There is a "Blood Bath" coming 2010,

[bvar22]

and it will make the one in 1994 look tame.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7864657

"When given the choice between a Republican, and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the voters will choose the Republican every time." ---Harry Truman

QED Massachusetts

Howard Dean stated on MSNBC that if the Democrats do NOT provide some immediate REAL relief like expanding Medicare to 55 BEFORE the elections, we could possibly lose The House.

There will be NO "Fixing it Later".
There will be NO "adding a Public Option later."
Even if The Democrats are successful at adding some "regulations" to this Health Care Bill to make it seem more palatable,
they will simply be De-Regulated after the Blood Bath.
THAT is what Republicans and "Centrist" Democrats do....De-Regulate.
(SEE: NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagal)

We are going to be forced to live with the FOUNDATION of this Bill for a LONG time,
and that FOUNDATION is:
Mandatory Profits for the Health Insurance Industry.
Every American WILL be forced to contribute to these profits,
AND America WILL blame the Democratic Party.
Rightly so.

[G_j]

1. K&R

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. ditto.

[liberalmike27]

111. Sadly

Democrats are paid with the same money, to do mostly the same things as Republicans.

Until we can manage to cut off the spigot of money, into campaigns, lobbyists doing favors, before, and after they "serve" (themselves, pretty much) we'll have a political system of legalized bribery.

I understand why Rangel, Stevens, Jefferson, and others have trouble finding the line of demarkation from legal, to illegal, when you consider all the ways money can be paid to them, perfectly legally. It must get confusing.

I'm just thinking of Bullworth...

[amborin]

2. K&R

[Jakes Progress]

4. Somebody read that to Obama. Quick.

Sometimes you get the feeling that he just doesn't care. Surely he is bright enough to know this.

[Son Of Wendigo]

147. He knows...

He just doesn't give a crap. He is so busy kissing smelly repug ass he has lost sight of the majority of Americans who supported him. He won by over 9 million votes. If he had given half the attention he gives to the repugs to his base and his supporters, he and the Democratic Party would be flying high now. For one thing, we would have meaningful health care reform months ago that would have gutted big insurance and big pharma instead of the craptaceous bills coming his way now which benefit no one, except of course big insurance and big pharma.

In 2012, if he is given permission by the repugs to run, he'll be lucky to survive the primaries. I wouldn't vote for him again. In 2010 he will likely lose both houses of congress. We'll see what he has to say about bipartisanship then. But he will still not give a crap. He'll have the $28 million he got from big insurance to guarantee that nothing threatens their billions to keep him warm. After all, he is just another politician selling out America for the rich guys' money.

[customerserviceguy]

176. The cynic in me

says that he's going to use a Repuke majority in both sides of Congress as a springboard for his own election. He's got to figure that Congress is always going to be a despised institution, and any dysfunction between January, 2011 and November, 2012 can be blamed on a Rethug Congress that isn't giving him anything to work with.

[saigon68]

270. smelly repug ass

Large ones like boil on the ass Limpballs

[cutlassmama]

273. agreed

[PoliticalOne65]

148. He cares.

If he doesn't pass anything, he an the left wing of the party lose their jobs in 2012. If he passes this bill, the right wing and centrist of the party lose in 2010, but he keeps his job in 2012. To him it doesn't matter anymore what is in the bill. He needs to pass it, or he will appear like he can't control the party. Political science 101, save your own job before everybody else's.

[pundaint]

153. Left wing? There is only Dennis and one or two there, everyone else is talk Left-vote Corporate

Except for the few willing to both talk and vote corporate.

[Mithreal]

162. updating whipcongress list, willing to cut these ones a lil slack

http://whipcongress.com/

[rhett o rick]

247. You apparently arent part of the left wing of the Party, so what do you support that

makes you different than the left?

[democrank]

5. K & R

[Joe the Liberal]

6. k&r n/t

[Mike 03]

7. Kick and Rec. NT

[AlinPA]

8. It is amazing how things changed so fast. The Democrats in Congress are weaklings. nt

[FarCenter]

9. Not weaklings -- just antiquated

[jgraz]

10. Not weaklings, not antiquated

Complicit.

[Individualist]

12. Correct!

[G_j]

14. complicity begets weakness

the game is unsustainable (antiquated)

[laughingliberal]

28. +1 nt

[MissDeeds]

32. That's it exactly

Complicit.

:grr:

[faithnotgreed]

43. absolutely

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Mithreal]

100. Calling your fellow DU'ers T-Baggers is pathetic, even moronic.

How old are you? Maybe I should be less harsh, you know, if you are a kid.

[uponit7771]

112. I called no one a T baggers, just made sure they are saying the same thing

[Mithreal]

116. .

I stand corrected? Maybe. That was a lil unclear.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

93. TERRIFIED OF THE REPUBLICAN SLIME MACHINES

[tavalon]

122. You beat me to it!

Yep, that would be the reason I've become disgusted with the Democrats - this much incompetence can't be blamed on incompetence. It's collusion, complicity.

[Enthusiast]

126. +1

[peace frog]

170. They are indeed complicit

as well as weaklings and antiquated.

[reggie the dog]

262. I will say it in a more working class way

they are mostly assholes.

[Lorien]

198. Complicit, corrupt, corporate concubines

The New Right Wing(to the Right of every administration before Reagan), while the repugs have turned themselves into a party of illiterate Fascist Authoritarians. At this point both the Left and the Right just need a fresh start with entirely new parties.

[RufusTFirefly]

205. +1

Amazes me how many people wring their hands over supposed Democratic "incompetence" or "weakness."

Note to handwringers:

THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. THEY ARE SERVING THEIR CORPORATE CONSTITUENTS.

[lark]

222. Not just complicit

but sold out 100% to the military/industrial/bigpharma lobby.

[tomp]

233. and "complicit" means they would rather lose elections than be progressive.

it's past time for progressives to leave the democratic party.

[dchill]

237. Succinct.

[Mike K]

220. Neither weaklings nor antiquated --

Corrupt!

[leftstreet]

11. This is exactly what they want. Cover. n/t

[Selatius]

17. Many of them are corrupt. That's why. They are getting lots of money from lobbyists. nt

[AlinPA]

19. I am sure a lot of money is passed to them in those brown envelopes (under the tables

of those expensive DC restaurants).

[pocoloco]

31. Fast?? WTF

How long is your "fast"





Inquiring minds would like to know.

[defendandprotect]

54. No . . they pre-BRIBED and pre-OWNED by corporations . .

[Meeker Morgan]

13. Kick

:dem:

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. This may be the case for Suzanne Kosmas.

I don't think any Democrat that this county can produce, is going to beat out Adams.

[Canuckistanian]

16. Hard to argue with the logic

Based on past performance of Congress and the Senate and the bill (as it is) before them, I don't see any "reform" in the letters "HCR".

It's more like "HCT" - Health Care Tinkering.

[pecwae]

18. Kick and rec.

[O is 44]

20. and the Republicans have done so much

in the way of helping us out of all these problems. (NOT) So why again are they an automatic shoo-in?

[MrSlayer]

26. People seem to like it if you stand for something.

The Republicans are a cancer for the country but they don't make any bones about it. They stand for things and support them, however bad those things may be. The Democrats pretend they are for the people but never back it up with action so they don't seem to stand for anything. They look like the spineless weasels they are.

[laughingliberal]

150. Nail, meet hammer.

That is it, exactly. People want to know their leaders stand for something. How many voters believe Obama did not campaign on a public option? Even if they are not in favor of a public option, does it look principled to deny he campaigned on it when most people heard it with their own ears? Anything would have been better than saying that. It does not evoke feelings of trust. And most Americans vote their feelings and their pocketbooks. Their pocketbooks are a lost cause, right now. So, inspiring some trust would not have been a bad idea.

[bikingaz]

292. Since FDR, the poor have voted for the dems & they're are still poor

So much for helping the poor.

[Lorien]

199. Exactly. And here's a little proof to back up your statement:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978087669

[Ken Burch]

47. In large measure, because OUR "leaders" won't go out on the stump, day affer day this fall

And CALL THEIR BLOATED POMPOUS ARROGANT ASSES OUT on it.

We could blow these guys out of the water on this it we tried, but our gutless wonders in the leadership just won't do it.

Just like, if Palin does get in in 2012, the same gutless wonders will insist that whatever pitiful remnant remains of our congressional representation "will owe it to the country" to pass everything she wants, like they did with Reagan in the Eighties and Dubbikins for the last eight cowardly years.

[flyarm]

64. it won't be her..she is a distraction..and deliberately so. eom

[Ken Burch]

66. Well, whoever it DOES end up being.

BTW...does anyone else expect we're going to start seeing references to the "New Romney" in the MSM sometime soon?

[muffin1]

183. I actually heard that reference yesterday on M$NBC. n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

75. Not the point of politics anymore

It's to stand around and let the other guy fuck up. Let's be honest, did many Dems really work for it in 2006, or did they just stand back and let the scandals do the work?

[inna]

21. K&R and thanks for the post and link.

My fear is an upcoming "entitlement reform" in the Republican-controlled congress - some kind of an atrocity that Reagan/Bushies/Gingrich Repubs didn't even dream about being able to get away with.

[Enthusiast]

127. Remember what Carlin said. nt

[G_j]

22. kick

[Little Star]

23. k&r

[dana_b]

24. thank you!

I've read many of your posts and you always say it like it is. Some say it's repetitive but it's no b.s. The Dems have the biggest majority they have had in years and they can't get it done now. So HOW in the hell would this p.o.s. get "fixed" later?!

[MrSlayer]

25. It seems to be what they want.

If they really wanted to retain power they would do what the people want but they, with few exceptions, honestly don't want to help the people at the expense of the corporate masters. They don't care about us. It's easier to feign outrage when the Republicans push the agenda they really support. The game is rigged and neither party is worth a bucket of piss.

[truedelphi]

132. Oh I don't know - they might actually be worth a bucket of piss.

But not a teaspoon of piss more than that!

[Prof Lester]

194. Wo.. What's Lemmy gonna do with that sheep?

Barbecue 'im?? :evilgrin:

[certainot]

27. the only reason dems would lose nov is same as 94- dems ignoring talk radio

while the right launders GOP and chamber of commerce and lobbyist talking points through 1000 coordinated UNCONTESTED radio stations with an often captive audience the size of the one that voted for obama.

year after year the left ignores that they have the biggest soapbox in history and they use it to dominate all framing and messaging.

dems can win big if they start picketing the main limbaugh stations that do the heavy lifting on the obstruction and which are now determining many state level primaries- who's too progressive in the dem primaries and whos not insane enough on the right. make the obstructionist dems choose between limbaugh and obama/america.

[depakid]

30. Obama's not ignoring it- he spoke to the Chamber of Commerce last week and took a swipe at teachers

but as far as media divestment, de-consolidation and re-regulation is concerned, the chances of that are about even more remote than effective Wall Street reform.

[bvar22]

36. Thats what I told "Centrist" Democratic President Bill Clinton...

...when he signed the "Telecommunications Act" de-regulating Media Ownership in 1996 to "encourage competition".
.
.
.
.
I was right then too.

"...the deregulations have led to a concentration of media ownership with fewer broadcasters competing in regional markets and the elimination of many local, independent and alternative media outlets."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

Whenever a "Centrist" Democrat tell you that they are going to "encourage competition", you had better hide your wallet.

[depakid]

42. Funny you'd mention that...

The pitch at the time was that it would lower cable rates and increase competition!

Those of us familiar with and who worked on the issue knew and warned about what would happen.

Cable rates in our neck of the woods shot up 30% with a year and local radio stations went generic and conglomerate, leaving up and coming artists out of the mix. Hell, we even got payola back! Yay for deregulation.

[scentopine]

48. lol! and they say HCR is all that and more! oh, when will we ever learn...

I am starting to think these centrists are not operating in our best interests... :-)

[laughingliberal]

151. Say it's not so!

The 'centrists' don't have our best interests at heart?!?

[leeroysphitz]

213. +1

[OnyxCollie]

49. The Telecommunication Deregulation Act of 1996 is why I no longer have a job in radio.

After Cheap Channel was able to go hog wild, buying up all the radio stations, bleeding them dry and tossing them aside like used Kleenex.

So much for diversity.

[Art_from_Ark]

138. I don't know if Cheap Channel bought my hometown radio station

but I recently found out that the local radio station I often listened to as a kid who had just discovered radio, has now gone the way of the dinosaur, just as the local newspaper has. "Tossing them away like used kleenex"... that pretty much sums it up.

[laughingliberal]

29. K & R nt

[cliffordu]

33. I do hope you come back and brag about it to all of us,

if it happens. Really.

[KonaKane]

34. Whereas the inverse is not true....

When given the choice between a Democrat and a Republican who acts like a Democrat, the voters will choose the Republican.

Sorry, as much as I hate this, it appears to be the political dynamic in America.

[jeff47]

55. No, the difference is there are no R's that act like D's.

Because the R's, even "RINOs", understand what a spine is and how to use it.

[laughingliberal]

96. +1 nt

[0rganism]

242. the inverse rarely occurs...

...because the Republican who acts like a Democrat is nixed during the primaries.

The time of the liberal Republican came and went, they've whittled the party down to their conservative core.

OTOH, "big tent" Democrats are always willing to move to the corporatist "center" while pandering to the gullible base. Democrats have been cowed into supposing we must triangulate to win, and Republicans have come to understand that compromise is not the way to generate momentum behind movement politics.

My prediction: Democrats will maintain slimmer control over both houses in 2010, by representing a tenuous coalition of liberals and those who remember just how lousy the bush years really were. Meantime, the Republicans will be building up their base and getting a huge warchest of corporate money ready to go. 2010 doesn't worry me so much, but 2012 is going to be scary as hell.

[stevedeshazer]

317. I haven't seen you here in something like a million years.

Dude!

:)

[0rganism]

318. i know, i haven't posted much lately

used to be a regular, now I just circulate on the margins of the edge of the perimeter.

But that sort of happened to you for a while, too, no?

Methinks it may be high time to call for another PDX-area DU meetup at some microbrewery TBD!

[lonestarnot]

35. No shit!

[Faryn Balyncd]

37. K&R

:hi:



:kick:

[Mithreal]

38. He wanted to be the last President to deal with HCR.

Maybe he can be the last President to deal with all issues as we watch the nation collapse around us. Neat.

[Art_from_Ark]

123. I think you should check the date of your Sinclair Lewis quote

1835 was a little before Lewis' time.
But 1935 would coincide with the date of his book, "It Can't Happen Here". :hi:

[Mithreal]

128. .

:hi:

Arggh.

[Oilwellian]

221. Fixed

Because it's such a great quote. :D

[Mithreal]

249. .

:thumbsup:

[Kall]

39. Yep

Marcia Angell on Bill Moyers' Show:



BILL MOYERS: So, has President Obama been fighting as hard as you wished?

MARCIA ANGELL: Fighting for the wrong things and too little, too late. He gave away the store at the very beginning by compromising. Not just compromising, but caving in to the commercial insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. And then he stood back for months while the thing just fell apart. Now he's fighting, but he's fighting for something that shouldn't pass. Won't pass and shouldn't pass.

What this bill does is not only permit the commercial insurance industry to remain in place, but it actually expands and cements their position as the lynchpin of health care reform. And these companies they profit by denying health care, not providing health care. And they will be able to charge whatever they like. So if they're regulated in some way and it cuts into their profits, all they have to do is just raise their premiums. And they'll do that.

Not only does it keep them in place, but it pours about 500 billion dollars of public money into these companies over 10 years. And it mandates that people buy these companies' products for whatever they charge. Now that's a recipe for the growth in health care costs, not only to continue, but to skyrocket, to grow even faster.

BILL MOYERS: But given that, why have the insurance companies, health insurance companies been fighting reform so hard?

MARCIA ANGELL: Oh, they haven't fought it very hard, Bill. They really haven't fought it very hard. What they're fighting for is the individual mandate. And if they get that mandate, if everyone does have to buy their commercial products, then they're going to be extremely happy with it.

[Mithreal]

72. They're big into recycling. That $500,000,000,000 is return on investment.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Strong, passionate leadership early on would have helped a lot. Instead we got ......

.........

[lark]

234. DINOBAMA

EITHER THAT OR SCARED TO DEATH OBAMA - NOT SURE WHICH BUT LEANING TOWARDS THE FORMER.

[SlingBlade]

41. There will be NO "Fixing it Later". K&R That. All these shills will

disappear into the woodwork when that time comes. Those progressives and liberals who
buy into this will be standing in front of the world with egg on their faces to the
utter delight of these so called Centrist, Blue Dogs and Lieberman Liberals.

I say shit can the fucker, Drive a stake through its Corporate heart and push for REAL
HCR in either the Medicare for all or the Federal Employees Health Insurance program


Democrats will go down in history as supporting this trash and Re-pukes
will use it as a hammer until Jesus come a knock'in.
Anything less than those two options is Bullshit and we all know it.

K&R Great Post :)

[scentopine]

44. dem leadership is doubling down on republicanism - its going to be ugly -nt

[glitch]

206. ++ NeoConservative = NeoLiberal = NeoFascist. Milton Friedman is dancing in HELL nt

[Octafish]

45. No problem. It's what RAHM wants.

And what Rahm wants. Rahm GETS.

[laughingliberal]

57. I think more Republicans in the House and Senate fits in perfectly with Rahm's plans.

He can quit finding Senators to scapegoat for the move to the right.

[Octafish]

67. If I wanted GOP government, I'd vote for GOP candidates.

Weird how that works.

[Mithreal]

74. .

[Mira]

46. Recommended -- these are the reasons

Dennis K will not vote for the bill.

[w4rma]

50. True, but the blood bath will mostly hit DLCers (especially if we progressives make sure to protect

our progressives in Congress!)

Don't waste your money on a DLCer who filibusters with Republicans. They are worthless to us.

[defendandprotect]

56. Agree 1000% . . . !!!

In fact, we should be targeting them --

[w4rma]

58. Agreed! (nt)

[bvar22]

62. Unfortunately, it will be the Progressives who also pay the price.

The average low information American voter isn't aware that there is a difference between a "Centrist" and a "Progressive" Democrat.

It WILL be "The Democrats forced this down our throats" while Premiums continue to rise and 40 MILLION Americans are FORCED to BUY Health Insurance that MOST will not be able to afford to use (High Deductibles/High CoPay). A few Americans will benefit, but MOST will be unhappy with this bill once they unwrap their NEW Democratic Health Care Package and find a BILL from the For Profit Health Insurance Industry who will be running the WHOLE show.

The most infuriating thing for me was watching the Obama/Democrats over the course of a year slowly give the Republicans almost everything they wanted without forcing the Republicans to take ANY Political Risk.


All the Republicans have to do now is sit back and say, "Yep. We opposed it.

I agree that the ONLY thing we can do is support the Progressives in Primaries.
I live in Arkansas (recent transplant) and was delighted to find that a Progressive (Bill Halter) is challenging Blanche Lincoln.
Imagine my despair after hearing Obama strongly endorsed Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln.

It is very difficult to challenge "Centrist" incumbents in Primaries when the entire might of the "Centrist" Democratic Party Leadership (including Primary funding from the DSCC/DCCC) is ready to steamroll Progressive challengers.

[w4rma]

65. Progressives have the most popular position. The most outspoken progressive in the House is winning

the **Republican** primary as well as the Democratic primary. All progressives have to do is be openly progressive and we'll keep our progressives in Congress.

[Mithreal]

103. +1 If they will ignore their Dem Leadership and their dollars.

[lark]

235. Answer - do not give the DLC the time of day

and especially do not give them any funding. I used to contribute to all the DSCC, DLC, etc., but no more. I have not nor will I contribute one dime or make one phone call or do anything to support any of these groups. I will contribute individually to Halter, Grayson and their ilk, but the party will get squat because that's what they have been doing over any so called values they allegedly posses.

[Enthusiast]

129. Correct. nt

[Dinger]

51. Yup (nt)

[defendandprotect]

52. MEDICARE FOR ALL -- no more expensive than what we're paying now . . .

per Sen. Bernie Sanders --

And, I'm quite sure that Obama knows that, as well!

[defendandprotect]

53. How can we call them "Democrats" when they're supporting Bush wars and

corporate agenda?

It's DLC that needs to be pushed out of this party --

and Rahm Emmanuel pushed out of the White House --

Obama has to make up his mind -- otherwise he can go with them --

[SanchoPanza]

59. Sorry to interrupt this little echo chamber...

But the differences between now and 1994 in terms of the political climate across the country, as well as the limited ratio of retiring Democrats vis-a-vis Republacans, makes the 41 seat change needed to claim majority status extremely difficult to accomplish. Back in 1994, Republicans did reasonably well in approval ratings in all regions of the country. Today, their numbers (dismal as they are) are being propped up by Southern support. They're doing incredibly poorly in comparison to Democrats in the Midwest and West, and absolutely terrible in the NE (where GOP approval is still below 10%). The number of Democratic and Republican retirements is very close now, compared to 1994 when many more Democrats were retiring and the GOP saw this as an opportunity to contest elections that would have otherwise gravitated toward the incumbent.

Second, there's really no need to fix the HCR bill "later," whatever that's supposed to mean. The biggest structural deficiency in U.S. health care not directly addressed in the bill, that insurance is tied to employment, is gradually remedied through the exchange model as more and more people get insurance through that system as current employees change jobs or retire and new employees enter the workforce. As for the public option, it isn't really necessary either in terms of cost containment, which is provided by expanded regulations. In fact, without those regulations, a public insurance option would be just as vulnerable to risk selection as any other non-profit. And if Republicans want to remove those regulations after this supposed BLOOD BATH, they'd just as easily be able to dismantle a public option too. So that argument is a red herring.

As for mandatory profits for Health Insurers, you and everyone else who makes this insipid argument can be treated seriously once you understand what things like community rating and medical loss ratios are. Otherwise you just look uninformed and reactionary.

[ProSense]

61. Excellent post. n/t

[hulka38]

70. Making private health care mandatory for Americans will cause health insurers to be awash in

windfall profits. Is this not true? How does knowing terms like community rating and medical loss ratios affect that reality?

What happened in Massachusetts must have come as a particular shock to you. Illinois, the state I live in, is so fed up with its pols that it's nearly impossible to predict what will happen come November. Many states are reeling financially. No region has been spared from economic pain. This weak HCR bill will not help.

Can you recommend any books on the power of positive thinking?

[SanchoPanza]

309. No it isn't.

Regulations like community rating fundamentally alter health insurance risk pools. Instead of allowing companies to price "risky" people out of the market (or on to the rolls of non-profits and public programs), everybody more or less covers the cost of everyone else. An insurance company can't say to someone who's a cancer survivor, as an example, "Hey, you had a condition that has major costs attached to it, and may have it again, so we won't cover you or we're gonna jack your premiums and deductible up through the stratosphere." The ability to take medical history into account under a community rating system is severely limited, depending upon how much is allowed. Fortunately, every proposal (House, Senate, President's final package) allows for absolutely no difference in rating based on explicit health risks other than smoking.

In other words, a healthy person gets the same price as a sick person. What this means is that for-profit insurers can't split up the risk pool and take all the low-risk people for themselves. This, in turn, allows non-profits to actually survive and thrive, because they're typically the target of these kinds of practices. For-profits will simply refuse to allow competitors with low administrative overhead to exist unless there's a regulatory framework that protects those non-profits.

As a recent example, Vermont moved to enact community rating in the 90s and all the for-profit insurers had conniption fits, screaming that they'd leave the state in protest. So the Vermont legislature took their point of view into consideration and promptly told those insurers not to let the door hit them in the ass on the way out. And most of them did leave or at least dramatically scale back their operations in the state. As a result, non-profits in Vermont, which had been screwed over for years by those for-profit insurers, became financially solvent again after being a dumping ground for high risk enrollees. In fact more people are insured by non-profits in Vermont than in nearly any other state, excluding ones with high Medical Loss Ratios like Minnesota that have essentially transformed all insurance providers into non-profits by mandating that they spend a high percentage of their revenue on care.

That's what high MLRs essentially do: they limit the extent to which insurers can profit off their revenue. Simply put, if your health costs for a given billing period match or exceed what you paid in premiums, your insurance company is required to pay your provider a percentage of what you paid in premiums. The legislation sets this percentage at 85%. If they pay less, they have to refund you the difference. The legislation also prohibits them from making up this lost revenue in terms of increased out-of-pocket requirements.

MA didn't really come as much of a shock. I was actually somewhat surprised that Coakley didn't lose by bigger margins seeing that she essentially stopped campaigning for almost an entire month, believing that the winner of the Democratic Primary was automatically going to be the next Junior Senator. Her campaign didn't even do internal tracking polls, which is sheer incompetence. The DSCC shares some of the blame for not keeping a closer eye on things, especially before an important vote.

Further, Coakley, while ostensibly campaigning from the position of the state-wide office of AG, campaigned in the primary as a western MA Democrat. That's where her operation was based. No other western Democrat ran in the primary, but three Boston-based Democrats did, who split a big chunk of the eastern vote among themselves. So a lot of Boston Brahmins got pissed that one of their own wasn't going to replace Kennedy (Boston, like NY and Chicago, are still cities dominated by political machines). Mayor Menino of Boston (probably the most popular politician in the state) didn't even give her a public endorsement until about mid-January, when it was really too late. The fire lit under their ass by the national party came too late, and the GOTV effot simply wasn't enough to consolidate the areas Coakley was having trouble in. In other words, Brown won because Coakley and the Democrats took the election for granted and he exploited the opening they created.

Lastly, the HCR bill will actually help state budgets, since it puts a greater burden of Medicaid spending onto the Federal government. Right now a lot of states are being eaten alive by their mandatory Medicaid contributions.

[flyarm]

71. correct me if I am wrong but it was in the NE where NJ lost a dem governor to a repub..and then

there was Mass..and though not in the NE..but in the east..there was VA..so please don't think for a minute the NE is safe..it is not.

[defendandprotect]

76. Given the mood of the public -- the desire for liberal/progressive movement ... especially re

health care . . . I sadly agree!!

[uponit7771]

83. What happened in the NE is an anamoly, a 2 REALLY REALLY bad candidates

[Mithreal]

87. Yes, polls be damned.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flyarm]

224. Oh Please..NJ was not an anomaly! save it! eom

[SanchoPanza]

296. Special elections are the height of local politics

Christie campaigned almost exclusively on reducing property taxes and painting Corzine as someone who raised taxes even after promising tax relief. Operation Big Rig (which caused Corzine's approval ratings to plummet) was also a big factor in Christie's win, as he used it as an example of the Democratic administration being fundamentally corrupt and unable to govern the state in an ethical manner.

In Massachusetts, Coakley didn't even bother to campaign after she won the nomination as she (and probably every Democrat who ran in the race) assumed that the primary was really the only contest. Brown used that time to campaign in areas Coakley was vulnerable in, increasing his poll numbers and using those numbers to convince large donors to support him. By the time the Coakley campaign (or the DSCC, which should have been on the ball) realized this, it was essentially too late. Coakley didn't start effectively campaigning until the first week of January, and by that time Brown had closed the gap. If you look at the turnout across Massachussets, you'll see that Coakley won in the western part of the state that she carried during the primary, but did terrible in the eastern half. A lot of this can be blamed on the Boston party establishment. You simply can't take anything for granted.

The same thing fundamentally happened in Virginia. Like the east-west split in the Massachusetts Democratic party, the Virginia party has a similar split between northeast and southwest, with the northeast part of the state being the key stronghold that every Democrat needs to perform well in to win. Deeds made his career in the 18th Virginia House district, along the border with NC, and in the western part of the state in the Virginia State Senate. He simply didn't have the popularity or recognition in the northeast that Kaine or Warner has. As with Coakley's turnout in the Boston metro area, Deeds simply didn't do well enough in the Richmond metro area to beat McDonnell's heavy support in the south.

Local factors like the above are still present in regular elections, but there also tend to be much bigger issues at stake that dulls party infighting.

[KingFlorez]

73. And this time around, there wasn't any gun legislation

That was a big deal breaker in 1994. Plus, there was no Tea Party threatening to split the Republican vote.

[Mithreal]

78. If you don't understand the arguments, don't pretend to be an authority.

[uponit7771]

82. FUCK FACTS !!!! /sarcasm

[Mithreal]

86. Them thar sure are perty facts.

Might flesh that out, or not.

If you got something good, bring it.

[uponit7771]

92. The bill triples CHC's,

[Mithreal]

97. The "bill" has some good things, no shit? Of course it does.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

Do you not understand the nuance of those who critique health insurance reform or has your brain-freezed from all the "Better Than Nothing" chants. No offense.

[uponit7771]

102. "some"...do you need the list again or can you outline 5 of those "good" things?

[Mithreal]

104. I believe the negatives outweigh the good with a couple exceptions.

I am not going to make your argument.

[uponit7771]

106. FYI: Kucinich couldn't name 5 things either, the list has been out long enough for those who WANT to

...know to know.

[Mithreal]

114. .

Which thread am I supposed to respond to now that you have become redundant? Tell me, please.

You're not just looking weak to me, but to anyone who might actually care what your point is, believe it or not, that includes me but not for much longer.

Piss or get off the pot.

[pnorman]

201. Thanks for that image!

I KNEW I'd find a pony, if I just dig deep enough into this thread!

[Mithreal]

243. Have at it, challenge the discussion. May the more persuasive angle prevail.

[pnorman]

303. I already did with this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7871834&mesg_id=7876633

But so far, nobody has responded to it. (Sigh!)

[Mithreal]

307. Unsure if I understand that

[bvar22]

209. We don't need to pass the Senate Bill...

..to expand Community Health Care Centers.
They are already perfectly legal.
Find the nearest one here:
http://www.findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/

It was an inspired if Machiavellian piece of Corporate Marketing to put something we already have in this Bill to make it appear more palatable.

BTW: THIS (CHC) was the very FIRST Republican Argument AGAINST the need for Health Care Reform early last year. The REPUBLICANS argued that "All we need to do is expand the CHCs."

[truedelphi]

133. Uh as far as your last sentence, Marcie Angell understands

Community rating and she understands medical loss ratio. And she still thinks that this HC "R" Bill is not something worth voting for.

But then she is only a senior lecturer at the Harvard School of Medicine.

[tomp]

236. an excellent point, which sanchopanza has yet to address. nt

[SanchoPanza]

298. PNHP has it's own agenda.

They want the "easiest" way to get to universal coverage in terms of the economics of the issue. Perfectly understandable. There's a reasonable argument to be made that health insurance is not a suitable sector for for-profits to operate in. It simply does not lend itself to fair competition and all the product and pricing innovations (making something better and cheaper) that fair competition generates in other markets.

But if PNHP is making the argument that for-profit insurance companies will benefit from the bill, in any sense other than they will still be allowed to exist, than they're pretty much engaging in histrionic propaganda. For-profits that dominate the individual policy market, like Anthem, that engage in the most horrendous practices will actually be hurt the most by this set of reforms.

And I could name a dozen experts in healthcare economics that say the bill is infinitely better than the status quo. But I generally refrain from appeals to authority.

[truedelphi]

300. If I wasn't in the forty nine to sixty two year old age frame that is seriously

Screwed up now by the Big Insurers and who will continue to have our lives screwed up by this HC "R" bill should it pass, I might take your word for it.

But this bill doesn't even have the Anti Trust provision left in it.

So I think I will pass when it comes to this "reform" effort.

[SanchoPanza]

306. I'm in favor of the removal of the anti-trust exemption as well.

For one, there are maybe one or two scenarios where insurance companies actually need an anti-trust exemption. They claim that there are several, but even if that was the case they could all be satisfied by particular exemptions rather than one big blanket one. In legal parlance, this is called "Safe Harbors". Regulatory exemptions only exist for specific and necessary activities, with "necessary" being defined by the statute. Even the Reagan DoJ argued for this approach.

The House overwhelmingly voted in favor of a separate anti-trust repeal (the final tally was 406-19, and http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=166230&type=lifehealth">AHIP was not pleased). I'd say that consensus exists in the Senate to repeal the exemptions as well, but since its become a fundamentally anti-democratic institution, with one senator being able to hold up legislation for months, we'll just have to wait and see.

[laughingliberal]

152. What I understand it the community ratings system in the Senate bill

is a disaster. And I understand that the industry fought to keep the MLR at or below 85% (which is what they got) as that is the level at which they can easily manipulate the numbers.

[truedelphi]

285. Thank you - that is a very important point, and one that

Supporters of this fiasco are very willing to sweep under the rug.

[SanchoPanza]

301. It's not pure community rating.

But it as at least as good as any form of community rating that has been enacted in most states (Vermont and New York are the only two with pure community rating), which in turn have yielded a greater distribution of costs across the pool. Especially compared to states where the traditional underwriting approach is still the norm. So by no means is it a disaster, especially when we have states (which, oddly enough have high numbers of people who have been priced out the market) that have unlimited age, gender, and health status rating.

The highest medical loss ratio of any state for the small or individual group market is 82% in Minnesota. And you'll have to be specific how insurers can manipulate the numbers, since in the exchange model being proposed they can't do it through deductible or co-pay increases. Any increase in the out of pocket costs of a plan have to remain within its actuarial limit, and there are still caps in place that vary depending upon the enrollee's annual income.

[JoePhilly]

171. Great post ... we have too many chicken littles running around now ...

And the best way to ensure a blood bath like 1994, is to pass nothing.

By passing nothing, the Dems create an environment in which the GOP can make up any lie they want about legislation that didn't pass and pin that lie on the dems ... and because nothing passed, the lies will STICK.

[Mithreal]

250. Yes, "pass anything" is such a winner. Wtf are you talking about?

"in which the GOP can make up any lie"

Do you even listen to yourself. They are lying their asses off right now and because Dem Leadership is compromised, the lies are sticking.

[JoePhilly]

294. Where did I say "pass anything" ??

Those are YOUR words, not mine.

The current bill is not perfect, but it is much better that doing nothing ... which is what happens if we follow YOUR stance.

Also ... the reason the GOP can make up any like now is because we have a House bill, a Senate bill, and a proposal from the President.

The GOP is using the variations between those as cover for their lies.

But look ... I hear you ... we learned nothing from 1994 ... the Dems should fight hard, get nothing, get blaming for trying to pass evil reforms (GOP lies), and then be kicked from office.

And then ... we should wait 10-15 more years to make any progress ... at which point, we on the left will demand the perfect solution, be unable to get the votes for "perfect", and FAIL again.

Brilliant plan.

[Mithreal]

310. JP, it is hardly a leap to infer what I did. No trouble mischaracterizing my POV though.

Interesting that. Please don't tell me what my stance is, you can hardly defend your own.

What is the opposite of "passing nothing?" Passing something? How big a leap is something from anything? I concede that there is a significant(?) difference.

I agree with everything you say up until, "much better."

You learned the wrong lessons. You thought yourself into a corner and you never really needed to go there. When failure and weakness were the only two choices, it's hardly surprising one of those will prevail.

We know ourselves by what we are willing to fight for and now is not a time to settle for less than is necessary. The current For Profit system is unsustainable and if a Dem President wants to cement that relationship, sorry, not alright with me. We just couldn't govern with our majorities, could we, without reaching across the aisle. President Obama gave up the Democrats right to govern, hardly a surprise, he is truly transformative. SP and PO were never on the table, but dollars of the big donors always were. Don't tell me to settle, ever. Why anyone would want to sell their fellow DU'ers on weakness and compromise with a party of obstructionists is beyond me. The Republican Party needs to be restored to some sanity, I am tired of all the weasels hollowing out our own.

Stop fearing what Republicans will say. Stop fearing failure. Fight for what you know is right. Everyone who wants to compromise with Republicans should join them.



I wouldn't be a damned bit surprised if recent massive increases by the Big Insurers were actually part of Rahm's strategy to shove this PoS down our throats. Not saying it was, but damn if I don't have my suspicion.

[kenfrequed]

191. I think you are misreading that data

The further we get from Bush, and the more intense the great right wing wurlitzer gets, the more people will turn back to it for vauge robotically repeated phrases from the dungeons of Lutz. And bear in mind that even though the Democrats have majorities in the house and senate and will probably maintain them those majorities will be all the narrower and arguments will be made towards moving the Democratic party farther to the right.

Basically Progressives lose and the DLC corporate sorts will come out ahead with their pet representatives still bottling up the process with all the more power as the whole of the losses they will claim, justifies the "third way."

Ast to the insurance thing I couldn't possibly disagree with you more.

[SanchoPanza]

302. All very irrelevant.

The DLC will argue that the party should move to the right whether it wins, loses, or maintains its present majority. It's committed to an electoral ideology and no amount of contravening evidence will convince it otherwise. They have an underlying set of assumptions about how American politics works (everything is national, etc) that are fundamentally bogus, which shouldn't come as a surprise seeing the DLC strategists like Bob Shrum have been losing elections for more than a decade. But you can have some assurance in the fact that the DLCs influence within the party has declined rapidly since about 2005.

Of course centrist and conservative Democrats will try to represent their particular constituencies. That's what politics is. The problem is that, for a variety of reasons (many of which pertain to the Progressive caucus as well, but no one really wants to hear that), they aren't negotiating within the party in good faith.

I'll give you an example related to HCR. Progressives want Single Payer. The easiest way to get Single Payer from an institutional standpoint is to go through all the Medicare statutes and remove the age requirement. Problem is that a lot of these centrist and conservative Democrats come from districts and states that are getting screwed over by the current Medicare reimbursement rates, as those rates are tied to a geographic practice cost index that give more money to more urbanized areas. In other words, their doctors and hospitals are being paid less through Medicare than in districts and states represented by Progressives, and they're not particularly amiable to the idea of making that issue worse. Progressives, on the other hand, want to reduce costs for everyone, and the best way to do that is through the reimbursement rate framework.

Is this debated anywhere in pubic? Of course it isn't. Kent Conrad and John Rockefeller may be discussing it behind closed doors but, publicly, Progressives shout that opponents to framework (which also applies to a public option, as that would be tied to Medicare rates) are only objecting because they are in bed with insurance companies. Opponents shout that Progressives are a bunch of hippies that hate doctors. Nothing gets accomplished because neither side is exposed to the reasonable criticism of their own ideas.

As for the insurance reforms, disagree all you want. If you want to have a discussion about that disagreement, you'll have to say why.

[grahamhgreen]

232. We refuse to engage in your corrupt framing of the argument - this is NOT about MLR or CR's. It's

about for-profit vs non-profit insurance.

That it is immoral, unethical, and extremely expensive to have for-profit insurance as the backbone of America's health plan is the correct framing.

Again, your side refuses to engage in this framing because you can not win that argument. So you invent terminology, and mislead the public into an argument in which you can win, unfortunately, that's not what the debate is about - you may as well be debating what the best color of the milking machine for the American public should be - Red or Blue.

[Mithreal]

251. +1 well said

[SanchoPanza]

304. I refuse to engage in your ill-informed framing of the argument! Har!

You are right, however, that this is about for-profit vs. non-profit insurance.

For-profits do worse with the kinds of rules I mentioned and non-profits do much better. Vermont implemented community rating and guaranteed issue (which are real words, I assure you) back in the 90s and Vermont BCBS, which was and still is a non-profit, went from teetering on the bring of insolvency to being financially stable. If it makes any difference to you, Howard Dean was the principle agent in pushing those reforms through.

In fact, creating a more sustainable non-profit sector is one of the chief goals of the bill. Under the current framework in most states, for-profit insurers collaborate to limit their liabilities by denying coverage outright to people who, under conventional underwriting rules, are more risky to insure. The poor, the chronically ill, etc. If they do expose themselves to those risks, they do so only with high deductible plans so that the actuarial model is maintained. So all those people either remain uninsured or get shoveled into non-profit programs, whether they are run by the government (like TennCare in Tennessee) or by private non-profits (like all the BCBSs not run by Wellpoint/Anthem or Empire BCBS in NY, which is a for-profit in its own right).

[grahamhgreen]

314. Then we agree we need a non-profit public plan included before we pass this bill, like Medicare!

[SanchoPanza]

320. Not really.

Every exchange must have at least one multi-state non-profit plan, and the Office of Personal Management is charged with contracting those plans. Either with existing insurers or new entities that meet state license and qualification requirements. Additionally, all co-ops created through the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan Program are also required to be non-profits and cannot be administered by any existing insurance company. So even in states where they're aren't any viable non-profits already, the legislation provides the logistical and financial resources to create them.

I suppose the contention, when you get down to it, is whether the managers of those plans should be on the Federal Payscale, like the people who work at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Personally, I don't care. What matters to me is whether or not those managers have to generate a profit for shareholders, and 501(c)(4) organizations don't have to do this because they don't have shareholders.

[grahamhgreen]

321. The real contention is 45,000 people are killed by big insurance every year and the S bill floods

them with cash that they will use to blow up all of these tiny little alternatives that, as yet, don't even exist.

I'll tell you what, I could get on board with your plan if you get rid of the mandate.

can you agree with that?

[SanchoPanza]

322. Again, no.

I've yet to see a credible argument that the legislation will "flood big insurers with cash". People in large group pools will not be subsidized, and thats where most big insurance companies operate. The insurance companies that will be impacted the most by this will be the ones who operate primarily in the individual policy market, like WellPoint/Anthem, and it will be to the detriment of their bottom line. They're entire business practice revolves around insuring only the healthy and not insuring or dropping the sick, which is something that simply can't be done with guaranteed issue/renewal and community rating. Thus they would no longer have the ability to "blow up" non-profit alternatives (they typically just absorb them and dump their liabilities afterward), tiny or not.

As for the mandate, as I alluded to before, the only people who have a legitimate gripe with the mandate are those who think that the managers of insurance plans, even if they aren't responsible for generating a profit for shareholders, should be on the Federal payscale (or maybe a state counterpart). I, quite frankly, don't care. Sec. 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code created a framework for handling executive compensation for non-profit administrators, and the IRS has the authority to impose additional taxes or penalties on non-profits for violating those laws. This was a bigger problem prior to 2002, before the IRS had this authority, since they could only revoke their tax exempt status or do nothing, and more often than not the IRS did nothing.

What the mandate does is help alleviate the "death spiral" we see in risk pools when people who can afford insurance but don't bother getting it because they don't think they'll need it. The cost of everyone else goes up when that person leaves the pool, so more people either leave or are priced out of it, which increases the total cost even more. And so the process repeats itself until premiums cost 3x or 4x what they should be if all those healthy people were still in it. This, by the way, is why Single-Payer is so cost effective. You're in the pool by virtue of paying taxes (in other words, a mandate) to support the program.

This mandate exists to provide a counter-incentive for healthy people to get at least catastrophic coverage, because that coverage will likely be cheaper than the 2% they'd have to pay for not having any insurance whatsoever. And remember that we're talking about a relatively very small percentage of the populations. Most people who don't have insurance would like to have it but simply can't afford it.

[lark]

239. You seem to think the exchanges are good valid entities???

The model they will be based on is used in Nb where the average premium is around $900/mo. for a family of 4. How is this a good thing and what competition will they provide? I'm sorry I don't have a link for the price of exchanges in NB, but know I read that somewhere. Exchanges are a trojan horse pushed by Repugs and DINOs to break the system and get the good things in the bill thrown out with the bad.

[walldude]

241. Oooh well why don't you educate us on "Community Ratings" and "Medical Loss Ratios"

LMFAO.. yeah educate me on the fucking terms insurance companies use instead of admitting the truth. Which would be "go ahead and fucking die because we don't want to pay for your treatment as it would cut into our profits". because that's what those terms mean in the real world. So please educate me because obviously you are much smarter than I. :rofl:

Tell me are you a republican or an insurance company exec? :rofl:

[SanchoPanza]

305. Sure thing.

There are two fundamental approaches to how health insurance risks are rated.

Traditional underwriting imposes higher costs directly on those with high health risks. If you're older or chronically ill, for example, you pay more than someone who is younger and with lower health risks. It's the "pay your own way" approach, where those who can't pay are priced out of the market. Thing automobile insurance (for a number of issues this doesn't fit in a practical sense, but as a theoretical analogy it works): in theory, if you are a crappy driver and wreck your car repeatedly, your insurance company raises your rates. Those rates may become prohibitively expensive for you and you may no longer be able to afford the insurance and be barred from driving.

Community rating, essentially, distributes the costs evenly between the young/healthy and old/sick. It puts everyone in the same pool and prohibits insurance companies from making policies more expensive for the old/sick because the costs are being subsidized by the young/healthy. The Senate and House bills allow for some disparity in rating based on age, but this disparity is certainly better than the unlimited age rating that exists in states that use traditional underwriting. Both bills make rating based on health status illegal, and that's generally the factor most associated with increased costs.

Medical Loss Ratios are regulations concerning how much money an insurance company has to pay out in benefits. The Senate Bill and Obama proposal have a minimum 85% MLR. If, at the end of a billing period, a company pays out less than this, they have to refund the difference to the enrollee. So if you pay, just as an example, two thousand dollars in premiums to an insurance company and they only used six hundred dollars of that money to pay out benefits that matched or exceeded those premiums, then they would have to refund you eleven hundred dollars. It's a very basic cost control on how much money an insurance company is allowed to keep in terms of "administrative costs" (which, on average, is between 25 and 30%).

There are some states that have MLRs already, and have different ones for each insurance pool (individual, small group, large group), but the highest of these is 82% in Minnesota's small group market. So the legislation would make these ratios nation-wide.

As for who I am, I'm a secret agent of Rahm Emanuel that get's periodically dispatched to Congressional shower rooms and internet discussion boards to fool gullible liberals into supporting a menacing, corporate agenda. Now excuse me as I bathe in the blood of puppies.

[colsohlibgal]

60. Yep

Obama made an enormous mistake hooking his wagon to the Rahm wing (i.e. DINO wing) instead of the Dean wing.

All along everyone assumed Obama was an astute political pro but he's been world record tone deaf, shown just plain lousy political calculus after taking office. He zigged when he should have zagged - veered right when he should have veered left. But then he's never been much of a real lefty because had he been the corporate big media would have excluded him right out of the race.

Obama has already squandered most of the political capital he had coming in and if he wants to get any run out of it at all the hour is now - but again I must say I won't hold my breath.

[flyarm]

63. Oh Thank you for posting this bvar22, I have no doubt it will be a blood bath..the big question is

is this exactly what is wanted by the top powers in this nation?????? hmmm

[Mithreal]

79. From The Pen: The Democratic Party's Plan To THROW The Next Couple Elections

And now we will explain why this action page is so critical. To understand the current political dynamic, first you must understand that the Democrats are PLANNING on losing the next couple election cycles. UNTIL you understand that, the events to unfold in the next couple years (unless you act to derail them) will make no sense to you.

You don't have to believe us. Just listen to the way the Democrats themselves are talking. Nancy Pelosi concedes that they will likely suffer substantial losses in the House come November, though she still will not admit that they will lose their majority in the next round. Barack Obama says doesn't "know" how his ever more determined push of the universally despised Senate health care scam will play politically. He doesn't know??? Was the loss of the eternally Democratic senate seat in Massachusetts not enough of a wake up call?

Their original plan, which we told you about no later than last September (and we have a published article at the time to prove it), was to lull the liberal/progressive base into thinking a "public option" was some kind of mumbling substitute for a single payer reform system (that would have represented REAL change), with the INTENTION of throwing even that option over the side before final passage. We saw it all coming, and we tried to warn you how important it was to keep speaking out to demand better.

http://www.democrats.com/democratic-partys-plan-throw-next-couple-elections

[laughingliberal]

155. That's what I've been thinking since about August.

People are assuming Obama is just stupid and not realizing what the alienation of the base is doing. I think he knows exactly what he's doing and wants more Republicans in to enact a more friendly corporate agenda (as if it could get any more corporate friendly).

[Mithreal]

163. The majorities were too much pressure.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

212. Yes, I have often thought that the Dems deliberately threw the elections of '84 and '88

Both times, they chose non-charismatic candidates who made huge missteps that were repeated and ridiculed endlessly in the press.

Back in the early days of DU, the DLC advocates continually pointed to Mondale and Dukakis as the reason why "far left" candidates can't get elected in the U.S.

Never mind that Mondale and Dukakis were barely over the left side of the center line. Never mind that even a proudly "far left" person like myeslf could barely bring myself to mark the ballot for them.

But you know, it's unseemly to have more than 12 yaers of 1-party rule, so for 1992, they tapped Mr. Personality (and staunch DLCer) Bill Clinton. In 2004, they found another Mr. Personality (and even more right-leaning than Clinton).

I have come to believe that while those of us at the middle and bottom of the party hierarchy (and even some elected officials) are sincere in our beliefs, it's all theater at the top.

[ChiciB1]

231. Okay... I'm Almost A Complete Cynic & Believe Certain Realities, But What I Want

to know is this... what can we do?? What do we do?? Just NOT vote, just chuck it all! If THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO, then WHY are we even discussing this??

I DO NOT believe HCR will be re-visited in any way. NAFTA NEVER WAS! I'm so fed up, but complaining isn't getting me ANYWHERE!

So WE have NO voice, they system IS RIGGED against us, and there is a complicit duplicity in both parties! Stick a fork in me, am I really done? I really feel like it! Too much public APATHY, so where does it take ANY ONE OF US???

[Lydia Leftcoast]

240. My tactic will be to support challengers in the primaries

After that, if the party presents you with a Blue Dog who was a Republican till last week in the general election, you have a couple of choices, of which staying home is the absolute worst, because pols ALWAYS ignore the stay-at-homes. Even if only 10% of eligible voters vote, the pol who got 6% of the eligible voters instead of 4% will claim a landslide and a mandate. (Reagan claimed a landslide after winning only 27% of eligible voters.)

1. You can hold your nose and vote for the Blue Dog. This is what mainstream and DLC Dems will tell you to do.

2. You can write in the name of your preferred primary candidate and get like-minded friends to do likewise.

3. You can vote third party, especially if your Blue Dog is barely distinguishable from a Republican and almost always vote with them anyway. (e.g. Colin Peterson of western Minnesota).

Above all, if you have friends who say that they won't vote, be sure to explain the bit about pols claiming landslides with decidedly underwhelming vote totals. (Tell your Republican friends to vote Libertarian :evilgrin: )

If you and your left-leaning friends do not vote at all, the DLC will jump up and down and claim that it was because their Blue Dog was "too liberal."

True story. There was a state legislative district in suburban Portland where the Dems didn't even bother to run a candidate, and one year, the Repubicanites nominated a fundamentalist loon. I knew people who lived in that area, and they were dismayed, to say the least. Well, in 1998, a Socialist (a real one) ran against the fundie loon. He got 20% of the vote. (My dismayed friends all voted for him, even though they knew he wouldn't win.)

That made the Dems sit up and take notice. They ran a candidate in 2000. He narrowly lost. They ran the same guy again, and this time he won. A seat that was supposed to be so safe for the R's that the D's didn't even run anyone was flipped in two election cycles.

Moral of the story: Protest votes can have an impact, especially if your choice is no choice.

(My Congresscritter, Keith Ellison, is one of the good guys, so I'll vote for him, but I'm going to be supporting whoever challenges Amy Klobuchar in 2012.)

[ChiciB1]

269. In My VERY RED County With A VERY Blue Dog Democratic Party It Has

been difficult dealing with what is thrown at me. Vern Buchanan, who IS ACTUALLY a thief and has numerous lawsuits against him got re-elected by a 69% vote margin against Christine Jennings.

Jennings a former Repuke was "chosen" in 2006 by RAHM and given money to run as a Democrat and came within 269 votes of winning. Too, too many people KNEW something funny went on but it could NEVER be proven! So next time out, same match up and Vernie beats her BADLY, mainly because RAHM et al decided she would no longer get help from them! This county ALMOST went Blue for Obama, he lost by 112 votes which was quite phenomenal for this county! Still, NOT ONE DEMOCRAT got elected (or maybe one, as a dog catcher or something) but this is HOW this county has been SINCE FOREVER!!

I REALLY do try over and over and over to get people organized but I have to fight not only Repukes here, but Democrats also and it's enough to drive me crazy!

Right now, just talking to my "friendly" Democrats, those who are more liberal or progressive, they're so fed up they think I'm just plain DUMB for even staying in the loop! I have NEVER, EVER seen anything like this!!!

They have us over a barrel no matter which way we go, and I can't tell you how MAD I am because I feel I've been duped! I worked so hard to help get people elected, even gave money to others out of state, when I don't have much to give, and NOW the dagger in my back sinks deeper each day!

Depressing?? I know, need to buck up and deal with it... still it's a difficult thing to do!!

[Mithreal]

246. Encourage people to get involved locally and in state politics.

Sometimes the national Dem reps started out small.

Find a group of like minded people willing to console, encourage and motivate one another.

Come up with a plan, or to do something, anything, even silly, that shares your pov with other.

Canvas, phone bank and just show up.

Acknowledge that this is a longterm struggle and your impact may bear fruit or be a seed to others. Accept that you may not see your final goal, but you are powerful.

Take back your local party, if there isn't one, start one. Use a public place like a library or other public place. Post flyers asking others to show up. Expect low turnout at first but persevere.

Engage your local reps and visit their offices. Call them, let them know how they can represent you.

Consider doing peaceful things that you never saw yourself doing. Risk looking like the fool. Be the leader you always wanted to see. Be a role model for at least one other person, maybe even for yourself. Courage and confidence will come with experience.

Forgive yourself and others. Try to see the good in others. If you come across a decent average American Republican try to find some common ground and if they are one of the sane ones, encourage them to take back their party.

Use these forums to find comfort, resolve, flesh out ideas, challenge misconceptions and common wisdom, and whatever else works for you.

Now this isn't something I have done, but have an urge to do. Go to Republican meetings or forums and stir shit up by stealth if necessary and by interjecting ideas that they have never heard but often hunger.

Don't be the biggest barrier to your own potential. I know that is a shitty thing to say, but is reality for many of us. Find the tools that empower you.

Be active, not passive. Never give up. If you do, then why shouldn't your reps. If we do all this, the nation will not only survive but flourish and future generations will be grateful even if like most of us they will never know your name.

Hit me back with what you think.

[ChiciB1]

272. Just Made A Few Comments Above... But I Do Understand Your Strategy

to some extent. Why give it away and not vote, but I've lost so much faith. And IT IS EXTREMELY difficult to get ANYTHING going here!

First, I don't KNOW of ANYONE who wants to stick their neck out down here, and second given the mood of the country, too many people just DON'T WANT to have anything to do with POLITICS here!

I tapped so many during 2008, got them out working and I truly think some of them see me coming and turn the other way! I can't say I don't understand it because I'm the one who pushed & prodded them and they don't feel I'm ALL that savvy anymore!!

Only time can heal my reputation, but too many people know how I am and I've even been TOLD TO MY FACE, that I need to find something else to occupy my time! These comments haven't only come from people I know, but relatives who ARE Democrats and have been all their lives!

But I do thank you for your input, just don't know how to roll it into something positive right now!!

:banghead: :crazy: :shrug:

[Mithreal]

276. It's alright. You are not alone. I am surrounded by Blue Dogs reps.

Getting them to even talk like Democrats is a challenge. If you read some of my other posts, maybe you can sense my frustration. I feel beyond frustrated especially when it is easier for me to persuade independents and even some average Republicans than it is to persuade the centrists hollowing out our party.

When it warms up a lil more I will be spending more time in my garden. There is something about hands in the dirt that really nourishes and heals.

[ChiciB1]

312. Yes, It's Warming Up Nicely Here Now & I Too Enjoy My Gardening!

Will be starting this week-end transplanting MANY plants. I have a huge plant sale every year, and generally have started by now, EXCEPT we've had the COLDEST winter since 1981 and trees are just now beginning to bud out! Need to crop quite a few plants that I don't usually have to! But I DID enjoy the cooler winter, but have had to say "sorry" to the snowbirds who come down here to the SUNSHINE state to get warm!!

Plumerias got hit rather hard, but it won't be long before I'll be sweating like HORSE!

Sorry for the late reply, but I'll be seeing you on the boards. There are some of us that generally are in agreement most of the time, and it's not hard to follow!

:hug:

[Odin2005]

68. K&R

[Chulanowa]

69. Thank you

That line from Truman is why I keep telling people we need to field liberals, even in "red" areas. otherwise all we do is hand out free wins.

[Mithreal]

81. On the State level as well.

[autorank]

77. We know this. Why don't the leaders? k*r

Because they make out if they win or lose. There's no accountability.

Besides, the leadership doesn't owe us anything. They don't work for us.

It's all about their real paymasters. How quickly things change.

Some fear donations will soften attitudes on financial regulation.
CAMPAIGN '08: RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
March 21, 2008|Janet Hook and Dan Morain, LA Times Staff Writers
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are running for president as economic populists, are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions from the troubled financial services sector.

It is part of a broader fundraising shift toward Democrats, compared to past campaigns when Republicans were the favorites of Wall Street.

Some Democrats worry that the influx of money will make their candidates less willing to call for increased regulation of financial markets, which have been in turmoil after a wave of foreclosures on sub-prime mortgages.

The Republicans may not benefit as much as they think. If they do, they're in the hot seat. They'll make things much worse, much quicker. What a deal!

[Mithreal]

85. We have given many of these "leaders" little reason to fear us.

(Obama) hasn't done this because he's a bad guy. In fact, he's a great guy. I think he's doing pretty much the best job he can. He's sold you out because he's not afraid of you. And really, if I may be so bold, he shouldn't be afraid of you. You don't know who really runs the show, and you're far too fickle and manipulable to count on.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/16/815429/-No-One-Is-Going-To-Save-You-Fools

Am betting you saw this, but for anyone else, only click if prepared for a dose of harsh reality.

[newtothegame]

80. Not rightly so. Obama made history in 2008, and the racists are trying to stop him from making more.

[uponit7771]

84. Will you come and gladly admit you were wrong if not 'Blood Bath' occurs? TIA

[Mithreal]

90. There shouldn't even be a blood bath.

Republicans are leaderless, clueless, insane and lost in the wilderness. I treat the whole question of a blood bath as a warning.

[uponit7771]

94. OP claims there will be blood bath and if wrong I would like to know if they would GLADLY admit it

[Mithreal]

99. Do you really think the op thinks he or she is Nostra-fucking-damus?

If there isn't a "blood bath" it will be because we prevented it, you know, boots on the ground types and maybe even steered Obama and Dem "leaders" toward safer waters.

[uponit7771]

101. yes

[bvar22]

216. YES!

An enthusiastic YES!

Will YOU admit TODAY that if Democratic Party loses seat in 2010, there WILL be LESS of a chance for "Fixing it Later" or "Adding a Public Option Later"?

If we can't get those things with the majorities we have NOW, how are we going to get them after 2010?

THIS is what puts the LIE to the Marketing Scam :
Pass it NOW. Fix it Later.

If we can't Fix it NOW, we certainly won't be able to do anything after losses in 2010.

Or are YOU going to suggest that the Democratic Party is going to GAIN seats in 2010?
LOL.

"Fix it NOW,
or KILL IT!" should be our combined demand.

NOTHING is going to be "Fixed Later".

[earcandle]

88. So we don't have a party anymore?

[uponit7771]

95. There are some who are going to not vote and then complain loudly

[laughingliberal]

105. There are some who are going to bash on the liberal members of the party from now until November and

then wonder why this genius charm offensive didn't work to get them to the polls.

[uponit7771]

108. If this "charm" stopped someone from doing anything then most likely they weren't going to vote in..

...the first place

[laughingliberal]

120. I pause a little before voting for people who tell me to STFU

and belong to a group who think it's cool that the President's CofS called the groups advocating for a policy I agreed with "fucking retarded." But, I guess I haven't figured out that 12 dimensional chess thingie, yet.

[Mithreal]

107. There are some who are boots on the ground NOW and will "complain" loudly

I heard an idea that it is not really complaining if you are telling someone who can do something about the problem.

See, I like to think when I come here that most of the people I talk with or read, that they are either boots on the ground types or have been and CHOOSE to DO something about the problems.

So whenever I hear the word "complaining" I think that is someone who either chooses a word poorly, I do that all the time, or chooses to remain impotent, ineffectual and alone.

[Arkana]

189. A thousand times this.

[GinaMaria]

202. Let's see if I have the rules straight

1. If I don't vote, I don't get to say anything

2. If I do vote for 'the lesser of two evils', then I don't get to say anything because I got exactly what I voted for.

3. If I do vote for 'the lesser of two evils' but the other candidate wins, I can voice my opinion but no one will listen because I am in the minority.


Did I cover everything?

Basically, some people just don't want to hear what I and others have to say, so they make up blanket 'rules' about when someone can disagree with, or criticize government officials. Got news for you. This is America and it is always 'open season' for criticism on those who are supposed to work for us, whether we voted for them or not.

[Mithreal]

248. Oh, "they" extend it to actual boots on the ground types too

When you have opinion that diverges but actually were one of Obama's organizers and still involved, you must be lying.

[earcandle]

313. True, dat.

[truedelphi]

136. We have a party, and it is about the Big Boys and Girls at the Top

So if you ever win the Super Duper Biggo Lotto, you will probably be invited to enjoy some of the events. Right after you buy Bolivia or something.

But if you cannot afford to own most of one of the smaller nations, or at least fiddle around with their currency from time to time like George Soros does, you cannot really be considered part of either of the two parties.

[SlingBlade]

98. The absoulte worst thing that could have happened was what

did happen. Republicans were reeling, their polices were exposed has nothing more
than empty platitudes towards the middle class while lavishing all upon the elites.
America really was ready for a change from the rot that repukes inflicted.

We had an historic opportunity to not just win, But to send these Re-Pukes home for another
forty years which would have been good for America, And good for them as well.
But then Barrack Obama and the Chicago machine stepped into the void at the urging of the
democratic powers that be.

It was THAT close. It could have begun a new and brighter future for us and
our children. Instead we get the next great republican president vying for the crown that Clinton
grabbed on the way out.

I'll never forgive this generation of Democrats, Not only for what they did, But for what they
are doing and what they will do in the near future.I'll never vote for another one, Ever.
Unless he or she is a dedicated Progressive committed to what we all know is the proper path for America. And hopefully when that day comes, Progressives will have separated themselves from this gang of corporate whores and thieves.

[Mithreal]

118. When we make fun of average American Republicans voting against their interests

it is no small irony that we have done the same.

Unions are going to bite this party in the ass and it will be well deserved. We should be thanking union members, the few left, that are actually fighting RIGHT NOW to ensure we have some Progressive reinforcements.

Progressives or bust, my sentiments as well. Well said.

[SlingBlade]

188. Yep, Though I'm not personally a Union Member, I know that

the pay and benefits that I have received over the years is due to
my brothers and sisters who have fought not only for themselves, But for
me, An American worker. I can't tell ya how disgusted I become when I see
a union member mouth republican talking point. Ingrates !!!


Progressives or bust !
That should be the clarion call for every member of D.U
Unfortunately there's not just a few ingrates here as well :(
Thanks for covering my six, I'm with ya, Fangs Out and Ready:toast:

[slipslidingaway]

109. knr - shakes head that the Dems are promoting this mandate. n/t

[AzNick]

110. Turning your back to your = political suicide

Something the GOP understood a long time ago.

[xchrom]

113. Recommend

[FourScore]

115. I agree. k/r

[emsimon33]

117. This is what I have been saying--the worst bloodbath in the history of the US!

[David Zephyr]

119. K&R.

Medicare to 55 would take the highest cost off the insurance rolls and be yet one more big step to Medicare for all.

Dean has the pulse of the nation.

[ooglymoogly]

121. We all know what is happening, we have been taken for a ride.

It is time to admit it, stop bellyaching and get down to the business of finding primary candidates if the Democratic party is to survive. That means pulling out all the stops to elect progressives. They are making themselves known to us. We can't allow corpmedia to narrow the choices to their pics again with the caveat "its either him/her or satin". Grayson is a good bet to begin; And there are plenty more. Lets get down to the business of primarying these bastards. We have over 2 years to get our act together and elect some real Dems and knock off some DINO's and Blue dogs in the bargain. To hell with the DLC. My dream; To be called the PDP (Progressive Democratic Party),headed up by Howard Dean; An official third party in effect.
That would put the fear of God in these unctuous, treasonous bastards.

[jannyk]

124. k&r

[Enthusiast]

125. You say America will rightly

blame the Democratic Party. But the Democratic Party has clearly been usurped by corporate forces. This is not your father's Democratic Party. Part of the corporate goal might well be to destroy the Democrat brand.

[Mithreal]

131. Even both brands.

[Skittles]

130. CORRECT

this is how it will be until we start putting REAL DEMOCRATS in office

[Hamlette]

134. Hooray!!!!! The Democrats are going to lose!!!! Yay!!!! Yippie!!!!!! Good for us!!!!

Dean is a god. He is always right. He knows more than anyone else in the whole wide world. How dare anyone pass a bill that does not meet with my every wish and demand.

The dems are dead.

Long live the permanent Republican majority.

Next stop, war with Iran. Then we invade Paris.

[Mithreal]

137. Dean? Did you forget to take your meds?

[Hamlette]

149. My bad. I forgot. Today is "Dennis is a God" day. Dennis knows everything.

Except when he was anti-choice. That was only because...well...he was not a god then. He only became a god when he switched so he could win an election. Oh yeah, and now, because he agrees with me and wants to bring down the Democratic party!!!!!! Yay!!!!! Dennis is a God. Rahm is the devil. I know everything especially about people I've never met! Yay. The Dems are going to lose! Yippie. Best news of the year!!!!!!!

[suzie]

154. Sure he isn't still anti-choice, just more dishonest about it?

Stupak gets flak for voting against health care reform. Kucinich gets cheered for not voting for it, but because he says he's no longer anti-choice--wink, wink.

[Mithreal]

159. amusing, these diversions, but very silly

[Name removed]

267. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

268. Deleted message

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

[Mithreal]

158. laughable, if this is the best you can do persuading

conservatives are gonna walk all over you

[Skip Intro]

141. That subject line - rofl!

At this moment Obama is demanding Dems make a stand on a very unpopular move in an election year.

Fascinating politics.

I'm not sure enough Dems will vote it out of the House.

What happens if it just doesn't fly, after all this effort.

The repubs would have succeeded in scaring, effing scaring, the Dems into obedience.

Stuff ya don't want to know.

[Mithreal]

143. Sometimes its better to leave comedy to the professionals.

Dog whistle politics can be amusing, but without some kernel of truth, not so much. But hey, if it reinforces your misconceptions about principled types, how can it be wrong, am I right? Thought so.

[Skip Intro]

144. what?

[Mithreal]

145. Some people say the cucumbers taste better pickled.

[Skip Intro]

146. rofl - damn that's funny!!!

:rofl:

[Mithreal]

160. not funny, but as relevant?

I was just confused by what you wrote.

[laughingliberal]

156. You seem to think we are not going to invade Iran with the Democrats in power. nt

[Mithreal]

164. Encircling Iran with mega-bases isn't just for show.

I still have not heard Obama disavow the Bush Doctrine.

And when is that dialogue with the MIC's enemies in Iran?

Centrists, please point me to the excuses, I have missed many of them. I am actually beginning to enjoy collecting new ones.

[Skip Intro]

135. Would it be better than what we have now? nt

[Mithreal]

139. Ask the DLC New Dem coalition types.

[old mark]

140. I don't believe any of this bullshit. The GOP will be at least as hard hit as the Dems in November.

Maybe all of you cheering GOP victory should give in to your true feelings and just join their fucking party.

You belong there.

mark

[Mithreal]

142. That is rich.

Purposefully(?) mischaracterizing another's argument is so childish.

No one here is cheering GOP victory. Really? Really? That is the best you got?

You are right, those that focus on running against incumbents are going to benefit, and that means Regressives will lose too. The problem? More incumbent Dems, means more of them at risk.

If we don't use our majorities we will lose our majorities.

See, I bet you think I am one of those folk you ranted on about, but we really are not so far apart. I am boots on the ground, already. We disagree, maybe, on philosophy and strategy. If I understood your take better I might even be able to say I respected it.

We have given up the populist message that swept Dems into DC. Now, we are being told to settle for less, so corporate constituents can get what they want while the rest of us can have what's left over. No, thank you.

If you can persuade average people to settle for less, knock yourself out.

[laughingliberal]

157. Yes, that inspiring 'centrist' message will surely win the electorate over

"We're fighting to make sure the people get all the crumbs they deserve."

[Mithreal]

161. If the centrist message was so appealing, the wannabes wouldn't find it so challenging, defending it

[mdmc]

166. there are only 2 choices my friend

us or them
one will win
one will lose

[old mark]

196. We will see in November....I hope some of these assholes recall who they

were supporting.


mark

[Mithreal]

252. -1

:wtf: are you talking about?

[Shining Jack]

165. K&R n/t

Damn depressing IMHO.

[twitomy]

167. So the voters are pissed because the Dems/Obama

are not progressive enough; they are acting like Republicans.

And as a result they are going to vote for Republicans, that is, more of the same and then some.


Masochism? Insanity? or is the POV not quite correct?


My take:

Progressives are demoralized because Obama has not delivered too much on the
left agenda.

Conservative are fired up because they will always be fired up to get back at a Dem.

Independents are pissed not necessarily because OBama is not left enough, as they dont care so much about ideology. They base their decision more on results. They are pissed because, and here are the big ones:

1. The economy/unemployment still sucks
2. They want HCR, but not this debacle.
3. Federal spending out of control: Bailouts/TARP, ineffective "stimulus", the HCR bill

So IMHO, the Dems will lose not becasue they are not left enough, but becasue they have done a crappy job.

[Mithreal]

168. +1 Looks about right.

It seemed like you were picking up steam and kinda stopped yourself short at the end. Should post as an op. Maybe expand the three points, clarify them. 1 and 3 could probably be made into several more.

Take out the IMHO, it weakens the last statement and appears less confident.

Otherwise :thumbsup:

[twitomy]

289. Thanks but this was a quick hit and

run post before I go off to work. And IMHO is only recognition that opinions are just like a-hole's; everybody has one. ;)

[Mithreal]

291. a good contribution nonetheless, alrighty, have a good one

[sendero]

184. You are assuming that...

... the American voter is rational. They are not. They are going to vote AGAINST whoever is in power for a long time.

MOST REALIZE THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE A SHIT'S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE WHICH PARTY IS IN POWER, SO WHY NOT JUST VOTE YOUR ANGER.

That is EXACTLY what happened to Ted Kennedy's seat.

[twitomy]

288. Yes, There is

truth to what you are saying. But it also cuts both ways.
The irrational voters did not vote for Obama because had great progressive ideals that everybody wanted, but rather people were just pissed at Bush. And that only underscores my beleif that the voters will vote against Dems not becasue they are not progressive enough, but rather because the Dems have taken the mantle of pissing off the electorate.

[sendero]

290. I don't think the independents..

... that voted for Obama expected a very progressive agenda, but his campaign rhetoric WAS progressive.

I think that bloc would have accepted a lot more progressivism than we are getting.

His BASE on the other hand DID expect us to move away from the policies of George Bush, as you said a lot of the vote was a backlash against Bush.

And he has failed to do that, and it is going to cost him and unfortunately the party.

[twitomy]

293. Independents are a fickle bunch, no doubt.

And I agree that they would have accepted some Progressivism. Ah well, reap what ye sow I guess.

[DisgustedInMN]

169. Let us hope that...

... the coming "bloodbath" is limited to politicians and isn't an actual one, however, the odds aren't good. There is a huge, ugly, angry storm brewing, one born of desperate people who no options and nothing left to lose, not even the hope of things getting better. That is the basic recipe for revolution and the fuse is burning short.

[AlinPA]

295. Yes, but IMO, the tension between the Democrats and Republicans is so severe now

that real hostility could take place between them. In my 73 years I've never seen it this vicious.

[moondust]

172. Right. Mandates subsidizing private profits are bad policy.

And mandates subsidizing the actual cost of care are acceptable only if necessary.

However, voting for Republicans to replace those Democrats is a much, much worse option that will only make everything much, much harder to fix the next time anybody gets a chance. Better to find some better Democrats.

[NorthCarolina]

173. Wow, so Dean actually agrees with Kucinich then. Good to hear. eom

[Bryn]

316. So did Bill Maher and Michael Moore

Bill Maher on Countdown, Michael Moore on Rachel Maddow tonight. They're saying this health insurance bill that so many DUers are excited about is actually bad.

[western mass]

174. Here's why lobbyists have power and YOU don't

Corporate lobbyists are willing to punish politicians who don't look after their interests.

Democratic voters aren't. That's why their opinions and their interests have ZERO influence. Dem politicians can ignore them, and there's no repercussions.

Do Dem voters want any power in the long run? They'd better be willing to let the Dems lose in the short run. The DLC hopes they can scare liberals enough with short-term fear-mongering that they lose sight of what this country needs in the long run, which is a Democratic Party that serves the interests of its constituents.

[SandWalker1984]

207. I know a lot of Democrats that will disagree with you.

Many I've talked with are planning to either (a) stay home in November or (b) vote 3rd party candidates rather than "reward" Democrats for their behavior the past 2 years.

I'm for plan (b) myself.

[lxlxlxl]

175. momentum has shifted...five weeks too late

seriously...a bit slow

[pleah]

177. K AND R!

[DCBob]

178. Long way to go.. 6 months is an eternity in politics..

Economy, jobs and consumer sentiment are all improving. Also, once this healthcare fiasco is put to rest then that will be a big negative off the minds of voters. Unless the economy collapes again, I suspect there will only a few losses which is typical for party in power mid-term. IMO.

[pokercat999]

179. Gee, anyone want to re-think their primary vote? That guy

what saw the UFO is sure look'n better now. Naw, he's a little guy, hell, his wife is bigger n him.

Thank you, thank you very much.

[Arkana]

190. Really hope you're being sarcastic

because I would have written in Bert or Ernie before voting for that obstructionist little munchkin.

[bvar22]

211. Yes.

Every time the "Centrist" Democratic Party tries to:

*Expand the WARS

*Increase Military Spending

*Expand Free Trade

*De-Regulate the Corporations

*Transfer MORE Public Money to Private Pockets

...there is that "obstructionist little munchkin" getting in the way.

”Unlike the other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.” ---Dennis Kucinich

[Mithreal]

253. +1 Funny that

[Bryn]

319. Ha! Very Funny!

To me, Dennis is very good looking. I do not understand why people would call him names like elf, munchkin, etc. or crazy for seeing UFO. I'd LOVE to go out with him on date. He has a very nice smile, he may be not TALL, but he's not a dwarf, neither. Juat perfect for my 5 ft 3 inches tall. His gorgeous red-haired Brit wife was smart to grab him. I'd LOVE to live with a man like that, the one who stands by his principle, is smart, very hard working for the best for US THE PEOPLE, snubs his thumb at THE CORPORATION. He's very caring.

Okay, I'd LOVE to see a picture of yourself so that I can be judge of what you look like.

[varelse]

180. You're right

but I don't see any way to stop it now.

[NuttyFluffers]

181. very simple, don't reward failure.

if that means someone else can win over your heart and your vote in your district, so be it. a vote has no meaning if it is already consigned to a party w/o thought. anyone who demands party loyalty over your own suffrage is a treasonous buffoon and should be ignored.

[Lorien]

200. We need to create a viable Third Party. The right has it's teabaggers

and now it's our turn. Organization is not something that traditional Dems are known for, but unless we organize to create a party that represents OUR interests there won't be any traditional Dems left on the playing field.

[leeroysphitz]

182. We really got screwed by this president. I wont forget this. n/t

[Peacetrain]

185. For who? certainly not the independents.. before you cut off your nose to spite your face

You better be counting noses to see how big a coalition you really have.

[icee]

186. +1000

[Yuugal]

187. K&R

[Jefferson23]

192. Obama isn't stupid nor reckless politically imo, I doubt he has much concern

for his position on reelection as POTUS.

As far as his agenda for the country, he seems to be satisfied, if he were not, he would have been fighting for it long ago.

[KansDem]

193. It used to be capitalists swore they could run government like a business

...and supposedly this would lead to more-efficient government at a lower price.

HORSESHIT!!!

Now we hear we can't have public-financed healthcare because the insurance companies could not compete, and they would lose money.

So, the insurance companies are openly admitting they are gouging us and Uncle Sam could do a better job.

Why is there even a debate?

[Zambero]

195. The 'take home' message

Why go to the trouble of electing Democrats to accomplish nothing, when Republicans already have a clearly stated purpose of doing just that -- nothing? High expectations coupled with no accomplishments is a surefire recipe for defeat.

[pnorman]

197. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between.....

....Gore and Bush!": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7268146

[Goldstein1984]

203. Democrat = Republican

There's less separating "centrist" Democrats from Republicans than separating "centrist" Democrats from progressives.

Progressives, and progress, have been abandoned. The working class is being destroyed. Our so-called "leaders" (I get sick to my stomach when I hear them called that) are laughing cynically at the lamentations of the masses.

I'm looking for a third option. I know it's going to be ugly; I know that path guarantees things are going to get worse before they get better; and yes, I understand that the path probably includes tires burning in the streets on government oppression of "dissidents." But looking to the current Democratic Party to promote the general welfare is useless.

[BrklynLiberal]

204. Someone, somewhere, better fill in President Obama on this.....

[glitch]

208. Hard to say. We don't really know how the election machines will be programmed. nt

[Mithreal]

257. If it meant that issue would be addressed, I wonder if Ed Shultz wasn't right about voting 10 times

There is more than enough information out there for our reps to get busy, but haven't heard much of a response to stolen elections except lower levels folks pleading guilty or confessing.

Maybe we should tell our conservatives friends, yes, we will steal an election or 3, because we can while we are in power. It's dishonest to say it, but if it means getting them on our side to actually ensure private companies don't tell us who won, maybe we could ensure future elections are not stolen. I know, I don't like ends justifies the means thinking either, but our "democracy" is getting stomped. I know I am wrong.

[glitch]

284. We don't need to actually do it, how about we just say that we can do it.

Broadcast it, smirk knowingly.

They'd probably respond the wrong way though, and codify the privatization to Xe, forevermore. You know how they are.

[Mithreal]

286. Too true.

[femrap]

210. k and r

stupid people deserve stupid leaders.

[county worker]

214. So what are you doing about it?

[Mithreal]

258. +1 The question for each of us.

[Kermitt Gribble]

215. Emphatic K&R!!!!

Those who claim Dems will fix the bill after it is passed are the most delusional. As Russ Feingold informed us, the Senate bill is exactly the bill Obama wants - which is essentially a bailout for the ins industry.

[Taverner]

217. Depends...2010 won't be so bad if we GOTV

The last few elections that is what it's all been about

[flyarm]

225. who are you going to call for GOTV?? The unions..nope they have been fucked ..

Teachers?? nope they have been fucked.

The gays?? Nope they have been fucked.

The poor who have lost their jobs and homes..nope they have been fucked.

The internet groups that have been loyal dems..nope they have been thrown under the bus and fucked.

So just who the fuck do you think are going to GOTV?

Not me that is for damn sure..and i have worked every election since 1968..where ever i have lived.

As Rahm said..they can kiss my union ass!

[Taverner]

226. So you're not voting then...

[flyarm]

227. I will vote for local stuff..but not for any dem candidate ..they have fucked we lifelong dems long

enough!

I will not have my name associated with the fuckers in office today!

I will not give another minute of my time ..or another dime to the fuckers who think they can keep wars going for greed..that can fuck with my health care and now tax me up to 40% on what i worked for, my emtire life..and paid for with concession after concession and strikes and lock outs and paid for with an entire lifetime of my labor ..fuck them! Fuck them that can give my tax dollars over to wall street and the banks and put my nation into debt my grandchild will not be able to pay off..but they will bleed her to death trying.

Fuck them who give my tax dollars away when so many Americans are out of work and can't feed their kids or keep a roof over their kids heads..fuck them!

Fuck them when they hire Goldman boys to keep fucking us..and who were protoge's of Kissinger..and then have the audacity to send Kissinger out to represent a Democratic administration..fuck them'

No where does it say in our constitution that these are lifetime jobs..it is time we send all of them home and start anew! Fuck they who think they can continue to fuck the people!

I am their employer..and i say it is time to send all their asses home!

I will vote to send any candidate home. either party!

[Dinger]

245. What flyarm Said

:grr:

[Mithreal]

259. The Obama campaign here in WA state did their best to corrupt GOTV

Agreed about "we" as long as we have a persuasive way to counter apathy.

[Lord Helmet]

218. not necessarily

but we'll put you down for hoping it is so

[Mithreal]

260. If you are especially careful about mischaracterizing others arguments

then you are safe in your bubble.

[Lord Helmet]

264. not buying into the "blood bath" hyperbole -- characterizing it as such is horseshit

[Mithreal]

265. You don't have to buy it for it to be a warning.

"You don't have to believe us. Just listen to the way the Democrats themselves are talking. Nancy Pelosi concedes that they will likely suffer substantial losses in the House come November, though she still will not admit that they will lose their majority in the next round. Barack Obama says doesn't "know" how his ever more determined push of the universally despised Senate health care scam will play politically. He doesn't know??? Was the loss of the eternally Democratic senate seat in Massachusetts not enough of a wake up call?"

http://www.democrats.com/democratic-partys-plan-throw-next-couple-elections

Honestly, I wish I thought like you, only in the sense that I wouldn't have to waste a fraction of a second on worry. I am pretty sure I am past worrying though I may be in denial about that.

[Lord Helmet]

271. Well I don't lose any sleep over people sniveling on the interweb.

History reveals midterm loses for the incumbent party as downright traditional -- with the exception of the epic fraud of 2002 in particular, but that's another conversation.

[Mithreal]

274. Characterizing as sniveling

sniveling: To complain or whine tearfully.

Is that the what you mean?

Two responses I have to that. One, I see complaining as telling someone who can do nothing about the problem. To say that your fellow DU'ers can do nothing about the problems is nonsensical. We are the government though we haven't made that clear to our reps or the many puppet masters. If someone chooses to do nothing then I can see how complain would be appropriate. I also don't choose impotence. I may not be well experienced with all the tools, but I am learning. Sure, there are lots of people who are stuck in not knowing what to do, but they need to get out of that rut.

Second, calling fellow DU'ers whiners is a favorite card of at least two groups, the "supporters at all costs" crowd and conservatives. That's their thing, and hey, it sometimes works or you wouldn't do it, would ya.

If someone wants to sit on their hands and watch, well, I think that is un-American. Do many people say it out of frustration, I believe so. Many have done more than you or I and may indeed sit it out, I don't advocate that, but what did the New Dems expect? "Wishful" thinker is something I think only a conservative or 100% frustrated person could be labeled wrt this. Obama and the Dems have time, let's see what they can do, but all of us better be pushing our representatives and making clear our minds.

Yes, part of any losses will be tradition, I can imagine some people will focus on that part, you know, the part we really have no control over.

The importance of quality sleep should not be underestimated, good for you, you may be better than me in that regard.

[Lord Helmet]

280. It's a lifetime between now and November.

Predicting what is traditional (losses for the incumbent party) and trying to pawn it off as something else is nothing more than a cudgel used preemptively, lame and gratuitous.

Those content to sit on their hands are welcome to it but I reject their preemptive predictions of gloom and doom. (Yes, in my book it's sniveling.) Conversely I endorse primary challenges and climbing up the butts of our representatives to prod them in the correct direction.

If we learned nothing else from the last presidential election, know this: Democrats will fight. En mass.

And we shall see.

[Mithreal]

281. To each his own. I think I can appreciate your position even if not entirely agree.

[Arkana]

219. And I'm sure you'll enjoy every second.

[Mithreal]

261. -1

Really, what kind of malfunction is required to see the op that way?

[Eyerish]

223. K&R

[jobycom]

228. If so it's because the goddamned centrists and the goddamned progressives won't quit bickering

long enough to do a goddamn thing. Everybody things their side won the mandate last time and only their will should be done and fuck the rest of the nation with a thick, barky tree limb if they can't get their way.

Hell, I almost prefer the Republicans to what we're seeing now. At least with them in charge, we knew what we wanted. Now all we want to do is moan about each other. We're all soooo pissed off that we can't get the exact nuance of our ideal (and the centrists are no better than the leftists there, in case anyone is feeling smug). Meanwhile the country looks just about like it did on election day, 2008. That's not change anyone voted for.

And the saddest part is that when the Republicans take over again, they're going to push us even further to the right, arguing that we tried our way (even though all anyone on our side has tried to do is whine), now we have to move further to the right.

Obama wanted to be a cross between JFK and Ronald Reagan. What he's doing so far looks like Bush Daddy. Good speeches and a come-together message are great for the campaign trail, but they don't do shit in an emergency.

God I miss Bill Clinton. He was the best progressive president this nation had after FDR, along with being the best centrist president. The bottom line was he was a Democratic President, and he could get things done. No wonder so many Democrats hated him.

[Mithreal]

263. Lots of DLCicious spin there, but agreed with some of the sentiment, IF

the people you are addressing are the types that are not actually activists too.

The Democratic Party should stand for the needs of average American people NOT corporate people.

The Republican Party has gone insane and many former have found refuge in ours. I don't favor holding hands with those types and singing kumbaya.

We're In This Together, for sure, but the fight over our party isn't going away. Buckle up. Those folks that are just bitching, and neither of us really know who they are, they need to get off their asses and show up.

Anyway, agree with your overall sentiment, I think.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

282. "He was the best progressive president this nation had after FDR."

:spray:

Mr. Welfare reform? Mr. NAFTA? Mr. Most Favored Nation Trading Status for China? Progressive??? :rofl:

Bill never met a corporate dick he wouldn't gladly suck.

[bvar22]

283. Poor Bill.

His title of "Best Republican President Ever" is in mortal jeopardy.
"Second Best Republican President Ever" just won't bring in the sexual Thrill Seekers.

At least poor Bill kept our troops safe.

[ibegurpard]

299. Don't forget Telecommuncations Act of 1996

for which we have to thank mass corporate consolidation of media.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

311. I forgot about that.

Also, under Bill they changed the rules that PHARMA could not advertise their products. Now they spend something like $7 billion a year on buzzing bees, middle-aged tub lovers, and tiny caucasian women with brittle bones. You need to rake in quite the premiums to spend $7 billion on ads and still have enough for record profits.

Fuckers.

[skyounkin]

229. We won't lose the house

the senate on the other hand....

[ChiciB1]

230. The Thing that's Truly UNBELIEVABLE Is That THEY Know What We're

saying, they KNOW we're MAD AS HELL, and yes THEY KNOW some are very, very definitely going to lose their jobs... BUT THEY DON'T CARE!!

Democrats & Repukes seems to ONLY want to dodge the ball for THEMSELVES!! If they manage to get re-elected, then so be it... but bottom line...THEY DON'T GIVE TWO HOOTS ABOUT US!!

We can vote them out, but given WHO OWNS AMERICA, there will just be ANOTHER BATCH of "Boobies" coming in to screw us all over again!

What IS the solution?? I DON'T SEE ANY!!

[tomp]

238. solution: third party, mass movement. nt

[Mithreal]

266. Actually, New Dems, you know, Third Way'ers, have created a Third Party.

There are still more of us in the Dem Party than of them.

I am very conflicted about the third party idea.

[HughMoran]

244. Ignorant bullshit

[Mithreal]

254. Very persuasive

[HughMoran]

255. I thought so

[davidwparker]

256. "blame the Democratic Party" - Indeed. n/t

[Mike 03]

275. Assuming you are right, we will all simply become survivalists, and it will be looking out only

for ourselves, which would not surprise me.

[Mithreal]

279. America is already the nation of You're On Your Own.

When all those pesky New Deal "entitlements" are rolled back, we will be a conservative paradise.

Look out Third World, here we come.

A lot of folks who have had their jobs, nest eggs, homes stolen from them are already living like survivalists.

[Supersedeas]

277. BLANCHE!!!

[sgalindez]

278. Go Howard!!!

you tell em...

[OhioChick]

287. K&R n/t

[ncteechur]

297. If Howard Dean had to cast a vote for this HCR plan, he would vote AYE!!

And anything else he says is bullshit.

[Mithreal]

308. -1

Variety of ways that is a foolish comment.

[RagAss]

315. I'm all for it.