Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do "Obama killed the public option" threads belong in the 911 forum

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 11:49 PM
Original message
Poll question: Do "Obama killed the public option" threads belong in the 911 forum
with the other conspiracy theories?

I see people claim Obama took the public option "off the table from the start" even though he spent months pushing for it.
They give no acknowledgment that the House passed the PO with Obama's strong support and personal lobbying effort.
People claim Obama didn't use the bully pulpit after he gave two rousing speeches to Congress, went on nearly every TV show in existence, kept pushing long after the pundits said he would give up, and did dozens of town halls before the press started accusing him of being overexposed.
There are frequent allusions to a secret deal that isn't even confirmed on the record by the pharmaceutical lobbyists who started the rumor (a brilliant tactic to manipulate and divide the left).

And there's a mental disconnect about the realities of the US Senate, which is actually responsible for killing the PO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

At what point do we accept that people were duped by an irrational conspiracy theory because it reaffirms what they would like to be true? Does it deserve to be taken seriously anymore.

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No, it's Radical Activist. Next question?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. No, It's SunsetDreams. Next question?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #12
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. No it's a Jim Carey wanna be, next question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #23
59. inappropriate much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Let me see if I understand.
I'm blaming conservative Senate Democrats who killed the public option. Others want to let them off the hook and blame the guy who spent months advocating for the PO and got the health care bill passed.

If you ask me, the DLC must be thrilled to have attention taken away from their favorite conservative Senate Democrats while progressives form the circular firing squad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. I thought that Obama wanted Liberals to compromise in favor of the Blue Dog plan?
And of course, we did.

Almost sounds like he was siding with the Blue DOgs in that respect, not opposing them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Obama wanted to pass HCR.
And of course, he did. After proposing a plan with the PO and spending months fighting for it.

Would we be better off if nothing had passed at all because he insisted on the PO? Some people think so, but obviously Obama was more interested in getting something done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. He said he did- but all the arm twisting seemed to be on Liberals to support the Blue Dogs...
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 12:35 AM by Dr Fate
...not the other way around.

Twisting Blue Dog arms instead of Liberal Arms might have been another way to get it done, I'm still not convinced that he tried to do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
68. Obama never advocated for specific language or points. He asked the congress to
write and pass a bill.

Obama never offered his own legislation, with or without a public/private option.



But the guy who Obama called his point man in the Senate, Max Baucus, actually wrote the public option into his white paper that he released in late fall of 2008. By Feb of 2009, Baucus said the PO was a bargaining chip.

That's also how Obama seemed to treat the PO.

Most people realize that the Obama administration and their top allies in congress had bargained away the PO in part in return for the insurance industry acceptance of a deal.

That's how I understand it. That's also how PBS' Front Line understands it.


You are free to understand it any way you want to, of course. You can go to your grave believing that Obama desperately wanted a PO and he lost that part of the fight big time. You can predict, if you want, that Obama will try to get a PO introduced in the next Congress, and that it will be a dominate theme of his next State of the Union Address, since he is so in favor of it that he will keep trying until he gets it passed.

I would disagree, but don't let that stop you.

I think Obama fought the hardest for the PO after it had been removed from the table through administration's negotiations with the health care industrial complex.

Check out Front Line. They have a whole show on what happened.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #68
76. Correcting a couple of errors.
Obama did present a plan that included the public option, even if he didn't write the bill. This quote from his speech pushing the plan to Congress also addresses those who claim he never publicly supported or campaigned for it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-t... /

"But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up."

The fact that "most people realize" something because it's constantly passed around on blogs doesn't make it true. The only named source for the story is a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist who had every reason to lie. Even on Front Line. You can go to your grave believing every story from a special interest lobbyist but don't expect me to go along.

You wrote: "You can go to your grave believing that Obama desperately wanted a PO..."
The rest of the paragraph is a straw man. It was never my claim that the PO was his top priority. It clearly wasn't. That doesn't really bother me. I'm not following the lemmings who suddenly decided that the PO was the most important thing in the world because Howard Dean or some blog said so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #76
93. "suddenly decided..."
"suddenly decided that the PO was the most important thing in the world because Howard Dean or some blog said so"

Do you really believe this, or are you simply overreacting out of frustration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. I don't remember hearing anything about the PO
until well after Obama was elected and the debate heated up. Certain progressive groups made a strategic decision to wage a battle over the PO rather than pushing for single-payer or forcing insurance companies to be non-profit coops. That decision was made long after election day. I'm not going to pretend it was a big priority for me all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
161. I think that was the design
I think it was designed to appear that conservadems killed it when in reality it never was going to get passed anyway. A strong public option would piss off too many multi-billion dollar companies to get passed.

So the WH traded it away for cooperation in secret while publicly pushing for it, and the conservadems got the blame for it not passing (if only we'd had that 60th vote, etc). I think that was the image the democratic party wanted to present. Secretly try to kill it while publicly running on it to placate the base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Are you suggesting that believing in facts makes someone like Rahm?
Scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Are YOU suggesting you actually posted any facts?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
pa28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
29. Speaking of facts here an interesting one.
"In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus."

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #29
39. Deflecting
by inserting a random complaint. Very talk radio.

Even including the PO would have preserved the private delivery system. It wasn't going to disappear either way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #39
219. Revisionist
ignoring facts in favor of the fantasy you'd like to create.

Obama may not have single handedly killed the PO, but he certainly didn't seem to give a shit whether it lived or died.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #21
33. Steven Leser, is that you?
I win the insult contest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #33
51. only..
it wasn't an insult, so if there was an insult contest, you lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
53. Zing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Killed? Dont know, but apparenlty he could not lead Blue Dogs and DLCers into supporting it.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 12:00 AM by Dr Fate
Assuming that was even something he sincerely tried to do-with neccessary force, arm twisting, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. It would at least be realistically accurate
to say that he couldn't convince conservative Democrats to support it. That's a failure.

The cynical exaggeration of Obama as an evil corporatist behind closed doors who secretly wants the opposite of what he public fought for is unnecessary and tiring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I'm not sure if swaying Blue Dogs to the PO was even his plan, But he did fail at it, either way.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 12:09 AM by Dr Fate
Seems like he was able to get Liberals to compromise away what they wanted IN FAVOR OF the Blue Dog plan, though.

Maybe he was just on the side of the Blue Dogs & Rahm's DLCers the whole time. Who knows? It certainly would not be the sole issue where that is a valid perception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. On the one hand
we have Obama publicly pushing the PO for months, personally lobbying to get it through the House, and only giving in after it was clear that a number of Senate Democrats wouldn't vote for it.

On the other hand we have a story about a secret deal that comes from a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist that was never confirmed on the record and even the lobbyist said any deal didn't preclude a public option.

The accusations were a tactic by the lobbyist to cast doubt on whether Obama was behind the public option. It worked very well. The left was played by a pharma lobbyist and the corporate media that never wanted HCR.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. And yet Obama wanted Liberals to compromise in favor of Blue Dogs...
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 12:35 AM by Dr Fate
...and I never saw an example of it being the other way around.

I'm not sure if this was the left's fault- everyone on the left that I know was begging Obama and DEMS to not just support it, but call out the Blue DOgs, by name, and tell us what we could do to help him oppose them.

The left got played alright- Blue Dogs got Obama to support compromises in their favor, while I never heard of Obama even asking Bue Dogs to compromise in favor of the PO.

Maybe he gave all those PO speeches just to keep Liberals in line. Wouldnt be the worse thing a politician has ever done, depending on your perspective.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. He compromised in favor of passing HCR.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 01:22 AM by Radical Activist
It's pretty obvious. The American legislative process has involved compromised since Congress met for the first time. Cheap theatrics on Obama's part (like calling out by name Senators whose votes he needed) wasn't going to change that reality.

Frankly, I think the obsession with this one aspect of HCR is bizarre. I don't follow the swarm taking orders from whoever decided that's all the left should care about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. What are we? Stupid? Puhleeze.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
65. Yes. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anAustralianobserver Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
9. He didn't kill it, but I think he was hoodwinked into withdrawing his support for it while keeping
critical facts about its undermining secret. Probably something in the style of the old British sit-com 'Yes Minister'. Thank you, I won't be here all night, thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Ah, the LIHOP variation on the MIHOP.
That was quick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. lol
Funny correlation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. If by "hoodwinked" you mean
he counted votes and saw that not enough Senate Democrats were ever going to vote for a plan with the PO...then your statement is accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #20
28. Maybe he was too busy counting votes and not busy enough swaying and fighing for PO votes.
That might be one reason why we did not get a PO-assuming the PO was truly part of the plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
117. what you said
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anAustralianobserver Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #20
30. I meant more than that. I agree with you that the idea that he never cared about or fought for
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 01:18 AM by anAustralianobserver
a PO is wrong and sad. I think he still believes it's necessary for your country to have a PO or a basic-care Medicare-for-all system.

I think he made some fateful decisions not to name names (or to threaten to) of the Dem lawmakers who were just pretending to support it; and not to name motives of the Dem lawmakers who were against it - even though it cost him the strong connection he had with his supporters and the nation as a whole. It was very sad to see, and I think it was emotionally devastating to him, but he didn't show that either.

I don't know how he gets that connection back, but I don't think it's impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
15. Gibbs explains how the public option died
Asked by the Huffington Post why the administration dumped the idea -- even though aides continuously stress that the president supports the public plan -- Gibbs suggested that the main consideration was getting something into law.

"The president has put forward a proposal that is based on the Senate plan with some modifications to that and, as the best way forward, into something that can ultimately wind its way through the Senate," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/22/gibbs-explains...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #15
34. Well, if the government's paid spokesperson says it, it must be true.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
168. "the main consideration was getting something into law"
That's the problem with the Insurance Profit Protection Act they didn't care what passed just so long as something did. As long as it had "health" in the title they figured a lot of people wouldn't notice it was just another bailout of a corrupt industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
32. Most people would be ashamed to so publicly display their own ignorance.
Glad to see you've gotten past that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-...

NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option

For months I've been reporting in The Huffington Post that President Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation. (See here, here and here). I've been increasingly frustrated that except for an initial story last August in the New York Times, no major media outlet has picked up this important story and investigated further.

Hopefully, that's changing. On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:

"That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product."

Kirkpatrick also reported in his original New York Times article that White House was standing behind the deal with the for-profit hospitals: "Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. Well, if a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist says it, it must be true.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 01:37 AM by Radical Activist
It's funny how selective your skepticism is. Don't you think it would benefit a lobbyist to make that claim (true or not) to weaken the chances of the PO passing? Pretty smart tactic on his part.

And as was discussed before, he didn't even claim that any supposed deal barred a public option.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. You're spouting nonsense again
Explain how a lobbyist for an extremely unpopular industry lying to the New York Times about a deal with the White House would hurt the Public Option? The only thing I think that would hurt is said lobbyist's career.

Now the link you credulously point to, "Chip" and Kaiser Health News (that's seriously your source here? Are you fucking kidding me?) have every incentive to bullshit us. He admits they made a deal, he just says that the deal was that any public option would not be run by HHS. That's like saying, "we're not against the federal government spending money, as long as it doesn't come from the U.S. Treasury." It's total bullshit, transparent to anyone who isn't willfully blind to the truth..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. But Chip is the only named source for the "deal" story
in any article. I think you're right that he isn't credible and has every reason to bullshit us.

Here's what you quoted in your last comment:
"Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that..."

You made my point. If you think Chip lacks credibility then why do you accept his story about a deal excluding the public option? He can't be credible in one article when he supports what you want to believe and then have no credibility in the next article.

Here's how Chip's tactic worked:
1) He claims the White House isn't backing the public option.
2) The White House publicly said they still support it but people are eager to accept rumors.
3) Congressmen waiver because they think the White House isn't behind it.
4) Cynics on the left are eager to believe it and become disappointed, disengaged.
5) The PO is defeated and Obama's popularity is weakened.

It worked out perfectly for him didn't it? And you fell for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. Do I really have to explain this to you?
"Chip" is more credible in the NYT story because A) it's completely to his advantage in this case to tell the truth, B) it's completely disadvantageous for him to tell the truth, and C) he was backed up by several independent sources. I'm not a huge fan of the NYT, but they aren't the Weekly World News. They check their sources and confirm their stories.

Your explanation of Chip's tactic is similarly laughable.

1) He claims the White House isn't backing the public option.

Already explained why it's ridiculous for him to have lied in this case.


2) The White House publicly said they still support it but people are eager to accept rumors.

No, the White House said that the Public Option was "not the most important" of the healthcare bill.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/73275-obama-...


3) Congressmen waiver because they think the White House isn't behind it.

"Congressmen" passed a public option. The Senate would have as well if Obama had publicly supported it.


4) Cynics on the left are eager to believe it and become disappointed, disengaged.

Yes, because "Chip" is the only reason The Left has disengaged from this administration. :eyes:


5) The PO is defeated and Obama's popularity is weakened.

No, the PO was taken out, by the White House, when its popularity was surging in the Senate. It was never given a vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/22/obama-health-c...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/dianne-feinste...

Obama's weakened popularity is his own damn fault.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #48
73. The NYT
The same paper that helped destroy ACORN and sell the Iraq War. You become pretty gullible when someone says anything to attack Obama, don't you? It's a common malady.

To respond:

1) No, you really haven't supported that claim at all. Why would his employer be angry about him winning?

2) Your link is from months after Obama introduced his plan with the public option. Thus, you support my claim that he spent months pushing for it until it became clear it wouldn't pass.

3) There were also Democratic members of Congress who didn't favor it. You're right that the Senate was the bigger problem, but you lie when pretending that Obama never publicly fought for it. There are many examples of him speaking for it publicly.

4) I realize its easy to be disappointed when one chooses to be gullible about every claim of betrayal.

5) "Surging" popularity is a funny word when there were always less than 40 who publicly said they would vote for it. You know that's a long way from passage, right? The groups who told you the PO had a chance in the Senate were lying to you.

You were played for a fool, first by the insurance industry, and then by groups who got funding to convince everyone that the PO was suddenly the most important issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #32
55. A "chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry" confirms it, according to Miles Mogules.
Oh! There we go! That settles it. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #55
70. Funny how everyone seems to be lying when your illusions are threatened
Have you ever noticed that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #70
87. Apparently, you have.
With good reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #70
89. I notice projection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #32
185. Man, you just have to BELIEVE!
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 12:31 AM by bvar22

(credit Tom Tomorrow)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
201. BIG difference between "I think" and "I confirmed".
Once again, a Times headline didn't match the content. Big surprise. :eyes: Also, what he is talking about are the for-profit hospitals. They weren't concerned with killing the PO, they just didn't want the rates tied to Medicare rates as it was repeatedly reported.

Be careful when you accuse others of ignorance - it will surely expose your own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
35. I believe this is a call-out thread
and has no place at DU according to the "rules."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. Who am I calling out?
It's about a topic frequently debated by many DUers, not one person in particular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
98. I think you know full well who you were calling out
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 12:41 PM by Blue_In_AK
because many of them have replied to this post -- and I'm sure you're not surprised. Although I agree with you that there's plenty of blame to go around in Congress for the weak health care bill, many people believe President Obama could have pushed harder for a more progressive law. Calling many of your fellow DUers as well as millions of other Americans "conspiracy theorists" because they had hoped the President would work harder for them on this issue is a call-out.

Just the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
37. "even though he spent months pushing for it...."
The Public Option?

Really?

Where?

How?

When?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. LMGTFY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. I've got an even better one for you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. My first night of exposure to this, so apologies if I don't know much...
Is the operating theory that for-profit hospitals feared a loss of revenue? That they agreed to support HCR as long as there wasn't additional competition from a public option?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. Yes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. Indeed. Lots of articles with headlines like: "Obama: 'Public option not the most important part
...of health care."

thanks for the confirming link!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. Why would he have to say such a thing if he never supported it?
Hint: Read more than a cursory scan of search results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. Because his base was supporting it, and it was one of those broken campaign promises
..that he *didn't* work for, once in office.

Hint: Read more than a cursory scan of White House press releases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #49
54. When did he say he would veto any HCR without a PO?
It's okay, I'll wait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #37
66. In numerous speeches and townhall meetings for an entire year or more...
...including the State of the Union address.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #66
204. Link please.
I'm pretty sure the strongest wording you'll find is "must include", rather than "I will veto"... but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
44. Let him have his way. Won't make any difference.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 02:02 AM by Mithreal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
52. How about only allowing White House press releases in DU?
Let's fold DU into a new Ministry of Truth!

When it comes to 1984 Orwellian realities, how about this gem?:

"I didn't campaign on the public option," Obama said in the interview.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...


Candidate Obama did campaign on the public option. President Obama claims that he never did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #52
88. How about just sticking to the truthful statements?
That would be enough.

There were several parts of Obama's campaign proposal and what he first proposed to Congress that were changed before a final bill was passed. That's how the legislative process works. Obama's point was obviously that the PO wasn't the main focus of his campaign proposal. No one has shown otherwise. The PO only became a major issue after online pundits and Howard Dean suddenly decided it was the most important part that everyone should be worried about.

Personally, I was more disappointed that he changed his position to make having insurance mandatory. That was one of the main reasons I thought his plan was better than Hillary's. It was brought up in debates far more than the PO ever was. That's the clearest, biggest flip-flop on HCR, but all the lemmings were told to gripe about the PO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #88
136. Pick one of the following:
1)As the OP would LIKE you to believe:
The Public Option was very important to Candidate/President Obama.
He did everything he could to fight for it.

OR

2)Quotes fromn the REAL World
"I did not campaign on a Public Option"
and
"The Public Option is "only a tiny sliver" of HCR.

I personally tend to believe that the Public Option was never really "on the table",
but was merely a Shiny Object used to distract the Rubes while the door to the Public Treasury was opened FOR the Health Insurance Industry.

The Kabuki Theater was well choreographed.
Even former Chairman of the DLC Joe Lieberman stepped up and "took one for The Team".

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


Would Obama have been elected if he had campaigned on:
*Individual Mandates to BUY Insurance from the For Profits?

*NO Public Option?

*Cadillac Tax?
.
.
.
Of course not.



"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."

--- Paul Wellstone


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #136
153. Occam's razor.
As you correctly demonstrate, believing that Obama wanted and fought for the public option requires a great deal more mental gymnastics than accepting he caved almost instantly to pressure from the health care lobby does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #52
202. He campaigned *on* HCR....
..which he thought *should* include a public option.

Those who conflate HCR with a PO are confusing the two, which leads to much debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
56. I can't decide if this is true (POTUS killed the public option) or...
if he's actually a Marxist, Kenyan, Black Nationalist, Muslim. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imperfect Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
57. Obama: "I didn't campaign on the public option"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #57
86. It was part of his campaign plan
and it was part of what he introduced to Congress. He didn't make it the main focus of his plan during the campaign, and he didn't make it his main focus when he introduced it as President.

I like this line from the article you linked:
"By itself, that's basically true, though it's not what many progressives want to hear right now."

A lot of people are pretty good about only hearing what they want to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:46 AM
Response to Original message
58. Yes, it's a kooky conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up
Or the "evidence" is of the type used to "prove" 911 conspiracies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #58
200. BS, Show me the evidence of Obama saying ANYWHERE during the HC debate,
not during the campaign, where he supported a PO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #200
205. "must include a public option"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
60. OK, You Want A Fucking Echo Chamber
Got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #60
99. +1
the BOG wasn't enough...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:37 AM
Response to Original message
61. Wait a minute, I thought the centrist line was that he never campaigned on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
62. You can try to revise history all you want.
Most of us here saw how it played out in real time.

It'll be tough trying to get us to "unsee" that train wreck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
63. Nice attempt at rewriting history. Educate yourself.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 08:45 AM by Phoebe Loosinhouse
Too many of us followed healthcare reform all the way through its many perambulations, first through the primary campaigns and then the general election and then finally to it's ultimate painful near death experience in the Congress.

Why did we follow it so closely? Because we have either experienced ourselves or watched as friends and family members were deserted or bankrupted by the for profit insurers. I cannot tell you how contemptible I find your attempt at rewriting the pitiable path our President followed as he all but pretended he never spoke the words "public option" as a candidate when they were a central piece of the health reform he ran on. President Obama ran on reform that contained a public option, negotiated prices in Medicare, re-imported drugs from Canada and did not have mandates, which he excoriated Hillary Clinton about. He also spoke of transparency, that he would have the negotiations on CSPAN, no back room deals with the industries, no lobbyists, etc. Of course, we ended up with no public option, no negotiated prices in Medicare, no re-importation of drugs, and a back room deal with Pharma that "saved" 80 billion over 10 years as opposed to the 300 million that drug negotiation and re-importation would have saved consumers and the government.

Read this - a contemporary account of the screwing of health care reform while it was happening:


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64819

Sick and Wrong
How Washington is screwing up health care reform and why it may take a revolt to fix it

By Matt Taibbi
Apr 05, 2010 4:04 PM EDT

skip

STEP FOUR: PROVIDE NO LEADERSHIP

One of the reasons for this chaos was the bizarre decision by the administration to provide absolutely no real oversight of the reform effort. From the start, Obama acted like a man still running for president, not someone already sitting in the White House, armed with 60 seats in the Senate. He spoke in generalities, offering as "guiding principles" the kind of I'm-for-puppies-and-sunshine platitudes we got used to on the campaign trail investment in prevention and wellness, affordable health care for all, guaranteed choice of doctor. At no time has he come out and said what he wants Congress to do, in concrete terms. Even in June, when congressional leaders desperate for guidance met with chief of staff (and former legislative change-squelcher) Rahm Emanuel, they got no signal at all about what the White House wanted. On the question of a public option, Emanuel was agonizingly noncommittal, reportedly telling Senate Democrats that the president was still "open to alternatives."

On the same day Emanuel was passing the buck to senators, Obama was telling reporters that it's "still too early" to have a "strong opinion" on a public option. This was startling news indeed: Eight months after being elected president of the United States is too early to have an opinion on an issue that Obama himself made a central plank of his campaign? The president conceded only that a "public option makes sense."

This White House makes a serial vacillator like Bill Clinton look like Patton crossing the Rhine. Veterans from the Clinton White House, in fact, jumped on Obama. "The president may have overlearned the lesson of the Clinton health care plan fiasco, which was: Don't deliver a package to the Hill, let the Hill take ownership," said Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under Clinton. There were now so many competing ideas about how to pay for the plan and what kind of mandates to include that even after the five bills are completed, Congress will not be much closer to reform than it was at the beginning. "The president has got to go in there and give it coherence," Reich concluded.

But Reich's comment assumes that Obama wants to give the bill coherence. In many ways, the lily-livered method that Obama chose to push health care into being is a crystal-clear example of how the Democratic Party likes to act showering a real problem with a blizzard of ineffectual decisions and verbose nonsense, then stepping aside at the last minute to reveal the true plan that all along was being forged off-camera in the furnace of moneyed interests and insider inertia. While the White House publicly eschewed any concrete "guiding principles," the People Who Mattered, it appeared, had already long ago settled on theirs. Those principles seem to have been: no single-payer system, no meaningful public option, no meaningful employer mandates and a very meaningful mandate for individual consumers. In other words, the only major reform with teeth would be the one forcing everyone to buy some form of private insurance, no matter how crappy, or suffer a tax penalty. If the public option is the sine qua non for progressives, then the "individual mandate" is the counterpart must-have requirement for the insurance industry.



My memories of the events is a lot closer to Taibbi's than your hackery/flackery.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #63
84. That's an editorial.
It's easy to make a few unsourced claims and paint a narrative any way you want. One could have used the same writing style to make completely different conclusions and it would have sounded just as compelling.

Obama didn't make the PO his top priority. Getting a major bill signed was more important to him. The conspiracy theories and revisionist history beyond that are what I object to.

No President has ever passed an agenda that's exactly what he campaigned on. Compromise is the nature of our legislative process. I don't see much point in demonizing Obama for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
64. flamebait n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
67. The Senate killed the public option. He would have signed the bill with or without it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
69. The house is trying for the public option again.
Now we can prove this either way. It is put up or shut up time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #69
80. The House already passed it the first time.
I don't believe the Senate has changed enough to make a difference. It looks like a symbolic effort to make a point. That's OK, but I'm not getting my hopes up for anything more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #80
92. Obama can encourage the senate or not and not compromise the entire bill.
Let's see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
71. When policies fail, try censorship
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 10:53 AM by Prism
The route of every authoritarian regime in history.

Luckily, I don't think the President shares your zeal in this regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #71
78. When logic fails, try making things up?
That's what I disagree with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #78
120. make shit up?
like *conspiracy theories*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #120
143. No, like "nowhere near 50 Senators ever said they would vote for the PO"
See post 77. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #71
111. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
72. Tell it to the NY Times
Those of us (and all the well educated and experienced progressive commentators) who watched the process closely and astutely know damn well what the administration did and didn't do- and all the feet stamping and denialsm won't change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #72
74. So you trust pharmaceutical industry lobbyists now?
In all the articles anyone can link that was the only named source. Don't you think the owners of the NYT have the same financial relationship with the insurance and pharma industry that every other corporate news outlet has? Sucker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. Nope- I trust the totality of the circumstances and the evidence
together with my own and others' experience and observations.

The fact that this has demonstrably been the administration's modus operandi in most other policy formulation and legislative matters only solidifies the conclusion- and makes the apologetics in the OP ring quite hollow.

Second time I've ended up using that turn of phrase to describe a post tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #75
77. Like the evidence that nowhere near 50 Senators ever said they would vote for the PO?
The logical conclusion to make is that the US Senate is dominated by moderates and conservatives. It's pretty clear that you look for and immediately accept any claim that supports your view of the Obama administration, whether the source has credibility or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. :sigh: I was there following the matter very closely
The public option could have gotten more than the 50 votes- but you can keep on arguing the "weak president" theme if you like.

Frankly, I've never found it very flattering to the guy- but for some reason, people like to pull it out when they think it's useful (despite how it makes him look).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #79
82. It comes from an understanding of how the three branches work
and how powerful industry lobbyists were. They were even smart enough to get liberal blogs to buy their story about a secret deal.

The questions is not whether you followed it closely. The question is whether you read things critically or simply believe every accusation that comes along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #79
90. Were you also promoting this "imperial presidency" meme when Boosh was in charge?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #95
100. Comic-book satire is usually more effective if it contains the seeds of reality.
Two points:

1. If Obama did not effectively employ the bully pulpit we WOULD NOT have seen the most sweeping health care reform in the past generation enacted.
2. How does this "anything he wanted" bullshit square with Boosh's failure to enact his privatization scheme or Immigration reform?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. You do realize you're arguing with a cartoon woodchuck, don't you?
I think you just conclusively demonstrated the "effectiveness" of this particular satire. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #102
119. I see you're not even trying anymore.
Frankly, I don't blame you.

Enjoy your wallow in the bitterness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #119
131. Admittedly, conversations on your level don't require a lot of effort.
You post something silly, I point out where it's silly. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #95
105. And you reference one of the lies of the conspiracy.
This fantasy world where Obama didn't use the bully pulpit. The world of make believe where Obama didn't spend months using the bully pulpit to pass HCR on every format available to a President. That lie has already been debunked repeatedly. And you're going to lecture me about honesty?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #105
110. Moving the goalposts again, I see
"50? Who said 50? Now it's 60!"

"Public option? Did I say Public Option?? No! I said Health Care Reform!!"

Once again, your post (OP, actually) is RIGHT UP THERE ^^^^

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. Hey, you're deflecting from the lie just like Limbaugh and Breitbart do.
Obama did use the bully pulpit and the Senate didn't have the votes. Trying to cloud the issue by being a stubborn asshole over inconsequential details is a classic conservative hate-radio tactic. Proud of yourself? Are you embarrassed that it's the only way to make your case? Poor kid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. And now we break out the personal attacks.
I see you've got your copy of "Ungracefully Losing an Argument for Dummies" handy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. Now you're hypocritically attacking others for your own behavior just like Limbaugh and Breitbart.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 01:22 PM by Radical Activist
Your first response to the OP was a personal insult. Why do you argue so much like a hate-radio host? Why don't you just admit that Obama used the bully pulpit instead of repeating a lie? Why not admit the votes weren't there in the Senate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. Your posts
RIGHT UP THERE ^^^^


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #116
118. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #118
128. Now more rule breaking.
Seriously, dude, we can practically hear you pounding your keyboard. Calm down before you hurt yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #90
196. That was an insult that coming from another angle would have been deleted
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 08:17 AM by depakid
People wonder why DU's reputation has taken a dive- all they have to do is look at posts like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #77
81. Just plain false. Do you even bother to check facts before you post?
http://whipcongress.com /

51 senators will vote for a public option in reconciliation if it's sent over by the House

24 have signed a letter to Harry Reid asking for a public option in reconciliation. 19 have given statements to us, reporters, or their constituents. 4 more have made statements on video. And 4 are extremely likely based on their previous support for the public option and Senate leadership, even though they haven't made an official statement yet.


Even if you discount the "extremely likely" assertion, please explain how 47 is "nowhere near" 50. Oh an have fun debunking the piles of evidence they link to in support of their whip count.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. 47 when 60 votes were needed.
Even if you believe their count, which is debatable, that isn't the 60 votes it took to pass the bill. We can argue about numbers but it still won't support your argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #83
85. Ah, now it's 60. But you said you had "evidence that nowhere near *50* Senators"
"ever said they would vote for the PO"

Could you present that evidence, please? (This is me not holding my breath)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #85
91. Either way, we didn't have enough votes. And don't pretend that Lieberman respects this President...
...enough that he would be strongarmed into ANYTHING he didn't feel like doing. The same pretty much goes for Nelson, who might as well go join the Republicans at this point.

The President knew he couldn't get the bill through with a public option, so he took the rest. I don't blame him. But you know good and well had they put it on his desk, he would have signed it.

Math is math, we didn't have the votes, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. No, not "either way". We're either having an honest debate or we're not
Making shit up is making shit up, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. "We can argue about numbers but it still won't support your argument."
That's what I wrote and that's how it is. The votes weren't there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. We're no longer arguing about numbers. We're arguing about your level of honesty.
You posted a demonstrably false statement, easily checked with even the most casual google search. Why should we trust any assertion you make?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #101
103. "24 have signed a letter to Harry Reid asking for a public option in reconciliation."
Only 24 signed the letter according to the link you gave. The exact number is unknown and debatable.

But even if you're right that it was more than 40, you still lose the argument. The votes weren't there. You're being a child.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. Keep backpedaling -- it's extremely entertaining
Speaking of children: most adults would just admit they were wrong and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. Please, go ahead.
Admit that the votes weren't there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #106
108. Ah, the Rubber/Glue argument. Impressive, young Jedi.
Too bad your original post is still right up there ^^^ :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. "The logical conclusion to make is that the US Senate is dominated by moderates and conservatives."
Yep. I still stand by the conclusion of my original post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #109
113. At this point, I strongly suggest you install some rearview mirrors
Really, it's for your safety and the safety of the rest of us on this forum. No one should back up this quickly without a proper field of view.


...and maybe one of those dump truck alarm thingies that goes "beeep beeep beeep".



(Again: your post. Right Up There ^^^)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #113
126. Pretending that he backed up from anything in order to get your precious last word....
...just makes your last word that much more meaningless and transparently dishonest. You say you are here to have an honest debate, but then you cower behind argument avoidance tactics whenever you are confronted with the honest truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. +1.
Totally transparant. It's obvious to me (at least) what this poster's real purpose is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #127
130. Posts right up there ^^^
Sucks when the evidence doesn't go away just by wishing, doesn't it Jeffy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #130
145. He said the votes weren't there and he is correct. You can't refute that. Move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #145
147. What are you, his designated spokesmodel?
Is there some reason you think R.A. is incapable of holding his own in a simple political discussion?

At any rate, you and your boss are both wrong. We had 51 votes (see above) and the bill was going through reconciliation. The Public Option was removed at the request of the White House (again, see above).

If you have any evidence to contradict that which I've provided, please present it. Otherwise, go pee in somebody else's sandbox.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. The PO didn't qualify for reconcilliation.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 05:37 PM by phleshdef
Although it has budgetary implications, it exceeded the realm of being stricly a budgetary item. Clinton wanted to try the same thing in 1994 and they wouldn't allow it just like they didn't allow it now.

The Byrd rule be damned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #149
151. Another manufactured excuse.
The P.O. was completely budget-related, as the C.B.O. has shown. A majority of Democratic senators supported doing the Public Option in reconciliation. Simply saying it "didn't qualify" is nonsense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #151
169. You have no idea what you are talking about.
The CBO does not make ANY decisions about eligibility for reconciliation. It simply scores provisions and bills.

The CBO simply said the PO would save money (i.e. have a budgetary impact). While this is a necessary condition for a provision to qualify for reconciliation, it is not at all sufficient. Tons of provisions have a budgetary impact that still don't qualify. (The Stupak language is an example.)

The ultimate decision would come down to the Senate parliamentarian. He would go through the PO title line by line and strike any line that didn't comply with the six components of the Byrd rule. It most likely would have been mutilated beyond recognition and set up to fail. The second most likely outcome would have been the entire title being struck.

On top of all this, the Senate promised the House that they wouldn't change the reconciliation bill. In order to pass the Senate bill and reconciliation bill, they needed the votes of conservadems in the House who previously voted NO because of the public option. (This is because some of the original House bill supporters switched their vote.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #169
180. Actually, I know quite a bit of what I'm talking about
The Senate parliamentarian allowed it, partly based on the CBO's estimate. Let me say that again: the Public Option was eligible for reconciliation. Then the White House asked that it be removed.

This is all part of the public record, documented in my other posts on this thread. If you have counter-evidence, please present it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #180
191. That is BLATENTLY false.
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 01:29 AM by BzaDem
There is not a single post in this thread that shows that the parliamentarian allowed a public option, because it didin't happen. It couldn't have possibly happened, because no amendment was offered in reconciliation to make the question eligible for a point of order, which is required before the parliamentarian hears arguments and hands down his judgement.

Not only is what you are saying false; it is actually impossible.

Your post is actually false in more ways than one. You said the "White house removed it." That pre-supposes that it was in some legislative vehicle that it could be removed from. This is again blatently false. The reconciliation bill was passed by the House with NO public option. NONE. It couldn't have been removed from the bill because it wasn't in the bill.

This is the reconciliation bill the House passed:

http://www.opencongress.org/house_reconciliation

Show me the public option in this bill that could have possibly been "removed."

When you're in a hole, you should stop digging (not back up blatently false statements with more false statements).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #191
192. First off, it's "blatant". Spell-check is your friend.
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 02:10 AM by jgraz
Secondly, you make my point for me. The parliamentarian opened the door for the public option by sending the reconciliation bill back to the House for two unrelated Byrd violations. The Senate had a chance to include the Public Option, but again it was not allowed to come to a vote.

The fact that the public option was never allowed to come to a vote weakens your overall case.

Third, technical questions as to whether the PO was "removed" from the bill or "kept out of" the bill are less important than the fact that the White House never intended to pass a bill with a Public Option.

Here's one more article supporting that fact: http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=7923

On March 15th, Ed Shultz of MSNBC had the Times David Kirkpatrick on his show who confirmed that Obamas backroom deal with the hospital and pharmaceutical industries last July included an agreement to kill the public option.




And another: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/the-high-dra...

According to a source briefed on White House-Senate health care negotiations, the public option's saving grace was its political popularity with the Democratic base. The source described the back and forth between Senate health care principals and the White House as a "sort of stare down where the two sides were saying, 'you be the face of pulling it out.' Reid wants Obama to do it to give cover to his caucus, Obama wants Reid to do it so he's not the bad guy on the public option, and can still walk away with a win with reform, with bipartisanship, and with a card for everybody running for re-election."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #192
193. "The Senate parliamentarian allowed it, partly based on the CBO's estimate."
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 02:58 AM by BzaDem
"Let me say that again: the Public Option was eligible for reconciliation. Then the White House asked that it be removed."

Now you are singing a different tune.

"The parliamentarian opened the door for the public option by sending the reconciliation bill back to the House for two unrelated Byrd violations. The Senate had a chance to include the Public Option, but again it was not allowed to come to a vote."

Do you see how ridiculous you sound? You first say the parliamentarian allowed it, partly based on a CBO estimate. Now you are saying that he "opened the door" by sending the reconciliation bill back to the House for two unrelated Byrd violations? And that somehow backs up your assertion that he "allowed it, partly based on the CBO's estimate?"

You have no evidence that he allowed it, because he didn't allow it, and in fact it he didn't have the technical ability to allow it.

If the House wanted a public option and thought it passed the Byrd rule, there was NOTHING stopping them from putting it in the reconciliation bill. Nothing. Pelosi could have single-handedly ordered it put in the manager's amendment to the Reconciliation bill after it was reported out of the Budget committee. If your thesis was correct, that is EXACTLY what she would have done.

She didn't. She didn't because they knew it would either get gutted or eliminated in a Byrd point of order, and that they didn't have the votes in the House anyway at that point for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #193
198. Yep, the parliamentarian never ruled on it. I was incorrect.
Let me know when you're ready to move on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #94
124. Yes, either way, whether you like it or not, its a historical FACT that the votes were not there.
One that is easily supported by senate petitions, actual votes on the matter in various committees and public statements by serving Senators.

I know its inconvenient for you to have to admit that we don't have a strong enough progressive majority in the Senate to get through the most progressive legislations. By admitting that, your precious whipping sticks that you constantly attempt to lash President Obama with may end up broken over your own head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #124
129. You can say it as many times as you like, that doesn't make it true.
You have far less evidence for your position (e.g. ZERO) than I have for mine. Why don't you post some hard news stories on how the Public Option was never going to possibly pass the Senate because there simply weren't enough votes?

Oh right, cuz you got nothing -- other than a casual relationship with the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #129
144. Bullshit. The fact that Lieberman came out and announced for all to hear...
...that he would support a filibuster if the public option was in the bill, that evidence ALONE supports my entire point 100%. Then, when we lost Ted Kennedy's seat before the HCR bill was passed, he was traded out for Scott Brown who also was not going to vote for a bill with or without a public option (100% proven by the fact that he said he wouldn't and when the vote came up he didn't). So even if we could safely say we had 58 votes (which is a far stretch), we still wouldn't get it because it only takes 41 to keep a bill off the floor. Its fucking low grade school level math. If thats above your head, I can't help you.

I can go on and on with other Senators, but I don't even need to. The above evidence alone is irrefutable. You can not disprove it and everyone knows it, including yourself. Now, hock up some more bullshit rhetoric and cliche, completely unoriginal insults, so far, thats all you got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #144
148. You can say it as many times as you like, that doesn't make it true.
One word: Reconciliation. You can't rewrite history all of the time, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #148
150. I can not say it at all and its still true.
And the reconcilliation argument holds absolutely no water. Reconcilliation does not allow entire government programs to be created from it. If you don't understand the current rules of the Senate, thats your problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. Could you please try that, then?
kthxbye. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #152
154. Still waiting on that list of 60 Senators... will you admit you can't produce it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. Not until you produce your list of 75 Keebler elves
Which is about as relevant.

Which part of the budget reconciliation do you not understand? By the time the White House pulled the Public Option, over 40 senators were on board to vote on it during reconciliation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/public-option-...


Most analysis at the time showed around 53 solid Senate votes for the P.O.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/the-public-opt...


Care to revise your completely unsupported and now thoroughly debunked statements?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #155
159. Nothing has been debunked, at all, whatsoever.
If the senate had the votes to pass the public option through reconcilliation, those supposed 53 Senators (which is a number completely derived from some nobodies speculation and is unproven) would have made it happen. They alone had the power to. They didn't because it would not have survived the Byrd rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #159
162. Still waiting for you to support a single assertion.
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #162
170. Every assertion has been supported multiple times. The fact that you don't understand them
is your problem, not theirs.

Saying "reconciliation" a hundred (or even a thousand) times doesn't actually mean the PO qualifies for reconciliation. There are TONS of budget-impacting programs that are still struck on a Byrd rule point of order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #170
172. Oh yay, the night shift is here
No, every assertion has been tag-teamed by people unfamiliar with the concept of critical thought. Point to an actual sourced article that shows that Obama was fighting behind the scenes to keep the public option. Cuz there a plenty that show he was doing exactly the opposite.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #172
173. Have you ever considered that you are simply wrong, and that's why you are being called out?
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 11:04 PM by BzaDem
Instead of pretending that there is some sort of "shift" scheduled for people to come out to get you, have you ever considered the possibility that the reason multiple people are exposing your points as incorrect is simply because they are incorrect?

Obama stopped working "behind the scenes" for the PO when he realized it would not get 60 votes no matter how much he worked "behind the scenes." He did not try to revive the PO when reconciliation came about because the guts of the PO would have been destroyed by the Senate parliamentarian (if not the entire provision), and it would not have had enough votes to pass the House a second time in any event (because the no-yes flippers needed to make up for the yes-no flippers did not support the PO). To the extent your version of the events is inconsistent with the above, you are wrong and should stop trying to mislead others.

When the only thing you can do is talk about "tag teams" and completely change the subject away from reconciliation to avoid being embarrassed at your lack of knowledge (a procedure which you brought up), it is time for you to re-examine your premise that your version of events has even th slightest resemblance to reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #173
179. I came to my conclusion based on evidence. Have you?
Once again, instead of whining why don't you produce some actual evidence to support your position? It would be a nice change of pace for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #179
181. I highly doubt your point of view has anything to do with evidence
since evidence and facts cut against your imagined version of events, not for it.

http://www.progressiveelectorate.com/diary/2223/public-...

is a good description of why the PO in question would likely fail under reconciliation, and why SCHIP and COBRA are different.

Here's another article that explains how if any PO were to pass under reconciliation, it would have to be a "robust" public option. That's right -- the type of public option Pelosi gave up on because it couldn't even get 200 votes in the House the first time around (much less 218).

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/going-it-alo...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #181
183. Neither of your links are relevant to the subject
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 12:38 AM by jgraz
The question is not whether the Public Option would have passed the Senate. I have my opinions, based on the news coming out of D.C., but since it never came up for a vote, we'll never really know.

The question of this thread is whether the Obama administration worked behind the scenes to pass the Public Option or to kill it. The evidence points to the latter. If you have counter-evidence, please present it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #183
186. Whether or not it could have passed is very relevant to whether or not Obama worked for it.
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 12:47 AM by BzaDem
If it was clear that the parliamentarian would rule against the PO in reconciliation, there would be no reason for Obama to continue to fight for it after that point only to lose. I would question why Obama would be wasting his time if he did that.

Your argument seems to be that Obama actively killed the PO. Your only "evidence" is a Hospital lobbyist, who if you look close and do some critical thinking, DIDN'T EVEN CLAIM that any deal barred a public option.

He claimed that he opposed a public option based upon Medicare rates (as they pay much less than private rates), or with the potential for later implementation of Medicare rates. I hate to break it to you, but the public option he is talking about (with Medicare rates) couldn't even get out of the Energy and Commerce committee in the House, and wouldn't have even gotten 200 votes in the House.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/exclusive... /

Even if we assume Chip Kahn's word as gospel, a PO that was based on completely negotiated rates without potential to use Medicare rates (or anything resembling them) would have satisfied even him. And I don't assume Chip Kahn's word is accurate, and I further don't assume that Obama would have cared at all about Chip Kahn's preferences if he thought it was actually feasible to get a PO through the House and Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
107. If you fail to properly feed something, have you killed it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
121. I'm gratified to see the results of this poll...
It restores my faith that most DU'ers are pragmatic and sensible.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
122. leftist screen name? *check*
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 01:53 PM by frylock
che guevera avatar? *check*
bullshit conservative politics? *check*

so fucking transparent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. +1
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #122
133. check, check...and check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #122
135. Living in the real world doesn't make me less progressive.
And it's disturbing when people at DU think otherwise. It's not a good sign for the movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #135
137. Aw, I see. A sensible radical. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. In the Alinsky tradition.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 04:39 PM by Radical Activist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. Protip: most progressives don't use Saul Alinsky as a bogeyman
Just doing my part to help you maintain a sense of verisimilitude. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #140
141. I admire Alinsky. It's time for you to find another outlet for your bitter miserableness.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 04:46 PM by Radical Activist
You lost an argument. Move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #141
142. Project, project, project.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 04:49 PM by jgraz
Your miserably bitter posts are Right. Up. There. ^^^ :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #137
163. A sensible Centrist, middle-of-the-road "radical"...
...who doesn't want to rock-the-establishment-boat by actually STANDING Up for anything.

Pragmatism = expressing gratitude for any crumbs that happen to fall off the Rich Man's Table!

"Hey...maybe they'll Fix It Later!!!"

"The only thing in the Middle of the Road
are Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos."
--Jim Hightower





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #135
139. You mean the world where "nowhere near 50 Senators ever said they would vote for the PO?"
That's not real, sweetheart. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #135
158. real world reference!!1 *everyone drink*
it's your conservative politics that make you less progressive. and what's this movement you speak of? the nu-democrat movement? fuck. that. shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #135
165. You're as much a radical as Breitbart is a journalist. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #135
187. i think that your definition of progressive is skewed..
i base this opinion on many of your posts that i've read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #187
194. No it's not. It's very sensible. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
125. This is an essential thread that pretty much proves how fairly things are moderated.
Kudos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spheric Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #125
132. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #125
134. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #125
157. Indeed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #125
164. GAwd, no kidding.
And watch this get deleted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
146. New rule: If you can't produce a list of 60 names that would vote for it, STFU.
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 05:31 PM by phleshdef
Thats going to be my challenge from now on, whenever this comes up... because I can easily produce a list of 41 Senators that would have prevented it from going to the floor, and NO ONE, I mean NO ONE can show me a list of 60 that would produce the opposite effect.

Its either put up or shut up time on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #146
171. Then why did the party put the PO in the 2008 platform?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #171
174. Why do you think that every aspect of our platform is supported by every member of our party?
The vast majority of our party supports the PO. This is why it was in our platform.

A vast majority wasn't enough to get it passed. That's why it wasn't passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #174
175. But the returns from the election were incredibly in our favor.
I could understand not pursuing the public option if we really, really thought we'd gain (for example) 100 new seats in the House, and wound up with only 50 after the 2008 election. That would really have been a setback, and you have to work with the hand you're dealt.

That wasn't the case, though. We swept to victory by a nice, wide margin. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #175
176. How is that AT ALL relevant?
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 11:10 PM by BzaDem
There is a difference between doing really well and doing sufficiently well to pass a PO. We obviously did the former, and not the latter. The former is not relevant without the latter. This distinction (doing well vs. doing sufficiently well) is present often in all facets of life. There is little difference between 59 votes and 0 votes, or coming close to winning a sports game and getting blown out, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #176
178. When you outline your strategy, you need capacity/capability estimates.
That way, you can plan:
- if we get 100% of what we need, we'll do A, B, and C
- if we get 75% of what we need, we'll focus on A and B
- if we get 50% of what we need, we'll only do A

The party platform isn't just a "wouldn't it be nice if..." list. It's our strategic goals for the near future.

Look at the language I posted from the platform above. Note the use of the words "must include."

I hope that helps clarify my inclusion of election results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #178
182. They did plan.
If they had 60 progressive senators, they could have enacted most of the party platform.

The truth is that it is incredibly rare that ANY party gets 60 votes in the Senate over the past several decades. It is even more rare that the 60 votes the party does occasionally get is ideologically united enough to pass something as large as a public option. We likely had 56 votes in the Senate for a public option. 56 is not 60. The end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #182
184. In that case, I refer you to post #167:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Specifically, the first two sentences/questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #184
188. Lieberman wasn't even a Democrat. That should fully answer your question.
Lieberman was not wedded to the party platform because he did not even win as a Democrat. That means we have 59 votes at most for a PO, which is as good as 0.

And in general, the people nominate candidates (not the party). The people of Nebraska voted for Ben Nelson in their primary, and they couldn't care less of what you think. Nebraska is a very conservative state, and the choice is between someone like Nelson and a Republican. Either way, we do not get a vote for a PO from Nebraska.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #188
189. Then why have a whip? Why bother publishing a platform?
Look, I'm not trying to be difficult--and I'm not saying that I expect us to enforce party discipline with a slimy iron fist like the GOP does.

But I don't buy the argument that 59 = 0, and I don't buy the argument that we need 60 progressive Senators to force the Republicans to explain to the entire country what exactly is so terrible about a public option that it requires shutting down the Senate via filibuster.

I take the party platform seriously, because it and the actual voting records of the party's politicians are what win my votes in general elections. YMMV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #189
190. The 60 vote threshold for passing most legislation is a fact, whether or not you "buy it."
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 01:17 AM by BzaDem
You may not like that 59 = 0, and I certainly don't. But that doesn't change the reality that 59 does = 0 (in terms of actually passing legislation). This is a fact, it is not an opinion subject to debate. Republicans don't need to shut down the Senate. In general, they simply need to show up once every few days to vote no on cloture. The worst Democrats could do is force one Republican to make a quorum call every 30 minutes or so, while 51 Democrats are standing there. (If fewer than 50 Democrats are present, the quorum call would fail and the Senate would be adjourned.)

The party platform is simply a list of goals. That's it. Nothing more.

You can be a Democrat and still not agree with all of the party platform. There is no hard and fast rule, but even a Democrat who agreed with 80% of the party platform would be welcomed to the party with open arms. In general, the people nominate Democrats regardless of what they think of the party platform.

The platform is largely irrelevant, and any weight on it is misplaced. The national party will welcome the most progressive candidate possible that is also electable in a general election. If this candidate doesn't agree with parts of the party platform, that is irrelevant. It is better to elect a Democrat than a Republican, because any Democrat will be in favor of at least a significant percentage of the platform (while a Republican would be in favor of approximately 0% of the platform).

"I take the party platform seriously, because it and the actual voting records of the party's politicians are what win my votes in general elections."

This sentence contradicts itself. If you are willing to vote against a Democrat in a general election, you couldn't possibly take the party platform seriously. The Republican candidate (the only other viable candidate) would agree with 0% of the party platform, while the Democratic candidate (regardless of who it is) would agree with a positive percentage of the party platform. By not voting for a Democrat, you are aiding and abetting the Republican, who by definition agrees with less of the party platform than the Democrat. You can vote against Democrats in the general election, OR you could take the party platform seriously, but not both. It is a logical contradiction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #190
199. "The platform is largely irrelevant, and any weight on it is misplaced."
Well...for you, perhaps. For me, not so much. I judge people (and politicians) by the distance between what they say they're going to do, and what they actually do.

Again, YMMV on voting strategy, but your opinion is not fact. :shrug:

Best of luck. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #199
206. Which part of "my opinion" isn't fact?
The part where any Republican in an election supports the party platform less than the Democrat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #206
207. No, that would be a strawman. I don't vote for Republicans.
Thanks for the implication, though! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #207
210. So you are implying it is possible for a person who isn't a D or an R to win? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #210
211. No, I was talking about the 2008 Democratic party platform.
You've gone off on quite a tangent, make several assumptions about my views, and come away with several inferences that can't be tied back to specific things I've said.

Are we really going to get anywhere with this discussion? :shrug: I'm disinclined to think so, and that's why I tried to disengage gracefully.

I simply don't have a lot of patience at the moment for any implication that I'd vote for a Republican, or that I am a closet Republican, or what-the-fuck-ever. If that's not your intention, then please accept my apologies for misunderstanding you, or for not having made my point clearer to prevent your own misunderstanding.

Good luck. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #211
212. I'm not saying you are a Republican. I'm saying your actions (even if not intended) aide and abet
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 06:47 PM by BzaDem
Republicans.

I don't think I've made any inferences that weren't obvious.

"I take the party platform seriously, because it and the actual voting records of the party's politicians are what win my votes in general elections."

That statement clearly implies that there may be a general election for which you do not vote for the Democrat (for reasons relating to the divergence between the Democrat and the party platform).

In any general election, there are two people who might actually win: the Democrat and the Republican. General elections are zero-sum. You have already clearly implied that there might be a situation where you don't vote for the Democrat. Since there are only two possible winners, not voting for the Democrat by definition helps the Republican win. You could have used your voting power to try to prevent the Republican from winning (by voting for the only other possibility, the Democrat), and you chose not to. In a zero-sum election, that is (again by definition) aiding and abetting the Republican's quest for power.

For example, let's say the vote count without your vote is R:3000, D:3000, 3rdparty:100. If you vote for the Democrat, he wins. If you don't vote for the Democrat, it is a tie (usually resolved by a coin flip). So your choice resulted in a 50% probability of the Republican winning. The other choice would result in a 100% chance of the Republican losing. You are clearly helping the Republican with your action of not voting for the Democrat (whether or not you actually vote for the Republican).

So as you see, what I have attributed to you follows entirely from the specific things you have said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #212
214. That's simply a false dichotomy.
You can't imagine a single case where a DUer could vote for--oh, Bernie Sanders, for example? Or vote for a third-party (to help them get 5%) when the (D) candidate is a shoe-in in a deep blue state? Nothing?

:shrug:

And you are once again jousting against a strawman vis-a-vis the general election; that's a specific case that you introduced, not I.

I'm afraid I won't play that game, and I won't play with those who do.

:rant:
I swear, if I could produce some sort of evidence that I voted for Obama in the 2008 general election to stave off these ridiculous loyalty "questions" from the self-appointed politruks of DU, I would have that fucking evidence tattooed on my forehead and post a picture of it.
:rant:


But here's the silver lining: You get to have the last word. :party: Enjoy! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #146
177. true
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 11:18 PM by CTLawGuy
and also a historical list of beneficial pieces of controversial legislation that passed the senate with, BY NECESSITY, 100% of the president's caucus.

Social security, medicare, civil rights, would have passed in watered down form if the entire Democratic caucus were needed to pass them.

Obama faced the choice of signing a bill that both Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, and everyone in between, could agree upon, or vetoing it and having no HCR at all.

Ask yourselves why Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Russ Feingold, voted for this bill. Why didn't they kill it for lack of a public option? Any one of them could have singlehandedly. Did the corporations get to them too?

They did so because they understood that this was a start and something that could be built upon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #146
195. Lesson learned: don't bother to ever vote for US Senator
Lesson learned: don't bother to ever vote for US Senator

It is not just the Senate's 60-vote artificial barrier, but the blue dogs and conservadems that are part of the problem. In effect, the 60-vote barrier is unbreakable unless the Republicans, blue dogs, and conservadems, agree to vote against their own interests. That will never happen!

The one thing we have learned from the past 19 months of kabuki theatre is that the political system is in reality not broken at all, not corrupt in the least. The political system works precisely as it was intended to do: protect the powerful elites at the expense of everyone else. The only way to bring about "Change You Can Believe In" is by mass action against the political system itself, and the elites that benefit from it.

How do we do that? We do that by targeting the corporations and their political allies. We do that by mass popular actions in our own communities against banks, financial institutions, insurance companies, big contributors to political campaigns (such as Hyatt), corrupt politicians, and fellow travelers that defend the status quo.

Mass popular actions are possible because the ranks of the alienated and the disaffected are increasing everyday. The rightwing has been more effective than the Left has in exploiting that alienation, and confusing the alienated further, by channeling their anger at the wrong target. As long as the politically immature and confused populace is made to think that at the root cause of their troubles are immigrants, gays, abortion, liberals, Democrats, Presidential birth certificates, etc., they will be too distracted to realize they are being duped by those pretending to be on their side.

The Left is facing a similar challenge with those that voted for real change, and are hanging on to every word that comes out of the White House pulpit in hopes that wishing so, will make it so. Breaking that spell is hard to do for it is based on faith, not reason. I am convinced that if Jesus tomb were to be discovered in Capernaum, with Jesus body inside, and evidence that his body had indeed been moved to his hometown from the temporary tomb in which he was buried in Jerusalem (hence the empty tomb), that millions of the faithful would still adhere to the Resurrection story out of fear their entire universe would collapse like a house of cards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #195
197. Excellent response to that stupid "find 60 votes or shut up" meme.
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #195
209. Your post doesn't seem to back up your point.
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 06:01 PM by BzaDem
Your point is to not vote for US Senator, but you never explain why that is. You complain that the rules of the Senate currently aren't compatible with your policy goals, but you don't explain how having Republicans in office is somehow the same or better. For example, with Democrats in the Senate, they can prevent MORE tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of tax increases for the rest of us. They can prevent the repeal of Medicare and Social Security. They can do a lot of things to prevent policies that would make your life much worse than it currently is. How is this not a good thing again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #195
218. Your attitude is part of the reason why more progressives aren't in the Senate.
I've run campaigns for progressive Democrats. One of the most frustrating things is that half the left in any community sits on the sidelines instead of helping a good progressive candidate.

Conservatives who run get help. Liberals who run for office face cynics who sit on the sidelines because of this kind of holier-than-thou attitude about elections. We could have a progressive majority in the Senate if we actually supported each other. People with attitudes like your comment are a big part of what keeps a progressive Senate from happening.

You wrote: "The Left is facing a similar challenge with those that voted for real change, and are hanging on to every word that comes out of the White House pulpit in hopes that wishing so, will make it so."

Umm...No. The people who actually supported Obama heard him say repeatedly that he wasn't going to make top-down change for us. He said it was going to take effort by the people and a mass movement. Your condescending attitude about Obama supporters is completely ignorant. But you know what, complaining about Obama until you earn your dissident merit badge isn't real mass movement organizing either.

Your post reminds me of a funny song by an excellent left singer-songwriter that satirizes the more self-righteous (and self-defeating) members of the movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaWNhKYzh3Q

i don't believe in leaders
i think consensus is the key
i don't believe in stupid notions
like representative democracy
whether or not it works
i know it is the case
that only direct action
can save the human race
so when i see you in your voting booths
then i know it's true
i'm a better anarchist than you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
156. Good question, but baaaaaaaad push poll.
Perhaps try to keep your biases out of the available answers next time, or simply eschew the illusion of choice presented by the poll format?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #156
215. I'm not Fox News. I don't have to pretend to be fair and balanced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #215
221. It would only be a pretense, anyway.
So why bother?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-10 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #221
222. Exactly. This is a post to make a point.
Scientific polls don't happen on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #222
223. No worries. Leftists are used to the illusion of choice.
But we just keep holding our noses and pulling the lever anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #223
224. That's what lazy leftists do.
You have to do a little more work than pulling a lever to make an impact. Recruit candidates, seek out the good ones to help, take over the local Democratic Party etc.

There are two options for voting no and it looks like DUers haven't had any problem using the poll to let me know they agree with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-10 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #224
225. As several posters have noted, there is no non-ridiculous "no" option.
What's next, a poll with only the following two options?

1. I love President Obama. Every single decision he makes is perfect. He couldn't do something wrong if he tried.
2. Dear Mods, I hereby request that you tombstone me for disagreeing with option #1.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-10 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #225
226. Now you get it!
There is no non-ridiculous "no" option. It's the nature of the issue in question. Don't blame me. I can't help it that some people become completely gullible and embrace conspiracy theories when it reaffirms their cynical attitude about Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
160. The WH traded the public option as a chip to gain support from private insurance companies
There was a fear private insurance companies would put hundreds of millions into lobbying and ads to block health reform, so the WH used the public option as a chip to negotiate with them. We remove the public option, you won't dump money into the GOP and ads.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/whos-kill...


Why is that a conspiracy theory? It makes perfect political sense. I'm sure they did the same with pharma and using medicare negotiations & reimportation as chips to get their cooperation.

The title of this thread should be 'should unquestioning supplication to democratic authority figured be demanded among posters in DU, or just strongly recommended?' I pick neither.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
166. Where is the "NO" to this so called poll? This is crap! unadulterated crap! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #166
217. There are two No options.
The first "I believe the accusations no matter how little evidence there is!"

The answer after it references the trendy way to insult those of us who aren't in a contest to see who can criticize Obama the most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spagettio Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #217
220. Those "No" options don't look like "No" to me
In the first one, you invite only those who consider the Obama-kill-the-public-option "stupid."

What if I don't think it's stupid? People who think the statement does not belong in the 9-11 forum AND do not think it's stupid are left out of that question.

2) Your other question targets only those who confess to have "little evidence" about the statement. What about the people who do not agree with you that the evidence is "little?"

It's a push poll with no clear No answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #217
227. you sound like FOX NEWS
Edited on Sun Jul-25-10 07:53 PM by Skittles
sheer idiocy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
167. Here's what I don't understand:
Why do we allow politicians to run as Democrats when they have no intention of supporting the official party platform? Once they are elected, why do we not make the slightest attempt to enforce party discipline on these official planks?

Covering All Americans and Providing Real Choices of Affordable Health Insurance Options.

Families and individuals should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means.

-- 2008 Democratic platform @ http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imperfect Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
203. Should push-polls without a clear "No" option be permitted?
Or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #203
208. I'd say not.
But they're an interesting view into a certain mindset, so that's useful. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #203
216. dupe
Edited on Sat Jul-24-10 10:07 PM by Radical Activist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pisces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
213. Yes, along with all the other threads about people not getting the right color pony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Mar 24th 2019, 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC