home

Who Wrote This?

Have you read something like this before?

[T]he reality is that the first and worst deception was the Democrats' own. Step back for a second, listen to what the non-screaming skeptics are saying, and it's clear the party severely overestimated its mandate . . . What would have been a hard sell in any environment has turned into an epic challenge. Yet the Democrats have been charging ahead as if it's still November 2008, oblivious to the dramatic change in the electorate's mood.

. . . The left assumed that change on health care meant a public insurance plan. But most other Obama voters had (and likely still have) no idea what the term "public option" meant. If they were voting for him on health care at all, it was simply for lower costs and better care. They may have been open to that component of Obama's plan, as polls earlier this year showed. But to say that a vote for Obama was a vote for a public option is as much a canard as Palin's phony claims about death panels.

(Emphasis supplied.) No. It was not Ezra Klein. That would be the dangerstein hisself. Though confusion would be understandable.

Speaking for me only

< Digby On Kennedy | Wednesday Open Thread: The Lion Sleeps Tonight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    To say that I'm not a fan of dangerstein (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    would be a real understatement. But like a stopped clock, he is can accidentally be right on some things.  While he is against any public option, he had this to say about it:

    But if the Democrats were going to make their case for it, their only hope was to rally behind one plan, show in concrete and credible terms that it was fully paid for and then spend months educating the public about the benefits of a public option and why it is essential to achieving the president's top goal of reducing costs.

       

    The problem is, (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    The term "public option"; What does it mean? I don't know, it's a constantly moving target, and I dare say, most people don't know either.

    Like I've said many times before, sound bites is what sells. When "inheritance tax" became "death tax," we all know what happened.

    "Public option" doesn't sell. Something like "more choices," or "you decide" would have been much better.

    Don't the Dems have any good P.R. or advertising companies working for them?


    Parent

    Umm...good PR? Well, yes (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    they do have some good firms working for them but they don't listen to them.  The arrogance and hubris is quite unbelievable to me.

    Framing.  Sheesh.  This is NOT a new issue with Dems!

    Parent

    Well then, (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:48:22 PM EST
    I've done all I can for them.

    ".... but they don't listen to them;" Like I tell my children, "you can lead a horse to water....."

    Parent

    Yup. Clinton/Carville.... (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:52:29 PM EST
    ...and it's STILL the economy, stupid!

    So many talkers...so few listeners.  It's a skill.

    Parent

    Boy, I miss (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    that old Louisiana "snake-head" Carville.

    At least you knew you had a cajun knife fighter showing the way.

    Parent

    So few real fighters in (none / 0) (#20)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 03:40:46 PM EST
    the Dem camp...Carville was one of the best.  He's written extensively but Dems aren't readers, I guess...too busy talking...

    "We're right, They're Wrong"....hard to beat that one.

    Parent

    Goodness... (none / 0) (#26)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 06:56:16 PM EST
    all of this past tense. I had to check. He's still at Tulane. He's not dead.

    Parent
    Lemme splain (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 04:43:31 AM EST
    Like a deer tick, he should be imbedded in Obama's ear canal, but he's not, so Tulane University, Tulane cemetery, same difference.


    Parent
    yup.....n/t (none / 0) (#28)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 27, 2009 at 12:21:32 PM EST
    IMO Obama's primary and general election (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    campaigns were some of the best marketing endeavors  I've ever witnessed. Why these marketing skills are not being used to promote real health care reform is confusing.

    I agree that the term "public option" is poorly defined. Is this lack of definition due to poor planning or by design?

    Of course, I like the term Medicare for All and think that pursuing that might have been easier and definitely would not have been any more difficult than trying to pass the mess we have now.    

     

    Parent

    i think it was pretty great (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by The Last Whimzy on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    and i can explain this if you want, but i think this sums up my impression of the Obama campaign marketing skills:

    What happened to matt holliday when he went to the American League?

    Parent

    A rose by any other name (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    Maybe some of Bush's old people are looking for work. They were great at putting lipstick on a pig. Who will ever forget escalation became surge. And torture became enhanced interrogation. Just to name a couple.

    And fitting considering the events of the day, Republican's managed to damage the word liberal to the point that even liberals (with the exception of TK and such) ran from it.

    Parent

    And when they (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    opened the pollution floodgates for industrial emissions, didn't they call it something like "the blue skies initiative?"

    lol

    Parent

    "Clear skies" as I recall.... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 03:45:15 PM EST
    they have no shame.  Democrats could use a carload of that.

    Parent
    it probably didn't have to be any more complex (none / 0) (#10)
    by The Last Whimzy on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:53:46 PM EST
    than saying "you don't have to go to a private insurer for health insurance."


    Parent
    Why must such a plan be "fully paid (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:52:17 PM EST
    for"?  Wars aren't.  Seems a faulty premise.

    Parent
    Rules are applied differently (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 02:31:58 PM EST
    depending on whether they create things for the common good or if they destroy things like countries. We create ways to pay for destroying things so that they do not appear in the budget and are not counted as part of the deficit. Handy, right?

    Also, there are distinct differences in whether or not deficits are good or bad. Deficits created by Republicans = good. Deficits created by Democrats = bad.

    Where have you been all these years that you didn't get the memo?:)

    Parent

    "Wars aren't" (none / 0) (#14)
    by coast on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    well thats part of the problem isn't it.  Same faulty premise as saying "We've spent a trillion dollars on wars that could have been spent on health care".  Considering all the money spent on the war has only increased our deficit, the same spending would put us in the same deficit we are in today, which is unsustainable.

    Parent
    Do the math.... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 03:37:40 PM EST
    If you take the figure, 2 ½ Trillion as what we're paying for health care today, and take the extreme premise, single payer, you would wipe out over one Trillion dollars that now doesn't go to "Care," but to the Insurance & other company's profits, administration, marketing, etc.

    Every dollar diverted from Wall St. would go "the people," and what a huge shot in the arm for the economy that would be!

    Over one Trillion dollars a year, now just going into the toilet.

    Parent

    You take whatever mandate you have and run with it (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:42:52 PM EST
    Instead of wasting time estimating its size. whoever wrote this, he is definitely a Democrat.

    I am hard-pressed to find one "moderate" (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    who can tell me how any bill not including -- at the least -- a public option, can possibly be called "reform."

    Gerstein: prescribing the victory of defeat. Grrrr.

    Obama had a plan? (5.00 / 13) (#13)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 02:09:13 PM EST
    Who knew?  For heaven's sake, he's still sending mixed messages and changing his message about what the eventual reform will look like.

    So, I don't know that the party overestimated its mandate as much as it overestimated Obama's commitment to reform that was in keeping with (what used to be) Democrats' commitment to regular people and their struggles, and assuming  his zeal to win an election was equal to his interest in doing the hard work and attending to the details of health care reform that would have allowed them to ride the mandate to, if not complete victory, to substantive and significant progress to the benefit of all Americans.

    Whatever "the left" assumed about a public component on health care reform, it was Obama himself, while in the Illinois Senate, who said that he was for a single payer system, and once we took back the House and the Senate and the White House, we could get it done.  Hell, Obama is still telling the crowds that single-payer is the best plan, even though he has now done a complete - but unbelievably wimpy - hedge by saying that the best plan would be too disruptive and not uniquely American enough.

    Whatever confusion there is - and there is plenty - about what a public option is came from the total lack of leadership on the part of the president and the Democratic Congress, and there really is no excuse for it.  None.

    Rather than charging ahead as if it's November, 2008, what I see are Democrats running in circles and bumping into walls and themselves, with no clear direction, believing that the huge piles of cash they keep finding are the actual prize, as opposed to the reform that is supposed to be the object of their quest.

    Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 03:48:17 PM EST
    Gawd this is depressing...

    Parent
    Obama was elected--by the big money-- (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by tokin librul on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    to preserve the status quo by putting a new, hopey/changey face on it, and to be a sort of palate-cleasner for the people, to make them forget the taste of Bushevism, in preparation for the next/final onslaught of authoritarianism.

    Sarah Palin likely will be one face of that attack.

    This is what Obama wanted all along (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by ProudLeftWinger on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 04:25:59 PM EST
    Using BTD's (and GGreenwald's) advice, I can only judge Obama's actions. The only action Obama has taken is to cut secret, backroom deals with PHARMA and the health industry. There has been plenty of inaction on Obama's part. He did not put forth his own bill and defacto appointed Grassley and Baucus as the point men in congress. He has not forcefully pushed back on the right wing lies, and we get conflicting messages from him and everyone else in his admin. The only conclusion I can come to is that this is the bill he wants. A bill without single payer, without a public option, and with everything the industry wants.

    o.k. (none / 0) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    it was me; so what?