I think it's funny that we HAD to have 60 votes for the health insurance bailout bill

[FLAprogressive]

and that there "wasn't 60 votes for the public option", blah blah blah....but now that there's a chance that the "supermajority" might get taken away...they're threatening reconciliation? WTF?

Just more proof that they never wanted a public option and that it was a just a campaign tactic.

[DrDan]

1. COMPLETELY agree

the PO was NEVER a part of the plan. The insurance companies were against it - hence their minions.

[FLAprogressive]

2. a staggering amount of deception by the president led us to believe that it was....

[Zhade]

40. Well, he DID lie to us about "never" running on the public option.

NT!

[votingupstart]

6. i think the PO was part of the initial plan - i don't think the Prez and Nancy knew

or understood how hard the Insurance companies would fight it or how much money they could throw at it.

[TornadoTN]

21. Then that's their fault- the could have looked at their own donor lists to know that

Everyone in their right mind knew that Big Insurance would come at this thing with everything that they had. To think that our politicians were caught off guard is a little too much for me to believe.

[votingupstart]

25. i think they were playing poker and got their bluff called

i think they thought the election fever and energy would continue after the election for long enough to pass a series of bills that were promised during the campaign. unfortunately they did not count on Big Insurance to be patient, calculating and politically savvy. all the Insurance companies have to do is draw out the fight until it becomes so confusing that instead of two voices arguing over the problem there were 2000. Once the background noise reaches a certain level no one can really hear whats being said - and people lose interest and motivation.

what the Prez and Nancy did not realize is that Big Insurance had no choice but to call the bluff because giving in meant an end to For-Profit medicine (i.e. their jobs/companies/etc).

[fasttense]

71. I have a different take on it.

I think President Obama and the Democratic majority would have passed the public option (they had been convinced that single payer would never pass and gave up on it before they even started the fight) if it had been easy to do. But it turned out to be a great big fight.

They still believe "free" trade and trickle down is the root of all good economies so giving in to a bailout for insurance corporations just coincided with their feckless economic theories. As President Obama has pointed out, he is a pragmatist and a boot up to corporations while giving a boot in the a** to the public just fit in so well with their disproved theories on economics.

President Obama would like to help the little guy, he thinks they need the help, but he actually believes this "free" trade crap is good for the American economy. It's like having a sick child and giving them medicine that you know will hurt for a little while but will make them all better in the end. He really believes the crap his economic team feeds him.

[Mithreal]

75. +1

[Scruffy1]

82. Spot on

[Mithreal]

79. Just look at campaign "donations" for yourself please.

Some lost interest or motivation when they read loopholes and bailouts in the bill. Others became more motivated.

I 100% disagree about the end of For-Profit medicine idea. Even if the idea were carried to whatever endgame rightwingers predict, there are too many ways for me even to begin listing how For-Profit medicine could still exist, even flourish. In addition, insurance is NOT medicine. Please distinguish the two. I think you mean well, just really confusing me with what you wrote.

[truedelphi]

31. It is whose fault? Obama himself went around the nation in Oct 2008 and

Told us that he was refusing money from Big Indutries and relying on the little guy.

Maybe I should have stayed home. But facing down a McCain/Palin Ticket was scary enough to let me believe that Obama was going to be a good choice. Not a fool's choice (as it turned out) but a really decent and valuable choice that would pay off for most of us, not only the monied few.

[90-percent]

92. Obama himself

I distinctly recall during the campaign that he pledged to take NO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS from lobbyists of any sort!

He seemed very anti-corporate during the campaign to me!

He was my third choice for the job. First was Dennis, then Edwards when Dennis dropped out, then Obama when Edwards dropped out. I think Edwards would have delivered a great health care package, if he could have gotten it done before impeachment for adultery.

-90% jimmy

[truedelphi]

137. Well we can only have the kind of adultery where

A candidate pledges himself heart and soul for us average citizens and then goes and slips into bed with his Corporate Masters.

Obama was my third choice as well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. They CHOSE to meet with the insurance companies behind closed doors

and reject single payer advocates.

They knew perfectly well what they were doing.

[Joe Bacon]

63. And don't forget PhRMA

Billy the Pimp Tauzin was making a bunch of house calls to the Oval Office to keep those drug prices as high as possible.

[Joe Bacon]

64. The GOP passed the Pill Bill with 54 votes.

As usual, the Democrats laid down and died when the Republicans called the shots. Amazing how the Republicans only needed 51 votes to pass whatever they wanted, yet the Democrats always need 60. Wonder why?

[Enthusiast]

67. Wonder why?

It is becoming abundantly clear. Representative democracy has been killed in this country with the help of Democrats in name only. Of course every single Republican is a piece of shit.

[Mithreal]

83. Every single elected Republican

There are plenty of average American old school R's that hate Faux, Limbaugh, the other freaks, and are to the left of Obama on most issues. I know, I have met them though their number may be small. Their party could give a damn about them.

[The Wizard]

76. Bribe taking senator Max Bachus

turned health care reform into insurance reform, and the downward spiral began. They thought no one would notice the shift.
President Obama failed to take the lead and rein in Bachus who favors a policy that funnels tax dollars into insurance company coffers.
If Democrats fail it will be because they abandoned the base in favor of insurance lobby campaign donations.
Joe Liebermann gave them the cover they needed to pervert any real reform.
How many times do we hear they can't get reform because they don't have sixty votes? Funny how that never stopped Bush from ramming through policies that punished 98% of the tax payers in favor of the top 2%.
Lewis Black put it in terms everyone can understand. The Republicans take over and create a big pile of shit. Then the electorate votes in Democrats, and they look at the pile of shit pretending to be helpless to change anything.
The Democrats' colossal failure to do the people's bidding is the reason we have a government of, by, and for the corporations.

[Mithreal]

85. The Senate Finance bill is the President's bill. President Obama did lead.

Otherwise agree and would add "Two Santa Clauses" theory to the wisdom of Lewis Black.

[Jamastiene]

57. Seasoned politicians are NOT naive. n/t

[Mithreal]

86. FDR

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

[AllHereTruth]

60. Come on. Of course they knew it would be hard.

It is our fault for not holding them to their words. We allowed Obama and congress get away with this because they are Dems.

They caved under pressure. The current heads of state are no better than their counterparts that have served before...imo

[Mithreal]

62. Under pressure of an avalanche of dollars.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Juche]

3. The public option was leverage to keep insurance money out of the GOP

That is my understanding. The public option was used to threaten private insurance companies into not funding the GOP in 2010 and 2012. The dems will give up the PO, and insurance will not fund the opposition.

Too bad it won't work. The insurance industry funded many anti-health care ads. And they will heavily fund the GOP in 2010 anyway.

And now the dems have lost major support from unions and liberals. Plus a strong public option would've saved hundreds of billions over the next decade by slowing the rate of medical cost growth.


The dems are below average politicians.

They entered with a mandate and a supermajority. It is a year later and the entire party base is disappointed and demoralized while the opposition is having a field day (they might win a seat in one of the most liberal states in the union). On top of that none of the things mandated to do (protect the middle class, roll back the plutocracy, reform the financial & health care system) have been done.

They did get the stimulus. So that was good. Maybe I'm just focusing on the negatives. But I think a lot of us had our hopes so high, so they were easy to dash.

[FLAprogressive]

5. the insurance companies wanted a win either way....

[DrDan]

8. it is one thing to compromise on issues - quite another to begin from a position of compromise

I just don't get our overall strategy . . . if there ever was one.

[Nite Owl]

14. That's just it

we all knew that there would have to be some compromising but from where they started the bill it was all downhill. If a GOP prez tried to pass something like this there would be such anger over it from the dems about the mandate, deals with Pharma and no cost controls that we would be funding ads all over the place.

[FLAprogressive]

15. now there's nary a peep....because it is "reform". Whatever that means.

[Juche]

22. We had to get permission from pharma and the private health industry first

That is what is wrong with our democracy. Politicians have to ask large corporations if it is ok to pass bills. If they say yes, and are allowed to strip anything they don't like, then you can proceed. That is what happened.

Single payer would demolish the private insurance industry and dramatically reduce the finances and influence of pharma. So that was off the table. Anything that would offend large businesses was stripped. Only after that was 'reform' allowed but you can't get much reform if you aren't allowed to piss off large companies.

Our strategy makes sense when you see how we are nothing but a plutocratic democracy.

[Mithreal]

65. Getting permission to regulate. Plutocracy and Fascism with a little religion for the masses.

:thumbsup:

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,” FDR

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” Benito Mussolini

“Understand that all battles are waged on an unconscious level before they are begun on the conscious one, and this battle is no different. The power structure wishes us to believe that the only options available are those which they present to us, we know this is simply not true, and therefore we must redefine the terrain of this conflict, and clearly, it is a conflict of worldviews and agendas.” Teresa Stover

[closeupready]

72. Yes, exactly right. Dems commenced negotiations having already tipped their hand.

n/t

[pezDispenser]

49. * would have got some form of stimulus also.

Can't count that.

[HughBeaumont]

55. It's more like corporations and the wealthy are below average human beings.

Democrats will at least try to get an inch out of Corporate America before failing miserably at getting any sympathy whatsoever out of criminal shitbags who seem to think that shrinking their customer base via mass fire-a-thons is an intelligent way of doing business. The only bone tossed is half-baked policy for the middle/working/poor classes, advantage-as-always to the rich.

Republicans go ankles up from the get-go, enriching themseleves and screwing the "little people" out right away. You'd get no bone at all, the wealth inequality and wars exacerbate and Friedman disaster corporatism survives yet again. It makes me laugh my ass off every time when those assholes assure the 95% that "THEY'RE on the side of the working class! THEY'RE lowering your taxes!" Uh, IDIOTS? A tax cut isn't going to put food on my table or products in my house if there's no liveable wage job to BACK it.

That's the difference. We have a choice between "Bad" and "Much, MUCH worse", all because everything HAS to be about one group of people having greater than the already 7000-fold advantage over the rest of the 99% of this country and all because everybody for whatever mysterious reason is SO AFRAID OF THEM.

Why are we SO AFRAID OF THEM???

And until the apathetic American people find 25-40% of themselves out of work, until they find themselves near starvation, living on the streets and without a job prospect for YEARS (not months) . . .. what the hell am I saying? They're never going to rise up and change anything. Compartmentalized people are incapable of doing so. They'll always find SOMEone other than the cancerous GOP wealthy to blame. Minorities. Liberals. The "have-too-littles". The media. The politicians.

Sometimes I just feel the whole thing's almost not worth saving. We bought into this shit-sham and we're forced to lie in it. And we'll do absolutely NOTHING about it, because we're just not as "united" as we think we are. We're weak, scared, coward little mice people. We're too tethered to our jobs. We're NOT FREE.

[hulka38]

61. Best post I've read in a while.

Really insightful.

[onlyadream]

88. just curious

where you got that info
" The public option was used to threaten private insurance companies into not funding the GOP in 2010 and 2012. The dems will give up the PO, and insurance will not fund the opposition. "

[Mithreal]

93. It's a DLC thing. The idea of securing large donor investments in the system.

Thought that was common knowledge. I will look for a recent video posted here that explains the idea and post if I find it.

[Mithreal]

95. I am sure Juche may have a different source, just attempting helpfulness

I realize she is persona non grata to a small yet vocal minority here.

One of the most dangerous progressives in America, a model aggressive progressive.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/08/19/the-baucus-caucus-phrma-insurance-hospitals-and-rahm/

The idea of securing campaign donations is not new. I took over a half hour to find what I originally saw but I couldn't, but that article provides a little more shape to the idea.

Edit to add, almost forgot, previous DU discussion of the article.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6352983

[onlyadream]

103. very interesting....

thanks for the links.

[Mithreal]

105. you're welcome

[earth mom]

4. Exactly! nt

[vi5]

7. I'm sure there will be plenty of excuses...

..as to why if we can pass a bill with only 51 votes, why it had to be such a watered down bill with no public option, no competition, etcs. Anyone asking the question as to why this is will likely be dismissed as "not understanding how politics really works" by the wise, condescending centrists of DU.

All the while regular, independent voters are going to be asking themselves the very same questions right before they head to the ballot box. Poll after poll will show that it's independents abandoning the dems and not progressives, yet it will be much easier to just beat up on those who lean a little more left and to keep chasing the independent conservative ponies than it will be to try and please core democratic constituencies.

(I'm sure this thread will continue my streak of being responded to by the one person I have on ignore).

[FLAprogressive]

9. the leadership is still convinced that it will convert all of these independents......

[vi5]

11. It's not even as much that as...

the fact that the leadership seems to think all the independents are conservative leaning and that none are at all going to be swayed by solid progressive legislation. In other words if someone has no party affilliation and leans conservative then they are the holy grail of politics. But if someone has no party affilliation and leans progressive, if they don't just always vote for dems then they aren't worth bothering with.

I know a lot of working class, union types who don't adhere to either republican or democratic party line on a lot of issues, but who will vote for the party who is taking on special interests and corporations and lobbyists, etc. And they feel that they are invisible at worst, secondary at best to the democratic party leadership.

[FLAprogressive]

16. the problem is...no party is currently taking on special interests

[Ken Burch]

45. into what? magical singing unicorns?

n/t.

[Mithreal]

87. I'd rather one of those than a pony.

[Ken Burch]

122. Here you go, then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60oQ9U8wih0

[Mithreal]

124. Oh man, that was so wrong.

[Ken Burch]

125. You're welcome.

n/t.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mithreal]

91. There exists the words I share in private, on DU, and the words

I use when speaking with people of unknown political persuasion or leaners, independents, or R's. Those polls are often cited by Republicans and the media and you can be damn sure I am going to say I support the President in them. I really hope that President Obama is not reading too much into them. My wife and I have only answered a handful of recent polls. I am honest when I write and call the White House, not that anyone seems concerned with those opinions, would think it would balance the question of general support indicated in polling.

You make a very good point, at least I think so. When I vote for Obama again it will be the lesser of two and it will still be an easy decision. This two party system has jumped the shark though.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the next three years are going to be significantly better, always hope. Someone made an intriguing argument for the idea of setting aside hope and getting to work but I think hope and getting to work are just fine.

I get the weird feeling sometimes that a small vocal minority of DU'ers are worried that conservatives read this site and will use our words against us. Could care less whatever hardcore R's may be reading these ideas because I am working in real life to undermine their support and there is nothing they can do about it except cling to their masters and the wrong side of history.

[bigtree]

10. good point

why didn't they go with reconciliation right from the start?

[Hatchling]

13. Another point.

If they do go to reconciliation, then they have NO excuse not to put the public option back in the bill. If they don't, that will be the final indication to me that they never intended for the bill to have an OP. That it was just a PR thing to keep us quiet until it was too late.

[Froward69]

12. 60 votes is a scam

to keep the HC bill watered down and nothing close to real reform. to continue it to be a giveaway to the insurance corporations.

with 51 votes all that is (really) needed to pass, the public option could easily be included.

seems like a smoke and mirrors play. by the corporate dems.

[Enthusiast]

68. No "seems" about it. nt

[dragonlady]

17. For procedural reasons, reconciliation can't pass some of the most important parts of HCR

Reconciliation works only on measures that affect the federal budget. (The rules of the Senate are many and arcane, and it can take years to master them.) Some of the really important things that would affect so many people for the better, like covering preexisting conditions, wouldn't be part of the bill under reconciliation.

That said, the HCR effort has gone off track, and no wonder, when the Republicans and their allies (corporations and the media) are so desperate to defeat it

[TheWraith]

19. +100. nt

[vi5]

23. So then...

..what are they claiming they are going to be able to pass through reconcilliation now if we lose that 60th vote?

[blueworld]

30. I'm still trying to verify if this is accurate, but seems like mostly taxes & mandates

>snip

"By way of example, the federal subsidies to help purchase insurance will likely survive, but regulations requiring insurance companies to stop using pre-existing medical conditions to refuse customers would not. The Cadillac tax on high-end policies would stay with us but the public health exchanges would have to be stripped from the bill.

So while a few good things would happen as a result of the reconciliation process, for the most part, the issues that would really change the way we deal with health care in America would be forced into a different bill that would have to pass the 60 vote threshold."

http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/01/16/is-reconciliation-back-on-the-table-for-health-care-reform/

[truedelphi]

33. I really hope what you are posting doesn't happen.

But I don't have much faith in our whore-a-rahma that is Congress, and it probably will come true.

[Mithreal]

99. Subsidies for bandaids.

[uponit7771]

24. ****FACTS HERE**** but don't let facts stand in the way of the forever haters

[Mithreal]

98. Interesting response. If they can't afford the INSURANCE with the pre-existing conditions

what good is it? And many people outside the range of subsidies will still have issues with affordability.

The "FACTS HERE" are incomplete.

[w4rma]

36. THE most important part of the HCR is the Public Option. Period. (nt)

[Chisox08]

41. Medicare can expanded to all through reconciliation

[Mithreal]

97. leaving no one out and therefore eliminating the need for preexisting conditions reform

[Mithreal]

96. No one suggested otherwise. And a number of those other items

are immensely popular.

[TheWraith]

18. We can't pass most of the bill through reconciliation. Period.

Reconciliation is limited to things which affect the budget. THAT'S why nobody wants to use it.

[jgraz]

35. you can sure as hell pass the Public Option through reconciliation

And once that's passed, any measures that affect the cost of public insurance (including regulations on private insurance companies) can be wedged through in the same way.

If they wanted to do it, they could have done it.

[HughMoran]

44. This isn't a thread concerned with the actual facts of reconciliation

silly :silly:

[Ken Burch]

47. There is no possible way reconciliation could possibly have worse results than THIS process

There's nothing else that COULD have been lost using reconciliation.

Why can't you guys just admit that a centrist strategy on healthcare was doomed from the start?

[Mithreal]

102. Must rely on derision more and more.

They seem to have nothing else left and the excuses often lack the passion they once had.

[HughMoran]

108. "they"

I see you are playing the 'divide and conquer" game.

That's not helpful. You know I can see what you say to others. :)

[Mithreal]

111. Rather I like to think it is wresting the party from DLC and conservative types

If that shoe fits, then wear it. If not, then I wasn't talking about you, just the idea.

I suppose you might have us hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the corporations who show no loyalty to community or country now, or wouldn't you?

Shame does work on me, I will give it some thought, what you said. Would you do the same for what I said though? We'll see.

[HughMoran]

113. Oooh! Sarcasm - my favorite!

I'm actually trying to find common ground here - even though the name-calling and stereotypes.

[Mithreal]

114. Really, my intention was separate from my sarcasm even though I used it.

And yes I know you appreciate sarcasm, so you and I are not so different.

[Ken Burch]

123. Spare me....YOUR idea of "finding common ground" is to basically tell progressives to shut up

know our place, and "leave it to the grown-ups".

[HughMoran]

134. Ad hominem

c'mon

[Mithreal]

101. Keep all those "facts" to yourself? How does the silly smiley really work here?

One of your vast understanding should not hoard it all.

After all some say, the few the proud among DU are all that stand between DU and the deepend or something similar, can't quite remember the quote.

But seriously, could you please explain. I have found some of your posts to be great and others infuriating. And as you know I am not afraid to challenge your comments. So put up, please?

[HughMoran]

110. I have posted what I believe about this topic in other threads

But it's pointless doing so in this thread that mocks the system & Senators that we are presently stuck with.

[Mithreal]

112. Believe it or not, I am open to considering your ideas.

If you cared to post a link I might appreciate what you have to say. Sometimes I read into things unintended meanings, it just happens.

[HughMoran]

115. I can summarize quickly

Reconciliation was set up so that critical budgetary items would not be held hostage by the minority. Due to this, there is limited 'regulation' type provisions that can be included using this process. Here is an excerpt from a Wiki article that seems to summarize the process fairly well (yes, I highlighted the word 'budget' & related text):

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party. Reconciliation also applies in the United States House of Representatives, but since the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the reconciliation process represented less of a change in that body.

A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.

A reconciliation bill is one containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the House Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29

[Mithreal]

117. Who is arguing that the regulation provisions would be passed in reconciliation?

[HughMoran]

119. Well then why not pass the bill we have now, then amend the funding mechanism later then?

There are some critical regulations concerning lifetime maximums, pre-existing conditions and many other good provisions that could not be passed through reconciliation. What IS the argument for reconciliation from your perspective? What could it accomplish that would be so much better than a full bill with many provisions designed to protect the average American?

[Mithreal]

121. Every time I have heard this idea discussed it has included

the reconciliation portion and a separate bill for the regulatory aspects.

Basically, the strategy as I understand it is something like PO, medicare buy-in, or medicare for all through reconciliation. The other regulatory options lose some of their necessity with a PO passed by the way.

The regulatory aspects are still enormously popular. A second bill could include only the regulatory provisions without bailouts and loopholes. Put the bill up for the vote without 2000 pages to confuse average Americans and ride the bully pulpit and pressure every member to vote for it. Continue efforts to shame Republicans for not supporting the regulatory provisions that the majority of average American R's and D's support and even if it doesn't pass, use it as a hammer to beat the hell out of conservatives and push it through again in the next Congress. Not all of the regulatory provisions of what we were offered already would kick in immediately anyway. The idea is sound. What seems completely unsound is the current strategy.

“Understand that all battles are waged on an unconscious level before they are begun on the conscious one, and this battle is no different. The power structure wishes us to believe that the only options available are those which they present to us, we know this is simply not true, and therefore we must redefine the terrain of this conflict, and clearly, it is a conflict of worldviews and agendas.” Teresa Stover

[HughMoran]

130. I agree

...though I think the current strategy can include reconciliation after the fact. There is no need to do one before the other IMO. Parts of the current bill can be repealed to make room for future improvements if needed.

[amborin]

20. agree!

[leftstreet]

26. K&R

[Cleita]

27. I have to agree with you.

It was obvious that they were throwing up and inventing roadblocks where there weren't any. They will pay for it in the next elections. Most people weren't that stupid not to see through their agendas.

[Greyhound]

28. "We told you so". n/t

:thumbsup:

[suzie]

89. It would appear that's all that many of the Obama haters care about.

Their candidate didn't win during the primaries, so they want to say, "I told you so", even if it means handing over everything to the Republicans.

[Greyhound]

104. We did tell you what he would do and we told you what the consequences would be.

Now that he has stumbled sideways into this morass of feigned incompetence and made the shrub disaster even worse, you people are scared of the results of your "compromise".

So now we have a leader that can't lead, a Congress with no agenda beyond their own re-elections, and a pissed off citizenry that is looking for the next con man to come along and tell them what they want to hear.

And when it is all said and done we also know that you will blame us for that, too.

[Mithreal]

106. "Obama haters" is not useful and is a blue dog whistle

Didn't really care for the comment you replied to either though.

If you really think they are "haters" then alert the mods. They don't mess around.

[suzie]

118. And calling anyone who likes and supports Obama a blue dog is useful?

And I believe that the post following mine is quite indicative that this poster has no interest in anything positive about Obama and hopes that he is a failure.

[Mithreal]

120. You really think I called you a Blue Dog in this post?

I said it was a "dog whistle". Added blue because I thought it was witty.

I really can't tell if you are messing with me or not, saying I called you a Blue Dog. I do appreciate perception though so if you really believe that then I apologize for it seeming that way.

The Blue Dogs are loud and proud by the way so don't see them being offended being called that. Even if I wanted to call someone a Blue Dog and I really have no inclination, it would not be an automatically derogatory comment that "Obama haters" is, though I do see how it could also be offensive. Like I said though, no one called anybody a Blue Dog.

And the comment in your post, what is up with that? Who here on DU wants to see Obama fail or ignores anything positive? I am pretty sure you are overreacting to the extreme and it may be insensitive for me to say so, but as DU rules say, a thick skin is of some benefit here, paraphrasing.

Honestly, I am bewildered at your post.

[suzie]

128. I think that you've gone way round Robin Hood's barn to figure

out to portray my post as overly sensitive or overly reacting to people whose only desire is to see Obama fail, so they can go on pretending that their loser candidate would have been a better choice.

But that's your choice.

[Mithreal]

131. What evidence do you have that anyone wants the President to fail?

And "loser candidate", please, that is flamebait right there. If you expect people not to be frustrated with all the compromising the President has done, DU may become unbearable in the short term. I still hold out a little hope for the long term though.

I may be misreading what you wrote, I am unsure I understood by the way.

[BrklynLiberal]

29. So it wouild appear...

x(

[Faryn Balyncd]

32. K and R. You've nailed it!

:hi:






:kick:

[Gman2]

34. Everything has political risk, and cost capital. REc, is limited, and will limit the bill.

It is not straightforward.

[Mosaic]

37. Keep the 60 votes

There is still much work to be done. Defeat Brown!!!

[StreetKnowledge]

38. Welcome to Washington, owned entirely by the interests of lobbyists and their corporate masters.

If it doesn't benefit Wall Street and lobbyists, it ain't on the table in Washington any longer. And won't be until the shit hits the fan and the majority take their Congress back.

[Mithreal]

107. Some industries don't invest as heavily or as wisely in both parties

so we do deliver some pretty good stuff regularly unlike Republicans who cannot govern.

[Norrin Radd]

39. Campaign finance reform should've preceded this. eom

[rhett o rick]

46. I agree, however, campaign finance reform is impossible. We would be asking the

crooks to regulate themselves. It has been tried before. They make the laws and basically arent answerable to us.

[Mithreal]

109. Exactly what rhett o rick said. There is ZERO incentive for nearly every incumbent

to change that system. The system worked for them after all. I suppose if we could put the fear into the incumbents they would just rely more heavily on their big donors and talk reform.

We are going to have to get unreasonable. DLC'ers, New Dems have to go. They are the fringe, not us.

[Hippo_Tron]

126. The first amendment basically makes campaign finance reform impossible

A much more liberal Supreme Court than the current one ruled in Buckley v Valeo that money = speech and thus you can't implement spending limits. With spending limits you can set them low enough so that a candidate could easily raise the maximum without contributions from interest groups or corporations. Subsequent campaign finance laws have been about trying to limit the ways in which these groups can contribute but no matter how you write the laws, there will always be a way. And now the Supreme Court is about to strike down those laws.

The only way to get real campaign finance reform would be to amend the constitution to money does not equal speech. Or get a much much more liberal supreme court.

[flyarm]

42. absolutely! Thanks for posting the truth! the whole truth and nothing but the truth! eom

[rhett o rick]

43. It's way past time to dump the filibuster rule. nt

[winyanstaz]

48. yup...once again...we have been played....

[geek tragedy]

50. They won't use reconciliation. HCR is just gonna die.

Splat. AHIP wins again.

[krkaufman]

51. But what really confused me was that it seemed like a Republican campaign tactic....

... since a large majority of the country favored having a public option available, and failing to deliver that option would be viewed as falling short by a majority of the country.

[PatrynXX]

54. Some Right Wing fools thought Obama was going to be extreme left.

What happened that made us on the left believe that? i never thought Obama was extreme left. And Hillary was worse. I take the political quiz and it had me as a libertarian. But Ironically it showed that Democrates were still right of center. Can't remember who else besides the Pope and Hitler was on it (well obviously the repukes. thats a given) Socialists were left wing Nazi's were not far from Repukes.

Then there the name ideas. Democrats have it we are in a democracy and Republicans.... well the republic for which it stands. I lean left, technically a registered dem. But tend to think of myself Independent. I don't trust either parties. I choose whoever is the best to be there. Scott Browny sure as shit ain't the right guy because he's dumber that a fucking moron. Okay 3;30 am and blew off some needed steam. Eating a pile of brown sugar and butter. Oh gonna pay for that. Now that is stupid but still not as stupid as Scot Borno...... er... no he's not wearing a kilt...

[HughBeaumont]

56. They think everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman is a communist.

It's called "Low I.Q." They can't help it. Many of them are still fighting "The Cold War" and have successfully taught Generations X, Y, and Millennial to fight it also.

[Enthusiast]

69. Please clarify this.

"Socialists were left wing Nazi's were not far from Repukes." I keep hearing Republicans say that Nazis were left wing. This is completely incorrect. Nazism is far right. They were socialist in name only. They were fascist in nature.

[seabeckind]

58. It was a scam from the start -- nothing funny about it

All bullshit to give the commoners the idea of reform without actually doing reform. If we had a few statesmen running the congress they would have done the HCR as 4 separate bills, each debated on its own merits. Eg, separate insurance reform from the rest so the opposition would have to stand up and defend the corps. That way the insurance companies would not be able to deflect the arguments.

But I'm afraid we have neither statesmen nor leaders. Reid is a joke. Rahm works for corporate interests. And don't get me started on that f@cker Timmy.

And what about the cable companies? And the cell companies? I've got so many corps with hands in my pockets I can't get my pants off without having a board meeting.

[tavalon]

59. Health insurance bailout

That is pitch perfect framing. I'm going to use your post to repeat that: HEALTH INSURANCE BAILOUT!

Yes, I did mean to yell that at the top of my lungs people, say it with me: Health Insurance Bailout, Heath Insurance Bailout, Health Insurance Bailout and so on, ad infinitum!

[treestar]

66. The public option can't be put through reconciliation

It doesn't merely affect the federal budget.

[Enthusiast]

70. Funny, Republicans could do anything

with 51 votes. This is nothing but capitulation.

[treestar]

74. Republicans were subject to that rule, too

The Democrats did not use the filibuster in bad faith.

[Mithreal]

132. Getting tired of repeating myself. Go watch the video.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x424894

Please and thank you.

[JHB]

73. One telling bit is the way the lockstep Republican voting was simply taken for granted...

Where was the attack on the Republicans for their obstructionism, for their lockstep adherence to the Party Line? There's a word for when obstensibly diverse group is continually voting over 90% in unison: Sovietesque. But the only attacks of that sort came from the teabaggers against the Dems. The Democratic leadership actually pushed for activists on our end to lay off attacking the Republicans.

Not to mention a bit more vigorous pursuit of Bush-era criminality might have encouraged some Republicans to put a little distance between themselves and the Red Elephant brand name.

You're not going to get real bipartisanship withour attacking the Repubican staus quo. THAT is pragmatism, not what we got.

[penndragon69]

77. Why do they need 60....

It's because of all the useless Blue dogs and DLCers who will vote with the refugs
without a moments hesitation.

The sooner we get rid of Blue dogs and DLCers, the better!

[Vinca]

78. The desire of the majority of citizens is a mere technicality.

After all, we seldom can write campaign checks with more than 3 figures.

[INdemo]

80. Why or How do people forget so quickly how it was when Republicans had

the majority..I dont recall this 60 vote requirement talk when they had the majority...
I dont recall Bush traveling around the country demanding a bipartisan bill..The then Republican majority didn't care what Democrats thought nor did they give them time to debate the issue.. So why now..why did we have to give the Republicans a voice or allow them to add these ridiculous amendments etc..Well its obvious that Insurance companies and the corporate world own our legislative system and all the Democrats and Republican squabbling was just for show..
And this President is proving to us that he is a corporatist..More so than Bush and as Democrats we have been betrayed..

[BlueJac]

84. I've never seen such buffoons run the government!!

[varelse]

90. Sure looks like it (nt)

[icee]

94. You got it!

[samsingh]

100. agreed - i guess we need to have 70 senators before we dare to

enact progressive legislation.

[GreenMetalFlake]

116. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[branders seine]

127. I think the watered-down mess

is *exactly* what Obama promised the insurance companies and Pharm in their secret meetings almost a year ago. The whole process has been a show.

[grahamhgreen]

129. Agree 100%. NOW, we should go for the Medicare buy in in reconcilliation.

[t0dd]

133. Medicare buy-in for all. nt

[harun]

135. Great post. It was to appease the Left during negotiations, then to be dropped.

[Raine]

136. On point nt

:thumbsup: