't stop the White House and the Senate leadership from capitulating to his hypocritical demands. And it is him, not anyone else, that they are capitulating to right now, so that he will give them that 60 votes for cloture. They have made him that powerful.
I just want the Senate and White House (and yes, aides in each read this site daily) to see the face of the consequences. Those federal employees have great insurance coverage. Other Americans do not and they don't care.
You're calling Lieberman a monster. Who or what else would "want" people to die. You undermine the argument with unnecessary rhetoric.
Look, you're a good writer and a great thinker, but you're letting your emotions get the best of you. Personal attacks and anecdotes will not move our leaders (or their aides for that matter). Use your position here to expose the tactics used by Liberman and his ilk for what they are.
He is saying that he will stall the process. What's the counter-argument? That stalling is tantamount to ignoring evidence showing our current health care system is an utter failure. The argument for waiting is the same as arguing for keeping our place as the 37th best health care system among industrialized nations. The argument for waiting is the same as saying that millions without health insurance can wait. But most importantly, the argument for waiting is a public confession that he has no idea how to fix the clear problems with the existing system for his consituency.
You did.
I showed the consequences of his actions...I put a human face to what it means to stay with the status quo.
We've countered their fearmongering and hypocrisy over and over. It has not made the process better or easier.
So fine. Then they should face and accept that they are condemning families like the Buchers to an unacceptable choice: their home or their daughter's life.
My post is not the be all or end all for the healthcare debate, however flattering your insinuation is.
But I'm tired of talking in depersonalized generalities. I want them to see the people they are affecting. Not the angry, fearful teabaggers, but the everyday citizen being royally fucked over because the White House and the Senate refuse to find their gonads and do what's right, letting Lieberman run roughshod over legislation that could be the best thing since the New Deal. But instead, it will be crap and it will depress Democratic voters and we'll be suffering through more GOP reigns.
Stark enough for you?
I want them to get off their complacent asses and show a picture of Jessica Bucher on TV and say what I've said: Joe Lieberman doesn't care if this little girl dies. That's what his obstructionism and hypocrisy REALLY means.
It's clear you're animated by the debate--you've shown that several times over in this blog alone. And I agree with the crux of your argument. All I'm suggesting is that you and other liberal writers are going a little off the rails here when we most need cogent and clear arguments.
In this blog, you push aside the evidence and jump to the argument: "Joe Lieberman doesn't care if this little girl dies." Do you really think that is going to be effective? Do you really believe that there is a man out there so evil that he truly doesn't care about children dying? Seriously?
No, the problem is that Joe and the others ignore the evidence; thus, we have to hit people over their proverbial heads with the evidence, over-and-over-and-over-and-over, until it finally sinks in. Joe's "let's wait and see attitude" is ignorant of middle class needs, plain and simple.
And BTW, your anecdotes are powerful testimonials, but anecdotes are easily ignored or dismissed. The Sarah Palins of the world will think the stories are embellished or conjured from thin air.
Can I make a simple request? For your next blog, can you list (with links) the best evidence showing that our health care system has failed? Start with the WHOs ranking of the U.S. system and then go from there. Give us ten good sources of research on the topic so when my conservative friends say that I'm being hysterical, I am armed with solid evidence to clobber them with. Is that too much to ask?
Or is it easier to call Joe Lieberman more names?
I personally have done DOZENS of fact-based blogs on health care. I lived in two countries with single payer and have long espoused that as the ideal. I've done posts on health care systems in other countries and done political actions to encourage readers to contact their congresscritters.
I've linked the WHO's rankings at least four times in the last year.
You're not listening. Facts don't reach these people. There is no evidence that will convince them, because they're not operating from a misguided set of facts so much as a narcissism borne of an ideology. They don't care if people die. They only care to make this Obama's Waterloo and to obstruct the Democratic Party. Full stop.
It's long past the stage where there is a respectful exchange of ideas to come to a mutually acceptable compromise.
Now it's just time to remind them that there are consequences for their actions.
...some Americans are beyond reach, so that allows us to reduce our argument to anecdotes, attacking the messenger, and emotional pleas? This latest version of your argument sounds like moral relativism, but you have to understand that further engagement of this sort only reinforces conservative obstinacy.
I'm sorry, but if your first 100 attempts at providing an evidence-based counter-argument is unsuccessful, then it's time for number 101. And 102, 103, 104, etc. if necessary.
Are you new to logic and debate? Because despite all your references here, there is no substitute for evidence
Joe Lieberman and his enablers in the White House and the Senate.
Keep it respectful. Insulting me is not helping your case, and can lead to you getting a commenting time out.
So it's okay for you to insult Joe Lieberman (who certainly deserves it) and now me (I probably deserve it, I don't know), but when someone refutes your blog--with occasional compliments, by the way-- it brings down the wrath of the Crooks and Liars Gods? Lovely.
So much for the open exchange of ideas.
Keep posting. I think both you have valid points.
EVERYTHING you accuse me of.
Hyperbole much? Wrath of Gods? No, terms of service. Deal with it.
And I didn't insult you. Nor did I insult Joe Lieberman, who, as a public person, is not the same and you know it.
You haven't refuted anything, by the way. You've requested that I be polite and I've pointed out that I HAVE been polite and I HAVE given evidence galore in the past. That's not the point of this post, no matter how badly you want to make it.
...hyperbole. Rather, I suggested that your argument would be better served by the facts that you allude to, rather than personal criticisms of a single politician (no matter how dispicable he is).
If you've given the evidence in the past, then continue to do so. Don't stoop to the levels of the Sarah Palins and the Glenn Becks of the world just because you're angry. In the minds of an independent observer, your good points will be drowned out by what is essentially the liberal analogue of 'death panels.'
Again, I think you're a great writer (although a little too quick with threats), so write a blog called the "Top Ten Studies Showing the Failure of the American Healthcare System." I am a researcher myself--I'd be happy to send you the articles you need. All I ask of you (and everyone else with a public voice in this argument) is to make the BEST argument you can make. By doing so, you will expose the Liebermans of the world for who they really are, without personal attack.
Which debate are you talking about. The one you're having with Nicole or the national debate on healthcare? If it's the latter, that's a debate in name only. The teabaggers saw to that in the summer when the debate was supposed to be happening. It didn't.
The health care debate is about PEOPLE. Holy Joe's actions have real consequences for real people. Don't bury your head in the sand and try to sanitize what is really going on here.
Being nice and sweet and general in disagreeing with the Republicans/Lieberman hasn't worked too well so far, has it? The Dems tried playing nice and they end up giving away the store, while the Repubs laugh behind their backs.
I agree with Nicole Belle completely.
I think you confuse evidence-based debate with pacifism. I'm not a pacifist. I am someone who wants to see real change, and I argue that lowering our argument to Sarah Palin levels does us no good.
Punch them in the face with facts. Then, when they get up, kick them in the crotch with more facts.
Is that tough enough?
That liberals were "for" an idea and therefore Lieberman had to be against it? Trying to argue with Lieberman is no more useful than tilting at windmills—save that for the oil companies.
She's perfectly right pin it on "one snivelling little politician" because HE'S THE ONE WHO'S STANDING IN THE WAY.
Why exactly is it that you find that so hard to get?
...in the grand scheme of things, Lieberman is inconsequential. What IS important--and what needs to be addressed--is his illogical and shifting argument against healthcare reform. The false argument is the target.
Even if our anecdotes and emotional pleas and name calling manage to silence the Joementum, some other fool will just pick up where he left off.
"In the grand scheme of things", he's inconsequential? Christ, what ivory tower are you living in?
THIS IS THE GUY WHO'S GOING TO STAND IN THE WAY UNTIL HE GETS WHAT HE WANTS AND WE ALL END UP SCREWED.
And he's "inconsequential"? Holy shit, I thought you were deluded before, but now you've proved it. Thank the gods I'm not the only one who realizes the futility of such nonsense, or this country would be truly fucked. Oh, wait...
Howard Dean echoed the same thoughts tonight on Hardball. Why focus on one Senator when we have yet to convince 39 others? Moreover, if you're watching the polls, the majority of people now are on the side of the status quo -- they are scared and want no change at all.
It's a simple formula that we need to remember, and it goes like this: For conservatives, DIN = WIN. The more noise, yelling, name calling, and fist pumping there is on a topic, the less likely change will occur. As the volume goes up to 11, more and more potential voters tune out, and others are scared away from thinking about it for themselves. It also becomes easier for Repubs to play the moral relativism card (i.e., we can call them names because they called us names first!).
So the answer is clear. We need calm, sober, fact-based, and rational arguments, repeated over and over ad nauseum. The liberal argument should always be authoritative, not authoritarian or permissive. And if you think that's what has happened, go back and watch the videos here on C&L of Al Franken ("not entitled to our own facts") and other liberal politicians who, despite being on the right side of this argument, have only raised the din in the Senate and House. And interestingly, it is these over-the-top displays that get the attention of all of us here on this blog.
And I thank you for having the courage of your convictions and using this bully pulpit you have to call members of Congress out on the carpet.
I'm sorry, Nicole. But you played right into the corporatist hands last week by supporting the Medicare buy in, and now you got double crossed and reduced to screaming "what about the CHILDREN!!"
Losers whine.
I don't think I did. Are you confusing me with someone else?
It was either your post last week or Heather...but I'm pretty sure it was yours.
http://crooksandliars.com/clsearch/healthcare/NULL/NULL/NULL/NULL/NULL/%252F
So sorrrry. It was Susie Madrak.
My apologies.
will be an incremental process, and I'm able to be mature enough to recognize that.
However, I don't think I ever bought into the Medicare buy in.
You missed my post above! ;o) LOL
that literary devices like the use of irony,parody, hyperbole etc are permitted when writing polemical pieces are you not? I think we all gathered that Joe is not actually praying for this little girl's demise. Nicole's point is that his position has these consequences. Nothing more nothing less.
We need to infuse evidence into the debate.
The most reliable way to learn what people really want or really believe is to ignore their words and see what they do, especially what they do consistently. By Lieberman's deeds, what he wants is unmistakably clear.
Politicians ultimately will act only if they benefit. Calling out Holy Joe is necessary - he wants to be re-elected. Ignoring him puts no pressure on him to re-think how he is really hurting those he is supposed to be helping. Not calling him out (he IS the problem in this case, after all) helps him get re-elected. Not calling a hypocrite a hypocrite only works to the hypocrite's advantage.
We can multi-task. We can attack "the status quo" and Holy Joe at the same time. And besides, attacking the status quo just lets hypocrites like Lieberman get way with lying to us and getting re-elected si he can lie again.
We need to be concrete in our complaints and not ethereal.
If Joe says something blatantly hypocritical or false, is the best counter-argument to call him a hypocrit? How about a liar? Even if those things are true, does pointing them out help our argument?
I say no. It may make us feel better to shake our fists at these idiots, but it does nothing to further the argument to revamp our healthcare system. It would be much better to make it clear that Joe is arguing for inaction. Joe wants reform to stop. The counter-argument should be larger than Joe, and it should be clear to all who hear it that to stop now is the same as saying that our current healthcare system is acceptable. That being 37th in the world is acceptable. That having 40 million uninsured in our country is acceptable. When they try to argue that the 40 million figure is wrong, we explain exactly HOW that research was conducted and why the estimate has merit.
That's the argument, and the further we stray away from it, the more likely we are to lose it all.
I think words have power, most especially the words that accurately name. Joe is a sociopath. As a sociopath he is a predator. The sociopathic predator can only function effectively if he can extract trust from his intended victims. Like all sociopaths, Lieberman spends an inordinate amount of time grooming and doing maintenance upon his public pretense of probity and trustworthiness. He cannot not succeed as a predator if that pretense is pierced, if he cannot lure in potential victims using the bait of trustworthiness.
He is dependent upon, and counts upon, the kindness and inclinations born of the higher nature of those around him to assist him in maintaining his pretense. He absolutely relies upon the collective reluctance of others to do him grevious harm: name him and name his game. And in our decency, we generally oblige him. This dependence is true of all sociopaths, part of the calculus they are endlessly working. But, simple truth is one of the best tools available for transforming a successful sociopath into unsuccessful sociopath. No sociopath can function as the predator when they are broadly known for what they are.
In my opinion, I do not think there is anything near enough naming the name or naming of the game. More, I think that when people do name a sociopath and the sociopath's game, they should be utterly pitiless and completely brutal in their honesty, leaving no place for the sociopath to find cover or to hide. And, if one thinks about it, there is no courtesy that is due these kinds of personalities, who have chosen, through a lifetime of consistent choices, to serve only themselves by preying upon all others.
They are owed no courtesies at all. JMO.
I would just diagnose Joe with insufferable douchebaggery, but I'm a psychologist, so what do I know?
But again, calling Joe whatever we want does no good. The argument FOR healthcare reform has to be made in a clear, meaningful, and respectful way.
That's the point.
Then why don't you run for Congress so you can make those supposedly meaningful arguments where they will actually count, instead of coming to an internet forum to shake your oh-so-educated finger at people who are talking amongst themselves? Oh yeah, that would actually entail some effort. Silly me.
...my criticism of this piece is that it is essentially an ad hominem argument, and we end the thread here with an ad hominem attack on me.
I fear for our movement.
with your diagnosis.
I'm a hard working American. The wife and I have been without health care for nearly 10 years now. We've been pre-existing-out and priced-out, take your pick. When it came to paying either health care or the mortgage, we choose to keep the house.
As a 50 year old American, I assume it'll be 15 years before I get health care again at age 65 should Medicare still exist by then. Well that's "change" the wife and I can look forward to I guess.
I may give money to some "progressive" candidate in the future, but I assure you I will NEVER give one F-ing penny to the Democratic party ever, EVER, again. A note aboout the Democratic party. They can't possibly be this inept by accident.
When you have to bang you head against the wall and ask, how can they do this, how can they cave or be so weak, this doesn't make any sense. You're right! It doesn't make sense when you assume they're on your side, or share your world view, or share the kind of change we want. The problem is not the Democrats, the problem is us. We're just blind to who they are. The Dems by and large want the same things as the GOP. Whereas the GOP tell you up front that they're working for the top 1 percent, the Dems lie to your face about it.
Now if you look at it from that perspective, it all makes sense.
I may give money to some "progressive" candidate in the future, but I assure you I will NEVER give one F-ing penny to the Democratic party ever, EVER, again. A note aboout the Democratic party. They can't possibly be this inept by accident.
And that, boys and girls, is your winner.
Let's start a New Progressive Party! I'm free next Tuesday.
The NPP could co-nominate progressive Democrats (i.e., the candidate would be both party's candidate) and run its own where there were no progressive candidates in the race. Endorsing progressive Democratic primary candidates might also work.
with Joe LIEberman's name written all over.
Maybe that rubbing two sticks together and praying for a way to kill this rotten legislation is working!
Seems Sen. Burris didn't get the message in Obamanuel's little White House pow-wow yesterday.
He doesn't seem to feel like "going along to get along" at this time.
Gee, it would be so sad to see this rotten bill fail by one lousy vote....
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1...
this is the decline of a nation in moral values and spiritual values
and religion is not the answer
in fact religion as we practice it is part of the problem
capitalism is the major source of this moral decline of a nation
few will understand my words very few
the genius of reagan and his followers to eliminate the middle class and have the wealth of a nation in the hands of the few
and americans in their dumbed down state lined up to vote for reagan and his followers which appears to be all presidents and most of congress since reagan including obama.
I think everyone should read Greenwald / Salon , about how powerless and helpless Obama and Emmanuel are NOT and about the deals they made long ago with the Insurance industry and pharma and healthcare " reform ". This explains what "appears to be" the chaos going on now and a lot of things , like why Obama would be defending Lieberman and not playing hardball with the " rats " in the party . Remember Emmanuel was never known as a wimp or a push over , quite the opposite he''s known to be vicious . Obama and his promise of change in governing and cleaning it up is full of crap , we have been had . Transparent and open ? Yeah , right .
Rahm Emanuel - Clinton Lackey and Pharma concubine.
and exceed $500,000?
Cause charging $750,000 would be excessive. It's part of the AMA's moral responsibility mandate.
grimly clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, unable to find the words for the constraints they hate. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow.
What a fate
...by parents very involved in the civil rights battles of the early sixties, when there were many people to hate. While I have abandoned their Catholic faith entirely, I am largely, still, forsworn from hatred.
I will make an exception now for Joe Lieberschmuck. I hate him. I hate the fact that our Senate, the uppermost of the bicameral bodies, is composed of some of the most stupid people we could find. If this is the cream of the political crop, I may as well kill myself now. I have DeMint and Missy Graham as Senators. All hope is lost. But above all, I loathe, detest, abjure, and supremely hate that cock-fuck, uber-anti-mensch Lieberman.
It's greed, selfishness and venality. Difference.
Fear of a fake boogy man, socialism, has the "real Americans" opposing health care for them, their families, and neighbors. The corpo-rats brainwashing, like Dick Army that are misleading many to oppose what is in their best interests, is the most disgusting example of what is wrong with cancervatives. Misinformation is destroying this once nice country.
Just askin'.
I thought it was nice for a while back in the 80's, as it was sliding downhill thanks to Ronald Reagan.
I remember the 80's. America was far from nice. That was the decade when being greedy, self-indulgent fuckheads came into style, and any trace of altruism or generosity got laughed out of the national consciousness for good. The 80's were lots of things, but "nice" most definitely was not one of them.
.
and ignore the HUMAN face of health care then the only answer is you want these people to die.
I knew full well that the corporate controllers would strip the HUMAN out of "reform" but I am still hoping it might not happen.
I would hope that those who are angry focus on the real source for the frustration. It happens to be the President. There is a reason he lept to the defense of joe last year, and this is it. Face it, the President is a bluedog. Look who he has surrounded himself with.
Sunday when joe popped off, where he send rahm? To Harry Reid.
He did nothing to joe, because he is the straw man. Has the President put up a fight for single payer? A public option. No. He delivers 35 million new customers to united health care.
He came out yesterday saying we just HAD to pass this thing, looking just like bush when he came running out saying they had to pass on the FISA bill.
This bill is the one the President WANTED. He had max baucus standing behind him when he spoke yesterday.
Saying all the antisemetic things about joe won't buy a cup of coffee. Yes, he is an opportunistic quisling, but the President called in a favor.
The President has consistantly dealt against the progressives and placated conservadems and the people from maine.
Place the rage where it belongs and it starts at the top. I really think another part of this is a setup. The progressives are going to be pissed, and Howard Dean stepped into it. We are going to go into an election year with the republican owned MSM saying it was 'the left'. Fuck that. Let ben nelson or blanche lincoln shoot it down.
Today, mrs greenspan, chuck todd, david gregory all focussed on 'the left' This move was to cut reid off at the knees, again, why would the President INSTANTLY tell reid to cave to joe, and not have joe in for a one on one?
We are being played big time. The next thing to watch is if or how the President reacts to the restoration of Glass-Stegall.
If he opposes it, I rest my case, we'll have at least 4 years of corporate swill. I'm sure I am not alone in scanning the future for a primary challenge.
where I said that the White House and the Senate Leadership are okay with letting Joe deciding that it's okay for these people to die?
Obama isn't off the hook, not be a long shot.
The best you can say about Obama's role in this is that he was grossly negligent in failing to lead the effort and even that case is getting hard to make.
"holy joe" didn't want to compromise. the (d) congress were never going to get his blessing/vote without quick action. he strategically is making his move before more CBO info would come out to prove him
WRONG regarding the medicare option. which would show that option would strengthen medicare by virtue of allowing younger people in the system. for me this again reveals the LIMITs of our political system. this is a large step forward that we can build on and improve. as usual, we will be handed the low hanging fruit for our efforts.
Misinformation / lies and the gullible , ignorant and very stupid , you bet it's a combination that is going a long ways in destroying this country . Obama /Emanuel have been playing us too , I'm not so sure just how much change and reform they really want . Also I'm not so sure that Obama is such a wimp but that we were just mislead big time about how he'd govern and what he would do for the people , he did give a helluva speech didn't he ? We voted for change , what we got is the same old shit and went form worse to bad .
Not great (unless you compare it to the Senates) but really decent.
You owe an apology to Nancy Pelosi.
I said SENATE and WHITE HOUSE leadership.
Did she change houses of congress?
I don't think so.
Kindness -
Don't you think you perhaps owe one for being mistaken?
Hadassa should slap him! After all she's been through you think he would be a bit more humane!
Obama wants to have some "FUN"! and he THANKED LIEBERMAN for the statement he made:
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Lieber...
quoting Lieberman's relating of events, I'm more than a little dubious.
Ohhh...Politico!
It must be TRUE!!
New Progressive Mantra
"No Governement Run Or Subsidized Healthcare...For Elected Officials"
"Obama thanked Lieberman privately for his statement issued earlier Tuesday pledging support for the bill as long as the Medicare expansion and public option were eliminated from the bill, Lieberman said."
So, Joe provided the quote that said that the President thanked him.
Yes, and George Bush told us that God spoke to him too.
He's a malignant sociopath and a malignant narcissist. Unless responding was directly part of doing maintenance upon the illusion that is his public pretense of a normal personality, his response would probably be, "Fuck 'em". The man does not care if one or a thousand or a million have to die upon the altar of his ego.
If evil is as evil does, he is an evil person.
I guess our only remaining hope is that Lieberman goes quail hunting with Cheney.
This sort of statement was wrong when Obama's name was used instead of Lieberman's and it is wrong now. Enough already!
ok...ok. Maybe they should go off shredding government documents together.
I truly hope LIEberman gets Alzheimer’s and dies a long slow painful death drooling all over his bib and not knowing who anybody is while fighting to get out of his brain. Just like Reagan did. I know it is a hateful thing and I don't particularly like myself for it but what this asshole is doing to millions of people is nothing short of what the most vile men in history have done. Lieberman has now put himself in the same category as these people.
nobody escapes justice.
He does not "want them to die."
He is entirely indifferent to their fate.
My dearest hope is that he would end up a syphilitic, crippled leper begging for crusts on the streets of Damascus or Baghdad...
I've said this in other venues, but thought I'd pass it on:
Here’s the game: There are two parts to the health bill: 1) the insurance reforms that require 60 votes. 2) a public option and/or Medicare buy-in that CAN be passed with reconciliation.
If you are Reid and you signal your intention to pass the latter through reconciliation, Joe goes ballistic and filibusters the former (insurance reforms). What to do? Take reconciliation off the table, try to pass the bill with the public option and then, with feigned reluctance, agree to give it up in exchange for his approval of the insurance reforms. Joe thinks he’s won. The House grumbles and tweaks it a bit, but passes it because, you know, Dems need some kind of bill to take home to Mom. Joe and the Republicans celebrate because the nasty Progressive caucus is screaming bloody murder, which must mean they won.
President Obama signs it. The very next day, Reid asks the House to begin work on a bill for reconciliation that includes a robust public option and/or Medicare buy-in. Only need 51 votes to pass that sucker. Dems get decent reform, only NOT IN ONE BILL AND NOT AT ONE TIME, and Joe gets played. Unable to signal his hand, poor Harry has taken the heat for God and Country.
The only thing that could derail the entire process is if the far left manages to kill the first bill in a fit of pique.
QED
So...the whole thing is a pique in a poke?
if Harry had a spine. But, that's a huge if.
you're right.
Not the "Obama's a genius at legislative subterfuge and is just lying in the weeds ready to pounce on the unsuspecting hapless Republicans" meme...Again.
(Jeez. That line is so lame/emptyheaded/ridiculous on so many levels it boggles just to think about it.)
Specifically: that the White House wants to pass a public option.
This Greenwald link has been posted several times today for good reason.
He can't be both. Moreover, the actions of the White House throughout this mess have strongly indicated a preference for industry objectives over social concerns. The public option failed because the White House wanted it to fail. This is classic Rahm Emmanuel: industry giveaways masquerading as reform.
[on edit] This was meant to be a reply to Adeimantus.
The game couldn't be played unless the Administration kept its distance. To the extent Obama (and Rahm) took the public option fight to the floor of the Senate is the extent to which Lieberman (and probably a couple flutter-heart centrists) would push back.
Consider Congressman Weiner and how Weiner's strong approval of the Medicare buy-in influenced Say-It-Ain't-So-Joe's decision on killing the prospect.
If someone had come and said, "How do we get to meaningful health reform without blowing up the filibuster?" Reid (and the White House) couldn't have played it any different. Nor can they announce their intentions now to ram the public option through with reconciliation after the passage of this bill, or Leiberman et. al. will kill even the Health Insurance reform.
And Glenn continues:
It could be 11th dimensional chess, but it could also be another sell out.
"...depicting Obama as the impotent progressive victim here of recalcitrant, corrupt centrists is really too much to bear."
I never thought he was a victim of corrupt centrists.
I just always assumed he was one of them.
(Gawd, I'm good.)
what Adeimantus is saying and would love to see it pan out. But I do have this doubt: Lieberman has plenty to lose. He could have lost his committee chairmanship the day after Obama was sworn in if Obama had wanted it that way. I presume he could still be punished that way. So my question is, why would the Whitehouse and Reid play this game when they have a way to make Joe behave already. I know it'd be dirty politics, but is there any other kind?
there will be a time when it will be "Eat the Rich".
Yeah...but they'll get the final laugh. Deregulation of the FDA will ensure that we will then ingest all the harmful carcinogens that the rich have consumed from their high fat, cholestorol rich diets.
This is Obama and Emanuels baby . They gave away the farm at the very start of the process . The White House list of visitors ? A constant stream of CEO's and big wigs from the Insurance Industry and Pharma ( and the finacial sector ) . ( Durbin's ? ) bill to make it easier to import cheaper drugs had the votes , it was a go , Obama has a meeting with the Dems before the vote and the votes disappeared . Would have broken Obama's deal with Pharma and pissed them off . WTF ? There is a reason for all of this chaos and why Obama and Emanuel are not leading and not strong arming , for cryin out loud Obama has defended and stood up for Lieberman , I'm not so sure just what kind of reform and change they had in mind to begin with . We libs and progressives have been had .
And if that is the way it turns out then Obama and Emanuel will be gone in 2012. There is no way they can win without us showing up and we won't show up if this goes down. If it turns out the way Adeimantus says Obama will win in 2012. It's as simple as that.
It seems anything that will benefit the people of this country is a no vote. But as soon as the banks or insurance company need something the congress can't wait to give it to them. They don't even haggle over it. Just look at all the money they are spending on these two wars. They couldn't wait to vote to go to war.
Where are the churches on this travesty. They want to stop all abortions, isn't providing insurance for everyone just as important as saving a baby? Aren't young children and adults worth their time and effort? They say abortion is murder,isn't denying health care to the under insured or non insured just as important
as babies? How come the churches are so quiet on this issue? Is it because once they are born they no longer matter. Can't be used against the Democratic party.
Here is the short answer.
Most of the public deals with politics at a single issue level. So, abortion opponents only see that one issue and do not connect the dots of hypocrisy in not supporting abortion but then not supporting health or food issues for children.
This is just one example. That is why I complained about the age 55 Medicare buyin. It was a classic political strategy to get aging baby boomers on board by playing their self interest against the self interest of the others getting thrown under the bus...ie the poor.
Of course, Lieberman was not happy with that compromise. It hurt HIS constituency (the insurance companies) so he through EVERYONE under the bus.
Divide and conquer, and since that didn't work, kill them all and let God sort them out.
That whole "Its-better-than-nothing-perfection-standing-in-the-way-of-good" crowd from yesterday certainly melted away quickly, didn't they?
Kill the Bill.
pathetic post.
so, let's go a step further:
I want free food, free clothing and free homes for everybody.
and if you, C&L, disagree, you're babykillers, because in wyoming there is currently a baby who's freezing.
what a perfect line of argument.
Login or Register to post comments.