thom hartmann "gets it"...

[RepublicanElephant]

he acknowledges that the health reform bill falls short, even with bernie sanders' improvements, but realizes that defeat of the bill means defeat for dems in 2010 and maybe even 2012. and defeat means putting the bush/cheney/teabagger nutjobs back in total control of the congress, white house, AND supreme court.

glad to see more liberal/progressives getting a huge dose of political reality 101.

now, if only mike malloy...

[DJ13]

1. defeat of the bill means defeat for dems in 2010

Thats completely assbackwards.

Passing this bill will be the greatest PR weapon the Democrats could give to the GOP.

Theres a reason they refuse in mass to go anywhere near voting for this, despite the fact its the most pro-corporate bill to be passed in a decade.

They dont want their fingerprints on this so they can bludgeon the Dems over mandates and other draconian bits and pieces in next years election.

[boppers]

33. *en masse n/t

[niceypoo]

34. They have no real reason for not voting for it

outside of wanting to sink Obama.

They don't want their fingers on anything because they are obstructionist morons, and they will be painted as such in 010. The, 'We cant do so and so because the republicans might use it against us,' meme is timid, cowardly, weak and submits to right wing whims.

[stevenleser]

36. No, YOU have this assbackwards.

The GOP have nothing to complain about with this bill and have no excuse for their "no" vote. Democrats have done something that others have tried for decades to do and could not.

Republicans cannot argue mandates are a bad thing after Romney did this in Massachusetts. No Republican member of the media or elected official said anything about that when he did it. I look forward to arguing this issue with conservative pundits. They have nothing.

[Raineyb]

37. No YOU have it ass backwards.

This bill is a GOPers wet dream, mandates, no cost controls, people forced to buy a product that many won't be able to afford and the blame for this clusterfuck will lie with the Dems. And the Republicans will say "See we told you this was a bad bill" and claim they didn't vote for it.

You think the fact will get in the way of a Republican argument? Since when?

[stevenleser]

38. No, facts never get in the way of their arguments, but it gets in the way of those arguments working

that's the rub.

[Raineyb]

39. No it doesn't. If that were true Fox news wouldn't have all these people

believing things that are provably untrue.

[stevenleser]

40. It's all relative. Most people wont believe it. (nt)

[Raineyb]

41. Like they didn't believe that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction?"

Oh right they did believe it.

[stevenleser]

42. Actually, that is a good example. There was no good evidence either way until March 7th 2003

and by then it was too late, Bushco invaded around 2 weeks later.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

[EFerrari]

2. The political advantages of passing this thing have never been opaque.

Thom is just stating the obvious.

[kenny blankenship]

7. I wonder does he get that the Dems are holding us all hostage to their selling out and failure?

[EFerrari]

10. Sure he does and he's talked about that. But the point the OP refers to

is also true. The Democrats need this to pass so they can run on it. :shrug:

[kenny blankenship]

16. You have to turn a blind eye to our corruption and failure -so we can sell you out again 2010?

Otherwise we won't be in a good position to sell you out in 2012 and thereafter. That's the hostage taking I'm referring to. The point the OP refers to is both obvious and obviously absurd. I UNDERSTAND why Democrats are caving to what the most corrupt among them desire. If they don't the whole party looks weak and chaotic. They want to keep their phony baloney jobs.
That isn't a good reason to applaud them or excuse their behavior, though. Understanding is not automatic forgiveness.

[EFerrari]

18. Agree and Thom would likely agree, too.

Understanding is not agreement OR forgiveness.

[dflprincess]

32. They might try running on it in 2010

but what happens in 2012 or 2014 when just what a POS this is starts to sink in with most people?

[democrat2thecore]

3. Your picture tagline is an INSULT to the great FDR - an INSULT! -nt

[RepublicanElephant]

9. wonder how fdr would react to all the democratic back-biting going on lately. nt

:shrug:
:banghead:

[democrat2thecore]

11. Read some history - he welcomed it, while he STOOD BY HIS PRINCIPLES -nt

[democrat2thecore]

13. Comparing this one-term disaster to FDR is just beyond belief

Obama has proved he's not fit to light FDR's cigars.

[Cassandra]

30. Someone pointed out recently...

that FDR came into office after several years of Republican fuck-ups and also that the Congress gave FDR powers to enact legislation that Obama certainly doesn't have.

[Cha]

44. President Obama is too busy along with his Team trying

to UNSCREW the bush-cheney nightmare to be lighting any fucking cigars.

[Larkspur]

4. The Dems problem with this bill is that it is too complex to explain to the American people

and the Dem Party is horrible at framing the debate.

The Repukes will concentrate on the additional tax on the middle class this bill exacts. And since most "benefits" don't start until 2013 or 2014, people will get pissed real fast unless the Dems up the date on some of these "benefits".

[T Wolf]

5. The number of "bona-fide" liberals who are now "endorsing" this HCR bill are

maybe telling the truth - that being, this is as good as it is going to get.

What they are omitting is that this version, as good-or-bad as it is, IS all we are EVER going to get on this subject.

Will there ever be more than the current 60 (give or take, mostly take) senators lining up "on our side" for health care reform?

Will there ever be more Democrats in the House who want to improve medical care?

Will there ever be a Democratic president with more political capital than Obama had at the beginning of his administration?

I hold that the answers to all three are "No" and that, in a sick sense, those whom we liberals are now seeing as betraying us are correct. But they leave out the fact that this is it. The minor "improvements" will be far and forever outweighed by making permanent the privatization of our health.

Whether the next few elections prove that liberals will give up on the Democratic Party or come back, holding our nose and lowering our expectations to zero, this is the limit of "progress" on the subject.

Next topic.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. I think the same thing.

The notion that we're going to improve upon this bill is absurd. It would require Democrats to maintain Congressional majorities well into the future AND a substantial leftward tilt in both Congress and the President. The likelihood of this happening when insurance cos. will be pouring millions into lobbying against further reforms and into the campaigns of Republicans and ConservaDems is nil.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Of course he does. He's mature and intellectually honest, unlike the Failers here and in the GOP.

Also, CNN polling shows a 10% increase in support for HCR by Democrats in the past two weeks, so there's good news
all around.

[Armstead]

8. It would be really refreshing if some folks would give the word "reality" a rest

Here's a lesson in Cosmic Reality 101

What I believe is true is reality to me.

What you believe is reality to you.

What that guy over there believes is reality to him.

There, got it? Save yourself from typing and acknowledge that every one of us is expressing their own version of "reality" and move on to your main points.

[RepublicanElephant]

12. reality bites. nt

[defendandprotect]

14. Nonsense. . . Dems are throwing away success in not moving on public oiption/Medicare for all . ..

In cementing corporations into health care they are cementing corporatism/fascism in America --

In passing this garbage they are also failing to provide the boost to the economy that

Medicare for all would provide -- including 2.3 million new jobs!!

[EFerrari]

15. If they can present it as success, it doesn't matter politically. n/t

[defendandprotect]

19. If voters are truly as dumb as they hope they are . . . !!!

And, if they can shut down warnings from those like Howard Dean . . . .

who seems to have "seen the light" overnight???

[EFerrari]

21. I don't think voters are stupid. They're just powerless.

They wanted the public option, remember?

And Dean will always look for the best outcome possible. He's a real pragmatist where that means trying to find the best outcome, not for trying to dodge responsibility for accomodating the corporati. Or, at least, that's how I read him. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

22. I was reponding to your presenting this as their "presenting this as a success" . . .

and I'm saying . . . only if voters are as dumb as they hope they are!

Think you misunderstood me --

Yes, Americans want single payer/public option/Medicare for all --

In fact, Catholics -- despite lies of the US Catholic Bishops in working with Pelosi

on Stupak Amendment -- want government plan which would include contraception and ABORTION!!!

Dean backtracked because he's obviously been pressured --

His clear warnings re this garbage lesiglation were a threat to White House/Obama/Dems and

corporatism/fascism --

This is a $600 Billion/$800 Billion give away to insurance/pharm --

with no negotiation on drugs!! No controls on prices!!!

After this, Social Security and Medicare will be on the chopping block for privatization . . .

Sad --

[EFerrari]

24. Gotcha. But you know, I don't think they put on this theater for us

as much as they do for each other.

So, if the presentation of success sells to the other side, that's a win -- no matter how it looks to voters.

[defendandprotect]

26. You think the White House response to Dean as "irrational" was intended as

"theater" to impress the Repugs????

It was a response whioh acknowledged their fear of truth of this bill getting out ...

especially from someone as well respected as Howard Dean.

The "other side" and the "left" are both against this legislation . . . tho for different

reasons!!!

As you mentioned, voters aren't dumb . . . and they certainly understand the betrayal involved

here and the dangers for our citizens and for democracy.

Waiting to hear from Michael Moore -- very quiet --

think a lot of people are being pressured to NOT be honest about this bill.

Krugman evidently is saying vote "yes" --

Again -- once this corporatist DEFORM of health care is put in place --

Medicare and Social Security will be next--

Wondering re Schultz, as well -- he's been strong on this -- we'll see ....

And Olberman --

[jefferson_dem]

17. I'm happy to hear this.

n/t

[defendandprotect]

20. And up is down . . . lesser evils galore . . . start over with single payer . . .

In fact, Randi was just playing Obama from 2008 at labor union saying . . .

"I personally support single payer - everyone in, no one out" --

In other words, Obama not only betrayed the public, the nation, he also betrayed himself!!!

[dionysus]

23. breathless melodrama aside here...obama obama, obama....how is it that you can't seem to fathom that

there never was close to enough support in *either* house of congress, amongst DEMS, for single payer? how is that obama's fault, exactly? no one's saying this is good, just that that is what it is.

so let's say obama personally wants single payer\public option. then he figures out there aren't the dem votes for it. in either house. not even close. the dems in the house barely want a public option and the senate dems don't want one at all.

so... does he go on TV demanding it, knowing it won't happen, so the bill dies in committee and he can look like an ass? or does he work for what he can get?

i have never had anyone explain in a rational way how this single payer support materialises, except that it's somehow obama's fault that it never existed in the first place.

KILL THE BILL! START OVER WITH SINGLE PAYER!!11!!

HOW!?!?!? it doesn't have the votes to even get out of committee! why is this so hard to understand...

[defendandprotect]

27. Who stuffed Obama's pockets with corporate cash???

Is that what you're asking?

The PUBLIC SUPPORTS PUBLIC OPTION . . . SINGLE PAYER . . . GOVENMENT RUN HEALTH CARE . . .

THE CONGRESS ARE OUR REPRESENTIVES . . . BEHOLDEN TO US . .. NOT CORPORATIONS . . .

And why might Democrats stand against single payer . . . ??

Could it have something to do with their own pockets being stuffed with corporate money???

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT . . . CORPORATISM/FASCISM . . .

Did you miss the Jane Hamsher articles the other day?

Guess she was fairly filled with "breathless melodramatic" . . . ???

The question is how you can honestly fail to understand the threat of corporatism to

democracy ...????

[dionysus]

28. you managed to not only heighten the melodrama, but to not answer any one of my questions.

but at least you kind of admit that the house and senate dems bear responsibility.

and, no, he didn't raise all his campaign money from health insurance companies. jesus h christ...

[defendandprotect]

29. If you keep mentioning "breathless melodrama" no one will notice

the disingenuousness of your responses . . .

We are not inventing the wheel -- single payer, Medicare for all are inherent ...

basic in the discussions --

They have to be ignored in order to not be there -- !!!

The blame, again, is with CORPORATISM/FASCISM ... I recommend you catch up with the

Jane Hamsher article -- posted here at DU two days ago--

In other words, Democratic Party is corrupted by corporate money . . . the influence and

agenda becomes corporate --

It's intended to destroy the party and prevent it being used as a tool for any progressive

legislation.

Trying to suggest that this health care garbage came from something that could not be

politically overcome is delusion -- it has to do with our legislators and our president

being pre-BRIBED and pre-OWNED by the "for profit" health care industry.

[Cha]

45. And, that is just a wee example

of what hamsher breeds with her disingenuous hysteria. I hope all these little hamshers are contributing to the site and will follow her orders in Marching With The Teabaggers.:silly:

[GeorgeGist]

25. No he didn't.

[Kalun D]

31. A bills success or failure

doesn't have much to do about whether the actual bill itself is worth a crap or not.

If the dems success is riding on this piece of crap then they need to lose

This bill is bad enough I think it's worth losing the dems over, after all they aren't enough better than the repugs to make a real difference

the people need to really suffer for them to wake up. The dems screw them, but just not bad enough to wake them up.

Like Greenpeace and Sierra club sez, donations are better under a repug prez. Dems are worse because they make believe they are doing us right, when under cover they are screwing us all the same.

[DailyGrind51]

43. Thom is 100% correct!

If this thing fails to pass, voters will see Dems as totally ineffective and stay home.