Remember, if Brown wins, then we're stuck with the current "Cadillac" plan excise tax

[villager]

...and the "Nebraska deal" engineered by Nelson.

Out of a general "mainstream wisdom" political analysis which mostly lets the GOP off the hook for the current malaise (and doesn't dare say a *single word* about overt corporate influence in the present political moment), Chuck Todd at least offers this reminder of the current realpolitik:

<snip>

If the House simply passes the Senate bill, the deal Big Labor cut last week on the so-called "Cadillac” excise tax is null and void. Also, the Medicaid exemption for Nebraska would still be in there. Finally, this idea really hasn't been floated by the House Democratic leadership. When First Read asked a member of the House leadership about this possibility a few months ago, were told, "No chance" because the assumption was the House moderates and progressives were going to want to have a real say in the conference committee and didn't want to simply look like they were run by the Senate Democrats. Of course, that was then; this is now. And the political reality is this: The White House does not want a year of the political capital they used up on health care to die because of a special election in Massachusetts. They believe they need SOMETHING for all of this political pain they've endured.

<snip>

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/18/2176572.aspx

[villager]

1. Heh -- the unreccers have apparently failed to take their "twitch control" medicine this morning...

I simply offer up the excerpt for discussion.

Not that the unreccers are interested in "discussion," mind you...

[elocs]

8. The unreccers are very happy that you used the very 1st response to highlight their actions.

:applause: (pssstt: Don't Feed The Trolls!)

If I were to give a thread an UnRec (and I believe some truly deserve and UnRec from me) why would I discuss and add a response to kick it to the top of it's forum?

[villager]

9. I dunno, why would you?

;-)

I just think we need to note the over-use of "reflexive unreccing" here, because it's getting weirder, twitchier, and more punitive by the day, on DU...

One might not want to feed the Trolls, but one shouldn't be silent on their account, either...

[elocs]

12. What you are doing is EXACTLY the same as feeding the trolls

because the attention just encourages them. Why would anyone use the very first response of a thread they believe is so important that it should get no UnRecs from anyone to point out UnRecs? Maybe the thread is not so important after all.

To point out to those who are simply ignorant about it: kicking a thread is much more important than Rec/UnRec because they are only good for 24 hours and I could kick this very same thread to the top of the GD forum in 2 days from now just by responding to it. Kicking, kicking, kicking keeps it going to the top where it is more easily read.

As for the "why would you?", the question was rhetorical. I thought that was obvious, but evidently not.

:)

[villager]

13. well, then, a discussion of the reflexive unreccers therefore kicks the thread

...which you believe to be the most important aspect of keeping it discussed

(You may be right -- I personally never care what's on the "greatest" page, and just go to the "discuss" page)

That, in turn, defeats what the trolls and unrec-twitchers are all about... so in the end, you & I are both allied on the ultimate outcome, yes?

:thumbsup:

[VMI Dem]

2. I thought that bill was awesome.

Lots of people spent lots of time convincing us that it was.

[Vincardog]

3. They believe they need SOMETHING for all of this political pain they've endured. Maybe they should

have spent a little of that political capital on HEALTH CARE reform
instead of INSURANCE COMPANY welfare?

[Tailormyst]

4. perhaps the WH should have spent that capitol on real reform instead of Ins company give aways

[timeforpeace]

5. How did that crap get in the bill in the first place? So much for fixing after the fact.

[Oregone]

6. Almost by design it would seem

And it will be hailed as a victory, as it limps past the finish. Anyone who objects will of course be labeled a part of the malcontent progressive web roots.

[JDPriestly]

7. Obama likes it so why shouldn't we?

It would never have been in the bill if Obama had threatened a few members of the Senate with just not allocating money to their states. Congress sets up the budget, but ultimately, the president decides in certain cases what money is actually spent where. That is the president's leverage, and Obama was too noble or too lacking in courage to use that. Obama could have gone to Montana, Louisiana, Connecticut, traveled to Nebraska and stirred up support for a decent health care plan. He failed to do that. He did not use the tremendous capital that he had. Use it or lose it, as the saying goes.

[elocs]

10. I am betting if there is a bill at all it will have a Cadillac plan

and I though Nelson asked for the Nebraska deal to be removed.

[JVS]

11. Only if Obama is willing to sign the shitty bill. The buck stops with him.

[MercutioATC]

14. It's essentially Obama's shitty bill.

Why wouldn't he sign it?