'Is the White House Angry That the “Professional Left” Keeps Getting Proven Right?'

[seafan]

Jon Walker at Firedoglake cuts to the chase:


August 16, 2010

The amazing thing about Robert Gibbs’s nonsensical attack on the “professional left” is that on most of the major disagreements between the White House and its left-leaning critics, the left has been proven right time and time again. What the left wants has been proven not only to be better policy but also better politics.

Stimulus

Let’s take, for example, the stimulus. Critics on the left criticized it for being too small, too poorly directed (i.e., too many tax cuts) and falsely inflated by Republicans out to increase the price tag (with a $100 billion AMT patch that would have happened anyway). Also, the Obama Administration underestimated the size of the downturn while over-promising how much the stimulus would help.

On every count, the left-leaning critics were right.

The stimulus was too small. Even according to the Administration’s own projections, they completely underestimated the size of the problem and did huge political damage by promising to keep unemployment below eight percent. This damaged Democrats in two important ways. The first is that by over-promising, they undermined popular support for the stimulus because, according to Obama’s own benchmarks, it failed. Given this failure to live up to the benchmarks, there is no surprise the majority of Americans think it was a total failure.

On an even more important level, by not preventing official unemployment from rising to 9.5 percent, the plan did huge political damage to Democrats in the midterms. During bad times, voters turn against the party in power.

Health Care

Almost every warning left-leaning critics made about the health care process came to pass. They told Obama that trying to negotiate with hard-core Republicans like Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Mike Enzi (R-WY) was a waste of time. Guess what? The left was proven 100 percent correct after Obama foolishly spent month after month on the “Gang of Seven” negotiations, gaining no Republican support. Instead, Grassley was claiming Obama wanted to pull the plug on Grandma. Over several months, the bill and Obama got progressively less popular. All that time could have been spent on legislation to deal with the jobs issue. The left pushed for the public option and when it was finally removed from the bill, the bill become even less popular.

Some on the left said, back in the early summer of 2009, that Democrats should use reconciliation to pass health care. After being told repeatedly that it was not a good idea, finally the left-leaning critics were again proven right when, almost a year later, Democrats had to use reconciliation to finish health care reform.

The failure to make the benefits of the new law felt right away is another place where left-leaning critics were still standing in the end. Despite the health care law being one of the biggest achievements of the Obama Administration, it remains unpopular. Its passage did little or nothing to boost Democratic poll numbers. If the law had starting delivering benefits right away to millions through something like an early Medicare buy-in, which critics like Howard Dean pushed for, there is a much better chance people in the important 50-to-65-year-old demographic would have warmed to the legislation. Front-loading more benefits could also have injected billions more of stimulus into the economy, helping to fix the problem created by the first, too-small stimulus package.

Bipartisanship

.....

And, again, we were left with nothing.

Criticism that rings true stings most deeply

Whether it was the stimulus, health care, bipartisanship or getting tough on Wall Street, the left-leaning critics have been proven right over and over again. What they wanted was not only better policy but what has often proven to be better politics.

If Obama’s left-leaning critics were repeatedly proven wrong, I don’t think you would have Administration officials publicly attacking them. If his critics had made fools of themselves by being wrong, there would be no need to try to discredit them. They would have discredited themselves. A big source of the White House’s frustration with the “professional left” is that they keep proving that President Obama and his advisers are not in fact the smartest people in the room. Or they won’t be if Rahm Emanuel or Larry Summers ever lets any of their progressive critics into the room.

Power abhors embarrassment.


But, somehow, doing the right thing for the people seems to elude them repeatedly.

[Laelth]

1. k&r for the truth. The left is right 95% of the time, as history has shown. n/t

-Laelth

[Tansy_Gold]

133. The left is NEVER right.. . . . .

But it's almost always correct. :evilgrin:

:hi:

Sorry, I couldn't help it. me loves a good pun.

K&R


TG, NTY

[The Wielding Truth]

150. "But it's almost always correct." On that we agree.

:kick:

[Weird Liberal Head]

160. Agreed

[Vincardog]

2. Never were truer words written

[Me.]

3. K & R

[Barack2theFuture]

4. the right is wrong

[nashville_brook]

5. that's the crux -- ceding the moral high ground just doesn't work.

[napi21]

6. I think they're mostly upset bause it's a RARE DAY that they get

credit for doing ANYTHING! They know we all wanted the private option, but I admit, I don't know why they didnt really push for it. Maybe the obly way they could have gotten ANYTHING was to scrap the po in the beginning. I am happy that they got pased what they did. It's got a lot of good things in the legislation.

Yes they underestimated how devere the downturn was, but remember, that mess existed way before Obama ever even walked in the front door and he had no hoice but to listen to what he wa told. So we're all going to blame HIM for guessing wrong?

I know when I worked I never expected to hear attaboys when I did my job, and of course expected to hear criticism when I failed, but if I accomplished something(s) that noone else was able to do, I sure was an unhappy camper if I didn't, at least once in a while, get a pat on the back.

Think about it. How many times have you heard compliments thrown at the President for ANYTHING? I can only think on ONCE! That was when Rachel did an entire segment of her show on the accomplishments of this admin.

And you ask WHY ARE THEY UPSET?

[Hydra]

16. Right...

Candidate Obama gave us a great roadmap on what he wanted to do and how to get there.

And then he went in the completely other direction, and wants credit for getting us to backwardistan after wasting blood, treasure, and the biggest stack of political capital and popular support I've ever seen.

Do you get an attaboy when you crash your system at work and you pay out of the petty cash box to your friends?

[Kweli4Real]

117. True, but ...

A huge part of candidate Obama's roadmap was based on the full support of congressional Democrats, while cherry-picking the rare republican. Can you say that this is anywhere close to the reality that he has faced?

"Do you get an attaboy when you crash your system at work and you pay out of the petty cash box to your friends?"

No, but you DO, or should, get an "attaboy" for despite getting little support from your "team" preventing or minimizing the system crashing, regardless of whom you have to pay to accomplish it.

[Selatius]

190. Then he oversold his advantage in the campaign and is suffering for it now.

In what world would it be realistic to expect right wingers and left wingers to act without discord inside the Democratic Party? Not my world. I can't speak for Obama's mind though or the people who ran his PR strategy.

[w4rma]

19. Maybe they should ask why we are upset? But I think they already know and don't care.

They only care as far as it might cost DLCers elections. I think they want to see progressives go down. And I think they want to see a full corporatist DLC takeover of the Democratic Party. Purge them, now. Force our losses to be born by DLCers in Congress.

[EFerrari]

25. Being upset is understandable. Beating up on the left is not.

It just makes the problem worse.

[Beartracks]

41. You make a good point...

Bush at least had the entire right-wing media apparatus sucking his... well, blowing on his... um, kissing his... well, you get the picture. (And sometimes they just did that stuff to themselves!)

And, yes, that would be the same whorish right-wing media apparatus that later claimed Bush wasn't REALLY a Conservative. :eyes:

[tallahasseedem]

42. Word.

They should be. I get irritated enough reading the spew on this "Democratic" message board. I can only imagine how they feel.

[Enthusiast]

71. I understand you.

You feel there are some good things in the HCR. Problem is, most people feel that it is very poor piece of legislation. A mandate, without a public option, was bound to be unpopular. How could it not be?

And not negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower outrageous prices was bound to be unpopular. So there you have it. It doesn't matter how YOU feel about it. It is so unpopular that Republican candidates are actually running on repealing it. Not that they have a winning strategy.

[HillbillyBob]

95. Caving for a speck of bipartisanship with the assholes

that brought down the economy and caused such misery, pissing on DADT (dont even start with the pony bullshit), ending wars, pissing on the public option at the get go, mandating that we pay private insurance crooks, FISA that was where he lost my ass.
I was personally targeted by the bush maladministration for speaking out about the shredding of our ballots in Fl the night of the election. Not going after the traitors that ran the (*) maladministrating.

Fuck Obama I am not going to vote for him. period. This is the last straw afaic.

[Kweli4Real]

123. And Can we assume ...

That you won't be voting for your current congressional reps ... you know ...the one's that actually have the constitutional responsibility for WRITING AND VOTING ON the l;egislature that you so desparately desire?

[uponit7771]

102. Yeap, the "professional left" acts as if Obama has 83% dem congress

[Radical Activist]

7. Liberals advocate good policies.

And most of the time we're on the same side as Obama, such as his support for the public option.

But, none of these examples prove that Obama is anything like Bush, or that we're not making significant improvement. So, it doesn't really have anything to do with Gibbs comment.

[gratuitous]

9. So, what would have something to do with Gibbs' remarks?

Who is really advocating for elimination of the Pentagon? Anyone? And when someone notes the similarities between the policies that the Obama administration is continuing and the policies that the Bush administration left for him, does that mean that someone is saying that Obama is just like Bush?

Because I see those two remarks - elimination of the Pentagon and Obama is just like Bush - as being quite similar to the sort of thing I'm used to hearing from the right side of our political spectrum. It's been called many things, but I rather like "dog whistle" pronouncements. That is, the sort of thing that isn't pitched for general consumption. Just as a dog whistle sounds at a higher cycle rate than the human ear can hear, Gibbs' remarks weren't pitched for the general public. It doesn't sound like anything, and is indeed nonsensical to think that there are a substantial number of people who constitute the "professional left" and who are advocating for the elimination of the Pentagon and saying that Obama is just like Bush.

So what might Gibbs have meant? After all, he's a highly paid professional who makes a good living with his mouth. He didn't just pop off; what did his little rant mean? That the White House's policy designs can be so utterly thwarted by three (maybe four) people who make up the professional left? Hardly.

His words clearly meant something else; I read them as the misplaced frustrations of a man who either can't or won't engage his true adversary. So he took the craven way out to do a little hippie punching, knowing that his pals in the media would smooth out the rough edges, and possibly even join him in belittling the progressives who saw a major policy change within their grasp, only to have it whisked away by an administration that couldn't bring itself to fight for something 70% of the electorate supported. If the administration supported the public option, it was undetectable.

[Radical Activist]

10. I bet Gibbs is frustrated.

Just today someone compared Obama to Reagan in another thread. I saw the Obama=Bush accusations frequently on DU and elsewhere. "Same as the old boss" was repeated so many times even before the inauguration it was nauseating. The sentiment is out there and is often repeated. Gibbs comment had nothing to do with the issues he mentioned. It was about the impossibility of pleasing those who will never be happy with anything Obama does.

I'm sure Gibbs is frustrated at seeing the most important progressive accomplishments by a President in over a generation be largely ignored or belittled by professional pundits and political operatives who should be allies. I agree that we need to push Obama left, but it should occur to people that progressive causes are also aided when we celebrate victories. Left punditry has shown itself to be completely incompetent at letting us know about any victory. That's not healthy. It doesn't help Obama achieve more and it certainly doesn't help the progressive movement.

You know what would help the progressive movement? A general public mobilized and angry because the US Senate keeps blocking Obama's progressive agenda. That's a framing that might actually lead to something better than generalized cynicism. Putting all the blame on Obama while letting conservative Senate Democrats off the hook is not only dishonest; its self-defeating.

[gratuitous]

12. Well, shut my mouth!

I mean, if anonymous posters at obscure websites are so worrisome to this administration that we completely hamstring them from working the Senate themselves, more's the pity. Who's "putting all the blame on Obama," anyway?

And as for letting conservative Senate Democrats off the hook, a lot of us citizen-types worked damn hard to put a real Democrat on the general election ballot in Arkansas. The administration worked doubly hard to stick us with Blanche Lincoln again. And she's going to get munched in November, while Bill Halter stood a pretty good chance of keeping that seat on the D side of the chamber. For our trouble, we got some choice words from the President's chief of staff.

I'm not unhappy with "anything" Obama does. I have very detailed, specific gripes with this administration, beginning with their decision not to investigate or prosecute the war crimes and crimes against humanity of their predecessor. This isn't some kind of bitter white whale hunt a la revoking Bill Clinton's bar ticket; some of us think the United States really ought to live up to its constitutional and treaty obligations. But I guess that's just general cynicism talking. I should be happy with the enhanced role of predatory insurance companies to run our health care system.

[Radical Activist]

17. No, open it more often.

First, let's be clear that I'm suggesting we also celebrate the victories. At no point did I suggest people should be silenced or shut their mouth. I know that's a rhetorical crutch people love to lean on around here.
I think you're being a little disingenuous pretending that we're only talking about small time websites. We can start with Ted Rall calling Obama "Hitler III." Then you have Dave Sirota and Tom Tomorrow trying to prove they weren't total idiots for backing Nader in 2000 and Edwards in '08. That's the start of a long list.

You wrote: "If the administration supported the public option, it was undetectable."

Actually, the President introduced a plan with the public option and argued for it repeatedly. He got it through the House. You're embracing a revisionist history that doesn't lay the blame where it primarily belongs: conservative Democratic Senators who wouldn't vote for a bill with the public option. You let the Senate off the hook by laying all the blame on Obama. I know, I know this is where you argue how Obama should be like LBJ or Stalin and just push it through anyway. Tell it to Lieberman and Nelson.

Since the Justice Department investigation into Bush torture policies is ongoing I think it's premature to say that no one will be prosecuted. This is another progressive action Obama is taking that no one knows about because it's being ignored by our left punditry. And once again, I think you're letting Congress off the hook by only blaming Obama. Executive oversight is the responsibility of Congress. Will you get around to holding them accountable or is everything about the President?

[DonCoquixote]

29. If this reply was a post

I would K and R

[Rilgin]

50. Revisionist History on the PO

Actually, you are performing some revisionist history. Obama did not "get" the public option through the House. The House passed a few health care bills out of various committees on their own. However, the White House did not support any of those plans. In fact, what was messaged out of the White House was a meme that the House versions of Health Care Reform were not the important ones.

Repeatedly and often, the White House sent messages through the media that the bill being drafted by the Bacchus chaired committee out of the Senate would be the basis of the final plan. Everyone knew at the time that this would be the least progressive plan (or one of them) and would likely end up not including the PO.

The White House had alternatives to this approach such as publically backing one of the more progressive House Plans which included the PO and minimizing the importance of the Bacchus Bill. They could not control the ability of Bacchus to write a bill however, they could have treated his bill as they, in fact, treated the House Bills. Both ways would have lead to a confrontation with Conservative Democratic Senators. However, it would have shown actual support for the PO and may have actually led such Democratic Senators to having to choose between backing the White House or fighting with the White House. His approach showed that he would throw the PO option under the bus at the slightest objection.

His attitude to the Bacchus Bill would have been basically the the opposite of the one he took. This was not pushing the PO through congress as you have intimated. It was pushing it under the Congressional bus.

[Radical Activist]

61. You must be repeating some storyline that's popular on blogs but it isn't accurate.

Obama proposed his plan with the public option before the House passed anything. He lobbied the House to get something close to his plan with the public option. Below is a quote from his nationally televised addressed to Congress in which he argued for the public option. This refutes your claims that he didn't introduce or campaign for a plan with the PO. He spent months campaigning for that plan and only removed the PO after it was clear the Senate would block it.
And how do you know the White House sent messages through the media? Don't you know that the press has every financial incentive to defeat HCR and spread negative gossip that they pretend comes from the White House? Progressives should know better than to fall for the corporate media's game.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. (Applause.)
Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight.

[Enthusiast]

74. Funny how so many of us have

a strong impression that President Obama did not fight for the public option. A HCR bill enacted through budget reconciliation could have included a public option. See, many of us feel President Obama, instead of saying a public option wasn't essential, should have insisted on a public option.

This is why the legislation is unpopular. Fact.

[Kweli4Real]

124. Okay ...

And exactly what is the President's role in the reconciliation process, other than cheerleader?

[Enthusiast]

130. Strong advocacy.

Talk it up. Say why the public option is essential to rein in insurance industry abuse. Say it every day. Get the public behind it (as if they weren't behind the PO anyway). Use all your rhetorical skills to bring it about. Tell the legislators, like Blanch Lincoln, that you can't support them if they go against this. If you can't get the votes express genuine remorse in public so you won't take all the blame.

If President Obama would have given an honest effort HCR would have included the public option. The HCR bill would enjoy far greater support and his approval rating would still be on the plus side. This is why shutting out the left, or the professional left, is doing lasting harm to the party and Obama's chances of being reelected.

It is like this with every issue. You can't be popular with Democrats by acting like a Republican or worrying about bi-partisanship with a bunch of nuts.

[Kweli4Real]

134. Okay ...

As I read your response, it boils down to cheerleading.

So what exactly is the congress' role in the reconciliation process?

And for the Tee-Shirt, the Matching Baseball Cap and the Keychain ...

Who is ultimately responsible for the passage of the legislation that we want to see?

[Kweli4Real]

135. Okay ...

As I read your response, it boils down to cheerleading.

So what exactly is the congress' role in the reconciliation process?

And for the Tee-Shirt, the Matching Baseball Cap and the Keychain ...

Who is ultimately responsible for the passage of the legislation that we want to see?

[Enthusiast]

143. You call it cheerleading

but when it involves the President it is called LEADERSHIP. And there was no leadership but maybe weak suggestions at best. Most of us feel the President did not lead on the issue of the public option. He didn't. He could have made a difference. This is why he didn't lead-so his leadership would NOT make a difference.

[Kweli4Real]

146. Could have made a difference with whom?

Ben Nelson? Joel Lieberman?

You and I don't matter because we can't vote on the legislation.

If we are blaming President Obama for a lack of leadership, then we MUST blame the democrat electorate for not demanding that democrats introduce and pass progressive legislation.

[Enthusiast]

162. The Democrat electorate screamed

to include a public option. Legislators heard it over and over. And the voters replaced Republicans with Democrats because they wanted progressive legislation. They didn't vote for Democrats imagining they would vote against progressive issues. Besides, with budget reconciliation a bill including a public option only needed 51 votes-a viable number.

[Kweli4Real]

163. First ...

You seem to be ignoring that the democrats that replaced the republicans don't seem to give a damned about what the Democrat electorate were/are screaming about ... Witness the votes.

Second, You seem to be ignoring that the democrats that replaced the republicans don't seem to give a damned about what the Democrat electorate were/are screaming about ... witness the vote. The PO didn't have the votes from the republican replacements.

[Enthusiast]

168. After Democrats decided to go the budget reconciliation

route a bill including a public option was never put to a vote. It would have passed, it only needed 51!

[Kweli4Real]

182. This is [b]NOT TRUE[/B] N/T

[Enthusiast]

187. Show proof that

the final vote included a PO.

[laughingliberal]

51. I would be happy to look at anything you have supporting your assertion that President Obama...

introduced a plan to Congress for health care reform, let alone one with a public option.

I have seen you make this claim before but all the reports last summer while Congress worked on HCR was that Obama was laying back and letting Congress formulate their plan.

The word in those days was he hoped to avoid the "Clinton error," by not writing his own proposal. The thinking there was that Clinton failed due to writing his own plan and not involving Congress enough. Obama went to the other extreme by giving almost no guidance save for some 'broad principles' which were quite vague. I know many of us felt the President should offer his own proposal but he did not.

Once it became time for the Senate and House bill to be merged, President Obama wrote an outline of what he favored and it did not include a public option.

I'm more than open to seeing anything which would support your assertion but I think you're wrong on the facts here.

[Radical Activist]

63. Is this just a narrative going around on blogs? It's completely unreal.

You didn't see Obama doing town hall meetings and dozens of TV shows to campaign for HCR? Or two addresses to Congress? That's just "laying around?" Come one. Stop believing whatever a pundit writes and think about what you saw and heard yourself.

Here's his first speech to Congress where he proposed (and argued for) a plan with the public option. That corrects most of the statements in your comment. He only gave up on the PO months later when HCR stalled in the Senate, people were calling the bill dead, and it was clear a version with the PO would be blocked by conservative Democratic Senators. I don't understand the campaign to shift the blame away from conservative Senators and onto Obama. It's not an honest telling of what happened.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/

But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. (Applause.)
Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated -- by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. (Applause.) The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

[laughingliberal]

101. So, what you meant to say was he made a speech to Congress about his HCR plan which included a PO.

Saying he introduced a plan to Congress suggests he sent over a bill he worked on and asked them to use it as a guideline. He did not.

The speech you posted was made in September when all the committees except Baucus' had already passed their bills out of committee (4 of the 5 committees involved had completed work on the bill). All 4 of the bills passed out at that point had a public option. And here's where he negated the public option in that speech:

"Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated -- by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. (Applause.) The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal."

Around this point in the debate, he and his staff were using words like "sliver," "not the essential piece..." It was not, by any stretch strong advocacy for a PO. I did see the town hall meetings. I heard him praising the work of Baucus' gang of six thugs. I heard him saying Baucus' bill would be the one to watch.

Please understand. At that point, I was still one of those believing in the 11 dimension chess. I kept telling myself, against the evidence, that he was just being conciliatory towards that bunch so that they would get their bill passed and he would come out fighting for the PO and the more progressive versions of the bill once that happened. I really did believe that. But Baucus passed his bill and the effort I had told myself he would make after that happened never materialized. Reid, who you disparage, tried 2 different scenarios to get a public option. The president never came out in favor of either. When Reid scrapped the public option with the opt out for states as he only had 58 voted for it and then tried for an early buy in for Medicare, Lieberman went of Fox to announce he would oppose it. Reid's initial impulse was to fight Joe on it and Rahm showed up at his office that very night and ordered him to cave to Lieberman. The toughest fight I ever saw Obama wage on the HCR bill was during the merging of the House and Senate bill. And was it the PO he insisted on? No, he dug his heels in and was ready to go to the mat over making sure we kept the excise tax on comprehensive benefit plans for workers. He fought far harder for that than he ever did for a PO.

Your attempt to paint me as someone who just listened to the pundits will not work. Health care policy has been the passion of my life and I followed every second of the entire process including reading every bill that passed. No issue has every been more important to me than health care reform and I did not leave it to the pundits to tell me what was going on with it.

[Radical Activist]

139. A claim was falsely made that Obama did not support and even fought the public option.

You can get lost in inconsequential tangents about whether Obama introduced a bill with specific language. It doesn't support the false claim I'm responding to. Obama supported the public option and spent months campaigning for a plan that included it. He only dropped it after the White House believed it couldn't pass the Senate. End of story.

[laughingliberal]

151. Your 'end of story' statement does not make it the end of the story.

Obama did not participate, whatsoever, in the HCR debate through the summer while Congress worked to get their bill passed. He was silent throughout August while the right got wall to wall coverage with their insane teabagger talk. Our grass roots groups were successfully targeting the Blue Dog obstructionists in the Senate and building huge support for the public option. That is the way to get them to support it-build the support in their districts to a level where the recalcitrant legislator is scared not to support it. The White House called our efforts 'fucking retarded.' He not only didn't campaign for it, his administration insulted those of us who were campaigning for it.

In September (after 4 of the 5 committees involved had passed decent bills) he made the speech to which you refer,where his 'support' for the public option was, at best, weak. After that, it was downplayed more in each subsequent statement from the administration. Calling the PO a 'sliver,' or 'not essential' is not 'campaigning for it.' Praising Baucus' draconian right wing bill as 'the one to watch' without EVER mentioning the 4 other bills that were ALL better than Baucus' and ALL contained a public option is not campaigning for the public option. Sending his CofS to Harry Reid's office to order him to cave to Lieberman on the Medicare buy in is not campaigning for the public option. Once we lost the Senate seat in MA and had to pass a final fix to the bill under reconciliation, we could have gotten it through the Senate. We only needed 50 votes by then. If the President had wanted a public option, there was nothing stopping it at that point. He didn't even ask.

You can spin it all you want. I've seen how the President fights when he wants something. Witness how much effort he put into making sure he got the excise tax on workers' benefits. He gave no quarter. In the end, he was willing to modify it a little but his statements were clear that it absolutely had to be part of the bill. He dug his heels in and refused to consider a bill that didn't include it. We saw none of that kind of determination or commitment, ever, over the public option.

In the end, he denied he ever campaigned on a public option.

[Radical Activist]

157. I'll start with your first three sentences.

Your claims that Obama did not participate in the summer, didn't pressure Congress, and that he was silent in August are easily proven false. Here are links that show those statements are absolutely untrue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/obama-health-care-speech-_n_238363.html - He gave speeches in June.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/health/policy/15obama.text.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/12/healthcare-town-halls-obama - He did town halls in August.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB124865363472782519.html - Obama meets personally with Blue Dog Democrats to pressure them for support.

Maybe this is just a case of fuzzy memory on your part. But I'm not interested in reading the rest of your post knowing that you start out with three false statements which suggest you've created your own distorted version of events. I would also suggest that if you read those claims about Obama doing nothing over the summer then you should ask yourself what else that source may be lying to you about. No matter what you think about the Public Option, it doesn't justify spreading completely untrue statements about how Obama handled HCR.

[laughingliberal]

159. There's no doubt he did work to get a Health Care Reform bill passed.

And he did, to his credit, speak about the Public Option in the speech to the AMA in June. He did not address it in the other speech you cited (which, btw, was in July).

As for his town hall meetings in August, that's when he started with the business about Baucus' horrible bill being the one to watch signaling Baucus' bill had his support.

The meeting you cite with the Blue Dogs did not include any pressure on them about the public option.


This report appeared in the New York Times on August 12, 2009. No one in the White House ever refuted or denied the report.

<snip> Lobbyists for both the drug and hospital industries say that, as early as June, White House officials directed them to work out cost-saving deals with Mr. Baucus’s committee.<snip>

Hospital industry lobbyists, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House, say they negotiated their $155 billion in concessions with Mr. Baucus and the administration in tandem. House staff members were present, including for at least one White House meeting, but their role was peripheral, the lobbyists said.

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

“We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,” one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?_r=1&sq=Chip%20Kahn%20Baucus%20public%20option&st=sce&srp=2&pagewanted=all

In the end, President Obama denied he ever campaigned on a Public Option. Seems he has some bouts of fuzzy memory at times, too.

[Kweli4Real]

126. Rad ...

I fear that you are wasting your time. It seems that too many here have either forgotten their 8th grade civics lessons or have bought the rightwing messianic Obama line. Either way, President Obama, and him alone, will get the blame for the weak-kneed inaction of congress.

[Radical Activist]

138. I know. There's an irrational brain fart going around on this.

"Obama never used the bully pulpit for health care!!!"

- But look he gave tons of speeches supporting it.

"But that doesn't count because he didn't support the public option!"

- No he spoke in favor of the public option in many speeches and included it in his plan.

"That doesn't count! Those are just words! He should have forced the Senate to cry uncle!"



It's the same conversation over and over again on this issue people are obsessed with. The most bizarre part is all of the people who like to think they're free thinkers becoming totally fixated on an issue they never cared about before they were told to by a few bloggers and pundits.

I want a system that combines non-profit insurance co-ops and government single payer programs. Anything less than that was a big compromise from the start. Losing the public option is a much less significant compromise that I can't get worked up about. The Senate is the problem and all the exploding heads blaming it on Obama aren't helping us deal with the problem.

[Fruittree]

144. Thank you -

I was starting to think there was no on who supports Obama on this forum. Everything didn't become perfect the day he became president but who honestly expected it to. He's doing the best he can with an uncooperative congress and criticism from the left and right - it's a miracle anything has happened. Why would anyone want to be president?

[laughingliberal]

165. This was not an "irrational brain fart":

This report appeared in the New York Times on August 12, 2009. No one in the White House ever refuted or denied the report:

div class="excerpt"]<snip> Lobbyists for both the drug and hospital industries say that, as early as June, White House officials directed them to work out cost-saving deals with Mr. Baucus’s committee.<snip>

Hospital industry lobbyists, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the White House, say they negotiated their $155 billion in concessions with Mr. Baucus and the administration in tandem. House staff members were present, including for at least one White House meeting, but their role was peripheral, the lobbyists said.

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

“We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,” one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13healt...

[NorthCarolina]

80. The usual...repeat a talking point enough times and it will become "reality" for some. eom

[GOTV]

142. This NYTimes article from 09/09 backs what you were saying

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/health/policy/06lessons.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

It discusses the Lessons Learned that Obama took from the Clinton HCR failure as drafted by 3 former Clinton advisors.

Relevant Excerpt (Emphasis Mine):

Lesson 4: Leave the details to Congress.

Mr. Obama got a faster start than Mr. Clinton by not repeating his mistake of trying to write the law for the lawmakers. The Clintons’ secretive labors on a 1,342-page bill cost nine months and stoked resentment among Congress’s proud Democratic committee barons, who felt left out.

Mr. Obama went to the other extreme. He produced no plan, only fairly specific directives. He said he wanted to create “exchanges” offering private insurance plans and a public option. He called for insurance subsidies for individuals and small businesses. And he advocated changes in Medicare and Medicaid payments to give the health industry incentives to control costs and improve care.

[truedelphi]

57. There is no proof whatsoever that the President

introduced a plan with the public option. Or if he did, he only introduced it in privacy to himself and Gibbs maybe.

In fact, he spent the whole darn summer of 2009 going around the country, to the many town hall meetings, and repeatedly saying that he could not interfere with the legislative branch in their writing of the health bill.

The situation was so nauseatingly awful that finally Jon Stewart called Obama on his spineless approach to health care "reform." (Circa mid August 2009)

Stewart showed footage of Obama's typical spiel before the those at the meetings: "Well, as far as the public option, we don't even know if the final bill will contain language that includes the public option. Since we don't know if it will be in the final bill, we don't know whether the public option will be voted on or not. Remember it is only one tool of many tools that we have."

Talk about Presidential Leadership and strong statements!... (NOT!)

of course, there were also all the many times that Obama rallied the citizens of the United States to the notion of having public option by stating: "Now if we were starting from scratch,the public option would be the most logical and best solution to the health care reform problem. But since we already have a system in place, we must seek a typically American solution, which will include the insurance groups that are already there serving the American public."

Wow. Imagine that we need to have a reform involving insurance. Could it be that we need reform because of the practices of the industry that causes so much of the problem? That is, the Big Insurers.

But no, wait! Just wait! According to the president, we have to be Aemrican about this, and include those Big Insurers, because we cannot exclude them simply because of the problems they create, the people they kill, the over priced policies that make it necessary for people to choose between groceries or health insurance. Because after all, if we weren't so "American" about this issue, then, Guess What?

"Rahm won't get to collect much in the way of campaign contributions from those people."

[Radical Activist]

60. I had no idea so many people on this board had invented their own version of reality.

Here's a quote from his nationally televised speech to Congress on his health care proposal that included the public option. This was before anything passed the House. He only took it out months later after it was clear it wouldn't pass the senate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/

But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities. (Applause.)
Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight.

[sendero]

72. Obama has SAID a lot of things..

.. that doesn't mean JACK SHIT. Show PROOF that he SUBMITTED A PLAN.

[kenfrequed]

90. You keep citing the same speech

Which is about as relevant as his campaign for president where he stated his support for it. But there was almost no legislative work towards getting it done. Every ridiculous effort was made and no part of the bill was spared in the quixotic attempt to get Olympia Snowe's approval for anything that could be called 'health care reform.'

The weight of the whitehouse was not behind it and negotiations, which should have started at universal healthcare to compromise for a public option, were instead started at a weakened and watered down public option to settle for insurance reform and mandated insurance.

I could list all the things we asked for but didn't get but the original poster was right.

[truedelphi]

127. As the original poster, I

Humbly offer you my thanks.

[Radical Activist]

132. Because it effectively refutes the misleading exaggerations that get posted here.

There are repeated claims that Obama never supported, introduced or campaigned for the public option. That speech is the easiest example to prove the claim is factually inaccurate. There are more examples from his speeches at town hall meetings and TV appearances.

It's bizarre that in one thread he's accused of not using the bully pulpit for health care. In the next thread, when an example is provided of him using the bully pulpit, it doesn't mean anything because those are "just words." That's completely irrational.

You can argue that Obama should have pushed harder in Congress for the Public Option. I doubt it would have changed the position of Nelson and Lieberman, but that would at least be a rational point. That's something very different than the arguments I'm responding to, which spread falsehoods like the idea that he never supported it or spoke for it. They're just recycling hyperbolic talking points.

[GOTV]

147. "I didn't campaign on the public option." - Barack Obama

Throughout the health-care debate, the president has declined to weigh in with specific preferences. The tactic has exasperated his supporters, but his advisers have deemed it key in keeping the bill moving through a balky Congress. Obama called the public option his preferred choice to ensure broad coverage and provide cost-cutting competition to the private insurers. But he has never demanded that it be part of a final bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/22/AR2009122202101.html

Sounds like tepid, winking support to me.

[Enthusiast]

76. Nice post, truedelphi.

This is what is disturbing to many of us. We ended up codling an abusive insurance industry at the expense of the American health care consumer. This is why the legislation is so unpopular.

We screamed that HCR with a mandate HAD to include a PO. They didn't listen.

[obxhead]

114. Obama did not introduce a plan of any kind on HCR.

He said I would "like" this and that to be in it (wink, wink) and let Congress and Senate kick it around on their own. He just signed the bill in the end and it had next to nothing in it that he campaigned on. In fact it had things in it that he campaigned against even.

It's a win though I guess. Would sure hate to know what a loss looks like.

[Kall]

169. Oh yeah

He argued for the public option by stressing that it was "just a sliver", and nothing important. Thanks for the "effort".

[txlibdem]

89. Shout it from the rooftops, my friend

I'm not alone in thinking that Obama gave us the impression that he would fight for Progressive and Liberal policies once we elected him. Now that we see he is doing the exact opposite: he's the biggest proponent of trickle down economics in the Democratic Party, "health care reform" that is a giveaway to big insurance and big pharma, tossing single payer out the window before bringing pen to paper on the legislation and then capitulating on public option without even a whimper, so-called bank reform that stops none of the abusive practices and closes none of the loopholes, the list goes on and on and on.

We were hoodwinked people!

Dean + Hillary 2012 is the only answer to this back stabber.

[Fruittree]

18. Exactly..

I've found myself pretty disgusted with the "professional left" as well. Why not support the president and put pressure on the congress/senate? Every time Obama manages to pass something, it seems all the websites filled with people you would think would be supporting him instead screaming "corporatist", "not good enough", "sell-out" and my (least) favorite - "he needs to grow a pair"...Make a point, back it with facts, ask for more but show some appreciation for the difficulty of the job and for the good that he's done under the circumstances. This is the best president we've had in my lifetime and I, for one, am grateful. I think Gibbs is absolutely correct to be frustrated and to express it as he did. We need a bit more positive effort...a bit more gratitude...and a whole lot less outrage and whining! On that note, I'm off to play frisbee with my dog because I suspect my words convince no one and change nothing..

[LWolf]

24. Because the president is the source of the bad policies. nt

[Fruittree]

27. What bad policies are we talking about?

I fail to see any at all. What I see is a bad situation that's going to take time to turn around. Constant criticism and whining will get us nowhere - all it does is strengthen the opposition which ultimately leads to inertia and nothing happening. The "it's not good enough" chant is pointless and annoying. What we need to maybe say is - "Great start - now let's build on it!"

[LWolf]

34. 1. Expanding the stupid war on terror.

2. Focusing efforts on improving the economy to bailing out the top, rather than job creation for the rest.
3. Public Education. ARNE DUNCAN AND THE UNION-BUSTING, PRIVATIZING "REFORMS" HE OVERSAW IN CHICAGO:

http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=809§ion=Article

4. Health insurance reform instead of health care reform.
5. The catfood commission and his appointee's efforts to harm Social Security.

Just to start.

[Fruittree]

66. I'm no expert but...

1. The "war on terror" I can't entirely defend but neither can I totally understand it. That said, I think we do have an issue with people wanting to harm the US and/or Americans whether the US is partially to blame based on bad past policies is a point that can be made but it is the government's job to defend citizens.
2. I don't think there was any choice but to "bail out the top" since they, unfortunately comprise a large part of the economy and if they went down, we were all going with them. Something I don't get and maybe you have insight - how does the government create long lasting jobs in an economy based on private industry?
3. Public Ed..I support unions but the purpose of schools is to educate children and some are failing to work under the current model. I see it as a positive that Arne Duncan is taking an open look at the education system. I don't think his point is to "bust unions" but rather to improve a failing school system.
4. The healthcare bill barely passed as it was - Obama simply didn't have enough legislative support to get more than he did. That said, it's a positive change. My son for example who graduated college and has yet to find a job, will get insurance coverage as will millions of others.
5. I don't think anyone can realistically believe Obama is going to destroy/harm social security. That doesn't mean it may not need adjustment. My own personal belief is make it more of a safety net than an entitlement. Those earning over a certain income get a reduced amount if any. If you don't need it, don't take it..That way people like my mom don't have to live off of $400/ month.

My view is all of the changes have been positive, they aren't end points and yet people treat them as if they are. I return to my previous statement - Say "Great job and let's build on it!" Why does a site like this one insist on giving aid to those who oppose any change at all?

[LWolf]

92. No.

1. Using fear to convince people that we need to fight a perpetual war in the ME to "defend citizens" doesn't fly. The war on terror is a war of empire. The more we bully other nations, the more likely terrorists are to target us. More than double the # of people who died as a result of 9/11 have been killed in Iraq and Afganistan, and that's just American troops. I can find a documented count of about 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed; that's civilians, not terrorists, and that figure doesn't count those killed in Afghanistan. How many people who weren't threatening us need to die before you'll feel safe?

2. Trickle down economics, Reaganomics, is what has destroyed the economy in this nation. How does the government create long lasting jobs? Ask FDR. A modern WPA program would start. Put people to work, and they'll pump money back into the economy, which will then need to hire more people. This nation's infrastructure has been allowed to decay; there are plenty of jobs for people to do to help rebuild it. Another important thing to do would be to dump NAFTA/CAFTA and free trade, and return to fair trade based on labor and environmental standards. Abolish outsourcing.

3. "Failing school system." Another successful Reagan-era propaganda. We aren't failing. In too many cases, we are under-staffed, under-funded, over-crowded, and over-controlled by politicians, which limits what we can do to serve students, but we aren't "failing." The system is struggling because it has been set up to do so. Privatization and Union-busting IS the goal. I was working in public education during the Reagan era, when the propaganda, and the efforts, began. Ronald Reagan, who wanted to abolish the dept. of Education. Educate yourself about this issue and quit allowing propaganda to direct your thinking.

4. "Didn't have the votes" is a stupid mantra. When Obey wanted to transfer RTTT funds intended to bribe and bully states into adopting destructive reforms to funding jobs so that classrooms would be staffed this fall, Obama threatened to veto any bill that cut his BAD program. He didn't threaten to veto a health insurance bill that didn't include a public option. Single payer wasn't even allowed on the table for discussion; if it had been, the public option would have been the compromise. Do you have any idea how many people already have insurance and can't afford to use it? That's right. Paying big $$$$ into the insurance industry coffers without getting care. And that's before the HUGE spike in premium increases we're seeing since the health insurance bill was signed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8903175

5. Who did Obama appoint to the catfood commission? Alan Simpson? If you think this commission wants to protect Social Security, think again. Social Security is an insurance policy paid to the government by every worker. Every worker has the right to expect to cash in that insurance at the end of their careers. Social Security works, and is not running out of money. Not unless you expect the government to default on paying back money they've "borrowed" from the fund.

Perhaps you view all the changes as "positive" because you can afford to pay your health insurance premiums and still get care, or you don't work in public education, or you haven't seen your retirement accounts disappear as the economy tanked, you haven't run through all your savings trying to stay afloat, you haven't lost your job, no one you care about has been injured or killed in the middle east, and you aren't concerned with what the wars are costing us while people struggle at home.

[kenfrequed]

97. Recommended for being better than my response +1

You summed it making a few points that I like better and more to the point than my response.

[LWolf]

100. I thought your response was just fine.

:hi:

[kenfrequed]

96. A few things

1.

Claiming to ‘not understand’ something that is, on its face, an absurdity might be some kind of strange Wisdom. Choosing to ‘have an issue’ with those harming Americans has little to do what a war against a tactic. Logically a war on terror makes about as much sense (and is doomed to be as ineffective) as a war on jealousy, a war on killing people with sharp objects, or a war on drugs. A War is something that exists between nation states (or within a nation state) and has little to do with what he have done and are presently doing.

If we are looking to enter conflict with those states that have financed terror then we have to look at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, rather than Iran. The former two have been far more involved in the religious extremism that has created terrorism over the last twenty years (at least)


2.

There were many choices other than bailing out from the top. In fact the big Wall Street bailout was a massive exercise in government subsidized ‘profit taking’ and a first strike against the fear of Democratic government entitlements by Wall Street.

The failing mortgages that were supposed to be part of the root of the problem so bailing out the families that were being evicted probably would have been the most stable way to prop up the system. Sure, Goldman Sachs might not have made as much money off of it, but it would have been a hell of a lot more just and it would have actually looked like the policy of a Democrat.

As a matter of fact the Tarp and most of the solutions put forth looked a lot more like supply side solutions than progressive bottom up policy, but there is a vocal and nasty DLC set amongst the Democratic Party that despises ‘New Deal’ style policy.


3.

Those that want to start subsidizing charter schools (many of which are for-profit endeavors) are ignoring the nature and method that schools are funded, the importance of class size, and the way that ‘No child left behind’ is gradually de-funding schools all over. The moves to placate the right wing and it’s ‘Evil Teachers Union’ meme does absolutely nothing to solve the problem and actually serves to increase the prominence of the ‘Charter (non) solution.’

If you think there is no money behind the effort to destroy public eduation in favor of for-profit charters, there are about four slickly produced ‘crap-umentaries’ that were at least partially funded by some of the ‘for-profit’ crowd.


4.

I am glad that you can keep your son on your insurance policy after he graduated college. I think it is a stop gap at best and one that didn’t hurt the insurance companies as much as people in their twenties are less likely to actually make use of insurance benefits or visit the clinic on a regular basis.

I am glad that there are laws protecting people from being discriminated against fro pre-existing conditions, that maximums have been raised, and that people can’t be dropped as easily. However there weren’t even any damned cost controls programmed into the system, which means it will still collapse and it will do so at the worst time, when a republican is in office and that will mean…. Dum-da—da-dum… that’s right “Deregulation!” (Which seems to be the only thing they like better than stupid tax cuts for wealthy people).

We had a chance to change the system and instead we embroidered it a bit and the insurance companies know this.


5.

Your own personal belief about social security is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with why it was created and all the term shifting in the world makes no difference. Also tossing out the term ‘entitlement’ is using the enemy’s language. Seriously, ‘entitlement’ is a slick way to make social welfare programs sound like the kind of attitude that people that live in exurbia have, or that somehow the poor and old are being demanding.

People work their whole lives for social security. People pay their whole lives for social security. Social Security is solvent for decades and if we want to increase the solvency than the solution is absurdly simple. Raise (or better yet eliminate) the caps on income that make it so that people that make a hundred thousand a year or more have to pay on every dollar they make.

The president stated that it would be a closed door commission where everything could be on the table. Too bad that Single payer universal wasn’t “on the table.” Personally I would like to see this table where we have to keep ideas on it designed to hurt old people but we can’t fit anything intended to help sick people.

[lark]

115. Playing footsie with BP is a great start?

It's reprehensible! They still haven't killed the well and he's going to the beach saying everything's fine, no damage here, eat the Gulf seafood, la, la la. Sickening. I notice the government has also not made a response to the FL and GA studies showing the oil/dispersant is at the bottom of the sea and being absorbed by krill and other small organisms that the fish feed on. Where's the testing to see if it's safe, no, just send out people and trust the oil co. Yeah, great plan, that is!!

[GOTV]

149. Putting wall street cronies in charge of the economy &.holding prisoners without charge or trial

to name two

[obxhead]

120. So now I should support Obama no matter how bad a policy he

and his administration fight for.

Sounds like "my president right or wrong."

I didn't feel that way under Bush, I refuse to feel that way under Obama.

[Fruittree]

141. Fine...

but I think we both know that's not what I was saying..

[Capitalocracy]

39. Gibbs - English Translator

Gibbs: 'They want to get rid of the Pentagon.'

English: 'They want to balance the budget by eliminating wasteful military spending on technology we don't even use and wars that just get us in trouble instead of by eliminating Social Security.'

[laughingliberal]

55. +1000 nt

[Enthusiast]

77. Exactly.

You must be professional left.

[kenfrequed]

83. Uhm

You are aware that the Gibbs comment was an absurd strawman-broadside agaisnt the left.

Given how we have been mistreated and ignored, we are the ones that should be upset and firing off absurd barbs like the one Gibbs tossed.

[lark]

113. Um, hello, remember support for FISA

Remember Obama's support for president can lock up anyone for any length of time? Sounds pretty Bushesque to me.

[me b zola]

8. K&R

[LWolf]

11. k&r

[KittyWampus]

13. Keeps getting things right? Hahahahahaha. How many times did we attack Iran?

The Reactionary Screamers who infest DU and elsewheres are wrong most the time and when it comes to reality- have no capacity to actually get things done.

[Ramulux]

23. Jesus christ

Are you serious? Are you unaware of the inflammatory language white house officials have used in regards to what they could possibly do to Iran? You are just wrong, nobody said Obama would attack Iran in his first two years, we have simply expressed disgust and concern over the fact that military options are still on the table according to white house officials. You also obviously didnt read the article.

[Skittles]

46. don't confuse them with the facts, Ramulux

their tiny pin heads will explode

[kenfrequed]

98. And...

To my knowledge the stupid 'military option' is STILL on the table with regards to Iran which does nothing but inflate the hardliners there against an external enemy.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

14. K&R

[Fumesucker]

15. K&R, thanks for posting..

[Ramulux]

20. This is a great piece

If I had one wish, it would be for Obama to read this article. He sums up the past 2 years perfectly.

[ProSense]

21. Krugman on the stimulus:

Too Little of a Good Thing

Joe Barton on the stimulus

I agree with Krugman.

[mmonk]

22. Of course. They thought it would create a repeat of the 90's

pre-tech bubble burst. But the country has sustained much more damage since then. We need a bigger stimulus, real healthcare reform that contains costs and goes into effect sooner, and we do not need to cut government services. The DLC is killing us and liberalism will falsely get the blame again in a country that can no longer correct itself and is void of a pendulum.

[laughingliberal]

59. +1000 nt

[BzaDem]

26. Everything in that article is either wrong or completely beside the point.

The stimulus that passed was the biggest stimulus that could pass the Senate. HCR started as early as possible while still keeping the 10 year cost projections low enough so that it passed the Senate. FinReg was the strongest bill possible that could pass the Senate.

Every single one of those bills got EXACTLY 60 votes. Not one additional vote for reasons of "bipartisanship." The ONLY bipartisanship that existed was the Maine senators, who were required for FinReg and the stimulus to pass.

The implication of Walker's argument is that we should have passed NO stimulus, NO HCR, and NO FinReg. It is articles like this that make me wonder why the "professional left" Gibbs refers to is taken remotely seriously by ANYONE.

[janx]

28. This isn't an article. It's another blog.

It's one person's opinion, and it's not professional.

[FrenchieCat]

32. LOL!

But at least it gives many something to Recommend....
and in today's make-believe activism politics, that's everything! :rofl:

[SteveM]

152. "Back in the day...." I used to staple yard signs & stuff envelopes...

Now, I sit at this computer and go: Like, WOW!

And nothing happens.

I think Gibbs and the DLC know that, and are taunting what's left of the Left. They DON'T WANT US. And haven't for a long time.

[sendero]

35. No,.....

.... everything you say is wrong or beside the point. The article is spot on and you are in your own private Idaho as usual.

[BzaDem]

62. You can continue believing it just as the "progressives" in FDR's time believed Social Security

shouldn't have passed because it "didn't go far enough." Of course, you and your opinions will then be just as irrelevant as them and their opinions. But something tells me you don't care how crazy you sound ad long as it helps you resolve your cognitive dissonance by perpetuating your narrative.

[Fruittree]

67. Absolutely..

I think people who worship FDR now forget how much "progressives" objected to him when he was in office.

[Enthusiast]

79. Real Democrats hold FDR

in high regard. I have never heard of anyone that worships FDR. Sounds like what we hear Republicans say about worship of Obama.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. I know all about FDR from my father and uncles who were there

so I know all about a flawed man and his difficult battles. Worship? Far from it. Admiration? You bet. Because of knowing the history from eye witnesses, I know that those who put their words in quotation marks, ala John McCain, are insincere and unable to speak clearly, largely because such a person would have no idea what a progressive of the time believed, nor a progressive of this time, or any of the other contexts and terms of art used in political discourse. Progressives and other Democrats elected FDR four times running, so these objections you imagine, but can not describe or cite, they could not have been all that strong.
Lots of weak minded types confuse constant praise with support. In politics, support is an activity, not a recitation.

[Fruittree]

111. I put progressive in quotes precisely because I don't know

how to define it. What is the difference between progressive and liberal? I like the way in a short blurb you've compared me to John McCain, called me insincere, unable to speak clearly, have no idea about political discourse, have no idea about FDR and I'm also weak minded. I'm so glad this is a forum for exchange of ideas and open, respectful discussion. I don't mind people thinking differently from myself and I enjoy a discussion but this is a total waste of time...

[kenfrequed]

99. wrong-ness

Social security was a public plan that was financed as such. 'Health care reform' is corporate wealth-fare for insurance companies. To compare the voices that thought Social Security was inadequate (but that had room for improvement) with people that had issues with the structural and policies behind healthcare in some quantitative fashion is logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest.

[Fruittree]

148. I am not saying that healthcare reform is perfect nor do I think

SS is perfect. What I'm saying is that both are good steps. Healthcare reform will have more people covered, will help some elderly with prescriptions, has controls on what companies can charge, helps establish local clinics and demands that companies spend more of the money they charge on actual care. Is it perfect? no Is it an endpoint? Hopefully not. But is it an improvement? In my opinion, yes. My point in comparing SS and its passage with healthcare and its passage is that both involved compromise. FDR like Obama had to work with those who opposed him.

[kenfrequed]

164. It is still a flawed analogy.

Social security is not, nor was it ever, the corporate wealth-fare that healthcare reform is.

To improve healthcare reform you would have to, at bare minimum, pass a strong public option and pass regulations to rein in costs of insurance, however there is no 'next step' towards that direction as there was in social security.

With social security the next steps were all quantitative changes, cover more people, give a higher standard of living... etc.

Fixing healthcare reform is akin to going at it all over again from the start.

So your analogic meme (and it is a popular one) is a failure.

[BzaDem]

170. You don't get it.

People weren't just saying SS wasn't perfect and had room for improvement. People were saying that it SHOULDN'T PASS because of its problems. THAT is the direct analogy.

And you managed to fit so much false information about HCR in your post (the "corporate welfare" canard typical on DU, the idea that we can't pass a public option now because there is no "next step", the idea that there aren't ALREADY regulations IN HCR that rein in the costs of insurance) that you clearly want to perpetuate a narrative and are not interested in a fact-based discussion.

[Fruittree]

176. (Thank you)

[kenfrequed]

178. And you are ignoring obvious differences

People said it didn't go far enough.

It was possible to quantitatively increase and improve access to and cost of living adjustments to social security to cover mroe people and provide for a higher standard of living. Since it was a program where money was given directly to the people it wasn't a problem.

Healthcare reform is not a direct program to individuals, it is a set of rules requiring you to get private insurance without a competing public plan or direct access to healthcare. All the wrangling in the world doesn't mean anything. And despite yoru protests there is little in healthcare reform that contains costs of premiums or copays.

There were two or three fixes worthy of note: 1) requiring an extention of a families coverage to take care of college aged kids- this didn't cost the insurance companies much as this age group has fewer long term medical concerns and are less likely to use insurance benefits. 2) Limiting (though not entirely removing) an insurance companies ability to deny coverage for preexisting conditions. and 3) removing the cap on benefits that allows many insurance companies to skip out once you have hit a million dollars. This isn't technically a cost control but it is good if you know someone that gets chronically ill or has a serious and complicated medicaal condition.

I allow that these are good things. But this is duct tape and an expansion doesn't really go anywhere. Theses are some of the best improvements of HC reform and they have almost nowhere to go, grow, or expand.

Additionally we are struck with the blight of a mandate (a part of HC reform that I hope is struck down as unconstitutional) which amounts to a law requiring that all citizens purchase private insurance AND that should they have difficulty affording it that the federal government will subsidize private insurance. Which I think... yes, that definitely amounts to corporate wealthfare.


Does that clear things up at all?

[BzaDem]

183. If you get rid of the mandate, you also have to get rid of pre-existing conditions

Otherwise, only sick people will purchase insurance and the massive increase in premiums would make it unaffordable for anyone but the very rich.

Just look at New York State. They ban denial on the basis of pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The number of policies has since dropped by a factor of 30 (!!!), and it now costs in the thousands PER MONTH to get a policy on the individual market.

Massachusetts, on the other hand, has a mandate, and their premiums did not go up more than the nationwide average.

And the bill does ENTIRELY remove the ability to charge different amounts based on existing conditions. It does allow some variation by age, but not by health status.

The bill also contains a medical loss ratio requirement, which mandates that at most 15% of premium dollars can go to profits, salaries, marketing, administrative expenses, and other non-medical costs. That is a huge cost control.

[kenfrequed]

184. uhm No.

The two are not so intimately related that one cannot remove mandates. I'm sorry if that hurts insurance companies business but forcing people to buy insurance is insane and health care reform is supposed to be about helping people, not Blue Cross Blue Shield.

[BzaDem]

188. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do you want to pay 2000/mo for health insurance?

The premiums have to cover the whole pool. If the pool is very sick in general, that means your premiums will respond accordingly. It is YOU that would be worse off.

[kenfrequed]

194. On pumpernickle

Baloney, that is.

What this is created to do is to prop up insurance company profitability.

The health care problem could have been solved more cheaply and efficiently with single payer, medicare for all, or a public option. A mandate was the worst possible solution imaginable.

The insurance companies were getting frustrated that a large customer base was slipping into medicare-land and would no longer be paying out to them quite so much and even more frustrated at the legions of 20-somethings that skipped out on health insurance. By forcing and subsidizing insurance we have created a near permanent problem while helping out those poor sad people at BCBS.

Your first suggestion that they were somehow legally inseperable was bogus. And your sickness argument is equally fictitious. Lots of people, both rich and poor, that never use their health insurance still, strangely, purchase health insurance. If it was merely subsidized (and not enforced) than is there a reason to believe that a similar pool of people will purchase insurance at a rate approximate to their capacity to cover the unsubsidized remainder.

People that cannot afford insurance already are pointed towards public assistance and the elderly that have the most profound medical conditions are already directed towards medicare.

Please do not lecture me on medical care or insurance as I have intimate knowledge in both fields. I do not care whether you have decided to cheer for this bill out of some need that whatever has been done is automatically for the best or whether you are engaging in some kind of post-for-pay PR operation. I do care that you get your facts right and save your ad hominem insults about my purported ignorance about the fields of medicine and insurance for whatever radio call-in show best suits that kind of drek.

[Fruittree]

175. Your rebuttal seems to consist of labeling...

(corporate wealth-fare), demanding that Obama do something he can't do because he's not in the legislative body (pass a strong public option...there are now regulations to rein in cost so that did pass), and then declaring me incorrect. I think it's more like we're looking at the same facts and you're choosing to view them as a failure simply because you want to. Who's to say there will be no next steps? If I'm remembering correctly, government supported healthcare did not pass in one step in Canada either and I think it's actually a province by province thing - not the same everywhere so maybe something like that will happen. My point is - work towards it...Constant criticism, lack of support toward the administration - gets us nowhere. Constructive criticism is fine but what's offered here by a lot of posters is pointless and has no positive benefit.

[kenfrequed]

180. see above.

And to add, the Canadian system was, in fact, province by province. But (and this is an important distinction) it was entirely public the whole way. It wasn't a set of laws forcing Canadians to purchase private insurance, so your comparing our insurance reform to Canadian health reform in this manner is also deeply flawed.

[Fruittree]

181. I think the bottom line is we're looking

at the same facts and viewing it in different ways. I am grateful for changes that will work toward making healthcare for all a right and for the changes as I mentioned before. In my own situation, my son who graduated college and does not yet have a job will have coverage under our family plan. Coverage for him would otherwise be over $500/ month which is almost an entire paycheck for me. And contrary to what you said in a previous post young people do have medical needs. My daughter had an intestinal blockage which cost over $15,000 to repair and my son had an accident which was $4000 in the ER. Without health insurance we would have had to give up our house to pay for these. Does the whole medical system disgust me? Yes. I think the minute we allowed companies to come between doctors and patients we opened a Pandora's box which we will now be decades in trying to close. Not only are the insurance companies profits obscene but the amount doctors charge is ridiculous and unaffordable for most people without insurance. My point is that this is not Obama's fault - On the contrary he's taken a first step toward universal coverage and at least brought up the possibility of single payer in the future. My further point is we can get caught up in complaining over what we didn't get or we can work to build on what we did. I take the latter of those two choices because I never expected overnight success. In a democracy with a multitude of opinions, change by definition is slow.

[girl gone mad]

37. This is just patently false..

"FinReg was the strongest bill possible that could pass the Senate"


It was the White House that pressured the Senate to water down financial reforms, not the other way around.

[jeff47]

82. What you're failing to get is the politics

"The stimulus that passed was the biggest stimulus that could pass the Senate"

Which is why it was stupid to only ask for "the biggest bill that could pass the Senate". And if you'll recall, the White House expressed surprise that Congress didn't make their stimulus request larger, implying that they thought a larger bill could pass the Senate.

What made it bad politics is by asking for not enough money, they have a very hard time making the case for more money later. You ask for all the money, and when "the biggest bill that could pass the Senate" comes out, you sign it. Then when it proves insufficient you can make an easy argument for more stimulus. "We told you that bill was insufficient, and we were correct. Now pay for the rest of it".

By keeping the request too small, the White House will now have to make the argument "we were wrong before, but give us more money anyway because we're right this time."

"HCR started as early as possible while still keeping the 10 year cost projections low enough so that it passed the Senate."

HCR was run as a giant boondoggle because, as usual, Rham got it wrong. He was the one behind the idea that HCR failed under Clinton because the White House was "too involved". So it was his plan to let HCR debate to go on for almost a year instead of getting a good bill while Obama's approval ratings were sky-high. So we'll now have to fix the bill later and we don't get the benefit of people being happy about a good bill. Instead we get the "death panel" bullshit.

"FinReg was the strongest bill possible that could pass the Senate."

We'll never know. Because again the White House and the D's in the Senate pre-compromised the bill. Then they went looking for R's to break the filibuster and compromised again.

"The implication of Walker's argument is that we should have passed NO stimulus, NO HCR, and NO FinReg."

Only if you believe the political incompetents trying to run the Obama administration. You (and they) have a recurring theme of claiming these bills were the best that could pass the Senate. Whether or not that's actually true, pre-compromising is moronic.

You go in with a bill that CAN'T pass the Senate, and let the Senate water it down. You get the same result, but you're in a position where you don't have to pretend the watered-down bill is terrific. Instead you can say "it's an achievement, but we want more". That gives your supporters a reason to keep going to bat for you. Pre-compromise just makes you look like a wimp who won't fight for what you believe in. And the electorate doesn't like wimps no matter what their politics (See Reid, Harry).

In addition, by pre-compromising you capitulate to the Senate, which makes the Senators feel they've got all the power to make policy. Their egos will require them to abuse that power. Instead you ask for the moon, grudgingly compromise and get what you wanted in the first place. That keeps the White House coming from a position of strength, resulting in better bills as you go along. In fact, it's a variation on Rham's legislative strategy for this White House, where a series of wins creates momentum that leads to further wins. What Rham's strategy lacks is a mechanism to get those wins.

[KoKo]

91. Good Post. "...by pre-compromising you capitulate to the Senate"

"In addition, by pre-compromising you capitulate to the Senate, which makes the Senators feel they've got all the power to make policy. Their egos will require them to abuse that power. Instead you ask for the moon, grudgingly compromise and get what you wanted in the first place. That keeps the White House coming from a position of strength, resulting in better bills as you go along. In fact, it's a variation on Rham's legislative strategy for this White House, where a series of wins creates momentum that leads to further wins. What Rham's strategy lacks is a mechanism to get those wins."

(And, I'd add it gave the Lobbyists a starting point to water down the compromise even more)

[BzaDem]

171. Your entire conception of "negotiations" in the Senate is not consistent with reality.

In a normal negotiation, both parties have an incentive to negotiate, because the alternative would be worse for them than an agreement. (I.e. a strike would be worse for management and labor than an agreement between them.)

That is not how it works in the Senate, at least on these issues. Much of the time, the 60th vote has nothing to lose if HCR fails. Heck, they might even WANT the political benefits of single-handedly killing HCR for their campaign back in their red state.

So this whole idea of "negotiations" and "policy compromises" you speak of is fantasy. In reality, the "negotiation" is "you do EXACTLY what I want, and I'll vote for the bill." That's the agreement.

For example, they tried a robust public option in the house, that failed even in the house, so they went to a non-robust public option in the House. That was a non-starter in the Senate and couldn't even get out of committee, so Reid proposed an opt-out public option. That got 56 votes, so finally they ditched the public option in favor of a Medicare buy-in. That got 59 votes, but Lieberman told them "my way or the highway." They could either not pass a bill or do EXACTLY as Lieberman said. It doesn't matter that they tried 4 levels of more of an expansive public option -- that didn't move Lieberman at all.

If you insist on looking at this as a form of "negotiations" at all, it is more of a hostage negotiation than an actual negotiation.

So your whole idea of "pre-compromising" rests on the flawed assumption that changing your demands changes the outcome.

[zipplewrath]

85. passed the senate in March

You ignore the part where they were encouraged to pass something the previous summer under reconcilliation, before Brown ever was a Senator.

The stimulus was poorly focused AS WELL as being too small. The size was only half the problem. The tax cuts were put in in hopes of getting GOP votes that never came to be. And when the public received them, they didn't notice. Oh, and they didn't work either.

The article is making the case that the GOP was allowed to influence the bills for the worse, and still they got no GOP votes.

[BzaDem]

172. Reconciliation BY ITSELF can do almost nothing for HCR.

You can't do pre-existing conditions (due to the Byrd rule), and without that a public option is useless. (It can't cover pre-existing conditions unless the private market is also forced too, or everyone who is sick would flock to the public option and the resulting premiums from the option would be orders of magnitude higher than those of the private market.)

The only reason reconciliation worked was because the main bill passed with 60 votes under regular order.

[Greyhound]

192. Yargle, bargle, blarrrrgh!

It's like you are becoming a parody of BzaDem.
:rofl:

[steve2470]

30. k and r nt

[xchrom]

31. Recommend

[amborin]

33. K&R

[nightrain]

36. knr. bullseye!

[burnsei sensei]

38. If leftist criticism of this admin was not valid,

then there'd be no such response.
Our criticisms are valid.

[flyarm]

40. The White House doesn't have to like us..but they work for us as our employees!..

Tough shit they don't like liberals and progressive..just let them try to get elected without us!

We can fire them, just as well as we hired them!

[donheld]

43. 1000 times K & R

[MisterP]

44. the whole idea of a "vital center" is that the left and right are equally wrong, though in their own

ways

however, that whole ideology was forged after the Red Scare purges which got rid of, among other things, the New Dealers that made all those popular policies. fast forward to 1954-2003, and you note that it was the center--not the left--teaming up to attack Guatemala, Iraq, Haiti, Cuba, etc.

instead, the left was consistently right, while the mainstrem's Rs and many Ds were wrong, wrong, wrong; and, as we go through economic crises, warmongering, and a combination of contemptuous destruction of our safety nets and fanatical shrieking that You Want Romney To Win. There'll be many who condemn GOP attacks on Social Security and cheerlead the one who picked Catfood Commission and those who'll implement its ultimatum-like demands

[unpossibles]

45. sadly this has been the case for a long time nt

[DeSwiss]

47. K&R

"Mankind naturally and generally love to be flatter'd: Whatever sooths our Pride, and tends to exalt our Species above the rest of the Creation, we are pleas'd with and easily believe, when ungrateful Truths shall be with the utmost Indignation rejected. "What! bring ourselves down to an Equality with the Beasts of the Field! with the meanest part of the Creation! 'Tis insufferable!" But, (to use a Piece of common Sense) our Geese are but Geese tho' we may think 'em Swans; and Truth will be Truth tho' it sometimes prove mortifying and distasteful."

~ Benjamin Franklin

[colsohlibgal]

48. Absolutely

The democratic party needs to go back to being the democratic party instead of the republican lite (or not so lite sometimes) party.

[CocaNova]

49. K&R

Interesting.

[earcandle]

52. Wow! Really concise reporting! Thanks so much!

[Poboy]

53. K&R!

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Number23]

58. "Democrat in Skin Color Only." Yep, you are definitely in the right forum

You'll fit in just fine with the locals. Well done.

[boppers]

56. Stalin, Che, Castro, Pol Pot.

Everybody's shit stinks.

Some own up to it, some don't.

[John Agar]

69. What do these men have to with the American progressive movement of today?

I'm confused.

[bvar22]

125. You're not the one who is confused or ill informed.

:patriot:



"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[John Agar]

156. It does seem very over the top to equate American progressives of today...

To the genocidal likes of Pol Pot and Stalin.

Not what I expected to find here.

[boppers]

174. It totally depends on the individual, and context.

There are folks who think Bush/Cheny are guilty of "War Crimes", for example.

[boppers]

173. The hard left can be as brutal as the hard right.

We have to own up to it.

[Selatius]

189. Most left wing bloggers and commentators don't support people like Stalin.

We weren't even talking about the ones that do support those tyrants. You were the one that broached the issue.

[boppers]

191. Are we discussing the left, or the center?

I would submit that a large number of moderate centrists consider themselves "left", which is the primary source of confusion.

[Waiting For Everyman]

64. Doing the right thing is the smart thing.

The WH is doubly dumb for refusing to do it.

[rucky]

94. It would also be the simplest solution.

Because it makes sense without having turn logical somersaults to justify it. People would be more supportive than they fear.

[bobburgster]

65. Still talking about Gibbs?

Time to move on.

:think:

[John Agar]

68. I have tried to understand Gibbs' remarks but in the end...

Can only conclude that he sees the Democratic left as the opposition.

Which is something of a surprise.

[SteveM]

153. You're right, but I'm not surprised...

"Weaning" the Democratic Party of it's "leftward" views has been high on the agenda since the mid-70s, ever since the McGovern "fiasco." Ever since, the DLC has sought reconciliation with CorpUSA, and to lose "interest group politics" (a GOP expression the DLC has adopted).

I AM surprised by the breath-taking speed at which Obama has moved in taking the Democratic Party to a center-right position.

[John Agar]

155. It doesn't really match what I expected from his campaign.

I know he ran as a bridge-builder, as a uniter.

Not as a divider of the party that elected him.

What is going on?

[Enthusiast]

70. K&R! It's as if they didn't

want us to notice how wrong headed they have been. Now that we have noticed they feel the need to berate us for it. They feel we aren't good soldiers.

It looks like this misdirection will continue in the entitlements reform area. They are not listening to the left, professional or otherwise. In all honesty, it looks to me like they have objectives to pursue regardless of the political consequences.

[Dinger]

73. K & R

Don't forget the impending education fuck up.

[disillusioned73]

75. Spot on....

truth hurts, and with as much attention as the "professional left" has gotten lately - the I told you so's have really gotten under the blue dog/corporatist skin...

"I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell." - Harry S. Truman

[leveymg]

78. Power abhors reform. Any fundamental change takes away power from those who have abused it.

The point of this Administration is to change as little as possible so as to maintain institutions. They're institutionalists, and will sacrifice everything and everyone to preserve them.

[NJmaverick]

81. FDL is clearly on the GOP's payroll

as for the comical rant that they believe they have been right about anything.

they were wrong about the auto bailout

they were wrong that their constant attacks on the President wouldn't hurt his popularity

they were wrong about the HCR not lowering prices

they were wrong the the economy was doomed


In fact the list of what FDL has gotten right would be much shorter.

they have yet to get anything right (but when you are on the GOP payroll that's to be expected).

[John Q. Citizen]

84. While I agree with your premise, I must correct a factual error. Reconciliation was not used to pass

the bill.

The house passed a bill, and the Senate passed a different bill.

After Kennedy died and there weren't enough votes to pass an amended house/senate bill, the House of Representatives instead went ahead and voted to pass what the Senate had already passed.

[laughingliberal]

166. The House refused to pass the Senate bill unless some things were fixed. Reconciliation was used

The House insisted it would only pass the Senate bill if they had assurance that some measures would be changed. Without the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster, the House passed the Senate bill and then the Senate did use the budget reconciliation to pass the changes the House insisted on:

<snip> In a fitting finale to the yearlong health care saga, the budget reconciliation measure that included the final changes was approved first by the Senate and then by the House on a tumultuous day at the Capitol, as lawmakers raced to complete their work ahead of a two-week recess.

The final House vote was 220 to 207, and the Senate vote was 56 to 43, with the Republicans unanimously opposed in both chambers.

The reconciliation bill makes numerous revisions to many of the central provisions in the measure adopted by the Senate on Dec. 24, including changes in the levels of subsidies that will help moderate-income Americans afford private insurance, as well as changes to the increase in the Medicare payroll tax that will take effect in 2013 and help pay for the legislation. <snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/health/policy/26health.html

[INdemo]

86. Did Obama or his advisor's really think that health insurance companies would just

roll over and play dead and allow real healthcare reform gain a solid footing? Of course not.. The insurance companies launched a very good public relations campaign spending millions to defeat this bill and the Obama administration became stuck in the mud.We got insurance legislation that is nothing more than bragging rights for Obama. We got our premiums doubled so insurance companies can recoup their millions spent to defeat this bill.
If only they would have listened to the professional left.

[harun]

87. Correct, and Çenk made the same argument.

[INdemo]

88. A little off subject but does anyone know where we might find the details of

the insurance plan for US Congressmen and Senators and probably most federal workers??

[anachro1]

103. We should all be good sports

I mean, they LET us elect a black president. Isn't that ENOUGH?

[INdemo]

104. Broken promises and a Democratic Controlled Congress that has gone corporate..

If thats not enough for the "left" to complain about just wait until next year..

[obxhead]

105. We just keep demanding Obama at least try to act like a Dem.

They can't stand it as it makes it harder to do the bidding of his corporate masters.

[bvar22]

158. How true.

One of my favorite quotes from Campaign 2008:

"Getting Obama elected will be the easy part.
Getting him to act like a Democrat will be much harder."---bvar22

[obxhead]

161. That is a great quote. nt.

[laughingliberal]

167. Prescient. nt

[pgodbold]

106. Major Liberal Hug To You! nt

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[Robeson]

108. k&r.

[seafan]

109. Lots of history, preserved from revisionism

We won't roll over and play dead.


From the AP in September 10, 2009:

.....

Obama reiterated his support for a public plan but did not insist on it, and industry analysts think the idea will disappear eventually. That helps explain why analysts don't think the insurance industry faces any serious threat from the Obama plan.

The stocks of several health insurers performed better than the broader market Thursday. Shares of Cigna rose more than 5 percent, and Humana Inc., WellPoint Inc. and Aetna Inc. all climbed at least 2 percent.
Investors are "coming more and more to the conclusion that it's really not going to hurt," said BMO Capital Markets analyst Dave Shove.
Shove noted that many insurers already operate profitably in states that have restrictions similar to those being discussed in reform proposals. These include limits on profitability and laws that guarantee coverage for individual insurance.

Health care reform without a public option "would be fantastic" for insurers, said Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a Virginia-based health care consulting firm.

"They're going to get millions of new customers and more than a trillion in new premiums over a 10-year period," said Laszewski, a former industry executive. "There's a reason they aren't running any negative ads."

And, once again, the people lost.


The ugly history continues to unfold.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

110. No

The WH isn't always right but the "professional left" is not ALWAYS *right* about everything either. What exactly is wrong with WH simply holding the professional left's "feet to the fire" every once in a while? After all, there should be nothing wrong with a little criticism, right? I thought we are never supposed to blindly follow EVERYTHING that our leaders (or the group) say or do, right? Hasn't that been what Obama "cheerleaders" have been routinely told every single day since (before) Obama became POTUS?
If people can sit around here at DU and elsewhere and constantly rake President Obama and his administration over the coals every single day about every single thing that has or hasn't been accomplished yet, then why can't the WH respond in kind? Gibbs was perhaps being a bit OTT about what he said but being critical of how they're being treated by the so-called "Professional Left" on a daily basis regardless of what the WH does or doesn't do isn't (or shouldn't be) a scandal IMHO.
:shrug:

[lark]

118. Why didn't he go after the professional right then?

They are totally devoted to defeating Obama, the left is not. The right calls him Hitler, the left doesn't call him names. Why pick on your disenchanted friends, but never mention the awful things being done by your true enemies? Stupid.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

137. He regularly attacks Republicans too and mentions the awful things they do

Why would that not preclude criticizing (not attacking but CRITICIZING) members of his own party/base? This is a Democratic forum yet nobody around here is particularly shy about criticizing President Obama and Democrats in general let alone being disenchanted.

As I stated in my previous post, people upset about criticism of President Obama here have been told repeatedly that they shouldn't blindly follow President Obama and that he needs to be criticized in order to make him a better President and that criticism shouldn't be stifled. But just because people criticize President Obama, it doesn't necessarily make their criticism valid or right just like criticism of the left by President Obama (and/or his surrogates) isn't always necessarily valid or right either.

The previous comments by Rahm and Gibbs notwithstanding, I'm not familiar with a sustained assault on the left by President Obama and certainly nothing resembling the attacks he routinely levels at Republicans. If I'm not mistaken, I've heard of him- on occasion-stand up for the left like when he met with a "Blue Dog" caucus last Spring and (I think) Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh tried to goad Obama into denouncing the left and he refused to do so. He's made principled stands on other issues like military trials for terrorist suspects (i.e. KSM) when advisers like Rahm were urging him to compromise on them in order to "win" support from Republicans for things like closing Gitmo.

I don't honestly believe that President Obama hates the left but they aren't his only constituency nor are they immune from criticism (just like he's not).

[Individualist]

112. K&R

[beforeyoureyes]

116. There is a larger point that keeps getting missed. Obama hasn't been bought to serve the people

Obama is a smart man, and I highly doubt that he doesn't grasp the sense of the policy that progressives advocate.

Yet, we keep veering into this discussion about how Obama doesn't 'get it'.

Obama gets it.

Obama has been politically purchased in the tens of millions by special interests. Obama doesn't advocate for the sensible and popular policies of the left because they would reduce profits for his corporate masters.

Follow the money is the most basic criteria for understanding how & why specific policies are created and people appointed.

Obama once advocated for single payer. Obama opposed the Iraq war. Obama gets it.

He has made the political calculation to stay in power, he must serve the interests of the corporations over the people to keep getting their donations. There was a different path. He could have openly challenged the entire system, and used the bully pulpit to use the force of the American people's will to pressure politicians to bow to good policy decisions. He choose the status quo. It is obvious and it is right before our eyes.

He isn't 'bipartisan' because he believes that he will get actual support. He is bipartisan because it is the one of the few means left to him for covering championing right wing policies that would be universally opposed by the left, if proposed by a Republican politician.

I do agree with this post, in that Obama does want the left to shut up because it exposes the truth about his policy decisions. But, it isn't because Obama didn't know what the better policy decisions for the people were...rather it points to the fact of who Obama really serves.

And, it isn't us.

[dflprincess]

121. It isn't just a calculation to stay in power

He expects to be well taken care of when he leaves office. Look how well Clinton has done since his term ended

[Raster]

129. And the same with most of Congress. Why spend millions for a job that pays less than $200,000 yr?

[MisterP]

186. quite right: advocacy of conservative policies is a sign that the person themselves is a

conservative or a centrist! not that they're a liberal but just can't get "everything you dirty libs want"

remember that the centrists and neolibs grew up with the neocons since the 70s, and share the goals of power for its own sake, corporatism, lies, warmongering, panic that They (Moscow or Islamists) have infiltrated the country or are about to launch an invasion with 10M soldiers, and impoverishing the masses. So when Dems join in or launch power for its own sake, corporatism, lies, warmongering, panic that They have infiltrated the country or are about to launch an invasion, and impoverishing the masses, it means that those are their goals, not that they're crypto-progressives and that's the best they can give us

[Better Believe It]

119. K & R

[yurbud]

122. I wish I could rec this 1000 times. Obama is making deals with boa constricters then wondering...

why they're eating him up to his neck (oh heck!)

[bora13]

128. 'cuz doing the right thing is often hard

doing the other is easier.

nuff said

[Kweli4Real]

131. Reading the responses in this thread ...

I am convinced that we Democrats/Liberals/Progressive want a dictator far more than a President of all the people.

Yes, President Obama COULD do everything that we hope for and dream about in our wildest left-leaning fantasy through Executive Order ... but I would think that would give us real constitutional pause.

[Fruittree]

185. I agree..

The only way we could have everything we want NOW is if didn't have to deal with multiple parties and the legislative body.

[DebbieCDC]

136. K&R for the truth!

[GeorgeGist]

140. The White House is populated with amateur leftists ...

their reward is defeat by Professionals; left and right.

[EFerrari]

145. There is nothing "leftist" about the White House. n/t

[SteveM]

154. Boy, ain't that the obvious truth. nt

[LostinVA]

179. Seriously

:wtf:

[Kahuna]

177. The "professional left" may be right about many things (certainly not "all') but..

the most important thing they are not right about is their tactics and how to go about achieving our goals.

The truth is that they have a very difficult time persuading the majority of Americans to their views because of their tactics and incessant whining. Their tactics are counter-productive and only succeed in turning off the majorities that we need to accomplish the agenda. They need to practice patience and redefine their strategies. If they would work as hard at increasing our democratic majorities as they do at undermining our majorities we would be a lot further along.

It seems that everything they do is about being "right." The foot-stomping and howling just lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. But they will continue along in the same stiff-necked way just for the pleasure of saying, Aha! I was right all along. :banghead:

[Kalun D]

193. BS

""The truth is that they have a very difficult time persuading the majority of Americans""

a majority of Americans didn't want a $700 Billion Obama supported bush boy crooked banker bailout

a majority of Americans wanted real health care reform

a majority of Americans wanted Gitmo closed

a majority of Americans wanted real financial reform