What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it's a good institution for America and for democracy?
I saw your quote of the President wagging his finger at those who might not vote and have to point out that the President is committing (once again) a huge tactical error. Temper, temper Mr. Cool is all I can say. Methinks Obama doth protest too much and seeks a scapegoat for his own failure of vision and leadership.
What is true, and this is part of what can frustrate folks, is that over the past 20 months, we made a series of decisions that were focused on governance, and sometimes there was a conflict between governance and politics. So there were some areas where we could have picked a fight with Republicans that might have gotten our base feeling good, but would have resulted in us not getting legislation done.
I could have had a knock-down, drag-out fight on the public option that might have energized you and The Huffington Post, and we would not have health care legislation now. I could have taken certain positions on aspects of the financial regulatory bill, where we got 90 percent of what we set out to get, and I could have held out for that last 10 percent, and we wouldn't have a bill. You've got to make a set of decisions in terms of "What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to just keep everybody ginned up for the next election, or at some point do you try to win elections because you're actually trying to govern?"
Some of it, also, has to do with — and I joke about it — that there's a turn of mind among Democrats and progressives where a lot of times we see the glass as half-empty. It's like, "Well, gosh, we've got this historic health care legislation that we've been trying to get for 100 years, but it didn't have every bell and whistle that we wanted right now, so let's focus on what we didn't get instead of what we got." That self-critical element of the progressive mind is probably a healthy thing, but it can also be debilitating.
When I talk to Democrats around the country, I tell them, "Guys, wake up here. We have accomplished an incredible amount in the most adverse circumstances imaginable." I came in and had to prevent a Great Depression, restore the financial system so that it functions, and manage two wars. In the midst of all that, I ended one of those wars, at least in terms of combat operations. We passed historic health care legislation, historic financial regulatory reform and a huge number of legislative victories that people don't even notice. We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before.
The Recovery Act alone represented the largest investment in research and development in our history, the largest investment in infrastructure since Dwight Eisenhower, the largest investment in education — and that was combined, by the way, with the kind of education reform that we hadn't seen in this country in 30 years — and the largest investment in clean energy in our history.
You look at all this, and you say, "Folks, that's what you elected me to do." I keep in my pocket a checklist of the promises I made during the campaign, and here I am, halfway through my first term, and we've probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we said we were going to do — and by the way, I've got two years left to finish the rest of the list, at minimum. So I think that it is very important for Democrats to take pride in what we've accomplished.
There's not voting the party line, and then there's not voting at all. Yes, that quote was Obama saying you can't stay home and still complain, and that is the problem.
If you're holding out for the best of all options, there's a chance you'll end up with the worst available.
I'm daily astounded that the President has to say this. Can anyone really say there is no difference between the Tea Party candidates and the Democrats who are facing the loss of their majority in both houses?
Feingolds, it wouldn't do anything to affect the overall numbers in Congress, nor would it affect things at the margins. Most progressive bills that fail do so either because of Republican stonewalling or because a few of the most conservative Democrats break ranks. A 'Democratic Tea Party' wouldn't change either of those factors.
Remember 2000? 600 Nader voters cost 1,033,000 Iraqis their lives.
Then why are the likely voter screens showing many fewer dems voting? Who is it if it isn't "disaffected" progressives? Because I'm seeing no one else leading the "hate Obama" parade.
That's true, but it would still require at least tacit Republican support or else Republicans could turn it into a massive PR disaster for the Democrats.
There were no promises broken.
You want no compromise and would rather see failure without compromise
You don't agree with our general political outlook at all.
I find the argument more to be "We got you some stuff, but fucked up on other stuff. Now, back us up on this and give us the support and cover we need to do more, or else we'll be replaced with people who intentionally fuck up as a matter of policy."
Warrant and notification requirements
The bill amended FISA to substitute the requirement of a warrant to conduct surveillance with a system of NSA (National Security Agency) internal controls.
The bill required notification to the FISA Court of warrantless surveillance within 72 hours of any authorization. The bill also required that "a sealed copy of the certification" be sent which would "remain sealed unless the certification is needed to determine the legality of the acquisition."
The bill allowed the monitoring of all electronic communications of people in the United States without a court's order or oversight, so long as it is not targeted at one particular person "reasonably believed to be" inside the country.
We have 60 Senate votes? Where were those 60 votes on your precious public option? Lincoln? No. Lieberman? No. Nelson? No.
Ironmouth: "Let's get this straight. Bush fucked up the economy. Bush fell asleep at the wheel. Unemployment rose every month from Feb '08 to Jan '09. Every month. It has steadily declined since then."
This is true. Why are we not seeing this chart everywhere?
A "patch?" You are disucssing 'reconciliation.' And it would be illegal to use that procedure in the way that was described. Only budget bills can be used with it.
51 senators will vote for a public option in reconciliation if it's sent over by the House
24 have signed a letter to Harry Reid asking for a public option in reconciliation 19 have given statements to us, reporters, or their constituents. 4 more have made statements on video. And 4 are extremely likely based on their previous support for the public option and Senate leadership, even though they haven't made an official statement yet.
"I want to be crystal clear: Sen. Durbin and the rest of the Senate Leadership will be aggressively whipping FOR the public option if it is included in the reconciliation bill the House sends over."
The public option could have been added, and indeed there was a petition signed by 41 democrats arguing that it should have been. In fact, according to this yally 51 senators actually supported adding the public option to the "patch".
[The] overwhelming opinion among [process wonks] is that, although the public option might survive the reconciliation process, things like the ban on denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the additional regulations on insurers, and the creation of the health insurance exchanges would almost certainly not. Plus, the bill would have to be deficit neutral over five years and would be subject to renewal every five years.
If your lone objective were to end up with something that you could call a public option, then yes -- reconciliation offers some possibility of that. But I don't see how you're likely, on balance, to wind up with a better bill -- losing the guaranteed issue provision alone would probably outweigh the inclusion of a public option.
However, the "reconciliation" being talked about in your link is actually the House-Senate conference report where the Senate and House bills are being "reconciled." It is an informal term. Out of the conference comes the "Conference Report." The Conference Report may be filibustered.
Sen. Michael Bennet's effort to revive the public option in the reconciliation process is gaining steam, with almost 20 senators signing on to the idea. Among them are Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, who are not, shall we say, possessed of a whimsical or quixotic temperament.
Of course, you don't need almost 20 senators. You need 51, or more
delmoi, read that FiveThirtyEight piece I linked to, along with this follow-up. Reconciliation was not the magic bullet progressives were hoping for. It might have delivered a public option, but at the cost of a potentially weaker bill that would be easier to repeal.
We have a fiscal reality that would be utterly destroyed if the GOP takes power, among many other things.
Delmoi, do you have answers to all of those questions? And even if you do -- just like, off the top of the head -- do you acknowledge that all of these questions are of importance and therefore the argument is more nuanced than BROKEN PROMISE/NOT BROKEN PROMISE?
Some folks run riot if faced with the prospect of having detainees in U.S. prisons. Some countries won't agree
Some of these guys need a trial but their cases are tainted with bad evidence (i.e., evidence obtained through torture), so how do we handle that, from a national security point of view.
And what would the consequences have been for Blanche Lincoln if she had done that?
The sort of legislative obstructionism that would definitely result in the event of a Republican take-over of one or both houses of Congress would have a disproportionately disastrous effect on the Midwest
Those changes were merely budgetary. The conference report in such situations, may only be debated for blah, blah, blah
Delmoi, you are a nice guy, but you're facts are way, way, wrong.
I'm not a process wonk, but the overwhelming opinion among people who are is that, although the public option might survive the reconciliation process, things like the ban on denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the additional regulations on insurers, and the creation of the health insurance exchanges would almost certainly not.
I can pretty much see what the GOP would do: Cut taxes on the rich and wealthy corporations, increase taxes on the middle class
What could possibly go wrong with this brilliant plan.
Interesting point, Rhaomi - but then why haven't the Democrats been able to do the same thing? Surely, the Republicans right now are the very definition of inflexible contrarians. So why doesn't this strategy work for the Democrats like you predict it would work for the Republicans?
Are you still proud? You have every right to feel whatever you want to, but, really? The Nader who called Gore and Bush Coke and Pepsi? I'm curious about how you feel now, because, don't you think now that the Coke and Pepsi line was dangerous hogwash?
Really... they wanted more Americans to die for healthcare? They wanted continued consumer exploitation? Who needs them?!
So, in all honesty, who are you voting for? If you don't vote at all, you can't really claim "clean hands" either. If you don't vote, you're essentially complicit in whatever fallout happens from an election
a few radar stations? - that is what i call a lie
You're hero's been convicted twice for soliciting prostitution in the US.
Ok for us to bomb Tokyo Rose? Then ok to bomb him. Better to catch him.
But my main point was, yes, your shining example of liberty, contrary to Joe's assertion, has indeed been convicted of a crime.
Again, not appreciating being "the girl you'll take under the bleachers but won't be seen with in public", as the blogger from Crooks and Liars put it, is not equivalent to deciding to vote for the second coming of Ralph Nader (another convenient scapegoat for the failures of the Democratic Party). From all appearances, the left is being set up to take the fall, the scapegoat of the year just like Nader or "weak" candidates or prejudiced red state voters too stupid to vote their own interests or that unstoppable Republican powerhouse that no one could possibly be expected to stand up to or anyone, anyone except the Democratic Party's leadership itself.
That's it. That's what's important. So if your politics lean left, please do vote for the crap-ass Democrats, because it matters. They don't deserve your vote, really, but it's important. Save the protest vote for 2012.
« Older In a survey of Americans' religious knowledge cond... | POM Wonderful may not be so wo... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt