White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to give in to all of Joe Lieberman's demands.

So Reid did. We have a "health insurance reform" bill with no public option, no trigger, no Medicare buy-in. And it will probably continue to get worse from here.

There is no point in pretending that President Obama wanted any comprehensive bill to pass. There was zero pressure on Lieberman to cave, no talk of using the budget reconciliation process--only pressure on Reid to give Lieberman everything.

Organizing for America will get a rude awakening when they try to round up canvassers and phone bankers.

Update [2009-12-14 23:9:1 by desmoinesdem]: Changed title because the capitulating on this bill probably isn't over yet.

Update [2009-12-14 23:17:40 by desmoinesdem]: The new spin is that this bill will still save lives despite its flaws. If this were about saving lives, Congress could adopt a few simple reforms without creating this elaborate structure to transmit taxpayer dollars to profitable corporations.

Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Harry Reid, health care reform, Joe Lieberman, Senate (all tags)

Comments

121 Comments

Re: Health care capitulation complete

Just disgusting.

by MainStreet 2009-12-14 06:06PM | 0 recs
This is the way it works

The white house is not a legislative organization, and their primary interest is in seeing something pass that makes the executive look like they're doing their job. The nuts and bolts work involved in building the reform package and hammering out the details of the reform itself - are left up to congress.

The White House didn't say , ok joe lieberman you're the boss. Instead, they said "negotiate".

They just want to see something get done.

Thats my two cents. I wouldn't read too much into the white house - ESP. the staffers making the call. Obama didn't call up Joe and say.. Gee. Mr. Lieberman, you're right. I'm wrong. Golly can we do things your way?

by Trey Rentz 2009-12-14 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the way it works

PS. Confirmed, looked into it. Its definitely Rahm Emanuel -

Hey, where's Dean in all of this?

by Trey Rentz 2009-12-14 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the way it works

PS

Blow smoke up the publics ass  to see whether they buy it. You an the rest of the party have just burned yourself in ways you will not recognize.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the way it works

And the alternative was...?

yes?

by the mollusk 2009-12-14 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the way it works

Well, look, the alternative was for Barack to get out there and put some pressure on Lieberman.  Make some speeches where you paint not just the Republicans but also waffling Dems as obstructionist.

The "saving lives" frame cuts both ways and Obama could have pushed that frame on Nelson, Lieberman, and Snowe about two weeks ago.  Instead he sat back because he didn't really care about all that shit he was saying as a candidate.

This bill seems to have some good still in it like ending pre-existing conditions, but it certainly isn't the stuff he suggested while Campaigning (for refernce: http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_resul ts.cfm?c=5&c=16 ).

by jlars 2009-12-15 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: This is the way it works

How would speeches - aimed at the general public - have affected Lieberman? He wallows in the attention...

Obama has made dozens of speeches and statements affecting HCR. He's kept the process moving along.

by vecky 2009-12-15 09:58AM | 0 recs
Why does this have to get done before the year end

I think the whole concept that this whole bill has to be finished up before the end of the year, now, looking at how drastically things have changed - is a false tenet.

Why does this thing have to get done before the year's end?

The American people are going home now, and they're going to be home for the holidays..

And they're not going to worry about DC .. soon,
in about five days, things will shut down.

This whole thing smacks of the 11th hour tricks the lobbyists pull - ramrod something into place.

We should stop, and realize that the reform, with real reform elements stripped out - does alot more harm than good. Period. Not only to the democrats, but to the country at large.

Listening to people like Jospeh L. Whatshisname, some failed Vice Presidential candidate guy -
talk about how 'government is taking over healthcare' is just plain nuts.

What, when DNA sequencing becomes commonplace - are we supposed to have the mega-corporations buying and trading our DNA risk profiles ?
Our biology is like our passport - would someone like Lieberman outsource that too?

We're the only country in the world who has the issue of runaway costs, and we're the only country in the world that doesn't offer a govt. plan. Drop the government elements that directly deliver to the American people what they need -  out of it, and you may as well drop the entire reform package because it isn't reform.

It's passing the buck.

And its no wonder that a poll today showed that 1/3 of all democrats will sit out the next election cycle and walk away from their 'party'
in disgust if this goes through.

BUT 72 PERCENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL HAVE THEIR VOICES SILENCED

Thats the percent of people who want real healthcare reform.

And that, my friends, is why the system can only be fixed if we just stop. And let the "hey lets try to get something passed in the middle of the night" crowd to go home and eat some christmas dinner, and come back to the table in January with the American people weighing in, in support of real reform.

by Trey Rentz 2009-12-14 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

I am no longer a Democrat.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Like you ever were.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

kind of like how anybody outside of the nutty 23% that still supported GWB at the end were not "real republicans", huh?

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Obviously your not familiar with bruhs history of posts...

by vecky 2009-12-14 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

I'm pretty familiar and it's childish to suggest that he was never a Democrat.

by Steve M 2009-12-14 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Labour

by the mollusk 2009-12-14 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

i suppose not.

but getting pissed when Obama abandons (works against behind the scenes) real health care reform shouldn't mean that a person isn't a Democrat.

If it does, then there is no point in being a Democrat.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Ben Nelson & Lincoln are Democrats. Or maybe they aren't.

I think your pissed at the wrong people.

Bruh has always been pissed at Obama and the 58 democrats. I'm not sure what that makes him other than just angry.

by vecky 2009-12-14 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Yes, let's compare my history of posts about wage stagnation for the bottom 95 percent, neoliberlism, antitrust regulation of health insurance companies, gay rights and any number of other issues versus your record. The problem with many of you is that you have no idea what being a Democratic means. You are so busy shilling that you are without character or principles.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Governing is the art of the possible.

Considering 25 democrats, including several described as liberal and progressive voted for the Iraq war, getting to 60 votes on any agenda is going to be tough.

Your sniping from the sidelines has not helped as far as I can see.  I know many people who were indifferent when Gore lost to Bush. They changed their tune in a couple of years, but right now I put you in the same category.

by vecky 2009-12-14 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Vecky- i got a degree in politics. I have been in politics or following it for 20 years. Blow smoke up someone else's ass.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

What have you accomplished in those 20 years? Smoke...

by vecky 2009-12-14 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

He can take over a comment thread like no one else.  That's got to count for something.

by the mollusk 2009-12-14 08:51PM | 0 recs
Hear, hear! Obama's new motto should now be

"REAL CHANGE YOU BEREAVE IN!"

by suzieg 2009-12-14 08:44PM | 0 recs
Presidential Approval does not equal Party ID

If it did, after GWB, there's be no republicans left.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Presidential Approval does not equal Party ID

that's exactly my point.

you can be against a president and still be part of the party.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:48PM | 0 recs
Of course

I'm FURIOUS at EVERYONE right now; Obama, Reid, Democrats, and Lieberman (But I also want to hear what they have to say after we see the finished product)

That's why I'm chiding the bruh about claiming he's no longer a democrat.

Being a democrat comes from your soul. Even if those you elect let you down, you will always be a democrat, and you will fight on.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course

well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether party loyalty is more important than progressive policies.

on a side note, I've been pretty happy with Reid and and especially Pelosi during all of this.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:56PM | 0 recs
Mind you I don't exactly disagree with you...

...on party loyalty. the democrats cannot be allowed to consistently sell their progressive base down the river without consequences. My argument is that even if they do so, it doesn't cease to make me a progressive or a democrat.

I am more curious about your exoneration of Reid.

we have limited evidence to go on, but I kind of have to blame Obama and Reid jointly here. If one's at fault, both seem to be.

We're either coddling Lieberman or kicking him out of the caucus. We're either negotiating with him or capitulating.

I don't see the WH urging Harry Reid not to exact retribution on Lieberman, especially in light of reports from fellow senators who are frustrated with Reid's lack of a hard line approach with Lieberman. The initial report from Politico (right win e-rag) said the WH urged Reid to "negotiate", but that "negotiate" doesn't mean the same thing as "capitulate". Moreover, Reid is the head of the Senate, and (should, hopefully) is capable of making his own decisions.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

I am more of a Democrat than you ever will be. I believed in the party of unions, economic fairness and equality. You believe in nothing beyond a personality. So, I take your put down as a badge of honor because people like you are the death of the party.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 07:43PM | 0 recs
Why do you keep bringing Obama into this?

And you're accusing me of being obsessed with a personality?

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you keep bringing Obama into this?

No, I am accusing of being a mindless follower and believer in authoritarianism. To have a personality, would require you have some independent thought which you are not capable of having.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you keep bringing Obama into this?

It's a bit rich after claiming you are no longer a democrat that you accuse other of "being the death of the party".

Maybe you were happy that after HCR failed under Clinton and the Repubs gained control of Congress it was such a great thing becaue it pushed the Dems more to the left// ya right...

by vecky 2009-12-14 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you keep bringing Obama into this?

Vecky- have a good life. Folks like you are killing what was an emerging coalition. I am not longer going to debate your stupidity.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you keep bringing Obama into this?

I'm glad you've counted yourself out of "this emerging coalition". Where are you going - the Greens?

I may be younger than you but I've seen enough of leftwingers dividing and letting the right romp into power. Even I may not be happy with the loss of the PO I'm not going to take my ball home and sulk.

by vecky 2009-12-14 08:19PM | 0 recs
There's no difference between Gore and Bush

Do you remember that line in 2000?

Disillusioned by Clinton supposed "sell-outs", these people voted Nader or stayed home.

Then they prayed for Clinton again.

You don't know what you've lost 'till it's gone.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: There's no difference

amen

"Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

by vecky 2009-12-14 08:32PM | 0 recs
We're in the first year of an eight year stretch

There's still a looong way to go, and a lot to accomplish.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 08:51PM | 0 recs
You've obviously forgotten that, in Donna

Brazile's words: "you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

You're welcome under the bus with all of us old crows who were kicked out to the curb during the primaries.....

by suzieg 2009-12-14 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you keep bringing Obama into this?

Here here, amen to that! Bruh and I have had disagreements, but the more I read his posts the more I see his point of view, appreciate it and have come to agree with it more and more. I am sure we dotn agree on a numebr of issues, but...when he is right, he is right.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-12-15 05:29AM | 0 recs
You do realize

he's talking about people like you too

by ND22 2009-12-15 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do you keep bringing Obama into this?

those Brits can be so touchy.  Ask him about the Irish.

by the mollusk 2009-12-14 08:50PM | 0 recs
As if we'd miss you?

by ND22 2009-12-15 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

If this is true, I'm done with the Democrats.

I was part of Obama's campaign last year. I put in the time and effort. I didn't do it for this.

No more. This is disgusting.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

And the alternative was....

yes?

by the mollusk 2009-12-14 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

to get it through to Democrats that if they want the votes, hard work, and money of progressives, they need to actually...you know...govern progressively.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Which they are not doing?

Maybe progressives need to understand that in order to get legislation passed you have to deal with the 52 non-progressive members of the US senate as well.

by vecky 2009-12-14 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Joe Lieberman lost his primary to a Netroots candidate (Ned Lamont) over, primarily, his espousal of the war in Iraq.  Joe won Connecticut not as a Democrat, but as a candidate for the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party.  Don't forget that.  Joe doesn't.

The Netroots and the modern-day Progressive movement are a substantial force.  But there are lots of substantial forces.  We can only do so much.

And we're going to let Mr. Insurance-ecticut ruin all of this by eating our own successes like Saturn of the Goya paintings?  Why?  Then what?  Speaker Boehner?

by the mollusk 2009-12-14 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

and therefore....we should insist that we should always capitulate and never try to force consequences?

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 10:22PM | 0 recs
Force Applied/ Force Reconciled

The easiest way to get this going is to flex muscle. And that means cash.

The way it works now, people in the senate think they have to kiss up to a bunch of tired old used up jet trash lobbyists

However, they were only accounting for at most 30 percent of the campaign cash of some of the candidates in the big 2008 landslide. They really weren't a factor - again, exception being guys like Joe Lieberman who - when he was defeated in the primary became a turncoat - along with others who never had any qualms about lobbying (Abramov, etc.) and they welcome it + the "free market " cash that it brings. Despite it being  bribery and destructive to our country.

So.

Lets get a public ad campaign going that will show exactly what healthcare reform WITHOUT THE ACTUAL REFORM will look like.

by Trey Rentz 2009-12-15 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Force Applied/ Force Reconciled

missed the Tom Waits reference the first time.

mucho mojo.

"made good bloody marys, kept her mouth shut most of the time, and had a little chihuahua named Carlos who had some kind of skin disease and was totally blind."

by the mollusk 2009-12-17 09:03AM | 0 recs
Number of Progressives in House and Senate

House: 81 (of 258)
Senate: 1 (of 60)

As self-identified in Progressive Caucus

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Number of Progressives in House and Senate

Obviously this was a pretty worthless methodology for counting progressives.

by Steve M 2009-12-15 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Oh! the hand-wringing and the emotion. The bill ends like a slightly improved version of the SFC bill. What's wrong with that?

by vecky 2009-12-14 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Wait... this is the end?  Did I miss the part where someone guarantees "just give in to Lieberman and there will be no more obstacles"?

This instantaneous reaction from the White House is not the sign of an administration that has it all under control.  I hope there is something inaccurate in the reporting, frankly.

by Steve M 2009-12-14 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

The WH denies it, obviously. They've already put out a statement to that effect.

by vecky 2009-12-14 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

The same White House that denied the Phama Deal was last week trying to block the Senate from passing a re-importation amendment. Their word means nothing.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

I believe they still deny that. Has Sen. Carper stated otherwise?

by vecky 2009-12-14 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

I don't care what you believe.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

The Dorgan amendment that you allude to has been tabled. Thanks to the WH it will not see light of day. Grow up please. This is how politics works. All the leaks today about WH pressure are IMO from Harry Reid's office. He just wanted to get the word out that he is not getting help from 1600 Pennsylvania.

by tarheel74 2009-12-14 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

How has it been tabled, it takes 51 votes to table an amendment. Right now there is a hold, by Sen. Carper I was told.

If Dorgan insists on his amendment he can always threaten to fillibuster the bill until he gets it. That always works...

by vecky 2009-12-14 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

The WH denied the Politico report.  The proof will be in the pudding; if Lieberman gets everything he demanded, there is little chance the rumors of WH involvement were false, I'm sure you'll agree.

When TPM tells me "the sources are unanimous" that carries a bit more weight with me than some standard-issue denial from a WH flack, but I will retain a tiny benefit of the doubt on general principles.

by Steve M 2009-12-14 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

TPM, Huffpo, etc all confirmed it.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

That much we knew from the start, because Obama really is a good statesman. But he put Rahm Emanuel in charge, and Rahm Emanuel is an old-school thinker in some ways.

But hey. No worries. The earth is slow. The oxen are patient.

by Trey Rentz 2009-12-15 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

is there ANYTHING that the White House and Dem Congress can do that you would criticize?

Seriously, Obama gets a lot of crap for stuff he shouldn't, that's for sure. But this kind of thing deserves it.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Like what? We've got 58 votes lined up in the senate for HCR, that's pretty good, but not good enough.

by vecky 2009-12-14 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

didn't think so.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Maybe you're different, but I'm not going to rant out at 58 Dems for the actions of 2 - who are both conservatives/republicans.

by vecky 2009-12-14 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

 If they said the sky is black and white with purple dots, she would be on here saying the "sky is black and white with purple dots."

by bruh3 2009-12-14 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

I asked you before if you knew what leverage there was to get Liarman to vote cloture now.

I'm not talking about retribution that will come later.

by vecky 2009-12-14 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

withholding Pork to his state and pet projects, publically humiliating him, ethics investigations into his being bribed, and so on, and so on.

I'm sure they could get creative if they wanted.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:28PM | 0 recs
60 - 1

= 59.

Lieberman will get his in the end. I can only hope. But I have to agree that retribution now would only make matters worse. If a mistake was made, it was made in letting him into the caucus in the first place.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: 60 - 1

yeah, and the next senator will think twice about knifing sick people in the back next time.

we've tried OVER AND OVER AGAIN OVER YEARS trying to roll over and give conservatives what they want and with a damn smile on our faces. We know for a fact that it doesn't work. It's time to try a different course. It's time for change.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:46PM | 0 recs
I'm as angry as you are

Seriously.

And I do think an entirely new course is needed here.

I was trying to think earlier of an instance of there being a rogue senator, but I can't. I think Lieberman's behavior has caught everyone off guard simply because it is so egregious.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm as angry as you are

You are seriously a person without any moral core, and wills ay anything to win arguments.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 07:54PM | 0 recs
Me, or Lieberman?

I'm not the one holding up the HCR debate.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: 60 - 1

That's all true. But if we don't roll over here, we won't get anything and it will be the conservatives who wear the smile on their faces.

by vecky 2009-12-14 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

That's all retribution, not leverage.

Everyone has a price, how far are we willing to go?

Landrieu was 300 million to medicare.

Nelson wanted Stupak... do we really want to give in there? I personally don't think the PO is worth Stupak.

by vecky 2009-12-14 07:46PM | 0 recs
It's all Obama's fault

I agree with you on the hand wringing and emotion (and blaming Obama), but I think a consensus is building that the word was given from the WH to proceed to negotiate with Lieberman to get the bill finished by Christmas.

I am inclined to believe the story because I simply don't see any realistic alternatives at this point.

Personally, I am very sad, having been involved in a fight for a public option since Obama took office on January 20. And I am worried for the country if we get a suboptimal bill.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

I'm done with the Democrats.

I was part of Obama's campaign last year.And not just a normal grunt, either, but part of something a bit higher up.

I put in the time and effort. I didn't do it for this.

No more. This is disgusting.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

I'm equally disgusted, but what were the options?  The messaging from the White House could have been better, but would that have gotten us to single payer?  Would it have gotten us a meaningful public option?  Would it have gotten us a Medicare buy-in?  Who was the 60th Senator to vote for these things?

I was at best cautiously optimsitic on all of this.  The Medicare buy-in seemed a little to easy to game by the insurance industry (i.e. drop anyone over 55 and let the taxpayers pay for them).  I was not terribly optimistic on the late-round public option (i.e. if your health is so bad that you can't afford insurance, you'll go to the Public Option).  In either case, we give the expensive cases to the government and the easy cases to the insurance companies (plus subsidies).

This sucks.  This all sucks.  But what were the alternatives?  Who was going to be the other Senator to vote for this?

by the mollusk 2009-12-14 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

This is a repeat post, that occurred something like seven times in this thread.  The easiest way for the GOP to spam this blog - is to simply find a meme and go with it. Here are some good ones.

Disillusionment - make everyone think there is no real change along the path we're walking.

Attack against leadership - let everyone believe that the leaders are really screwed up, fracture unity.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc - pose other questions in-thread and argue about them, and not the real issue. See also. Flame wars.

You may be sincere, but you are also running a GOP playbook. And lets be honest, the only reason the GOP wants HCR dead is because they already stated that this was going to be Obama's "Waterloo" - their undoing of his presidency.

They want reform dead at all costs, and believe me the money is flowing now. It was up to 2 Million dollars a day , in lobbyist funds - to the Senate - last time I checked.

But maybe somewhere a still, small quiet voice mentions that billions. Not millions. Were raised online and that the next election might - just might - be one in which the blogosphere dominates.

Seriously, lets put the issue on the table that the Senators and the Legislative branch really care about. This is an off-year election, in 2010 - and guess what? Seats are up for grabs and the incumbents aren't all safe.

And everyone knows that in an off-year, its the activists, the energized, the primary voter types that make all the difference in the world.

IF the GOP can knock out the key issue in the heart of the Dems (IE, Healthcare REAL REFORM ) then they can knock the Dems out of power.

And whats even more pathetic is how the GOP is alive at all , given the corruption of the past 10 years - my vote is to see the GOP completely dissolved by a landslide victory powered by the Blogosphere.

Obama, I have no problems at all with - he has telegraphed his intention to represent us, our needs - our issues - but the legislative monkey business has to stop.

I say. Lets run some serious youtube clip / ads that show how ridiculous it is, to have health care reform without any meaningful reform.
Billions of dollars in a bill that will deliver.

"Child's Pay"

by Trey Rentz 2009-12-15 04:27AM | 0 recs
Democrats just wrote their 2010 obituary

This is change I can believe in?  I don't think so.  I'm done with these Congressional Democrats, let the Republicans clean the dead wood out.

by sandzen 2009-12-14 06:47PM | 0 recs
Obama to his supporters

"I'm a Changeling
See me change"

p.s. please don't even try to act as if the writing was not on the wall. Desmoinesdem and myself have been warning about this for more than 6 months.

by tarheel74 2009-12-14 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama to his supporters

I was naive to believe they were not this stupid.

by bruh3 2009-12-14 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

This sucks. The WH has always made it clear that they did want a bill to pass, no matter what. I don't understand why Reid is capitulating to the WH now (if the reports are true), when Reid put in the opt-out public option against the WH. The WH thought it was a safer bet to do a trigger with Snowe and not rely on Lieberman. Reid and the Senate Dems have not been afraid to go against the WH in the pase so I wonder what is going on. I don't think any of us really know.

by Lolis 2009-12-14 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Liarman "changed his mind".

by vecky 2009-12-14 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

"the White House didn't want a bill to pass?" That's ludicrous (sp?).  If anything, the White House wanted any bill to pass.  But even at that I'm skeptical.  They were in a box with this.  The Dems had "60" votes, but one of those votes was Joe.  And one was Ben Nelson.  What were they supposed to do?

by the mollusk 2009-12-14 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Just checking in to say that those who are expressing poutrage here are against health care reform.

Those who are expressing modest optimism are supporting incremental reform.

I am disappointed, but mildly optimistic that no more capitulation will be necessary.

Could be wrong, though.

Just sayin'

by lojasmo 2009-12-14 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Oh, and to those who say they are done with democrats.  

Good riddance.  GTFO, and don't let the door hit you directly on your anus.

Don't come back here.

by lojasmo 2009-12-14 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Way to be.

by Steve M 2009-12-14 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

thanks for your fluff. Now maybe you can pay some of the premiums that we will be forced to buy.

by tarheel74 2009-12-14 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

You're a classy guy.

by FilbertSF 2009-12-14 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

yeah, I can't imagine these guys capitulating. will never happen.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Mandatory insurance with no price controls or public option is worse than nothing.  It's not incremental progress.  It's harmful.

by Drummond 2009-12-14 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

without robust subsidies, this sort of bill would be deeply tragic for the poor.

with robust subsidies, this will be harmful for the middle class and will be a giant giveaway of taxpayer money to the already filthy-rich insurance companies and their executives.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Your dead on. which is why I have been saying this whole bill needs to die. If its got mandate with no public option and method to significantly lower costs, its going to be far more harmful than the status quo.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-12-15 05:31AM | 0 recs
Um

weren't you the one who was arguing against the damn public option cause of cost?

by ND22 2009-12-15 06:48AM | 0 recs
I'm with you 100%

But now comes time for Obama and Democrats to speak up and say that this is an ongoing process.

People act like this is a one shot deal.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm with you 100%

The first problem is that it is very, very difficult to persuade people that a filibuster-proof majority is not enough to accomplish very much.  A lot of people worked very very hard to win these majorities for the Dems, and it is not that simple to tell them "look, 60 Democrats isn't really good enough, we're going to need more like 63."

The second problem is that even in the best-case scenario, the Dems are not going to have these majorities again for a while.  It's not likely to be 60 Democrats again very soon, let alone 63.  So after all the blood that's been spilled this year, the idea that the party is just going to come back next year or the year after that and try to push yet another healthcare bill is difficult to swallow.  This is likely to be the only whack we get at anything major for a decade or so, particularly if the struggle is deemed to be a negative for Dems at the end of the day.

by Steve M 2009-12-14 07:52PM | 0 recs
This was the democrats fault

We were so quick to congratulate ourselves on reaching the magic 60, we never stopped to think of the meme it generates (i.e., anything is possible). When in fact, we really only have about 54 senators.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 08:29PM | 0 recs
Maybe so

but keep in mind, as someone once told me, the goal of any party is to win 535 seats in Congress...yeah it'll never happen, but the true Democratic base would ALWAYS be looking to expand the majority further and further

Now, it's entirely possible it can't get any bigger, if true, then this is the best we're ever going to get, so deal with it and move on, but if you really feel America wants progressive governance, then the majority CAN get bigger.

by ND22 2009-12-15 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Who knew Rahm Emanuel was such a wimp?  After all the hype about how tough he is, he's caved every single time.

I don't want mandatory insurance without a public option.  Right now I oppose the bill and I want it put down.  I will be contacting my representatives to demand that they join the Republican filibuster.

I assume the Progressive Caucus is caving in as well?

by Drummond 2009-12-14 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

As someone with a pre-existing medical condition who is legally discriminated against by private insurance companies, I ask you to reconsider. This bill will mean I never have to fear that if I lose my job I won't have coverage. This bill still means a lot to me.

by Lolis 2009-12-14 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

incorrect.

they can raise your rates so high that you would be priced out of getting insurance.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

So are you saying the bill would be sort of like the HCR that took place in MA ?

Hey in that case it's not perfect, but it's not complete devastation either.

by vecky 2009-12-14 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

They'll simply price you out.  The price controls have already been stripped.  So basically, not only will you be unable to afford insurance, but you'll be facing the prospect of fines because you don't have it.

This bill is bad news now.

by Drummond 2009-12-15 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

a comment from another site:

"Who cares a whit what happens to Obama now. The man sold everyone out, from the sick to the tortured, and meanwhile, handed billions to the bankers (trillions?) and gave the generals their war."

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

You got to give him his due, he did get almost all of those billions back from the bankers. And ofcourse the war in A'stan is OUR war, as a country.

by vecky 2009-12-14 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

incorrect.

a huge part of the banker's money came from money owed to them by AIG, who we gave massive amount to and who then turned around and gave it to the bankers. we get none of that back, for instance.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Most of the $700 billion in TARP funds to the banks have been re-payed. The only large outstandings are with the auto companies and AIG. We will get some of that money back, not all, but most. That's a huge accomplishment considering it was expected over half of the money would never return.

by vecky 2009-12-14 08:10PM | 0 recs
TARP is a loan, not a handout

Just a clarification, TARP is a loan, an arguably immoral loan, but a loan, and a lot of the Obama portion has come back. Be careful about conflating Obama loans with BushCo. loans.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: TARP is a loan, not a handout

why are you only focusing on tarp? the $150 billion or whatever that went to AIG mostly went straight to bankers and other large companies. That's who AIG owed.

And no, we are not getting that back - it ended up as even larger bonuses for wall st.

we all got robbed.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: TARP is a loan, not a handout

Oh stop being silly.

You know when Lehman Brothers collapsed over 500$ billion in assets were wiped out? Our losses in TARP are minuscule by comparison, and had the other big banks failed we would have been looking at an even bigger hole.

With the exception of AIG and GM most of the big banks have repaid their TARP funds.  AIG and GM will probably repay in the next couple of years. Ya the bonuses are excessive and need to be reigned in, but that's a separate issue from TARP.

by vecky 2009-12-14 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: TARP is a loan, not a handout

yeah, silly me for getting upset about us getting robed blind to line some fat cats' pockets some more.

how positively silly of me!

listen, you've already established that Obama can do no wrong no matter what they do. But some of us don't find this sort of thing acceptable.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: TARP is a loan, not a handout

I merely give credit for things that were done correctly, something you seem incapable of.

For example with GM - Obama made the politically difficult decision to force the company into bankruptcy and force out the CEO before giving them money. The end result is that GM is more likely to survive and repay that loan than otherwise.

Contrast that to Bush who simply gave GM several blank cheques, demanded no changes, no accountability and made no attempt to secure the tax-payer money already invested.

Given Obamas track record I am confident the AIG money will be repaid. We might, if we're lucky, even make a small profit.

by vecky 2009-12-14 10:33PM | 0 recs
Thought you were talking about Obama and TARP

Sorry if I misunderstood.

That's why I focused on the share that went to AIG under Obama.

The AIG share was $40 billion under TARP, and it has yet to be repaid.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-14 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Thought you were talking about Obama and TARP

the first AIG bailout was $85 billion.

There was at least one more after that, but I don't remember how much it was.

by jeopardy 2009-12-14 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Thought you were talking about Obama and TARP

150$ billion was loaned to AIG by the Fed. All of it before Obama was sworn in.

An additional $30 billion was loaned in March 2009 when the company was in major danger of collapse (2008 losses for the company were reported at close to 100$ billion).

by vecky 2009-12-14 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

There is enormous leverage the WH could have with Lieberman.  CT has enormous amounts of DoD contracts, for example, and it could have been emphasized how transitory that sort of thing can be.

by Bob H 2009-12-15 02:28AM | 0 recs
Re: White House orders capitulation to Lieberman

Yes Connecticut does have shitload of DOD contracts and shitload of unioon employees who work on them. Killing them wont juts mayeb hurt Lieberman, it will be cutting off your nose to spite your face. You think those union members wont forget if they suddenly become unemployed becuase congress or the President killed funding for the programs that keep them employed?

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-12-15 05:34AM | 0 recs
Connecticut has two Senators dumbass

by ND22 2009-12-15 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Connecticut has two Senators dumbass

No shit ahole....when did I say otherwise

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-12-15 11:04AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads