Further confirmation Rahm told Reid to cave to Lieberman

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 21:51

The Huffington Post originally reported that Rahm Emanuel told Harry Reid to cave into Joe Lieberman's demands.  TPMDC backed up the story, and went even further:

Then the aide provided more detail.

Emanuel didn't just leave it to Reid to find a solution. Emanuel specifically suggested Reid give Lieberman the concessions he seeks on issues like the Medicare buy-in and triggers.

"It was all about 'do what you've got to do to get it done. Drop whatever you've got to drop to get it done," the aide said. All of Emanuel's prescriptions, the source said, were aimed at appeasing Lieberman--not twisting his arm.

I contacted a Senate aide to further confirm the story.  When I asked the aide if the Huffington Post and TPMDC stories were true, the aide responded "absolutely."

Further, the aide confirmed that Joe Lieberman is lying (I'm not exaggerating the language).  Immediately after the Gang of Ten struck a deal on the public option, Harry Reid contacted Lieberman to hear his thoughts.  Lieberman indicated that he was liking what he was seeing, and just wanted to wait for the CBO score.  For him to change without the CBO score is mendacity, pure and simple.

Finally, the aide also said that this is still about saving lives.  We keep talking about cost, but this bill still saves lives.  For all of its tremendous disappointments, the aide kept emphasizing that the bill saves lives.  This shows, if nothing else, that Alan Grayson's messaging appears to have won the day for Democrats.

I don't really know what to think right now.  Too angry to think straight.  After a very long campaign, we had appeared to secure a deal that I thought was acceptable.  We promptly get stabbed in the back by none other than Joe Lieberman (and the CBO, btw), and then just as promptly told by the White House to accept it all.

The cloture motion on health care reform will be filed either tomorrow or Thursday, setting up a vote two days later. With a very crowded legislative schedule, and demands from the White Hosue to pass the bill in 2009, there really isn't any other option.  My bet is that Olympia Snowe will probably vote for the bill now, as will Roland Burris.  All of this makes even the unlikely prospect of a no vote from Bernie Sanders on the cloture motion irrelevant.  Barring further mendacity, this bill now has sixty votes.

The next step will be the conference committee, unless the White House demands that also gets thrown in the trash to appease Lieberman, or Nelson, or whoever.

Chris Bowers :: Further confirmation Rahm told Reid to cave to Lieberman

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

if it were just about saving lives (4.00 / 15)
They could do a few simple reforms without creating this elaborate structure to transmit taxpayer dollars to profitable corporations.

The bill should be killed. Not that House Progressives are likely to have the guts to do it, but this bill is not an improvement on the status quo and doesn't even contain the rising costs that are supposedly the main reason for reform.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Kill it (4.00 / 7)

And most importantly, progressives should take credit for killing the bill. Don't let the teabaggers steal the spotlight.

If it embarrasses Obama, tough beans. Obama's embarrassed himself in a hundred ways as it is.

And it allows Obama to be re-framed as a conservative, which (a) is a much more accurate label for him than "liberal", and (b) ensures his rising unpopularity doesn't rub off on progressives...

Killing the bill is now the proper thing to do, from a strategic progressive standpoint. The bill has been gutted to the point where it does NOT improve people's lives, so there's very little opportunity cost in practical terms. Obama's irrelevant; he's made himself so.

Let's hope Grayson and company are seriously thinking about this...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Yeah, let's kill it. (1.33 / 9)
And then President Nader, together with his Veep Kucinich, will do a much better job, just like they did right after the Dems killed Clinton's health care bill...

[ Parent ]
what are you afraid will happen if we kill it? (4.00 / 2)
that we'll lose and won't be able to fix it in 2010+?

[ Parent ]
That's going to happen anyway. (0.00 / 0)
Damned if we do, damned if we don't...might as well be damned for doing.  I agree with Jack; kill the bill.  I really don't think we should pressure Dems to make this crap pass.

[ Parent ]
You've changed my mind. (4.00 / 12)

 Let's pass the bill. Let's force Americans to buy junk insurance (and fine them if they don't). Let's not offer them any competition to the private plans they're stuck with. And let's make sure that any new constraints on insurance-industry excesses are easily circumvented through massive loopholes.

 I can't wait for the thunderous Democratic victories in 2010 and 2012.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Need a non-pejorative rating (0.00 / 0)
What would be nice is a non-pejorative rating -- "Prune" -- which would also remove the entire branch of discussion from view. Too often discussions devolve into irrelevant pissing matches. (Note that this isn't unique to OpenLeft, it's been a fact of life since the days of dialup BBSes.)

[ Parent ]
Then OL would become even more like the orange satan... (4.00 / 3)
...with the majority censoring unpopular opinions in that way. That would be a dire mistake, ruining our discussion culture here, which imho is way ahead of most other blogs, especially DKos. Let's have a new rating for disapporval instead, which doesn't hide the coment, ok. And maybe a feature allowing the user to "fold" whole branches of the thread to get a better overview.

[ Parent ]
Troll from dailykos. (4.00 / 1)
Some of us long for the Dean reform blog of 04; others like Obamamama do not. If her name doesn't tell you something, you aren't thinking hard enough.  

[ Parent ]
This is not dailykos. (4.00 / 2)
Fear mongering doesn't work here.  Obama and the Democrats will be held accountable no matter how angry and unhappy it might make you.  

[ Parent ]
AMEN!!!!!! (0.00 / 0)
We WILL work to get rid of them all!!!

[ Parent ]
AMEN!!!!!! (0.00 / 0)
We WILL work to get rid of them all!!!

[ Parent ]
Excuse me.... (4.00 / 6)
...I have to go take some stuff off of my car.

I'm too embarrassed to have it there any longer.

PS - Is there a valid person we can use to primary against Lincoln?

ITA - (0.00 / 0)
I am now looking back and thinking Hillary 2012!

[ Parent ]
Riiiight... (4.00 / 4)
Substitute cyanide for arsenic.  Good idea.

[ Parent ]
Hardly (0.00 / 0)
Hillary would never have stabbed her supporters in the back on the issue of health care. Beyond that, what has Obama done better in matters of domestic policy that Hillary wouldn't or couldn't. This is why I supported her in the primaries. The people who supported Obama in the primaries and general election did so for only two reasons (three if we include sexism) - 1) they believed the crap that Obama was really anti-war (how'd that turn out again?) and 2) he would be more unifying than Hillary. Well, we know how that turned out. Hillary at least would have been a street-fighter that no Democratic Senator would have wanted to mess with, least of all some putz named Lieberman. Don't want to revisit the primary wars? Too fucking bad. 18 million Hillary supporters now have to suffer the consequences because of all the jackasses who bought into Obama's "change you can believe in" bullshit.

[ Parent ]
Is this snark? nt (4.00 / 3)

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
With Hillary, we knew what we were getting and weren't buying into a cult, unlike Obama supporters. Unlike a lot of people around here, I was one of those that thought the Big Dog did a great job while he was in office, and was happy with the job Hillary was doing as our Senator when I lived in NY at the time. She at least had completed one term of office and had been re-elected when she ran for the Presidency, unlike Obama who had no such track record.

[ Parent ]
Have a meaningless, pointless disagreement where you (4.00 / 4)
make lots of silly or unsupportable claims if you want, but don't expect anyone to think that rehashing your fanboyism for one candidate is any better than fanboyism for a different candidate.

Forgive me, but there is something odd about someone who thinks that one candidate is the solution to all our problems, who references that candidates' name as part of their screen name, and then accuses a large group of other people of being a cult.

If you are right about Clinton, then she sought to resign. Or maybe she, like Obama, fits comfortably within the party.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
That's The Thing... (0.00 / 0)
...Obama supporters don't get. I didn't expect Hillary to be able to solve our problems in one fell swoop. What I DID expect is that she would at least give us a fighting chance at cleaning out the stables. What has Obama done that warrants any benefit of the doubt or support in comparison? At least Hillary is a FIGHTER. Obama, OTOH, has shown no such tendency to engage in any street fighting, especially on issues that matter to his supporters.

And yeah, I wish she would resign. The reality is that if she did that, you might as well kiss the Democratic Party goodbye, because the fallout would be worse than the Johnson/Kennedy schism in '68. Obama's Presidency could well be destroyed by that one gesture, especially if she did it in support of her base constituency.

[ Parent ]
that CBO thing is pretty crazy (4.00 / 12)
The line has always been that the CBO was oh so objective and neutral, but that "90% means they're part of the government" was ridiculous, and reeks of someone's agenda.  So much credibility has been given to CBO scorings, it wouldn't shock me if various forms of lobbying/influence were being done on them too.

Very crazy (4.00 / 5)
Well, you can see what the insurance companies are really afraid of. That 90% rule probably would have done more to restrain price gouging and limit profits than the varieties of public option that we have seen lately.

This ruling is so crazy that I would expect a number of Democratic Senators to openly challenge it, on the grounds that the CBO has greatly overstepped its mandate and authority. Will they? If the answer is no, then that will tell us a lot about the real nature of the Democratic Party.

I do expect Bernie Sanders to have a lot to say about this.  

[ Parent ]
it would be compromised anyway (4.00 / 1)
The ruling is completely incomprehensible to me, but it is so much better than the previous numbers I figure it would drop anyway. 80 or 85% would be pretty good.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
This is still in play (4.00 / 2)
At least technically. The Franken amendment (90%) still should be voted on. It should have the full support of the Senate leadership, despite the CBO. If, during this process, it is amended to 85%, as you say, that would still be an improvement. And Lieberman should at least be given a chance to be a hypocrite for a third time.

But, unlike the expansion of medicare, this regulation could not be done by reconciliation, either before or after a conference committee. It has to be done under the normal rules of order, and that means now.

If it is not done now, the best that could happen is that the numbers in the House Bill (which I think are better than the current Senate Bill) prevail in the conference committee.

[ Parent ]
Does the CBO consider all utility companies to be part of the government? (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Depends on how much of them the Elmendorfs own I guess nt (4.00 / 5)

[ Parent ]
That depends (4.00 / 1)
If utility companies are constrained by national laws, then they would be part of the federal budget.  If utility companies are constrained primarily by state laws, then they would not be part of the federal budget.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
So can California just confiscate PG&E's profits to balance its budget? (4.00 / 1)
Can they confiscate their property to sell it, or use it for public purposes with no compensation, since it's an arm of the government?

[ Parent ]
I don't know (4.00 / 1)
It probably depends mainly upon California law.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
It actually makes sense to me (4.00 / 2)
It fits with what the CBO said back in May.

Basically, the 90% thing means that insurance companies get treated as agents of the federal government.  From what I read, I don't think the problem is so much 85% vs 90% but that the range between 90% and 95% is small.  95% is the top end of the range that the CBO said was the actuarial value of typical employment-based plans.

My guess is that the main problem is that the CBO feels that consumer choice is constrained too much by insurance companies not being able to offer as many different tiers of coverage.  The CBO had previously said that setting an actuarial value requirement of more than 80% would be deemed as too constraining.  The previous MLR requirement of 85% had a loophole that required government to make sure that the individual health insurance market wasn't destabilized.  The failure of the Franken amendment to include such language is what hurt the requirement, if not the actual number.

This is what I gather from the past hour or so looking this up.  It seems to me that health reform wonks should have flagged the Franken amendment immediately as something that would result in a bad CBO score.  (I am not a health reform wonk.)  Did I miss people saying that?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Rahm is such a bulldog! (4.00 / 10)

 So Joe Lieberman flat-out lies to Harry Reid, and Rahm demands that Reid cave to Lieberman. Reid dutifully complies. A more perfect encapsulation of the Democrats could not be invented.

 We have a man with no moral compass running the White House. And Barack Obama appointed him to that position.

 Now, a REAL "enforcer" would have called a press conference and ran the tape of Lieberman supporting the Medicare buy-in just three short months ago. Then he would have called Lieberman the liar he's always been, and publicly humiliated him in a dozen different ways. That would not have gotten Lieberman's vote. But it would have destroyed his credibility with the general public, and Rahm/Obama could have leveraged THAT if they'd chosen to.

 That's what "bulldogs" do.

 Is there any political figure more overrated than Rahm Emanuel? Unless it's Barack Obama.


"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

"That would not have gotten Lieberman's vote." (0.00 / 0)
And you would know that how?  By how Lieberman has reacted to past shaming?  Seriously, those on the left are as bad at reality-denying as those on the right are...

[ Parent ]
Vague attacks on "those of the left" (4.00 / 4)
are obnoxious and unconvincing.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
I am of the left. (0.00 / 1)
I think I can say that.

I just don't belong in the stupid, defeatist caucus which would rather lose than win incrementally.  I have been beating my head against that wall ever since Nader 2000 in Florida put the nation through an 8-year trauma.

Chris Matthews did a fantastic job of placing some context.  He asked some guest what the moniker "progressive" meant.  We should all reflect on that.

[ Parent ]
no, you are not (4.00 / 3)
you are a DLC troll

but whatever you do, you won't get me to vote for these bunch of sellouts

and they can ask their friends at big health to work on gotv

[ Parent ]
I think it's a DNC troll! (0.00 / 0)
They have become just like the RePUKES.  There are paid DNC propagandists all over the place.  HOW DUMB!!!  Do they REALLY think they can change our minds about Obama's abandonment of principles?  NOT A CHANCE!!!

[ Parent ]
Uh, no (4.00 / 4)
Vague accusations against large groups of people are unhelpful - regardless of how you categorize yourself.

Blaming Nader for something that had any number of causes (which all close elections do) and placing no responsibility on Democrats is nonsense. And calling people names won't get them to vote for your party.

We should reflect on a question that Matthews posed to an unnamed guest (but not the answer)?  To what end?

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
You are not even right of center if you are advocating this bill (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
Chris Tweety Mathews? Which intelligent person would cite that fool? (4.00 / 3)
Come on, really, certainly you're joking...

[ Parent ]
He is absolutely the only one... (0.00 / 0)
who asks the most penetrating questions, when he is interested in the topic!!  On the Iraq war, on Scooter Libby and on the meaning of being progressive, there is no other anchor who has asked more intelligent questions, not even Rachel Maddow (whom I adore), that is!

[ Parent ]
You didn't really read my post, did you? (4.00 / 2)


"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Even though she quoted it... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Read my mea culpa below... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Oops, mea culpa. (0.00 / 0)
Did not see the "not" in the quote I excerpted from your comment -- please ignore my response to you.

But my comment still stands for those that want to saber-rattle and chest-thump at Lieberman (in particular; and Landrieu/Lincoln/Nelson in general) -- what is your strategy to get those d*** 60 votes?

We need to keep our eye on the ball: health insurance reform, energy legislation, etc.  Slippery eel personalities will always be there -- making them the whole point and constantly foaming just makes that much harder for the good Dems in Cong to deal with...

[ Parent ]
"what is your strategy to get those d*** 60 votes?" (4.00 / 4)
Ummm... Play hardball with the conservadems. Threaten them with all the pain you can possibly rain down on them. And have the reconcilliation path all gamed out as a backup.

This has been another episode of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.


[ Parent ]
YOU wrote in 2008, Obama "a spectacularly progressive person" (4.00 / 2)
So you have no standing to accuse anyone here of being "reality-denying". Nobody cares if you have been a professor or a cleaning woman, your stuff just doesn't make any sense.

[ Parent ]
Well... (4.00 / 3)
Looks like we will have a new majority/minority leader in 2011.    Reid signed his own death warrant.   I could forgive him if he fought and was defeated.   But to give in without trying anything else.   Sorry, he's not getting a dime in 2010.    

[ Parent ]
You're assuming the White House (4.00 / 1)
wanted that particular bill.

On the other hand, if the "bulldog" wanted something passed that was worthless on paper, but sounded great in a gauzy campaign commercial to people who want to believe it anyway, well then his actions make perfect sense.

[ Parent ]
Lieberman was Obama's mentor (4.00 / 2)
Why doesn't it occur to anyone that Obama is simply a "Lieberdem," and we progressives were really had!  

My blog  

[ Parent ]
Strategy and the Left, sigh. (4.00 / 2)
While Chris here has been fairly reasonable about this whole thing in the last couple of weeks or so, I just don't get this business of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. Any which way you cut it, the health care bill is a huge achievement, especially in the face of the recalcitrant four in the Senate.  Especially considering the fact that with a big majority in the House, we still eked out only a razor-thin passage.

Everyone who wants to use loaded, drama-queen words such as "caved", should present a coherent work-around the Senate dysfunction.  Until then, label this a victory, work for more provisions introduced into must-pass bills, and the energy legislation.  I for one am elated that, with the Congress that we have, we are still going to have around 30+ million people get health insurance, there will be no more denial for "pre-existing condition" and no more dropping insurance when you get sick and...

Reconciliation (4.00 / 3)
Next question.

[ Parent ]
I don't know all the complications involved with that. (0.00 / 0)
But according to people that I trust, what we would get out of reconciliation would be far worse than what we can get from this process...

[ Parent ]
We do not know (0.00 / 0)
if Reid had the votes for that.  Based on Chris's post earlier today, I doubt it.

Which is not the same thing as saying that this bill as great, or anything close to what it should have.

[ Parent ]
That would mean you couldn't get 51 votes for it (4.00 / 1)
which is pretty good evidence that it's not just Lieberman's fault.

[ Parent ]
Not true... (4.00 / 1)
They could get 51 votes for the normal way.  But enough Senators are afraid that it will hurt them with the public if they did reconciliation.   So its not the bill as the way it is passed.   Senators are a bunch of little bitches anyway.

[ Parent ]
Which brings up an interesting ploy... (4.00 / 3)
What about passing the bill without the stuff and then use reconciliation to pass the PO AND medicare buyin aspects, as well as the 90%.     Reid doesn't have the balls, but if he did, I'd back him up 100%

[ Parent ]
The 90% probably couldn't be reconciled (4.00 / 1)
But the public option and medicare buy-ins could, and that would be a great move. It's still possible until the next election and perhaps even the next term. Not sure Reid has the votes though.

[ Parent ]
When you don't get a lot of things you set out to get (4.00 / 9)
then it's hard to say, "Any which way you cut it, the health care bill is a huge achievement."  Perhaps you shouldn't be lecturing anyone about being "reality denying."

Also, who said we're getting any of those things you mentioned. Until the bill is signed, there is still time to negotiate anything worthwhile in the bill away, as they have at every step.

PS - when you can only eke out a small victory when you have gigantic margins in the House, that suggests you are playing the game poorly, not that you have won a great victory.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Fine, may be they played the game poorly, (0.00 / 0)
the House and Senate Dems.

Give me a better play -- no animosity/sarcasm/or any snark on my part.  I genuinely want to know how you get better results with the Dems that you have in Congress...

[ Parent ]
Demonize Big Insurance from the start (4.00 / 12)
and threaten to pass bills to regulate them out of their exorbitant profitability, or to put them essentially out of business.

Talk less about whether it's budget neutral, and about CBO scores, and more about dead Americans.  "xxx Connecticuters (?) are going to die this year waiting to the Senate to pass this bill.  Sen. Lieberman says he won't even allow a vote on it if it costs too much.  Why doesn't Sen. Lieberman think your life is worth $20,000 (or whatever the number would be)?"

Now, we'd have to unwind the string a long, long way to get that strategy from the start.  For one thing, we'd probably need a populist president, not a goo-goo.  For another, we'd need a large, grassroots movement threatening Big Insurance enough that they were willing to run to the Government for protection.

But even if that's a maximalist idea, you could still get a lot further by threatening their interests in a direct way, I think, than by hoping to reach a consensus with them in anything resembling good faith.

[ Parent ]
Decent plan. (4.00 / 1)
But problems:  how do you demonize the insurance industry if the media will not carry/amplify your demonization?  Along the same lines, the reason the Dems have to keep talking about deficits and CBO scores is because the right has the media megaphone and they bleat on these issues, dragging Dems into a defensive posture.

Until we get a media amplification machine that the right has in spades, "demonize" will only boomerang on to the Dems.

Instead, we have the lefty blogosphere, which is the sole possibility for being a part of that noise making machine, actively and gleefully piling on the Dems.  It would be fine to pile on, if the Dem perspective ever had a way of getting out before the pile on.  As it is, all that happens is that the public at large is given the impression, by the noise machine that does exist, of a base so kuku that the most liberal Senator is not left enough for them.  

In short, I agree with your idea -- I just do not know how to actualize it, given the media we have...

[ Parent ]
Run against the media (4.00 / 7)
Look, Obamama, if you haven't noticed, people in this country are pissed.  It takes a hell of a lot more energy to concoct ways to get everyone to calm down and be "reasonable" than to point those angry people at a likely target and say, "That's who's screwing you over!  Go get them!"

Obama is the POTUS.  If he wants to get on tv and demonize Big Insurance, I'm sure he could do that.  He said mean things about Wall Street on 60 Minutes last night.

Americans do not like insurance companies, and they're generally suspicious of the media.  And as far as the DC media is concerned, they tend to be committed eunuchs:  obsessed with who's in and who's out, who has power, who's pushing whom around.  They can be manipulated.

I'd also point out that OFA could conceivably help carry this kind of message.  But of course, it's OFA, not the Share Our Wealth movement.

[ Parent ]
The "lefty blogosphere" didn't use Obama's backstabbing deal with Tauzin/Big Pharma (4.00 / 1)
Instead of beating Obama over the head about this, to "make him do it", it just sort of rolled over. AFAIK, there was no organized effort by the "lefty blogosphere" to propagate knowledge of Obama's betrayal, and demand an apology. Getting away with backstabbing lies only encourages more of the same behavior, or at least removes some of the fear of any consequences of a repeat betrayal.

While it's true that the media would likely not "amplify" this 'demonization', either, a concerted effort could have made the information that Obama was a bad faith player far more widespread.

Pity, huh? The talk of "making him do it" was mostly just that - talk. And what did this sheep-like behavior get us? Well, a lot of prematurely dead and bankrupt citizens that didn't need to become so. It's nice to know that the bill will "save lives", but how many will be lost compared to what might have been?

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa

[ Parent ]
I didn't say only Congress (4.00 / 5)
The WH played it poorly too.

The better play was 1) not to keep talking about how important it was to get bipartisan support - that empowered Republicans regardless of whether they were negotiating in good faith (they weren't) 2) make the case for some set of policy options, instead of saying things like 'we support the PO, but we're open to all ideas...' which netted no support but did provide all the leverage to obstructionists 3) apply pressure to recalcitrant Democrats at the earliest stages (they did that on other issues to progressives) to prevent others from joining them knowing there would be no consequences 4) make deals for votes - people don't get to make changes if they are not willing to support the final product (which Republicans and conservative Democrats did throughout the process) 5) mobilize their supporters in the public to put pressure on Congress - not just to pass something, but to pass something specific, and target those Dems who stood in the way 6) make the case in terms of fairness and right and wrong, not just efficiency and costs.

I'm not done of course, but there are plenty of specific suggestions of how this could have gone differently, all the sorts of things that progressives have criticized throughout the process.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
All of the PR plans/ideas you outline are good. (0.00 / 0)
EXCEPT, I don't see how that would bring Lieberman/Nelson to vote for cloture -- in my opinion, these are j*******s with constituency.  How do you get their votes, which is all that matters, after all the PR and stuff.

I also think that Dems/Obama have been using the bipartisan thing mainly as cover for those within.  Their game has always been to try to get to 60...

[ Parent ]
Three more (4.00 / 4)
1) Keeping reconciliation on the table, even if it would mean doing so might mean a weaker bill, would have made those two think twice about playing these games and 2) Suggesting that people who used procedural tactics to block a vote would not get support from the party or hold onto their committee chairs. 3) Allowing liberal groups to attack them as beholden to the insurance companies (which are unpopular everywhere) rather than pressuring them not to do that.

Much of the stuff I suggested was about how to pressure people, not just PR, which is about how to get those votes.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
re: strategy (4.00 / 2)
I just don't get this business of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.


I see a bailout for big health

present a coherent work-around the Senate dysfunction

lower the medicare age for EVERYONE above 50 via reconciliation


nuke the filibuster

[ Parent ]
If 55+ enrolment into Medicare is facing a filibuster, (0.00 / 0)
how are we going to get 50+ into it?  

As I have already said, someone who knows this better says that Reconciliation will yield a far inferior bill to what we can get in regular order, even with the ***.

[ Parent ]
50+ refers to age (0.00 / 0)
to get the 50 votes:

1. use reconciliation for increasing the medicare entrance age


2. nuke the filibuster

Reconciliation will yield a far inferior bill to what we can get in regular order, even with the ***.

no, I want to pass the medicare age increase only

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
But Senators are big wimps and don't have the guts to do it.     We need a Senate Leader with some guts.   I wonder if Schumer would have used reconciliation or nuclear option

[ Parent ]
He would not have (4.00 / 1)
These guys sat on their hands while the gops raped the world for six years. Why stop now?

[ Parent ]
People who look to Shumer to be different (4.00 / 2)
from Reid, are like people who look to Clinton to be different from Obama.  Shumer's a dlcer too.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
"elated" DCC intern go back to school (4.00 / 4)
What a joke? what planet are you on? or rather who is paying you to pepper progressive blogs with these insipid remarks?!
Spitting garbage out like this to temper this disappointment of progressives is only further alienating the progressives. Absolutely pathetic! Obama and the democratic party have lost my vote and many others today.

[ Parent ]
FYKI, I have not made a dime in the last 2 years. (4.00 / 1)
I used to be a professor before that.

Keep it up: "Obama and the democratic party have lost my vote" -- yup, sit home, let the Rethugs win and then may be we will get some health care. It worked wonders, this strategy, in the last few decades and especially in 2000.

Read President Obama's diary from 2005 over at Dailkos.  Learn how to understand and navigate the world.

If you want to criticize him, make your point with facts.  Learn the meaning of progressive.

Above all, go tell the 30+ million people who stand to gain access to decent healthcare that you are not really a progressive (that is, you won't stand for incremental progress) and that therefore they need to sit and wait another decade or so before a knight-in-shining-armor can come by and pass the perfect bill.

Chris has been doing a great job of laying out the scenario over the last few days -- I would just add a little more whole-hearted approval to his writings of late.  Ezra Klein has also been doing a great job of contextualizing the end game and the emerging bills...

[ Parent ]
re: vote (4.00 / 1)
sit home, let the Rethugs win and then may be we will get some health care

it wouldn't be any different

and we have to take those democratic sellouts out of their seats somehow if we want to put something better there

[ Parent ]
I know. (0.00 / 0)
The last 8 years with Rethugs was so like a Dem admin/Cong.

[ Parent ]
are you afraid rethugs wouldn't pass a po or medicare expansion? (4.00 / 1)
guess what? the current dems won't pass them too

[ Parent ]
That's horse shit.... (4.00 / 1)
2000-2008 were 50 times worse than things are today.  Don't let disappointment and anger cloud reality.   This country is much better off under Dem rule in the Senate and House than under Bush and the GOP.   Our worst Dem is about the same as the best GOP Senator.    We just need to get rid of our worst Dems.   It all goes back to electing better Dems.   We need to be more aggressive and the next time there is a Lieberman type situation we HAVE to focus all our resources on destroying him.

[ Parent ]
Your memory is faulty (4.00 / 2)
We did focus all of our resources -- such as they were -- on removing Lieberman. He won by lying about his position on the Iraq war at the last minute. It didn't hurt that Obama knifed Ned Lamont in the back.

[ Parent ]
To be fair... (0.00 / 0)
If I remember correctly, Lamont dropped the ball somewhat following the primary.  If he'd stayed on message, I think he would have won.

[ Parent ]
No things are worse now (0.00 / 0)
we are still in the war, and last year we knew the Lieberdems equal Bush.  We also didn't have a closet Lieberdem as our Leader.  Howard Dean was our leader, and he is on our side and not on the side of the republicans.

There really are good guys and bad guys, and bipartisanship is bad if it enables oppression.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
Let's rephrase that (4.00 / 5)
Above all, go tell the 30+ million people who stand to gain access to decent healthcare that you are not really a progressive (that is, you won't stand for incremental progress) and that therefore they need to sit and wait another decade or so before a knight-in-shining-armor can come by and pass the perfect bill.

You go tell 30 million people who have been getting the short end of the economic stick for decades that they are legally required to buy insurance from a big insurance company with no controls on the costs of premiums, no ban on annual payout caps, and no limit on the insurance company's ability to siphon profits off their guaranteed premiums while they deny claims.

If you can find anyone here who has said, "I will support only a perfect bill," then quote them.  Most of the people here are pissed off about this latest turn of events specifically because they had resigned themselves to supporting, if reluctantly, the nowhere-near-perfect bill that Reid seemed to have worked out the other day.

So your "perfect bill" thing is an obvious strawman.

Now, here's a question for you:  if the Dems, who promised to pass an increase to the minimum wage, had passed a $0.10/hour increase, effective Jan 1, 2015, with exceptions for tipped employees, would you have said, "Wow, what a victory!! Anyone who's against this is taking money away from people who need a raise!"  If not, why not?

[ Parent ]
The worst HCR bill talked about in Cong (0.00 / 0)
does a number of essential, good things, including direct cost-controlly thing such as 90 or 85 % MLR (Franken amendment).  Others are no pre-existing bs, no dropping coverage, best practices board, reorienting it to health care from sick care etc.

Plus, I didn't say we shouldn't have pushed for a great bill -- but by the same token, we should not minimize the bill that does come out because "they caved to Lieberman".  Neither he nor the others are the point -- the point is the people that the bill will affect...

[ Parent ]
We're not getting 90% (4.00 / 2)
because CBO says that's tantamount to nationalization of the Insurance industry.  Which is insane, but that's what CBO says.  I'm not sure where things will stand with the Franken Amendment.  That could be useful, depending on how the government actually enforces it.

A fair number of the patient protections have loopholes.  There is no ban on annual caps -- that's terrible if, you know, you get seriously sick or injured.  There's no limit on premiums, so guaranteeing "no pre-existing bs" sounds a bit to me like a used-car dealer advertising "no one denied credit!" without mentioning the terrible terms they might offer you.

Basically, it sounds like a Patients' Bill of Rights that were purchasing with a few hundred billion dollars of public money handed over to Big Insurance.  That's pathetic.

And I'd ask you again about my minimum wage scenario.  What's your answer?

[ Parent ]
They are not getting access to decent health (4.00 / 5)
care.  They are being forced to buy junk insurance!

My blog  

[ Parent ]
Dream on (4.00 / 6)
work for more provisions introduced into must-pass bills

Very funny.  Have you not been paying attention?  The WH is willing to kick those provisions to the gutter to pass this bill.  What makes you think the dynamic is going to be any different in the future.

Rahm/Obama has made it clear that (a) this bill must pass and (b) it better not hurt his corporate donors.  Do you really think that Rahm/Obama is going to tolerate liberals' pet health care provisions bogging down some "must pass" bill in the future?  OF COURSE, Rahm/Obama will get on the phone with Reid and tell him to dump the improvements and over the side they will go.

[ Parent ]
there are loopholes (4.00 / 4)
to get the companies around the whole pre-existing conditions and rescission stuff. Bank on that.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
You fail to realize (4.00 / 3)
1.  how insurance companies operate and price people out of the market anyhow

2.  how they can still fight to pay and still deny claims

3.  public overwhelmingly supports a real public option - this is not how democracy is suppose to work

And rhetoric too strong?  Give me a break - if it was just this issue, I would concede the point - BUT IT IS NOT JUST HCR - IT IS EVERYTHING HE RAN ON!

His progressive base and young people are going to stay home in 2010 and things will get worse - could be a one-termer if he becomes even less capable (or actually continues to refutes) to deliver change after midterms.

Strong words are in order, even if you want to enjoy your sh!t sandwich.  

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmm tasty crap from your man obama...

[ Parent ]
Why should anyone trust your judgment? (4.00 / 3)
Someone who wrote in 2008:
"Here is a spectacularly progressive person, teaching an entire stupid nation to be better and here you all are: voting for him because the other side is so bad."

"Spectacularly progressive person", huh? Sry, but for me this raises strong concerns if you're really a member of the "reality based community"! Ridiculous, over the top hype like Obama is "a spectacularly progressive person" or "the health care bill is a huge achievement" don't help us to see the real picture. Frankly, we don't need that spin here.

[ Parent ]
Dailykos wasn't enough for you? (4.00 / 2)
If Chris disagreed, you'd turn on him in a flash.  

[ Parent ]
It is what it is, after all. (4.00 / 7)
As I've said, I'm not sure we fully understand how deep the hole.  This is as instructive as anything we've witnessed so far.  As I mentioned a thread or so back, I think the Democrats are making a terrible error.  But, it's also clear that they aren't interested in what I think.

For those progressives who continue to offer a degree of loyalty to the Democrats, there comes a point where one will be required to acknowledge that the brand is DLC; Obama is merely the packaging those marketing the DLC decided on.

I genuinely wish it were not so.  Too sad, and too disappointed to be angry.  Maybe my anger will surface in time.  We fought a good fight, Chris.  And, y'all at Open Left have done yeoman's work keeping us up to speed.  For that, you deserve a mountain of thanks.  

The fight was fixed (4.00 / 2)
I agree the party is DLC.  That being the case, the fight was fixed from the get go and there's no point fighting any more.  It's time for a new party or at least a new movement external to the party because there is no fair fight within the established Democratic Party for anyone who is genuinely progressive.  

I mean at least we could have fun in a new party.  We could liberate ourselves to think big things and search out innovative new ideas.  We wouldn't be perpetually suffocated inside the same old box of conventional wisdom of the kind that has this country in a state of decline at home and over commitment abroad.

[ Parent ]
And we wouldn't win anything... (4.00 / 2)
...so, we can spend time partying 'cos we won't be governing.  Republicans will.

The teabaggers have it right.... they are scaring the hell out of the GOP.  While they have at least given us lip service, which is much more than we've gotten before, they still have yet to fear us.

Follow the teabaggers... they are winning...

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!

[ Parent ]
"And we wouldn't win anything ... so, we can spend time partying 'cos we won't be governing. Republicans will." (4.00 / 1)
Like there's a difference?  I can't tell one party from the other anymore.  Can you tell me otherwise with a straight face?

[ Parent ]
That's BS (4.00 / 2)
GOP control is a nightmare scenario and you know it...  The Democrats may be inept, but they are at least benign for the most part.

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!

[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
It is much better to be playing poor and only partly effective offence than to be playing the same way on defence. When the rape-public-cans get to decide what comes to the floor, the public gets raped way worse!

And I know this is only describing the seperate rates of lifestyle decline with different parties in control. We all would love to see the decline change to progress (being progressives).

But I agree with you, the elected Dems cannot deliver progress at this time because the majority have sold out the people for personal advancement. Traitor Joe is only the formost example, if we could force him to represent,  as is his job, another DINO would pick up where he left off.

If is a frustrating problem that no one is sure how to fix.

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

[ Parent ]
Conservatives will be governing (4.00 / 2)
Conservatives are governing anyway.  I'm certainly not part of the "we" that is governing now.  The party in power is not representing me.  It won't pass a labor bill. It won't end the wars.  It won't stick up for my civil rights.  It's more concerned about the health of the financial industry including health insurance companies than it is in my health.  

[ Parent ]
This fight was probably fixed the moment we lost (0.00 / 0)
the general against Lieberman.  He had every reason to be vindictive as hell after that.  Which is why Machiavelli said if you strike at the king you must kill him, because if you do not he will try to kill you.

Reid carried about 93% of the Democratic Caucus (which is an achievement in a way) but he couldn't afford to lose a vote.  

To get real health care reform would have required 3 more real democrats than we have.

The Democratic Party is largely defined in Iowa and New Hampshire during the Primary Fight.   Those two states decide who goes on to fight, and whose chances end.  The last challenge to DLC dominance of the party died with Edwards in Iowa.  

The next real challenge will probably occur in 2016 in the first primary/caucus states, which will, alas, probably still be Iowa.

[ Parent ]
I honestly am not sure Obama will make it to 2016 (4.00 / 5)
He is more and more reminding me of Carter.  He's not accomplishing anything of substance legislatively, and he and Rahm are fomenting civil war in the Democratic party.  The competing leaks from the WH and Reid's office recently are a revelation about the breakdown in relations with Congress.  And on the economy, they have done too little for Main Street while throwing everything at Wall Street.  The political optics are terrible.  Now everyone is going to be required to buy expensive shitty insurance with no recourse from the gouging health insurance industry, what's that going to do to the young vote?

The clincher for me has got to be an administration facing 10+% unemployment and saying their first priority is going to be cutting entitlements.  WTF?  Now we've burned the young vote, let's go after the old farts?  And if Rahm has his way on immigration reform, they'll alienate the Hispanic vote next.

More and more, I don't think these are the smartest guys on the bus.  Big things, and little things like the pointless snub of the King of Norway, which was a big deal in Norway.  They think it was their brilliance that won the last election, someone should remind them that the economy collapsed on the eve of the election and McCain acted like a nut.

[ Parent ]
That's a bit unfair towards Carter. Jimmy is a well meaning person.... (4.00 / 2)
...with good liberal attitudes, but simply wasn't smart enough for the job, imho. Obama, on the other hand, is smart enough, but he's got horrible center right views, and he doesn't nearly care as much about the wellbeing of the people. It's comparing an apple with an orange. And the orange is rotten.

[ Parent ]
My reference to Carter... (4.00 / 5)
...alludes to:

1. The fact that Carter got nowhere with the Democratic congress (at least he had southern Dems to deal with, who are all gone GOP by now), and we're seeing signs now of friction with Congress.  Both Dodd and Reid will probably lose their seats, and it doesn't help that the WH has thrown them under a bus.

2. Carter's failure to lead.  Carter had the right ideas re energy efficiency, but failed to rally the country.  His "malaise" speech laid an egg.  Obama gives great speeches, but he runs away from every fight.  He is a campaigner, not a leader.

3. As with Carter, Obama will probably be undone by the economy.  He has completely failed to address the underlying structural problems, policy has been to reinflate the asset bubbles and then business as usual.  He may have had an opportunity to take down the banking oligarchs when they depended on the government for survial, that window is now closed.  I guess he feels populism is unserious.  We'll see how he deals with a populist anti-Wall Street revolt from the right in 2012.  It is no longer a question of whether we will have another crash, but whether it will happen before or after the 2012 elections.

But hey, he got the Nobel Peace Prize.  But at least Carter had a meaningful accomplishment (the Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt).

It is interesting that our two engineer presidents, Carter and Hoover, get failing or weak passing grades.  I think there is something about engineers being unable to think outside the box.  Perhaps Obama should have been an engineer.

[ Parent ]
OL moderators, please ban Daemocrat for abuse of the rating system (0.00 / 0)
Expressing concern about the direction of the presidency the morning after healthcare reform has been gutted does not constitute a "troll" comment.

Troll-rating someone for expressing such concern, without any comment or rebuttal, does however constitute "purity trolling."

[ Parent ]
Well, OL doesn't have any mods, Taylor. Only bloggers. (4.00 / 4)
And we only know the email of Chris, and it's quite difficult to raise his interest for such stuff, sadly. so, that's a problem.

Then, this could be a simple mistake by Dameocrat. Just try this: Rate any commonent and then, without clicking anywhere else, use the cursor keys of your keyboard. See? That hwo many accidental ratings happen here.

Then, nobody is banned here for a single rating abuse. Sadly, eveen serial offenders often aren't called to task. I don't like this, I just report how it is.

No misunderstanding, IF Dameocrat deliberately voted you down, even though there's nothing objectionable in your comment, that's very bad style and shouldn't be tolerated here. However, immediately calling for banning is a bid strong, imho. Especially since you didn't even ask him if this may have been accidental, yet.

[ Parent ]
I raised this point with Dameocrat. It's been a mistake! (0.00 / 0)
Read his answer here:

So, see, no need to make a big issue out of a single case. Often this is just a simple slip of a thinger. It's a known bug of the rating feature, and we all hope it will be corrected during the next improvements of the site.

[ Parent ]
Sorry (4.00 / 1)
I hit the up button on the keyboard after I RECOMMENDED you!

My blog  

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I take Gray's point. Mea culpa. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
This was mostly (4.00 / 3)
inevitable the moment that reconciliation went off the table.  That meant you had to get 60, and so the choice was between a bill that is a complete sop to the insurance companies but which reduces the uninsured by a significant number and the status quo, where 45,000 a year die prematurely because they are uninsured.

I wonder, in the end, if reconciliation was ever really seriously considered.

My guess is Snowe and Collins both vote yes.  Bernie might vote no on passage, but will vote yes on cloture if he thinks his vote is needed.

In the end, I think the truth was that there was never any serious possibility that the progressives in the Senate were going to vote against a bill.  This meant the debate was always getting pulled to the right.  Because the simple truth is there is a moral imperative to get people coverage who do not have it now, and that creates an enormous obstacle for anyone arguing against final passage from the left to overcome.  

On some vote the Progressives are simply going to have a pick a vote and say no.  This may not have been the place to do it, but they need to find a way to change the current dynamic in these negotiations.  


Snowe and Collins will vote no (4.00 / 2)
Snowe is mad at Reid for "belittling" her, Collins will only follow Snowe, and they can both laugh at the crap sandwich that Dems own completely now...  They won't give Reid or Obama the victory... They don't need to.

Besides, would you vote for this thing voluntarily?

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!

[ Parent ]
You really think (0.00 / 0)
Snowe and Collins are no votes?  Snowe voted for it in Committee.


[ Parent ]
Yes... (0.00 / 0)
Snowe needs more "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!

[ Parent ]
Oh, but wait. (4.00 / 3)
They are going to fix the filibuster problem right after they take a dive on health care reform.  

[ Parent ]
It is king of funny (4.00 / 2)
seeing harkin push for an end of the filibuster after he said he didn't see using reconciliation on hcr.

This subsequent vote on the filibuster is just political grandstanding..

[ Parent ]
Nobody could make this stuff up. (4.00 / 1)
Do they think we are blind, deaf, stupid?  Obviously they don't care how obvious their FU is.  

[ Parent ]
Classic Good Cop, Bad Cop (4.00 / 9)
Sorry, but I refuse to view Lieberman as Going Rogue.  This fucking bill stinks to high heaven.  Rahm has been pushing for triggers for months.  Lo and behold, at the eleventh hour, Lieberman steps in and forces the issue.  OF COURSE Obama never wanted triggers, but hey, you can't make an omelot without breaking some eggs, yadda, yadda, yadda.

BTW, all those who think that we should take this deal and push for better legislation down the road, better wise up fast.  You will be on your own.  Indeed the WH will be actively working against revisiting this legislation down the road.  

There aren't even triggers (4.00 / 2)
There's nothing left to trigger.

Calling this a clusterfuck is not fair to clusterfucks.

If I'm a GOP operative, I am salivating at the campaign I'm going to run in 2010.

[ Parent ]
I'm guessing the White House put Lieberman up to it (4.00 / 4)
in the first place.

[ Parent ]
Saves lives how? (4.00 / 7)
So, okay, it gets uninsured people insurance but is that it?  Any guarantee they won't just be stuck with junk insurance they can afford to buy but can't afford to use?  

you don't have to worry about that (4.00 / 1)
obama's friends at big health will never do that...

[ Parent ]
I guess there's no denying what the WH really wants anymore, is there? (4.00 / 5)
Rahm is, after all, a real go-getter who knows how to get what his boss wants. This incidence of course also makes him a real rat bastard. Let this bill become an anvil for the administration at this point. Let them go ahead and crow over this "victory" of theirs. The people will hate them for it and deservedly so, because they are really not going to like this so-called "reform."

And while I'm sure there are aides who are convinced this bill will "save lives," I think it's probably fair to say not nearly as many lives as a better bill would have. But I suppose we can grant them their fantasy that this bill will somehow do some good, if not enough good for most "little people" to actually see without a microscope and an interpretive guidebook.

Chris, you've worked hard on this, along with a lot of other good people. You deserve credit for what you've done--so try to relax and get over this. But this one has to go in the loss column, not just for "progressives," but for the people of this country. I sure hope the regressive scumbags are happy--I imagine their victory parties will be quite the swank affairs.

Lieberman is quite clearly willing to take the heat for the WH on this. I assume this is because he is being compensated most handsomely. I mean, who would be willing to take the blame for killing so many more Americans without some really perverse incentives?

As long as these people are in office, this is the only result we'll ever get. We can't pressure them, as their moral compasses are shattered into a million shards of cheap tainted glass at this point.

Funny things, these "Democrats." They love our "progressive" rhetoric come election season (hey, it works pretty well, doesn't it?), but then they forget all that, their morals and ethics... and even the most basic economic sense.  They like wars that make us less secure, economic policies that undermine our collective future, environmental policies that are guaranteed to kill many millions of people and a method of "governance" that is guaranteed to create socio-political upheaval at some point. For "Democrats,"  they sure don't like democracy very much, eh?

And we pretend they negotiate in good faith why, exactly?

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

This is the point at which we could say we told you so... (0.00 / 0)
But that just seems like kicking a guy who's already down.  There'd be no pleasure in it.

So, Mr. Bowers, are you prepared to do some drastic things to make the Dems stop taking us for granted?  I think it's long overdue.

question (4.00 / 1)
what would be the best thing to do now if the goal is to get single-payer one day?

kill it, yes?

Instead of ranting and raving (4.00 / 1)
about Lieberman's betrayal.

It might be helpful to ask what exactly is Lieberman for? I mean he is not stingy with the projects that he cares about (obviously those do not include health care for Americans.

What are the things he really cares about?

In light of that, why does the Democratic leadership continually overlook his apparently backstabbing behavior towards the party?

Whatever you think about the Republicans, he would be history in that party for similar insubordination. This guy has been thumbing his nose at the party leadership for a while now with no penalty. And now this.

By the way, these are not hard questions to answer. You could begin by Googling 'hagee + lieberman', 'homeland security + lieberman', 'military spending + lieberman', 'lieberman + iran', 'lieberman + israel'  - you get the idea.

You could also investigate shared interests between Rahm and Lieberman.

As Greenwald has pointed out numerous times, there is no military intervention in the Mideast that Joe is not willing to fund.

re: lieberman (4.00 / 2)
This guy has been thumbing his nose at the party leadership for a while now with no penalty. And now this.

[democratic] party leadership

that sounds like a joke!

[ Parent ]
Well, I Had to Chuckle (4.00 / 2)
Several rather crude images concerning Joe Lieberman's ass, Aetna's throbbing funding A-bomb, and Rahm Emanual riding it, ala Slim Pickens (aka Major Kong), all flash before my eyes:


Yeee Haaaw!

Is't it lovely when politicians of low or no moral fabric, big corporate money, and the American middle class all get together?

I suppose it is too much to hope for (4.00 / 1)
But maybe they will fix it in conference... They know where the votes sit in the Senate for the PO and the Medicare Buy in.   As long as they have the 51 votes they can bypass lieberman.   I'm sure this won't be the case, but I guess at this point I have to pray for the Christmas miracle that they are being sneaky and not wimpy.

yes, that is too much to hope for (4.00 / 2)
They are not being sneaky. Big tough guy Rahm told the senators to give Lieberman everything he wants.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
To be fair... (4.00 / 2)
All we have to go on are unnamed aides.  None of us were at the meeting or heard the call.   We don't 100% know.     Plus, we don't know if the WH is keeping Reid in the dark or if Reid will grow a pair and do that.    

Don't get me wrong...you are probably right on this.  I'd give it a 1% chance that it is a ploy to bypass Shit for Brains (I-CT).   But I still am praying for the christmas miracle and will continue to do so until this is signed by Obama.

[ Parent ]
But here's the problem. (4.00 / 3)
Since there is no real reform mechanism in this bill - no public option, no Medicare buy-in and no change in medical loss ratio - insurance costs will rise. And rise.

And I'm not going to do it. I'll pay the goddamned fine before I live in indentured servitude to the insurance companies.

I don't think I'll be alone.

Don't be naive... You will be one of the few... (0.00 / 0)
Because the Fine plus out of pocket healthcare is going to cost you a hell of a lot more than the premiums will unless you just don't get sick.   Most people are going to be pissed but will bite the bullet and pay.

[ Parent ]
Is there any way... (4.00 / 1)
That, at the very least, we can kick Lieberman out of the caucus after this?  Pretty pretty please?  I mean, they're going to have to give progressives some kind of slop to make up for this bullshit, right?

No (4.00 / 2)
Look at the Senators.  They have no balls.    They won't even threaten him.  Its up to us to kick his ass in 2012.    

[ Parent ]
I am announcing this everywhere I go: (4.00 / 1)
I am done with this party. I am no longer a Democrat.  

No one cares (0.00 / 0)
You seem to think your passive aggressive gesture means something.  It doesn't.  No one gives a fuck if your a Dem, a Republican or something else.    

So instead of making idiotic passive aggressive statements, work to get some progressives elected and some douche bags like Lincoln, Nelson and Lieberman ousted.

[ Parent ]
I am 30 percent of the base not showing up next year (4.00 / 2)
You will care now or you will care then.

[ Parent ]
re: progressives (4.00 / 1)
work to get some progressives elected and some douche bags like Lincoln, Nelson and Lieberman ousted.

yes, don't leave that part

feel free to leave dems like Lincoln, Nelson and Lieberman

[ Parent ]
I am building two businesses in the coming year (4.00 / 1)
I don't have time anymore to waste of this party. I will put my efforts into volunteering and helping where i can to build the infrastructure for whatever replaces the present Democratic Party in the coming 2 decades.  

[ Parent ]
incidentally I am in favor of building (4.00 / 2)
coalitions between 3rd parties and progressives to refashion the party. What I am not in favor of is the status quo of wasting time expecting the leadership in DC right now to be anything other than fucked up. I am leaving them rather than the ideas behind.  

[ Parent ]
It means a lot (0.00 / 0)
it mean the corporatists have less resistance in capturing the Dem party. Rahm wants progressives to quit the party and waste their time in ineffectual third parties.

[ Parent ]
To the house (4.00 / 1)
Last stand: Lining up the no votes in the house to threaten to kill the bill (which is going to involve pressuring some of the progressives who would rather fold than take a stand).  If the progressive caucus folds, then it's onward to electoral revenge in 2010.

That Darned Ol' Issue of Cost.. (1.33 / 3)
Finally, the aide also said that this is still about saving lives.  We keep talking about cost, but this bill still saves lives.

Until Dems recognize that costs matter, and they matter every bit as much as results, particularly in a tough economy, they're going to be on defense whenever they propose anything, just like they have been since the entire health reform process began.  You want to know why Dem support is bleeding Independents like a ruptured aorta?  It's because every piece of debate or legislation that they've proffered in their brief (and looking briefer) stay at the top of the food chain screams that their euphorian ends justify virtually any means.  Independents recognize that you have to respect costs - ALWAYS - and that for all of our difficulties things could be far worse.  They are seeing, friends, that the road to economic ruin unambiguously starts and ends with the policies of the left (regardless of whether they are practiced by Republicans or Democrats), especially the progressive left.

I call bullsh!t (2.67 / 3)
Progressive ideas are fiscally responsible. Just look at this healthcare reform bill. Everything that progressives wanted in this bill would have saved money.

The public option -- as originally designed -- would have saved a ton of money. It was soi-dissant fiscal hawks like Blue Cross Democrat Mike Ross that watered it down to nothing, meaning that the PO saved less money with each weaker iteration.

Single-Payer would have saved even more. But that was off/under the bus/table from the beginning.

How about allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with big pharma? Great, progressive idea. But of course the drug companies hated it, so it had to go. Too bad, it would have saved a bundle. So would drug reimportation, another idea pushed by progressives, another idea on the chopping block.

From Fee-for-Outcome to the Medicare buy-in (which I did not think a suitable compromise) liberals saw their policies were scored well by the CBO, then thrown away because some round-headed red-state corporate "centrist" didn't like them.

Your assertion is ridiculous on its face. And "euphorian ends" sounds like a head-shop, also.

(BTW, let's see a cite of a poll showing this bleeding of indy support. And not from Rasmussen either.)

[ Parent ]
Really, MinnRick, you conservative "independent" BS is tiresome (0.00 / 0)
Pls accept that nobody here is interested in your crap. This is a progressive blog, and all you do is complaining about the left wing. Afaics you never added anything of discussion value. Imho you're simply trolling.

[ Parent ]
Saves lives is bull shit, Chris. (4.00 / 3)
If they gave a damn about saving lives, they'd be refusing money for the wars, fighting for medicare for all, negotiating the cost of prescriptions, and ending the drug war.   They are lying through their teeth.  If this is as good as Democrats get, there has to be another option.  I understand and appreciate your efforts to work with this party, but for what??????  What do they give you, us?  

i'm so sorry Chris (4.00 / 1)
and i am not going to kick you while you're down. anger is good. focused anger is even better.

my suggestion: the progblogosphere should throw everything at lieberman. i too worry he's going to make a run for preznit. but if i'm wrong, or others think there's a better senator, pick one and let's do him or her in, just destroy them.

i understand that my suggestion would mean less advocacy for many of our chosen issues. but i'm thinking strategically here, and the bottom line is that as a movement, we're pretty weak. powerless in the face of $3M/day in hookers and blow. but there is one thing we can do and that's focus. our fundraising efforts would be so much more effective if they were concentrated on a single goal.

the Senate is a worthy target. they have given us the finger over and over again, and i'm sure privately they mock us for "not understanding how it works." fine. hit one of them where it hurts. that will make them take us more seriously. but at this point, well. the jokes kind of write themselves, if i may be slightly unkind.


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox