Rep. Weiner on Kucinich's HCR NO Vote: "It's Folly"

[berni_mccoy]

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2010/03/16/exclusive-interview-rep-anthony-weiner/

RS: You were also a top advocate for the public option. What do you make of Kucinich’s threatened ‘No’ vote?
AW: It’s folly. Nobody has compromised more than I have. I kid that I’ve compromised my compromised compromise at this point. I started out a similar place that Dennis is. I think single payer is the way to go. (In the current bill), we’ve doubled down on an employer-based system that is not necessarily good. But it’s inarguable that this bill would be better than the status quo.

But there are some people who don’t legislate that way. They think that if there’s anything offensive or problematic in a bill, I’ll vote no on it. Those people are not very good representatives.

...

RS: Is the fact that Democrats are again talking about legislative process — rather than the benefits of the bill — a big unforced error in this crucial final week?
AW: I’ll just say this. The other day, I’m in a market by my house. An old woman grabs me in the aisle and says ‘pass the bill by reconciliation.’ My view is when my constituents are saying the word ‘reconciliation’ to me rather than ‘cut my taxes’ or ‘provide me healthcare,’ I know that our message is fucked. You know?

Anthony, that sound you hear is DU throwing you under the bus. I'm sorry friend, but Kucinich is untouchable here (and I totally agree with you Anthony).

[monmouth]

1. No one should go under the bus over Kucinich. He's just not that

important and "folly" is the correct word. I agree with Weiner also.

[Warpy]

17. While I appreciate the principled stand, this one makes no sense

The health care bill will please no one. It's got enough reform to alarm the insurers into pushing last minute rate hikes to try to cash in as much as they can while they can but not enough reform to make a difference to most of us on the street and certainly not the public option health insurance that would have offered the type of competition that would have forced them to clean up or go out of business.

However, this is also the best we're going to do with this Congress, and I have to agree with Wiener this time, not Kucinich.

Waiting until the perfect thing comes around is just not in the cards and too much of us are dying while we wait. That's what the stakes are.

This bill is a temporary fix. The permanent one still has to come and that's when Kucinich should make his stand.

[monmouth]

22. You are right, get this passed and leave the "tweaking" for later. I

remember when Medicare was first passed. It was blah but over the years it has turned out to be a pretty workable product. As a senior I would like to have choices and be able to purchase a plan that I won't have to give up a good diet for. Thanks for your post.

[Warpy]

38. It's going to need more than mere tweaking, I'm afraid

but let's hope they finally catch a clue and pass Grayson's amendment and lower the Medicare eligibility age, at least for an at cost buy in.

Lowering the Medicare buy in eligibility age every few years should be the aim of this thing, relegating the insurance people to providing Medigap insurance, something they've actually been quite good at doing.

[ShortnFiery]

85. Yeah, just like what we are doing with NAFTA? OH WAIT!

:eyes:

[daleanime]

41. Please remember that I'm asking this as politely as possible.

If we can't pass a decent health care bill now, how will we when insurance companies have access to both the treasury and our wallets?

[Warpy]

67. This bill contains enough real reform to hem them in quite nicely

although not enough to protect us from them sufficiently.

It's a stopgap bill, the best we could expect but one that will have to be revisited in the near future.

It's up to us to eliminate all the conservatives we can so that when it is revisited, we get a better deal.

[daleanime]

73. Again, how?

Money wins over votes now, the SC has already opened the flood gates for this fall and corp pockets are going to be even deeper. To say I fear for our future is no understatement.

And lets also face that this bill is going to easy for repug's to ran against. When a sizable portion of our own base hates it, you know it's not going to be popular with Ind's(and of course almost every repug left in existence.}

[laughingliberal]

2. They sure are pulling out all the stops to make sure we shut up about the public option.

We know the votes are there in the Senate and we know they were there in the House. Who's being protected?

[berni_mccoy]

4. The senate does not have the votes for the Public Option. If they did, this would be over by now.

[laughingliberal]

8. They said they did

If they don't, then pull the covers on the shell game. We should be able to hold accountable the correct legislators and elected officials.

[berni_mccoy]

10. The Senate Said they Did? LOL! You're more desperate than ever.

The only people who've said the Senate had the votes to pass a PO are whipcongress who fabricated about a dozen of them.

[laughingliberal]

12. Back when we needed 60, the consensus was there were about 54-56 votes for it

And PCCC's whipcongress thinks they do.

I'm assuming you would be in favor of it if they do? And that you've been calling and letting them know you would like to see it in there?

[karynnj]

63. Then question PCCC

Stand with Dean had 51 when they stopped updating it - and that included Kirk (MA) and Snowe (R). In addition, it included people like Lincoln because of one ambiguous comment, contradicted by other. http://www.standwithdrdean.com/where_congress_stands?chamber=Senate&party=&state=&hc_status=&commit=Filter

This site was the gold standard of lists.

PCCC likely got some offices tired of being threatened.

[laughingliberal]

78. They're running ads about it.

My count only has about 6 solid no's which means there are potentially 53. We only need 50 with Biden breaking he tie. The House needs to put it in there and then Obama and the DNC could make their threats against anyone in the Senate who decided to derail it.

[karynnj]

79. That means the highest possible number is 53.

Nate Silver suggests that there is also a potential problem with passing it in the House again given the people who have since left and the Stupak people still holding out. I agree with Silver that adding it could make an already hard lift harder. At this point, it seems very unlikely.

Out of curiosity, who are your definite "nos". 53 is higher than Dean ever got and there was a lot of pressure to say yes then.

[laughingliberal]

96. Solid no's

Lincoln, Conrad, Lieberman, Nelson (NE), Bayh, Landrieu. These are the only solid no's I know of.

Now, if the President was able to bring pressure to bear on progressives who didn't want to vote for the current Senate bill, what the hell would be wrong with a little arm twisting to pass a better bill? Nothing except it appears he doesn't want a public option. I think Pelosi should have stuck to her original statement a while back that the House is not bound by the deals the White House made, put the option in the reconciliation package, and let the President knock heads in the Senate to get his votes.

[berni_mccoy]

65. I have lobbied my reps and senators to support the PO.

The PCCC is totally lying on their whip count.

[mmonk]

75. Yes they did. I remember they said they had 55. But they say one thing

and do another and they are heroes and one member of the House tries to stick to what he said and he's the bad one. Disgusting.

[laughingliberal]

77. Yes, how dare any of our Democrats try to keep a promise?

Amazing. Up is down.

[karynnj]

81. Who are "they" ?

Howard Dean, whose site, Stand with Dean, listed yes, no, and maybe never had 55, they had 51 - and that included counting Snowe, who was speaking of public options with triggers and Kirk. It also included Lincoln, who voted against the public option amendments in the Finance Committee.

Now, I never heard anyone call people like Lincoln and others heroes. Who are you pointing at?

[mdmc]

3. He knows

our message is fucked indeed

[Libertas1776]

5. The only folly here

is the democratic sheep who are blindly supporting this monstrosity.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[berni_mccoy]

11. Again, I defer to the entire Progressive Caucus (excepting Kooch) who are voting

for this historic legislation.

Is it perfect? No.

Could it be improved? Yes.

Is it better than nothing? HELL YES.

Even Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean have said that.

[Libertas1776]

13. And once again,

I counter that BS that it will be improved and it is better than nothing. All this bill does is further entrench the power and position of the insurance cos. And if you think your Democratic reps are doing this in your best interest, think again. Its all about the ballot boxes come November, so they can pretend they accomplished something "groundbreaking."

[kstewart33]

16. Say that to the 30 million with no health insurance.

Or the rest of us with so-called pre-existing conditions.

[Libertas1776]

20. and say that to the 15 million people

who get completely left out by this bill. And say that to those who will get sick and denied from now until four years from now when the pre-existing condition denial ban is implemented.

[berni_mccoy]

24. Majority of those will be people who refuse to buy insurance and take the penalty

or who are illegal immigrants.

[Political Heretic]

31. Bullshit.

[berni_mccoy]

33. Sorry, you don't like the facts. That's according to the CBO (LINK)

Here is an article about it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101837.html

But those who would be left uninsured have drawn little attention. This is in part because their ranks would include many who choose not to get health insurance, even though they can afford it -- such as some healthy people under 30, who have little effect on rising health-care costs because they rarely go to the doctor. Though starting in 2014, individuals would face fines if they do not buy coverage, some may still refuse.

About a third of the uninsured would be illegal immigrants. Neither party supports expanding insurance to cover them, even though states spend millions caring for them at hospitals, where emergency rooms accept patients regardless of coverage.

[Political Heretic]

43. Saying they will refuse to buy insurance is not a "fact" - its a guess.

And I call bullshit.

[berni_mccoy]

47. Wow. I can't believe you said that. The ESTIMATE comes from the CBO. That's a guess

It could be there are NO UNINSURED. You're really pathetic.

[Political Heretic]

59. There's no way to "estimate" who will accept or reject a mandate -

since we have no data to compare it to.

[Libertas1776]

39. that's bogus, the majority of those left out

will be left out not on their own accord, despite what you would like to believe.

[berni_mccoy]

58. It's not what I believe. The number you cited is from a CBO estimate. That estimate

breaks down who will be uninsured. I've posted a link above for the other person who doesn't like facts. You can read it if you are interested in the truth (which I doubt you are).

[Libertas1776]

76. Please don't presume to tell me what i am and am not interested in

I am interested in reality, and you are interested in being spoon fed manufactured talking points.

[Political Heretic]

30. Or those whose claims will still be denied. Or those who will have coverage terminated by bogus

accusations of fraud - the insurance industries #1 way of screwing people over.

Or the millions of American families that still won't be able to afford accessing health care, because their premiums, deductible and co-pay combinations still make it impossibly for them to get the health care they need.

[Libertas1776]

14. .

[goclark]

23. Everyone in the Progressive Caucus except Dennis

I didn't know that ~ I thought that ALL Progressives were with Dennis ?

[Political Heretic]

54. It's not better than nothing if if harms working families in the long run.

You can quote every Democrat or Democratic caucus participate you want until you're blue in the fact and it won't make a lick of difference. Democrats have a vested political interest and agenda in passing anything now - whether its really good or not, even if it runs the risk of harming a lot of people down the road.

Why? November. That's all they care about right now. All of em. They have to pass it because it would be political suicide not to. Let's just keep the truth straight shall we? This isn't about it being better than nothing. It's about Democrats needing a political victory.

So Dean, Sanders, Santa Clause, and Jesus Fucking Christ can all go out and say its "better than nothing" and it still doesn't change the fact that their advocating the bill because they believe that politically, they have to pass it, even if privately they think it sucks (or don't - either way doesn't matter, I don't know what they privately think.)

Of course a plurality of Democrats who care about elections and staying in power are going to say its better to pass this bill than not, and use the only weak-ass argument left to them: its "better than nothing."

Of course, that's totally debatable. The Senate Bill as-is for example, I would argue that its not actually better than nothing. Rather it establishes the framework in rich insurance industries can run absolutely fucking wild beyond anything they've done to date - screwing American families royally over the long run.

The House could potentially fix that - and are discussing passing the fixes first so that they would HAVE to be included in whatever finally became law. Depending on what the fixes are, that could make it so that the bill did no active harm even if it wasn't as good as America deserves. If that happened, then I'd support it on the better than nothing bandwagon.

But we're not there right now, and the Senate Bill is a steaming pile of shit with massive, chasm-sized problems that would hard real families deeply in the long run.... can't pass that as-is.

[KittyWampus]

7. Politics is the art of achieving the possible. It necessarily involves an opposition.

[GinaMaria]

19. That's not art

since when is achieving what is deemed possible, art? Expediency is not art. Art is creating something beyond what the status quo calls possible. It's seeing farther than most and having a strong enough belief in the vision to see it all the way through. It's staying with it when doubt consumes you and the inner critic seems to have the upper hand. It's creating something very few could have imagined.

Art is too important to belittle like this.

[Political Heretic]

29. American politics is the art of achieving the demands of the financial elite.

And you're right - in our system, that's all that is "possible."

Perhaps its time we tried to do something about that.

[kstewart33]

15. Representative? Legislator? DK? Surely you jest.

Dennis is a protest voter. He does not legislate nor negotiate. Or represent anyone or anything other than his own exalted principles.

A few thousand people in his district with no insurance? Too bad. Not his problem.

In his entire Congressional career, the number of bills of his that actually became law: 3.

Wow. Now that's a record to be proud of.

I hope he's primaried. His district needs someone who can actually get something done.

[apocalypsehow]

18. He's right. Kick, Rec.

:thumbsup:

[flvegan]

21. Oh, the whining.

:eyes:

[stray cat]

25. so Weiner is not a progressive either?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Thank you.

And just to state the obvious for others...

Progressives believe in progress. This bill is what we've got, and it is progress. It's not as much progress as we want, or might even need, but it is progress and it's time to make some progress and pass this bill.

And then get right to the task of getting more progress on this issue.

[bemildred]

26. Savage Weiner indeed. nt

[Political Heretic]

27. I really don't care how many people say "its inarguable." It simply isn't.

The Senate health care bill - as it stands - would not only not be better than the status quo, I believe it would harm working families in the long run.

Harm.

The bare minimum standard for legislation should at least be "do no harm."

Now, if the House can pass a set of fixes prior to the Senate Bill becoming law - something they're talking about as of today 3/16 - depending on the nature of those fixes, it might make HCR something that does not harm, even if the benefits are as good as the American people deserve.

If that happens, I'll support it. But until then I won't be bullied by politicians connected to a party that has a POLITICAL STAKE IN PASSING THIS BILL. You can appeal to authority all you want and it's not going to be any more persuasive when the people you are quoting have a vested political interest in this political "victory."

[Political Heretic]

28. PS - you can like both Wiener and DK or neither or some combination of the two.

I often disagree with people without hating them. :shrug:

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Such a bold endorsment!

"we’ve doubled down on an employer-based system that is not necessarily good."

When that is the best the proponents can do, it is not saying much. Imagine if we had a bill that at least a few actually liked, without all the qualifiers. How different this would be.

[Mark dog]

35. I like the variety of topics in your repertoire

So unpredictable.

[berni_mccoy]

37. All 8 of your posts have been responses to mine. What does that say about you?

[Mark dog]

42. I'm providing balance

Obsession vs. obsession.

[berni_mccoy]

62. No, you are delusional and a stalker

I'm passionate about HCR. I have a personal stake in it. Kucinich has thrown himself square in the spotlight on this and it's big news. You, on the other hand are just an internet stalker. Go away.

[Edweird]

36. Anthony is wrong and you are wrong. It happens.

[berni_mccoy]

40. Is Grayson wrong? Is Bernie Sanders wrong? Is Howard Dean wrong? Maybe you are wrong. It happens

More often than you'd like.

[Edweird]

45. I'm sure I'm on the right side of this. That's why all your posts are '0'.

[berni_mccoy]

46. Really? It sounds like Kucinich has decided to vote Yes after all.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/944

[Edweird]

49. When it happens we'll know.

[berni_mccoy]

53. I'm sure it's Dennis holding a presser to reaffirm his firm no.

:rofl:

[Political Heretic]

57. I'm sure he's going to tow the political line after being hammered and threatened by others

:shrug:

If you expect anyone to be "surprised" that the majority of Democrats are supporting their own fucking bill you are seriously kidding yourself.

Of course I wasn't a big part of this last nonsensical week of "dennis-gate" either so...

[berni_mccoy]

60. You must be having a bad day. Perhaps you should take a rest.

[Political Heretic]

64. No, I'm doing great - thanks for your concern. :)

[berni_mccoy]

66. Except that you have admitted to be a liar and flame-bait poster:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7932786&mesg_id=7932912

[Political Heretic]

69. Of course it does nothing of the sort. :)

I simply know that if you disapprove, I'm doing something right. Because you pretty much represent everything I oppose.

So if you're sick and tired of my posts, it means I know I'm on the right track.

[Edweird]

61. If he changes and votes 'yes', then he does. Until then, I support his 'no'.

No matter how anyone votes, or what any 'pundit' says, I do not support the Senate bill.

[Political Heretic]

55. No, they are politicians that know they have to pass any shitty bill to save Nov. elections.

Don't confuse their political savvy and understanding that a defeat on health care would hurt them in Nov. with anything else.

I don't necessarily want Democrats hurt, but I don't consider it my fault. They had a chance to build meaningful legislation and they refused to take it - this bill shouldn't be hoisted on the American Public just to save their own failure asses. It's not our fault that they suck.

[Marr]

70. They're politicians. They have interests besides the bill at hand.

Keeping their party in power is, I suspect, chief among them. Perhaps they simply think failure with a continuing Democratic majority would be better than failure that issues in a Republican majority.

All I know is that this bill is a means of grafting a corrupt, obsolete industry onto the government, when it should be regulated into extinction.

[Ignis]

44. ...And the anti-DK crusade continues!

It's a pity that these anti-DK posters couldn't muster up even 1/10th of this much ire when the HCR bill was being held hostage by the Blue Dogs.

[ncteechur]

48. DK is the same as the blue dogs. A no is a no.

[Ignis]

51. Oh, I'm sure the Blue Dogs will vote for this turd.

Why wouldn't they? They got everything they wanted from their year-long tantrum.

[berni_mccoy]

50. DK just joined the anti-DK crusade then. He's switching his vote.

[Ignis]

52. Sense your makes sentence no. (nt)

[ncteechur]

71. I certainly hope he does. Then he will not equal Stupak.

[JonLP24]

56. No under the bus for me

I like Weiner as well as Kucinich. I like Obama too. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they do.

[slipslidingaway]

68. Nice smear by Weiner ... if a few more people had not compromised so

quickly we could have been in a better position now.


"RS: You were also a top advocate for the public option. What do you make of Kucinich’s threatened ‘No’ vote?

AW: It’s folly. Nobody has compromised more than I have. I kid that I’ve compromised my compromised compromise at this point. I started out a similar place that Dennis is. I think single payer is the way to go. (In the current bill), we’ve doubled down on an employer-based system that is not necessarily good. But it’s inarguable that this bill would be better than the status quo.

But there are some people who don’t legislate that way. They think that if there’s anything offensive or problematic in a bill, I’ll vote no on it. Those people are not very good representatives."


I can remember when Weiner spoke passionately about a SP system in the media and said the CBO was scoring a SP over the August recess. Then strangely he set up a website to support a public option, and not SP, and in the end did not fight for either option.

Weird, wonder if he is getting married soon, they must both lead a hectic life.

[berni_mccoy]

72. If by smear you mean the truth, then ok.

Sorry that many people are having a tough time realizing what Kucinich is really about.

[slipslidingaway]

74. Again ...

I can remember when Weiner spoke passionately about a SP system in the media and said the CBO was scoring a SP over the August recess. Then strangely he set up a website to support a public option, and not SP, and in the end did not fight for either option.

Weird, wonder if he is getting married soon, they must both lead a hectic life.

[ShortnFiery]

86. Yes, for all the people who PROP UP Weiner and Grayson as these lauded liberals, they both

folded like "cheap suits" with merely a few sweet whispers from the Obama Administration.

They talk a good game but have FEET OF CLAY.

[berni_mccoy]

88. Yeah, we get it. If they are not St. Dennis, they are not liberal enough.

:eyes:

[slipslidingaway]

93. Weiner could have done quite a bit more for Medicare for All...

he spoke eloquently on the talk shows and then turned around and set up a website for the public option.

:shrug: :wtf:


I posted here about some my calls to his office to try and gain more information about the single payer amendment that he sent to the CBO for a score. Months later they still could not say exactly what was sent to the CBO and never posted it online, much less set up a website to try and generate support for a SP amendment.

Grayson is just too new for me to back and honestly politicians who continuously try and keep the left-right divide in focus lose some of my support. It may be good for a Dem win, but that does not always translate to a win for the people.


Just posting for reference

Waxman to Weiner: Pelosi Will Allow Single-Payer Full House Vote!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0fA2DfwFn4


Weiner Introduces Single-Payer Amendment to House Committee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB6XTMPj-os

[berni_mccoy]

94. Then he realized something many here cannot: it has to get through the Senate

And the Senate can't muster up 50 votes for the PO.

[slipslidingaway]

95. You obviously did not read my post - see the disconnect between what

he was saying and what he was doing. Going on talk shows and speaking about SP, telling us the CBO is scoring a SP bill over the August recess and THEN sets up a site for ... the public option???

[saltpoint]

80. Recommended. Weiner is the reliable gauge.

[ShortnFiery]

83. WTF! Weiner just went "off the tracks" because he thinks the Obama Administration

is being "too mean" to Israel.

Don't ever put all your faith in ONE POLITICIAN, even Obama and/or Kucinich.

They all have their flaws.

However, on standing FIRM for a robust PO or NO BILL is IMNSHO a very principled stand.

Bless Kucinich for that ... so far. ;)

[saltpoint]

89. I do put my faith in musicians and poets and lend them my ears.

And on this of all days when the old island or Eire is noticed and loved for both its tragedy and its awful beauty.

[LWolf]

82. It's not inarguable.

I can argue the flaws in this bill all day long.

What Weiner has to say about DK is irrelevant.

[ShortnFiery]

84. LOL, Weiner needs to look in the mirror ...

He's not ALL THAT. :evilgrin:

[LWolf]

87. Heh.

No, he's not. :evilgrin:

[berni_mccoy]

90. When DK Changes his vote today, he'll be proving Weiner right.

[LWolf]

91. If DK changes his vote, then both will be wrong. nt

[berni_mccoy]

92. I guess you think DK is wrong now.

[laughingliberal]

97. Yes, I think he should have held out for improvement to the bill

I don't know of a politician or anyone else for that matter that I line up with 100% of the time. If it is someone who I generally agree with on positions, I may factor their opinion in while forming mine. That is somewhat the difference in basing political decisions on policy instead of the sporting event model of politics.

I still have to ask myself why the President was able to exert this type of pressure on progressives who wanted a better bill for the people but we saw nada for the conservadems who wanted a worse bill for the people.

[LWolf]

98. I don't know.

If something happened today, I haven't had a chance to hear it. I've been working since early this morning; just got home.

It's not outside the possibility that I might think DK is wrong, though. Everyone is wrong every once in a while.

Some are just wrong with more regularity than others.