Unfair Criticism Of Sen. Bennet

David Sirota will be delivering a petition today to the offices of Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) demanding Bennet offer a public option amendment to the health reconciliation fix. Sirota writes:

Facing an increasingly difficult Democratic primary challenge, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) has spent the last many weeks trumpeting himself as the Senate's main champion of the public option, issuing a letter demanding a reconciliation vote on the public option. [. . .] Politico reported that his campaign manager suggested Bennet would not offer the amendment because "we're not going (to) kill the bill to make a point." [. . . E]ven as he promises to "continue to push" for a public option, he is refusing to offer a public option amendment right now when it has the best chance of passing (ie. only needing 51 votes, rather than 60 later), somehow claiming that offering a public option amendment to a separate reconciliation "fix" bill would kill a bill that he acknowledges has already passed.

My guess is Bennet is following the Democratic leadership's orders not to offer any amendments - as the leadership is trying to prevent the separate reconciliation bill from having to be voted on again in the House [. . .]

Sirota is berating Bennet for honoring the deal made between Dems in the House and Senate on the reconciliation fixes. That's not fair. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, almost certainly at the behest of the White House, refused to push for a public option in the House version of the reconciliation bill. It is absurd to blame Bennet for the deal made by Obama and Pelosi. Of course, if this happens, all bets should be off:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is now predicting that some Republican amendments may pass and therefore be added to the separate Senate reconciliation bill, meaning that bill will likely be forced to go back to the House anyway.

If that happens, then it is imperative that a public option amendment be presented and Bennet should lead the charge.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | GOP Attacks Appeals Court Nominee Liu As Universal Health Coverage Advocate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It is (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:52:57 AM EST
    not fair to blame Bennett on this.

    So now the GOP amendments are going to pass? Wow, isnt' that special? Now they can make the bill even worse and more open to abuse.

    Baucus didn't say that (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    as far as I can figure out.  See post below.

    They have numerous options (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:57:09 AM EST
    to avoid R amendments they could table them or rule them delays.

    Fair or not (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    I'll have Sirota's back.  Progressives don't fight...or at least the ones that want to run things don't and they should be kicked to the curb after this and my stabbed to death uterus.  Sirota has been beaten up too many times by other "progressives" too for speaking the truth and I'm friggin sick of that too.  It is all a big risk, but it always was and they were just going to keep on allowing the serfs to be financially raped and die needlessly.  And when you talk about it with them they all whine about how sausage making is hard work.  Their damned whining about that sounds exactly the same as that whiner Dubya.  They whine....the middle class is further destroyed.....I'm sick of it and I'm sick of them and I'm sick everyone else who is afraid of their own shadow.

    Diff: D's got (triple)Supermajority, folded anyway (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:39:29 AM EST
    At least the partei can't use the wheezing excuse anymore of "needing" the House / Senate / White House /60 votes blah blah blah to get anything done, or even to get their sorry @sses up to push forward Democratic principles (nm upholding vanilla Constitutional rights).

    They're applauding the excuse to applaud themselves -- Clap Harder! -- and, as is par for the course, slamming those of us who aren't joining in with the usual tired, well-chewed names.


    hey (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:25:32 AM EST
    sister. watch it! you're beginning to sound like me. I get all kinds of grief because I simply can no longer tolerate WIMPS!!

    I used to do what some people are doing back in 2006 but no more. If this group can't stand up, find one that will.

    I'm tired of Obama and the rest of the gang saying just like the GOP that somehow evangelicals deserve speciaal treatment by the government.


    The Evangelicals are special needs (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:33:19 AM EST
    meme makes my teeth itch.  And there will be no rapture you crazy idiots, nobody is coming for you to save you from yourself and everything you have done to your neighbor and your planet....Oy  I'm being forced to daily entertain the schizophrenic hallucinations of other people. But it does make it easier to ignore the people sleeping on the sidewalk vents when I have my head planted straight up my arse.

    As far as I'm concerened, (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:58:33 AM EST
    I wish the "rapture" would happen so they could all get their @sses raptured out of here.  That would leave the rest of us to try to fix things down here without their constant religio-maniacal obstructionism.

    Not before I grab my wish-list of left-behindSTUFF (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:11:12 AM EST
    My number one thing is to grab cast-iron skillets wherever I see one, no matter what shape they're in.

    E-Z to restore; they're an ideal housewarming gift; and the one thing that turns ordinary cooks into master chefs.

    Next stop: the tool sheds. My gawd, the tools ...


    Why? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    E-Z to restore; they're an ideal housewarming gift; and the one thing that turns ordinary cooks into master chefs.

    Please explain.


    How bout we talk Iron Skillets in an upcoming ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:05:04 PM EST
    ... Open Thread? (Gotta cut out now but they're the one thing no home should lack.)

    What Baucus said not what Sirota says (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:18 AM EST
    Sirota and Firedoglake both have taught me not to trust their assertions without corroboration, so I went looking for back-up to his statement that "Baucus is predicting some Republican amemdents will pass" since it seems an unlikely thing for Baucus to do, or anyone in Dem. leadership to predict.

    And of course, I can't find any.  Sirota's Huffpo/OpenLeft piece links back to this Firedoglake post, which has no link or citation, but excerpts this statement from some uncited news (presumably) report.  It ain't quite the same as what Sirota says.

    "Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus told reporters today that there may be "one or two" changes to the health care reconciliation bill, meaning it could be sent back to the House for another vote. "Anything is possible. We've constructed this thing so well ... maybe one or two but they're so minor they're almost not even worth mentioning," Baucus said.

    "Maybe one or two," "anything is possible," " so minor," etc.

    Nothing in this quote from Baucus about "Republican amendments."

    Any amendments as minor as what Baucus is talking about would be friendly amendments by Dems. to correct wording errors and the like in the bill, not Republican poison pills.  Yes, that would send it back to the House for another vote, but under a very different scenario than Sirota is trying to make it sound.

    IMHO, Sirota has been more dishonest in all this than any pol.

    YOUR criticism is unfair.

    Now (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:46:54 AM EST
    If there need to be the kinds of amendments Baucus is talking about here, they will be Dem. amendments.

    Republicans are not offering "minor" fixes aimed at making the bill meet the Byrd rule or anything else.  They're offering poison pills and other sweeping changes in an attempt to kill or gut the bill.

    And I'm not being unfair.  Baucus said, in that unsourced quote, nothing about "Republican" amendments.


    Oh please (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:52:04 AM EST
    A Dem rework of a GOP amendment is still a GOP amendment. This is sophistry.

    But it even misses the point - that the House would have to vote again.

    IF the House has to vote again, then the public option should be offered as an amendment in the Senate. to wit, if Baucus is right, that is Bennet's cue.


    Oh, please yourself (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:57:27 PM EST
    Not in the least clear that what Baucus is talking about is a "Dem rework of GOP amendment."  The Dems. have been discussing themselves whether they're going to need to make some fixes to the language.

    And no, even if there were such a thing as a Dem. reworking of a GOP amendment, it is absolutely not then a GOP amendment.  That's sophistry, IMHO.  In any case, Baucus is quoted as saying "minor," "a word or two," "hardly worth mentioning," and I'm at a loss to imagine a hostile GOP amendment (and they're all hostile) "hardly worth mentioning" involving "a word or two" the Dems. would agree to.

    Sirota is using a scare tactic by putting words in Baucus's mouth that he did not say.  His very clear intended implication is that the dastardly Senate Dems. are going to fall for some of the hundreds of very unfriendly GOP amendments, the whole gig is up, so there's nothing to lose by starting the whole crazy business all over again, in essence, by trying to get a PO through the Senate.

    And my point is a more basic one, which is that Sirota isn't playing straight and what he says can't be regarded as credible.  I don't like being lied to and gamed by our side any more than I like being lied to by the bad guys.


    Do you know if the complete text (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:50:07 AM EST
    of the proposed reconciliation bill is on line?

    Here: (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    Parliamantarien (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:21:46 AM EST
    I don't think Baucus was referring to amendments at all.  I think he was referring to items the parliamentarian might not be able to clear.  If any items were eliminated, the rec bill will go back to the House.

    Not in that quote` (none / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    He sez, "minor," "a word or two," "hardly worth mentioning."  That's not entire items being eliminated, that's wording being fixed.

    Here is a summary of an amendment (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    offered by Rep. Issa (R-CA) in the House:

     Substitute Would strike all after the enacting clause and insert language that would allow every American to obtain the same health insurance that members of Congress have by using the existing framework of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP). The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would contract with insurance providers to make private health insurance plans available to all Americans.

    Rep. Issa is tres conservative but I like his idea here!

    This (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    is way better than the exchanges because there would be real buying power behind it.

    IMO what was more unfair was Bennet (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    continuing to raise cash by pretending that there was any chance that a public option would be in final legislation. Down right deceitful.

    Don't let Sanders off the hook --he also promised (none / 0) (#43)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:29:16 PM EST
    to bring a PO amendment up for the reconciliation bill.

    Of course, when I called his office to ask for definition of the PO Sanders would offer, I was told he had not really, really said he would offer an amendment. And they had not idea of what would be in it if he did....


    Digby explains why the GOP Senators (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    are offering amendments we might support.  Democrats in Senata have already sd. all amendments will be voted down.  GOP getting sound bites for the future against Dem. Senators.  But you all had this figured out already!

    The evolving Sirota (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:43:13 PM EST
    There was a time when David Sirota wrote and talked about challenging, provocative ideas. In recent months--especially after getting his footing on early morning radio here in Denver--his style, approach, and temperament has become a copy of other "pundits" who think they have the lock on truth. IMO, this protege of Sen Bernie Sanders and one-time admirer of Rep Kucinich's views staked out a position on health care (which he hadn't yet arrived at as late as last summer)from which he could not pivot. As Democrats moved to consolidate on health insurance reform, he seemed more & more dour on the radio...perhaps, feeling isolated or stranded. He seems to have aligned openly with Sen Bennet's primary opponent, Andrew Romanoff, and seems to be using this "in your face" petition to diminish Bennet and boost Romanoff. (Also, IMO, both Bennet and Romanoff are good, solid Dem candidates here.) It is sad that he seems to have stubbornly locked himself away (and he moans about people being upset with him, etc., more often than not.) While it used to be energizing to get up, get ready to take my dog for a walk, and turn on his morning program...well, now, it has become a drag and a downer with his background whining. Anyway, the classical music station KVOD is much more uplifting.

    Agree 100% (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    IMO, this isn't anything more than Bennet bashing and an attempt to increase his Arbitron ratings.

    Agree (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by rdandrea on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 04:49:30 PM EST
    You can either be a journalist or an advocate (or try to be both and end up working at the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel).  Sirota is not a journalist.

    I just want to say... (none / 0) (#51)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 09:55:44 AM EST
    ...that you are hands down a better advocate and journalist than Sirota could ever dream of being.  I much enjoy your comments over at the Dead Gov's place.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 09:54:13 PM EST
    I agree... S/he is another good old timer who we do not see round these parts anymore..  Primary casualty?

    Anyway nice for him or her to pop in...


    There's a reasonable possibility (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:27:46 AM EST
    we'll be stuck with the original Senate bill, right?
    By the way, did you see the NYT article which touts the HCR as doing the most in decades to combat rising income inequality?

    So (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    So giveaways to insurance companies -- while giving people "subsidies" that don't necessarily make insurance affordable enough for them to buy, meaning that they'll "simply pay the tax" instead of getting insurance -- is wealth redistribution?


    I watch Hannity now because his lies and his alternative reality about the health insurance bill about equal what I WISH had happened.  Last night he said that HHS was going to take over the insurance companies now.  I said YES!  KEWL(winking), I can hardly wait!


    you know (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CST on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    for all the predictions that no one will sign up for healthcare - the exact opposite happened when a pretty bill passed in MA.

    A lot more people signed up than the state originally thought.

    And the federal subsidy reaches people with even higher incomes, although the mandate tax is also lower.

    But I think most people (and from my experience, even most young people) would rather have health insurance than not.


    No, not a reasonable possibility (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:41:12 AM EST
    There's a very, very faint possibility.

    Dems. have a head of steam up on this and all but the irrational handful in the Senate understand what the consequences would be of going back on the promise to the House for getting through this.  There would have to be 9 of them irrational enough to scuttle the agreement, and I don't think there are more than 3 or 4.


    No Dem'll put values, party, country before ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    ... a chance to preen during a 24-hr news cycle.

    Not these "Dems" -- the ones who cheerfully sold off women's reproductive rights just to give Stupak a face-saving media-op.

    If that's what Stupak got, lord knows what the other camera-hungry jack@sses are scheming for freebie election year exposure.


    If we are (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:20:59 AM EST
    Then the people will be really insanely pissed off instead of middle class royally pissed off.  I guess they'd better get a public option in there then huh?

    Caught that (none / 0) (#2)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 07:52:36 AM EST
    I caught a take on that on C-Span radio this morning. The editorial apparently said it heralded "the end of the era of Reagan" or some such gobbledygook. I

    Pols are pols, or so I've heard (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 08:57:10 AM EST
    Bennett made a promise that he couldn't deliver to offer an amendment. People that donated money to him based on such a fluid situation were taking a risk that may have seemed worth it at the time.

    Now the primary voters can be the judge about his skills as a pol.

    I think Sirota is tilting at windmills here, but maybe somebody has to just to keep it in the news that liberals are not happy with this bill and are not going away. god bless, go forward.

    What's in the fix? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Emma on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:31:35 AM EST
    Anybody know what's in this bill, what it's purporting to fix?  I haven't been able to keep up.

    I believe it (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:54 AM EST
    expands the deal that Nelson got for Nebraska to all the states. And has the 'Cadillac Tax' changes that the unions negotiated. Those are the main things I remember off the top of my head.

    Also removes the Florida (none / 0) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:48:54 AM EST
    deal to exempt Florida from Medicare Advantage cuts.

    Thanks!! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Emma on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    Do you know what the deal was that the unions negotiated?

    The unions' issue (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:59:25 PM EST
    The point at which an excise tax would apply would begin at @27,000 for a plan (Speaker Pelosi renamed it from "cadillac" to "platinum.") And, the implementation date would be moved from 2014 to 2018 for said excise tax. To make up for loss of those funds, a tax on unearned income for individuals already earning more than $200,000 would be imposed. Long & short: The good health care coverage that some unions had already negotiated would get some breathing room and the highest-income individuals would have a modest tax increase on unearned income.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#53)
    by Emma on Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    The $27,000 = the cost of the premium for the plan?  Per individual?  Per family?

    Sirota continues to be (none / 0) (#21)
    by shmuelman on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:49:15 AM EST
    the progressive blogger who seems to miss the mark by a little bit. His ideology is in the right place but his implementation is off. And he completely flips out when he is criticized.
    Colorado Dems are struggling with their identity. Polis and Markey originally came out against healthcare reform, trying to play the "moderates" (actually, who knows what Polis is about other than Polis - what a mistake for Boulder County). Bennet was against bankruptcy reform, and I don't remember his original stance on healthcare. All three moved quickly to the left. Markey will have to show some progressive creds to get any more money from me. BTW I am a Romanoff supporter, but I will vote and contribute to Bennet if that's how it works out.

    Amendments (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:13:40 AM EST
    That Coburn is going to propose:

    1.   No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders....

    2.   Bureaucrat Cap and Trade - This amendment would ensure that no provisions in the health bill increase the size of government bureaucracies in Washington, D.C. This amendment requires that for each government bureaucrat added to a government agency as a result of this act, there must be a corresponding decrease in a government bureaucrat at that agency.

    3.   Congress Should Not Lecture Americans About Fiscal Responsibility - This amendment would strike the creation of a new $375 million government program the new health bill (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) intended to promote personal and financial responsibility....

    4.   Repeal New Powers Given to the Secretary of HHS. Nearly 1,700 times in the new health bill (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), the Secretary of HHS is given new authorities to write regulations, issue definitions, and decide on the fate of Americans' health care. Congress should be empowering patients and physicians, not bureaucrats in Washington, DC.

    5.   If You Like the Health Plan You Have, You Can Keep It. President Obama promised that Americans who like their health care plan would be able to keep it. However, the Congressional Budget Office has said that millions of people will lose their current coverage under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act...The changes to grandfathering provisions would mean that individuals with guaranteed renewable plans in the individual market will NOT be able to keep their current coverage at the current price, but would immediately be issued a new policy and charged more. This amendment strikes changes to grandfathered plans, so Americans who like the health care they have actually can keep it.  

    6.   Implement Republican Ideas President Obama Has Endorsed To Crack Down on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. The President's Proposal for health reform, released on February 22, 2010, highlighted nine Republican ideas to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. This amendment includes each of those policy provisions which have been endorsed by President Obama...

    7.   Ensure Nondiscrimination For Providers Refusing To Perform Abortions and Respect for the Rights of Conscience. This amendment would ensure health care providers are not forced to participate in abortions or discriminated against because they choose not to perform abortions...

    8.   Exempt Class I Medical Devices from New Taxation. Taxing latex gloves and band-aids is not health reform and only increases the cost of health care for patients. This amendment would exempt all Class I medical devices - such as band-aids, wheelchairs, hospital beds, and surgical gowns - from new federal taxation.  

    9.   Motion to Commit Bill to Committee and Return In Compliance with President Obama's Promises.

    I cut out some of the language of the article to make it shorter to post here, but you get the idea.

    How about (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Spamlet on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:00:07 PM EST
    expanding the "sex offender" category to include anyone who acts in such a way as to restrict a woman's reproductive self-determination? Tit for tat, so to speak.

    No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders....

    anti-choice non-discrimination (none / 0) (#33)
    by Emma on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:27:40 AM EST
    it's in there!


    Ensure Nondiscrimination For Providers Refusing To Perform Abortions and Respect for the Rights of Conscience. This amendment would ensure health care providers are not forced to participate in abortions or discriminated against because they choose not to perform abortions...

    is already in the bill obama signed yesterday.


    He knows that. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:24:27 PM EST
    Just a shout-out to the forced-birthers.

    This is funny (none / 0) (#48)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:36:22 PM EST
    Implement Republican Ideas President Obama Has Endorsed To Crack Down on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.

    on so many levels...


    Amendments proposed to reconciliation (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:31:48 AM EST
    bill by Senators:  


    As of yesterday.

    Proposed Amendments (none / 0) (#35)
    by Emma on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:38:42 AM EST
    I like this one:

    Grassley/Roberts Amendment No. 3564, to make sure the President, Cabinet Members, all White House Senior staff and Congressional Committee and Leadership Staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    It would be even awesomer if their families, i.e. childbearing age women and girls, had to do it too!

    Already in the bill (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    Superfluous amendment, on the whole, to score political points with voters who aren't paying attention.

    The bill did screw up the language in haste, I read, so that it technically only covers, in addition to all the pols, the staffers in their congressional offices, but not the commitee staff or the leadership office staff.  IOW, Pelosi's own staff as a congresswoman is covered, but not her staff as Speaker.

    This, of course, has led Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the rest to scream that Congress "exempted" its staffers.  It's a lie.

    So the Dems will want to fix this, but I'd be real surprised if they'd screw up the reconciliation bill only for that.  They might throw in some language change on that item if there are other things that really have to be redone anyway.  Or they might be smart, resist the GOP siren songs, keep any changes to the recon bill only those that absolutely have to be done, and file a separate bill later to add the rest of the Congressional staffers and any other secondary fixes of that kind.

    Maybe this is what BTD means by "Republican amendments reworked by the Dems."  I still don't call that fix a Republican amendment.


    Okay (none / 0) (#52)
    by Emma on Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    Seriously, my post really wasn't worth that lengthy and involved of a reply.  Though I appreciate your interest in the topic, I'm a little bit insulted b/c I feel like I'm being equated with those "voters who aren't paying attention" and am being lectured to on a point which, honestly, it completely unrelated to anything I posted.

    Perhaps I should have put a snark tag, but, seriously, what about my post made you think I needed a Poli Sci 101 lecture about "point scoring" and the idiocy of Fox?


    Oh, so sorry (none / 0) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    I see I should just have responded by saying "Wrong!" and left it at that.