Tomasky: Progressives Have To Back Obama

Wishful thinking:

So now, liberals have to fight hard for something they're not terribly excited about. A health bill will likely have a very weak public option or it won't have one at all. But liberals will have to battle for that bill as if it's life and death (which in fact it will be for thousands of Americans), because its defeat would constitute a historic victory for the birthers and the gun-toters and the Hitler analogists. In the coming weeks, building toward a possible congressional vote in November, progressives will have to get out in force to show middle America that there's support for reform as well as opposition, even though they may find the final bill disappointing.

Actually, no they do not and more importantly, no they WILL not. No matter how much Mike Tomasky and Ezra Klein harangue progressives. Time to deal with that reality. Especially the folks in the White House.

Speaking for me only

< CIA Releases Documents in Ghost Detainee FOIA Lawsuit | ACLU Gets DOJ Legal Documents on Interrogation Policies >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What a joke. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 08:47:42 PM EST
    Who does Tomasky secretly wish he is? Rahm Emanuel?

    Maybe he should read blogs instead of his own babblings.

    What does "a very weak... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:02:38 PM EST
    public option" mean? I have no idea.

    "or it won't have one at all" ??? Then it's not a health bill at all. And no one AT ALL on the Dem side of the isle should vote for it.

    weak public option equals... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:23:45 PM EST
    ...you have the option of living on public streets after you lose everything to bankruptcy via medical bills.

    Or (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:35:51 PM EST
    it means do you pay your mandated insurance premium TAX or do you pay your rent.

    Sorry, no sale (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:03:13 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, let the Blue Dogs battle for this defective bill. I'm saving my energy to battle the people in Congress who have sold out to the insurance industry.

    I spent time and money to get the Dems a majority. I can spend time and money working to remove the politicians who support a giveaway to the insurance industry.

    We have congress NOW (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by weltec2 on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:19:23 PM EST
    There is no guarantee that we will have after the next midterm election... if fact we very well a
    may not... especially after the insurance industry dumps billions into efforts to useat progressives. Rove was a halfwit next to their operatives.

    Halfway measures NOW will mean no further measures in the future. You can bank on that. Laziness and apathy over this issue will set in in congress and the public mind.

    The insurance industry however will not ease up. They will give a sigh of relief while they are insuring that nothing like this can ever happen again.

    They love it already... (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:27:31 PM EST
    "It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc.

    Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama's massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry's reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: "Hallelujah!"

    We can win this (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:05:19 PM EST
    Then let the Republican's go on record with an actual filibuster. It's time to force the issue.

    Also it's been discussed on this site that 60 votes aren't necessary. There are ways to step around it. If they don't remember, they should call Bill Clinton and see how he did it.


    Where's the logic? (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:40:03 PM EST
    Why would the left support a bill that is basically being written by the right? And why did the Democrat's allow the Republican's to define the public option as a "left wing socialist program"?

    Up until Obama dropped the ball on the PR machine, the majority of the country supported the public option. (In spite of the poor effort put out by the Democrat's). So does that mean the country is over run with a bunch of left wing socialists?

    If Democrat's cave on HCR, they may as well turn over the leadership to Republican's because once they smell fear, Republican's will block everything.

    Didn't Ezra and the rest pay any attention to the Republican's who vowed to be obstructionists in order to assure an Obama and Democratic failure?

    I (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:33:47 PM EST
    remember well a number of times when Republicans were trashed by liberals because they supported something that wasn't in their own best interests.

    However, liberals are asked to support something even if it clearly isn't in their own best interests, just for the sake of "winning?"  For me, it isn't about the winning, it's about living with what the win means.  And if the win isn't in the interest of liberal ideas and you still support it, can you still call yourself a liberal?

    And regarding "Hitler Analogists" and "birthers," gee I remember back a short time ago, reading terms like "Hitlery" and hearing about "Whitewater" and "Vince Foster murder" in places like Daily Kos.  Gawd forbid you let people who invoke such nonsense and debunked conspiracy theories "win".

    Yes, this shows the flaw in that argument (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:32:03 AM EST
    'Best interests' is always defined by the individual affected. If the Kansans define their social interests as above their economic ones, so be it.

    I happen to think my high priority interests are best served by not letting Dems slide on real health care reform.


    Or get ON their back for Obama (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:44:05 PM EST
    As Tomasky says we have to get screwed now to be saved later.  Thanks, I'll get, um, back to you later on that one.  Much later.  

    That will be a call (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Spamlet on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:29:33 AM EST
    for civil disobedience, on a massive scale.

    a robust unfunded public mandate that requires all U.S. residents to have medical insurance and penalizes those who do not

    Heh (none / 0) (#26)
    by Spamlet on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:36:52 AM EST
    Is that legal? (none / 0) (#28)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:53:06 AM EST
    Have Americans ever been forced, by our government, to buy something?  I can't think of an example, but perhaps there is one.  Forcing us to buy something seems so wrong.  Does the constitution permit forcing Americans to purchase something against their will?

    Automobile Insurance (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:59:34 AM EST
    someone could point out that you can choose not to drive. so no one's really forcing you to buy automobile insurance.  but i think that's obtuse.  unless you're going to guarantee public transportation to every american no matter where they live, you're forcing someone out there to buy automobile insurance or stay home and start collecting welfare.

    I think it qualifies as a purchase imposed on americans by the government.

    so the next question is, how did we get to a point where most americans recognize that it's irresponsible to drive without automobile insurance?  and is it possible that we will one day reach that point with medical insurance?


    Auto insurance (none / 0) (#40)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:15:27 AM EST
    doesn't cost nearly as much either!

    After finding that the average annual premium for family health coverage is $12k+, my first thought was "That's almost a new car a year!".    


    I know that in Canada, their superior court (none / 0) (#33)
    by suzieg on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:27:59 AM EST
    ruled that their system is unconstitutional and the reason why a lot of doctors are now going "private" by opting out of their provicial health system. So I wouldn't be surprised if our conservative majority in our superior court would come up with the same ruling.

    Asked to roll over again (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:54:59 AM EST
    We're hearing the same old song again:

    Nowhere else to go.

    Not this time.  Enough is enough.  These people will defeat themselves.  If a mandate is included without a good heavily subsidized govertnment run option available it will amount to nothing less than rape on behalf of the private health insurance industry and people WILL notice.

    Just one of the amazing parts of this whole debacle is when Obama said he wanted our health insurance "system" to remain centered around current employer provided insurance.  Ignoring reality is a trademark of the last several administrations.  Obama makes this incredible statement at a time when employerrs are cutting back or eliminating health insurance, when millions have lost jobs that provided insurance.

    That was really it, the end of the game. The only viable public option would allow employers to drop private insurance in favor of public insurance.  Without that a public option is confined to a diminished segment of the popluation.

    Support this awful bill so that Obama has a win?! (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:00:35 AM EST
    Count me out.  I don't care how much the republicans gloat, I will not support a bill just so the President and democrats can declare a victory.  

    This (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 06:15:13 AM EST
    whole argument is the same argument Bush made for years: you're either wid me or agin me and I didnt like it from Bush anymore than I like hearing it from "progressives".

    And Obama would have the majority wid him (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:38:15 AM EST
    If he was delivering his campaign promises, which he is not and he does not even want to do.

    Not really true, actually. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by dk on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:16:44 AM EST
    Obama campaigned with Harry and Louise ads.  He is delivering exactly what he promised.

    There's video of him (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    promising public option on the campaign trail against McCain.  More than one.

    Well, so at best, then (none / 0) (#47)
    by dk on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:41:54 AM EST
    he made contradictory promises on the campaign trail.  

    The only promises he made to me (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:50:51 AM EST
    that earned my vote where the ones he made running against McCain.  You are thinking about when he and Hillary were duking it out over who had the "best" healthcare plan.  I don't live in the primaries. He's President.  He promised me certain things to get there.  Now he isn't delivering.

    MT has moved on. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    MT is stikcing to the facts (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:05:46 AM EST
    dk does not. Sad to see you go in that direction.

    Ouch. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:13:12 AM EST
    Meant to sting (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:16:35 AM EST
    dk has been playing fast and loose with the facts for months now.

    I am getting very tired of her participation in my threads.


    Then why not direct the sting to her? (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:47:51 AM EST
    I suspect it is winnowing day.

    What does that have to do with living (none / 0) (#57)
    by dk on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:07:33 AM EST
    in the primaries?  The man used Harry and Louise ads to attack the plan the many progressives are fighting tooth and nail for now.  

    It sounds like your argument is that he didn't mean it when he used those Harry and Louise ads.  Why?  On what basis did you make that assumption?

    And, he wasn't only attacking government run healthcare plans in the primaries.  He was also attacking them in campaign ads in the GE.  Watch this General Election campaign ad, which was playing all the time in my part of the country.

    IMO, it's rewriting history to state that Obama ever promised real healthcare reform to those who were listening.


    The Obama Biden plan (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:22:25 AM EST
    this is what they promised me.

    Obama's deal with Pharma (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:34:00 AM EST
    already broke promises regarding drugs.

    Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.  


    Not on the public option (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:05:21 AM EST
    You do not tell the truth very much do you?

    C'mon now, Tracy, fess up (none / 0) (#55)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    if you believed him. Just curious, did you?

    I've had a political growing up occur (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:26:21 AM EST
    for me.  I love politics, always have.  I was raised around them.  I have seen lives improved due to policy and destroyed due to policy.  All the unicorns went away for me though during all this war stuff.  The romance is gone.  He offered me things.  McCain offered me things.  I chose, and now it is time to pay for my vote.....or not...then talk of foreclosure gets placed on the table.  My vote can become for sale again.

    MT (none / 0) (#68)
    by dk on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:36:50 AM EST
    I apologize to you that my initial comment to you came off as too antagonistic.  I think you make very thoughtful comments, and most of the time I'm in complete agreement with them.

    I guess my point of view on this is then when one looks at the totality of Obama's campaign rhetoric, I believe there were a lot of mixed messages.  That's all.


    Well I agree with you 100% on that (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:48:04 AM EST
    The reality for me though is, he is our President.  The selection process is over now.  He will either put that public option in, or he won't....and the only real fight I see is with him even though many are attempting to do a smoke and mirrors job on his responsibility in all of this.  There are a lot of people on the net who have analyzing personalities.  It is a terrific tool for that and the sharing of it.  At the end of the day though when the analysis is in, then it is time to act.  The fight is on.  The nation needs this.  I want to act and I want to be a part of whoever and whatever is advancing that action and applying that pressure.

    Cindy Sheehan, for example, is heading (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    to Cape Cod.  

    And Sen. Feingold demands a (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    timetable for U.S. military in Afghanistan.

    The heat is on girlfriend! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:14:23 AM EST
    There are a lot of things about Afghanistan that give me pause.  And we have "interrogations" being very very overseen now.  We don't have enough forces.  More truth about our "contractors" is coming out so how can we hire more of those? And Scahill wants to talk about whether our Hessians are even Constitutional.  Panetta is leaving as soon as it is feasible after a screaming match.  Jeralyn could get her Afghanistan wishes.  I bet the free food that Sheehan supporters will be bringing to Camp Casey is soooo damn good too.  I'm not knocking anyone who fed me in Crawford either because people traveled hundreds of miles just to feed us after a couple of days.....but Martha's Vineyard!?  It's enough to make me contemplate a Code Pink conversion :)

    I bet it is ever so much cooler than (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:49:56 AM EST

    Meanwhile, former chief of our Iraq intell opinines (via Huff Post) if U.S. doesn't "help," Iraq will be a protectorate of Iran w/i five years.  


    Iraq (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    is not looking real good right now.  Our military is busted and it is unconstitutional in my opinion to use contractors to fight our wars.  It was all real nice goals, and it is important to have a good set of goals and we all know that our goals have to be reset when we are visited upon by fresh realities.  Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, they broke the strength of our military.  Where do we go from here?  Obama isn't going to get a draft without a public option :)

    Heck, if he isn't going to get a draft (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    without Universal Healthcare :)

    Wow, not enough coffee (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    what I meant to say is that no single payer, can you even complain about not having enough volunteer forces :)?  I feel another $25,000 bonus coming on though.

    I'm missing something here. I've read (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    one reason people with families volunteer is for health care coverage.  What has single payer to do w/whether a draft is feasible?  

    I was speaking from a position (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:44:22 PM EST
    of serving the nation verses asking the nation to serve for you.  How can you ask anyone to lay their life on the line when you won't even promise them their life is worth anything out of a war zone?  That leaves a bad taste in my mouth....go fight in something you would have never really wanted to fight in and have healthcare, stay home and I'll think about granting you healthcare.  It feels almost terrorist.  I have heard of people joining the military for health coverage but I haven't met anyone yet in person.

    Have you seen this yet (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 03:06:55 PM EST
    Coburn telling this woman that "neighbors" have to help you when your husband has brain trauma and she doesn't know to feed him with a feeding tube and there isn't any insurance coverage?  Yes, because I'm sure that her neighbors know how to operate a feeding tube and have all the time in the world on their hands to keep up with those every four feedings while they tend to everything else in their lives. He says that government isn't the answer.  The co-ops that Schumer wants aren't run by the government.  In fact government manipulation is explicitly forbidden and it is a national co-op...able to compete in every area and corner of this country.  This poor woman, I have felt like this before too with Joshua....so tired, doing everything alone - some things that really only professionals should be overseeing.  When his feet were healing I had to massage them every day to break down scar tissue, yet I don't know specifically where I needed to be doing anything.  I just muddled through it the best I could.  The doctor was a douce.

    I thought Coburn was pretty uncaring (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    when he struck the arts funds out of the stimulus package.  But that was peanuts to this. Those feeding tubes are best left to supervision by a respiratory therapist.  I had a case in which a man needed a feeding tube; his attorneys moved him to a different, more expensive place and the CTs (20 hours of training total) decided he didn't need the feeding tube any longer.  Scary.

    My poor cousin who had the (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:22:48 PM EST
    little girl born with no frontal lobe ended up doing years of tube feeding herself.  I can't remember if it was very four hours or every six hours, but she had clocks set and going off around you.  I'm not sure she would have wanted someone in her house all the time.  She was usually so tired looking, but she was very young too.  I can't imagine getting older though and not knowing what this feeding tube thing was about but now I must learn, and trying to do it on a schedule that offers you no eight hours of peace to call your own.  Who knows what other challenges are involved.  If he is on a feeding tube I doubt he can toilet himself or bathe.  Poor woman!!!!

    I expect the CTs were competent to (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 06:25:50 PM EST
    do the feeding.  Tube was already in place, into his stomach.  I didn't think they should have made to decision to stop using that method of feeding the patient, who had no short term memory.

    Sounds good to me. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:35:02 PM EST
    Maybe not "good" but a lot better than any scenario where Iraq becomes a failed state and a perpetual battleground.

    Those Blackwater (forget the new (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    corporate name) directed drones worry me. Collateral damage directed by contractor.

    I hadn't heard about Blackwater drones (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    I don't even know why we need Blackwater running drones when we also have soldiers doing that too.  Why are they doing it as well?

    Here: (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:00:34 PM EST

    On behalf of the CIA.


    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:30:42 PM EST
    I just can't fathom Blackwater contractors loading hellfires.  It almost feels like treason.  It is a weapon that the airframe my husband flies uses. Those sorts of jobs were never farmed out before and such weapons have always been closely guarded and heavily secured.  Blackwater is so corrupt and they have had employees previously involved in selling American weapons on a black market to Iraqis.  Can you see them selling a hellfire or a 500 lb bomb to the highest bidder in Pakistan when nobody was looking? Their employees have done extremely corrupt things time and time again!  I think this is nuts.

    Yup, I totally agree with that. (none / 0) (#73)
    by dk on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    For me, that's why it's not even an issue of whether he is breaking a promise or not (again, my original point is that there were enough counterexamples to show that it wasn't much of a promise in the first place).  It's really an issue of whether, as President, he gets behind good policy, or not.

    Even then he was for a public option (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:04:58 AM EST
    dk you have trouble with the facts. Work on it.

    Could you please define (2.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dk on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:11:05 AM EST
    public option?

    Could you please (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:18:02 AM EST
    stop with the BS?

    Seriously, stop the BS.

    If you want to say that the public option that Obama proposed is inadequyate, that is one thing. That is NOT what you are doing. Instead you are lying.

    I want that to end now.

    Stop lying or stop commenting here.


    people have differing opinions (none / 0) (#81)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:54:39 AM EST
    I do not believe he was ever for a public option, as proven by his back room dealings with insurance companies.  He "promised" lots of people lots of opposing things.  It just depended on which people he was talking to.
    Like John Kerry, he has never found an issue he can not stand on both sides of.  His whole self image is tied up in being a facilitator of both sides coming together. And his other problem is that he wants to be seen as a success rather than doing something right for the good of the country.  
    He ran as the non democrat, the "post partisan president".  The problem is that he may be out last democratic president for awhile and he is utterly failing at bringing the country left.

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#100)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:08:52 PM EST
    You heard what you wanted to hear.  That's the blank slate thing.  dk isn't lying.  Obama used Harry and Lousie in the primary.  Krugman argued very passionately that using right wing frames would weaken any chance for passing health care reform today.  His platform did not include a distinct public option.  His plan was deliberately vague, which Krugman also complained about.  And, he was against mandated insurance.  Frankly, I oppose mandated insurance, as well, unless every single resident can opt into a Medicare-like health finance system.  He's been deliberately vague on health reform, in the primary, the GE, and today.  Mostly, people are hearing what they want to hear.  

    Progressives don't have to do anything (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:36:58 AM EST
    Cripes....and Obama never intended for there to be any public option.  That's obvious now.  He can say it all he wants on the campaign trail but he never meant it.  I will remember that in 2012 buddy!  And I can't believe how the Obama lovers just can't grasp reality and make every excuse in the book for him in their denial.

    And when Waxman and Stupak (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:53:42 AM EST
    decide they need to take a serious look at the insurance ripoff financials people get really really upset.  I wonder why?

    A defeat of a health care bill that has (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:30:19 AM EST
    substantially the same shape as what's currently on the table will be less a defeat of the birthers and gun-toters and more a defeat of the insurance industry, which does not, in any universe in which I want to reside, deserve the kind of bonanza the legislation looks to be guaranteeing, especially in light of the industry's utter failure over many years, to do anything but take and take and take.  In some ways, you can't blame them: that's their business model and Wall Street and the shareholders expect profits and dividends.

    We have little enough time and energy to waste fighting for things we don't like, aren't excited about, and which will not, no matter how much we clap for it, morph into something that is ever better than what it is.  Sure, I can do the Meg Ryan-fake orga$m scene from When Harry Met Sally, but, I'd much rather have the real thing, and faking it isn't going to make it happen.

    If we EVER want Obama and the Congressional Democrats to be stronger, more demanding and better fighters on our behalf, the LAST thing we should do is tell them that we are willing not just to accept, but to actually fight for, the cr@p reform proposals they have negotiated down to from a position that was never all that great to begin with.  We're not happy about the elements that never made it to the table, or the voices that never got listened to, so why should we be urged to give it any credibility by fighting for it?

    All that will accomplish is to set a very low standard that will result in more cr@p legislation, more cr@p policy, and make us indistinguishable from the sniveling wimps that are currently running the show.

    No thanks.


    I agree (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    And I love capitalism.  It is delicious to me figuring out how to make my money, spend my money, grow my money.  It can become a sick obsession though when you forget how to be a human being because of addiction to profit making.  I don't need capitalism in my healthcare!  There are all sorts of opportunities to sell stuff.  If I had an insurance company right now I'd tell the government they can have all these sick people.  I'd start signing up doctors who want to do cosmetic work and I'd start selling some sort of plastic surgery coverage insurance in this country.  I think plastic surgery is a horror but it is happening all around me right now.  Even in Iran, everyone gets a nose job now.

    I think Tomasky has it backwards (4.83 / 6) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:51:41 AM EST
    Obama needs to back progressives if he wants a win.

    Our best bet is to keep the pressure on until this point is driven home.

    Perfect as the enemy of the good (3.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Michael Masinter on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:40 PM EST
    We don't live in a parliamentary system.  The perfect can't happen with a Senate constitutionally structured to favor small states and a set of rules that institutionalizes their power, and the good can't happen if too many of us hold out for the perfect.  Obama can't be LBJ enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 without Everett Dirkson on the other side and with his counterpart to Hubert Humphrey dying of brain cancer.  As for FDR, do the math on the Senate in that era, and remember that the original design of social security deliberately excluded most African American workers as the price for passage.  Imperfect, but good, and made better over time.

    Whining about weak kneed sellouts is easy; enacting legislation is hard.  It won't get easier when the republicans take back a dozen or more seats in the  House if no bill passes, or when they narrow our margin in the Senate.  But for those who find it more satisfying to say I told you so than to govern, that's ok; dreams of revolution never really die, but the dreamers do.  

    Legislation written for the (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:55:07 PM EST
    benefit of the insurance industry = good?  Using that cliche to sell bad legislation doesn't work for me.

    Losing a dozen or so Blue Dogs in the House who vote with the Republicans. That threat is suppose to change my mind. Actually a few less Blue Dogs would be an improvement IMO.



    how hard was it for Dubya... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:26:16 PM EST
    ...to enact any of his nonsense?  hell, he got tax CUTS passed in WARtime.

    Wake up and have some spine and stop capitulating time and time again.


    you frame it (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by The Last Whimzy on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 11:01:17 PM EST
    as a choice between something good and something good.

    for most people at this point it's a choice between something not so good and nothing at all.

    so my question to you is pretty simple:  can the not so good become the enemy of nothing at all????


    wow (none / 0) (#22)
    by The Last Whimzy on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 11:06:25 PM EST
    totally botched that one.

    Here we go again (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:32:23 AM EST
    'It's all so much tougher for Obama, blah, blah, blah ... FDR and LBJ had it so much easier, blah, blah, blah'

    Social Security was passed with all of its elements in place including the critical FICA withholding component that established a personal stake.  It was not extended to domestic and agricultural workers to get support from Dixiecrats who were otherwise progressive except for race.  Other Dixiecrats were simply not progressive and Republicans were opposed except for a few GOP liberals.  It wasn't as easy as it would seem.  Social Security was expanded later on an intact original model. In other words there was no need to change the elements of Social Security only the inclusion of additional groups. That's just not the case with the weak public options we've heard about.  There is another difference you've ignored.  FDR fought hard for Social Security, his administration submitted the bill, he believed in it.  Obama hasn't fought for anything.  He has no convictions.  He's twisted no arms, has not defined content, said a public option wasn't necessary, didn't bother to submit a bill.  He's not bothered to lead.  He's just not interested in the content, he only wants to take a victory lap.  Obama, from all evidence has conservative leanings, supports the status quo whether it's the finance industry, the parasitic health insurance industry or the Pentagon.  His economic advisors are all neo-liberals. There will be no good on his watch.  The slogan that the perfect shouldn't prevent the good doesn't apply here.


    Please... (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by otherlisa on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:08:36 AM EST
    We're very likely to end up with a bill that is not "good," that is in fact an insurance industry bailout that will further impoverish working and middle class Americans and will not provide us with the health care we need.

    Mandated health insurance with poor cost controls and a weak or no public option? This is not "good" on any level.


    Perfect (or much closer) (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:48:40 AM EST
    was single payer- the public option already is a compromise. Without a strong public option I will withhold my money and support during 2010 and 2012.

    Will this be the time (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 08:47:47 PM EST
    when the netroots finally say "enough" and refrain from being coopted by the Democratic establishment? How strong does the final bill need to be in order to make that so?

    Andgarden, (none / 0) (#62)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    [will] the netroots finally say "enough" and refrain from being coopted by the Democratic establishment?
    Not likely, imho.

    Fighting for issues; not the next election (none / 0) (#10)
    by kidneystones on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 09:39:22 PM EST
    BTD is a partisan Dem and makes no bones about it. Well and good. That means he and all the other folks who put party first are compromised on questions of principle.

    Nothing says confusion, cowardice and lack of principle louder than the current silence of 99% of those who opposed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan by Bush.

    The investigations of the former investigation will not be allowed to go anywhere near key Dem officials who may or may not have been fully aware of the torture policies of the previous administration.

    I don't doubt that many in the administration want to improve health-care. It's astonishing that many Dems can't extend the same benefit of the doubt to those who oppose the current govt. strategy.

    Getting the insurance industries out of the health-care business may be the right move; but many fear this effort because they've seen how inefficient govt can actually be.

    As long as 'progressives' allow themselves to be confined by the principles of folks like Steny Hoyer very little progress can be made.

    Dems want to keep progressives on the reservation. Maybe if progressives decided to look outside party lines and support the occasional Republican, progressives might get some traction.

    BTD is a partisan Dem (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:41:21 AM EST
    but nobody who's read one of his posts can think he "puts party first." That's just false.  You've been around here long enough to know that.  This is all about policy, not partisanship.

    "Support the occasional Republican"?  You have to be kidding.  That's not a matter of partisanship, just realism.  There are zero -- that's zero -- Republicans in federal office or running for federal office who are even remotely supportable on basic policy grounds.  None.

    The battle for progress is in and around the Dem. Party and will be for the foreseeable future.  I doubt there's a single person here who would prefer a bad Democrat (and there are plenty) to a good Independent or third party candidate. (Bernie Sanders anyone?)


    as i understand it (none / 0) (#29)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:54:28 AM EST
    he puts party first, all of his advice to party leaders leads to getting re-elected.

    How come (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    your ignorance does not surprise me?

    You really are a blight in my threads.


    sheese (none / 0) (#96)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 06:22:42 PM EST
    so sorry.

    oh and because i'm so ignorant (none / 0) (#98)
    by The Last Whimzy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 06:34:42 PM EST
    did you know i didn't even know what a blight is.   i had to look it up. rar. rar. rar.

    so i'm a disease, eh?  you're calling me a disease?

    is there namecalling on talkleft?

    ok.  i was wrong.  the advice you give to party leaders won't help them get re-elected at all.

    you're not party first.

    i stand corrected.

    and before you say i did, i didn't call you any names.


    Oh Cripes, who isn't a partisan Dem (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:31:07 AM EST
    at some point on the political spectrum outside of the 26% that is the Republican base?  Half of the Independents are Democrat leaning and the other half share something in common with Democrats or they'd be the Republican base.

    I enjoy your (none / 0) (#99)
    by kidneystones on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:03:45 PM EST
    usually sensible comments. But I'm not talking about Republicans. I'm talking about a lack of voice and a lack of political power.

    As long as Dems can safely rely on your vote, they clearly feel, rightly or wrongly, that you can be ignored. That's what's happening now; although I do think there are plenty of Obama supporters who are not shy about voicing their discontent.

    Problem is: money still talks loud and clear. The idea that there are no Republicans worth supporting must necessarily be false, IMHO, if we're talking issues.

    I think there's something to be gained from standing outside the tent.


    Tomasky and Klein Are So Easliy Frightened (none / 0) (#23)
    by john horse on Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 11:13:46 PM EST
    and they should be given that there are so few of them and so many of us (sarcasm alert).

    If it was up to me we'd have a single payer system but I'll settle for the public option.  Nothing less.

    So I'm supposed to stand on a corner (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:23:35 AM EST
    with a sign saying 'Weak reform is better than no reform', or what? What kind of support does he have in mind? Call my representatives and tell them to stick with Obama? Sorry, that is the WH's job, not mine.

    After all, if my reps were listening to me (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:25:30 AM EST
    they would be supporting single payer, or at least the public option.  Obviously they don't care about my opinion, so I'll attempt to find candidates that do come primary time.

    Personality vs Policy, again. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:11:03 AM EST
    The true Obama was apparent long before the election if one looked at what he actually did, both as a state legislator, as a Senator, and as a candidate.
    FISA backtracking, Donnie McLurkin, Just a minute sweetheart, Hillary debasing, coal industry legislation etc.
    Progressives voted for change but many were true believers. One friend of mine, when I pointed out Obama's actions, kept saying she had seen him speak and the hope was worth the risk.
    None of the candidates with a real shot were untainted by big business and special interests. In the end we would have been better off with Clinton (who at least has principles and stands her ground).
    I'm trying to think if progressives have had a real candidate since the '70's........

    And yes - we do not have to support bad policy, no way no how.

    I also backed Hillary (3.66 / 3) (#77)
    by Spamlet on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    but I think Militarytracy's comment is the best response to laments about what could have been:

    I don't live in the primaries. He's President. He promised me certain things to get there. Now he isn't delivering.

    so "just get over it" (none / 0) (#101)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 08:43:34 AM EST
    No thanks.  No one got over 2000 and supported bush who truly knew what happened in the election and a lot of people felt the end justified the means and didn't care that bush had not actually won the election.
    So no, I am not going to get over what the DNC did in 2008.  No more loyalty to the party.  I remain a democrat but I will vote for character and experience over a empty suit who reads good teleprompter. And anytime the republicans in my state and district run a woman against any democratic male, she will get my vote, I do not even care what her politics are.
    I read an account the other day of a woman who supported Edwards trying to figure out who to support.  So she went to the Obama camp office and there were two young men running the place who had "bros before hos" t-shirts on.  So she got in the car and went to Clinton's camp office.

    MT's comment (none / 0) (#105)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 11:55:43 AM EST
    is not about "getting over it." It's about putting pressure on the president we actually have--precisely because we have not "gotten over it"--and doing what we can to advance progressive goals.

    Hillary, a progressive? (1.20 / 5) (#75)
    by BigElephant on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 11:02:50 AM EST
    Palin also has principles and stands her ground.  She hasn't backed off of copter sniping yet.  Having principles and having the right principles are two different things.  Of course it's hard for "me" to vote for someone who believes that hard working Americans are simply white Americans.  

    I'm sure Hillary is a great candidate for Whites and even better for White women, but heck, I'd take a cheating Edwards over her.  But then we're back to the fun game of "what-if!"  Or what if Al Gore had run.  Surely he would have been way better than Hillary too.  But he didn't.


    boy di you buy the lies (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 08:46:21 AM EST
    lock stock and barrel. Continuing the lie that Clinton is a racist is ridiculous.  Lay off the kool aid.  

    "Everyone" (none / 0) (#104)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 09:40:14 AM EST
    said Gore was a bad candidate. Remember the trashing he took from every quarter, presumably including the same DLCers who chose Obama. He got the same trashing as Clinton did. And equally false trashing it was.

    Tax Reform or at least a return to the 90s (none / 0) (#69)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    will come when the Bush Tax cuts expire-- something that allows Obama to essentially get the same benefits Clinton reaped without paying the same political price (or at least a lesser one).  The Death Tax crap is hopefully going to be allowed to go quietly as well.

    That's just not good enough for me (none / 0) (#91)
    by cpa1 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 04:25:10 PM EST
    Because there will be a huge cost to the health care bill and I do not want to pay it until our tax structure gets fixed and made fair.  Obama will end up f_cking the middle and upper middle classes the same way everyone else has and the bill will never go through and he will make a sh_load of enemies.

    Waiting for the Bush tax cuts to expire is also not good enough and it means that he is afraid and reluctant to take on the Republicans, as we knew from his chickensh_t bailing out on the filibuster of Alito, his voting to confirm Rice as Sec'y of State and his praising of Reagan in his interview with the Reno Gazette.

    But that doesn't matter now because if he loses the middle and upper middle classes, he is gone in 2012 and the Republicans will tear him apart on every transistor of every TV in this nation. They have already started. It is disgusting what the nation's wealthy has been able to get away with as far as taxes and our tax dollars are now protecting there investments.  This situation, if the right people pick it up could get to it's boiling point real fast.


    I voted for Obama based on his campaign (none / 0) (#88)
    by clbrune on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    and if he's unwilling to follow through, then no, I won't feel a need to "back him."

    I'll pit my progressive/liberal principles against the birthers/teabaggers any day.  I'll do that through my elected officials.

    And if they are too weak-kneed or bankrupt to advance my principles, then fine, the birthers win.

    To back Obama simply as a way to thwart the birthers is the equivalent of  negotiating with terrorists.

    why are liberals doing this? (none / 0) (#103)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 08:49:02 AM EST
    when you stick everyone in a box with a stupid title of birthers/teabaggers you are acting as utterly narrow minded and uninformed as the extreme right always does.