Why do you think Weiner withdrew his amendment?

[redqueen]

http://ourcommongood.blogspot.com/2009/11/anthony-weiner-withdraws-his-single.html

I've seen some pretty outrageous speculation... is politics really so hard to understand?

[Blue-Jay]

1. Don't know, but I giggled at "weiner withdrew".

That method doesn't always work, ya know...

[polichick]

3. oyyyyyyy :)

[redqueen]

4. *groan*

:P

[rhett o rick]

37. Wont you ever grow up?

I never did. weiner, weiner, weiner.

[rd_kent]

2. Is there any reason to doubt what he said?

"I have decided not to offer a single payer alternative to the health reform bill at this time. Given how fluid the negotiations are on the final push to get comprehensive health care reform that covers millions of Americans and contains costs through a public option, I became concerned that my amendment might undermine that important goal."

I really do not know a lot about him, is there any reason to think this is NOT the real reason?

[saracat]

5. The reason given is never the real reason.These are politicians.

[rd_kent]

13. While I would agree with you anecdotally....

taken literally? Really?

Without applying the broad-brush, has WEINER done anything to make a rational person think that he in NOT telling the truth?

[saracat]

21. the fact that his current statements are an absolute contradiction of his original stance should be

enough to doubt. If he had wanted the issues kept seperate, he could have done that. He didn't. The Speaker , if she actually wants anything at all, wants only the House Bill as written to be considered. Pelosi also flipped. She campaigned for a "robust " PO and caved. The WH doesn't want any kind of a robust PO and it doesn't want single payer debated

[John Q. Citizen]

22. MY feeling is that he's not lying except perhaps by omision. Did you see what

Conyers and Kucinich said yesterday?

[liberal N proud]

6. The prophylactic broke?

:rofl:

[phantom power]

7. Why do you think he did it?

[redqueen]

9. The reason given. (nt)

[phantom power]

12. I see. He lost his nerve.

[redqueen]

14. LOL, no... that's your interpretation.

My interpretation is that they didn't want opponents to be able to point to a lopsided defeat as ammo in future efforts. Politics, IOW.

[Laelth]

23. Agreed. It was a sound, liberally-motivated decision. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[phantom power]

38. I suppose. You know, I've been trying to put my finger on...

what it is about all this HCR nonsense that really bugs me. If I had to pick one thing, on this particular Friday, it would be that all the reasoning about how "Single Payer is not politically viable" appears to be so very circular.

Our fearless leaders in the Senate are all solemnly explaining that We Just Don't Have The Votes. Why don't they have the votes? Is it because >10 Dem Senators really, truly, sincerely believe that Single Payer is a bad idea? I find that very hard to believe, given the stellar govt health care plan that they themselves enjoy. Is it because their constituents are Moderates (whatever-the-fuck that means) who really, truly believe that Single Payer is a bad idea? I also find that hard to believe, given the extremely high satisfaction rate with Medicare. How many of them have made a serious effort at explaining the basic "Medicare for All" pitch to their constituents? What do the poll numbers look like in the context of explaining what Single Payer actually is, and how it compares to Medicare, and how popular Medicare actually is?

No, I believe that this meme "Single Payer isn't politically viable" is just in wide circulation such that only a handful from Congress have bothered to question whether it's actually true. It's become circular, and self-reinforcing.

The above is all making the possibly generous assumption that their claims about political viability are sincere. A couple less-generous possibilities are (a) that they nominally get it, but they are bought out, and (b) they like their govt health care and sincerely don't give a fuck whether or not the rest of us can have anything like that.

[redqueen]

39. I doubt they all have the same reason for opposing it.

I think PAC contributions play a big part in it, no doubt.

I also think voters play a part in that as well. If the voters back home won't support it, then I don't expect many to get out and lead. That's an extremely rare thing for a politician to do... govern by principle when it will cost them their jobs... I only know of one that's done it.

[rhett o rick]

24. And the reason given: "...Given how fluid the negotiations are on the final push to get

comprehensive health care reform that covers millions of Americans and contains costs through a public option, I became concerned that my amendment might undermine that important goal."

Can you spell rhetoric? We are supposed to believe that only now he realizes "how fluid the negotiations" blah, blah, blah." He only now thinks his amendment might somehow (????) "undermine that important goal".

I want to agree with you redqueen, "is politics really so hard to understand?". No not at all. He got a call, most likely from Rahm Emanuel, and was convinced (or threatened) to withdraw his amendment. An amendment he was strongly in favor of, before the call.

Or, he changed his mind.

[SandWalker1984]

8. Answer: He was blackmailed or bought off - you pick.

[redqueen]

11. And Conyers and Kucinich were bought off or blackmailed too?

Is that what you think?

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Perhaps someone threatend to harm Conyers wife while she is in prison

[NYC_SKP]

10. Seems consistent with what Kucinich and Conyers declared yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8735310

Maybe somethings in the works. :shrug:

[Soylent Brice]

35. i think you got it right.

maybe a deal was made to sneak it in next year?

:shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

15. I'd rather have the Kucinich amendment, which passed a house committee in the

big bill, than to have a five minute debate on a bill no one has seen, with no hearings, no mark up, no time to prepare, and see it voted down in 5 minutes.

Weiner was smart to pull it.

[redqueen]

17. Hear hear... and our next chance to get that in there is when the two bills

go into conference committee.

IF they go into conference committee... obviously many people would rather the bills just die.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Glitch - self deleted.

[old guy]

19. Teabaggers.

The protest of yesterday scared him off and now threatens the vote on Saturday. Guess I was wrong when I said the protest was just a diversion, just theater. Dems obviously think differently.

[rhett o rick]

20. One word: RahmEmanuel. nt

[Fire1]

29. Bull. n/t

[rhett o rick]

40. Sorry, that was two words. Rahm Emanuel. nt

[Fire1]

41. Still bull. n/t

[Fire1]

25. Because Conyers and Kucinich asked him to. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

27. Yep, the House is fighting for every vote they can get, Weiner, Kucinich, Conyers, have all...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8735310

Funny how people want to think that Pelosi and Weiner et al don't work together.

[redqueen]

31. So it's not a case of

the foces of corporatism vs. the forces of goodness and light?

[NYC_SKP]

32. LOL...

No Virginia, it's that real ugly and weird place in between.

:P

[rhett o rick]

36. How would a vote on his amendment change anything? It most likely would get voted down and they go

on. What would that hurt, except flush out those that do not want single payer. And we certainly cant have that.

[sarahlee]

26. More Info and something to do now - Contact the Rules Committee

See:
http://ourcommongood.blogspot.com/2009/11/single-payer-updates-with-action-item.html

Thanks!

[TheKentuckian]

28. Maybe he got a concession and worked a deal (nt)

[Joe Fields]

30. A great deal of pressure from the top.

It's no mystery.

[VMI Dem]

33. 3d Chess.

[redqueen]

34. A thoughtful response.

Thank you. :hi:

[branders seine]

42. keep that powder dry!