It would be hypocritical (4.00 / 1)

If that actually was the substance of Bowers' complaint about Lambert.

It wasn't using QH's to bash OL/Bowers, it is the disingenuous nature of the complaints and discourse on Lambert's part here.

I noted something similar to Lambert in another thread, which is that, if Lambert actually believes all the top tier progressive bloggers are actually conspiring to shut out single payer, and willfully selling out the robust public option for a facade of one, then what is the point of coming here or interacting with OL?

And if so, why didn't we just ban him?  It's a pretty odd conspiracy to silence foes that doesn't actually silence them.

Single payer advocates need to confront the actual sincere arguments of those who have chosen the public option as their primary health care reform goal.  These are the "sure it's great, but we see no path from A to B" arguments.

Lambert starts from a position that single payer is attainable because "Medicare for all" is an easy slogan and therefore anyone not pursuing it is a fake progressive.  It's a deeply flawed position, and makes for highly ineffective advocacy for single payer.

Instead of discussing single payer, we're talking about a Bowers/Lambert fight.  

Nothing in this debate calls for accusations of ill faith and unless some actual evidence surfaces to show ill faith, it is a pointless distraction.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 14:22:17 PM CST

a pointless distraction is the point here, as always (0.00 / 0)

this Daniel,  is feeding trolls, you have better fish to fry.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 14:27:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"why didn't we just ban him?" (4.00 / 1)

What you mean "we," white man?

lambert was banned:
http://www.correntewire.com/pr...

---

by: nasrudin @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 11:11:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"actually conspiring" (4.00 / 1)

It seems to me lambert is being deliberately provocative, in a constructive way, in his use of the word "conspiracy" and his views are more closely aligned with those of Glenn Greenwald. You don't have to have all the progressive bloggers meeting in a room somewhere, twirling their moustaches and planning a blackout in detail, to have them, in effect, working in concert. (That lambert wasn't, until now, apparently, banned, is hardly dispositive on the issue.)

And I don't see lambert starting from the position that "single payer is attainable because "Medicare for all" is an easy slogan and therefore anyone not pursuing it is a fake progressive." His position, more fairly characterized, in part, in my view, is (1) the public option we're getting-which will cover, apparently, two percent of Americans-is hardly "robust" or "strong" (Kip Sullivan of PNHP says a "weak public option is far worse than none at all"-I think lambert would agree with that) and (2) any actions of single payer groups for the inarguably better (and more progressive) policy are not covered in any substantive way by Open Left and other progressive sites. That (I think) is the "fake progressive" critique-reporting on the better, more progressive policy of single payer and actions in pursuing it are, seemingly, out-of-bounds and any fair critique of the public option under consideration is similarly ignored.

There's nothing incompatible, in theory, with Open Left supporting a strong public option, critiquing the weak public option under consideration, and reporting extensively on those groups pushing for single payer. It hasn't done so. (Only Ian, as far as I know, has given any criteria for a what a "strong" public option must have and no one else on this site has looked at the public option from the standpoint of that criteria. Why?)

So, while differing with your characterization of lambert's positions, I agree that the focus shouldn't be on the Bower/lambert fight. It's better if it's on policy. That's, in fact, where lambert wants it to be. Where Chris, or Open Left, wants it to be, given the coverage so far, is, for me, unfortunately, becoming less questionable every day.

---

by: jeffweinberg @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 13:11:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's very entertaining to watch (0.00 / 0)

the so-called activist netroots with their circular firing squads emasculate themselves.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 22:32:38 PM CST

Because There's Never Been A Versailles Meme That DTOzone Didn't Love (4.00 / 2)

And we must spend, what?  1% of our time on this? 0.1%?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 06:39:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]