Dem Leadership Negotiating Option Trigger to Get ConservaDem Votes. Thanks, Harry!
By Susie Madrak Sunday Nov 22, 2009 10:40amI'm not feeling incredibly optimistic this morning. Sounds like the most conservative (and most expensive) version of this bill will make up the final version, and I don't see much to celebrate. Is it better to have a crappy bill - or no bill at all?
And why should those be our only options?
The fact is, the Democratic leadership lacks, well, leadership. They think constructing a stage set and acting out a scene that looks like they're leading on the public option is enough to placate the people who so desperately need their help. It isn't. They simply don't get it, and it will cost them:
From the liberal end, Burris repeated a threat made earlier: That if the public option is taken out, he's gone. "I won't vote for it," he said.
"You'll lose people on the left," confirmed Brown.
Reid, aware of the fine line he's walking, told reporters that Landrieu, Schumer and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) are working on a compromise public option, perhaps something that 60 folks could support and save face.
That's what you don't understand, Harry. It's not about "face." But then, it's been so long since you had to worry about paying for your health care, I suppose it's too much to expect.
Yes, this will eventually be good for the country and perhaps our grandchildren - but it won't do much to help the people who need help during these desperate times, and it's certainly going to hurt the Democrats in the midterm elections:
After announcing her intent to support a health care debate this afternoon, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) told reporters she thinks Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will soon have to choose between a triggered public option and no health care bill. She also says Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)--the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate one of its most fierce and vocal public option advocates--has been tasked as a point man on the issue.
"I believe it's going to be very clear at some point very soon that there are not 60 votes for the current provision in the bill, and that the leader and the leadership are going to have to make a decision and I trust that they will figure out how to do that," Landrieu told reporters.
Landrieu has been in negotiations with a number of centrist senators about a compromise that would eliminate the public option, except in states where insurance remains unaffordable. Interestingly, though, Schumer is playing a big role in that process.
"Senator Schumer's working on that. He's sort of been tasked as one of the point people," she told me. "He's been tagged as one of the point people to help negotiate that."
Schumer's involvement as a liaison between liberal and conservative Democrats puts the trigger issue in a new light. When Reid announced that he'd include his opt-out plan in the health care bill in lieu of triggers, many, including trigger-author Olympia Snowe, believed the compromise to be dead. But it now appears to be one of the central points of discussion between leadership and conservative Democrats as they try to find 60 votes for a reform bill.
It's half a victory, and a weak one at that.
Login or Register to post comments.
no bill at all.
the dems seem less of a party than a loose collection of wishy-washy people that don't have an "R" next to their name.
Sure, it is frustrating at times, but would you rather be a permanent minority party? We were almost there, but in the end we were saved by the ultimate bumble-fuck, Bush.
.
They are Republicans with a phony (D) after their name. They vote Republican because they, as is the entire GOP, corporate owned. The entire health care bill & many to come will not be controlled by a Democratic majority, because the GOP & Blue Dogs together control the legislative process. Until the anti-democratic 60-vote disgrace is booted fron the Senate rules, nothing progressive will come out of Washington. Between two-corrupt major political parties & a corporate owned MSM, is it any wonder we are going down the tubes as Wall Street laughs at us?
what we have is the "i'll save my job
before i do anything responsible for the
American citizens" congress.
i said it before, i will not donate
another dollar to the dems and i will
not vote in another election until/unless
the dems get a robust public option into
and passed in the health care bill.
why should i support repubs in dems clothing?
Who gives a damn what party is in office if they're both screwing us and are beholden to elite, special interests? Both parties deserve to be minority parties, there just aren't any viable options and the game is rigged by both parties to not allowing challenges to the managed democracy we have.
I also don't understand people saying these people aren't Democrats, just Republicans with a D after their name. The Democrats have supported what amounts to "globalization", savage neo-liberalism in one way or another, for decades. They supported and support NAFTA type deals and will go out of your way to explain how inevitable "free trade" is. They supported the Telecommunications Act and don't seem interested in changing it. They do nothing on climate change, other than window dressing. When in power they don't ever make impassionate arguments about health care, mainly because THEY already have good healthcare and it doesn’t matter to them if you pests are stuck in this inefficient and immoral system. They also want to expand our insanely big, drag on the economy, out of control military spending but think it is moderate to increase the spending by a lower amount and will only overthrow a government or bomb another country once or twice every four years, instead of the weekly threats from the insane right wing who controls the other party. So we should jump for joy, it could be worse. What logical philosopher kings we have. Plato would be proud.
The Democrats might have been the party of working people, but that was when my grandparents were around and when the left was active, radical and threatening their interests. Now, like Labour in Britain, they hold the water for entrenched interests. They aren't Republicans with a D after their name, they're the other elite party in charge who doesn't care if you live or die and don't understand you or your concerns. They’ll be the same party next election and many of you will be shocked that history, 40 or so years in the making, is repeating itself.
Anything short of direct power for people will fail, it's too late for these parasites to change the mess they've created. Any rate, we should outsource the government work, just like they've done to the US industrial base. I'm sure some parasitic administrator can make crappy policies and give nonsense justifications for their lack of passion and crappy ideas for a fraction of the cost.
As long as Obama wants to attach himself to that bumble-fuck in the spirit of "bipartisanship" we could see worse in '12. Paradoxical, of course, for America to want more of an even _worse_ beating, but Americans hate a phoney that sells them out worse than they hate a straight fascist. And those are the only options, right? No third parties. No revolt -- hell, it'd just be white trash fascist anyway and then we really _would_ get President Palin. Just riding this rocket down to the crash crater.
It is a foot in the door we can build on and I think the GOP will pay for their obstructionist ways.
Lieberman, Landreiu, Lincoln and Beyh are not Republican, even if they act like it.
are a problem here but 100% of the regressives are a problem. Now which is the bigger problem?
It's like back in 30s Germany, they were people that voted Nazi, supported the third Reich, yet squealed like little girls when called Nazis. If you act like a Nazi, guess what, you are one.
Sorry to get all Godwin on here.
i respect your optimism... but, if anything, what we have seen is the opposite: healthcare reform has been continually watered down to the point where it is less "reform" and more a boon to the insurance industry.
i will eat a murder of crows if i am wrong, but i would wager a heaping pile of crow that any further movement on healthcare will be to right
Is exactly what the GOP and the insurance industry wants.
You're either with 'em or against 'em.
:)
Crazy talk. Do you think that a bill making people buy their horribly immoral and overpriced "product", health insurance, is not something the insurance companies will favor? Hell, they're one election cycle away from simply changing the watered down bill. Wait another year, spend tons of money, and you can re-write the bill or amend it. I'd bet that GM would be in favor of a bill in government that says that everyone has to buy their cars, no matter how good they are. The GOP doesn't want anything that crowds out the private market and profit making. In war, in health care, anywhere. They aren't opposed to big government, since government is the only engine that's EVER worked as far as economic development and the delivery of basic social services. They just don't want it working for YOU.
If the can is merely kicked down the road, realize the the opponents of reform will be stronger next time around because of either of these bills.
Each bill mandates premiums paid to private insurance with little meaningful regulation of their monopoly rates.
Think these behemoths are powerful now? Wait till they've been given a few more years of some serious gouging.
A bad bill is far worse than no bill.
It's a foot in the door to what exactly? The Democrats don’t have a passion for anything, few of them care enough to raise their voice, forget being angry at how unjust and illogical this system is. If you expand health care you have to have people in charge who have a larger vision, who can articulate why moving forward is imperative and you have to convince people who disagree with you. It is just as likely right now that this bill, because it doesn’t fix ANYTHING fundamentally wrong with the system, will cause a backlash against the government doing anything regarding health care. When we reach that fork in the road, do you honestly think the Democrats: a. Care enough about the issue and can articulate why a universal, non-profit system is imperative. b. That they can be the ones trusted to do that. MAYBE more than the other party, but only because at this point there isn’t an viable other option.
You've just created a horrific bill, the gives the house away to the same parasitic insurance companies that are profiting off of our health care, well lack of health care, and you've attached the Democratic Party and "liberals" to this monstrosity. Single payer, by far the best option, supported by a majority of people (in a country where both parties and the media are entirely against it, so majority support without ANYONE with a megaphone in favor of it, says something about the strength of the idea itself with people) was taken out. A case could have been made, easily, for it. A moral and logical case that would have forced the hand of the right wing. It was taken away before the debate began. Then the flawed but better than nothing option was essentially taken away, with more window dressing and lip service. Now, this giant bill, written in large part BY the insurance and drug companies and the politicians they own, is entirely owned by the Democratic Party. I am a leftist, I am not a closet right winger saying this: the GOP would have helped the Democrats and saved them by stopping this bill. It does nothing to fix the problems of the system. People will pay lots of money to the same parasitic insurance companies, the same systematic problems with exist and our government will be a trillion or so more in debt. All to prop up an unsustainable and immoral health care system. I knew the Democrats were corporate sellouts, maybe a little more moderately than the group of parasites in the other party, but I’m still shocked at how bad and weak they are and have been. I expected nothing, I’ve seen $hit and the Democrats seem to think $hit is better than nothing. I disagree. Everyone left of center is going to pay when this complex, expensive monstrosity is put in place.
I have no faith that the crooks and liars in the government are going to solve any major problem we face if it conflicts with the interests of economic elites. None.
I recall that King Pyrrhus had something to say about this type of "victory".
on The Ersatz Public Option that is so threatening to the White House and Congress and their corporate donors.
That's all I can take from this.
to find ways to kill the public option and using Landrieu as his latest cover.
Just a week or two ago Rahm sent Bill Clinton to meet with key Senators on HCR. Next thing you know, there is Lanny Davis, former Clinton aide and eternal friend-of-the-lobbyists-extraordinaire, smirking on the Ed Show that by insisting on a public option (even the 2% solution), Senators would be killing health reform.
That Obama, man of the people...WHOOPS...lobbyists.
jesus, what do you expect they play you guys just like they play the lobbyists. one for money and one for emotional support.at the end of the day they vote for money as it talks and bullshit walks.
you guys just drop to your knees too easily and therefore they don't respect you.
what do they say? oh yeah , you get the government you deserve.
the health care reform tent might as well fold up and go home. Without a public option (Full medicare for all citizens would have been the right thing to do however).
As it goes, with the conservative democrats calling the shots, the outcome of any healthcare bill will be so dilluted, so constricted, and too accomodating to the healthcare industry, that it will have minimal, if non-existent effect on curbing costs, or providing extensive coverage to Americans.
I am quite disillusioned and hope that Obama vetoes any crappy legislation that comes out and calls an emergency meeting of congress to start over. Unfortunately, he will probably sign anything to just get it over and claim a victory, regardless of the fact the the victory is to the Republicans, not the Americans who need it.
I give up. With senators like Liebermann and Nelson and Baucus still pulling strings on the other 350,000,000 Americans' healthcare, it is just useless to play this game anymore.
And everyday, there are "Letters to the Editors" in my newspaper from nutjob teabagger/birthers still referring to 'ObamaCare' as some socialistic nonsense. America has become a land of shit-hole jerks descending into nothing more than a bully warmongering country.
I am disgusted.
end up with anything resembling a public option.
in the House and the Senate and President too.
for pointing that out Ron. i think peeps forget that at times.
for toothless "public option" we have now. See my comments below.
They will have a huge show - the ups and downs will be massive.
Here: *dangles shiny object*
This is still just the senate debate.
I'll keep my powder dry until we hear what is being put in the final bill or maybe I will have more than a passing interest in the negotiation for the final bill.
I remember a few weeks back there was no public option and some folks were just totally defeated.
Seemed a bit over reactionary then as it does now.
The public option IS the frigging compromise!!!!!
*
*
............ N.O .. T.R.I.G.G.E.R.S !!!!! ..........
*
The Pope of Hope (R-Government Sachs) has already handed over $17 trillion to the Banksters, his primary constituents and sponsors. With no strings attached, incomplete accounting and sketchy records of where the money went, a plunder of historical proportions. Without investigations much less prosecutions for the massive fraud which brought about the meltdown, essentially the government is carrying on a coverup. The corruption is monumental.
Why are not there tens of millions of citizens marching in the streets?
How is it that they do not know how badly they are being had.
In addition, even in a depressed economy, the MICC (Military Industrial Congressional Complex) has had its budget increased. Including the National Security State and perpetual war apparatus it is a trillion dollars a year give or take a few billion.
More than ten times our nearest rival.
The MIC (Medical Industrial Complex) is late to the party so it is a problem to get them special funding, but then they are doing fine without it. This sham bill will be a windfall for them.
This seeming drama about a few tens of billions per year for a pretend health reform bill is a sideshow, part of the cover up of the Bankster's plunder. Something to draw attention away from the greatest heist in the history of the world. It is small potatoes. Except to those without health care.
For them it is life and death. 120 have died since this time yesterday. If we had 44,000 Americans die in a year of a war, there would be an uproar. Instead, because that number is from a lack of health insurance, we have near silence.
Washington DC a is city of bought (mostly) men, the citizens beyond the beltway, in life, or in death, do not enter the calculus.
From my small perspective, I see this as a lose-lose for the Dems. One of the most cynical aspects is not allowing the "exchange" to kick in until 2013 so that in 2012 they can say keep us in power so we can fulfill the "public option" part of the bill. They are playing with peoples lives and I don't see how that serves them well.
I wish they had started at the top of the mountain (universal, single-payer) and modified down from there. The WH "hands-off" approach was (still is) a dismal failure. And Reid has shown no ability at being a hard edged, ball-busting, no-compromising Leader. Those are the qualities that are needed, post-Bush, to get things done.
Last year I sensed that the only way to get anything done after the disasters of Bush was for us to have super majorities of progressive Dems. Anything less than that would be useless. Sadly, it's come to pass.
It's true - healthcare "reform" has never gotten this far before, but Pyrrhic victories don't help those who are literally struggling to stay alive.
a trigger (no public option) and ensuring their campaign coffers are filled to perpetuity. So from their perspective this bill is heading toward a wild success.
We are the only industrialized nation where healthcare is a for-profit industry. Obama has worked to cement the for-profit aspect in place and make sure the 'little guy' bears the costs.
Remember, Obama took single payer off the table from the offset (too "unAmerican", read: American citizen-friendly/corporate-unfriendly), started his negotiating position with a "sliver" of a public option, supported and worked behind the scenes for the Baucus bill, also known as "Obama's bill" and which was written by the health insurance industry, had an inordinate desire to let Olympia Snowe and her trigger define the terms of the debate, and just 2 weeks ago sent Bill Clinton to meet with key Senators to talk them out of supporting the public option.
And let's not forget, Obama insists that when it comes to the American citizen and their health, the bill must be budget neutral; when it comes to Wall Street, it's ok to throw trillions of taxpayer their way. "Budget neutral", read: the American citizen must pay the price of whatever the medical and insurance industries throw their way without the government doing anything to contain costs.
On the upside, we're not really an industrialized nation since about a month after NAFTA was signed. What sort of healthcare do the "service" nations get? Oh, that's right, that's what we've got now...
I'll mow your lawn if you'll mow mine.
Women have been tossed under the bus, and now the public option will be hid behind triggers that will never be set off.
Remember the trigger? It will never come into play b/c the trigger mechanism will never be tripped.
Unacceptable.
Apparently we have to wait for the entire country to go to hell in a handbasket before our elected representatives will do the right thing. Many many more people must die and live in pain so we can continue to enrich the insurance companies and pay their executive officers outrageous salaries that even investment bankers envy.
Absolutely cannot vote for a worthless bill. A bad bill is worse than no bill. No bill can be blamed on corporate-owned politicians. Crappy bill makes everyone's life even worse.
What are these traitor conservative democrats giving up besides any democratic votes next election?
That's from Landrieu's characterization of the negotiations about the public option. So is Chuck negotiating a compromise that would provide a public option in relatively poor/conservadem states like Louisiana but deny it to more prosperous/liberal like New York?
Hopefully they'll start reading the blogs the way they did when they threatened to not include the public option in the Senate bill because if they do, they'll be able to read about their coming demise for this betrayal. This is not healthcare reform and that is how any thinking liberal and progressive will feel. I for one will stay home in 2010. I'm sure I won't be the only one!
stay home and the regressive repuublicans will win back control. They will fix everything.
Get thee to the polls and vote Progressive or Socialist!
And forget "holding your nose" while you vote - Totally Unnecessary!
I will be WRITING-IN a Progressive or Socialist IF one is not on the Ballot. I would suggest that everyone reading here do the same. Between now and the 2010 AND the 2012 elections, we should all be working to identify viable State AND National entities that meet our constituency.
This action will nullify the monied bought-and-paid-for Corporatist shills of both mainstream Political Parties, and level the playing field.
Write in Progressive or Socialist and you will be a sliver of the population, smaller even than the tea-partyers.
By "a sliver of the population" and "tea-partiers" you cannot mean such a solid showing by the Palinistas in the recent NY-23 election, which forced out the entrenched Republican candidate, right?
What's really, really stupid is having any faith in a political system that is controlled, in both main political parties, by the Corporatist-owned media (MSM). I would point out that the brightest and most independent presidential candidates, particularly those who represent the more liberal or even anti-Corporate State, are the ones which have been ridiculed and/or ignored in the MSM and in the public debate process. The only candidates which emerge as contenders from the primary process are those who have been vetted by the Corporatist State. It really doesn't matter very much whether it is a Neo-Liberal Democrat or a Neo-Con Republican who wins the electoral process -- the game is rigged so that no matter which party wins, the Corporatist State POV is upheld.
H. Ross Perot (opposed NAFTA) was ridiculed for believing that his daughter was being stalked, with some available supporting evidence. Ralph Nader was castigated as a raving left-wing loon, or heavens forbid, maybe even an anti-capitalist Socialist. Dr. Howard Dean was ridiculed during the primaries with an exclaimation of "Yaaa-Haaw" much-amplified live microphone left on. Rep. Dennis Kucinich was first ridiculed for some comments twisted into a belief in UFOs, and then blocked from a number of presidential debates.
In many states, the hurdles are set much higher for 3rd-party candidates than for the state Democratic or Republican party machines. Dirty tricks, like embedding moles in the various state PACs to collect fraudulent petition signatures, sending supporters to non-existent meetings, voter caging, fraudulent robo-calls to prospective supporters, etcetera. But Corporate-vetted candidates from the two main, entrenched, and ethically compromised political parties don't have so many "problems".
A well-organized net-roots-based campaign of using Write-In candidates may be the ONLY way to counter the cornucopia of Corporatist cash that infuses the campaign coffers of the bought-and-paid-for Corporate shills that dominate our elections today. A mountain of campaign cash is great for campaign spending, but it does not buy a single vote. Corporations cannot vote. That is the single power that the Corporatist State cannot take away from us without artificial means, like vote fraud using electronic voting machines. You cannot really believe that Rahm Emanual's nation-wide campaign style, which has been great for Neo-Liberal Blue Dogs and DINOs has been more successful than Dr. Howard Dean's grassroots and net-roots organizations that awoke and invigorated the Democratic liberal progressive base.
Right now, we have nearly 12 months to organize, focus on campaign planks, raise capital, and find the best candidates in each state. It can be done. It has been done. Howard Dean did it. We can do it again. Voters do NOT have to "hold their noses" when they enter the voting booth. We can, and we must, give voters that choice - the Corporatist's "Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum" versus a real candidate responsive to the needs of his/her constituents, a liberal progressive.
Thank you, I could not have said it better myself.
And now I'm gonna have to take one up the B#$@ from the Dems
Optimism, at this point, is hoping the Senate kills this corporate welfare legislation dead.
Or hoping that a meteor / nuke / whatever falls on a joint session of congress.
How is that Medicaid Part D reform coming along? Have we gotten the Big Pharma graft out of that yet? How many years has it been now? How many billion/year is that still sucking out of senior citizens?
Suuuuuuuurree. A flawed bill is better than no bill.
First the PO is going to cost more than private insurance.
Second a "trigger" is going to be installed.
If the trigger is for a PO that actually provides less expensive HC than private insurance maybe that is the way to go. This fucking thing is so watered down that I wouldn't even vote for it. HCR it is not, a giveaway for the insurance industry it is.
Way to go Democrats, I swear I'm starting my own party today. Progressive, no conservatives allowed, taxes to pay for government programs and services, nothing but public funding and absolutely no corporate dollars, ever! I almost forgot, very hot tar and feathers for political dissent. I really don't think that it is too much to ask for.
"Is it better to have a crappy bill - or no bill at all? " - Susie Madrak
I say no bill at all. I want the "option" of purchasing an affordable Medicare type plan that cannot deny me or hike my rates because I am a gay pornographer. I want my taxpayer dollars to work for me instead of filling the pockets of the insurance industry and their shareholders.
Fuck mandates! Fuck triggers! Give me an affordable Medicare type plan as an option!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/asia/...
Hey! Here's our hard-earned dollars at work! We go to work then take our paychecks and buy a bunch of Chinese stuff at Target, Bed Bath and Beyond, WalMart etc.
Then they take our money (from making stuff we could have made ourselves!) and give their people Universal Health Care!
I'm not reading about any for-profit health insurance middlemen corporate types in the above article...!
I'll have (at a minimum) what THEY are having!!!
Pffftttt!!!!!!!
Reid's not a miracle worker. OK, there are things to complain about....even outside HCR with him as a leader. But the snarky jabs in this diary are really excessive in my opinion.
Two other points....
First, a Bill that accompllishes 80% more or less should be passed. If for no other reason than not passing one will condemn a lot of people into a system that is nothing more than the status quo. Abuses and all. Compared to what will be situation if the whole thing crumbles, it is a crime to claim that "a bad Bill (relatively speaking) is worse than no Bill".
Second...It will continue to energize the right wing and further deflate not only the left, but anyone who
is hoping for the kinds of improvements that are in the 80% of the Bill that we can live with.
Third....No PO is probably better than a watered-down one because it will cast the full spotlight onto the for profit insurance industry. For better or for worse. And might just open the door for an eventual
overhaul of the industrly, including single payer, whereas a weak PO wouldn't.
And for all you people hollering at Reid...who were congratulating him just a couple of days ago....
just how would you pass the Bill you want?
are we trying to save here? Ben Franklins into the campaign coffers?
have we heard from 'sources' that there will be no bill to pass? How many times have we heard there will be no public option? How many times have we heard that all of what you heard before was crap?
So, why do we take these stories seriously? They are politicians, for pete sakes!! They aren't going to give you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sheesh.
And negotiating to get votes isn't unheard of. I don't care what anyone says on the news, the blogs, etc. They won't desert the public option. They know they will lose everything if they do.
that by the time the reconciliation process merges the POS House HCR bill and the even larger POS Senate HCR bill, the resultant bill will look like a TARP-like bail-out of the HC insurance industry AND the Big Pharma industry worth, over the next ten (10) years AFTER the Trigger kicks in, in excess of 3 Trillion USD.
There will be no possibility to resurrect a "Medicare-for-all" equivalent to HR-676 in the Reconciliation mash-up. HR-676 is THE only fiscally viable long term solution for bona fide HC reform, in order to hold down rising HC costs, provide for "the general (health) welfare of the people", and level the playing field for global economic competition. The demise of the monopoly that private for-profit Healthcare insurance currently enjoys is anathema to both the Neo-Cons AND Neo-Liberals, but a vital necessity, not unlike the demise of the extremely bloated Military Industrial Complex. Otherwise, this country will be relegated to 3rd-world status, and our imperialist "manifest destiny" on the ash-heap of history.
"Private profit and socialized risk", "trickle-down economics", and "more tax cuts for the rich" are not compatible with either small-d democracy OR capitalism - they are a recipe for the demise of both, and this country's future. Otherwise, welcome to the National Socialist / Fascist / Corporatist State.
A veto, even a pocket veto, by Obama (that is to say, NO BILL!) would be a better choice for the current administration's political longevity than to pass this emerging cluster-flock. If the DINOs, Blue Dogs, and Neo-Liberal members of the Democratic Party think that passing a bad HCR bill is better than nothing at all, vis-a-vis providing them political cover for the 2010 and 2012 elections, they are sadly mistaken.
But I also predict that is exactly the game plan that they have, that they will promulgate this "victory" as a shining example of the capabilities of the Democratic Party to govern, and that they will FAIL to win re-election in 2010 and 2012. Obama, as a Neo-Liberal Republican-lite Democrat, should seriously reflect upon the political policy advice that he is has been getting, and consider yielding the inevitable 2012 Democratic Party Presidential Primary to a Liberal Progressive, if only for the good of the Party. By 2011, it will be clear to him that he is a Lame Duck with no remaining "political capital".
The "Pope of Hope" == ABJECT FAILURE.
Obama is a one term president thanks to conservadems we don't govern like republicans. The difference isn't what was done since we won its what was done during the bush years. Dems constantly compromised while republicans stood together. Nelson, Baucus, Landrieu, Bayh, and Lincoln have to go. We can't blame harry reid, its political reality. Dems better start working on 2010 elections now, start bashing republicans and pegging these conservadems to the failure of the healthcare bill. I think it would be best to let repubs filibuster and kill healthcare reforn than pass a pig with lipstick. It'll be criticized through the next election eithe way, the dems would be better off accusing republicans of obstructionism and purging the party of assh0les in the process. Its what republicans do.
I think the reason polls are bad for healthcare reform is because the opposition is coming from both sides, if a pollster called me and asked if I was in favor of the healthcare reform that we're getting i'd say no too, the reason it's polling badly is because it isn't liberal enough and every tv head and liberal pol acts like americans don't want the change. They're stupid, we're frustrated, that's why public option scores higher in pols than HCR popularity.
> That's what you don't understand, Harry. It's not about "face."
> But then, it's been so long since you had to worry about paying
> for your health care, I suppose it's too much to expect.
There are a lot of things Harry doesn't understand. Another thing he doesn't understand is the fact that a ton of people in this country, sick and tired of 8 years of incompetency on the part of Bush and the Republicans, bought into the snake oil Obama and the Democrats were selling. We longed for change, and we thought that we would get it from Obama. On this issue, I agree totally with Roland Burris: I can't support a bill without a strong public option.
Old Harry has 60 Dems and he STILL can't get diddly-squat done? How would you like to be minority leader again, Hank? If health care doesn't make it, you could end up being exactly that.
Many decades ago, there was a popular song titled "I'm Just Wild About Harry". I AM wild about Harry -- Truman, that is. As for Harry Reid, he can sit on a tack -- or a railroad rail in front of a runaway train.
Yes, pray tell us exactly how YOU would bring together these particular Democratic senators so they would vote unanimously on one bill. It's a real simple job, right?
Is Sen. Sanders still going to bring his Single Payer amendment to the Senate bill?
Or will he cave like Weiner did?
Signing statement.
The Dems need to snap out of it and stop talking to republicans like they are capable of offering any productive input. You don't try to win over sociopaths back into the fold. When are Dems going to realize it's not your policies they are against it's YOU!
Login or Register to post comments.