Tuesday Night Open Thread

It's barbecue and "Weeds" replay night here. A new salad: spinach, red pepper, avocado and mango slices with a handful or two of blueberries tossed in. Hope the TL kid likes it. If not, there's grilled honey-mustard chicken, corn on the cob and asparagus.

For those of you thinking health care is beyond our reach, this song's for you.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Bruce Lisker Conviction Overturned | Jaw Dropping Stupid? Or Just Pretending? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Summer is here (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 07:25:03 PM EST
    and I didn't miss it ONE BIT. I have a couple of suit-wearing occasions coming up, which I'm not looking forward to.

    Ditto (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:00:55 PM EST
    Thank Dawg I don't have any suit/have to dress decent events coming up. I do have a knife demo to attend tomorrow with a Japanese knife master though :) Wish me luck on winning the raffle. New knife engraved by the Master . . . .

    Summer for two days only!!! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by vml68 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:10:37 PM EST
    We are back to the low 80's starting tommorrow...not typical August/summer weather.

    The low 80s (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:15:56 PM EST
    is the apex of what I consider an acceptable outside temperature. The perfect range is 68-75 IMO.

    68-75 is not swimming pool/beach (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by vml68 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:23:38 PM EST
    temps. Unless I get to do a lot of that, it is not summer.
    When it gets to 68...my down comforter comes out of the closet!!

    Well, I'm a walker, not a swimmer (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:26:31 PM EST
    But for me, when it hits 68, I turn on the air conditioning!

    LOL. I hope you never have (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by vml68 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:31:24 PM EST
    a roommate/partner like me. There would be war over the thermostat!

    heh, I exaggerate--a little (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    I'll take a dry low 80's for river/lake (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:28:09 PM EST
    enjoyment, as long as the nights cool off :)

    I switched on the air conditioning the (none / 0) (#15)
    by vml68 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:35:35 PM EST
    last couple of days so the hairy pup would not have to suffer for my love of the heat.
    If his ecstatic roll on the bed followed by an all paws in the air snore fest was any indication, I think he was pleased... :-)

    My freakin' pup decided (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:48:18 PM EST
    it would be a "close to you" day. I'm sitting there working (fans, no AC in this room) and the next thing I know she's wrapped herself around me from behind (I work on the couch). OY! Of course she's panting up a storm but doesn't budge. I wish I could have bottled the heat for winter, lol!~ I gave her a frozen meaty bone to give her something to do other than radiate heat!

    Your pup sounds like he was/is a very happy camper! My cats have staked out all the AC/fan spots as usual. Poor Dot is at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to cool spots. In the winter, she'll go lay on top of the kitty pile by the heat as the cats are too seduced by the heat. In the summer, it's a different story. They protect their cool spots, from her and each other, lol!~


    Miss Dot needs to come over (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by vml68 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:09:12 PM EST
    to my place. She can have her pick of cool spots.

    The other day my dad who was visiting was getting ready to head into the city. So he took a few hundred dollars out of his bag and placed it on the bed with the intention of putting it in his wallet. A few minutes later the money was missing. My poor dad was totally confused because he tends to be a little forgetful. A little later we noticed that Oliver was sitting very quietly watching all of us, mouth tightly closed...guess what was in there.
    Thankfully, he was willing to trade the money for a cookie!


    lol!~ (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:50:29 PM EST
    Yeah, I know that closed mouth quiet pose ;) Thankfully Dot isn't into money. She's only picked it up one since I've had her. But she would def do an Oliver and trade for a treat :)

    Oliver is a good boy!


    My lil' temp ap tells me (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:25:16 PM EST
    tomorrow is iffy and Sat and Sun will be hot. Thurs and Fri more comfortable, but I'm with andgarden, 70's are good! Can't wait to be back in northern CA weather, especially mountain weather. I'm so over humidity and dew points!

    In Vermont (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:22:46 PM EST
    folks start fainting and gasping for air when it's mid-80s and moderately humid.  Makes me laugh, since that's just ordinary mild Boston summer weather, and these folks think they're soooo tough about weather because of the winters.

    I've saved so much money ... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 05:45:12 AM EST
    on electricity this summer.  

    My apartment has southern exposure and is on the top floor of the building.  So it usually needs AC virtually all summer long.

    This year I didn't turn on the AC till late July.  


    Wow, Glenn Beck is losing sponsors (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:25:45 PM EST
    I think he needs to but I'm surprised at how swiftly he is being held accountable for all the race baiting and hate mongering.

    Linky? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:35:41 PM EST
    That's really good news.

    Link (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:39:12 PM EST
    this sounds awful (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:27:11 PM EST
    but i can't wait for the Madoff movie.  It is in my opinion "the crime of the century"...

    Listening to my Congresswoman's (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:50:48 PM EST
    telephone townhall conference on health care reform.  What a pleasure to hear an extensive, civilized discussion.  


    I'm so proud to be in Jackie Spier's district!

    Message to Congress (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:06:53 PM EST
    Ignore the polls and ignore the yappers on healthcare. Ram through the best package you can, and make sure it's generous enough that people will like it later. Hint: that's your safe option. Pass nothing, and many of you will lose next fall.

    They've already ignored the polls and (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:19:47 PM EST
    the "yappers" on health care - that's how things got to where they are now.  They've ignored a huge percentage of the American people and managed to end up in August with a "plan" - or is it more like five plans? - that is so incoherent that they cannot even explain it.

    Thaks to the massive failure of leadership on the part of Obama, this is the best package they've managed to put together - that's the problem.

    If they fail to pass this mess - a mess that is time-released not to explode until 2013, in spite of the fact that people need help NOW - the Congress could still embark on a plan to expand the current Medicare program over the next couple of years, such that by 2012, there would be a whole lot of people thrilled with their health care plan and running over each other in their rush to elect even more Democrats in 2012 than they did in 2008.

    If they pass this abominable "plan," they may be able to hold onto their jobs until 2012, but after that, when people begin to realize the expensive and ineffective bill of goods they've been sold, you can kiss even the idea of Democratic majorities goodbye for a long, l-o-n-g time.


    All I'm saying is (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:24:02 PM EST
    generous subsidies will go a long, long way. The framework is there in the House Ways a Means bill.

    Generous subsidies and ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 05:34:10 AM EST
    some form of prepopulation for the public option.

    Although it may seem counter-intuitive, prepopulation would actually decrease start-up costs.


    Public option and subsidies (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:17:14 AM EST
    I don't think it's clear that there will be a public option when all is said and done, but if there is, I think it's important to consider what that really means, at least as it currently stands.

    Kip Sullivan at pnhp.org had a lengthy blog post that, in part, speaks to this issue.

    It is not inevitable that a scrawny "public option" will be strengthened

    The argument that any "public option" is better than none has rarely been articulated, but I suspect we will hear it more often as the reality sinks in that the "public option" in the Democrats' bill is a joke. "Public option" advocates who learn for the first time that the "option" in the Democrats' bill will insure few or zero people have only two choices: to abandon the "public option" movement, which is no doubt emotionally difficult to do for those who have invested heavily in the movement, or to continue to work for the Democrats' version of the "public option" and rationalize that choice with the argument that a tiny "public option" can always be improved once it is established.

    The problem with this argument is that the "public option" is not your typical government program. The "public option" is not like the space program or the various college loan programs, to take a few examples, all of which can be expanded or contracted as the years go by without seriously threatening the very existence of the program. The "public option" will be a business. And this particular government-run business may never get very big; it may not even survive. If it doesn't get big, or doesn't survive, it won't develop the huge public fan base that protects popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. In fact, the reverse could happen. A miserable early performance may cause Americans to turn against the idea of a Medicare-like program for the non-elderly. Unlike public programs, businesses don't have an indefinite time period to develop a supportive public. Businesses don't automatically take root and go on living forever. The "public option" must prove its ability to survive and undersell the insurance industry quickly. Moreover, the "public option" will be attempting to break into a business that has been consolidating over the last few years. The insurance industry is extraordinarily difficult to crack.


    The Democrats' legislation calls for subsidies to people under a certain income level (probably 300 or 400 percent of the poverty level) so all Americans can afford to obey the proposed law requiring them to buy insurance from either the insurance industry or the "public option." These subsidies will probably amount to a trillion dollars per decade. If the "public option" doesn't survive, or survives but never insures more than a tiny percent of the population, that will mean that all or nearly all of that trillion dollars will go to the insurance industry.

    It is not written in stone that creation of the "public option" must go hand in hand with a huge bailout for the insurance industry. After all, one could imagine a scenario in which enrollees in the "public option" are the only ones who get subsidies. That was Hacker's original plan. But Democrats decided early in their bill-writing process that subsidies had to go to both the "public option" and the insurance industry, and Hacker and company did not complain. That decision, plus the Democrats' desire to achieve near-universal coverage, plus the Democrats' decision to create only a tiny "public option," means that if a "public option" is enacted it will be enacted only in conjunction with an enormous insurance industry bailout.

    A well-fed insurance industry is bad news for both single-payer and "public option" advocates. An insurance industry strengthened by a trillion dollars per decade of new tax dollars will not only be in a better position to oppose single-payer legislation, it will also be in a stronger position to lobby Congress and the regulators to ensure the "public option" remains stunted.


    To sum up: "Public option" proponents who claim that any "public option" is better than no "public option" because even a skinny little program can be beefed up later are sadly mistaken. A weak "public option" may not survive to be beefed up later, and whether it survives or not, it will serve as fig leaf that will let Congress justify an insurance industry bailout. A strengthened insurance industry is the last thing either the "public option" or the single-payer wing of the universal coverage movement needs. Please say after me: A weak public option is far worse than none at all.

    The bold is mine.


    Public Option? (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 07:31:35 AM EST
    Doubt by the time the Senate gets done there will be any public option.

    Maybe not ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 07:43:15 AM EST
    but the President was still pushing it pretty hard at his Town Meeting yesterday.

    And that's a good sign.


    One day he is pushing the public option (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 07:59:27 AM EST
    The next day one of his spokespersons is saying he is willing to settle for something less than the public option.

    But what is the PO that he's pushing? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:14:12 AM EST
    Co-ops? An "exchange"? Those would be "public" and an "option" . . . and they were more than floated.

    Who was it that said "Words matter"?


    The timeline is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:34:09 PM EST
    Since it isn't intended to go "live" until 2013, why not take their time, create a perfect plan and pass it in 2012? Why push so hard and fast for a lousy plan? Are they giving us a chance to get moved to Canada before we actually have to live with it?

    I would be fine if the plan was: make a deal with big Pharma that gets the Democrats re-elected in 2012, then in 2013 break those promises made to corporate Drugs. Pols will be pols, you know.


    Garrison Keillor on Health Care Reform (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 07:00:55 AM EST
    (and other things).

    But this passage sang for me:

    Aug. 12, 2009 | You know it's going to be a difficult day when you wake up with "Guantanamera, Guajira Guantanamera, Guantanamera, Guajira Guantanamera" going around and around in your head and it won't stop. You know that probably you should not tackle healthcare reform today though brainlessness has not stopped other people from weighing in on it.

    Here are mobs of flannel-mouthed robots denouncing Socialist Gummint Takeover as Medicare goes rolling along rather tidily and the private schemes resemble railroads of the early 19th century, when each line decided its own gauge and each stationmaster decided what time it is. Anyone who has tried to coax authorization for payment from Federated Amalgamated Health knows that, for incomprehensible standards and voluminous rules and implacable bureaucrats, the health insurance industry carries on where the Italian postal service left off. But don't mind me, I'm a man with a viral song in my head and I should go soak it.

    Ruth Marcus (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:07:12 AM EST
    Has an interesting piece today - maybe some in the media are finally waking up to the fact that pols are pols?

    Oculus, since you are such a fan of (none / 0) (#1)
    by vml68 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 07:21:03 PM EST
    Twitter, this is for you.... :-)

    Ha. Did you see my link to Twitter opera? (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    Yes. Now I can say (none / 0) (#8)
    by vml68 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:17:42 PM EST
    I "know" a librettist!

    I think (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 07:49:46 PM EST
    healthcare is beyond our reach. The idiots are winning the debate so probably nothign will pass not that I'm a fan of what's in the bill anyway.

    I'm just so disgusted I dont know what to say and I told you so just doesnt make me feel any better.

    I think it's possible (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:49:28 PM EST
    but I think that "That issue is not a priority at this time." just found a new victim.

    Sure, I expected the LGBT issues to be tossed aside and rediscovered when it comes time to fund raise for 2012.  But I really didn't think that that health care, which has been An Issue since the 1980s could be dealt with without either a serious fight or a substantial improvement.

    For real progress on their issues, it looks like the gay community will probably be no worse off than anyone else.  I could be horribly, completely wrong.  I would love to be horribly, completely wrong!  I don't want to say "We told you so.".  I'd rather eat crow when the Democratic Congress and the Democratic White House turn into a monolithic powerhouse of progressive policy makers.


    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    well I'd rather eat crow too but it looks like I was completely right and considering how much money is going out of my house right now towards insurance a nice big bowl of crow soup would be happily swallowed.

    Frankly, I dont know what the LBGT community expected from Obama after the McClurkin tour. That tour told me everything I needed to know on that issue. Did they not know about it? Did they willfully ignore his behaviour? I still cant figure that one out.


    Obama will be a one-termer (none / 0) (#24)
    by mikeel on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:32:21 PM EST
    I'm really beleiving this, but I don't a really strong GOP candidate, except maybe Huckabee.  I think the turning point was Gatesgate. Obama will never truly recover from that.

    As for health care, I think a smaller reform package that focused on regulation and costs would have been a lot simpler and easier.  You can't get comprehensive reform all at once.  And this comes from a strong reform supporter.  Incremental was best.  Too late for that--Obama and Dems are "all in."

    So, if the Dems falter in 2010, does Obama get a primary challenger?  


    Wow- you are writing (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:50:30 PM EST
    Obama's political obituary WAY too soon.  The republican party is a mess right now- basically a regional party of white, evangelical men, and they scare the hell out of a lot of people.  If they nominate any of the "leading" candidates of the moment, Obama wins in a walk.(barring disaster) As for health care, I am getting more pessimistic every day; without a public option- there is no "reform."

    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:17:49 PM EST
    the GOP might be a mess but if the Dems sit home that's all they need to get in office.

    and that's.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by mikeel on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:37:25 PM EST
    what the polling saying right now.

    Virgina and New Jersey may just be warmups for 2010.  And why is Obama doing so poorly in Colorado (43rd on Gallup's 50-state approval rankings)?  Maybe someone can help out on that.


    Economy, economy, economy (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:48:31 PM EST
    Obama is doing just fine nationally. He's above his 11/08 numbers.

    Really (none / 0) (#39)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:58:37 PM EST
    huh- hey out of curiousity, what do you think the polling on Clinton said in August 1993, or Bush in 2001- I'm just curious as to who succeeded them in 1996 and 2004 respectively.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:03:02 PM EST
    I mean other than Huckabee who in the the current Republican party could legitimately be elected President (And realize with Huckabee I'm being very generous- his social conservatism turns off the middle, and the fact that he attempts to be compassionate kills him with the fiscal cons)- Sarah "Quitbull" Palin, Tim "Slash Taxes til the bridges fall Down" Pawlenty, Bobby "I might not even get re-elected" Jindal?

    Seriously, Romney (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:25:42 PM EST
    Spectacularly phony as he is, he's far more of a threat than Huckabee would ever be.

    Huck at least has Charisma (none / 0) (#49)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:30:48 PM EST
    Romney induces this almost subconcious loathing in even GOP partisans- besides which I honestly can't see the Evangelical Turnout machine getting behind a Mormon, a Catholic would be pushing it, but a Mormon is a bridge too far.

    Palin (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:33:49 PM EST
    I think Quitting (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:37:58 PM EST
    kills her with all but her base- barring a major outside event, I can't see Palin breaking 45% against any Democratic Presidential Canidate in the last 20 years, much less against Obama- she alienates massive sections of her own party at this point.

    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:41:04 PM EST
    Personally I encourage her to run. I do not think any R has a better chance than Palin.  

    Wait (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:56:57 PM EST
    you think a trivial non-issue is going to take down Obama, did you also think "Travel-gate" was going to take down Bill Clinton?

    Really! (none / 0) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:26:06 PM EST
    On the primary Challenger (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:35:55 PM EST
    I can pretty much guarentee that wont happen, at least wont be mounted by anyone with a serious shot at the Presidency- for two reasons:

    1. After 1980 its seen rightly as moronicly counter-productive

    2. A challenger would have to run either hard to Obama's left- making them unlikely to garner more than Kucinich's numbers or Hard to Obama's right, making them a republican, as Moderate Dem Obama is frustrating to progressives at times, but almost impossible to outmanuver politically by anyone with any hope of actually being elected.

    the turning points was Gatesgate??? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 12:16:25 AM EST
    LOL. You lost credibility for your prediction  with me there.

    Just to clarify- (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:45:00 PM EST
    health care has been an issue for more than 50 years, much earlier than the 1980s.  

    I think I read it goes back to TR - (none / 0) (#76)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:18:38 AM EST
    much more than 50 ears, even.



    If the idiots are winning (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Cards In 4 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 09:54:25 PM EST
    it's because the proponents can never explain how they will accomplish their goals.  The best they can do is say what reform won't do (no death panels, no rationing, no cuts to Medicare) or they say they don't have a final bill to vote on.

    Obama wants to bring in 45 million more people, let everyone keep the plan they like, not limit care for anyone and bend the cost curve.  Where in the real world will this miracle occur.

    If their health care reform plans were so great Pelosi and Obama should have been selling their plans and how they would work.  Instead they want opponents to shut up (Obama) or opponents are un-American, swastika wearing astro-turfers (Pelosi).

    The idiots may win but but so far their job is being made a lot easier by reform proponents.


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:16:19 PM EST
    here's what I think happened:
    Obama never really cared much about health care anyway. It was evident that anybody who ran Harry and Louise ads wasnt really interested in any type of reform. I'm one of the few people that actually read his healthcare plan and found it sorely lacking. So Obama's not much of a leader combined with an issue he really doesnt care about that's been delegated off to congress equals a vacuum that's being filled by the idiots on talk radio.

    I have to think so, too (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 10:54:07 PM EST
    as it's become apparent that Obama probably had to talk about health care in the campaign because Clinton, and to some extent other candidates, did.

    I also have to wonder what may be the effect of having a spouse who worked for corporate health.  It's hard to see why else he would be so lacking in passion, his forte, about real health CARE reform.


    I've said before (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Cards In 4 on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:03:24 PM EST
    I think he only had a health care plan during the campaign to differentiate himself from HRC so she couldn't own the issue.  If HRC had never had a plan Obama would have been more than happy to ignore the issue.

    Had health care reform been so important to the future of the country, Obama would not have let Congress control the plans. Instead he would of presented and defended his own solution.

    Now he's reduced to telling people he doesn't want to kill their grandparents a few weeks after saying maybe a woman 100 years old should not get a pacemaker.  


    I think the reason he's delegated here (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:05:18 PM EST
    is to try and avoid the Clinton Healthcare Debacle, unfortunately it appears neither dictating nor delegating works.

    No (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 05:38:13 AM EST
    he delegated because he's a delegator. he delegated the stimulus off too. He's even said he's not too much on policy and likes the delegate things off.

    Ok, What does he REALLY care about? (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:30:40 PM EST
    So far, Obama seems to let Congress run most things, except for the bailouts and money give aways.  

    Didn't Obama say when he was running that health care was his number one issue and he would get it done before the end of this year?   Now I wonder if that is even true since he's letting Congress write the bills and dictate everything that will be in them.  On top of that, every week Obama seems to say something different about what is in the imaginary health care bill.  (I say imaginary since there doesn't seem to be bill that has been read by anyone.)

    So what does Obama REALLY care about?  I'm scratching my head.  


    If the answer to this question (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 01:19:36 AM EST
    Didn't Obama say when he was running that health care was his number one issue and he would get it done before the end of this year?

    is yes, then it may be necessary to examine why health care was Obama's number one issue, and what he meant by getting health care reform done.

    If it was his number one issue because he and his faction of Democrats wanted to secure campaign contributions from Big Pharma and the insurance industry by promulgating "reform" in the guise of sleight-of-hand giveaways to those two special interests, then Obama and company may very well be able to claim that they "reformed" health care before the end of the year.

    And if the answer to that question is no, then we'd still be pretty much where we are now, in practical terms, but with no need for all the dog-and-pony shows.


    What's in the bill? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:24:49 PM EST
    I've read so many different things about so many different bills, I can't say that I know what's in the bill or even if there such a thing as THE BILL.  

    Can anyone help?  


    At this moment (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 11:44:41 PM EST
    there is no such a thing as THE BILL.

    Don't feel alone. I doubt if the president or any member of Congress knows what's in the bills either.

    But see here is the thing. You need to go out and fight to get this unknown legislation passed regardless of what it might contain. And by the way, the Dems are under attack so make sure you donate a lot of money to help the Dems win this fight whatever it is. Trust us on this. The Dems are just accepting all that money from the insurance industry to fool them long enough to pass some bill. Any bill.  :)


    Obama thinks there's a bill (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:03:53 AM EST
    In fact, he even said the AARP endorsed it.  Of course, that's not true, but why would a politician let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good story?

    Oh, that is not good (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:33:49 AM EST
    Seniors are already leery of what effect the budget reductions will have on their benefits. Obama claiming an AARP endorsement that does not in fact exist will only make them less willing to trust what he says on the issue.

    From that article, AARP recognizes that there are many bills under consideration. Also, I am pleased that the AARP is withholding an endorsement at this time.


    Pols Are Pols and AARP Seems the Same (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:54:06 AM EST
    They concede, however, that there are some provisions in the legislation that the organization has backed.


    "The AARP speaks out of both sides of their mouth and tells their constituents or their members one thing and do another," Barton said.



    Hey, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#9)
    by Spamlet on Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 08:18:05 PM EST
    Asking you again: been out on the Electra Townie? How do you like it?

    Bulletin: MoDo Still Demented (none / 0) (#62)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 01:47:08 AM EST
    Hillary's KO in the Congo on Monday made the covers of both New York tabloids. Using tough hand gestures not seen since "The Sopranos" went off HBO, Hillary snapped back at an African college student who asked about the growing influence of China on Africa and then, according to the translator, wanted to know: "What does Mr. Clinton think?" . . . [The Secretary of State's] . . . response showed that the experiment in using the Clintons as a tandem team on diplomacy may not be going as smoothly as we [sic] had hoped; once more, as with health care, the conjugal psychodrama drags down the positive contribution the couple can make on policy.

    "Toilet-Paper Barricades"

    Apt headline, given what Dowd is shoveling here.

    "a tandem team"? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 07:58:24 AM EST
    Would some publisher give Dowd a contract to write a book of speculative historical fiction and get her out of the newspapers?  Please?

    "A tandem team" is pure fiction!  Bill does a single favor and suddenly they are a team?  A plane trip, a photo op and escorting a couple of freed journalists is not what the SoS does.  Not even under Bush!

    Maybe HuffPo could give Dowd an exclusive contract?  She'd fit right in there!  (A friend of mine seemed miffed when my response to HuffPo's headline about Bill's NK trip was: "She really needs to get that chip off of her shoulder.".)