home

How Much Longer For The Post Partisan Unity Schtick?

Paul Krugman:

ďI am in this race because I donít want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s. I donít want to pit Blue America against Red America; I want to lead a United States of America.Ē So declared Barack Obama in November 2007, making the case that Democrats should nominate him, rather than one of his rivals, because he could free the nation from the bitter partisanship of the past.

This was a schtick, not a serious statement. The defenders of the schtick, like Mark Schmitt, argued that it would help Obama achieve policy goals. I never believed that. I believed it would help Obama get elected by keeping the Media on his side. I think it did that. But now is the time for governing. The PPUS is a clear failure on that front. So when is it jettisoned? Sam Stein reports:

Undaunted by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley's declaration that the Democratic health care agenda might empower the government to "pull the plug on grandma," President Obama still hopes to achieve a bipartisan reform bill, his spokesman said Thursday.

I can understand mouthing those words. But when do you mouth the other words - "obstructionist," "divisive," "tools of special interests." Because within a month, the Obama team will have to turn on the GOP and be "partisan" to get meaningful health care reform. How much longer until this happens? They have to wait for Baucus to fail. Right after that is my prediction.

Speaking for me only

< Michael Vick Signed by Philadelphia Eagles | "Squeaky" Fromme and Bruce Lisker Now Free >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "If I have to I will do without them" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 07:47:32 AM EST
    I am paraphrasing but just recently Obama had uttered that if the Rep did not want  to be part of his  health care plan then that was fine and he would proceed without them.  His point was if you want to be part of the plan your welcome but if you want nothing to do with it and are offering nothing in similarity then that is your prerogative,  but I will get a plan passed with or without you.

    I guess he feels he has the votes do get it passed even without bipartisan support.  You can only offer you hand in peace out so much.

    He needs to use his power like Johnson did.  Of course Johnson was IMO more powerful than Obama.  When he needed a bill passed he called in his markers even if his own men were against it.  They knew if they did not cooperate Johnson would not support them and campaign with them in their re election.  Kind of political suciice if you did not cooperative with Johnson.  That how he got civil rights and medicare passed.  He played hard ball.

    Yes, he does not need the Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:57:55 AM EST
    But will he do it without the Blue Dogs in the Senate?  Easy to talk tough to the Republicans if you are going to fold instead to the Blue Dogs.

    Parent
    It gives cover to the Blue Dogs (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    Call it bipartisanship, make a big show of reaching out to the Republicans when what you are really doing is appeasing the Blue Dogs.

    Parent
    Well said (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Plus, admonish the left to not primary the Blue Dogs.

    Hmmm...if only there was a catchy acronym to capture the folly of this papering over of real philosophical differences within the party.

    Parent

    One of Krugman's best reads so far (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:06:20 AM EST
    I have to say though that it left me down hearted.  I don't think Obama is going to deal with this very well.  I don't think he has this ability in his toolbox and that these are tools he is going to have to acquire.  Can he?  Will he?  I wish I didn't feel so faint of heart about it.

    Somerby today (none / 0) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:34:03 PM EST
    Krugman is the starter and Somerby today is absolutely brilliant, top form,

    Parent
    Obama is not LBJ (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:10:39 AM EST
    He is a Chicago politician who was a US Senator for 4 years... He has no markers to call in.

    And all he has to do is threaten to campaign against one Democrat and the rest will run away from him.

    As I stated above (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:34:24 AM EST
    IMO Johnson was more powerful than Obama

    Parent
    If Obama had won in 2008 by (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:13:26 AM EST
    61% and suddenly had a 2-1 Dem advantage in both chambers of Congress, he would be as powerful as Lyndon was 44 yrs ago.  

    Because, after that election wipeout of the Repubs and the anti-Medicare Barry, it wasn't a matter of whether any Medicare bill would pass, but rather whether a strong Medicare bill would pass in the spring or the summer of 65.

    Having a fair number of mod to lib Repubs in Congress to count on for Medicare's passage also helped make Lyndon powerful back then.  Not so today.

    Having the MSM in your corner on the legislation (or at least not carrying water a good deal of the time for the opposition) also helped make LBJ powerful.  Again, not the case today with Obama.

    Parent

    Even (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    if Obama had those numbers it wouldn't matter because he doesnt know how to use the power that he does have. This is where being only five years out of a part time job in the IL senate shows. Johnson had years of experience in Washington and knew HOW to effect change.

    Parent
    I don't doubt that a lot of (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:28:55 AM EST
    Lyndon had more cong'l experience than O, and I don't doubt that during the Medicare legislative process he did his share of work for passage as with the CR bill.  

    But for all that experience, the actual record shows that in both Medicare and CR, LBJ argued for a certain process and in both cases the key legislator in charge of the bill (Mills for Medicare and Mansfield for CR) rejected his advice and instead charted his own course, which turned out to be the crucial decision in assuring success.

    LBJ did have some persuasive ability elsewhere in the process, including some clever trickery against an obstructionist Dem senator chair of the Finance Comm'ee, but largely I think his alleged all-powerful abilities have been wildly overestimated.  But people need their myths or mythical figures I guess, and the one about the powerful Daddy figure who comes in and lays down the law is hard to dislodge.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:32:15 AM EST
    Johnson did not have the Charisma of Kennedy but he was the most powerful president since FDR.  He was chief of his politcla party par excellance.  He was senate majority leader that ruled with an iron hand.
    He passed more major pieces of legislation than any president to date since FDR

    He got the power from being a crooked politician.
    When he decided to run for the Senate, he ran against Coke Stevenson.  Stevenson won the election hands down.  Johnson had many friends.  He called his friend Connally and his other friend George Parr also know as the Duke of Duval (Duval is the name of a county in south texax).  George Parr was the political machine in South Tx.  He controlled everything.  He owned the bank in San Diego Tx.  The famous ballot box 13 was locked up there.  When the counted the votes the next day it showed that Johnson won.  Stevenson protested and cried voting fraud.  The famous Texas Ranger that got Bonnie and Clyde went there to investigate the fraud.  Parr told him that him and his men could not bring any guns into his bank.  When the doors open all of Parr's men had Winchesters.  He told them not to photograph anything.  The investigators wrote the names of the voters in the box.  The majority of them were deceased people.  

    Stevens protested all the way to the SCOTUS.  However, Johnson had friends all along the way.  He friend SC justice Hugo Black was there to help him.  Johnson was declared the winner and the rest my friend is history.  

    A good book to read on this is A Texan Looks At Linden (a study in corrupt politics)

    Even with his lack of charisma and crooked ways Johnson will probably go down as one of the greatest president in history only because he used his power to pass these major pieces of legislation.

    Parent

    Yer Killin Me :) (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:16:37 AM EST
    I paid full price for Rush's 'The Way Things Ought To Be'.  My best friend was with me and she shuddered while I paid for it, but I really wanted to know what the heck this dude who struck me as a lunatic was about.  If only I had been more patient I could have gotten a really good deal on it because I paid full price and I still understand nothing about the ideology of Rush Limbaugh.

    Parent
    Another book on this is (none / 0) (#64)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:12:51 AM EST
    Texas Mutiny: Bullets, Ballots and Boss Rule

    Parent
    Yer Killin Me :) (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:16:37 AM EST
    I paid full price for Rush's 'The Way Things Ought To Be'.  My best friend was with me and she shuddered while I paid for it, but I really wanted to know what the heck this dude who struck me as a lunatic was about.  If only I had been more patient I could have gotten a really good deal on it because I paid full price and I still understand nothing about the ideology of Rush Limbaugh.

    Parent
    Yeah, I'm generally familiar (none / 0) (#77)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:11:06 PM EST
    with the colorful Haley book on Lyndon which came out in the 64 campaign.  Some interesting facts in there about some of Johnson's shady associates from TX, and other stuff, written by a Bircherite TX Dem.  

    Rbt Caro wrote the definitive account of the 1948 stolen senate election of Lyndon vs Coke Stevenson, in his vol.2 of his massive LBJ study.  Well worth checking out.  And, yes, Lyndon stole that one -- stoled it reel good and kept it stoled.  Lyndon bragged about it to a TX reporter years later in the WH, in fact, as he reached over to a drawer and pulled out a photo of the infamous group of corrupt election officials from south TX who posed next to the infamous precinct Box 13.

    So, I'm pretty familiar with Lyndon and how he came to power and got more and so forth.  Corrupt and crooked in many of his dealings, yes.   Not a great president though -- I leave those slots for the non-crooks and those who didn't unnecessarily start major wars.

    Parent

    Most are judged on their accomplishments (none / 0) (#79)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    not how clean their regular and political lives were.

    Parent
    Well, this isn't the thread (none / 0) (#84)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:25:28 PM EST
    for a long back and forth on that presidency, but suffice it to say that most presidential rankings by historians I've seen in the past decade include among the criteria a category or two for moral character/honesty, or abiding by the law and constitution and similar.  

    Which I think is a very proper and relevant subject for the evaluation.  A presidency is about much more than just passing and signing bills.

     

    Parent

    Maybe so (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    but I rather have a president that gets major things done for the majority of people than a president that all you could say about him was the he was an honest person but never accomplished anything other than his honest personality.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#103)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:15:47 PM EST
    I can remember all the polls that showed how American's "liked" GWB and how he was a regular guy that you could trust. Look where that lead.

    Parent
    Bingo. (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    In reality, Obama walked into the White House with more power than any other President since Ronald Reagan and he has not used it.  That leads me to believe that he is either not really interested in the change he promised or that he is remarkably unskilled in the politics of governing - which is BTW very different than the politics of campaigning - because governing requires action - whereas campaigning is always left primarily to words about actions that may or may never come to be.

    Parent
    I thnk you hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:59:45 AM EST
    He was a very good campaigner, but I don't think his history ever showed that he would necessarily be good at governing, esepcially as he's never really managed anything in his professional career.

    But, we were told that experience didn't matter.  Who knew?

    Parent

    Well, experience would not matter (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:08:33 AM EST
    if the man had any governing principles beyond process and politicking.  Meaning that instead of defining the objective based on the politics he was able to identify the goal and the governing principles behind the goal beyond his obession with process, then he might be able to get something meaningful done.

    Right now, he is more concerned with stupid detail like sugary soda than he is with not only getting people in front of their doctors, but also providing them access to care.  There are all sorts of people going around this country screening for things like breast cancer and heart disaease, but few focused on the fact that if someone can't pay for the care required when they are diagnosed with a serious disease the screening is a kind of cruel exercise in mental torture.

    I am really angry about the way this all has gone down.  I think Obama has really mismanaged the entire process and it is really shameful.

    Parent

    I just realized that his obsession (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:45:11 AM EST
    is process.....not defining and then reaching goals.  I don't know how happy I'm ever going to be having him at the helm now that I realize that about him.  This is certainly not the time for such a leader in America but that's what we have.

    Parent
    The obsession with process gives (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    the opposition a lot of openings.  He gets distracted going down in the weeds on things like taxing sugar soda which appropriately is criticized because he is literally playing doctor; the idea doesn't even address the real problem of corn syrup or all sugar sources - but he hasn't the political will or capital to take on the corn farmers or the cane sugar producers; the idea is totally off topic to the issue of how we get people to healthcare providers so that they can get individualized care instead of having politicians legislate their health choices; and sugar isn't bad for everybody.  There are numerous examples of Obama's inability to identify the real big picture here.  I almost fell out of my chair laughing when that flu pandemic issue came up and he told me to go see my doctor if I felt unwell - "What doctor?" I asked - lol - if we have a pandemic flu - we're screwed because there are far too many people who do not currently have access to care.  That is a big picture, practical reason (one among many) that we should be focused on getting people basic care.

    Parent
    I could accept it if.... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    I agree. It would be OK for Obama to stay above the fray and pontificate on theory if he had the work horses in the House and Senate to do the arm twisting. I don't think that's the case. Reid certainly doesn't fill that bill.

    With Ted Kennedy more or less out of the picture, he has no one with clout to pressure a quality health care bill through.

    Parent

    Max Baucus? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    Oh, you said quality health care.. Never mind.

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:04:51 AM EST
    it's both. The lack of interest in policy was evident back in the primaries. The ineptness in actual governing is only showing now because he's being required to do it whereas it was never really required before. He could just glom onto somebody else's bill.

    Parent
    conjecture only (none / 0) (#72)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    Not so fast (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:48:30 AM EST
    A big part of Obama's problem is that he never submitted an actual plan.  He simply dumped it off to Congress.

    A complete lack of leadership.

    It should also be noted that in the Johnson  era it took 67 votes to break a filibuster.

    Johnson pressured people in his own party.  It seems with Obama, not so much.

    There is also a matter of conviction. Johnson had it, Obama doesn't.

    Parent

    Everyone knows why (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    Obama didn't submit his own bill -- the reaction to the awful failure of the Clinton era.  Not unreasonable at all for the Obama admin to try it differently starting with Congress.  In fact, that was what Bill had wanted -- before he was firmly rejected by Rostenkowski and told to submit an admin bill first.

    We'll see about Obama's grade on this health care reform business.  Right now it's still too early -- we're somewhere in the 3d qtr, with the reform side down by 10 pts.  Not ideal, but plenty of time for a comeback.  And we'll see whether he wins big or if he squeaks out a narrow win that few are proud of.

    As for Johnson, by 1964 there was a strong public consensus for medicare type legislation; after the Nov election pitting pro-Med LBJ vs anti-Med Goldwater, it was clear the voters had spoken.  No filibuster was going to succeed in stopping the bill.

    And again on pressuring congress, I've already noted the record on Medicare shows how it didn't work with LBJ -- his attempt at a quick but relatively modest Medicare bill to be passed prior to the election, firmly rejected by Wilbur Mills -- and how his trickery with one key senator (Harry Byrd) did work.  A mixed record for Lyndon on the pressuring aspect, but he did indeed consistently back passage of the bill and worked well behind the scenes in his own way to track progress and influence to the extent he was able.

    Too soon to come down like a ton of bricks on Obama.  Medicare took about a full year to come for a final vote, and that was with public backing and a 2-1 Dem majority.  September will be a crucial month.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    Everyone knows why Obama didn't submit his own bill

    CQ writer Adriel Bettelheim reported what everyone knows, (save for several commenters here).

    Such figures [Clinton WH veterans who are now Obama's WH advisors] come to the debate with a clear cautionary message, observers say: The president should stay on the sidelines and keep Congress invested in an outcome until the time for serious horse-trading arrives.



    Parent
    I don't understand what it is you find so (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:24:54 PM EST
    compelling about a CQ writer telling the world that Obama does what the Clinton vets tell him to do; is that really where you want to go with that?

    It is certainly the role of an advisor to advise, but it is the role of a leader to consider the advice, accept it or reject it, and act as he - or she - believes is best.  You know, to lead, not to be led.

    Either way, whether he takes the advice or not, he owns the decision; it isn't a safe harbor in case things go wrong, as much as it seems you are trying to make it one.

    One other comment: you might try just presenting your views without the constant jabbing at those with whom you have tangled; the parenthetical in your comment is there for only one reason - to provoke another round of sand-throwing.  I don't know whether it is insecurity or immaturity, but it's tiresome.

    Parent

    Lol (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    Look in the mirror, your faux sincerity is nauseating.

    you might try just presenting your views without the constant jabbing at those with whom you have tangled

    [snip]

    I don't know whether it is insecurity or immaturity,...

    Hypocrisy as usual.

    As to this:

    I don't understand what it is you find so compelling about a CQ writer...

    My response was to an unusual comment here at TL by brodie, singular in fact, save for my post earlier, opining as to why Obama has handed Health Care Reform over to Congress.

    Everyone knows why Obama didn't submit his own bill -- the reaction to the awful failure of the Clinton era.  Not unreasonable at all for the Obama admin to try it differently starting with Congress.

    It is the most obvious reason in the world. And as brodie points out "everyone knows".

    It is amazing that you and your pals who voted for Hillary and refused to vote for Obama or support him in any way, fail to notice that history has its lessons and one of those lessons was from the failed attempt President Clinton had with passing similar health care reform legislation.

    You and your pals are soooooo focused on the empty suit, unable to lead meme that your fail to notice the most obvious. ANd most ironic is that were Hilary the POTUS she too would be listining to her advisors as well and hand the bill over to congress first rather than lead the charge from the WH.

    As brodie points out:

     

    In fact, that was what Bill had wanted -- before he was firmly rejected by Rostenkowski and told to submit an admin bill first.

    But you would rather bash Obama so as to continue your political agenda with the hopes of getting Hillary on the ticket for 2012.

    Parent

    Get over it! (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by sallywally on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    The center of your psyche seems to be Hillary hate.

    Parent
    Let's have some (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Spamlet on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:59:26 PM EST
    Fairness and Accuracy in Remonstrating. Someone with a psyche centered on Hillary hatred would not have made this comment.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    Really? Got any evidence for your BS off the wall claim?

    Of course not because you are just pulling nonsense out of your butt.

    But guess again, why don't you.

    Unlike you Iam not a cultist who flocked to TL to get away from all the nasty Obama cultists at dkos and elsewhere and then proceeded to act just like the cultists they were fleeing from.

    I have been commenting at TL for a long time.

    I voted for Hillary and was fine with voting for Obama as POTUS. Both are the same in my book. Mainstream Dems who are to the right of where I stand.

    Parent

    I think the argument was forgotten (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    None of the folks who supported Hillary made a big to do about her being a different kind of politician.

    I can't say that she would have handled things differently.

    What I can say is there's a disconnect between Obama and his own supports.  It's a wish fulfillment exercise that had to take place in order to generate a frenzy of excitement around Obama.  Which is very advantageous electorally, but not so great when it comes to the actual business of governing.

    You look up and down this thread and those of us who supported Obama are unclear about whether or not he means what he says when he talks about bipartisanship.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:52:10 PM EST
    Anyone who believed Obama was doing anything but acting like a politician by claiming that he was a different kind of politician, needed or needs a reality check.

    As far as Obama meaning what he says when he talks about bipartisanship also should go in for a checkup.

    Obama is playing politics, we will see what the next phase is after congress comes up with a bill.

    We'll see what happens if and when congress comes up with a bill.

    Parent

    Problem is (none / 0) (#128)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    Why say it if the only people who believe it need a reality check?

    I know.  I know.  Because elections are won by getting the support of people who need a reality check.

    Parent

    Not Really (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:15:03 PM EST
    The best customer is an informed customer. That goes for voters as well. Most educated voters, as well as uneducated voters, understand that Politicians lie as part and parcel of their trade.

    Voting is always a compromise, a small fraction of the population would believe otherwise.

    Parent

    You don't get it (none / 0) (#193)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:57:05 AM EST
    Or maybe I don't get it.

    Maybe the best politician is someone who claims he's different and doesn't lie and therefore becomes that much more attractive to people who know that he's lying.

    i naturally assumed that all the people cheering for him at his campaign stops believed he was telling the truth.

    But I've been wrong before.

    If you're saying all those people knew he was lying but supported him and kept cheering anyway, then that's great.

    I still have a lot to learn in this world.

    Parent

    If and when (none / 0) (#133)
    by Spamlet on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:15:29 PM EST
    We'll see what happens if and when congress comes up with a bill.

    That's the crux of it, no? Obama--for reasons already discussed and disputed in this thread and others--appears to have abdicated leadership on health care reform. And, as you say, we'll see what happens.

    Parent

    Nice Twist (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    Abdicated, is quite different from using a strategy:

    The president should stay on the sidelines and keep Congress invested in an outcome until the time for serious horse-trading arrives.

    But wish-fulfillment is part of dreaming according to Freud. Abdication a slip, perhaps?


    Parent

    NB: "appears to have abdicated" (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Spamlet on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    If you disagree with that perception, maybe you also disagree with this:

    Late last week, Obama made a preliminary overture to three Democrats and three Republicans from the Senate Finance Committee who are negotiating a bipartisan health plan. In an hourlong Oval Office meeting, the president asked what he could do to advance the talks. Still, one senator in attendance, North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, said that Obama's basic message was focused on them, not him: "Keep working."

    That might not be enough for other, less patient Democrats, who suspect Republicans are using Obama's hands-off approach to drag out the process. Until the president issues an ultimatum, they suggest, the incremental status quo benefits opponents of an overhaul.

    "My own personal view is that those three Republicans won't be there to vote for it out of committee when it comes right down to it," said Finance member John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. "So this will have all been a three- to four-month delay game, which is exactly what the Republicans want."

    Link

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    I read that too. Just goofing on your choice of words..  Abdicating, in its most common usage, means resigning aka leaving office..

    Parent
    Just slipping in here (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Spamlet on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    before the "Get a Room, Guys" notice goes up.

    Squeaky, you made your case--three times now, by my count--regarding Adriel Bettelheim's main thesis in that article.

    I see the validity of Bettelheim's observation about "ClintonCare." Who wouldn't? But I don't think that observation was Bettelheim's main thesis. I think it was offered in support of his main thesis: that everyone is on tenterhooks now about whether Obama will actually step up and lead on health care reform.

    As for the spat the other day, I laughed at your reintroducing the Bettelheim article on Tuesday night, after Jeralyn had cleansed the first thread of Bettelheimania, and I laughed when you reintroduced the article yet again on Wednesday morning, but on Wednesday you also slyly worded your comment to suggest that jbindc agreed with you on what you said was the article's main thesis, when you knew very well that jbindic did not agree with you. That was very petty and, imo, calculated to provoke a piefight.

    Your comment to Anne today explains a lot about your insistence on pushing the "ClintonCare" meme:

    But you would rather bash Obama so as to continue your political agenda with the hopes of getting Hillary on the ticket for 2012.

    So disagreeing with you about the thesis of an article by Adriel Bettelheim is "bashing Obama"? And even if commenters here really did have a "political agenda" regarding Hillary Clinton, do you actually believe that any of the people you characterize in this way are naive enough to believe that Hillary Clinton would mount a primary challenge against Obama? Or that the Democratic Party would let Hillary Clinton anywhere near the presidential nomination in 2012, if ever, even if Obama's first term is a failure?

    I'll stop now. We're mostly on the same side when it comes to the big picture, and I admire your doggedness at times, so I'm certainly willing to coexist with you here. Cohabiting? Not so much.

    Parent

    ok (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:26:54 PM EST
    First of all I was responding to a comment that brodie made in support of the reporting/opinion of Bettelheim.

    Second, in response to this:

    So disagreeing with you about the thesis of an article by Adriel Bettelheim is "bashing Obama"?

    No one here has disagreed with the article. No one here, save for Inspector Gadget, debated the article or would even discuss the content, premise or argument.

    And I never suggested that jbindc agreed with me. I gave him or her credit for posting the piece and that is all. Your allegations that I was being sly are completely unfounded. What is true though, is that jbindc, completely misunderstood the article. When I explained the main thesis of the article, I was castigated for getting it wrong. Of course it was just hot air because jbindc refused to actually discuss the content which s/he clearly misunderstood.

    And yes Anne only has bashed Obama, whatever her agenda may be, it is certainly not holding Obama's feet to the fire. Her rantings are closer to what the GOP activists say about Obama. Their agenda is clear, so is Anne's.


    Parent

    So, which is it? (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:02:08 PM EST
    And yes Anne only has bashed Obama, whatever her agenda may be, it is certainly not holding Obama's feet to the fire. Her rantings are closer to what the GOP activists say about Obama. Their agenda is clear, so is Anne's.

    Is my agenda unknown, or is my agenda clear? That is the question.  But, either way, you "know" from my posts that I am not holding Obama's feet to the fire - it's just bashing for the sake of bashing, I guess (?), and whatever it is I am doing or not doing it is because what I really want is for Hillary to run in 2012?

    Here's a clue: when I decide that what I want is for Hillary to make a run in 2012, or 2016, I will come right out and say so - and since I have not begun to think about what the possibilities are for either of those election years, and therefore have not made up my mind, I am sorry to tell you that I am not working the Hillary agenda secretly, openly or at all.

    For now, I am reading and listening and watching and researching and assessing and explaining, as clearly as I can, my opinions about the current state of affairs.  I am sorry you don't like what I think, but I accept that you don't agree with much of what I say.  If you want to counter my opinions with some substance, as opposed to taunting, I might give some consideration to it, but since you mostly just laugh out loud and play crystal ball parlor games to try to knock down what I say, I mostly try to tune you out.

    Talk about your own agenda, speak for yourself only, until the cows come home - I'm assuming you can do that with more coherence than you display when you attempt to divine and explain the agendas of others - and you might find people willing to listen.

    Parent

    OK (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    Well then you are clearly working for the GOP, . lol

    And I do not have to wait to hear you come out and say it.

    Parent

    Gosh, you are SO perceptive; (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    I mean who would not conclude that someone who has been urging Obama to govern from the left, to stop accommodating the right, is "clearly" working for the GOP?  

    Brilliant deduction, once again.

    I guess your version of "clearly" is analagous to Obama's "transparency."

    Parent

    But Anne (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:11:02 PM EST
    When you see this healthcare DEform become more and more "corporate" and right-ist before your eyes, don't you know that you're supposed to clap louder for it!!!

    You mean you didn't get the memo?  Oh, you're so obviously a Republican.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Seriously, Teresa - (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:30:25 PM EST
    I mean, who knew?

    I guess I am in one of the dimensions of the 11-dimensional chess game - the stealth GOP-enabling dimension.

    So, trying to make Obama move left is the same as furthering the GOP's agenda because it's, what, too critical?  Oh, no - we can't have criticism, can we?  We must all look happy and clap for the cause, no matter that the cause has been as easy to pin down as jello.

    I guess it's just the fatigue of getting to the end of another work week that made me succumb to the ridiculousness that just the other day I was begging for an end to, but I really, really have to start pretending we have an "ignore" button and just scroll on past.

    Parent

    Oh, Anne (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    I just wanted to write to say, now, remember what you have so wisely written to me:  refrain, refrain. . . .

    It is not dimensional.  It is chronological, clearly.  As we have been told time and time again, you have to be here a long time to get away with the spew that can be so wearisome.  Not that you would spew, with your carefully done comments that keep so many of us here, despite the spewing sorts (and btw, on other blogs where some have run, you are often cited as much missed).

    And not that it is stated how long here is sufficiently long here to run off others.  It's one of those unstated things that those in the know just know, and state again and again, so it must be so!

    Parent

    Thanks for the kind words, Cream. (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:53:29 PM EST
    Am curious about who else is missing me - feel free to e-mail me at Anne7532 at gmail dot com if you feel like sharing.

    I knew the whole time I was attempting to respond to the squeaky one that I was probably wasting my time, but...I got sucked in at a weak moment.

    Live and learn.

    I guess I haven't stated often enough how much I wanted to be wrong about Obama, how much I wanted to feel stupid for not voting for anyone for president, but I stood there and looked at the touchscreen and couldn't do it, and wasn't going to vote McCain out of spite or protest because there was no way I wanted him in charge, either.

    With a lot of things in life that don't go the way one we want them to, sometimes we can talk ourselves into just focusing on the positive and making the best of it - you know, deep breaths and squared-off shoulders, and into the breach we go.

    I've tried.  People like squeaky will swear that there is no way I could have ever tried to make the best of Obama-as-president, but the thing is, I don't live on this blog, these aren't my only interactions, and no one - least of all squeaky - is going to tell me what I have and have not done within the totality of my life.

     

    Parent

    Making Obama Move Left? (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:43:51 PM EST
    Seeing that you have decided and repeatedly declared that he is not fit for office, not sure why you are wasting your time.

    Parent
    Anne (none / 0) (#191)
    by jbindc on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:32:42 AM EST
    Certain commenters here feel that by having the last word in any thread, that they "win" the argument and that you are a) stupid or b) have come around to their way of thinking.  They do this even if their response consists only of "LOL".  But, I think people here know who provides comments for discussion and who doesn't.

    It's hard not to get sucked in, I know.  But you must be strong and remember what happens when you lie down with dogs, etc.

    Parent

    Mirror Please (1.00 / 1) (#197)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:52:08 PM EST
    Your ability for self reflection and level of self awareness is pitifully lacking.

    Parent
    Working FOr the GOp (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    And being GOP, are two different things that have a common end result.

    Parent
    Well Going By Your Comments Here (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    About Obama's ineptness, weakness, inability to lead, corruption, reason Palin's Death Panel gained traction, and hope that Obama's health "plan" deserves to die, you may as well be getting paid by the GOP.

    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by dk on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:29:42 PM EST
    See, Anne, didn't you know that law that you are only allowed to criticize Obama as much as, in exactly the same manner as, and no more than, Squeaky?  And that if you do, then you are either GOP or "may as well be getting paid" by them?  Because, you are with us or against us!  

    /snark


    Parent

    You Too (1.00 / 3) (#142)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:32:25 PM EST
    Criticizing a president, holding their feet to the fire, is qualitatively different than wanting them out of office.

    That is where you and Ann share a common end with the GOPers.

    Parent

    Hehe. (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by dk on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 04:04:57 PM EST
    I guess that's what I get for all those comments calling for Obama's impeachment.  I'm a lawbreaker too.  /snark

    Parent
    If the GOP (5.00 / 7) (#148)
    by hookfan on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    really started sounding like Anne, I'd seriously think about voting for them. Oh, if it were only so! Then we could have real leadership (the GOP does get their agenda across quite well don't they?) with a real leftist agenda. The stuff dreams are made of. . . Anne where is this GOP, and where can I sign up? If I take Squeaks advice on offshore accounts, I could even funnel money to them. Lol

    Parent
    Please just stop (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by sj on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 04:46:11 PM EST
    You've talked yourself into a corner and now seem to be believing the nonsense you're reduced to spouting.


    Parent
    Hey (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:14:33 PM EST
    If you don't agree with my comments fine. If you feel the need to tell me to shut up, please do yourself a favor and go elsewhere, skip my comments, or take it to the management.

    Your opinion on the subject at hand is quite worthless, imo.

    Parent

    I'm going to regret saying this, I'm sure (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:38:30 AM EST
    I read posts and comments more than I actually comment but I've been here a while. The thing is, Squeaky, you come across as, well, nasty and sniping a lot of the time. "LOL" is the last refuge of a weak argument, IMO.

    So I'm automatically inclined not to take what you say seriously, regardless of the merits of your arguments. Maybe if you spent more time stating what your arguments are, you'd get farther. Sometimes you do, and I enjoy those posts. But this kind of thing, I don't see what it accomplishes, personally.

    My two cents.

    Parent

    Yes you are ("going to regret"). (none / 0) (#202)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:54:56 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#203)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:57:09 PM EST
    The predictable oculus pile on. Indirect as usual. What a coward.

    Parent
    Will you responding to Lisa's comment? (none / 0) (#204)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:32:35 PM EST
    Will I What? (none / 0) (#205)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    I do not understand your question.

    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#206)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:53:40 PM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#207)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:56:51 PM EST
    I have no idea what you find so funny. Seems to me you are playing provocateur at best and trolling at worst.

    Not sure what you are looking for here.

    Parent

    I assume you read otherlisa's comment. (none / 0) (#208)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:04:14 PM EST
    I asked if you would be responding to that comment.  Clear enough?

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#209)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:13:03 PM EST
    I did not get that from what you wrote. Not sure why you are so interested/invested.

    Seems to me that otherlisa is a fan.

    Everyone has their limitations and tastes, so I can not expect everyone to enjoy, appreciate, or find interesting every comment I make here.

    Parent

    Today I saw a license plate (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:28:06 PM EST
    surrounded by that Fairey poster of Obama on each side with the message "HOPE."

    Parent
    I didn't buy into the message (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:48:53 PM EST
    as anything but meaningless, so I'm not sure what the campaign slogan was.  So was it change for hope, or was it change or hope?

    Parent
    The Hopey, Changey, President (1.00 / 0) (#179)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:20:07 PM EST
    Never did much for me.  Change can be wonderful, it can also be very bad.  

    Parent
    I thought it was (none / 0) (#163)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:54:17 PM EST
    hope for change, but when push came to shove, I seem to remember it morphing into "you are the change".

    Parent
    Hillary's Slogan (none / 0) (#165)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 06:03:03 PM EST
    "Working for Change, Working for You."

    "the strength and experience to make change happen" and "the change we need."

    "the strength and experience to make change happen."

     "Ready for change, ready to lead"

    link

    Parent

    Hers seems to be missing the HOPE (none / 0) (#166)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 06:08:02 PM EST
    but, the 2008 election was all about CHANGE after the 8 years we had just gone through. Seems logical all the candidates would fit that word in somewhere.

    Did McCain use it, too? I vaguely recall he did.

    Parent

    Oh I See (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 06:19:01 PM EST
    You got all drooly over Hillary's campaign slogans, because the word hope was not included..

    lol.  

    Or is it that the BS Obama was peddling, aka campaign slogans, were bigger lies than those of the other candidates.

    Or just having a bit of fun doing some gratuitous Obama bashing. ODS, alive and well..

    Anyway campaign slogans, promises, are low hanging fruit. Just in case you thought differently. And that goes for all politicians, even the ones you vote for.

    Parent

    They're just slogans, squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 06:31:43 PM EST
    attention grabbers, and taglines to tie all the various advertising forms together, and something for the supporters to chant. You think they were promises?

    Sure, a chuckle now and then at the slogans lightens the mood...you caught me, I'm guilty.


    Parent

    BTW - (none / 0) (#169)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 06:35:04 PM EST
    You're the one who remembered Hillary used Change in her signage & slogans....I had no recollection. Then, I listen to the candidates and look at their resume's. The fluff just blows away at the first gust of wind.


    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#164)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:57:39 PM EST
    those who "bought in" didn't get change, they lost all their money.

    Parent
    Obama is not the politician what LBJ was (none / 0) (#180)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:24:13 PM EST
    But then few are in that league.  Obama just doesn't have the political experience to have learned the political skills to do what needs to be done.  He might learn them, eventually.  

    I am still not clear what Obama wants in this health care bill and I bet most in Congress aren't sure either.  

    Parent

    No he wouldn't (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by sj on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 04:16:40 PM EST
    If Obama had won in 2008 by 61% and suddenly had a 2-1 Dem advantage in both chambers of Congress, he would be as powerful as Lyndon was 44 yrs ago.

    He would merely have had potential power.  To be powerful, one must actually use some muscle and exercise that power.

    Parent

    Do you (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:22:20 AM EST
    remember when Michelle Obama said that we are sick country and we needed Barack to heal our souls? When I first heard that I thought WTF kind of crzy statement is that. Now I think maybe she was letting us in how Barack operates. After all this it seems he truly believes that he can wave the fairy wand and make it all better.

    He's screwed up the healthcare debate from the beginning and I dont see how he recovers now.

    Yesterday there was a news item (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:00:07 AM EST
    about Obama planning a meeting with religious leaders to discuss healthcare.  Ugh.  Where are the scientists and practitioners who really know what's going on with our healthcare system?  Oh yeah, they're being escorted out of public hearings because they're all for single payer...

    Politicians would be the very last group of people that I would consult about healing my soul.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    read this and you have to wonder did we really end the Bush era? I can readily imagine George W. Bush doing this exact same thing.

    Parent
    Of course. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    There are numerous parallels between this White House and the last.  I am at the point where I think that we should all take a health insurance holiday - for however long it takes - boycott the industry - vote te majority of people out on both sides of he aisle and rebuild from the ground up - without the preachers.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:18:06 AM EST
    I've been trying to make the point for years that you can not work with these people. I live amongst them and I think a lot of people, Obama being one and some of his followers too, believe that these fundamentalists can be brought over. Really, what needs to be done is that they need to be so totally and completely defeated that they quit politics. And if voting everybody out is what it takes then so be it.

    Parent
    You and me both. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:46:40 AM EST
    Crazy people are really hard to deal with and the GOP in the Early 21st Century is totally dominated by them.  Problem with the Dems is that most on that side are fools imo.  The fools and the insane are in control of our country which makes me more and more uneasy every day.

    Parent
    There's a reason (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Spamlet on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    why cliches become cliches: they express a truth.

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.


    Parent
    Fundamentalists (none / 0) (#146)
    by prittfumes on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    . . . Obama being one and some of his followers too, believe that these fundamentalists can be brought over.

    Presumably, you are not implying that all religious people and their leaders are "fundamentalists".

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 04:16:27 PM EST
    not but Obama has had a tendency to make poor choices on this issue.

    Parent
    Not trying to speak for G (none / 0) (#147)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:54:53 PM EST
    but, I sure didn't read the comment that way. Seemed to me the comment was about fundamentalists and not all religious people.

    Parent
    Sorry I mentioned it. (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by prittfumes on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    Perhaps the issue of casually classifying people we live amongst would be a more appropriate SOD for a different thread.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:19:50 AM EST
    Had / when Bush did this, "liberal" blogs rightly had their heads exploding.  You wiould have seen Olbermann and Maddow coming unlgued.

    But now - not a peep.

    Parent

    Time to actually lead (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:14:28 AM EST
    There was never a chance at unity. I can't believe anyone could have bought that. It's totally against the interests of the Republican party for Obama and the Denocrat's to succeed.

    It's time for Obama to take a page from GWB! Regardless of the poll numbers or opposition, Bush just did whatever he wanted to push his party's agenda. (whether it was legal or not, snark).

    Democrat's have been given the presidency and the majority in Congress. I'd really be upset if they continue to whine and moan and fail to pass any meaningful health care legislation.

    It's time for Democrat's to use that power or lose it.


    The time to negotiate with Obama (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    on this, as with any candidate, is when he was a candidate -- that is the horse-trading usually done at a convention to get other leading contenders to cave, but not before they get something that they want in return.  To paraphrase BTD, politics will be politics, but only when it is politics as usual.

    The misconduct of the Dem convention ruled out that usual way of cornering the one who will be the party pick into promises to which he would be held by other camps in the party, so the result is evident now and will be for some time.  He does have to deliver on some promises, but not to other camps in the party -- instead, only to the ones that brung him.  His backers, his donors, etc.

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#110)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    But we certainly can't just sit back and accept whatever bone they happen to throw to us. Too many people on both sides of the aisle did exactly that under GWB and look at what we are left with. We can't allow a small viscous group of people to derail our future.

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Spamlet on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:44:50 PM EST
    We can't allow a small viscous group of people to derail our future.

    Things would really get sticky then!

    Parent

    Good catch; I got a chuckle, too (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:14:23 PM EST
    but now you risk also being called a Hall Monitor by Dark Avenger.  However, perhaps it is useful to consider a small viscous group of people here who attempt to derail as also just . . . stuck. :-)

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#115)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:51:36 PM EST
    I probably should have clarified that I was thinking of these groups that are touring the town halls over health care!

    Parent
    Yes, we can! (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:24:43 PM EST
    Okay, that was just for fun.  Seriously, though, I see nothing that I can do, and it's so frustrating and even depressing.  These aren't the Dems anymore that I knew, and I don't understand how to do anything in a party that doesn't follow its own rules and processes, which guided us before on what to do.  It isn't even worthwhile in getting involved again in changing the rules, since they won't be followed.  So I watch and wait and see if someone has a solution, but I haven't seen it yet.

    Parent
    I'm not 100% sure (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:22:36 AM EST
    It was a schtick.

    But if it was, I want to take a step back and observe that while it's been pointed out that while all politicians tell us what we, or the media, wants to hear -- not necessarily what they believe -- in order to get elected, it appears to me that said politicians are often treated with a double standard and one politician is called a liar pandering to the media while the other one is merely doing a schtick (defined as comic theme or gimmick?).  When they are both ostensibly doing the same thing.

    In any case, I'm not sure it was a schtick.  We'll know pretty soon.


    I don't think it's shtick (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    I think he believes it. If he has to abandon it to get a crippled health care bill passed, he'll go right back to it for whatever is next on the agenda.

    I agree - it's not a schtick if he believes (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:55:34 AM EST
    it, and he does believe it, unless he was a total fraud when he wrote 'The Audacity of Hope'. (and I am not discounting that possibility).

    Moreover, I'm convinced that he does believe more in the Blue Dog/Republican approach to health insurance reform than he does the liberal Dem approach. The primacy of private insurance companies will be maintained at all cost to the populace. Nothing he has said indicates otherwise.

    Parent

    Or to quote ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    George Costanza:

    "It's not a lie if YOU believe it."

    Parent

    According to a NYT article (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:58:06 AM EST
    Obama is working with Baucus behind the scenes and has made him his point man on negotiations with the insurance and medical industries. Many believe that Obama's actions indicate that whatever comes out of the Senate Finance Committee will be what is in the final legislation.

    "We have heard from both chambers that the House sees a public plan as essential for the final product, and the Senate believes it cannot pass it as constructed and a co-op is what they can do," Mr. Emanuel said. "We are cognizant of that fact."

    Asked whether the president would accept the weaker co-op, Mr. Emanuel declined to comment. "I am not going to fast-forward the process," he said.

    Industry lobbyists and moderate Democrats in both chambers, though, argue that the White House's actions behind the scenes show a recognition that the finance panel's anticipated compromise is the most likely template for any final legislation. NYT



    Parent
    And the circle completes itself (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:04:47 AM EST
    Industry lobbyists and moderate Democrats in both chambers, though, argue that the White House's actions behind the scenes show a recognition that the finance panel's anticipated compromise is the most likely template for any final legislation.

    This article makes it sound like the WH is just recognizing the likely result, when in fact the WH's actions behind the scenes are what is guaranteeing that the 'finance panel's anticipated compromise is the most likely template for any final legislation'. As I said, the WH is on Baucus's side on this.

    Parent

    When did he do anything bipartisan? (none / 0) (#174)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:52:51 PM EST
    I haven't seen him do it as President or when he was in the Senate.  

    It was just a schtick, Bush did it too, except Bush actually did do it in Texas.  Obama has never done anything bipartisan.  Not to say that there's anything wrong with that.  

    He claimed to be post partisan to win the election.  The reality is, he's not even a particularly good democrat politician much less a post partisan or a bipartisan.  He doesn't have any experience at how to do any of it.  

    Parent

    I caught a minute or two of Washington (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:38:50 AM EST
    Journal this morning, listening in the car, and the guest (from the schedule, it appears it was Mike Allen from Politico) said something along the lines of how the protesting at the townhalls was making the WH feel that it even more important that Democrats get Republicans on board with the final plan.  When they moved on to discussing Charles Grassley and getting him on board, I changed the station.  

    As skeptical as I am about Mike Allen, I guess I'm also very skeptical that we are anywhere close to seeing an end to the schtick.  Obama, for reasons that might require an advanced degree in psychology to understand, seems to need the schtick, needs to retain this persona of being all things to as many people as possible, which means that his focus and his goal become less and less about achieving the best policy, and more about "how can I change my policy to get you to vote for it?"  Am I aware of how things are done on the Hill, how "the sausage" is made?  Yes, I am.  But negotiations that begin with the side that has the strength of the majority just giving away key elements of what constitutes the best policy, is insane.  Insane.

    And before the Democrats can just "get it done" without the Republicans, they are going to have to find some unity within their own caucus.  As much as it pains me to see this, I think that the schtick just moves to negotiating with Blue Dogs instead of Republicans, with similar results - the further watering-down of policy.


    All things to all people.... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by kempis on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:10:01 AM EST
    This seems to be Obama's strategy still. Even in this thread and currently on DK are reports of conflicting messages allegedly emanating from Obama himself regarding health care and his goals: he's gonna fight for health care and energy independence even if it makes him a one-termer; he's gonna fight to get the GOP on board; he's gonna fight for the public option; he's willing to bend and compromise to pass a bill, any bill.

    In the end, as with FISA, we won't really know where he stands until the smoke clears.

    Parent

    He doesn't know where he really stands! (none / 0) (#183)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:46:35 PM EST
    If he does, he hasn't shared it with us.

    Parent
    Ahem (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:46:34 AM EST
    As someone who worked part-time/second job in a butcher shop, I can tell you that sausage making is neither complicated, nor gross.  You grind up pork, mix with some spices (if making Italian or Polish sausage or brats - or just "go naked"), you plunk it down in a cylinder, stick the casing on the end of a thin tube, turn the crank.  Voila!  You have sausage.

    Not nearly as complicated or disgusting as passing laws.

    :)

    Parent

    Unless what you're grinding up (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:51:29 AM EST
    isn't pork, and you're making the sausage from something that already went through the digestive process and came out of an alimentary canal.

    If you get my drift.  :-)

    Parent

    Ahhh (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    Maybe we had higher standards in Michigan...I don't think that was allowed (at least, in the store I worked at!)

    :)

    Parent

    My prediction is that a sausage will soon (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    emerge; that it will be mild sausage but with a public option of sorts--enough of one for the legislative process, as tough as it was, and its hobbled as its product may be, can be celebrated by the Democratic congress and  administration as a great achievement. Indeed, the inclusion of any public option at all, will be hailed as an accomplishment against the odds.  If there is something in the legislation that is not up your alley or something that is omitted, well look, it can be changed over time. And, the wisdom of plugging away to achieve bipartisanship will be vindicated by the two Republican votes it received--at least in committee. :)

    Parent
    I will be interested to see whether (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    there is any effort to move the implentation date up from the current start date of January, 2013 - if they think it's a good plan, they ought to be willing to be held electorally accountable for it.

    If a plan is passed, and it keeps the 2013 start date, I will be even more interested in what the  Democrats intend to suggest people in need of access to care do in the meantime.

    One obvious question is, how much of a crisis could we be in if the Democrats think we can wait three more years to start solving it?  And another is, how good could the plan be if Democrats are not willing to be held accountable for it at the polls?

    Well, obvious to me, and I'm guessing, very obvious to Republicans, who are probably already gaming the strategy for 2010 and 2012.

    Parent

    Well, the Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    may not be too upset since the legislation is incorporating a lot of those good Republican ideas, although one of those good Republican ideas (living will consults) did need to be dropped since the Republicans did not think it was such a good idea, after all. :)

    Parent
    Three years of scrutiny... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by NealB on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    ...of the activity at HHS related to implementation of the bill's provisions and the soon-to-be formed Health Benefits Advisory Committee there could effectively raise hundreds of millions for Republicans by 2012 and make the repeal of the bill their top issue that year.

    Delaying the implementation of reforms for so long may end up killing the reform before it's begun and could well return Republicans to power. At this point it's hard to tell what there will be for health care reform supporters to cheer about during that three-year incubation period.

    Parent

    Well, the Secretary of HHS (none / 0) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    will be on it. Not to worry.

    Parent
    These are good points. n/t. (none / 0) (#96)
    by sallywally on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    No Guessing To It (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ChiTownMike on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:55:13 AM EST
    When people try to find cover for their support of Obama by saying things like the following it is not very credible imo:

    "This was a schtick, not a serious statement...it would help Obama achieve policy goals. I never believed that."

    All one had to do was look at Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention and then immediately (or later) match  it up with his so called post-partisan schtick while a state senator in Illinois. What you saw there was pure post-partisanship and not post-partisan schtick. What you heard in his 2004 speech was post-partisanship through and through that he believed to his core.

    Then look at his Not So Much schtick in the US Senate prior to the primaries.

    Sorry but there was no guessing game here. The writing was on the wall in Neon and some of his supporters were either not astute enough to see it, some actually supported it, and some are just backpedaling now.

    What if it was a serious statement? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:11:18 AM EST
    One of my reservations about Obama was that he didn't get the nature of the opposition he would face.    

    It's Not Schtick (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:12:59 AM EST
    Listen to the way he talks about policy, as Avedon points out it is filled with conservative talking points and fails to notice even the most obvious political truths:

    But the other part of the problem is that Obama is essentially sympathetic to conservative arguments. Again, he is part of that curious segment of his generational cohort that, though they may think they are really savvy, actually absorbed the right-wing propaganda smearing liberalism (and the '60s) and elevating "the market" over everything else. (And assuming that Bill Clinton had so many problems with the Republicans because of something intrinsic to Bill Clinton rather than that the Republicans will do that to any Democrat and already have.) It would not surprise me at all to learn that Obama thinks every single ordinary person who shows up at political events wanting to talk about issues for real is "a loser". He may even say it out loud when he thinks no one "important" is listening. He has completely ignored simple facts (like that the only way to be "bipartisan" with a self-declared enemy that refuses to compromise is to surrender or join the other side) that anyone who is paying even a little attention has already noticed. So, yes, he's having a hard time selling his stupid, onerous, destructive "healthcare plan" that isn't about healthcare and isn't a plan. Which makes it awfully easy for Rush Limbaugh to make it sound like a terrible plan. It is a terrible plan. And actual liberals should be saying so.

    Obama's run the same play too many times, going back to his Harry & Louise ads in the primaries, to believe it's just a schtick.   Whenever there's a policy dispute, he almost always, in every instance moves right.  That's not schtick, it's instinct and ideology.

    Obama is not a liberal or a progressive.  On domestic issues, he's to the right of Richard Nixon.  The fact he has a (D) after his name and the GOP is worse, doesn't change that.

    The $64,000 question (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:30:04 AM EST
    So why do so many conservatives think he's a socialist and that he's so far left?

    Parent
    Just standard Republican talking (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    points about any Democratic president. The Republican "bobble heads"  say it so it must be true.

    Parent
    Just their reflex to any Dem in power (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:39:45 AM EST
    They say the same thing about both Clintons, Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, and any other major Dem you can name.

    Parent
    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:41:22 AM EST
    It seems much more ratcheded up this time - maybe because of the internet?

    Parent
    Not to me (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:44:06 AM EST
    I remember the 90's!

    Parent
    and the 80's (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    Dukakis was a socialist too, didn't you know?

    Parent
    Dukakis campaign (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:35:45 PM EST
    is where this all started.  Thank you ever so, sainted George H.W. Bush and Lee Atwater.

    Parent
    Reagan? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sallywally on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:08:22 PM EST
    I wasn't paying attention in the early 80s but under Reagan was when I started hearing "the Dems have to move to the right" crap all the time.

    And they did, and have never stopped.

    Parent

    Not what I'm talking about (none / 0) (#187)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:27:30 PM EST
    I'm talking about the outright explicit personal trashing of Dem. pols, even down to spreading a lie that Dukakis had had psychiatric treatment for depression, that there was something "peculiar" about his close relationship with his wife, calling him a "card-carrying" ACLU member.

    And then, of course, you remember Willie Horton, don't you?

    And then, of course, there was the reelection campaign during which Bush Pere called Clinton and Gore "Those two bozos," and referred to Gore as "Ozone man," and all the swamp fever of accusations about the Clintons that Atwater had presciently dug up years before out of Arkansas nutjobs, etc.

    It was an entirely different class of stuff than Reagan ever engaged in, or indeed any politician on a national level since probably the 1800s.

    I highly recommend an independent documentary film about Atwater called "Boogeyman."  It doesn't deal much with Bush, but that's who Atwater was working for.  And Karl Rove, btw, was an Atwater protege.

    Parent

    I just think it's that (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by dk on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:46:53 AM EST
    the base of the Republican party in its current formation is shrinking, and the ones who are left are feeling the pressure and getting louder/more unhinged.

    Many other of the old Republican coalition, whether the Kos and Huffingtons of the world, or the insurance companies and big pharma, have moved on to take over the Democratic party.

    Parent

    maybe because (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    they feel like they are "losing their country".

    It's easier to blame socialism than admit what it's really about.

    Parent

    Well, maybe they've figured out that (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:55:19 AM EST
    the more they b!tch about Obama, the more he tries to win them over, and they end up getting more and more of what they want.

    They act like brats, and he keeps giving in to them; not a great way to, um, change the bad behavior.

    Parent

    Ah, but they are very successful brats (none / 0) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 05:37:17 PM EST
    OTOH, reasonable (too reasonable most of the time) requests from long term Dem voters are ignored as SOP.

    Parent
    I Think The Right Noun Is Republicans (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:57:13 AM EST
    Republicans seek to brand him a socialist for two reasons:

    1. They want to discredit him for their own potential political gain at the polls;

    2. If they label his conservative ideas as "socialist" then that puts Obama at the left end of the spectrum of policy, which means any policy outcome will be to the right of Obama's already conservative policy.  That's pretty good if you're a conservative.  And you get that while helping yourself politically, see 1.

    The GOP has been doing this for decades and the only response from the Dems has been to move ever rightward to try to prove they're not socialists.  It's ridiculous.

    Parent
    So true (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:28:55 PM EST
    The GOP has been doing this for decades and the only response from the Dems has been to move ever rightward to try to prove they're not socialists.  It's ridiculous.

    The beleagured people of Massachusetts even inflicted Mitt Romney upon themselves to get out from under that label.

    Parent

    Two reasons (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    There's a diff between ideology and partisanship.  This is about partisanship, as it was with the ideologically inoffensive centrist Bill Clinton.

    But with both Clinton and Obama, it's also that they smell weakness, so they're all over him like a horde of Japanese Beetles attracted to a sickly basil plant.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#48)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    Rush Limbough says so! And they know he'd never lie to them.

    Parent
    Another question (none / 0) (#107)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:30:36 PM EST
    Maybe a better question would be "Why should Democrat's care"? Conservative's are never going to vote for them anyway.

    Dem's need to remind everyone just where the conservative doctrine got us.

    Parent

    Because of a lack of evidence (none / 0) (#175)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:56:34 PM EST
    That he's anything else?  He has yet to do anything that is bipartisan, or post partisan, in the Senate or in the White House.  I'm fine with that, but I can understand why my republican friends are not.  

    Parent
    Krugman quotes a brilliant pundit (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:45:08 AM EST
    Himself in January 2008:

       

    First, those who don't want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don't want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s -- a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy -- are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can't bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

        The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn't one of them.



    How much longer for PPUS? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:47:40 AM EST
    Until at least 2013, and perhaps until 2017.

    Pols will be pols and all that.  Sow, reap.

    November 7, 2012 (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    The day PPUS will be declared dead - one way or another

    Parent
    But Obama likes signing statements (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:04:22 AM EST
    now, the actions that he promised not to do, so even if he is a lame duck after an election, he still could keep caving to the Republicans in the Democratic Party aka the Blue Dogs who ran on the Republican Party platform but on the Democratic Party ballot and with Democratic funding, etc.

    Presidents use those unilateral actions a lot at the end to set themselves up for a political afterlife, and even those who really were true to their parties' principles as presidents do seem to like going all PPUS in their political afterlives.  Wait and watch for it. . . .

    Parent

    I don't see anything in your long (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:22:05 AM EST
    excerpt about Obama looking to religious advisers about health care/insurance reform, which is what the comment is about to which you are replying.

    Or did I miss something relevant in your excerpt about religious advisers?

    I deleted the comment (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:14:52 PM EST
    you are replying to. Do not paste transcripts and full news articles in comments here. They take up too much bandwidth and space and cause readers coming afterwards to have to scroll down forever. Quote a short paragraph or two and include the link, in html format. Thanks.

    Parent
    Hmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:23:00 AM EST
    Don't see anything in there about the phone conference with religious leaders to discuss health care, so I guess you should belive me.

    Obama must not only ... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 12:55:24 PM EST
    abandon PPUS, he must learn to go over the head of the media.  

    When the Lewinsky scandal broke all the pundits were claiming that Clinton would resign "within days."

    But he fought back, day after day, week after week, month after month. And at the heart of this battle was going over the head of the media, and communicating directly to the American public.

    And what happened?  He left office with a 60+% approval rating.

    Did the Right change their mind about Clinton?  Not one iota.  But they proved to be irrelevant.

    But does Obama have the intestinal fortitude to do this?  Can he take ridicule from the press, from pundits, and fight day after day, week after week, month after month?

    No episode in Obama's life story ... (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:40:44 PM EST
    ... suggests perseverance.

    Parent
    Not a chance (2.00 / 0) (#176)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:05:28 PM EST
    Obama doesn't have the internal strength that Clinton had/has.  Obama doesn't do well with criticism.  David Axlerod told him that during the campaign.  

    The Good news is, because Obama is the first black President he won't have to face what Clinton did from people like Chris Matthews and the other news people who went after him day after day.  The media cares so much about Obama being successful, they will never criticize him like they did Clinton.  So Obama won't have to be as strong as Clinton was, the press will never require that he be.  

    Also, Obama is NOT the politician that Clinton was.  Clinton could charm people, including the press, and the folks on the Hill.  Clinton KNEW that he could charm his way out of nearly everything because he always had.  Obama doesn't have those skills which will make things more difficult for him on the Hill, and with the people.  When Obama goes off script he makes mistakes.  (Like doctors getting paid $30,000 to $50,000 for amputations, and that AARP supported his health care bills.)  When Bill Clinton went off script, people loved him more.  Even if they knew Clinton might be hedging the truth, people wanted to believe him because he was so darn charming and believable.  Obama just doesn't have those skills, at least not yet.  But Obama will always have Chris Matthews and many other reporters who desperately want Obama to succeed.  The press was never that invested in Clinton.  

    Parent

    will you please stop re-fighting (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:16:41 PM EST
    the Clinton-Obama battle? That's not the topic of BTD's post and I'm getting sick of all your bashing of Obama because in your view he's not as good as Hillary.

    Leave Hillary out of it please and address the topic of the post.

    Parent

    When did I mention Hillary? (none / 0) (#188)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:15:44 AM EST
    I didn't.  At all.  Others were comparing Obama to Bill Clinton so I joined in.  Never mentioned Hillary.  Perhaps you have me confused with another poster.  <shrugs>

    Parent
    my mistake (none / 0) (#200)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    I saw Hill and Clinton and assumed "Hillary." You were referring to "the hill" as in Capitol Hill.

    Parent
    Of course he does... (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by BigElephant on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:15:01 PM EST
    Who doesn't? This intestinal fortitude is something virtually every politician has.  And it's generally a liability.

    If Sarah Palin had actually stepped down due to the distration it was causing Alaska and got a job as communications director for Safeway or something like that I would have applauded her.  Unfortunately, that's not what she did.  And most politicians are like that.  Most politicians will hold their ground until their effectively forced out of office.  It's not an admirable trait IMHO.  It's narcissism which got'em there, and keeps'em there.

    Parent

    very true, but... (none / 0) (#113)
    by bocajeff on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:49:21 PM EST
    it probably, in a roundabout way, cost Gore the election in 2000. Picking Lieberman, running away from Clinton, etc...

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    but you gotta agree that it's way better to have someone perceived as a fighter than someone who's percieved as a wimp.

    Parent
    What's odd to me is (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by dk on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:51:11 PM EST
    that Huffington, here, talks about the drug industry and the health insurance industry as opposing Obama's plan.  Yet, her own website has liks of Obama's personal deal with those industry.  And those industries are paying for ads right now supporting Obama's plan.

    This, to my eye, is the real insanity of what's going on right now.  Forget the Republican crazies.  Sure they are crazy, but they are irrelevant in terms of having an effect on what ultimately comes out of this process.  The real story is that the drug and health insurance companies are essentially dictating the terms of this "reform," and Obama is personally on board with those terms.  Is this what the Democratic party has become?  And, to cover the extent to which they have sold out, the Democrats and their propaganda arm (MSM, Huffington and most of the rest of the A-list "progressives") willfully ignore this evidence and fabricate the completely false narrative that Obama is fighting those industries.

    Strange times we find ourselves in.

    Odd response (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    The entire thread was about Obama calling in the religious leaders to discuss healthcare reform. Nothing in your transcript relates to the discussion.

    On that topic, I'm thinking we can all recall a post Jeralyn put up just before the convention showing the non-stop religious events that would be taking place this year at the Democratic party convention. Is this because Obama hopes they will get the topics discussed in every sermon to win the people over?

    Did the Obama's ever settle in on a church in DC for their own Sunday worship?


    Ahhh, got it (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:30:06 PM EST
    I probably would have gotten that if your comment had been a [parent] rather than a reply to a discussion on religious leaders meeting with Obama.

    Sorry....my mistake. It is still difficult to fit your comment into that segment of the discussion, though.

    Parent

    Olbermann (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by otherlisa on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:23:25 PM EST
    still has a long ways to go to redeem himself from his behavior in the primaries, IMO. Glad he's starting to criticize Obama but it took a helluva long time for the Koolaid to wear off.

    Parent
    Good thing ratings aren't important here (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:42:41 AM EST
    Because I'm pretty sure Sher is guilty of ratings abuse. On what planet did that comment warrant a 1?

    And I would note that Sher rarely comments. He/she only appears to drop 1 bombs on those with whom he/she disagrees.

    Sher, if you see this, I'd like an explanation. You are not supposed to downrate people because you don't like their opinions. Just walk on by, you know? Or, you could actually respond, and explain what it is you find objectionable.

    This sort of behavior is annoyingly passive/aggressive, IMO.

    Parent

    So Just Walk On By (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    is probably good advice when you see this happening too.

    When I used to be at Daily Kos and saw the flame wars and up and down rating battles that went on there, it mattered because people could make messages disappear.

    Here it seems more like junior high with all the cliques voting for and against each other according to who they like and don't like, and like you said: It's not supposed to be this way.

    But it has no practical impact beyond indicating someone really, really agrees with someone or really, really does not.

    Walk on by works for me when I notice myself getting to care too much about it.

    Parent

    I ordinarily would (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by otherlisa on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:14:43 PM EST
    but this was a pattern of behavior with this commenter. I was more curious than anything else, particularly because he/she rarely comments. It's not in the spirit of the site, and I appreciate Jeralyn's attention to it.

    Parent
    Sher's comment ratings (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    have been removed. Your comment didn't rate a "1." I can only erase all of a commenter's ratings, not an individual one. People who abuse the "1" rating for comments they disagree with or for commenters they don't like will have all ratings erased. A "1" rating is a troll rating or alert to a comment that violates the site rules. It is not based on the point of view expressed.

    Parent
    Not one comment mentioned (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:15:14 PM EST
    Olbermann, though. You injected him into the conversation.

    He walked himself into the labels he's wearing. He lost a great number of viewers during the primaries when he did exactly what you say the Fox talkers are known for...lying. You may have agreed with his analysis, but for many he went off the deep end with his sexism and twisting the truth so tight the only way to describe it was to say he lied.


    Parent

    You aren't paying attention to what I've said (none / 0) (#194)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:40:20 AM EST
    I followed the entire segment up to the {Parent} comment that started the side discussion and no mention anywhere of Olbermann except for your transcription. Your reply should have been inserted with a [Reply] on that specific comment since this section of comments had focused on religious leaders.

    Now that the thread has been cleaned up by Jeralyn it is impossible to follow the comments by order of sub-topic, so you can pretend your now deleted comment was somehow appropriate and properly positioned. Why do you suppose your comment was deleted, BTW?


    Parent

    jbincs ratings have been (none / 0) (#199)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:44:59 PM EST
    zapped twice. If he/she continues to give out 1 ratings based on point of view expressed, I'll have to take further action.

    Parent
    Don't tell me the 'Theory of Change' was ... (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    ... just another internet car-that-runs-on-water scam.

    Don't tell me that.

    I already knew that.

    Tell me how we get over this without a whole generation turning cynical about politics and government ... and hence developing a life-long conservative bias that dominates the electoral balance for decades to come.

    Ain't Happening, NeverWas (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by pluege on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 04:16:46 PM EST
    Because within a month, the Obama team will have to turn on the GOP and be "partisan" to get meaningful health care reform.

    No such thing will happen. Obama was always scamming the left, not the right. What we will most certainly get is some worthless piece of crap that Obamafans will call healthcare reform. It will NOT have a useful public option and it most certainly WILL keep the insurance companies, Big Pharma, and the Healthcare Industrial Complex in charge - this is absolute certainty.

    Republicans will gladly let Obama call it healthcare reform knowing full well that it is nothing of the sort, that their plutocratic buddies are unscathed AND the best part (for them) is that they will have thier club to bludgeon democrats with and take back many seats in 2010.

    Given the hand he was dealt, Obama is a complete failure - at least for progressives. He's doing just swell for the republican/conservative plutocratic axis of greed and destruction.  

    Please keep your comments responsive (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:18:00 PM EST
    to the topic and avoid catfights with other commenters. Thank you.

    Here is the link (none / 0) (#2)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 07:56:18 AM EST
    To my above comment With or Without You

    The PPUS? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 07:58:10 AM EST
    Did you coin that?  It sounds like a case of the clap :)

    You must have (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:00:57 AM EST
    I googled it and the free dictionary comes up with private party of the United States and poker player United States.  After that is a TalkLeft link :)

    Parent
    How much longer until this happens? (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:08:33 AM EST
    They have to wait for Baucus to fail.

    How much longer does Baucus have to play patty cake with the Republicans and the insurance industry before failure to produce a bill is considered a fail? Any deadline?

    Baucus = Obama on this issue (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 10:06:13 AM EST
    I fear

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 09:13:22 AM EST
    it will have to be voted on and not pass? I mean the deadline has already been moved and perhaps it can be moved again? I would think that if nothing is put up for a vote by the end of the year it's dead.

    Parent
    Grrrrr....enough appeasement. (none / 0) (#70)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 11:31:38 AM EST
    Birthers, deathers, etc etc....how often must we be attacked before fighting back?

    How do you fight back? (none / 0) (#104)
    by BigElephant on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    Really?  How do you fight back?  Bring bigger guns to town halls?  What the birthers show is that people are going to believe what they want, truth be damned.  How do you fight that?  I think you just try to avoid talking about it or drawing attention to it.  Because the act of even denying it draws unwanted attention.

    Parent
    Newt - saw a clip of him on GMA this AM (none / 0) (#116)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 01:58:45 PM EST
    He said that there is solid proof the democrats are a severely fractured party now that the D-representatives have stopped communicating with their constituents because of the protestors at the townhalls.

    If it's being SAID by a Republican, it's pretty much a guarantee that it is being DONE by a Republican. It takes so much energy to cut through the thick fog created by politicians.


    Parent

    call them on it directly. (none / 0) (#121)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    And how do you do that? (none / 0) (#129)
    by BigElephant on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:08:32 PM EST
    Go on CNN and say, no Obama was born in the US and here's the proof.  Actually been done, doesn't matter.  Does it mean that FactCheck.org dispells the myths around health reform?  Actually, this has been done too, doesn't matter.

    Does it mean that the White House tries to respond to every false email sent?  Trying to do that, that doesn't work either.  Does it mean that you try to mock folks like Bill O'Reilly and Limbaugh?  That doesn't work.

    Not sure how you call them on it directly that will actually work.

    Parent

    No. You call them on the fact that they (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:02:05 PM EST
    are more interested in scare tactics and politics than fixing health care. Then reach out directly to voters.

    Also....pull funding from the blue dogs for their states unless they fall in line. You know, hardball politics.

    Parent

    No. You call them on the fact that they (none / 0) (#171)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 08:02:18 PM EST
    are more interested in scare tactics and politics than fixing health care. Then reach out directly to voters.

    Also....pull funding from the blue dogs for their states unless they fall in line. You know, hardball politics.

    Parent

    And I'm on your side... (none / 0) (#138)
    by BigElephant on Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 03:24:05 PM EST
    I want there to be something we can do, but at this point my main hope is that these issues, "just go away".  

    Parent