HCR: Dean, Greenwald & Krugman Explain it ALL for You! (Updated with 2 new videos)

-------------------

If you really want to understand why Howard Dean now feels forced to oppose the White House's health care strategy - I suggest you watch this short concise statement from yesterdays Morning Joe and another short vid at the end of this diary taped back during the summer where he explains that health care reform without a strong public option - is no kind of reform at all.

-------------------

Howard Dean is the most knowledgeable and experienced political figure on universal health care.

His critique of the Senate health care bill in the past few days on television and in an Op-Ed piece in The Washington Post is cogent and rational, whether you agree with it or not.

But Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and the White House attacked Howard Dean's character and sanity for daring to criticize the Senate health "reform" bill which Obama wants passed.  (Maybe so Obama can give himself that "A" he obviously feels he deserves)

---
On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs strongly hit Howard Dean for criticizing the Senate health care bill, suggesting, at one point, that Dean was being irrational and didn't understand the contents of the legislation.

"I don't know what piece of legislation he is reading," said Gibbs.

"I don't think any rational person would say killing the bill makes a whole lot of sense at this point."

Asked if Dean was acting irrationally, Gibbs replied: "I can't tell what his motives are, to be honest with you."

---

Dean for his part has gone out of his way to say that even though he wants the bill to be killed - the people who are involved in it are great people and he respects them.

Quite a bit different than Gibbs calling him irrational.

Here's something irrational, a heath "reform" bill that mandates people to get insurance without offering a baseline competition mechanism for the insurance companies.

As Keith Olberman said last night:

"here's a product you HAVE to buy, you don't know what's in it, you don't know if you can afford it, you don't know if it will be good for you, but the GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO MAKE YOU BUY IT - or else."

"Really? And this is a democracy?"

It appears that the White House has concluded it doesn't care about our Party's own non-rich-guy base.

In that case, Obama's campaign promises for meaningful change are increasingly being seen to be meaningless and Democratic prospects in the 2010 Congressional elections and Obama's 2012 reelection campaign are put quite at risk.

The Obama administration seems to think it can rely on Rahm Emanuel's version of Karl Rove's "K Street strategy" to buy elections with hefty campaign contributions from insurance companies, drug companies, and Wall Street.

That's a REAL prescription for failure.

This bill has been watered down and watered down to the point where it is nothing but a gift of 30 million mandated new customers to the insurance companies. The insurances companies have to accept pre-existing conditions but can charge 3 times the premium.

THIS is reform? THIS is "Change We Can Believe In"?

Obama promised competition for the insurance industries. There now is none of that.

Gibbs taunted Dean: "

"If this is an insurance company's dream, I think the insurance companies have yet to get the memo".

Seems they did...over a week ago.  

------

From Politico - 12/7

With the Senate shifting sharply away from a "pure public option," an insurance industry insider who has been deeply involved in the health care fight emails to declare victory.

"We WIN," the insider writes. "Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor."

----

If what Dean once called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"-- is thrown overboard, and if many base Democratic voters don't bother to vote, Democrats will be devastated in the 2010 midterms.

By the way, there is now a new Facebook group entitled "Howard Dean 2012".  Wonder why?

---

Also lets not forget about Obama's big give away to Big Pharm in a trade off for $150 million spent on pro Obama advertising.

Yesterday the White House started to earn those big bucks...

While there was all that yelling about Joe Lieberman - everyone seems to have completely missed and ignored obama's latest sellout to Big Pharm...

Just yesterday, when Byron Dorgan introduced a bill that would allow drug importation from Canada, Obama came down like a ton of bricks on Democratic senators and switched a huge number of votes so that in the end the drug industry won. That cost the American taxpayer nearly $100 billion in the next ten years alone.

-----

from Yesterdays - LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-health-senate16-2009dec16,0,4934854.story

"With President Obama's lobbying; Senators Rockefeller, Lieberman, Dodd and Kerry from Mass were joined by 30 other Democrats who voted to not allow Americans to purchase far less expensive prescription drugs from outside the US."

---------

The White House had made a deal with PhRMA for their backing of the overall plan, and defeating the amendments was something Obama was far more strenuously behind than, say, the Medicare buy-in or the public option, which he was nonchalant about tossing overboard at the first ripple of dischord.

This was a major aspect of reform and could have provided real competition and potentially saved struggling Americans billions. Absolutely inexplicable why any honest politician could conceivably vote against this.

Wonder how and why this additional sell out of the American consumer took place?

---

Pharmaceuticals / Health Products: Top Recipients  
From Opensecrets.org

Top 10 Presidential Candidates
Rank Candidate Amount
1 Obama, Barack (D) $2,135,376
2 Clinton, Hillary (D) $689,099
3 McCain, John (R) $671,722
4 Romney, Mitt (R) $385,011
5 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $186,530
6 Dodd, Chris (D) $115,200
7 Paul, Ron (R) $89,766
8 Thompson, Fred (R) $57,430
9 Richardson, Bill (D) $50,200
10 Edwards, John (D) $37,170

------------------------------

Salon's great Glen Greenwald shows you that it was ALWAYS Obama's plan to sell us out and trade away any public option to Big insurance just like he sold us out to Big Pharm.

___

12/16/09

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/16/white_house/index.h

tml

From Salon: Of all the posts I wrote this year, the one that produced the most vociferous email backlash -- easily -- was this one from August, which examined substantial evidence showing that, contrary to Obama's occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it.  From the start, assuaging the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries was a central preoccupation of the White House -- hence the deal negotiated in strict secrecy with Pharma to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation, a blatant violation of both Obama's campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN).  Indeed, Democrats led the way yesterday in killing drug re-importation, which they endlessly claimed to support back when they couldn't pass it.  The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party -- rather than the GOP -- will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse.

As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage.  Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional "centrists." Right.  The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives.  The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.   And kudos to Russ Feingold for saying so:

   Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, said it would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise. Feingold said that responsibility ultimately rests with President Barack Obama and he could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation.

   "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don't think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth," said Feingold. "I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

Let's repeat that:  "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." 

Indeed it does.

------

Still think losing the public option is all that Dirty Rotten Joe Lieberman's fault?

------

And from todays Paul Krugman "Conscience of a Liberal" column in the NY Times: Where the other Good Doctor Reminds Us That he Warned Us About All This years Ago

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/illusions-and-bitterness/

------

But what's happening, I think, goes beyond health care; what we're seeing is disillusionment with Obama among some of the people who were his most enthusiastic supporters. A lot of people seem shocked to find that he's not the transformative figure of their imaginations.

Can I say I told you so? If you paid attention to what he said, not how he said it, it was obvious from the beginning -- and I'm talking about 2007 -- that he was going to be much less aggressive about change than one could have hoped.

And this has done a lot of damage: I believe he could have taken a tougher line on economic policy and the banks, and was tearing my hair out over his caution early this year. I also believe that if he had been tougher on those issues, he'd be better able to weather disappointment over his health care compromises.

------

And as promised, Dr. Dean on how health care reform without a public option is no reform at at all.

Tags: glen greewald, health care reform, Howard Dean, obama, sell out (all tags)

Comments

46 Comments

There is only one real question now

We can debate how disappointing this bill is.  But no one here is completely happy with it.

We can debate Obama's handling of the issue, but most of us only differ in the degree of our criticism.  Some suggest he couldn't have done more or better, but they are the minority.  Not sure it's such a relevant question at this point.

We can debate the relative political costs of passing versus killing this bill.  But I consider those concerns secondary to the moral and economic importance of reform.  People are dying without it and it affects our entire vexed economic system.

The only question I consider truly pressing is whether killing or passing this bill creates more opportunity for progress.  Ron Wyden, Tom Harkin and other credible progressives in the senate, along with Bill Clinton all think that the thing to do is pass it, maximize its few remaining virtues and then continue to improve it.  They think killing it closes the door on any further reform.  Dean and others argue the opposite.  They take the position that passing it closes the door on real reform and that killing it allows us to go back to the drawing board.  The upshot is that we are truly in a crisis and that acute crisis will demand attention.  One group thinks passing creates more opportunity for progress and reform.  The other argues that killing it creates more opportunity for reform.  Given that we generally agree in these circles that the bill is critically insufficient, which tack enables us to move forward more effectively?  That's the one real question, in my view, and I remain undecided.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 04:20PM | 0 recs
and here's Krugman

There's enormous disappointment among progressives about the emerging health care bill -- and rightly so. That said, even as it stands it would take a big step toward greater security for Americans and greater social justice; it would also save many lives over the decade ahead. That's why progressive health policy wonks -- the people who have campaigned for health reform for years -- are almost all in favor of voting for the thing.  http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12 16/illusions-and-bitterness
by Strummerson 2009-12-17 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: There is only one real question now

I saw Harkin on Maddow the other night and he looked ashamed as he hawked his terrible modest house metaphor.  I think since he knew he was talking to a true believer (and an intelligent, informed person), he looked truly embarrassed.  And I felt embarrassed for him.  I have always liked Tom- I even volunteered for his 84 campaign.  My point is that I can't help but feel he has motives for supporting this that are different from the merits of the bill (party loyalty maybe?).

by orestes 2009-12-18 06:22AM | 0 recs
Blockquotes need to set off

Please to use html tags for blockquotes to set off large quotes. Thanks.

by Charles Lemos 2009-12-17 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Blockquotes need to set off

< blockquote > quote < /blockquote >

Remove the spaces between "<" and "blockquote" or "/blockquote" and it should work. I inserted the spaces so it would show up here.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Blockquotes need to set off

 We should note that this individualized help isn't normally required, but is reserved for certain 'special' bloggers.

by QTG 2009-12-18 01:00AM | 0 recs
I agree with Dean, this is the right way to go

If I may, let us backtrack to the concept the bill is centered upon. The ideas that Barack Obama laid forth in Congress.

He said, in his address to congress - that this bill will promote competition, and give people who are currently being monopolized in some states - the chance to buy healthcare from the government.  He was right. There are states in which nearly the entire healthcare industry is dominated by one or two players and they are no t playing fair - uprating people left and right , and basically raising the premiums alongside each other.  Getting insurance for a small business is a nightmare no matter where you go. The rates are heinous.

Dean is only re-iterating the spirit of American competition, and the real heart of the Democratic party - when he is saying to kill the bill.

Not only should the bill be killed - but anyone who wanted the half-measure put forth, be noted - and anyone who watered down the bill - be noted - and then come 2010 vote in a new guard.

A progressive is, by their very nature, if he is progressive - independent.

He or she knows that the only way to make progress is to see each issue calmly.

We should call the clause in this healthcare bill that everyone seems to be reading in - trying to get a deeply flawed bill through the house and congress - as the "Santa Clause"

Because its just a giveaway to the Healthcare Insurance Industry.

by Trey Rentz 2009-12-17 05:55PM | 0 recs
Its interesting how this went from the front page

This post was originally Front Page, and now its not even recommended?

by Trey Rentz 2009-12-17 06:20PM | 0 recs
Tell us more

by JJE 2009-12-17 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

Yes.  Your favorite tune.  But he also urges support for this bill in the opening of the same post.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

Because he is setting up the politics of low expectations now that Obama has proven to be a right of center centrist.

by bruh3 2009-12-17 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

That's not what he argues (obviously) and I find that explanation unlikely.  

I am undecided about this bill, not because of its actual merits, but because I see credible arguments from both sides suggesting that passing or killing enables further reform.  It's not what this bill contains at this point.  It's which approach opens more possibilities down the line.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

What ht ehell do you think this part means:

"But what's happening, I think, goes beyond health care; what we're seeing is disillusionment with Obama among some of the people who were his most enthusiastic supporters. A lot of people seem shocked to find that he's not the transformative figure of their imaginations. Can I say I told you so? If you paid attention to what he said, not how he said it, it was obvious from the beginning -- and I'm talking about 2007 -- that he was going to be much less aggressive about change than one could have hoped. And this has done a lot of damage: I believe he could have taken a tougher line on economic policy and the banks, and was tearing my hair out over his caution early this year. I also believe that if he had been tougher on those issues, he'd be better able to weather disappointment over his health care compromises.

So there's a lot of bitterness out there. But please, keep your priorities straight.

By all means denounce Obama for his failed bipartisan gestures. By all means criticize the administration. But don't take it out on the tens of millions of Americans who will have health insurance if this bill passes, but will be out of luck -- and, in some cases, dead -- if it doesn't."

He's never going to say "yeah I thought he was a right of center centrist. Toldja" He's going t frame it intellectually, but that's what he's saying. He saying he has low expectation for the president, and he's doing the so-called "church of the savvy" routine in which he is saying to the average voter they should have gotten it.

Now, that being said, he tries to say let's salvage a bad situation. let's try to help some. The problem is that he's an economist, and not a lawyer. I am looking at the language he thinks will help in another diary, and I am like "that's not going to happen." You can drive a truck through it.  However, overall- his point is- "I had l ow expectations and this is about what I expected."

by bruh3 2009-12-17 08:01PM | 0 recs
Harkin's post speaks for itself

It's awesome that you can read his mind and discern what he really means, but the non-telepathic among us will have to just take him at his word, I'm afraid.

by JJE 2009-12-17 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Harkin's post speaks for itself

You say you in law school right? Say what you just said to your professors involved in contract law (regarding intent) or criminal law just to name 2 subjects that do exactly what i just did.

by bruh3 2009-12-18 06:26AM | 0 recs
No

I've been practicing for over five years.

When the contract language is clear, courts do not look to extrinsic evidence, much less to a party's post-facto self-serving interpretation, which is what you just did.

by JJE 2009-12-18 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

There's really no ambiguity regarding whether Krugman thinks the Senate Bill is better than the status quo.  

In his most recent post, he said:

"A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you're disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinio n/18krugman.html?_r=1&hp

His reasoning is essentially that:

"With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail."

You're under no obligation to agree with Krugman, of course, but it's clear that he has reached a different judgment than you on this issue.  

by HSTruman 2009-12-18 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

His basis for that position is the following, which is as was said at Talk Left- argument by assertion rather than proof:

"In Professor Krugman's "Pass the Bill" (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by KeysDan on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:34:35 AM EST
op-ed piece, this one sentence stood out for me: "All of this (the goodness, in his view, of the bill as he knows it) would be paid for in large part with the first serious effort ever to rein in rising health care costs."  No further explanation--apparently to be accepted by universal consent, just like the goodness of the Iraq war. "

This sums up my problem with his analysis. The substantive part is not substantive, and his basis for favoring Obama's bill is that we should have expected nothing better  from Obama.

As I said, here, his assertion is wrong for other reasons:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2009/12/17/ 231921/79/30#30

The main one being he uses a progressive view point in an illegtimate way- that definitionally over the long term actually makes the battle for real reform worse.

by bruh3 2009-12-18 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

Yes, I know you disagree with Krugman and think that his statements are factually inaccurate.  Since you and I have gone back and forth on the merits of the Senate bill before, I don't intend to rehash those arguments.  

Rather, my point was simply to note that Krugman did clearly state, contrary to the authors intimation, that he thinks the Bill is still worth passing.  Perhaps I misunderstood one of your previous posts, but you seemed to similarly be suggesting that Krugman doesn't "really" think the Bill is worthwhile; which, obviously, isn't true.    

by HSTruman 2009-12-18 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

By the way, I can neither agreement or disagree since he's not really making an argument. He's making an assertion. I can only say that the assertion is wrong, and then provide my own argument. This is often what occurs here. People make assertions, I make an argument with evidence to back it up, I am told I have not convinced the other party of my position, they then make another assertion, and we go down hill from there. Assertions are not providing proof of an argument as being correct.

by bruh3 2009-12-18 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

Actually, Krugman's argument is quite simple. In practical terms, the product of the process is leading to improvements and shouldn't be discarded because it doesn't provide the ideal solution demanded by those who either don't understand the limitations of the legislative process, or who are simply delusional.

by QTG 2009-12-18 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

bolding a word does not make it true.

by bruh3 2009-12-18 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Krugman says "Told Ya So!"

You just made an assertion.

by QTG 2009-12-18 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: look, he has snark all over his face!

You recycle! I'm so proud of you.

by QTG 2009-12-18 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: worried you missed it!

 I'm proud of those words, and appreciate you brought them back twice (so far). Perhaps I'll return the favor when the Health Care Reform Law is signed....

by QTG 2009-12-18 07:08AM | 0 recs
Dream Team!

B3 and LV.  We cower in your shadows and express gratitude that you condescend to insult everyone.  

Combining your talents reminds me of Koufax and Drysdale.  Only this time it's jackassery, not pitching.

by Strummerson 2009-12-18 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: HCR: Dean,

Dean, Krugman, and Reich are all calling for this bill to be amended slightly, and passed.

by lojasmo 2009-12-18 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: dean, greenwald. krugman

Dean is for killing.  Krugman and Reich support passing and amending.  

by Strummerson 2009-12-18 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: dean, greenwald. krugman

Nope.  Dean said he wouldn't vote for it if he was in the senate, but he is for passing and amending.

http://u.nu/96md4

by lojasmo 2009-12-28 05:49PM | 0 recs
Krugman supports the Bill

Paul Krugman says he supports the bill in the exact same post you selectively quoted from. It is disengenous for you to imply otherwise.  

by HSTruman 2009-12-18 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: this post is not about how to vote

Really?  That's why your lead sentence says "If you really want to understand why Howard Dean now feels forced to oppose the White House's health care strategy - I suggest you watch this short concise statement from yesterdays Morning Joe and another short vid at the end of this diary taped back during the summer where he explains that health care reform without a strong public option - is no kind of reform at all."

It's also disengenous for you to suggest Paul Krugman thinks this bill "is no kind of reform at all," since he thinks it's worth passing.  Indeed, in his most recent post on the topic he says the following:

"A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you're disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinio n/18krugman.html?_r=1&hp

Does Krugman like Obama?  No, not particularly.  Is he frustrated this bill isn't everything it could be?  Absolutely.  But at the end of the day, he thinks it's worth passing because:

"With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail."

I have no problem at all with you explaining why you oppose this bill.  But don't misrepresent others views.  It's intellectually dishonest.

by HSTruman 2009-12-18 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: yes, really

It sounds like you have no interest in discussing anything other than your dislike for Obama.  That's your business, but personally I'm more interested in whether it's still possible to pass something that will help tens of millions of people.  

Contrary to your suggestion, that's certainly what Paul Krugman is focused on.  Since you don't seem to have any interest in discussing issues honestly, I will remember not to engage you going forward.    

by HSTruman 2009-12-18 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: god how dense are you?

Nice subject.  Glad you're not mean-spirited and that you don't have issues.

by Strummerson 2009-12-18 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Predictions

 You'll first have to convince us of your ability to predict the future, and only then will we be interested in the 'why' it will happen the way you say it will. Your ITYSs will have to wait.

by QTG 2009-12-18 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: god how dense are you?

Wait, you've lived and worked in DC for a long time?  Wow, I guess you MUST be right then . . .

As I recall, your track record as far as predictions goes wasn't very good when you had a few different handles.  Time will tell whether you're right this time.  But thanks again for your oh so constructive contributions.  

by HSTruman 2009-12-18 07:08AM | 0 recs
We'll come laughing at you when it does pass

And we'll kick you around for some good measure. But I bet you'll high tail it out of here first.

Why did I even click on this troll thread?

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-18 06:54AM | 0 recs
No, not really

"this bill will die in conference or somewhere else down the road..."
Down the road from conference? That's pretty much Obama's desk.
by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-18 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: this post is not about how to vote

I find it interesting that you accuse those who are trying to focus on policy, strategy, and politics of being Obama's fanboys, when you are interested only in discussing Obama.  There's more at stake than your fixation on Obama here.  He's part of this, and not a productive one unfortunately.  But there are significant other things to consider.

by Strummerson 2009-12-18 05:33AM | 0 recs
There is a name for it:

Obama Derangement Syndrome

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-18 06:56AM | 0 recs
Stop double posting

And if you had read the article, Krugman insists on passing the bill. So there.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-18 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: this post is not about how to vote

I find it interesting that you accuse those who are trying to focus on policy, strategy, and politics of being Obama's fanboys, when you are interested only in discussing Obama.  There's more at stake than your fixation on Obama here.  He's part of this, and not a productive one unfortunately.  But there are significant other things to consider.

by Strummerson 2009-12-18 05:33AM | 0 recs
Because I'm unemployed

This real piece of work likes to make fun of me, not that I care in the slightest. It's his GOP buddies who put me in this spot. Let the world see what they really stand for.

He only tears himself down.

What's the over under on this guy still being around come New Years?

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-18 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Because I'm unemployed

Unemployed?  I knew you knew nothing about real politics!  

We should leave it to competent professionals like lv.  Then we can be a bad=tempered hackocracy like the good old USSR.

by Strummerson 2009-12-18 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: What's the over under

Very progressive of you to mock the unemployed.

by Strummerson 2009-12-18 10:02AM | 0 recs
Does he mock the disabled?

The ill?
Those who suffer tragedies?

He says he worked on democratic political campaigns. He sounds more GOP.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-19 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: HCR: Dean

http://u.nu/96md4

Nope.  Dean now states passage and amendment.

by lojasmo 2009-12-28 05:50PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads