home

Saturday Evening Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 05:55:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Super filly Rachel Alexandra won the Woodward Stakes this afternoon at Saratoga.

Spartacus (Fabian Cancellara) won the time trial Stage 7 of the Vuelta de Espana.

The USA national soccer team plays El Salvador tonight in a World Cup qualifying match.

And in a man bites dog story, Michigan won a football game today.

This is an Open Thread.

< Obama Announces Plans to Spur Retirement Savings | Checking In With Your Own Labor History >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Evening Open Thread | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    CNN reports White House health care (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:00:44 PM EST
    plan on the way:  "The White House is quietly talking about drafting formal health care legislation after allowing Congress to work on its own for months.  Multiple sources close to the process told CNN Friday that while the plan is uncertain, they are preparing for the possibility they could deliver their own legislation to Capitol Hill sometime after the President Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress Wednesday. . . ."

    So after all these months of watching and waiting to see what won't get through Congress, what's left -- for the left?

    Buwhahahahaha (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:13:06 PM EST
    The irrelevant, powerless, impotent President is now going to deliver his own legislation to Capital Hill when he can't herd anyone gently into a soft configuration of his liking? :)  I don't know what to say.  It could be delivered up and be something decent.  He could sell us out too.  How is he becoming powerful enough to deliver to Capitol Hill though the legislation that they will in turn deliver to him?  It's all so fubar.....P.S. I think he'll sell us out and I hope I'm a 1000% wrong headed and just evil minded about him.

    Parent
    What might be in store per CNN article (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    Multiple sources told CNN earlier in the day the thinking among administration officials was that the president will lay out a path to reform in his speech next week that the White House hopes can bridge the various differences in the competing proposals. Sources expect the president to emphasize the message: If Congress passes something now, it will serve as a foundation to pass further reform in the future.
    ...
    A source close to the White House says the administration is leaning toward dropping the public option, and continues to zero in on trying to convince Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe - who has long pushed for a trigger option -- to come on board.

    The source says the bill that would be presented to Snowe would leave out a public option but include a trigger provision that could lead to the introduction of a new government-run insurance plan under certain circumstances. The legislation would cover most, though not all, of the 46 million uninsured Americans. It would also include popular insurance reforms, such as ending the insurance industry practice of using pre-existing conditions to deny coverage.
    ...
    The bottom line, said the source, is that the president would have to "move to the center" on the issue eventually, "and it's not a bad thing to have liberals screaming at him" -- that development will help sell the deal to Americans, "convince them it's a good, moderate deal, if liberals are mad." CNN

    Only good news in the article is that Rep. Lynne Woolsey states that would not satisfy the Progressive caucus.

    Parent

    Kick the can down the road (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:07:56 PM EST
    It's Washington's favorite game. Woohoo!

    Parent
    Since I think that the (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:21:58 PM EST
    so called "trigger" will not ever happen, I think this is more than kicking the can down the road. It will leave us with legislation that mandates people purchase private insurance coverage, uses federal dollars to purchase private insurance and has no cost controls. IOW it will be nothing more than a massive give away to the insurance industry.

    Parent
    I'm gonna wait (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    to hear it first. My first impression was Obama was not keen on a mandate(since it was the first distinction he drew with Clinton). What is not completely clear to me is whether he opposed it to be politically contrary when Hillary proposed it or if he really did have twinges of conscience about the idea of having families that are already on the brink paying for a product that frankly they can't even afford the co pays or deductibles on.

    I know it's probably naive of me but I am going to hope there is a glimmer of a decent person in him.

    Parent

    He did oppose the mandate (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:29:21 PM EST
    but he said it was because it interfered with Americans' freedom, not because it would be hard on the lower earners.

    Parent
    I remember distinctly (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:31:39 PM EST
    the talking point that a mandate would mean making the poor choose between rent and health care. I remember it specifically because it totally pissed me off because both the other candidates were very clear that their plans provided subsidies for the poor.

    Parent
    Ah, ok. Maybe a senior moment for me... (none / 0) (#90)
    by sallywally on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:13:31 AM EST
    or maybe different comments at different times. I was pissed off about the "limiting Americans' freedom" comment because it sounded so Republican/Libertarian. That was one of the major things that made me semi-apoplectic.

    I have no doubt he said what you indicated. :)


    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    I read a lot about doing away with the public option. I read about them lowering the subsidies. Can't say I've read anything about doing away with the mandates for everyone to purchase insurance.

    Unless I'm mistaken it goes like this. No mandates - no coverage for pre-existing conditions.

    Parent

    even when he talked about mandates (none / 0) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:29:26 PM EST
    he said he wanted "exceptions" written in. Of course, he has never defined what he means by exceptions. He's always appears vague and I think he is very deliberate about that.

    I have to wonder if he was as deliberately vague when dealing with the insurance industry on who he would guarantee a delivery into the system?

    I think he is still trying to maximize his return and figure out a way to get both constituencies or at the very least figure out which block alienation will cost him the most politically.

    It's just my impression but I haven't been too wrong about him thus far.

    We'll see.

    Parent

    I agree. He wants to remain a Rorschach (none / 0) (#91)
    by sallywally on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    ink blot so everyone thinks he supports their agenda, and it leaves him promising nothing. I don't think he really made the promises that people attributed to him. He made statements and speeches that sounded like real progressive views and that people inferred as promises. But I think he has always kept deliberately vague.

    It's not working now, because he has to commit to concrete things; if he stays vague, he will have to deal with the consequences of that just as he would if he had stood up for what people thought/hoped he stood for.

    I can't figure him out....why he doesn't do what is clearly what the public wants. The majority still wants a public plan. They even said that on Geo.Stephanopoulos this morning....so it must be true <snark>.

    Parent

    No mention of the mandates (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:38:06 PM EST
    bothers the H*ll out of me. I feel like they are going to sell a "we couldn't get the PO done but we have given you this . . . " and not mention the mandate that is going to screw us all. Sad that I get excited when a politician mentions it/the give away to insurance companies when we have a "dem" prez.

    Parent
    Thus far (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:52:54 PM EST
    he's been vague and floated lots of trial baloons where he drops the option which he then walks back to say he still supports it and then says well maybe a co op or a trigger. I still think he's trying to determine if he can get some of the progressive block to cave and what type of cost he'd pay if he outright ignored them.

    He's been pretty content to let others toss out ideas and float them up. I don't think he's sold on any idea yet except the idea of maximizing his return on any plan(including his chances for re election).

    If I thought it was predetermined and I didn't think the block could make a difference on this particular policy I wouldn't waste valuable energy on it. I honestly think this could come down to who blinks first.

    Parent

    That's right (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Spamlet on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:20:39 AM EST
    I don't think he's sold on any idea yet except the idea of maximizing his return on any plan(including his chances for re election).

    As BTD likes to say, "Pols are pols, and do what they do."

    As FDR said, "I agree with you. Now make me do it."

    Obama is no FDR, and he may or may not agree with us. But he didn't even want to hear from single-payer advocates, despite his own advocacy of a single-payer system when he was still a senator in the Illinois State Combine. \

    So we have to make him give us single payer's poor cousin, the "robust" public option. For now, we do that as a bloc by maintaining our support of and pressure on the House Progressive Bloc.

    Parent

    Interesting diary at Orange (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:08:14 PM EST
    by someone who worked very hard for Obama.  As much as some people still feel animosity about the primaries, I don't.  I think it's stupid to allow such things to continue on once the contest is over and that contest is over and I dealt with my emotion about it.  I expressed, I got over it.  I was always tepid about Obama because I didn't like his stance on certain things.  If worrying about losing his true believers would cause him to make the right decision for this country about health care reform though then read and worry away dude.  This one was a true believer of the First Order and you are on notice.

    Powerful read! (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    That was one powerful diary.

    In particular this observation interested me:

    That is what the fight over the public option is all about - it is not about policy. It's a proxy for the implied contract we entered into when we helped get Obama elected. We expected Change, we expected to be respected, empowered and included, we expected him to fight, and we expected to join him in that fight."

    It isn't about policy, it's about them.  

    Parent

    Policy is about them though (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:52:21 PM EST
    I think that one thing many liberals didn't like about Hillary in the primary was that she carries the Clinton brand and smells like third way...and welfare reform and lets face it....stiffled healthcare reform.  This person obviously wanted someone who was going to come out fighting for the campaign promises and they planned on continuing to fight with him even after he was elected.  I can't fault any of them for that.

    Parent
    I think they seriously misread (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:04:17 PM EST
    the candidates.  But that's water under the bridge and now they need to come to terms with the person they elected.  

    Parent
    Very well said! nt (none / 0) (#83)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 09:07:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Ah, legislation written by Republicans, (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President smells twice as sweet.

    Parent
    But push him when he's wrong. n/t (none / 0) (#93)
    by sallywally on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:31:58 AM EST


    Parent
    You know what (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:21:34 AM EST
    though? Obama has never fought for any policy in his entire career. This person is just another one who projected her desires onto a blank slate.

    And that part about closing your eyes and visualizing Obama as president sounds every bit as creepy and cultist and fundies around here talking about W. as the son of God, a new Jesus for our times.

    Parent

    You said it (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:18:10 AM EST
    Totally creeped me out.

    Parent
    Oh yeah! I couldn't believe it (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by sallywally on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:39:19 AM EST
    when they talked about this during the campaign.... but there it is. And the part mentioned in the campaign about telling their stories about "how they came to Obama."

    Incredibly creepy. Yecch.

    Parent

    It will be interesting to see (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:24:32 PM EST
    how many of those now expressing betrayal will in the end find ways to justify Obama's actions when all is said and done.

    After reading some of the comments, I see that attacking someone as a "purity troll" is still used in the place of addressing the issue.  

    Parent

    He does sort of get one thing, though (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Spamlet on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    It's a proxy for the implied contract we entered into when we helped get Obama elected.

    Actually, it's a test of our progressive strength, as (tentatively) embodied in the Progressive Caucus, whether we voted for Obama or not (I did not). That's one reason why so many of us on the left/liberal/progressive end of the spectrum are finding all these health care machinations so compelling. It's also why there's been so much "I told you so" lately from some of the PUMAs.

    This diarist and others of his ilk were starstruck and naive about what Obama could be expected to do. Had they wanted to open their eyes, all it would have taken was honest scrutiny of candidate Obama's corporate funding. But their Obama love was blind. Many of them were also hateful and downright vile toward Hillary Clinton and women in general.

    But I hope we can all make common cause, not in spite of outrage about the 2008 primaries, which I share with the PUMAs, but precisely because of it. "Country before party" should apply to the "unparty" too, imo. Even if feeling jilted and crying in their beer is all that some in the Obama fan base can focus on.

    Parent

    Corporate funding (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:20:02 AM EST
    is, unfortunately, no indication of anything.  They all get great gobs of corporate money, one way or another.  Some of them bow to it, some of them don't.

    Parent
    About THEM? No, it's about HIM! (none / 0) (#29)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:28:53 PM EST
    THAT's the problem.  

    Parent
    But don't you see, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:42:29 PM EST
    they have fused into One.

    Parent
    Don't you mean, THE ONE? (none / 0) (#58)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:16:57 PM EST


    Parent
    They ridiculed the one who (none / 0) (#35)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    promised to fight, though.....

    Parent
    He is the same politician (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:17:40 PM EST
    Obama's political philosphy is much closer to the Reagan Democrat's (or Blue Dogs) than the progressives.
    I posted this comment on a previous thread, I think this is the reality that many on the progressive blogs are faced with.

    He earned his stripes with the progressive's solely on his anti Iraq War rhetoric during the primaries. This was done in spite of the fact that when he actually had a vote to cast, he backed every single war fundung bill Bush pushed through.

    So for people to sit around now and wonder where their candidate went astray, amazes me. He's the same politician today as he was a year ago. The real change is that people are seeing the man for who he is, rather than the man they hoped he would be.

    Parent

    True, BUT (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Spamlet on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:46:24 PM EST
    Obama also broke promises. He earned his stripes with some progressives on the strength of those promises.

    All politicians break their campaign promises, of course. But if the candidate is disingenuous and the voters are naive and/or luvstruck, it's not quite accurate to say that he's the same candidate today that he was a year ago.

    From those voters' point of view, Obama is not the same candidate today that he was a year ago. A year ago, Obama was still the man behind the curtain, pulling the levers in the Emerald City.

    Parent

    As he said of himself, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:00:28 PM EST
    he was, and presumably still thinks he is, an inkblot on whom voters can cast their own ideals - and agenda. It seemed odd that he'd just say this right out in the open - I think in one of his autobiographies.

    Now, though, he is becoming responsible for an ever longer series of concrete actions that have concrete consequences, for the nation, its people, the broader world, the Democrats, and finally for him and his administration.

    Parent

    YES, exactly! (none / 0) (#32)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:38:45 PM EST
    "The man that they hoped he would be".  Sad, but so true.  

    Now what?  We elected him based on his being anti war and now he's ignoring Iraq and expanding the war in Afghanistan.   He's even increasing the length of deployments!  I hated when Bush did that.  Obama did too!  Now he's doing the same thing, without a word about it.  It totally stinks.  

    Will we ever again have a democrat President who really cares about our kids in uniform, a President who really is anti war?  

    Parent

    When (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:48:58 PM EST
    We'll get the president we want when we learn to use the primaries to their fullest.

    By demanding firm committments from candidates that ask for our vote.

    By dismissing all candidates that refuse to commit to any actual principle.

    By not accepting canned slogans for real answers.

    By letting them know that if they don't adhere to the party platform they may as well not even try to run for reelction.

    Parent

    Agreed, what do we do now? (none / 0) (#57)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:14:58 PM EST
    I feel like I've spent most of my life protesting wars.  I thought Obama was the anti war candidate but it doesn't appear that he is.  He never even mentions the wars!  

    I thought he cared about universal health care for everyone.  Now it doesn't seem to be such a big deal to him.  

    I had hoped that he would do something about unemployment, no such luck.  It's now the highest that it's been in 25 years!   My kids worked hard to finish college and now there are no jobs for them, or their friends.  

    I thought he supported gay rights in the military.  Haven't heard boo about that either.  Ditto gay marriage.  

    This is very discouraging, to say the least.  

    Parent

    To be fair (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:35:21 AM EST
    he's moving -- slowly and without enthusiasm, but moving -- on DADT and DOMA, both of which I expect to be gone by the end of his first term. And he is, also slowly, scaling back the Iraq engagement.

    And this giant recession/depression isn't something any president can just wave a wand and make go away, not even FDR, so it's a little silly to blame him for "not doing anything" about unemployment.  Even a stimulus bill twice the size of what was done -- which would not have gone through Congress in any case -- wouldn't have massively reduced unemployment overnight.

    So let's not blame Obama for the fact that the sun is still rising in the east, OK?

    There are enough actual things he's done/not done to be horrified by, first and foremost the flat-out betrayal on health care.

    Parent

    The first step... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:11:43 AM EST
    is getting somebody, anybody, elected without a D or an R after their name...ya gotta shut the machine down before you can fix it.

    Parent
    What a self-centered idjit (4.57 / 7) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:49:09 PM EST
    that diarist is.  Health care reform is not about public policy -- y'know, something that could change the lives of all of us -- but instead, it's about the Obamans' emotional returns on their investment blah blah blah . . . that is, it's about whether they still feel all warm and fuzzy and loved.

    Blecchh.  That diary encapsulates what was so wrong with the campaign -- and what still is so wrong about the result for the Dem party debacle at present and, apparently, for its future.

    Parent

    I know they are very different (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:58:07 PM EST
    from most of us who championed Hillary.  They are much more emotional and idealistic.  I'm sort of scratchy and already know that the reality is that we are going to have to fight, the invested powers aren't going to just give us what we want. I find myself taking up for them though.  They're getting shafted man.  They were more idealistic than I was, it isn't a crime.....yet.  Look at how idealistic I am about our pre 9/11 media being recently downgraded and fouled by a lack of honesty and standards :)

    Parent
    Emotional and idealist are not (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:27:32 PM EST
    the same thing.  They can coexist, of course.

    But they confused having ideals with achieving them -- and how best to accomplish that, with which leadership, based on that leader's ideals and record of achieving them.  No wonder they still are confused -- and uncomfortable; they still are dealing with cognitive dissonance and not facing how to resolve it.


    Parent

    It was a faith based initiative (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:41:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Snort. :-) (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:00:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Don't know how old (5.00 / 3