Obama is the worst President we have ever had (4.00 / 2)

Our party and healthcare plan is going down and flames and what does Obama do?  He goes on vacation and plays golf.  I want to see him go down in 2012.  He stands for nothing except getting elected.  Democrats need to start looking at alternatives.  

---

by: BobTegas @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:15:32 AM UTC

Oh, that's ridiculous... (4.00 / 2)

Really?  Worse than Bush and Nixon and Buchanan and Pierce and hoover?  Come now!

I'm glad he went on vacation.  He was already overexposed... he needed to get away and let the healthcare stuff creep out of the news, which it did...  Nothing was going on in congress, anyways... him pitching stuff at the white house would have just made things worse...

We have to see what he does in September...  The problem for the White House is that they need strong visible support on the ground... but, if they ditch the public option, they aren't going to get it...  and if they keep pandering to us on it, when it's finally yanked away, the base is going to be even MORE pissed!


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:30:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama's killing us (4.00 / 1)

I agree with BobTegas. Worst president ever, so far. His fall in the polls over his first seven months rivals only that of Clinton's. He's got bankers raking in billions while tens of millions of average Americans are out of work. He's got nothing going to counter the onslaught of the anti-reform nut-jobs so their message that government is the problem actually has credibility. His lieutenants in the White House seem already to be conceding (welcoming?) big losses in the mid-term elections. If he hasn't outright violated every promise he made during the campaign, he's yet to deliver on a single one that matters to the Democrats and Independents that actually VOTED for him last November.

And now, while most Americans can't even afford to take a vacation, he's off to the Grand Canyon, Martha's Vineyard, and a long weekend at Camp David before returning to the White House next week to deliver a speech that will once again fail to insist on the public option.

How audacious is that?

His worst crime is that he brought into the political fold, under the Democratic Party's banner, ten million new and especially young voters who are slowly losing faith not just in him and the Democrat's ability to deliver on their promises, but, again, like Clinton, like Reagan, belief that the US government can function for them instead of to make their lives worse.

Worst president ever sounds harsh, I suppose, until I think about the hopes and dreams of so many that believed in him and our party to deliver. Terrible job so far.

---

by: NealB2 @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:43:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's Start a New Political Party to Defeat Obama in 2012 (4.00 / 3)

Let's face it. Obama and the Democrats in Congress who are in charge of health care reform are corporate shills for the private insurance industry.

What they are trying to do is create so much confusion and conflict that they can pass legislation that forces all Americans to buy private insurance that inflates the profits of the industry.

Obama and the his Democratic fellow-travelers in Washington are no different from the Republicans in their willingness to flout the popular will and sacrifice American lives and well-being to the profits of their corporate campaign contributors.

They are proof positive that regardless of which party controls Congress and the White House, the American people get shafted by influence peddling lawmakers, thanks to the legalized bribery permitted by U.S. campaign finance laws.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that there is an emerging progressive majority of American voters that can easily take control of Congress and the White House in 2012 if progressive activists join forces to form a third party.

Howard Dean, in alliance with MoveOn, Progressive Democrats of America, organized labor, etc. could take the lead in starting such a party with his Democracy for America, which has on-the-ground organizing units in every Congressional district.

Backward looking political cowards who are afraid of their shadows love to point out that third parties have always failed in the past. But that's because prior third parties did not have an electoral base as large as the emerging progressive majority, or web-based tools that empower progressives to wrest control of electoral and legislative processes from special interests virtually over night.

Nor did third parties have an electoral base like the emerging progressive majority whose members are infuriated at seeing their health and well-being so blatantly sacrificed to corporate profiteering, as Obama and his Congressional Democratic henchmen are doing.

Nor did they did not have an electoral base of voters infuriated by a president of the United States who picked their pockets to enrich corrupt bankers and financiers. Obama and his Wall Street bandits Summers, Geithner and Bernanke have put $24 trillion of public money on the line to bail out private banks.

For those who think they can empower progressives to get control of government by working within the two party system that elected Obama and the traitorous Blue Dog Democrats to Congress, more power to you.

But I am increasingly convinced that the only hope is to create a third party to provide a home for the emerging progressive majority. Only a new party could craft a winning progressive platform that could enable it and its candidates to wrest control of government from the plutocracy that Obama and his fellow-travelers in Congress have put securely in control of our government.

With bottom up, agenda-setting and self-mobilizing tools such as my Interactive Voter Choice System, a new progressive party would be voter driven rather than special interest driven. It would be democratically responsive to the American people in a way that no political party has ever been. Best of all, it could throw the bums out in just a couple of election cycles without having to change any election laws or campaign finance laws.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

A prototype website illustrating how the Interactive Voter Choice System works can be accessed at Citizens Winning Hands.

                           

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 14:23:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Nancy (4.00 / 1)

Seems that most here haven't taken the time to understand the process you developed and it's great potential to save the U.S. from the hell unregulated capital has inflicted on the people. Although there has not been any credible (or non-credible?) postings pointing out any shortcommings to your system, we, the progressive community, have not embraced this system with any enthusium. The reason may be , it takes some time to digest and understand. Not sure I get it all yet but what I do understand is truelly brilliant. Please continue to plug your system/method of political dominance, the collective WE need it, and will (with luck?) eventually realize it's game changing importance......As for Obama, he is shaping up to be the worst Democratic president of my lifetime.  

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR

---

by: reggiewhitefish @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 17:45:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I'm so pleased that you have taken the time to look into the Interactive Voter Choice System.

As you rightly point out, it takes time to digest and understand it.

Actually, the system has been presented to the Open Left progressive community, thanks to Paul Rosenberg and his article, Empowering A Progressive Movement-A Web-Based Tool For Bottom-Up Self-Organizing.

While it is a work in progress, once the progressive community decides to get the ball rolling to build a third party, it can be made fully functional in short order.

I am following your advice and will continue to plug the system whenever appropriate so that the word gets out that there is a web-based tool that progressive activists can use to turn the tables on the political status quo.  

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 18:44:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hi UpstateDem/Kent or whoever you are now. (4.00 / 1)

---

by: DTOzone @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:42:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Get hysterical much? (4.00 / 1)

Seriously? Take a deep breath and step back.  Unless and until Obama lies us into a war, he's just a disappointment.  That puts him squarely in the middle third of presidential performances.

---

by: BigTuna @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 14:34:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With this attitude it could be 1994 again (4.00 / 13)

I just checked the PPP  polling on generic Congressional vote at Dkos...the numbers are appalling and remind me of 1994.  Emily's List did a post mortem on 1994 in terms of women voters which I used in 1996 when I ran the Women's Desk for the NY Clinton Gore campaign.  Basically, disheartened, dininterested base who just stayed home.  I emailed Celinda Lake who did the polling for Emily's List back then and she confirmed that this is exactly what it looks like to her as well.

They are following the CW idea of getting moderates and independents to vote for red state/marginal Dems.  They are operating under the wrong theory.  Independents don't really care what you're for...they care that you're for something and you look stong and in control and make government work.  The WH doesn't realize this signals weakness not strength. They are busy at this point in time to doing the anachronistic Sistah Soljah thing on those who are trying to both do the right thing as well as saving them.

It is ever more crucial that we hold the House Progressive Caucus.  We have to be their cavalry riding to their rescue.
We have to save them from themselves

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:28:14 AM UTC

everyone knows the story of 1994 (4.00 / 7)

So why don't the people in the White House get it? They so terrified of sending K Street money to Republicans, but they seem unconcerned about Democrats staying home.

I hope House Progressives don't get rolled on this. It wouldn't be easy to start from scratch next year, but if Obama thought he needed a strong public option in order to get a bill on his desk, he would push for one.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:37:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think that they just presume that we'll vote for them.... (4.00 / 5)

...no matter what?  Even if we do, we won't be working for them... this should bother them immensely... but, I bet it doesn't bother Rahm at all!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:44:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, I'd like to add... (4.00 / 2)

...that they probably think that we will just forget everything by next year anyways!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:45:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm rather surprised by this.... (4.00 / 2)

I really thought that Obama's team was smart enough to see through all the village crap and understand the bigger picture...

Now, if the politico reporting is true (and that's a BIG if), they are going with the Clintonite triangulation strategy, which would be a disaster for congress and for progressivism as a whole...

Independents don't really care what you're for...they care that you're for something and you look stong and in control and make government work.  

Which is why he's hurting with indies now, 'cos the right hijacked these town hall events and the Dems really are in disarray....  They look ineffective.  If they can get their shit together, then those numbers will improve, but they can't balance out depressed Democratic numbers if they throw our sacred cow away in a fit of pique!

Or maybe, they feel that they already lost, and this is just a salvage job of sorts... which is possible... if that's the case, then that's the case, I guess... but, they will suffer the same consequences as a total loss on health care reform...

I have a feeling how this will all turn out... and it won't be as bad as we think, but it won't be what we want, either...  I'm seeing the signs from various sources, Clyburn, Feingold...  we'll have a conditional public option, tested at the state level, and maybe triggered... possibly some other sort of "co-op" type competition (but, it won't be a co-op... more like Centers for Medicare Services, which is a private association)... not sure of the endgame...  regardless, we won't like it very much, but it also might not be as bad as we are thinking right now!

The CPC action won't block anything, but they will be able to get some big concessions, including, IMO, the Kucinich amendment that allows states to experiment with single payer...

If California could get its fiscal shit together, then maybe we'll do it like Canada did... one state at a time!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:42:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't crucify civilization on a cross of free health care, (0.00 / 0)

please.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 09:35:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Leadership may actually be important. (4.00 / 3)

they are going with the Clintonite triangulation strategy

To me it looks like a fractalization strategy--if it is a strategy. The vacuum of leadership is disconcerting and making things much worse then they ought to be. Even if Obama pulls out of this death spiral he has already tainted his presidency by not showing leadership when it really mattered.  

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 09:48:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong lesson (4.00 / 2)

The problem is that Obama's team may have learned the wrong lesson from 1994.  If the problem was the failure of the Clintons to pass meaningful health care reform, they may see the cure as passing any bill, meaningful or not.  If the problem was that Congress failed to put a bill up for a vote, any bill up for a vote will do.  If the problem was organized Republican opposition paid for by the insurance companies, sell out to said insurance companies.

Otoh, if the problem was the lack of a simple, easily explained bill, we have the 1,000 pager as just one of the drafts floating around.  If the problem was a failure to take on the insurance companies, we have drifted even further away.  If the problem was the failure to take on "free trade" and lost jobs, we have ceded even more ground to the outsourcers.  If the problem was the failure to take on the tax cutters and groupies for the corporations (who outsource jobs by the thousands) we have gotten far worse.

Bipartisanship only works if both sides want to reach a deal.  Otherwise, the losers are driving the winners over a right-wing cliff.  How does this ever sell?  Answer, it appeals to few except (unfortunately) in Iowa.  desmoinesdem, explain this mystery.  

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 13:35:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We can benefit from this (4.00 / 4)

if we leverage the wave to take out recalcitrant Dems. Hell, they're making it easy.

I should say: they're not idiots. This is not an act of stupidity, it's a defining statment on the direction they want to take the party.

I've already had two calls from WA STATE Democrats asking me to donate to Murray's re-election campaign. Both times I told them I would neither donate nor vote for her, and this time I asked the woman on the phone if she would run against Murray in the primary, LOL. They referred me to a Seattle number with the campaign, where I guess someone else will try and convince me.

I've actually never heard of that...We're what, 15 months before the election, and I have a third term incumbent, who is fourth in the Senate Dem leadership, and they are already calling people multiple times, and have a special hotline set up for the malcontents?

They know what people are thinking. They know exactly what they're risking. But apparently it is more important for them to keep the party stuck in 1990s neo [classical] liberalism, than to allow it to move to New Deal/Great Society liberalism.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:47:09 AM UTC

Has Patty Murray not come out for the public option? (4.00 / 1)

She has often been one of the better Dems on these kinds of issues..

What's she doing or not doing that you don't like?

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:58:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Feingold is starting early, too (0.00 / 0)

No calls yet, but he's already admitted he's going to have a tough race in Wisconsin next year. I'm thinking, what the f***? Democrats had an opportunity at the start of this Congress to reshape the country swiftly, using the hope that people felt at finally getting rid of Bush and the decisive victories in 2006 and 2008. They've squandered it, and now where, for the first time in thirty years Democrats might have had an easier election cycle, they're facing an election that may diminish their majorities to the point where Congress will be as incapable of governing as it was during most of Clinton's presidency.

---

by: NealB2 @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:59:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chuck Schumer knows what's up... (4.00 / 5)

There's a reason why he was on the Sunday talk shows pushing the public option... He knows it's a winner!  And Schumer knows something about winning... he got Dems 15 senate seats in two elections... that has to be some sort of record!

Axelrod should be listening to him, and not to his ridiculous obsession on "bipartisanship" which no one voted in Obama for...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 06:50:11 AM UTC

drudge having field day (4.00 / 3)

thanks to this story even drudge is having fun at the dems on pub opt. im not looking fwd to the next few months. kennedy is gone and within a few days this story crops up? kennedy said po was central-couldnt be given away. afl says it wont back dems who say no to po and literally within hrs this story comes up? so if no po then no labor help in 10. no grassroots help. dems stay home. indies vote gop and...

---

by: art3 @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 07:12:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm surprisingly proud of Schumer lately (4.00 / 1)

He does seem to get where we are and what the stakes are unlike his colleagues and our pathetic Senate Majority leader well as the WH.

If we can rely on a corporate Democrat like Schumer, perhaps there is hope. He has been more progressive lately, though and if he significantly makes waves I might forgive all his transgressions. Nancy Pelosi for that matter; those two seem to actually think elections have consequences and that it's now or never.

---

by: priceman @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:04:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He knows what wins and what loses... (4.00 / 2)

His overriding principle is what helps the middle class.. the middle class being those who make about $80-$120K a year...   They are the ultimate swing voters, and have turnout of almost 100%.  Baucuscare doesn't help those folks... a public option does.

They ignore Schumer at their peril!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 15:14:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rahm and the legislative team along with Axelrod (4.00 / 10)

are also to blame for this Class A Cluster Fuck of a summer.  However, the largest 'sliver' of blame resides in the lap of President Obama.  

Again, his own campaign words, ads against HRC and McCain over the health care topic will come to bite him in the ass, hell the first sentence in his campaign website dealing with health care dealt with 'creating a public plan'... the first damn line.  Now it is a 'sliver' or not that important. Well then can we have our not so important 'money and time back' for all we did during the primary and general.  

---

by: dr fatman @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 07:29:23 AM UTC

Why doesn't Obama listen to Bill Kristol? (4.00 / 2)

let me explain: Bill Kristol was deathly afraid of Hillary's plan in 1994, because if it went well, he knew Democrats' gains would be forever be solidified and he was right then and now.

K street knows this as well; also the AMA, which makes me suspicious that they are now on board; doesn't seem to be good prospects as to really getting a public option with any teeth. I think we need an emergency reframing campaign(As Bill Maher said, a public option sounds like a public bathroom); I'm not one of those people who thinks single payer has a chance(HR 676's sponsors are showing they aren't serious and Bernie Sanders my favorite Senator has given up on his single payer bill and who could blame him), but calling the public option the Medicare Buy In and advertising that(since there are enough stupid people who don't believe it's government run health care anyway) and framing the issue via having some resemblance of message discipline like Obama had during the campaign.

The interests involved in stopping health care reform have been successful in completely buying Congress and stopping  real UHC ever since the dawn of the idea came form Teddy Roosevelt on to his cousin FDR who couldn't pass it with SS to Truman who tried to put it in along with civil rights in his fair deal laying the groundwork for passage later of Medicare and the Civil Rights Acts.

The sad thing is that there have always been some kind of disaster we had to live through before major sweeping life changing reforms were passed and the public was mobilized enough to demand SS, Medicare, as well as the civil rights acts. They pressured and scared even some Republicans and pushed high minded Republicans to vote for that legislation.

I hate to even thin this as i think the bailout was necessary though I was against the no strings attached swiss cheese rushed bailout, but letting this economy fail was probably the only thing that could mobilize people in the long run to demand Medicare for all. Of course I cannot say that i wanted that to happen as it's quite a conundrum, but it goes to the point; the Gilded Age electing Robert Marion La Follette whom also helped brake up the railroad trusts and J.P Morgan's Northern Securities company. To Congress and Teddy Roosevelt and pressuring him to protect unions in the SCOTUS as well as busting up trusts are dealing with them in some way for the common man. The great Depression via the Stock Crash of 1929. LBJ knew how to coerce and gather info and on each Senator as well, but JFK's assassination was a shock to the nation and that was used to push civil rights legislation as it was part of his legacy Johnson wanted to complete.

And there have been bad recessions afterward, but nothing really disastrous enough to mobilize the public except for 9/11 whihc the neocons used to start the illegal Iraq war when we could of used that time to mobilizes for something positive if democracy wasn't st9len in Florida and the SCOTUS.

The Chinese characters stating a crisis is also an opportunity is correct and Obama had enough of that opportunity to get elected and he is now squandering his place at the podium where the people are starting to no longer lend him their ears. It also seemed a Democrat can only get elected after a Republican screws up the country royally, via Carter after Watergate and a continued Vietnam war plus Ford pardoning Nixon and now GWB and Obama.

Who knows what's really going on, but I fear you are right and that is Axelrod and the Obama administration is going to try to prop up a short lived victory of passing any bill; let's hope our House progressives are serious. Darcy Burner says they are this time and that does sound sincere, but I don't know.

I can only hope for the best as I ramble on.

---

by: priceman @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 08:00:19 AM UTC

There is a dominant libertarian strain amongst independents (0.00 / 0)

but I don't see Democrats or self-styled leftists with a strategy of reaching out to them.

1) Why do you think Republicans have been trounced lately? Libertarian disaffection.

2) What is their only path to victory? Recover the Ron Paul voter.

Folks, it's not that hard.

Unless the Dem elite intentionally wants to fail (multi-millionaires all), I cannot comprehend what they are doing.

We really had a chance to make the world better. That will make what is to come so much more bitter.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 09:33:20 AM UTC

Obama doesn't matter. (4.00 / 1)

I am convinced now he does not want a public option, because the whole point of "reform" was to shovel money to his true constituency, the elite. It's the Wall Street bailout all over again.

But if the progressive bloc holds, and a bill with the public option appears on his desk, does he have the nerve to veto?

Not likely. He doesn't "do" confrontation. Maybe this time it's his insurance industry friends who will have to deal with that particular character flaw.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:08:11 AM UTC

Obama does matter. (4.00 / 1)

If the House passes a bill with a public option and the Senate one without, which I could see happening, then it all comes down to what is in the conference bill.  Obama would have enormous influence  with the conference committee.  

Given how wishy washy he has been on everything else, I would not be surprised by a conference committee bill without a public option that Obama's team would twist arms to get through the House.

Would enough progressives hold in that scenario to keep a conference bill from passing?  I doubt it.

Will it come to that?  I do not know, but I am very uneasy.

---

by: ammasdarling @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 12:34:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But will he be able to twist those arms? (4.00 / 1)

It's possible the bloc will stand up to him. What happens then?

He's not wishy washy at all, he knows exactly whose side he is on. The problem is a lot of us are figuring out whose side he's on and adjusting accordingly.

It's going to be a long 3 years.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 13:36:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The "wishy washy" part is that Obama is not clear (0.00 / 0)

about "which side he is on". Mixed messages abound. I suspect that we'll get more of that later today once someone gets around to walking back this story.

At this point, I too, should know where the so-called "leader" of my nation stands on an issue that, he himself, has repeatedly claimed is crucial and important.

That I'm still "figuring out whose side he's on" is a testament to his lack of effective communication to anyone that is not a conservative Deenocrat or a Republican.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 14:30:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He is firmly on the side of the elites. (4.00 / 1)

Wall Street, the telecoms, the mercenaries, Big Pharma and the insurance companies.

Forget his words, his actions tell us everything we need to know. And the sooner we come to grips with it the better.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 15:52:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You did not seem so certain in your last post (0.00 / 0)

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 17:58:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What? (0.00 / 0)

I said he did not want the public option because he wants to shovel money to his true friends.

Where is the contradiction there?

Maybe it is in the way we are using the words "wishy washy." I took it to mean "he doesn't know what side he's on" and argued with it. But maybe ammasdarling means "regardless of what side he is on, he won't get his hands dirty fighting for it."

If that is the case, then I agree.

During the campaign he told us he was a lover not a fighter, and personally I am banking on that being true. It is the one hope we have.


Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 18:06:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wishy washy (0.00 / 0)

to me is about how one expresses their position. In words AND action.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 18:11:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ignoring the polling (4.00 / 1)

Axelrod is treating the polling for this the way he would look at numbers on who supports world peace or something.

Something needs to be done to convince the White House not just that overwhelming numbers of the public support a public option, but don't want a health care reform bill without it- in fact, would think a bill without it to be useless. That will go a long way towards making Axelrod think twice. Rephrasing poll language?


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:42:10 AM UTC

Sorry, but... (4.00 / 1)

a Democratic operative using an argument from authority -- "Just listen ..." -- from a political ad that he himself devised is just a little too meta for me.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 11:58:55 AM UTC

"lots of different ways..." (0.00 / 0)

Axelrod:

"There are lots of different ways to get there."

Name three.

---

by: foxtrotsky @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 13:50:26 PM UTC

OK (0.00 / 0)

1) Single payer system (pre-conceded point)

2) Convert private for-profit insurance companies to non-profit and regulate. (unconsidered point)

3) Restructure current government programs to pay for outcomes rather than procedures, and regulate private insurers along the same lines.(nominal point).

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 14:34:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]