That is the point , it is no different than negotiating with the Manson Gang .

Of course the Dems are negotiating with themselves. Who the Hell else is there to negotiate with in DC?

Taking a page from Thoreau: "Simplify, simplify."

Medicare for all.

Oh, what I wouldn't give for some actual fucking leadership in the Democratic Party!

Is there no one willing and able to take the reins on this issue? Apparently not. Harry Reid has pretty much decided that the best possible outcome is to capitulate to Republican demands--and Obama's staff, at least, is signaling that they're willing to give up almost everything just to pass something, not matter how meaningless and ineffective.

Way to go, Dems! Way to take a clear, sweeping mandate from the electorate and completely squander it.

Someone on the Democratic side needs to challenge the Republicans, asking:

"Where are the Republicans proposals? If Democrats took out everything that Republicans find objectionable, there would be nothing left but a blank page.

"Or do the Republicans think the current system is just fine?"

What I hope will happen is that the Democrats will offer a "compromise" proposal for a vote, and when it gets no Republican votes, ram through a bill that will actually reform the system.

A strong majority leader would quietly declare that no earmarks will be accepted from any senator who votes against cloture. Rom Emanuel could live up to his reputation as a political hardass and let Democrats know that any Democrat who votes against cloture will get no re-election help from the president.

I'm a progressive, not a rabid 'lefty'. I let a lot of things slide that Obama's already backtracked on - FISA reform, getting out of Iraq, escalation in Afghanistan, bailouts for bankers and not Main Street...but if he caves on the public option, and that includes adopting a bogus 'trigger', then I'm done with the Democrats. I will go back to being an Independent. I switched to Dems in the last election to support Obama in primaries (in NY, no less, where Clinton looked unbeatable), then I gave more money than I could afford to Obama, then I gave to other Dem candidates, etc. etc. I'm one of those people who got involved in ways she hadn't in years.

But I believe that Obama could get a real public option if he wanted one, and that's my litmus test. We won't have another such opportunity in my lifetime. We had to watch our country deteriorate under Republican policies (tax cuts, etc.) that they got through a simple majority and now I want to see America get real health care through the same process.

Game on, Democrats. Use it or lose it.

The way Obama negotiates with himself, God help anybody who hired him as their lawyer.

And what nyc said.

In our other 'liberal' media today, the Washington Post has a 'comment' by David Broder proclaiming that there should be no investigations and prosecutions of the illegalities of the Bush administration.

Broder editorially supported the investigations and impeachment of Bill Clinton. Just for the hell of it, I suggest that Broder consider torture and murder done in our country's name as roughly the moral equivalent of getting a blow job. Then maybe he would change his mind!

A mind is such a terrible thing to waste - especially when there is so little of it.

NY Times: "'It's so important to get a deal,' a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid about strategy. 'He will do almost anything it takes to get one.'"

Not exactly smart Steve? This comment was amazingly and disgustingly stupid. This comment to the press, single-handedly, has killed any and all possibility, however small, of getting a public option--not to mention any additional damage it might have done to reform.

Thank you, White House official.

Dumbasses!!!

What's that old adage, the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result? Well, repubs act crazy, the media spotlights it and dems cave, over and over again. Maybe they're not so crazy after all.

Following up, remember when we were trying to pass a strong Patient's Bill of Rights during Bush's first term? Remember when the odds were on our side because a Republican leader, Charlie Norwood, supported this legislation?

Bush wanted to weaken the legislation. So, what did he do?

"As Norwood shuttled back and forth between the White House and his allies — including Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy — he promised them he wouldn't sell out.

But on Wednesday that's exactly what he did, shaking hands with Bush in the Oval Office on an ill-defined compromise. And before Norwood could go back to his camp and be persuaded to break his promise (as Administration aides complained he had done before), Bush locked him in. "Charlie's not leaving without the press knowing we have a deal," the President told aides. "I'll walk him to his car and give a thumbs-up if I have to." He didn't have to. Instead he marched Norwood in front of the cameras to make an announcement.

A rare but important lesson for Obama from George Bush.

In the meantime, I wish the White House official who signaled their desperation to the New York Times worked for me, so I could fire his ass.

Maybe they're not so crazy after all.

Of course they're not. If the Thugs didn't exist the corrupt Democrats would have to invent them. They need a plausible excuse for serving their corporate paymasters rather then their voters.

Link to the Time Magazine article quoted above:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,170078,00.html

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Democrats to cut out all the most contentious portions of the Health Care Reform bill in order to get Republicans to sign on! So, let's take out the following:

1] The part that creates death panels that decide who lives and who dies.

2] The part that gives free health care to illegal immigrants.

3] The part that caps doctor salaries.

4] The part that takes away your choice of insurer.

5] The part that the Nazis would have had in there, whatever that part is.

Well, if there is to be meaningful dialog between conservatives and progressives in this country, it seems that it must be between conservative Democrats and progressive Democrats.

They are in fact negotiating with other Democrats. I believe we call them Blue Dogs. This is no longer about Republican obstructionism, but providing sufficient cover for Blue Dogs to vote for the passage of the bill.

just shoot me.

it's waterin' down time and obama has turned into kevin costner drinkin' his own piss.

I'm reserving judgment until the actual speech, but it appears the Democratic Party is on the verge of discovering how small they really are without their progressive base.

I got my bags packed just in case.

Taking a line from the Talking Heads:

"Same as it ever was. . ."

He will do almost anything it takes to get one.

Nothing like publicly negotiating from desperation.

That's not exactly a smart thing to say to the press -- negotiating from a position of desperation does not put Obama in a strong position

Um, Steve that's not true. The negotiating has already been done between donkeys and elephants. That parts long over. Obama now only needs to bring aboard a jittery public, a jittery Snowe, and an even jitterier gang of blue dogs.

I got my bags packed just in case.

Even if Obama miraculously comes through on this one, you'll need them when it becomes obvious that he can only sustain his pointless escalation in Afghanistan with Republican support. LBJ II: now without all that bothersome progressive domestic policy!

"They are in fact negotiating with other Democrats. I believe we call them Blue Dogs."

Technically, I think the Blue Dogs are a House-only organization, but the idea is the same. We're negotiating with the honest conservative Democrats in the Senate who, well, used to be the sane Republicans:

"No, seriously. Remember Republicans? Sober men in suits, pipes, who'd nod thoughtfully over their latest tract on market-driven fiscal conservatism while grinding out the numbers on rocket science. Remember those serious-looking 1950's-1960's science guys in the movies -- Republican to a one...

How did they become the party of fairy dust and make believe? How did they become the anti-science guys? The anti-fact guys? The anti-logic guys?"

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html

Hate on the Evan Bayh all you want - and with cause! - but you have to admit, you haven't heard him say that Martians are going to steal our gold and health care or whatever the GOP is selling this week.

not one Republican lawmaker who opposes reform will waver in light of these changes.

In fact, scaling back just encourages them. "Our strategery is working! Keep up the pressure! More screaming at townhalls! It's the only way we can stop the socialist takeover of our country."

The public is not "jittery". Every single poll shows strong support for the public option. What the majority of the public really is, is sick and tired of Democrats who never keep their campaign promises.

The reason Democrats are "negotiating with themselves" is very simply because the Democratic party is now two parties in one, similiarly to what it was in the days of the Dixiecrats. The only difference is that the Dixiecrats are now Republicans and the centrist wing of the Republican party has migrated to the Democrats to become known as Blue Dogs. As the Republican party has become more right wing, many of the centrists and moderate conservatives who would have been Republicans 20 years ago are now Democrats.

This is good in the sense that our party is bigger and theirs smaller, but it also means we will be increasingly "negotiating with ourselves." This is a reality that the White House is trying to deal with, but that many progressives seem to not want to admit.

This is a reality that the White House is trying to deal with, but that many progressives seem to not want to admit.

Bullshit. What we object to is that it's progressives who always get arm-twisted and expected to compromise. If the Democratic Party wants to retain our support, the leadership is going to have to start learning how to apply pressure to the conservadems for a change.

What the majority of the public really is, is sick and tired of Democrats who never keep their campaign promises.

No, what the majority of the public is, is confused out of their minds by a shitty media that treats Republican non-sense as if it has any truth.

Obama isn't breaking his campaign promises. He's working his ass off to get the best reform possible for us chumps. What too many of you here forget is reality. If Obama didn't have a majority party full of conservatives trolling for power, or a media gushing over the latest Republican lie, or a gullible electorate, or a reconciliation process that left pieces and holes missing out of the reform bill, I'm sure he'd have steam rolled a nice progress reform bill for you all. Last time I checked, reality looked a bit more complicated than you'd like to believe.

Again, along with understadnable confusion (and Obama has NOT been helping with that to put it mildly), a majority of respondents in multiple polls continue to express support for a real public option.

Pass a good bill and the public support will be there. Pass a bill that binds people and hands them over to the insurance pigs without recourse, and kiss the Democratic majority goodbye.

Right wingers have "socialized medicine" but progressives have no "enemy" on their side to create the justification for a "public opinion." Unless progressives are willing to wage a full scale assault on the abuses of a health insurance industry that exploits the public by extorting incredible profits from the public, then the right wing can easily reframe liberal support for the public opinion as some symbolic issue that advances their real agenda of bringing "European style socialism" to America. Liberals need to do a better job spelling out the actual need for a public opinion that goes beyond "bringing competition to the market."

The Democrats are bending over backwards to avoid a filibuster in the Senate, or that's one simple way to look at it. The 'budget reconciliation' scheme is supposed to be a way to get around this possibility.

I was doing some reflecting, with the Kennedy retrospectives being so recently broadcast with Teddy's death, and recalled that George Wallace stood in a doorway at the University of Alabama to protest the entry of two black students. President Kennedy, by way of his brother Robert, instructed the deputy Attorney General to 'make him look foolish' on that day, and the image of Wallace standing in that doorway is one of the enduring icons of the 1960's and the Civil Rights Movement.

I think I'd like to see the Republican leadership talking on the floor wearing diapers. Let them stand and argue against health care reform and affordable health coverage for all Americans. Let them spew out all kinds of crazy, to be recorded in the official record and broadcast to all the world. Let them look as foolish as they can stand . . . forever.

I know, Wallace wasn't exactly hurt in Alabama for taking his stand for "Segregation Now . . . [and] Forever." Still, when it comes back to getting re-elected, I'd like the Republicans and the Blue Dogs to be indelibly and unequivocally painted as being against universal coverage.

"What we object to is that it's progressives who always get arm-twisted and expected to compromise."

It is always a lot harder to do things than to prevent things from being done, which is why our side tends to be on the defensive.

But one line I am getting really tired of is "we gave them 60 votes and they should deliver." No we didn't. That sixty includes quite a few who are not on our side. Unless we can elect 60 true progressives, we will never be in a position to move in a truly progressive direction. And if our side reacts by turning on Obama and the Dems becuase we don't get everything we want, we will go the other direction and not recover for years.

If the Democratic Party wants to retain our support, the leadership is going to have to start learning how to apply pressure to the conservadems for a change.

Yes, a lefty version of the 'zero tolerances' attitude the GOP exhibits, that'd be great. What the hell is with all these romanticized visions of bygone leaders "arm twisting". I guarantee if the left doesn't hold to the center, and chooses to go the way of the GOP, it'll be a short ride on the majority train.

The more I read about fundamental policy changes of bygone eras, is that they weren't often so fundamental at the beginning, nor did change take place overnight. But we live in a world that flashes thousands of advertisements before our eyes, expects conclusions to problems in a 30 minute TV format,and has a ludicrious 24 hour news cycle that only scratches the surface of real news while looping on itself every 45 minutes.

Did you think Obama's winning Nov.4th was going to be like Cinderella's grandmother waving her magic wand?

Unless we can elect 60 true progressives, we will never be in a position to move in a truly progressive direction.

That's plain nonsense. Neither the Republicans nor the conservadems have ever needed 60 of their kind in order to move things in a conservative direction.

We have the votes for a Progressive Block in the House, and if they stand firm Obama will have to learn that it's the Senate conservadems who need to get the Rahm arm-twisting treatment if he wants to pass anything. The sooner he learns that the better the chance that he he will be a two-term President.

That's plain nonsense. Neither the Republicans nor the conservadems have ever needed 60 of their kind in order to move things in a conservative direction.

Your forgetting who truly rules DC. It's lobbyists and corporate America, it ain't us. Yes, Republicans could cram unpaid tax cuts for the wealthy, banking deregulation, and what not thru the legislative process. Who the hell was going to stop them. If big business isn't lobbying against it, you can do almost anything in Washington. Dems have a much harder time because they are constantly swimming upstream as it were. They're always going against a corporate DC culture and having to convince an easily confused and manipulated public.

T.O., I've been listening to that lame excuse for decades. In truth it's not about what they CAN do, it's about what they WANT to do (which, for too many of them, is to serve their corporate paymasters rather than the public). And we've enabled them, by giving them our votes regardless or the betrayals. Well, maybe it's time to rethink that.

What the majority of the public really is, is sick and tired of Democrats who never keep their campaign promises.

No, what the majority of the public is, is confused out of their minds by a shitty media that treats Republican non-sense as if it has any truth.

I'm sick of all of the above. Would a single-payer healthcare system help?

I feel strangely prescient.

I said, last week, that "scale back" would become the new DC buzzword; I am actually surprised it came true before Labor Day, I figured Congress would say it before Obama did, but still. The reality is that the August shouting has given way to the reality check of fall - if the Dems want to pass something, it's going to be smaller and more focused, or it can't be done... and I wouldn't put aside the idea that there's still plenty of room to fail.

The idea that "nonessential" pieces could cover health reporting and some school clinics is... foolishness; of course there will be some major scaling back of something, because they're planning to bring it in for hundreds of billions less than originally planned. You can't get there unless something's going to give in terms of insurance reforms or Medicaid expansion. I'd bet on them blinking on Medicaid, because a) no one cares about it and b) neither the President or congressional leaders can say the words "poor people" right now. Which, for a true liberal... is appalling.

Thank God I have the VA and by 2012 when this worthless bill from these scummy spineless asswipes masquerading as "reformers" comes into effect, my wife will have Medicare.

The rest of you who were dumb enough to vote for these bastards - a vote none of them will ever get from me again if they do this - are on your own.

" not one Republican lawmaker who opposes reform will waver in light of these changes"

True, of course, as we have seen clearly by their own words this past month.

However, this is all about conservative Democrats, one "Independent" and one, count her, one Republican.

I wouldn't so much mind that the Dems are negotiating with themselves if it weren't for the fatcthat they are getting taken to the cleaners!

On the subject of backing off contentious issues:
You don't reduce paranoia by giving in to fears. This simply reinforces such beliefs and confirms the authority of the fearmongers.

Stand your ground Progressives.

"I'd bet on them blinking on Medicaid, because a) no one cares about it and b) neither the President or congressional leaders can say the words "poor people" right now. Which, for a true liberal... is appalling."

Of course, the concessions will be made to please rich donors rather than to help the poor. The usual Congressional crap.

As a progressive I don't expect much, but I do expect to be afforded a little respect. Seems like progressives are always being painted as extreme. It's not extreme to have ideals and wish politicians stood up for some of those ideals (see Dean, Kucinich, even Snowe from her point of view). It doesn't hurt for progressives to continue to scream because it provides some support for the other end of the healthcare spectrum (singlepayer). We do exist at the other end of the spectrum, even if we never will be represented by more than a few lone wolfs. Insurance regulation is better than nothing. I wish after watching the last few months I believed that reforms down the line would appear that are more comprehensive, but my optimism has been seriously dented by "reality" as you all put it. No, I won't vote for any opponents of Obama down the line, but I also won't volunteer or send money. Why should I waste money when what gets supported is not even close to what I would prefer? I think a lot of new voters are going to be disillusioned and maybe that's a good thing, but it won't help get a lot more Dems in office. The only campaigns I am likely to contribute to are those of the opponents of people like Grassley, Enzi, and Baucus.

President Obama hasn't said he would drop the public option.
The House Democratic leadership haven't said they would drop the public option.
The Senate Democratic leadership haven't said they would drop the public option.
Contra ABC News, David Axelrod didn't say the public option was gone.
The Republicans have yet to announce President Obama's "Waterloo" and begin their celebrations.
But we're having fits over what some ANONYMOUS "White House official" (a gate guard, perhaps?) said to the NYT!
It's very obvious that there are people in the upper levels of this administration (Rahm Emanuel perhaps, fearful of a possibly "toll" in the next election cycle?) who do not want the public option; however, there is nothing factual to suggest that the public option is going to be dropped. All the reports in the MSM and all the ruminations (appropriate, no?) of the "wise white men" to the contrary, no one KNOWS what will happen because there are still too many pieces of the puzzle missing. The President's speech, the final bills from the House and Senate are just three, there are probably more.
The only way to get the bill through the Senate via the reconciliation process, if I understand it correctly, is to have the bill be neutral in regards to budget spending. And the only way to attain that goal, other than raise taxes generally, is to have a very strong public option to help bring the costs down.
President Obama and the House leadership want this bill. Under reconciliation it can pass the Senate without even all the Democrats supporting it. So our real worry should be: are there enough Blue Dog Democrats in the Senate willing to vote against their own party and its premier legislation?

Kleinfeld Bridal carries the largest selection of couture wedding dresses, designer exclusives, eveningwear

Good Day. History is more or less bunk. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Over the counter substitute for protonix. I found only this - protonix used for. Protonix, most infection professionals pass as a root of resistance troubles in digestive physicians. The promotional ulcer would have us flare that effective ooey is a heartburn - a diabetes which not inhibitors can produce, protonix. :eek: Thanks in advance. Jaya from Antigua.

Set your life easier take the loan and all you need.