the fact Obama says he supports all these issues but then he doesn't?
Can we take a moment to discuss this? Its been pissing me off for a long time now.
This is *not* a fact and its incredibly frustrating to watch the more ideological left run around throwing tantrums and threats at these horrible perceived slights to their agenda.
Hey, I'm as left as just about anyone but I see the writing on the wall.
Obama doesn't have the power. Period. I mean jesus, he can't even close Guantanomo. And don't give me that "he could if he wanted to" crap, that shit is COMPLICATED. The man's trying to run a war or two, taser some bullheaded senators into doing the right thing on healthcare, stimulate the economy and about three dozen other smaller agendas like saving the national parks and other shit that Bush tried to destroy.
Rome wasn't built in a day people. Obama can't just snap his fingers and say "Gays can marry now" or "Free abortions for all" without sacrificing EVERY SINGLE THING ELSE that he is trying to accomplish.
Shit the man can't even take his wife out for a movie without distracting the national debate.
Give him some freaking leeway already, will ya?
Glenn Greenwald had a pretty convincing post that basically asserted that Obama administration (or Rahm Emanuel at the very least) was doing very little to support progressive lawmakers in the health care debate, and in fact was actively intimidating them into falling in line with the Blue Dogs. I will see if I can find it.
Did Greenwald suddenly forget that Obama is a moderate?
The only legitimate complaint I can see in terms of Obama not doing something well within his power is ending DADT, which could be done by executive order. Granted, he would expend political capital in doing so, but I'm betting it wouldn't damage his long term agenda. Sometimes you just need to pull the trigger.
Also, a quick glace at Politifact will show that Obama's pretty true to his word.
They also just did a great piece about the Stupack amendment.
I think you can legitimately complain about lack of transparency regarding ACTA (can't disclose due to national security? Come on, who's fooled?), and on the same grounds make a complaint about net neutrality. Obama knows what's going on, there, and owes net neutrality to his platform.
the fact Obama says he supports all these issues but then he doesn't?
Can we take a moment to discuss this? Its been pissing me off for a long time now.
This is *not* a fact and its incredibly frustrating to watch the more ideological left run around throwing tantrums and threats at these horrible perceived slights to their agenda.
Hey, I'm as left as just about anyone but I see the writing on the wall.
Obama doesn't have the power. Period. I mean jesus, he can't even close Guantanomo. And don't give me that "he could if he wanted to" crap, that shit is COMPLICATED. The man's trying to run a war or two, taser some bullheaded senators into doing the right thing on healthcare, stimulate the economy and about three dozen other smaller agendas like saving the national parks and other shit that Bush tried to destroy.
Rome wasn't built in a day people. Obama can't just snap his fingers and say "Gays can marry now" or "Free abortions for all" without sacrificing EVERY SINGLE THING ELSE that he is trying to accomplish.
Shit the man can't even take his wife out for a movie without distracting the national debate.
Give him some freaking leeway already, will ya?
Glenn Greenwald had a pretty convincing post that basically asserted that Obama administration (or Rahm Emanuel at the very least) was doing very little to support progressive lawmakers in the health care debate, and in fact was actively intimidating them into falling in line with the Blue Dogs. I will see if I can find it.
Did Greenwald suddenly forget that Obama is a moderate?
Greenwald's criticisms tend to focus on things he said during the campaign.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
the fact Obama says he supports all these issues but then he doesn't?
Can we take a moment to discuss this? Its been pissing me off for a long time now.
This is *not* a fact and its incredibly frustrating to watch the more ideological left run around throwing tantrums and threats at these horrible perceived slights to their agenda.
Hey, I'm as left as just about anyone but I see the writing on the wall.
Obama doesn't have the power. Period. I mean jesus, he can't even close Guantanomo. And don't give me that "he could if he wanted to" crap, that shit is COMPLICATED. The man's trying to run a war or two, taser some bullheaded senators into doing the right thing on healthcare, stimulate the economy and about three dozen other smaller agendas like saving the national parks and other shit that Bush tried to destroy.
Rome wasn't built in a day people. Obama can't just snap his fingers and say "Gays can marry now" or "Free abortions for all" without sacrificing EVERY SINGLE THING ELSE that he is trying to accomplish.
Shit the man can't even take his wife out for a movie without distracting the national debate.
Give him some freaking leeway already, will ya?
Glenn Greenwald had a pretty convincing post that basically asserted that Obama administration (or Rahm Emanuel at the very least) was doing very little to support progressive lawmakers in the health care debate, and in fact was actively intimidating them into falling in line with the Blue Dogs. I will see if I can find it.
Did Greenwald suddenly forget that Obama is a moderate?
Well, with the Rightwing screaming about how much of a far-left-wing liberal wacko he is, it's sometimes easy to forget that the man is actually a centrist.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
the fact Obama says he supports all these issues but then he doesn't?
Can we take a moment to discuss this? Its been pissing me off for a long time now.
This is *not* a fact and its incredibly frustrating to watch the more ideological left run around throwing tantrums and threats at these horrible perceived slights to their agenda.
Hey, I'm as left as just about anyone but I see the writing on the wall.
Obama doesn't have the power. Period. I mean jesus, he can't even close Guantanomo. And don't give me that "he could if he wanted to" crap, that shit is COMPLICATED. The man's trying to run a war or two, taser some bullheaded senators into doing the right thing on healthcare, stimulate the economy and about three dozen other smaller agendas like saving the national parks and other shit that Bush tried to destroy.
Rome wasn't built in a day people. Obama can't just snap his fingers and say "Gays can marry now" or "Free abortions for all" without sacrificing EVERY SINGLE THING ELSE that he is trying to accomplish.
Shit the man can't even take his wife out for a movie without distracting the national debate.
Give him some freaking leeway already, will ya?
More leeway? And what, just give up protesting when he doesn't hold to his campaign promises or alleged positions? Then the administration would have even more freedom to do nothing on all these important issues. And I for one am sick of all this "but political capital!" arguements. Did LBJ care abot political capital when he passed the Civil Rights Act? No. In fact he knew it would cripple the party for a generation, but did it anyway. And it's not as if Obama's even set out a timetable for these proposed reforms, like gay marriage or what have you. He's just making lofty promises that he doesn't really care one way or the other if they get passed, as long as he gets the support of progressive activists. Take his speech after the gay rights groups cut their support, about how their time will come and he is really committed to gay marriage, honest, but never once mentioning a time scale.
As Reverend King said:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly I have never yet engaged in a direct action movement that was "well timed," according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "wait" has almost always meant "never." We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
cherv1 on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Glenn Greenwald had a pretty convincing post that basically asserted that Obama administration (or Rahm Emanuel at the very least) was doing very little to support progressive lawmakers in the health care debate, and in fact was actively intimidating them into falling in line with the Blue Dogs. I will see if I can find it.
Did Greenwald suddenly forget that Obama is a moderate?
Well, with the Rightwing screaming about how much of a far-left-wing liberal wacko he is, it's sometimes easy to forget that the man is actually a centrist.[/QUOTE]
I know, right? The main reason I DID NOT vote for Obama in the primary was because he was too damn moderate for my politics. Then again, I voted for Edwards so in retrospect Big O is a helluva lot better than losing to McCain.
Deebaser on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
Here's a link to the Greenwald piece I talked about:
If Olympia Snowe can read a poll, there's not a chance in hell we're getting her vote. Note: she's not up til 2012.
I think Olympia Snowe's done no matter what. Does Maine have a closed primary?
I don't go for 'generic candidate' polls. 'Generic' never ends up on the ballot.
And even if Snowe did lose a primary to a teabagger, it would virtually guarantee that the seat would fall to a Democrat. If Snowe looked like she was in trouble, every Democrat in Maine would stampede in the direction of her seat. And then they'd do it again if Collins fell.
They're going after Crist, someone who would be a guaranteed Republican pick up in the Senate.
I forgot about the closed primary thing. If Rubio wins, he'll be the next Senator. I can't think of a single Democrat down here that is well known and not also trying to get re-elected to their current posts.
If Olympia Snowe can read a poll, there's not a chance in hell we're getting her vote. Note: she's not up til 2012.
I think Olympia Snowe's done no matter what. Does Maine have a closed primary?
I don't go for 'generic candidate' polls. 'Generic' never ends up on the ballot.
And even if Snowe did lose a primary to a teabagger, it would virtually guarantee that the seat would fall to a Democrat. If Snowe looked like she was in trouble, every Democrat in Maine would stampede in the direction of her seat. And then they'd do it again if Collins fell.
They're going after Crist, someone who would be a guaranteed Republican pick up in the Senate.
I forgot about the closed primary thing. If Rubio wins, he'll be the next Senator. I can't think of a single Democrat down here that is well known and not also trying to get re-elected to their current posts.
I don't know. I still can't see Florida electing a tea bagger, unless the Democrats literally put up a nobody.
the fact Obama says he supports all these issues but then he doesn't?
Can we take a moment to discuss this? Its been pissing me off for a long time now.
This is *not* a fact and its incredibly frustrating to watch the more ideological left run around throwing tantrums and threats at these horrible perceived slights to their agenda.
Hey, I'm as left as just about anyone but I see the writing on the wall.
Obama doesn't have the power. Period. I mean jesus, he can't even close Guantanomo. And don't give me that "he could if he wanted to" crap, that shit is COMPLICATED. The man's trying to run a war or two, taser some bullheaded senators into doing the right thing on healthcare, stimulate the economy and about three dozen other smaller agendas like saving the national parks and other shit that Bush tried to destroy.
Rome wasn't built in a day people. Obama can't just snap his fingers and say "Gays can marry now" or "Free abortions for all" without sacrificing EVERY SINGLE THING ELSE that he is trying to accomplish.
Shit the man can't even take his wife out for a movie without distracting the national debate.
Give him some freaking leeway already, will ya?
More leeway? And what, just give up protesting when he doesn't hold to his campaign promises or alleged positions? Then the administration would have even more freedom to do nothing on all these important issues. And I for one am sick of all this "but political capital!" arguements. Did LBJ care abot political capital when he passed the Civil Rights Act? No. In fact he knew it would cripple the party for a generation, but did it anyway. And it's not as if Obama's even set out a timetable for these proposed reforms, like gay marriage or what have you. He's just making lofty promises that he doesn't really care one way or the other if they get passed, as long as he gets the support of progressive activists. Take his speech after the gay rights groups cut their support, about how their time will come and he is really committed to gay marriage, honest, but never once mentioning a time scale.
As Reverend King said:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly I have never yet engaged in a direct action movement that was "well timed," according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "wait" has almost always meant "never." We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
Yes. Leeway.
I get that you want these things to happen. So do I. The simple fact of the matter is that the American government was not set up to get things done. The whole purpose of having opposing forces is to slow shit down, and that was before anyone had even considered the filibuster.
Shit, look at what he's doing right now. He's working on Healthcare, providing medical benefits to Americans that need it. Thats got to be the most benign of the Progressive platforms and yet you'd think he had recreated the Hitler Youth, name and all, by the way he's being dragged through the mud.
Even *mentioning* Abortion rights or Gay marriage right now would create a shitstorm so thick we couldn't breathe for a year. And it would cripple his ability to get ANYTHING done in congress after the Democrats are wiped out by it.
Look at it this way. You're on the Obama team, advising the President. You have a TODO list of Progressive policies a mile long (best case scenario, the reality is that he's a moderate and only wants to make a few significant changes). You can only get *one* thing done this year (this is political reality of the system, Healthcare may yet drag on into next year). What would you have had him do, ignore healthcare for american citizens in favor of letting gays marry? I don't think I know a single gay person that would favor the lives of American citizens over their right to marry.
Did Greenwald suddenly forget that Obama is a moderate?
Obama's location on the political spectrum is really only incidental to whether he has made significant progress on his campaign promises.
Well, referring again to Politifact, Obama has made rather considerable progress on many of his campaign promises. In fact I daresay he's doing quite well thus far, though I do feel there are a few things he could get done in a heartbeat if he devoted a heartbeat to them right now.
So what on earth is your problem with her? She's contemptuous of Obama for saying he's all that but then not backing it up in the slightest? How on earth is that objectionable?
The thing with Shakespeare's Sister is that she was contempuous of Obama long before he ever had a chance to back out of his campaign promises. ie. when he was still campaigning. I haven't been back there in over a year since it was painful to read during the primaries, but it's entirely possible that she's being extra hard on him because she'd already decided not to like him, is I think Bionic's point.
Tofystedeth on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Did Greenwald suddenly forget that Obama is a moderate?
Obama's location on the political spectrum is really only incidental to whether he has made significant progress on his campaign promises.
Well, referring again to Politifact, Obama has made rather considerable progress on many of his campaign promises. In fact I daresay he's doing quite well thus far, though I do feel there are a few things he could get done in a heartbeat if he devoted a heartbeat to them right now.
I'm not an Obama-hater or anything. But I don't think he's been handling health care negotiations very well, and more to the point, I don't think it's very productive to tell people to sit down and shut up about their policy goals.
Captain "I don't know shit about reproduction but I still somehow feel qualified to run my fool mouth off" above should also bear in mind that Stupak will have a disproportionately evil effect on wanted pregnancies that go bad late in the game. That's not a couple hundred to fix, that can be anything from several thousand up to an emergency hysterectomy and/or an extended stay in an ICU. Forcing someone to wait for insurance coverage until their uterus goes septic (its gotta be "life-threatening", remember!) can't really be described as anything but evil.
If humoring the assholes get enough votes to set up at least some form of affordable government health care, then it's more than worth it. We can always go back later and fix up problems with the particulars of the abortion language a few years later, but the chance to pass this kind of legislation only comes about once in a generation. With the coverage this issue is getting, sometimes I wonder if people really understand how much they have to gain from a public health plan.
Really, no, you're just making me angry here with the "I'm happy to sacrifice this thing that I have no use for, and really what are women for except suffering" nonsense. Pragmatism aside (and here's hoping the senate develop a clue at least), that kind of mindset should not exist. Ever. You shouldn't have to choose between your healthcare and someone else's, that's the whole point of this bill practically.
I mean really, how many cases of women going through horrific trauma are you ok with if it saves you a few bucks a year? One, ten, a hundred? There's a lot more complicated, tragic pregnancies than that every year in the US, I guarantee you.
The point is that this legislation is going to save thousands of lives by giving the people who need to access to basic medical care. If this legislation dies because of abortion activitists, you're effectively condemning thousands of people to death and more to perpetual poverty. Maybe I'm just a giant asshole, but to me passing legislation that will save lives and provide a stable framework for American health care (of which female reproductive rights will be a part of) is yes, well worth the price of putting some limits on abortion for a few years.
Its not going to die because of people who care about women's health, and the fact that you're even presenting that as the only possible alternative to passing the bill as-is is really fucking infuriating. Stop with the false dichotomy.
Okay, I thought this was an interesting discussion before the birth control tangent and the troll. I don't think this is necessarily a false dichotomy. The House bill passed by 3 votes, one of whom was a Republican who might well have been unwilling to cross the line had he been the deciding vote. There is a very real chance that without the Stupak amendment, the House bill would not have passed, and we would be extremely fucked. I think that CygnusZ's point is a strong one - the Stupak amendment is hateful and disgusting, but it's worth it to get a bill.
Every attempt to pass HC reform since Truman has failed except Medicare/aid, and every time it failed, the next time reformers were less aggressive. Truman wanted singlepayer and failed, LBJ only got the poor and elderly, Nixon and Carter focused on regulated private insurers and failed, Clinton wanted to put private insurers in a structured market and failed, and now President Obama is trying to give another option to a pretty small group of the American people who meet very select criteria. If this attempt at reform fails, next time, it will be even weaker and more toothless and help fewer people. Failure would be devastating. If we pass something, we can make it better later. It's worth it to get a bill.
I'm not an Obama-hater or anything. But I don't think he's been handling health care negotiations very well, and more to the point, I don't think it's very productive to tell people to sit down and shut up about their policy goals.
Getting a health care bill out of all necessary committees, one of the chambers of the Congress, and onto the floor of the other within the month isn't handling negotiations very well? This is the furthest the ball has been moved on any legislation of this scope since Medicare/aid. Technically even more than them, since it targets all Americans rather than particular subsets and so they don't quite qualify. If that's doing a horrible job I'd love to see what abject failure looks like.
And nobody is saying to sit down and shut up, just to have more substantive complaints than wishing that the President were King. What Obama wants doesn't matter near as much as what the 60th most progressive Senator or 218th most Progressive Representative wants, because they're the pivot point where legislation happens.
Captain "I don't know shit about reproduction but I still somehow feel qualified to run my fool mouth off" above should also bear in mind that Stupak will have a disproportionately evil effect on wanted pregnancies that go bad late in the game. That's not a couple hundred to fix, that can be anything from several thousand up to an emergency hysterectomy and/or an extended stay in an ICU. Forcing someone to wait for insurance coverage until their uterus goes septic (its gotta be "life-threatening", remember!) can't really be described as anything but evil.
If humoring the assholes get enough votes to set up at least some form of affordable government health care, then it's more than worth it. We can always go back later and fix up problems with the particulars of the abortion language a few years later, but the chance to pass this kind of legislation only comes about once in a generation. With the coverage this issue is getting, sometimes I wonder if people really understand how much they have to gain from a public health plan.
Really, no, you're just making me angry here with the "I'm happy to sacrifice this thing that I have no use for, and really what are women for except suffering" nonsense. Pragmatism aside (and here's hoping the senate develop a clue at least), that kind of mindset should not exist. Ever. You shouldn't have to choose between your healthcare and someone else's, that's the whole point of this bill practically.
I mean really, how many cases of women going through horrific trauma are you ok with if it saves you a few bucks a year? One, ten, a hundred? There's a lot more complicated, tragic pregnancies than that every year in the US, I guarantee you.
The point is that this legislation is going to save thousands of lives by giving the people who need to access to basic medical care. If this legislation dies because of abortion activitists, you're effectively condemning thousands of people to death and more to perpetual poverty. Maybe I'm just a giant asshole, but to me passing legislation that will save lives and provide a stable framework for American health care (of which female reproductive rights will be a part of) is yes, well worth the price of putting some limits on abortion for a few years.
Its not going to die because of people who care about women's health, and the fact that you're even presenting that as the only possible alternative to passing the bill as-is is really fucking infuriating. Stop with the false dichotomy.
Okay, I thought this was an interesting discussion before the birth control tangent and the troll. I don't think this is necessarily a false dichotomy. The House bill passed by 3 votes, one of whom was a Republican who might well have been unwilling to cross the line had he been the deciding vote. There is a very real chance that without the Stupak amendment, the House bill would not have passed, and we would be extremely fucked. I think that CygnusZ's point is a strong one - the Stupak amendment is hateful and disgusting, but it's worth it to get a bill.
Every attempt to pass HC reform since Truman has failed except Medicare/aid, and every time it failed, the next time reformers were less aggressive. Truman wanted singlepayer and failed, LBJ only got the poor and elderly, Nixon and Carter focused on regulated private insurers and failed, Clinton wanted to put private insurers in a structured market and failed, and now President Obama is trying to give another option to a pretty small group of the American people who meet very select criteria. If this attempt at reform fails, next time, it will be even weaker and more toothless and help fewer people. Failure would be devastating. If we pass something, we can make it better later. It's worth it to get a bill.
/buzz
Wrong.
Don't forget that many people voted AGAINST the bill as a protest/for political cover, because they knew it would pass anyway.
Did Greenwald suddenly forget that Obama is a moderate?
Obama's location on the political spectrum is really only incidental to whether he has made significant progress on his campaign promises.
Well, referring again to Politifact, Obama has made rather considerable progress on many of his campaign promises. In fact I daresay he's doing quite well thus far, though I do feel there are a few things he could get done in a heartbeat if he devoted a heartbeat to them right now.
I'm not an Obama-hater or anything. But I don't think he's been handling health care negotiations very well, and more to the point, I don't think it's very productive to tell people to sit down and shut up about their policy goals.
Actually, it looks like Emanuel's biggest healthcare-related "sit down and shut up" moment mentioned in that piece had to do with attack ads being run against moderate democrats. That's not an attack on progressive policy goals, that's an attack on negative tactics being used to further progressive policy goals.
Either way, though, you're probably right about the white house tactics for healthcare negotiations being less than effective. Where I disagree with you is whether or not their tactics came out of left field. It seemed like right from the beginning the administration tried to make it clear that it wanted this to be primarily an orchestration of the legislature (likely a response to the Clinton era healthcare troubles). As such their lack of pushing seems predictable.
Captain "I don't know shit about reproduction but I still somehow feel qualified to run my fool mouth off" above should also bear in mind that Stupak will have a disproportionately evil effect on wanted pregnancies that go bad late in the game. That's not a couple hundred to fix, that can be anything from several thousand up to an emergency hysterectomy and/or an extended stay in an ICU. Forcing someone to wait for insurance coverage until their uterus goes septic (its gotta be "life-threatening", remember!) can't really be described as anything but evil.
If humoring the assholes get enough votes to set up at least some form of affordable government health care, then it's more than worth it. We can always go back later and fix up problems with the particulars of the abortion language a few years later, but the chance to pass this kind of legislation only comes about once in a generation. With the coverage this issue is getting, sometimes I wonder if people really understand how much they have to gain from a public health plan.
Really, no, you're just making me angry here with the "I'm happy to sacrifice this thing that I have no use for, and really what are women for except suffering" nonsense. Pragmatism aside (and here's hoping the senate develop a clue at least), that kind of mindset should not exist. Ever. You shouldn't have to choose between your healthcare and someone else's, that's the whole point of this bill practically.
I mean really, how many cases of women going through horrific trauma are you ok with if it saves you a few bucks a year? One, ten, a hundred? There's a lot more complicated, tragic pregnancies than that every year in the US, I guarantee you.
The point is that this legislation is going to save thousands of lives by giving the people who need to access to basic medical care. If this legislation dies because of abortion activitists, you're effectively condemning thousands of people to death and more to perpetual poverty. Maybe I'm just a giant asshole, but to me passing legislation that will save lives and provide a stable framework for American health care (of which female reproductive rights will be a part of) is yes, well worth the price of putting some limits on abortion for a few years.
Its not going to die because of people who care about women's health, and the fact that you're even presenting that as the only possible alternative to passing the bill as-is is really fucking infuriating. Stop with the false dichotomy.
Okay, I thought this was an interesting discussion before the birth control tangent and the troll. I don't think this is necessarily a false dichotomy. The House bill passed by 3 votes, one of whom was a Republican who might well have been unwilling to cross the line had he been the deciding vote. There is a very real chance that without the Stupak amendment, the House bill would not have passed, and we would be extremely fucked. I think that CygnusZ's point is a strong one - the Stupak amendment is hateful and disgusting, but it's worth it to get a bill.
Every attempt to pass HC reform since Truman has failed except Medicare/aid, and every time it failed, the next time reformers were less aggressive. Truman wanted singlepayer and failed, LBJ only got the poor and elderly, Nixon and Carter focused on regulated private insurers and failed, Clinton wanted to put private insurers in a structured market and failed, and now President Obama is trying to give another option to a pretty small group of the American people who meet very select criteria. If this attempt at reform fails, next time, it will be even weaker and more toothless and help fewer people. Failure would be devastating. If we pass something, we can make it better later. It's worth it to get a bill.
/buzz
Wrong.
Don't forget that many people voted AGAINST the bill as a protest/for political cover, because they knew it would pass anyway.
We know of one guy that voted out of protest. Who are these "many"?
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
And nobody is saying to sit down and shut up, just to have more substantive complaints than wishing that the President were King. What Obama wants doesn't matter near as much as what the 60th most progressive Senator or 218th most Progressive Representative wants, because they're the pivot point where legislation happens.
Here's a substantive complaint: Obama gave only tepid support for a public option. Its inclusion in Senate and House bills isn't due to support from the White House, but from progressive lobbying -- the very kind of thing being pooh-poohed here. Obama's mode of operating seems to be "pass whatever will pass easily." That and making backdoor deals with drug companies.
We know of one guy that voted out of protest. Who are these "many"?
9 of the Dems who voted against it are Freshmen from Obama supporting districts who only voted that way to cover their ass. Their arms could have been twisted if the whip count was only 217, and of the 219 Dems who voted for it include people who likely would have voted against it as political cover had their votes not been necessary. Which is the whole point of having close votes on 'controversial' legislation. They could have conceivably passed this with a dozen or so spread...but why?
moniker on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Either way, though, you're probably right about the white house tactics for healthcare negotiations being less than effective. Where I disagree with you is whether or not their tactics came out of left field. It seemed like right from the beginning the administration tried to make it clear that it wanted this to be primarily an orchestration of the legislature (likely a response to the Clinton era healthcare troubles). As such their lack of pushing seems predictable.
And I think that this was the wrong tack to take. Congress has a serious leadership deficit, especially in the Senate.
Either way, though, you're probably right about the white house tactics for healthcare negotiations being less than effective. Where I disagree with you is whether or not their tactics came out of left field. It seemed like right from the beginning the administration tried to make it clear that it wanted this to be primarily an orchestration of the legislature (likely a response to the Clinton era healthcare troubles). As such their lack of pushing seems predictable.
And I think that this was the wrong tack to take. Congress has a serious leadership deficit, especially in the Senate.
Even though it has so far resulted in the bill getting farther than any other attempt at legislation like this ever?
Either way, though, you're probably right about the white house tactics for healthcare negotiations being less than effective. Where I disagree with you is whether or not their tactics came out of left field. It seemed like right from the beginning the administration tried to make it clear that it wanted this to be primarily an orchestration of the legislature (likely a response to the Clinton era healthcare troubles). As such their lack of pushing seems predictable.
And I think that this was the wrong tack to take. Congress has a serious leadership deficit, especially in the Senate.
Even though it has so far resulted in the bill getting farther than any other attempt at legislation like this ever?
And let's not forget that Clinton's tactics killed Health Care Reform for 16 years!
I'm sure they were damn nervous about how to approach this.
Either way, though, you're probably right about the white house tactics for healthcare negotiations being less than effective. Where I disagree with you is whether or not their tactics came out of left field. It seemed like right from the beginning the administration tried to make it clear that it wanted this to be primarily an orchestration of the legislature (likely a response to the Clinton era healthcare troubles). As such their lack of pushing seems predictable.
And I think that this was the wrong tack to take. Congress has a serious leadership deficit, especially in the Senate.
Even though it has so far resulted in the bill getting farther than any other attempt at legislation like this ever?
And let's not forget that Clinton's tactics killed Health Care Reform for 16 years!
I'm sure they were damn nervous about how to approach this.
Every time someone states that they should have just given congress a finished bill I stare at them in disbelief. I was 9 when that happened and I can still remember it not working out well.
We know of one guy that voted out of protest. Who are these "many"?
9 of the Dems who voted against it are Freshmen from Obama supporting districts who only voted that way to cover their ass. Their arms could have been twisted if the whip count was only 217, and of the 219 Dems who voted for it include people who likely would have voted against it as political cover had their votes not been necessary. Which is the whole point of having close votes on 'controversial' legislation. They could have conceivably passed this with a dozen or so spread...but why?
Yeah, the count being what it was, Im suspecting that it was a surprise to the leadership that Cao switched sides. I'm beginning to think they don't even bother calling republican offices anymore.
What if the republicans had voted for this bill because of the Stupak amendment? Betting against the odds might win you a re-election, but if you have it on record that a bipartisan effort was made against abortion rights, then that sets the stage for further negotiations establishing more limits as riders to other agendas. If the republicans had worked together, they could have seen the reversal of a lot of traditionally democratic policies with the insane amount of potential political capital up for grabs right now, plus they'd be able to undermine the presidential administration while remaining in the partisan minority in both the house and the senate.
It is odd that the democratic party is at its most vulnerable now that it's finally the dominant species.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And nobody is saying to sit down and shut up, just to have more substantive complaints than wishing that the President were King. What Obama wants doesn't matter near as much as what the 60th most progressive Senator or 218th most Progressive Representative wants, because they're the pivot point where legislation happens.
Here's a substantive complaint: Obama gave only tepid support for a public option. Its inclusion in Senate and House bills isn't due to support from the White House, but from progressive lobbying -- the very kind of thing being pooh-poohed here. Obama's mode of operating seems to be "pass whatever will pass easily." That and making backdoor deals with drug companies.
So he could strongly support a public option but what if there aren't enough house or senate members to support that? You can try and whip people to vote for it (or cloture) but that might not be possible (see: lieberman). IMO it would be better if there was more pressure from constituents for their representatives to vote for a PO rather than pressure from the president.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
And nobody is saying to sit down and shut up, just to have more substantive complaints than wishing that the President were King. What Obama wants doesn't matter near as much as what the 60th most progressive Senator or 218th most Progressive Representative wants, because they're the pivot point where legislation happens.
Here's a substantive complaint: Obama gave only tepid support for a public option. Its inclusion in Senate and House bills isn't due to support from the White House, but from progressive lobbying -- the very kind of thing being pooh-poohed here. Obama's mode of operating seems to be "pass whatever will pass easily." That and making backdoor deals with drug companies.
So he could strongly support a public option but what if there aren't enough house or senate members to support that? You can try and whip people to vote for it (or cloture) but that might not be possible (see: lieberman). IMO it would be better if there was more pressure from constituents for their representatives to vote for a PO rather than pressure from the president.
Right, so then the president can do what, who was it, Reagn did? Maybe one of the earlier ones, but to skip trying to influence the legislature, and go out there and make the case to the people, and then let the legislative give in to the pressure from constituents. But the fact is that Obama did nothing for the public option, in fact the most was just getting his surrogates to say, "Well, he supports it, but whatever".
cherv1 on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
I remember Obama pushing the public option pretty clearly in his speech to Congress. That was hardly surrogates talking for him.
I remember Obama pushing the public option pretty clearly in his speech to Congress. That was hardly surrogates talking for him.
If we're thinking of the same speech, that come after Congress and the White House were taken aback by the outcry in favor of the public option. At the time, everyone thought the PO was pretty much dead.
I remember Obama pushing the public option pretty clearly in his speech to Congress. That was hardly surrogates talking for him.
If we're thinking of the same speech, that come after Congress and the White House were taken aback by the outcry in favor of the public option. At the time, everyone thought the PO was pretty much dead.
And yet here we are with a bill that contains a PO having just passed through the House and the Senate seemingly only being a single vote away from passing a bill with a PO. Yeah, he's just been a complete and utter failure on the whole healthcare reform thing.
TheCanMan on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I remember Obama pushing the public option pretty clearly in his speech to Congress. That was hardly surrogates talking for him.
If we're thinking of the same speech, that come after Congress and the White House were taken aback by the outcry in favor of the public option. At the time, everyone thought the PO was pretty much dead.
And yet here we are with a bill that contains a PO having just passed through the House and the Senate seemingly only being a single vote away from passing a bill with a PO. Yeah, he's just been a complete and utter failure on the whole healthcare reform thing.
To me, this is an argument that progressives should be louder, not quieter. This is an example of activists putting pressure on Obama, not Obama putting pressure on the legisature.
And, to be honest, neither of the bills are great, especially when it comes to cost control. I can maybe buy the incrementalist argument that the PO's coverage will expand over time, but I am very doubtful that anything is going to be done about cost until we reach an unavoidable, expensive crisis.
Ok so short of single payer Hachface considers this legislation a failure. Man those Obama fiends just think of the guy as the messiah and he can do no wrong...
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Ok so short of single payer Hachface considers this legislation a failure. Man those Obama fiends just think of the guy as the messiah and he can do no wrong...
Where did I say I was single payer or bust?
If anything I care more about cost controls than universal coverage. I would be very happy with a public option without barriers to entry, especially if it could negotiate drug prices.
Posts
Did Greenwald suddenly forget that Obama is a moderate?
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I think you can legitimately complain about lack of transparency regarding ACTA (can't disclose due to national security? Come on, who's fooled?), and on the same grounds make a complaint about net neutrality. Obama knows what's going on, there, and owes net neutrality to his platform.
Greenwald's criticisms tend to focus on things he said during the campaign.
Well, with the Rightwing screaming about how much of a far-left-wing liberal wacko he is, it's sometimes easy to forget that the man is actually a centrist.
Obama's location on the political spectrum is really only incidental to whether he has made significant progress on his campaign promises.
More leeway? And what, just give up protesting when he doesn't hold to his campaign promises or alleged positions? Then the administration would have even more freedom to do nothing on all these important issues. And I for one am sick of all this "but political capital!" arguements. Did LBJ care abot political capital when he passed the Civil Rights Act? No. In fact he knew it would cripple the party for a generation, but did it anyway. And it's not as if Obama's even set out a timetable for these proposed reforms, like gay marriage or what have you. He's just making lofty promises that he doesn't really care one way or the other if they get passed, as long as he gets the support of progressive activists. Take his speech after the gay rights groups cut their support, about how their time will come and he is really committed to gay marriage, honest, but never once mentioning a time scale.
As Reverend King said:
Well, with the Rightwing screaming about how much of a far-left-wing liberal wacko he is, it's sometimes easy to forget that the man is actually a centrist.[/QUOTE]
I know, right? The main reason I DID NOT vote for Obama in the primary was because he was too damn moderate for my politics. Then again, I voted for Edwards so in retrospect Big O is a helluva lot better than losing to McCain.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/19/obama/index.html
I forgot about the closed primary thing. If Rubio wins, he'll be the next Senator. I can't think of a single Democrat down here that is well known and not also trying to get re-elected to their current posts.
I don't know. I still can't see Florida electing a tea bagger, unless the Democrats literally put up a nobody.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Yes. Leeway.
I get that you want these things to happen. So do I. The simple fact of the matter is that the American government was not set up to get things done. The whole purpose of having opposing forces is to slow shit down, and that was before anyone had even considered the filibuster.
Shit, look at what he's doing right now. He's working on Healthcare, providing medical benefits to Americans that need it. Thats got to be the most benign of the Progressive platforms and yet you'd think he had recreated the Hitler Youth, name and all, by the way he's being dragged through the mud.
Even *mentioning* Abortion rights or Gay marriage right now would create a shitstorm so thick we couldn't breathe for a year. And it would cripple his ability to get ANYTHING done in congress after the Democrats are wiped out by it.
Look at it this way. You're on the Obama team, advising the President. You have a TODO list of Progressive policies a mile long (best case scenario, the reality is that he's a moderate and only wants to make a few significant changes). You can only get *one* thing done this year (this is political reality of the system, Healthcare may yet drag on into next year). What would you have had him do, ignore healthcare for american citizens in favor of letting gays marry? I don't think I know a single gay person that would favor the lives of American citizens over their right to marry.
Well, referring again to Politifact, Obama has made rather considerable progress on many of his campaign promises. In fact I daresay he's doing quite well thus far, though I do feel there are a few things he could get done in a heartbeat if he devoted a heartbeat to them right now.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
The thing with Shakespeare's Sister is that she was contempuous of Obama long before he ever had a chance to back out of his campaign promises. ie. when he was still campaigning. I haven't been back there in over a year since it was painful to read during the primaries, but it's entirely possible that she's being extra hard on him because she'd already decided not to like him, is I think Bionic's point.
I'm not an Obama-hater or anything. But I don't think he's been handling health care negotiations very well, and more to the point, I don't think it's very productive to tell people to sit down and shut up about their policy goals.
Okay, I thought this was an interesting discussion before the birth control tangent and the troll. I don't think this is necessarily a false dichotomy. The House bill passed by 3 votes, one of whom was a Republican who might well have been unwilling to cross the line had he been the deciding vote. There is a very real chance that without the Stupak amendment, the House bill would not have passed, and we would be extremely fucked. I think that CygnusZ's point is a strong one - the Stupak amendment is hateful and disgusting, but it's worth it to get a bill.
Every attempt to pass HC reform since Truman has failed except Medicare/aid, and every time it failed, the next time reformers were less aggressive. Truman wanted singlepayer and failed, LBJ only got the poor and elderly, Nixon and Carter focused on regulated private insurers and failed, Clinton wanted to put private insurers in a structured market and failed, and now President Obama is trying to give another option to a pretty small group of the American people who meet very select criteria. If this attempt at reform fails, next time, it will be even weaker and more toothless and help fewer people. Failure would be devastating. If we pass something, we can make it better later. It's worth it to get a bill.
Liberal propaganda.
It'll cut costs by replacing senior citizens' health care packages with packages of venomous snakes.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Getting a health care bill out of all necessary committees, one of the chambers of the Congress, and onto the floor of the other within the month isn't handling negotiations very well? This is the furthest the ball has been moved on any legislation of this scope since Medicare/aid. Technically even more than them, since it targets all Americans rather than particular subsets and so they don't quite qualify. If that's doing a horrible job I'd love to see what abject failure looks like.
And nobody is saying to sit down and shut up, just to have more substantive complaints than wishing that the President were King. What Obama wants doesn't matter near as much as what the 60th most progressive Senator or 218th most Progressive Representative wants, because they're the pivot point where legislation happens.
/buzz
Wrong.
Don't forget that many people voted AGAINST the bill as a protest/for political cover, because they knew it would pass anyway.
Actually, it looks like Emanuel's biggest healthcare-related "sit down and shut up" moment mentioned in that piece had to do with attack ads being run against moderate democrats. That's not an attack on progressive policy goals, that's an attack on negative tactics being used to further progressive policy goals.
Either way, though, you're probably right about the white house tactics for healthcare negotiations being less than effective. Where I disagree with you is whether or not their tactics came out of left field. It seemed like right from the beginning the administration tried to make it clear that it wanted this to be primarily an orchestration of the legislature (likely a response to the Clinton era healthcare troubles). As such their lack of pushing seems predictable.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
We know of one guy that voted out of protest. Who are these "many"?
Here's a substantive complaint: Obama gave only tepid support for a public option. Its inclusion in Senate and House bills isn't due to support from the White House, but from progressive lobbying -- the very kind of thing being pooh-poohed here. Obama's mode of operating seems to be "pass whatever will pass easily." That and making backdoor deals with drug companies.
9 of the Dems who voted against it are Freshmen from Obama supporting districts who only voted that way to cover their ass. Their arms could have been twisted if the whip count was only 217, and of the 219 Dems who voted for it include people who likely would have voted against it as political cover had their votes not been necessary. Which is the whole point of having close votes on 'controversial' legislation. They could have conceivably passed this with a dozen or so spread...but why?
And I think that this was the wrong tack to take. Congress has a serious leadership deficit, especially in the Senate.
Even though it has so far resulted in the bill getting farther than any other attempt at legislation like this ever?
And let's not forget that Clinton's tactics killed Health Care Reform for 16 years!
I'm sure they were damn nervous about how to approach this.
Every time someone states that they should have just given congress a finished bill I stare at them in disbelief. I was 9 when that happened and I can still remember it not working out well.
Yeah, the count being what it was, Im suspecting that it was a surprise to the leadership that Cao switched sides. I'm beginning to think they don't even bother calling republican offices anymore.
What if the republicans had voted for this bill because of the Stupak amendment? Betting against the odds might win you a re-election, but if you have it on record that a bipartisan effort was made against abortion rights, then that sets the stage for further negotiations establishing more limits as riders to other agendas. If the republicans had worked together, they could have seen the reversal of a lot of traditionally democratic policies with the insane amount of potential political capital up for grabs right now, plus they'd be able to undermine the presidential administration while remaining in the partisan minority in both the house and the senate.
It is odd that the democratic party is at its most vulnerable now that it's finally the dominant species.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So he could strongly support a public option but what if there aren't enough house or senate members to support that? You can try and whip people to vote for it (or cloture) but that might not be possible (see: lieberman). IMO it would be better if there was more pressure from constituents for their representatives to vote for a PO rather than pressure from the president.
Right, so then the president can do what, who was it, Reagn did? Maybe one of the earlier ones, but to skip trying to influence the legislature, and go out there and make the case to the people, and then let the legislative give in to the pressure from constituents. But the fact is that Obama did nothing for the public option, in fact the most was just getting his surrogates to say, "Well, he supports it, but whatever".
If we're thinking of the same speech, that come after Congress and the White House were taken aback by the outcry in favor of the public option. At the time, everyone thought the PO was pretty much dead.
And yet here we are with a bill that contains a PO having just passed through the House and the Senate seemingly only being a single vote away from passing a bill with a PO. Yeah, he's just been a complete and utter failure on the whole healthcare reform thing.
To me, this is an argument that progressives should be louder, not quieter. This is an example of activists putting pressure on Obama, not Obama putting pressure on the legisature.
And, to be honest, neither of the bills are great, especially when it comes to cost control. I can maybe buy the incrementalist argument that the PO's coverage will expand over time, but I am very doubtful that anything is going to be done about cost until we reach an unavoidable, expensive crisis.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Where did I say I was single payer or bust?
If anything I care more about cost controls than universal coverage. I would be very happy with a public option without barriers to entry, especially if it could negotiate drug prices.