Media falls for nothing. They are part of the strategy. Media knows how and what they are spinning. They are not stupid, but they ARE run by greedy, cow-towed corporatists who would sell their very mother if they thought it would bring them more money. The GOP has the MSM in their back-pocket, and the '4th branch' of government is dying on the vine.

The Corporate/Repiglican Media doesn't 'fall' for anything. They in fact create their own story lines, and their own scripts that are determined by the Corporations that own the 'media'. Then they hire 'journalists' who will do their bidding by making them part of the 'media elite': millionaire corporate whores who have sold their soul to be part of the 'media elite'. They are in eyes an actual criminals who purposefully create these story lines to manipulate public perception on behalf of their Corporate owners. They have no souls left within them as a result: only a rancid abscess in it's place. The Corporate Media really is akin to the mafia, and are the greatest danger to American itself.

A friend of mine who lives in Florida emailed me the following:

"The guy that shot his former coworkers in Orlando?

He had had major anger and depression issues, but a couple years back, went on medication _and improved_. Then he lost his job, and did various other temporary here and there jobs, none with health insurance. When the COBRA ran out, he could no longer afford the drugs - just a couple months back. And apparently he couldn't take his Subway job anymore (which had no health insurance anyway) so quit that. Neighbors and friends are all agreeing that once he got off the drugs his behavior turned creepy and menacing and angry. The friends and relatives are also agreeing that he wouldn't have shot anyone if he'd still been on his medication."

Maybe someone needs to take THAT up with their local Republican.

I remember when Democrats were in the minority and the media narrative focused on all the Democratic problems that were keeping them in the minority. Now that the the Republicans are in the minority, the narrative is about all the Democratic problems that will cost them the majority. It's always bad news for the Democrats!

Still, I'll take the majority.

IT's kind of like an erection. It won't last long. Ask the girl's

How can they justify to workers who lost their coverage when they lost their job that they didn't want to approve a bill that would help?"

FREEDOM™ is a registered trademark of the Republican National Committee. All rights reserved.

Regarding the Florida shooter: Why weren't others in the office carrying firearms? It's legal in Florida, you know?
I suggest Democrats offer a handgun as a required benefit under any approved health plan. Republicans should jump at that. The taxpayers would be paying for anti-depressants for years. They'd only have to pay for one bullet.

What will they say? they'll say, "Democrats FORCED us to vote against HCR!! because they're so MEAN and so PARTISAN!! wahhh!"

for the record, I don't think it will work. Dems just have to run ads showing all those GOP reps at town halls dismissing constituents desperate for help.

They don't know it, but they are fucked.

I don't know, maybe the Republicans will manage to avoid being held responsible. They and their sycophants in the media have become so effective at producing the equivalent of 'chaff', as the term was used in WW II of the the bits of tin foil dropped by bombers to confuse enemy radar, that it's far from clear that a good part of the public will have much of a chance at seeing the truth. These days, one has to be really seriously interested in what's going on to fight one's way through the blizzard of lies, half-truths, sophistries, deliberate distractions and so on that the Republican noise machine produces on an industrial scale.

@Kathy K.-E-mail? I just googled some the snetences and came up empty. Any sources listed? That may be one of the clues we see so much of in rightwing bogus e-mails. Just sayin.

I can see the logic in the claim that this can't be bad for Republicans. After the 2006 and 2008 elections where Democrats swept the table, ARE there any Republicans left who aren't in extremely safe seats?

What do they have to lose?

i think the pruning by the neo-con, fundamentalist, tea bagging crazy right wing (do your worst, asshoes!)

and the pruning from the progressive pro-women's rights, universal health care left just might produce a stronger more unified Democratic Party with a similar majority in the House and the Clown Car...

either way... let's bid adieu to the likes of Stupak, Shuler et al...they suck.

Where was the headline... "Palin, Beck, Limbaugh Lose 100 Year Old GOP Seat"??

P.S. Neither one of the oft quoted governors losses came from a state that has had a Democratic governor for the majority of the last 20 years.

Don't call Lieberman a Democrat. The Democratic caucus is 59.

My apologies to Sam Donaldson re: the GOP 100 seat loss (I just saw the "This Week" clip where he says it so clearly)

It's kowtow, -one word-,sosad, (ORIGIN: early 19th cent. from Chinese kētóu), but you're right about the media. Earlier today I heard a Bubble Head Blonde say that the Dems barely got the 218 votes needed. She was either clueless or didn't want the unwashed masses to know how the game is played in the House.

The Whip counts the votes, and tells the Speaker she has them before the vote is called. Has MORE than enough, so that Representatives in tough districts can vote Nay if they have to. In reality Pelosi probably had an extra dozen or so votes, if needed.

Also, I learned -on this site- a few months back that a fillibuster requires the DEMS to stay awake and on the floor, lest the Reps call for a quorum at any time during said fillibuster.

"And the media is falling for it."

Minor correction here - this should read "and the media is complicit in it"

It's always 1994 in the Village.

And the media is falling for it.

You don't say.

The "liberal media" strikes again!

The fact that the current reform proposal is now taken for granted as a remedy for our broken health care, that we "are finally doing something about it," is disappointing and frankly Orwellian.

Bringing 30 million people into the system was an opportunity to address the fundamental problem of prices in our system - specifically the prices we, or the insurance companies, or the government pay the doctors and hospitals for their services. This is the source of the real disparity between our system and others. Aggressively renegotiating these prices, while at the same time expanding the number of people buying those services, would have permitted the institutions involved to remain solvent in spite of the reduced fees per service they would receive. The current bill does not do this. Instead, what we have is an expansion of the status quo pricing scheme which will now be subsidized by the taxpayer. It is completely unsustainable, and as institutions adjust to their new taxpayer-financed cash flow, our ability to reform this fundamentally broken component of our system without breaking the system completely will be diminished.

In addition, it should be obvious that any genuinely "progressive" or "liberal" health care reform would have involved at the least a partial expansion of Medicare or Medicaid. In fact doing either could legitimately be called "builing on the present system," as Obama put it. This bill, because it does neither, is anything but a victory for progressives. It is yet another sign of the near total capitulation of the Democratic party to corporate interests.

Healthcare reform is half way to the finish line and its still a race worth winning. If its reformation is good news for republicans, it is even better news for democrats. Now, maybe, the House will step up to its obligations to take on the Wall Street mobsters. I have my doubts about that, but not as many as I have tonight about the willingness of the people of California to
reform the way California finances its operations and the bipartisan effort and leadership required to get it done.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll9-2009nov09,0,1745207.story?track=rss

To Jason:

You're right and wrong about cost containment. Yes, the current bill does not have have much about cost control. The idea is twofold: first, the public option will provide cost competition to existing insurers, so they will figure out ways to cut costs on their own. Secondly, you have to think about the politics here. This was Dems vs. Republicans and the health-care industry which likes the status quo and would at least like some large bribes before giving anything up. We need to get universal coverage first, so insurers and providers can't cut costs by simply not treating sick people (ie., dumping them on Medicaid). As has been shown, it was everything Dems could handle to get the current, modest changes as far as they have gotten them. Real cost containment will have to wait until some later time. Also, think about this: what are the cost containment measures you are in favor of, and how do you assemble a political coalition in favor of them?

Also see http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/10/atul-gofigure-why-mcallen-should-have-mattered-in-the-health-reform-debate.html
for some good suggestions about how to cut healthcare costs that will be opposed by providers.