Feingold contradicts those who claim that Obama fought for a public option

[mcablue]

12-20-09

" Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle. Removing the public option from the Senate bill is the wrong move, and eliminates $25 billion in savings. I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this essential provision is included."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/20/feingold-obama-responsibl_n_398658.html

[Vincardog]

1. I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this

essential provision is included."

[ProSense]

2. Feingold contradicts those who claim the bill isn't meaningful reform

But while the loss of the public option is a bitter pill to swallow, on balance, the bill still delivers meaningful reform, and the cost of inaction is simply too high.

[Cha]

22. Thanks for pointing that out, Pro.

[Forkboy]

25. You're both right.

[jeanpalmer]

80. The "cost of inaction is too high" to whom?

Some people gain, some people lose. The cost of this bill to young healthy people is obviously high. The insurance industry gets a big gain. Cost reduction, which should have been the main focus of HCR, loses bigtime. The net gain is about 0.

The cost of inaction is very high to Congress, as perceived by them. And that's the main cost in their consideration.

Our health care system is like paying $6,000 for a car that is worth only $3,000. Now under this bill, the seller is giving a 6-month 0% loan and reducing the price to $5,800. And all of Congress says it's a great deal. Well it does improve things slightly, almost inconsequentially. But you're still left making payments on an overpriced car. But Congress does get the opportunity to go out and talk up the deal. What choice do they have? They fked up.

[LooseWilly]

83. The cost is too high for corporations and governments giving benefits to their employees...

especially benefits to their executives. The industry obviously needs the infusion of monies from the poor to assure the well-off/rich don't have their benefit plans become too expensive for the corporations to continue to offer them.

When middle-management benefits are in jeopardy... then it is time for the government to step in and take from the poor. It's the American Way.

[lapfog_1]

3. I guess HE won't be invited to be on the conference committee. - n/t

[FrenchieCat]

5. I think only the leadership goes to conference.....

[lapfog_1]

82. No, not generally.

The Majority Leader and the Speaker pick some number of House and Senate members (usually 4 from each body) to hammer out the conference report (i.e. write the final bill). They can, of course, pick themselves, but usually they pick people who have the most knowledge on the subject matter, and chairpersons of the committees where the bill originated. Of course, the current Senate bill originated from Harry Reid, as all of the committee bills were basically deep-sixed.

I have not yet heard rumor of who Harry Reid is thinking of from the Senate.

[FrenchieCat]

4. You've been advocating that Obama was a corporatist sell out

since you got here last month....

I don't think that Obama "fought" for the Public Option,
but I do think that he would have preferred if it was in there,
and that is what he has acknowledged.

considering that Feingold has said this before.
and that you are in agreement with him,
I'm not sure who you are looking to argue with? :shrug:

Obama has already been criticized at length for his tepid support of the OP,
and you have been one of those doing it.....
so what are you out to prove today? You want to fight some more?

[mcablue]

6. You've been defending whatever Obama does and says all the time. You are very famous for that

We all view life in different ways. :)

[Cha]

10. There's so much to defend on DU with all the "corporate sellout"

crap. And, Frenchie doesn't defend everything that's happened so your broad brush isn't working.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

11. Feingold is blaming the administration.

What more could Obama have done that the Senators couldn't have. Is he saying that if a public option ends up in the bill, it will be because Obama pushed for it? Feingold says he will be urging others...Shouldn't he have been doing that before?

There seems to be a lot of double talk going on. The bill is a product of the White House working with the Senate. Ultimately, the Senate is responsible for the day-to-day business of legislating.

[Cha]

18. Feingold does a lot of

grandstanding.. What's his deal? I know he cares about Public Option and all the good stuff but he sure likes to point fingers away from himself.

[HughMoran]

8. I've done that search too - nearly 100% anti-Obama

Something is fishy here.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Cha]

14. You can post all the anti-Obama articles

you want but it's not going to change anything. Pres Obama is being attacked from the right and the left and he's there in the middle..focused as ever.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

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

[treestar]

23. So why is one better than the other?

Why is a person better for being against the President 100% of the time? Is that some standard from the Bush years that you've forgotten to put aside for a Democratic President?

[ClarkUSA]

24. You mean he's a Democratic supporter of the Democratic President on Democratic Underground?

Are you sure you're on the right website?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

30. No, it's the truth. Howard Dean is supporting HCR again, so those most rec'd threads will change.

I agree with Howard Dean when he said on MTP this morning that he wanted the Senate bill to go to conference so language can be fixed:

I would let this bill go to conference committee and see if we can fix this bill more… Let's see what they add to this bill and make it work.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/12/20/howard-dean-walks-it-back.aspx

Dean also "said the Senate bill had actually “improved” over the past few weeks..." Go figure. Pres. Obama said the same thing.

Senator Barbara Boxer own words are very clear:

Abortion remains at the heart of Nelson’s resistance to supporting the bill. Also in the negotiations was liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a leading abortion rights supporter in the Senate. She expressed confidence that the Senate could craft language to create a “firewall” that would segregate government funds away from any private funds used to pay for an abortion.

“We spent all day trying to address the issue of a firewall, we've made progress and I'll talk to you about it more tomorrow, for sure," Boxer said. “I'm optimistic that we can get 60 votes, yes.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=75939&mesg_id=75939

Bernie Sanders on Countdown, "We are working with the WH to make this bill better...":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=69408&mesg_id=69408

"SEIU's Andy Stern: Don't Kill the Bill. Fix It."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x71483

I guess you'd call all of these folks "100% water-carriers" now, eh?

[mcablue]

33. That's a stretch. It all depends on the fixes added to it

How can he support something that he's advocating fixes for? He is vowing to support it in the event that these fixes are implemented.

[ClarkUSA]

37. Really? He now supports passing the Senate HCR bill he previously wanted to "kill".

Did you even bother to read the links I provided?

[mcablue]

38. You just don't want to talk about the "fixes" do you?

Because if you say that his support depends on how it's fixed, your argument falls.

[ClarkUSA]

44. You don't want to admit that those most-rec'd OPs you mentioned are now history...

... along with Howard Dean's"Kill the Bill" sentiment.

As for conference, President Obama and every Democrat that wants to pass the Senate HCR bill is
looking forward to it so they can remove or change language from the bill. Hate to tell you, but
Howard Dean is on the same side as many of the HCR bill's supporters right now.

[mcablue]

46. The greatest thread right now says the Senate bill is an insurance CEO's dream

"Today the Senate health care bill is looking very much like the system that Hemsley's company (United Healthcare) was lobbying for. It looks like Hemsley is on the verge of a major victory"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7277069

The anti-Senate bill sentiments are still there.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Oh well. I guess Howard Dean's heyday has come and past now that he supports passing the Senate bill

Disappointed? :)

[mcablue]

57. Again, you disappear the word "fixes," and refused to follow up on the greatest thread

You're running away from it at full speed, because it undermines your argument.

And do you admit that you were wrong when you said the anti-Senate bill sentiment was gone? Why did you ignore the thread about the CEO loving the bill? I would probably have cherry-picked information if I had been in your difficult position, too.

[ClarkUSA]

66. Again, you refuse to admit that Howard Dean has made a 180 on the Senate bill in the past week.

You're clueless about what it takes to pass legislation, as is obvious from an exchange I had with you downthread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=80007&mesg_id=80244

To repeat, the Senate bill has to pass FIRST before going into conference. Thus, Howard Dean is now on board with
the WH and the rest of Democrats who support HCR. Last week, he wanted to "Kill the Bill" in the Senate and go back
to reconciliation. Dean walked back his position after a week of talks with the WH, according to Newsweek:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=80007&mesg_id=80224

<<And do you admit that you were wrong when you said the anti-Senate bill sentiment was gone?>>

I never said that, dear. You're imagining things again.

<<Why did you ignore the thread about the CEO loving the bill?>>

I have never bothered with the Greatest Thread. I don't think rec's are a good indicator of popular opinion when there
are a small number of loudmouthed malcontents doing it amid a much, much larger population of DU members who
could care less, like me.

[mcablue]

70. I explained how it wasn't a 180. And at least i didn't ignore you

Like you did until I pressured you regarding your omissions. Now all of a sudden you consider recommendations to be insignificant.

[ClarkUSA]

91. Of course Dean pulled a 180, only you refuse to admit the obvious and continue to propagate fallacy.

Trying to obfuscate and mislead in the face of facts regarding Dean's 'bout-face
and your ignorance regarding legislative protocol only reinforces your lack of
credibility on the issues.

Others on this thread have proven that your lack of credibility when it comes to
your protestations regarding your known opinion of Pres. Obama:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=80007&mesg_id=80168

You're not fooling anyone as to your agenda here.

[LittleBlue]

85. Ouch. Devastating rebuttal.

Game. Set. Match.

You just disproved anyone saying "you're on the wrong website." 1 hit KO

[ClarkUSA]

92. How so? Pointing out an angry OP re: Senate doesn't refute what I or others have noted about the OP

Your cheering is also a bit biased considering I've noticed that you also have nothing
good to say about our President. Birds of a feather...

[HughMoran]

27. You can be sure it's the right website

It's the motivation that's messed up.

[ClarkUSA]

32. I suspected as much. And I also noticed the OP never answered the question.

Very telling. I, too, have noticed that the poster has been 100% anti-Obama since she arrived.

Gee, I wonder why. :eyes:

[mcablue]

34. I noticed that you have always been 100% pro-Obama administration

And blind support is very unhealthy given the latest moves by the administration.

[ClarkUSA]

36. No, I'm just another Democratic supporter of the Democratic President at Democratic Underground.

Not sure what you are, though. Are you sure you're at the right website?

[mcablue]

41. Again, you are the one who seems to contradict what most DU'ers advocate

I am more like the average DU'er than you are.

Did you not see the poll where an overwhelming majority here opposes the President signing the bill as it stands? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7274774

How would you have voted? No need to answer.

[ClarkUSA]

47. Have you seen the number of DU members lately? Guess not, or else you wouldn't be touting that poll

That poll you're lauding is about as scientific a reading of what "most DUers" think as if I shouted out my back door and polled my
neighbors and then touted that as representative of what "most" folks in my state "advocate". I and "most DUers" sure haven't voted
on it.

BTW, I care more about what most Americans advocate. Most approve of Pres. Obama, too. And recent polls show that over 90% of
self-identified Democrats strongly approve of Pres. Obama. You must fall into that 9% minority.

:)

[mcablue]

50. Then you should have said that, instead of bringing the "Im a typical DU'er and you're not" argument

Because the latter was flawed, as proved by the fact that now you're talking about other groups (i.e. Democrats in general).

[ClarkUSA]

53. lol! I never said that, dear. You accused Obama supporters here of being "100% water-carriers".

I simply disputed that perjorative. And proved that your logic is quite flawed.

[HughMoran]

39. If you never support Democrats here

You really are in the wrong place - I'm not joking.

[mcablue]

43. I support Dean regarding healthcare and many things Kucinich says about many things

They are Democrats, aren't they?

[ClarkUSA]

49. So you support the passage of the Senate HCR bill? Oh, and Dean's been working with the WH, too.

"... the White House made a serious effort to reach out to the famously tempestuous former governor... this morning, Dean had confirmed that he and Axelrod had “actually talked back and forth throughout the week...”

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/12/20/howard-dean-walks-it-back.aspx

Guess all is well now. It sure seemed that way on Meet The Press this morning. :)

[mcablue]

52. Like Dean, I have to see the fixes first

And if depending on those fixes, I will make my mind. Not that I will necessarily agree with Dean though, but I might.

[ClarkUSA]

54. You don't understand how it works, do you? The Senate bill has to pass BEFORE conference.

Good thing you follow Dean so closely and clearly understand how legislation is passed into law.

:sarcasm:

[ima_sinnic]

63. it couldn't possibly be for the same reasons that so many, many others are also disillusoned?

I don't know anybody now, who when Obama is mentioned, doesn't say, "I'm really disappointed. I don't know what happened to him." And then they wander off into some other topic, or they might actually start going into more detail. Either way, he's lost a lot of people who WERE excited to vote for him and now, not so much.

[ClarkUSA]

93. Polls show 85%-90%+ of self-identified Democrats approve of Pres. Obama's job performance.

A recent Gallup polls keep showing a very big majority of self-identified liberals strongly approve of Pres. Obama.
I am part of that silent majority here at DU and in the real world outside this discussion forum.

[mcablue]

13. When was the last time I callled Obama a "corporate sell-out"?

Let's see.

[Cha]

15. Yeah, don't even think about it.

[mcablue]

16. I thought you would tell me when was the last time...

I don't get your "don't even think about it" response.

[Cha]

19. Can't read my mind..that's good.

[HughMoran]

42. I think this post qualifies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7264215

DLC, triangulating corporatism of the Clinton era, just re-packaged with some sleeker and more updated marketing.


Emphasis is mine (mcablue)

[Cha]

61. Well, well, well, looky here.. no good in trying to deny the undeniable.

[ClarkUSA]

69. Bingo!

:rofl:

[LooseWilly]

84. Uhh, the emphasis is mcablue's, the words are Greenwald's. You're using a quote of someone else...

posted my mcablue... to justify an accusation that mcablue said the contents of the quote??

That's ridiculous.

By that same logic, anyone who posts a McCain quote, or a Palin quote, is "saying" or "agreeing with what is said by" these tools.

From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
"From 1905 on, Hitler lived a bohemian life in Vienna on an orphan's pension and support from his mother. He was rejected twice by the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (1907–1908), citing "unfitness for painting", and was told his abilities lay instead in the field of architecture.<17> His memoirs reflect a fascination with the subject:

The purpose of my trip was to study the picture gallery in the Court Museum, but I had eyes for scarcely anything but the Museum itself. From morning until late at night, I ran from one object of interest to another, but it was always the buildings which held my primary interest."

There, by your logic, I have now officially studied the picture gallery in the Court Museum... because I have cited a quote from Hitler to that effect.


Fucktastically ridiculous...

[HughMoran]

90. Looks like someone doesn't undertand that highlighting text MEANS YOU AGREE WITH IT!!

Fools defending a plant - gotta love the new DU.

[freddie mertz]

76. We all want to fight to restore the public option.

This pits us against a president who lied about supporting it.

It is an uphill battle, obviousy.

But we are not defeatists like some other folks.

The fight continues.

[Cha]

7. Feingold also got busy with a committee on investigating

Pres Obama use of "czars". I don't believe him..I think Feingold is good on wanting things for the people but I also think he's a grandstander who likes to play the angelic role when he's so not there.

[midnight]

40. That is his job. He chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

"I think the public wants to know why there are people called czars," Feingold said.

Feingold acknowledged that many of the officials being referred to commonly as "czars"—including some who are actually confirmed by the Senate — are not really a threat to the government's checks-and-balances, but he is concerned about the influence these advisors have within the administration.

" it's possible that somebody in the White House is actually more involved in making policy than the person who is the cabinet secretary, I think that raises questions in the mind of the public," Feingold said. "It certainly raises questions in the mind of a senator, who wants the person who we confirmed to be the principle policymaker."

Feingold, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, chaired a hearing Tuesday on czars, arguing that more work needs to be done in examining the legality of executive branch advisors who escape Senate confirmation.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27987.html#ixzz0aHOORkTb

This is exactly the oversite I expect from our elected officials....

Senator Feingold is an informed official who keeps in touch with the public. He reads more than most and by doing so does not commit to bills like warrantless wiretapping, or the patriotic bill.

[Cha]

51. Yeah, he's a great grandstander and good at pointing fingers.

[O is 44]

17. So our new hero here is Feingold?

You better watch out Dean fans will be getting jealous, you are stealing their MO in bashing Obama. At least Dean is not in the Senate to back up his words with a no vote. I guess Mr. Feingold is too hapless per the DU commentators here.

[treestar]

21. Did Feingold help pressure Lieberdork?

They could all have tried to help. Did they?

How are they to get Lieberhead to not filibuster a public option?

And don't give me the chairmanship meme. Lieberidiot could still filibuster without that.

[ClarkUSA]

35. I never hear a peep out of Feingold against his fellow Senators, esp. his "good friend" McCain.

All he seems to do is rag on the WH for what they could have done better.

Good question. :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

28. So? Dean, Sen. Sanders, SEIU's Andy Stern & others say the WH has been working hard at passing HCR.

Since Feingold seems to be always grinding his axe against the administration while he never objects to a word his
"good friend" McCain says, I wouldn't put too much store in his latest poison pill.

[IndianaGreen]

29. I sure hope Feingold challenges Obama in primaries

Russ is sort of a free spirit, but he has solid progressive credentials, and you can take what he says to the bank.

[O is 44]

31. Yeah good luck with that

he has been so persuasive in the senate with Joe Lieberman and Nelson, I am sure he will be able to get them in line with the title of President.

[Alenne]

45. Feingold should get a public option bill passed in the Senate

but he can't so it doesn't matter if Obama supports it or not. Democrats don't have the votes and that's the bottom line. They can blame Obama all they want but they couldn't get the Democrats in the Senate to vote for a public option.

[Thrill]

55. We've learned Obama won't fight for anything

Thats disappointing

[ClarkUSA]

56. Yeah, that's why Dean praised Obama's hard work at trying to getting HCR passed this morning on MTP

What's disappointing is how many here are so invested in being Failers.

[m448]

59. he

should vote against the bill then

[Cha]

60. Get real..Who should vote against it?

[Cha]

58. Yeah, if "we" listen to that slop on the left wing blogs

that call for "progressives" to "march with the teabaggers".."we'd" think Obama didn't do a damn thing. But, I don't read disingenuous propaganda catapulted to bring in the real money.

[O is 44]

62. No what is disappointing is your

your defeatist attitude. Not very helpful towards progress. When Obama writes the bill, votes for it, and then signs it in to law, then it will be all about Obama.

[ima_sinnic]

64. yeah, luckily for him he never really did any of that

how convenient.
unlike other presidents who have written bills and introduced them into Congress. He never even gave much of any guidelines. Just some nebulous idea of "reform." We got our "reform" all right, we reformed the insurance co's ability to extort money from every U.S. citizen.

[O is 44]

67. Worked so well with Clinton...

Not, yes indeed you are a cynic. I agree he could have held their hand a little more but he does not shoulder all the blame. The branch that actually writes the laws shares a big part of the blame as well.

[ima_sinnic]

74. so Clinton failed, so what? that means NO president EVER can get

legislation passed? That was a Clinton failure, so let's all give up. What about SUCCESSES in presidential crafting of legislation? Kennedy wrote the initial Civil Rights Bill in 1963 after explaining it in a speech a week earlier and handed it to Congress. They knew exactly what he wanted and acted to make it even stronger. The bill was finally made into law a year later, after more than 50 days of filibuster and other obstructions by both Democrats and republicans, after LBJ made sure that, yes, it was going to pass. I wonder what would have happened if LBJ had acted like Obama, all laissez faire and everything?

[Baltoman991]

72. Disappointing?

No, I'll tell you whats disappointing. What's disappointing is watching my side become no better than the right. Day after day after day I come here and read bullshit like "he doesn't fight for anything" and it is what it is........pure bullshit.

Because you're not getting everything you want doesn't give you the right to flat out lie about the man. Perhaps the whole lot of you here blasting Obama for all the worlds wrongs shoule clue yourselves in on how it all works. He tells Congress what he wants, Congress, including the pansy ass Democrats don't want to give him what he wants and he's stuck with a less than perfect bill in the end. Yet you and the rest of the whiners don't want to hold Congress responsible. No, you'd rather sit here and whine daily about one man, the President of the United States.

Daily he's compared to Bush yet in reality, he's nothing like Bush for if he were,he'd just bypass Congress and do it all his way and then what happens? You and the rest would be spewing that what he's doing is wrong.

None of you will ever be happy with the man. Perhaps you should all just man/woman up and admit that fact. You don't like him, you never liked him and you'll do your best to see that he loses in 2012.

[QC]

94. "You don't like him, you never liked him"

Actually, Thrill was one of the more zealous Obama partisans here during the primaries.

[BeyondGeography]

65. Lieberman wouldn't have cared

A gratuitous swipe from someone who obviously has a hard-on for this Administration.

[Cha]

71. A big ol' ugly one.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. I'll admit that I think that he didn't really FIGHT for it

He made a case for it to be sure but I always had the feeling that he probably knew that it was a lost cause with people like Lieberman, Nelson, Bayh, Landrieu, et. al and decided at some point that it may need to be sacrificed eventually. I know a lot of people here think that President Obama has been "weak" or that he simply "caved" and/or "sold out" to bring HCR this far but I tend to believe that he knew that if he drew any bright lines in the sand and threatened to veto anything that didn't have "x, y, z" that it was likely that he'd either actually have to go through with it- pissing off a bunch of people in the process- or face the prospect of its death in Congress like what happened to Clinton in 1993-1994- pissing off a bunch of people in the process. You may call his action/inaction on HCR a "lack (or failure) of leadership" but I believe that he simply decided that enunciating a series of principles but allowing Congress to work out and fine-tune the details was a better approach. Was he right? Obviously, only time will tell us the final outcome but no other President/Congress since Truman first proposed the concept of universal health coverage has come as close to actually moving us forward on this issue. Plus, by not introducing his own legislation and even speaking kindly of some GOP proposals, he has made it difficult for the Republicans to straightjacket President Obama to and negatively define the legislation as easily as they did with the Clinton health care reform plan back in the 1990's.

[Alenne]

73. Well said nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

79. Thanks

:hi:

[vaberella]

75. Feingold like many DUers, DISAGREES with FACTS. B/c it is a fact Obama fought for a PO. n/t

[freddie mertz]

77. Evidence?

[IndianaGreen]

78. It is based on faith!

Who needs facts when one has faith?

[vaberella]

87. I'm really tired of your stupid statements. Considering there is enough evidence to know.

Video evidence if writing is not sufficient.

[freddie mertz]

88. The only evidence we have is of statements later contradicted.

There is absolutely no evidence Obama put up a fight for a public option, and plenty that he gave the go ahead to skuttle it, as early as August.

[vaberella]

86. Every single speech and townhall dating back since February/March.

He fought for a PO. I watched all of them. Or just look up the ABC special when he was asked about it and he went on and on and on about the reasons why he wanted a PO and the benefits of a PO. So I'm tired of the bull shit lies to suggest otherwise and much like your suggesting. Because you suffer from amnesia doesn't mean the rest of us have.

Post # 81 might be helpful as well.

[freddie mertz]

89. He backed off almost immediately. By August it was a "Sliver."

Fighting means standing up for a policy WHEN it is challenged, not before.

This he simply did not do.

And everyone KNOWS it.

[zulchzulu]

81. Here are a few references where Obama specifically addressed the need for a Public Option

Here's some examples. Google is our friend.

June 15,2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/obama-takes-up-public-hea_n_215736.html

September 9, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/09/AR2009090901771.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125240777810092069.html