If the socialist plan is passed I hope it also allows for choice. Even Obama said we would have a choice.

We’ll have more choice than we do now, Torgo. With health care unaffordable to all but the rich, we have rotten choices compared to people in Canada and Europe.

By the way: It would be really nice if Representative Sanchez took The Pledge. Maybe some folks in her district could be persuaded to talk to her about it?

My Congressman Heath Shuler is all about fiscal restraint. The letter he signed pushed several points, among them “deficit neutrality” and of course the most important, “bipartisanship.” What a man of principle.

I’m sure it was the deficit neutrality in the bipartisan IMF European bank bailout that caused him to vote for that. He’s now upset that medical costs could be as much as 30% lower with a public plan and God knows we can’t have that.

I’m curious as to what socialism means to those who throw the term about like it’s an epithet. Most I’ve talked to parrot the old late 19th century/early 20th century communism line, which anybody who’s been paying attention knows is a non-starter. Modern writings on social democracy are plentiful and accessible. I’d suggest the nay sayers update their reading and thought processes. If nothing else it’ll bring them into the 21st century.

I think that we should be pressuring the MSM to do some real reporting, send a crew to Canada, England and other countries – take some polls in those places etc.

The statement which leads off this blog is so elitist and patronizing it astounds me.

Did you ever stop to think that many “Blue Dog” Democrats actually represent constituents from conservative states or districts the way they would like to be represented? Imagine that, they won an election just for that reason! Or do you think that voters who don’t believe what you do are somehow less American and don’t have the right to be represented according to “their beliefs” – and not “yours”.

Yup. Further, this whole “right-left”, “conservative-liberal” thing is also practically obsolete. Increasingly, I tend to see things in terms of “sane” or “insane”. Bernie Sanders, sane. Michele Bachmann, insane. Sorta like that…

Gotta have labels for those whose IQ is lower than plant life and have no desire to think for themselves.

Hey, PW
maybe slightly OT, but…
Bold Progressives (boldprogressives.org) is asking folks to vote on which anti-public-option Senator to target next. I’m having trouble deciding…any thoughts/votes from here?

Thanks, Pups!
FunnyWheelieDiva

Socialism is a broad economic concept which basically has come to mean “more” government control of the means of production, rather than “less”.

In the context of America in 2009, it has become a benchmark that helps to define opposing political philosophies. Those on the right feels that a free market economy works best when the government stays away. The left feels that government involvement in the marketplace to regulate and prop up when they deem necessary is desirable.

I think that term is nitwit. Or perhaps dipshit.

I’m fond of fenderhead.

Hang on, now, I’m sure there are lots of Fender-pickin’ guitar players who aren’t batshit insane, reality denying nitwits!
Jes messin’ wit ya!
FWDiva

I voted for Kerry ($8M!!!!! from the industry), Landrieu and Nelson.

I didn’t realize that could be read two ways when I wrote it.

Preview is mah fren

Yeah, PW! Great post (as always). And yes, people in Rep. Sanchez’ office should ask her to take the pledge:

DC — Phone: (202) 225-2965 • Fax: (202) 225-5859
CA — Phone: (714) 621-0102 • Fax: (714) 621-0401

Politicians across the board have a bad habit of saying they support something when it’s popular, getting credit for that, and then burying a bad vote under a mountain of others taking the same bad vote.

If she really supports it, she needs to take the Pledge.

My current definition of bipartisan: we’ll talk until you and your leaders say it costs too much, it competes with private industry, that’s socialism, etc. Then we’ll stop talking and do what we think is best.

Yeah, doG forbid we actually try to force those who claim to be Democrats to act like they are Democrats rather than Republican-lite.

Or have you not noticed that when there is an option of a Republican or Republican-lite, the professed Republican usually wins.

If someone is going to claim to be Democrat but vote pretty much straight Republican, then I don’t give a shit about how their district is so conservative.

I give you Alan Grayson as Exhibit A of a Democrat in a relatively conservative district who actually votes like a Democrat.

But since you are such a pure Liberal Democrat, I understand why you want Heath Shuler to stay in office.

what a blog!
our blog hostess,actually reads her commenter s….what a dynamo…and thanks again a million times over for your persistence,and drive!!!you inspire

i hosted a public option pep rally at our county fair,and we gave out over600 brochures…thats a lot of glad handing

As is evidenced by what happened on the Ed Schultz show, even the Blue Dogs who signed the letter aren’t willing to say on camera that they oppose a public plan. In my opinion House leadership should put all of those people who signed the letter on the spot and called their bluff. I am willing to be that less than a handful of them would really be willing to vote against healthcare reform and then have to try to explain it in their districts. Here is the thing, Blue Dogs usually hail from red districts but without support from Democrats they wouldn’t have a shot at reelection. So while they can play the “centrist” on some issues, on a core issue like health care reform that crosses the lines of ideology if they vote against it they are committing political suicide. So make them put their vote where their letter is!

For those that missed it here is Ed Schultz calling two Blue Dogs who signed the letter out and making them back down on their opposition to a public plan. The phrase “folded like a tent” comes to mind.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..1#31856021

there is a BIG LOVELY CHERRY PIE

everybody wants a slice

racism,elitism,religious intolerance,gay bashing
means to keep folks from having a piece….imo.

Wait, you voted 3 times?
Good call. My first impulse is Landrieu because her cited comments are so egregious…and she’s probably much more vulnerable than Kerry.
But,really, all 8 are disgusting, false-flag Dems.
Thanks for the response, man!
FWDiva

Yeah, it says vote for 3. Thank you for the link. I didn’t bother with Short Ride or Baucus since they’re gonna do what’s best for Short Ride and Baucus, the world be damned.

Please state why you feel this constitutes a great post:

“Not surprising: A bunch of “Blue Dogs” — conservative GOP-wannabee Democrats that usually vote the way their major Big Business donors tell them to vote”.

AS I said before, did you ever stop to think that many “Blue Dog” Democrats actually represent constituents from conservative states or districts the way the people there would like to be represented? They won an election just for that reason and have that responsibility. I contend that whether one agrees with them on the issues or not, voters in red states have the right to be represented and that their representatives might actually be doing that — not voting the way big business donors tell them to but the way their constituents want them too. Louisiana and Arkansas are very conservative states. They are never going to vote like California.

For better or for worse, we have a two party system. Tto stay in power he Democrats have to have a big tent and that means compromising on some issues and allowing the more conservative democrats to play a role.

One ideological group should not try to force their narrow agenda on the whole party, that’s a losing proposition.

Show us the district that doesn’t want a public option.

I don’t have much respect for many in the Congress but the Blue Dogs simply make me grind my teeth. IMO they believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are a dead weight on the party.

i said a while ago…somebody,WITH A VIDEO CAMERA,needs to go to thehill,and ask 2 questions
1,why do you NOT believe in a public option
and 2,are you willing to give up your choices

Yeah, I re-read the instructions after I posted that.
I’m glad you followed the link.
FWDiva

Simple question. Who are you to define what a “Democrat” is? The Democratic party needs to be a big tent and there are states and districts that are more conservative than others. They need to have their voice heard too.

Ben Nelson…he’s been a complete ass on healthcare. I can’t believe he’s pissed me off more than Lieberman lately.

okay going to ANOTHER RALLY NOW…….oy the highheels and stockings!…bbl

Good Morning Phoenix Woman and Firedogs,

am pleased to see Rep Sanchez’s increasingly less conservative stances on everything – she doesn’t really have a choice when you look at what’s happened in her district the last 2 years** – surrounding districts are pretty much in just as much trouble, but are represented by the likes of Issa, et al

** realtytrack rates her district one of the worst in the nation for foreclosures: 1 in 140 units

unemployment, and rate of job loss is also at the highest end (Atrios uses Garden Grove as a marker – that should tell you something)

demographics are mixed politically but shows a significant portion are 2nd generation Americans trying to keep a toe hold on middle class – affordable , accessible healthcare would have a tremendous impact on her constituents

oh yeah, I’m calling

Wow! Good for you. You make us proud.

I have not seen a poll of every district in this country and even if I did, that’s up to the voters of that district to hold their representatives accountable in they are displeased — by not voting for them again.

Interesting side note on Grayson. I recently received an email from a card-carrying, Fox-watching friend of mine containing a Grayson clip. (Grayson was grilling some SEC brass, I think.) Anyway, the friend actually said we need more people like him in Congress. (I don’t believe he really understood Grayson’s general position on the political spectrum.) My point? That people will tend to vote rationally and in their own self-interest if the facts are laid out clearly and coherently. Second point: Consistent MSM Fail.

Thanks, LooHoo
Looks like they’ve got the right 8 finalists for their ad campaign! One of my first impulses was Evan Bayh because he’s so consist at pissing me off.

Twain: That’s why I like to call them False Flag Democrats. They’re only keeping their big D because R’s are so far out of favor with the voters right now. They figure changing the label is much easier than changing their tiny minds…which is true, but should result in an good ass-kicking, not the coddling they’re getting from the party leadership (including the president).

JMO, YMMV, of course.

FWDiva

What Loo Hoo said!
FWDiva

For me, they don’t come much lower than Short Ride. I expect this son-of-a-bitch to move to Israel after his current term is over. I don’t think AIPAC would consider him much of an asset.

How sad that certain Democrats sit around and spend their time figuring out gleefully how to attack other Democrats. What you will never understand is that you do not get to define what a good Democrat is or is not.

from your keyboard to doG’s ear, brother dragon!
T’would be good riddance to bad rubbish.
Anyone know what kind of health care system they have in Israel? (for non-arab Israelis, I mean…)
Though I’m sure ShortRide would decline it if it’s at all “socialist”. He’s like that…NOT!
FWDiva

Here comes the anti-semitic garbage . . . .

National health care plan.

Who are you to tell us what we should be thinking and saying? What you say is pretty much the party line … if you’re a GOoPer.

May I offer a question for you?

Is there any issue of any sort that you are not willing to cave on in pursuit of the non-existent “big tent?”

I have lived and voted in KY (where I was born and raised), NH (twice), MI, HI, MA, CT (twice), NY (3 times), IL, TX, FL (twice). I have lived in some of the most conservative and some of the most liberal congressional districts going. I have had folks as diverse as Tip O’Neill and Lamar Smith as my congressman.

To me, no matter where I have lived and voted, I have worked to elect folks who actually supported things like the Democratic Party platform.

A Democrat SHOULD be against war (knowing that it is sometimes necessary no matter how much it is wrong). A Democrat SHOULD be working to help those who have the least, not providing comfort to their campaign contributors.

I can go on and on. But if someone is claiming to be a Democrat yet never voting for the claimed positions of the Democratic party, then they are worthless.

Edit: And if I can’t find a viable Democrat who votes like a Democrat, then I am willing to vote for the Liberal Party candidate or Green Party (when I know they are not just straws for the Republicans to fund)

Yes, we do. A good Dem stands for the principles that the party has held since the beginning. The primary one is taking care of the American people. The Rs have never believed in that and never will. The Dems are not perfect but they should at least try.

Why am I not surprised?

And in case any honest commenter here is confused, I’d have asked EXACTLY the same question about short-ride Joe if he had dual-citizenship with any other damn country…If his so-called concerns about socialized medicine have any basis in fact, he should be TERRIFIED of leaving the oh-so-efficient, #1 healthcare-providing United States.

FWDiva

He’s perhaps electable in Israel.

Dividing and conquering the DLC/Clinton Dems. This is great. They can either get on board or just switch to Repubs. It’s a win-win for Liberal reform either way.

Should he decide to move to Tel Aviv I suspect Short Ride will do quite well selling himself to the influence peddlers.

Yep. I had hoped that with 08 the DLCers would be in the street. Man, was I wrong about that! These greedy free traders are on the administration like stink on shit.

I am calling you on your misrepresentation. Where did I try to tell you what to think or say? My contention is that the Democratic party needs to represent ALL points of view not a narrow one as defined by a small group.

Nobody ever talks about the govt control you have with a fascist govt. I think the US is closer to fascism than socialism.

Seems like if we were really free . …unions and a living wage for everybody would be welcome.

When bush gave multi billions to banks with virtually no strings attached…nobody talked about socialism then.

I agree and Democrats do try. But you will never get a consensus amongst Democrats as to policy. There is a spectrum within the party, from the more conservative leaning to the far left. You cannot retain power having one component setting the agenda. You can agree to disagree civilly and be happy with what victories you will get. The alternative is not acceptable. Do you want to lose your right to choose? Do you want a shot at immigration reform? Do you want to try to improve the environment. You will get ZERO with the GOP back in power.

nobody outside of the liberal blogosphere talked about socialism then.

Fixed it for ya

That is not the question. You caucus, you debate, you cajole, you plead, you stand up for what you believe obviously. In the end the Democrats cast their vote and whatever happens happens. That is a Democracy. You DO NOT threaten and attack fellow democrats personally and fracture and divide the party. That is a losing proposition.

I applaud you for voting for whomever represents your personal views. That is my point. And if people in Lousiana choose to elect Mary Landrieu that is their business.

It’s intellectually lazy to accuse Blue Dogs of being owned by lobbyists and contributors when you absolutely do not have a clue why someone votes the way they do. That is conjecture on your part. I happen to believe there are many who vote their conscience.

You say “someone is claiming to be a Democrat” There is no Democrat! Your definition of what a Democrat is, is not what Robery Byrd’s was in the 50’s and it’s not what Joe Sixpack in Arkansas is today. You do not get to define what is a good Democrat.

Your being willing to “vote for the Liberal Party candidate or Green Party” will only waste your vote and help put someone like Sarah Palin in the White House. Then when you sleep soundly at night steeped in your self-adoration for having done the right thing . . . young women will be going to jail along with their doctors because you helped elect Sarah Palin.

You’ll have to excuse me if I choose not to respect you for that.

redfish, in case you haven’t noticed, this is a progressive website.

Why you think you can harangue everyone to a centrist position is beyond me.

That is not the question. You caucus, you debate, you cajole, you plead, you stand up for what you believe obviously. In the end the Democrats cast their vote and whatever happens happens. That is a Democracy.

The sick, the poor and the elderly eat cat food and die of neglect and lack of healthcare. Can’t we all just get along? The consequences shouldn’t matter as long as those voting to maintain the status quo have a (D) after their name? Interesting political philosophy you’ve got there.

Redfish has pretty much shown that he has no principles that define him other than the claim that he is a Democrat.

Where did I try to tell you what to think or say?

Every time you come in to this site and tell us we need to leave Shuler, Landrieu, the Nelsons, the Blue Dogs, and such alone, you are attempting to tell us that we should think and act as you do.

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know. I come here to give my opinion on how some of what is espoused here is self-defeating and wrong headed and of great potential harm to Americans. I think you contribute to a divided and fractured party and I believe the drop in Obama’s poll numbers are in some part, not all, attributable to this infighting.

You don’t have to respond to me ever, this is I think a public forum despite the fact that a moderator has to approve what I post. I won’t be silenced – unless, I am silenced.

No I am not. I am saying that in my opinion they represent their constituents and if they do not represent their constituents wishes they won’t be re-elected.

You don’t have to think and act as I do. I am giving my opinion. You have the right to think and act the way you want. I just disagree and think it’s harmful that’s all.

I have principles that I live evey day in my personal life. One of my principles is to fight to avoid reactionary Republicans from regaining power. That’s what matters to me.

while you are asking them to draw lines in the sand, why not try drawing your own?

you could say you are planning on supporting politicians of principle, and simply claiming to be a Democrat is no longer enough.

If your candidate cannot be counted on work to end Bush’s idiotic wars, deal with the economy sensibly, and support Single Payer, then they can cease taking your support for granted.

I know, Left Netrootsia has never tried such a craaazy thing, but maybe 2009 is a great time to start? there’s a lot of bad sh*t going down, and the old methods are not working.

I’ve always respected what you have to say, but I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t see any refutation, by anyone, to his argument in #56. In fact. I’ve seen various democratic politicians, like Chris Dodd, treated as hero and goat on FDL, on different issues and by different commentors. I understand advocating a policy and attempting to use all pursuasive powers to elicit support for that point of view. I don’t understand pushing it to the point of hostility, breaking up the Democratic Party, and again leaving the field to what we had for eight years. I would not have been good if the Roosevelt Administration had failed in everything because it was not seen to be as progressive as Henry Wallace and his supporters.

That’s the kind of nonsensical and inflammatory rhetoric that serves no purpose. Health care reform is terribly important to me. I would love a single payer system but it is not going to happen. What about that do you not understand? I believe in fighting to get the best deal you can, that will pass, and get signed.

To ignore the public’s perception, right or wrong, about cost and spending is to deny reality.

That’s bright. Then you can figure out how to survive Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney and a Republican Congress.

you could say you are planning on supporting politicians of principle, and simply claiming to be a Democrat is no longer enough.

I’m fairly certain that is what I have done and am doing today.

Keep your friends close, and enemies closer. Wasn’t it Sun Tzu who said that? An ancient strategy that has worked for centuries. I think this is what Obama practices. Plus, he’s also put many truly fantastic people in his Admin.

cheers to that, mate!

and in reply to crosstimbers, who references as touchstone the Roosevelt/New Deal era – wasn’t there an active, militant organized and strong left outside the (D) party at that time??

Roosevelt was squeezed to do the right thing by the sense that if he failed to ameliorate the suffering people were experiencing, they would defect to hard left Labour leaders and make serious trouble.

rather makes the opposite of the point you are trying for, unfortunately – a determined group who will not compromise on doing the right thing can force unprincipled moderates – Obama being a classic example – to do the right thing.

I did support Dodd, especially when he was trying to stand up for the Constitution. I was also not supporting him when he went full on with the banker bailout.

I do understand that there is a need for balance. To be honest, I doubt if the Robert Byrd of the ’90s and today would support the Robert Byrd of the ’50s (to use one of redfish’s examples).

But I am not advocating breaking up the Democratic Party. I am advocating making the Democratic Party responsive to voters. You can not tell me that big bundles of contributors from Big Pharma, Big Med, Big Ag, FIRE, etc, do not sway how the MOC vote. They live in a bubble that needs to be pierced by whatever means. And that includes virtual tw-by-fours upside their heads to get their attention and remind them who they work for. Anf that is NOT their big money contributors.

If voting purely based on polling that “represents the wishes of their constituents” were all it means to be in Congress, then replace the Congress with vote machines based on polling.

However, there are way too many situations and issues throughout the history of the US where polling supported the losing side. Things like ending the Vietnam War, civil rights, ending Jim Crow laws, LGBT rights, etc.

…if they do not represent their constituents wishes they won’t be re-elected.

I would love a single payer system but it is not going to happen.

This is an activist website for people that want to bring about the changes that were promised during the last election cycle. I for one don’t give a rats ass about Obama’s poll numbers. I almost lost my partner to cancer last year and we have no health insurance. I care about that. I care that I worked to elect people to office who promised to make that happen and are now standing in the way and yes, I believe that many of them are choosing the concerns of major donors over their constituents. My rhetoric may be inflammatory but I don’t believe that it is nonsensical or that it serves no purpose. Just shelling out cash to the Democratic Party and working on campaigns (both of which I did BTW) is not enough. Holding those same politicians feet to fire to do the things that they promised to do is just as important.

Works well in theory, however, we can see the results of Summers’ free market theories. One of the reasons to hold enemies closer is to prevent them from acting.

Well said.

Except, the folks in Congress (and the Obama Admin) did themselves no favors by taking the idea of single-payer off the table from the beginning. Just because it might not pass today is no reason it could not have been presented as a first talking point to begin the discussion. Instead, they gave it away without any argument because “we can’t have it today so why bother even using it as a starting point for the negotiations”

And where’s the concern over cost and spending when we are dealing with a couple of illegal wars/occupations and bailing out the banks? Especially when the cost of the bank bailouts is more in one year than the 10 year cost guesstimate for health care?

Vietnam. as they say, history may not repeat, but it rhymes.

So, Obama is now in sort of the early-middle phase of escalation into the quagmire of Afghanistan, though he has adopted the cross-border bombings into Pakistan that Nixon later undertook against Cambodia and Laos.

Imagine in 8 years, and Obama has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of young American lives wreaking further devastation against the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Pashtuns mostly.

as heir apparent, the doddering, senile, oafish Joe Biden is running on a platform of more of the same, light at the end of the tunnel, the usual.

You would still counsel loyalty to the (D), maybe because the (R)’s are running a werewolf in an SS uniform?

You, and them, LOST the past national election.

You are now in a minority.

Get used to it.

I think you’re right, but so is redfish. It’s the central conundrum of representative government. In one instance, we scream if they don’t represent the desires of constituents. That point was implied when one comment said, “show me the district in which a strong government option is not favored.” On the other hand, we scream if someone doesn’t act as a “profile in courage” and do what they know is “right”, despite what their constituents think. At this time, while I wouldn’t prefer it, I would prefer even a Bluedog majority in Congress to a majority of the kind of Republicans who have controlled that party at least since 1994.

extrapolating – the activist Left does itself no favors by taking third party organizing “off the table from the beginning”.

Just because it [3rd party candidacies] are not strong today is no reason they could not be presented as a possibility if the (D) continues to work so hard to thwart meaningful change (on anything).

hmmm – the template seems to fit?

time to erode the anathema even more.

I would prefer even a Bluedog majority in Congress to a majority of the kind of Republicans who have controlled that party at least since 1994.

How would we know the difference?

My bad, neglected to acknowledge post, GREAT read PW, thanks for putting it up.

Hope rages on . . . *G*

*iwonttalktotrolls**iwonttalktotrolls**iwonttalktotrolls**iwonttalktotrolls**iwonttalktotrolls*

If I say it enuff . . . sigh, failed agin. lol

I certainly know the difference. Maybe it’s because I took a lot of tests somewhat like the following:

Which of the following is not like the others?

David Vitter
Richard Shelby
Bob Corker
Evan Bayh

Well if this site provides some therapy to some that’s great. My opinion, which is just as valid as yours, is that attacking Obama and other Democrats “in the way that you do” With animus,vitriol and anger is counter-productive and self defeating.

hey crosstimbers, leaving my #70 on the table, eh?

since Democrats have to hark back to the New Deal era as the last time their party actually did anything that benefitted large masses of people, you may want to buff up on your history of the time.

I suspect that Least-worstism would have been a harder sell to the strong Labor/Left at the time.

No. you have that wrong. Moderate Democrats, Independents and I won the election; as represented by Barack Obama. Dennis Kucinich lost and Code Pink was not on the ballot. YOU get used to it. YOU are the fringe minority.

That is exactly the point! Thank you! There are only two parties unfortunately and that’s the price you pay for a representative democracy with an electoral college. Choosing the lesser of two evils is an understandably disturbing but practical reality.

I am sure you don’t have to try hard to imagine what a Palin or Romney administration would look like. A fractured, divided Democratic party will only serve to make that more likely.

The reason they did so is that Obama was told in no uncertain terms in meetings with Congressional leaders that single-payer was not an option and would have resulted in a huge defeat and probably threatened health care reform from getting done at all. Also, Obama never espoused single payer during the campaign. He is astute enough to realize that is too big a leap for this country to make all at once. Walk before you can run.

Sorry, I hadn’t read your 70. I’m not really aware of the strong non-Democrat left you’re talking about during the FDR years. I know he’s been heavily criticized for not taking on civil rights. Where was this left you speak of on that issue? Where were they when he dropped Henry Wallace in ‘44? Did they subsequently push Truman to the left, or Kennedy?

While I’m not familiar with the effects of that faction, I’m very familiar with the split of the Democratic Party in 1968, which gave us Richard Nixon, and the one in 1980, which helped give us Ronald Reagan, and the third party which helped give us George Bush in 2000. In recent history, the most favorable effects I know of regarding 3rd Party movements resulted from conservative movements splitting the Republican Party Thanks to T.R. and the Bullmoose Party, we got Wilson and thanks to Perot we got Clinton.

Sorry but it makes shit for sense to give away a major negotiating point from the very beginning just because you don’t think it stands a chance of passing the first time.

Congressional leaders may have told Obama single payer could not pass but to ignore the possibility from the beginning is just plain dumb.

And I’d expect nothing else from groups of “leaders” who are dependent on contributions from Insurance companies, Big Pharma and Big Med to declare how they couldn’t support single payer. Their lobbyist spouses probably had nothing to do with the positions presented either.

Edit: And we know Obama’s health care plan was lacking from the very beginning. Paul Krugman caught a ration of crap for doing a comparison of the plans presented by Obama and Hillary Clinton and pointed out that Clinton’s was a far more progressive plan.

Please realize, I want Obama to succeed but I’m damned if I will sit back and keep my mouth shut when he is saying and doing stupid things. He needs to lead and not give away the store in search of the non-existent bi-partisan bill. A health care ”reform” bill passed just to say one has been passed is worthless. He and the Democratic Party are going to own this bill, one way or another so why don’t we push them to pass something that actually IS a reform instead of more lipstick on a pig.

It was never a negotiating point don’t you understand that? Obama was never for it. I do not accept the quid-pro-quo with Pharma and Med and Congress that you try to make a case for. That is intellectually lazy to say that votes are swayed by that when you don’t know that for a fact. I believe that the great majority of those in Congress vote according to their principles. You can laugh and call me naive, whatever, the reality is you have zero evidence of that. There are all sorts of lobbyists for all sorts of industries, including unions and a myriad of others.

That is intellectually lazy to say that votes are swayed by that when you don’t know that for a fact.

You are correct that I don’t know it for a fact. But as they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it damn sure ain’t a swan. You are in fact quite naive if you think there is no quid pro quo going on.

And please, do point out to my how wonderfully principled all the Members of Congress are when they manage to proclaim in their states how much they fight for voters while voting consistently in favor of their big business owners.

Or did you miss Joe Lieberman proclaiming how much he supported ending the Iraq occupation just to get re-elected. Or how he proclaimed he was wanting to investigate the actions after Katrina. Up to the point where he got in a position to do so. And Mary Landrieu has been really supportive to all of her constituents in her holding Lieberman to his promises.

They are politicians who have spent their lives promising one thing while not actually doing what they promised.

And there is a significant difference between lobbyists like Labor, or environmental concerns versus lobbyists dumping huge wads of cash into the campaign coffers and PACs of Congress. We see everyday the results of the different lobbyist groups. And they are not working for most Americans.

I despise Joe Lieberman; but he is an ideologue. I think he believes what he says I don’t think he’s been bought off. I’m the furthest thing from naive, I understand how it appears. But as I said, many different lobbyists give money to many members of Congress and they often vote against their wishes.

Hillary’s was not a more progressive plan…hers was even farther away from single payer.

And as an ideologue, of course, Lieberman would be fully representing the wishes of his constituents with all of his votes since he claims to be a Democrat still. And the fact that his wife is a lobbyist for Big Pharma has no impact on his voting either I’m sure.

The days of Jesse Unruh’s:

If you can’t drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, and vote against ‘em anyway, you don’t belong in office.

are long in the past, if it was ever true. They are beholden to the interests that put the most money in their coffers. Failure to recognize that is a failure to see reality.

The “left” opposed civil rights in the FDR administration…that “left” was in the Republican Party at the time.

Krugman comparison of Clinton versus Obama Health Care Plans

Alan Grayson’s district is not very conservative…Obama won it by 5 points.

If Obama won a conservative district, then you’d understand that redfish is right about moderate and conservatives delivering victory to Democrats.

Also, close friend of mine works for the Florida Democratic Party and they pretty much think Grayson’s a one termer.

thx fr the reply.

on 1968, indeed a very informative year.

the split in the (D)’s then ‘gave’ us Nixon?

The Democrats were saddled with a failed, missionless quagmire of a war, and Nixon was running on a pledge to end the draft!

Nixon also saw ending the draft as an effective way to undermine the anti-Vietnam war movement, since he believed affluent college-age youths would stop protesting the war once their own possibility of having to fight in it was gone.[19]

the antiwar faction of the time was trying desperately to pull the (D) party into doing the right thing, they took they other route, and they lost!

there are two ways to interpret your examples – and, shall we say, the example of 2000 is debatable. The Supreme Court gave us GWB, you are just fitting it to your own (D) centric bias.

winding down here, but these issues will continue, as they have for decades.

Clinton’s plan also relied heavily on private insurance, which, if I’m not mistaken, is what we’re trying to do away with, no?

Krugman states the progressive goal as universal health care…what good is it when it’s universal health care with only private insurance companies? I thought the progressive goal was single payer…Krugman doesn’t mention that here.

In the beginning slavery was a Democratic principle…so which beginning?

Isn’t it better though to have a plan that actually gets us on the path to single payer? No matter the route taken?

Yes, Hillary’s plan relied on insurance companies but it still was more progressive and offered more coverage to more people than Obama’s plan. It was not a perfect plan but was better than the compromise of a compromise of a compromise which seems to be what the folks in congress are proposing.

Hillary’s plan would not get us closer to single payer, just covering everyone wouldn’t necessarily get us closer to single payer…Obama’s would because it actually includes an option that could turn into single payer.

Hillary’s plan was a compromise of a compromise of a compromise.

That would be the same Florida Democratic Party that was counseling candidates like Grayson to avoid being against the Iraq war/occupation? That refused to support Doug Tudor against Adam Putnam and recruited Republicans to supposedly become Democrats to run in various CD’s? That Democratic Party of Florida?

Let’s just say their track record of success is a bit lacking (as they managed to listen to Rahm Emanuel and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz do their incumbent protection for folks in south Florida like the Diaz Brothers or Ileana Ros-Lehtinen)

So a plan that had a robust, strong public option wouldn’t get us to a single payer but one that doesn’t will? Ho-kay.

I’ll be sure to ask her.

Anyway, here’s the Presidential results for ths supposed conservative district Alan Grayson represents;

Barack Obama (D)- 189,402- 52.47%
John McCain (R)- 168,842- 46.77%

Does this mean conservatives voted for Obama? Because if it does then it blows your “he was elected to be a progressive” argument out the window.

yes, a false, fake ‘reform’ plan will diffuse momentum for real, massive reform.

then, the opportunity is wasted for another generation.

that is what the (D)’s always do. Co-opt and neutralize.

seen the Bill Moyers doc on health care reform efforts under (D) admins?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi1acHg3mhw

Hillary’s plan didn’t have a strong robust public option…Obama’s did.

How and where did anything in Obama’s original plan coincide with a strong public option? Especially when it allowed folks to avoid having any coverage at all?

and that same district went 53% – 45% for Bush in 2000 and 55% – 44% Bush in ‘04.

One election where the Dem wins does not make it a liberal or progressive one. It makes it a district that is more toss-up.

They wouldn’t be completely insane?

Have you considered starting your own blog, where you can control what’s posted and who comments?

(FWIW: D for 40 years, and the party has been leaving me – and a lot of others – by moving to the right, more and more, in the last twenty years. Admit that we used to be liberal-to-moderate Ds, and are now radicals, simply by that shift, and you’ll also have to admit that we should, if only by our history, get a say on what a D is.)

I look at the Blue Dog reps who signed the HCAN letter and my rep is among them.
But he’s also one who signed the letter to Rep. Pelosi. Is he fence-straddling or am I misunderstanding something?

Which is what I was saying lol. You’re claiming it’s a conservative district and now you’re saying it’s a moderate district.

Here’s a good question…if Obama won a conservative or moderate district, doesn’t that mean that conservatives and moderates voted for him…so wouldn’t it be unwise for him to govern exclusively from the left?

Who is Obama’s base? What group of voters were most supportive of him and gave him the impetus for victory? Was it those “moderate to conservatives” or was it liberals?

And given the complete mess made of the country by the Republicans from Reagan on (including Clinton, who was pretty much the best Republican president of my life, no matter the D next to his name), isn’t it about time, the elected officials governed a bit from the left rather than continuing to kowtow to the right?

And please, show me ANY example of Obama doing ANY governing from the left. FISA he caved on. He refuses to back up his promises to LGBT supporters. He has adopted Bush precedents on conducting the occupations whole heartedly. He has continued to support the Bush positions on secrecy and executive privilege, even using the same ludicrous arguments.

I guess he just must be playing some level of 24th dimension chess that is far beyond my abilities to follow along.

Yes, Obama won some moderate and even conservative CDs so I guess that means he can’t govern from his base at all.

I guess the point is, in either 1968 or 2000, what you seem to identify as the non-Democrat left did not lead to a more progressive nation with more progressive policies. In both cases, we ended up with the most reactionary government possible rather than Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore. Neither may have suited progressive goals on all counts, but I would choose them any day over Richard Nixon and George Bush.

I assume you accept my point that all other occasions since 1900, when one of the two major political parties split internally, the result has been a victory for the other major party, rather than for a third party. Historically, the best third parties have done is to have their most popular planks co-opted by one of the major parties.

I’m all for persuading Democrats to adopt progressive measures, but am opposed to your theme of endorsing Naderism or another similar movement. I think that is demonstrably the enemy of the good.

I have no desire to have a blog.

Redfish: Here’s a list of the Blue Dogs. Now go to http://www.opensecrets.org and look to see who’s throwing the most dough in the Blue Dogs’ coffers. Then look at whose industries are favored by the Blue Dogs’ votes. (Hell, just look at the career of Bud Cramer, former King of the Blue Dogs — now lobbying his old buddies on Capitol Hill: http://downwithtyranny.blogspo…..e-dog.html)

Oh, but you say, the Blue Dogs are voting their districts, which are conservative/Republican. Well, guess what — 50% of even Republicans back meaningful health care reform, and 72% of all Americans do so. Why are the Blue Dogs so out of step with what their constituents want? Just follow the money.

I am so grateful that Schiff, Sanchez and Harmon are in Congress. You are so out of touch with mainstream Democrats it’s not even funny. You want to attack Loretta Sanchez and Adam Schiff one of Clintons staunchest defenders. See, it’s just a philosophical difference – I think you are a fringe extremist. Thats all.

I guess the point is, in either 1968 or 2000, what you seem to identify as the non-Democrat left did not lead to a more progressive nation with more progressive policies

you respond to neither of my points about these elections – 1968 – Nixon campaigned to end the draft! and:

Nixon told Michigan Republican congressman Donald Riegle that the war would be over within six months of his assumption of office.

Nixon was able to capitalize on antiwar sentiment, because the Democrats were sticking to their costly failed, divisive and amoral policy.

will Obama recapitulate the same stupidity after 8 more years in Iraq and AfPak? Probably.

The amtiwar movement within the Democratic Party was trying to make the party do the right thing, but the party did the opposite, and lost.

and you completely avoided the other factors in play in 2000 – serious fraud, and the Supreme Court decision to stop the recount!

two sides to every coin, of course, but why your inability to reference my points?