Democratic policy makers are industry shills, same as Republican policy makers, only with less of the faux-family values shtick. D's seem more and more determined to prove Nader right (though I've never vote Nader, nor hsall I ever).

Incidentally, this is the exact reason that the recent Quinnipiac poll on Ohioan's opinions on Dems.

Sorry, let's try a complete sentence, shall we?

Incidentally, this is the exact reason that the recent Quinnipiac poll on Ohioan's opinions on Dems shows that they're loosing support.

Your friend's hypothesis ignors the makeup of the media. When Dems filibuster, it obstruction. When Republicans do it, well, you've always needed 60 votes in the Senate. If Joe Biden says, "It doesn't make sense, but...", they report, "Biden says it doesn't make any sense." If Palin quits the governorship without explanation, the media reports that she must be preparing to run for the presidency. If Obama wants to close Gitmo, the media wonders where he is going to release all these terrorists. But Republicans can deny torture for years, and suddenly it's, "Do these techniques work?"

Most Americans with an iota of common sense know that the republican party does not have the interest of the public at heart. However, most Americans can't stand weak pussies.

The democrats, if they continue to feed the mouth that bites them, will forever be labeled as weak pussies.

It's do or die time for the dems on this one. If they cave, they're toast, guaranteed.

I thought Rahm was supposed to a hard-nosed, takes-no-bullshit, go-getter? Thus my only conclusion is that Rahm and his boss are compromised and don't want a robust public option.

When Gibbs told reporters, "We won," he wasn't talking about the all-inclusive royal we; it's pretty clear that no matter who wins, 'we' lose.

The fact that we have to keep reminding our elected Democrats that they won shows us the truth--they don't really want to do what their constituents want them to do. As a party, the Democrats do not believe in a progressive agenda.

We need new Democrats. I vote we start with Harry Reid. Drive him out of office; he's not polling very well and he's ripe for plucking. If a Republican gets the seat, we've lost nothing and at least we won't be bent out of shape when he votes Republican.

And it would be a shot across the bows of the Blue Dogs; it would let them know that a D after your name does not guarentee the support of progressives.

We'll see over the next few weeks/months who is on the side of the people and who is a corporate whore.

One thing that keeps nagging me is the possibility that some democrats' constituents are in fact more conservative than we'd like to think, and this is why these dems are so weak kneed and wishy washy when it comes to standing up for things. That's more palatable than the dems being corporate whores which is most likely the case.

Nonetheless, let's not forget that America by and large is still a very backwards country. As a society we are merely snot-nosed kids in comparison to older societies around the world that have had more time to evolve.

I know the polls demonstrate that the public option enjoys across the board support; dem/repub, rich/ poor, black/white, but when it's all said and done, is America smart enough and mature enough to make the necessary changes to face the challenges of a new millennium, a new age?

I don't know, the jury is still out. By the way, historic nuclear arms reduction pact today with Russia, but you wouldn't know it because of the MJ tribute. perfect example.

Ezra Klein: "Weren't elections supposed to have consequences?"

This election would've had consequences if Klein, et al., had actually paid closer attention during the primary campaign.

As it is, they are getting exactly what they asked for from President Barack Obama, simply because they never took pains to understand beforehand what it was, exactly, they they were getting in presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The disingenuous incredulity displayed thus far by pundits like Ezra Klein to Mr. Obama's actions as president is both wearisome and somewhat annoying. I freely admit that I didn't support Obama in last year's primaries for the very same reasons Klein is currently publicly bemoaning, but I'll tell you what: I was proud to vote for him last November. Given the sheer enormity of problems he inherited, I'm still going to cut his administration some slack for now, and try to support him.

So Ezra Klein should spare us his wide-eyed cynicism. It is what it is today, in no small part because last yeaar self-styled influential liberal bloggers like Klein helped make it so, by refusing to note or notice that they were supporting an innately skilled political cypher during the Democratic primaries.

But hindsight's always 20 / 20, isn't it? Right now, Barack Obama is the only president we have, and he's doing the best he can in the face of some incredible challenges. From what I've seen so far, he's apparently getting the hang of it. And I'm confident that things will get much better as the administration gains confidence in its collective sea legs.

The attack on the health care obstructionists is that they receive political contributions generated by health care that has been denied.

ZYou assiunme negotiations wre with the GOP. The real players are AHIP, the hospitals, PhARMA etc. That's who is on the other side here. Rahm is trying to protect them, not get affordable care to all Americans.

Your friend's hypothesis ignores the makeup of the media. When Dems filibuster, it obstruction. When Republicans do it, well, you've always needed 60 votes in the Senate....
Posted by: Danp on July 7, 2009 at 3:08 PM

I was absent in Civics class when we talked about the article of the Constitution about the media veto over legislation, so bear with me if I'm not quite getting it. The reason why it's so important for the media to endorse the eventual bill is.... why, exactly?

I can understand that media bias is important in the long term if it can sway public opinion. But for now public opinion is strongly pro-Democratic ideas. Moreover, I don't think there's much history to argue that giving into Republican demands for compromise will win over the media. It looks to me like the GOP gained influence by complaining loudly about media bias, not by trying harder to govern in a way that David Broder would hail as bipartisan.

What am I missing here?

Democrats are sensitive, as a group, to charges of being fiscally irresponsible. The numbers being tossed around regarding health care reform -- a trillion dollars, a trillion-plus dollars -- are enough to scare people who only think in terms of household budgets and repeatedly hear how the federal deficit could bankrupt the country if left unchecked.

Getting into the complexities of competing estimates, ten-year projections, and the like would be scary for Congressmen facing charges of reckless spending, especially if their knowledge of economics isn't deep.

SRS

The shot callers of the democratic party are guided by a simple truth: "Who else are the suckers going to vote for on election day"? The status quo holds no terror for them.

I should have turned my back on them after the Iraq war vote. I held (and hold) the whole rotten lot of those democrats who supported Bush in utter contempt. They were no more deceived about the Big Lies that guided the nation to war than Dick Cheney himself. Still I voted for Kerry in 2004 because my contempt paled in comparison for my hatred for the GOP. I will always be ashamed of that vote.

I finally drew the line with their FISA capitulation. I warned them I would, too. I had contacted my congressional reps (all democrats) numerous times in the autumn of '07 and beyond, making clear that if that legislation passed I was finished with the party. I was heartened during the campaign that Obama likewise opposed it. I felt great when he won the nomination, stupidly assuming his opposition would spell its doom. Stupidly assuming that he'd meant what he'd said.

So that was that. Although the 'lesser of two evils' crowd will bust my chops ever time, I've no regrets or reservations about that decision whatsoever. It's ironic that I find myself in accord with Ronald Reagan. The democratic party left me.

It's very irritating that the Democratic Congresspeople don't see that we are holding the winning hand on health insurance reform. The way to get bi-partisanship is to tell the Republicans that a) health insurance reform WILL happen, and b) it WILL include a strong public option. The health insurance companies will not like it but the American people will love it. Just like Social Security. They (the Republicans) can get on board and get some of the credit or stay on the side lines and we Dems will take all the credit.

"I'm afraid Brzezinski still doesn't quite understand why what she said yesterday rubbed so many people the wrong way".

You've got to be kidding. Of course she understands. She can read english. Objections to her insulting statement have been adequately explained. The simple fact is she honestly believes what she said. Because, unlike her critics, she is a real American.

"Bipartisanship" means that the Democrats and the Republicans are both subservient to America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc.

The "health reform" debate has nothing to do with health, nothing to do with reform, and everything to do with protecting the profits of the insurance corporations.

You assiunme negotiations wre with the GOP. The real players are AHIP, the hospitals, PhARMA etc. That's who is on the other side here. Rahm is trying to protect them, not get affordable care to all Americans.

Bingo.

IMO the issue of "bi-partisanship" is nothing more than a smoke screen for Dems who oppose the public option or anything else. . .when the healthcare reform is NOT passed, these Dems (Feinstein jumps to mind) can say, "hey we tried . . but. . . " and the bloodhounds get thrown off the scent. . . Good strategy actually though nefarious.

How about a strong public option with a weak trigger the industry is sure to fail?

That's more like it.

The reason why it's so important for the media to endorse the eventual bill is.... why, exactly? Equal Opportunity Cynic

It's not important that the media endorse the bill. However, the question the friend asked was would Republicans embrace bipartisanship in this situation. My argument is that regardless of the merits of a bill, the media will portray Dems as unfair if they don't make attempts to appear bipartisan. If the tables were turned, however, the media would merely suggest that elections have consequences and that fairness isn't an issue. Cable news viewers want one outcome or another, but they also want an end to the bitter polarity. Obama, in particular, tries to show bipartisanship, specifically to minimize charges that he is acting in a dictatorial manner. And so yes, it's true that Republicans would act far differently, but the reason is that they want to be seen as playing fair. I would also argue that this is one reason the Dems would never propose a "nuclear option."

The second to last sentence should read "but the reason is that Dems want to be seen as playing fair."

Yes Donald, God knows hillary fucking Clinton,
War queen of the United States Senate, would have rushed in any instituted universal healthcare, fought against the dastardly Republicans, and saved the world.

Do you even remember the 90's? You think today's
Democrats are capitulating cowards? The Same people are standing next to, and behind, both Clintons.

What's the problem? It all depends on the "setting" for the trigger doesn't it? If a "trigger" is included that is enough to garner several votes without harming access to a public option, why not do so? It then simply becomes a semantic cover for some senators, getting them to vote for the bill.
If the "trigger" is set to benefit the insurance companies (a la the Medicare drug "benefit"), however, that is something else and deserves all the vituperation it has been receiving.