can clinton be moved? does he have public contact information?hmmmm

Is the problem mike ross? Or is the problem Obama, who seems to agree with everything Ross does, and is willing to punish Democrats who stand in the way of Ross’s agenda?

well i think the problem is the white house hose, which has made a political aliance with corporate waterboys dems.

From Blue NC blog:

Dear Congressman McIntyre: If you’re going to be a liar, change parties
Submitted by James on Thu, 08/20/2009 – 12:44pm Mike Mcintrye
Democrats in Congress these days benefit from an environment of low expectations. They don’t get much done and most people seem just fine with that. But is it really asking too much for them to simply tell the truth to their constituents? Apparently not. If your name is Congressman Mike McIntrye, truth doesn’t seem to be in the job description.

Adam Linker breaks it down at Progressive Pulse, based on a story in the Robesonian.

“This bill provides medical benefits for illegal aliens,” he said. “I can’t say it any more directly. That is absolutely unacceptable.”

He said the bill also proposes cutting many Medicare benefits for the nation’s seniors. “Senior citizens should not have any of their current benefits cut or reduced,” he added. “… I am absolutely going to continue to fight for senior benefits.”

What a lying POS … and I don’t mean “point of sale.”

Thanks Jane. Is OFA liveblogging here OK? Don’t wanna move OT.

BTW you personally are rocking hard lately and I am so proud to be a small part of this extraordinary community.

Here’s the question I sent in to OFA to ask Obama:

“I’ll get right to the point: Because single-payer seems to be off the table, do you get it, that any health care reform must have a strong public option, or no deal?”

OFA live stream is here.

Well, he’ll fly to N. Korea to help rescue a couple of cute girls. I wonder what it would take to get him to go to his home state and do something for the common good?

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said on Wednesday that providing healthcare to uninsured Americans is “not what this healthcare reform debate is about.”

Dear Rep. Ross,

In the words of one of your distinguished colleagues,
on what planet do you spend most of your time?

Thx, I’m already there.

Dang he’s a likable presence.

I say a lot more about this in my blog at wordpress, but the Obama Administration is conceding as much to the ghosts of 1993-94 as it is with the Reps and Senators that Big Money has fingered.

The real problems are careerism and trying to triangulate in a parliamentary environment (i.e. opposition always says no). The opposition is already bought off, and the Obama team should just cut loose the In-party people who won’t follow the party manifesto.

I love it when you talk dirty.

Something Obama should use to communicate what the “exchange” is: If you work for a larger business, chances are you have “Open Enrollment” annually – you get to choose from a menu of options along with information about coverage and premiums. The Exchange is simply open enrollment for everyone.

I see it as a Rahm problem. He owns the Blue Dogs so he can’t ditch them or throw ‘em under the bus, even if they’re against the program. To him, the progressives are the jettisonable ones, not the Blue Dogs. It’s obviously clouded his judgement so far, and he’s been able to get away with it, but now with the health care push it’s becoming clear that he’s set himself up in an untenable position. I’m starting to think that either he’s gonna have to roll on the Blue Dogs, or else PBO’s gonna have to ditch him as CoS.

So far in this health care debate the Democrats seem like they’re playing checkers with themselves — and losing. Republicans refuse to even participate so the Dems move their pieces for them, and still can’t manage to get an advantage.

Here’s the link for live streaming Obama’s forum.

http://www.barackobama.com/forum/live.html

BTW you personally are rocking hard lately and I am so proud to be a small part of this extraordinary community.

Ooooh. I second that.

Obama is a master of “wonk speach.” Why doesn’t he hire Professor George Lakoff for messaging? These forums are merely for cororate media sound bites for the terminally inattentive.

Is it me, or does he sound like he’s pushing the public option?

Wow. Who cares if the little people have no access to healthcare. Actually, it’s good when these dogs lay it on the line–it’s not about healthcare, it’s about containing limits to health insurance/pharma profits. And for Ross that means making healthcare even shittier.

25% of hid district is African American I presume we or Obama can find a primary challenger.

He talks up a public option every time.

rah, rah… go OFA.

Well, open enrollment is still getting to pick between expensive, very expensive, and totally out of the question insurance plans and deductables…

OT Glenn Beck told to take a vacation.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..rced-Leave

I like the way that he’s calling the lies lies. That’s the straight shooter model that won him the election.

The point is to relate an Exchange with something people know. An Exchange is not familiar, it’s something new and novel ideas can be scary. Open Enrollment is familiar to many people, so saying an Exchange is OE for everyone, with lower cost and higher quality options available.

I think the “like Members of Congress have” isn’t an effective construction to get the idea across. You’ll have elite level health care? How will you pay for it? Congress gets it paid for by taxpayers.

Almost as though a boatload of defecting advertisers had an effect on network management.

I missed the earlier thread about the co-op gambit, but in case it hadn’t been mentioned, my congressman, Jim Moran, put out a press release earlier this week, Co-ops No Substitute for Public Option. I haven’t gotten him to take the Pledge yet, but I’m working on it, since it seems to be in line with everything else he’s saying and doing.

The meme about “cost containment” really pisss me off (okay, just about everything involved with this “reform” pisses me off, but I digress..)

WHOSE COSTS? If you look at the CBO cover letter for the first and second versions of the Senate HELP committee bill… they praise the “cost containment”… but guess what that equals…. fewer Americans being covered… how else do you “contain” costs?

What fucking asshole Ross SHOULD be focusing on is bringing down “costs” that providers bill insurance cos. (they are out of control and are not based in reality AT ALL)…

or bring down “costs” that for Americans… eg, raise the % that insurance companies pay.

Here are the types of “costs” involved:

Government costs
Patient costs
Provider costs
Insurance company payouts

If you focus only on bringing “costs” down… you are in effect screwing Americans again.

What’s with the shout out to Grassley, Enzi and Snowe?

“D Ark”, You know, Noah’s boat, fictitious and ancient, suits the blue-tool well… DINO springs to mind too. He’s a Republican who couldn’t get a gig as a republican. That makes him a con-man too.

it’s a dogwhistle to Big Money (PhRMA, Ins, AMA,, etc.) in hopes of keeping their money out of GOP coffers in 2010

Let’s be real. Grassley and Enzi have no interest in the least unless it’s another give away to the insurance companies with no public option.

In 75 years when the co-op has had time to build up membership it could be an option. Until then it’s just smoke and mirrors.

How does stroking the three R on Senate Finance dogwhistle to big money?

Obama knows Grassley isn’t going to get on board on anything. Why stroke him?

Obligatory bow to the god of bipartisanship. Hot topic today. Again.

it’s an ugly stench in my nostrils, worse than the smoke from the nearby wildfire.

At the OFA Health Care Forum, O just claimed he wants to revise the tax code to revert to the rules in place under “that radical” Ronald Raygun.

Q 11,000 OFA volunteers insist on public option, what are you going to do about it?

A:
I continue to support a public option. One component of a broader plan.

Oooh, PBO totally dodging the single payer question. Poor form at a minimum, more like outrageous. Very disappointing.

I heard that as just some of the deductibility rules, not the whole tax code.

Obama: Public option shouldn’t be our focus, we need to look at everything involved in health insurance reform.

Obesity rates of the 80s could save Medicare $1T? WTF?

Note to “choice” lady: Obesity is not a simple matter of eating choices, there is also for many people a significant genetic component. This is like an ambulatory person complaining about a person in a wheelchair. It’s not an elective thing.

Does not focusing on the public option mean not passing it or does it mean focusing on the entire bill? Are we being bullshitted again?

That would involve profits for the chemistry industry.

’cause it was never about Grassley

let’s go to the source shall we ?

Bipartisan” was always code for “no public plan,” something to keep the thieves stakeholders (AMA, PhRMA, hospitals, device makers, etc.) at the table and their money out of GOP coffers for 2010

Jane has always been waaaaay out in front on this – she has been talking about the Incumbency Protection Racket for several years now

Bipartisanship is a thing of the past – It worked when you were dealing with equals – basically moral, bright human beings – but the Republican party has become a cesspool of loonies who are hellbent on political oneupmanship at all costs and to heck with the American people and the country in general.

Obama — the regulation of insurance companies and the public option are like “a belt and suspenders”

Translation — the public option (the suspenders) is expendable, as long as we have the belt (the regulations).

***
Whenever Obama is asked about the public option, he complains that its been recieving too much attention. But it would receive a lot less attention if he were to commit to a strong public option — its his refusal to unambiguously support an easily understood strong public option that makes it so controversial.

100% agree under the present circumstances. Wasn’t justifying, just interpreting.

it means we may be letting the public option be a distraction – a ginned up shiny object.

keep it by all means, but also be sure to talk about ending rescission, making insurance portable, a lot of things that would benefit currently insured people.

He’s got a point when it comes to selling the plan to undecided people. While a public option does help currently insured people it is a more difficult argument to make.

Thank you Jane. First visit to FBL, Read posting re Mike Doss is full of shit. Made me smile for the first time since Obama ran out his nonsense about ‘people on the left.. and people on the right’ over the weekend and todays ‘folks on the left got a little exited..’ (you mean when you said a public option is not an important part of the reform program?..)
If Obama wants a strong public plan, why not write the best bill possible, get 51 senarors to support it, demand the Dem caucus to vote for cloture and then let those that want to vote against the public plan vote against it. He would in effect be asking only that they not block the bill, would not need reconcilliation (which will not work in any case) and would end up with a bill that will really do something..

The republican party is what it has always been.

This is a hopeful outlook. I pray that you are right. Time will tell.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were justifying! I was just venting. :^)

Of course for O to do that, he has to actually want healthcare reform. Which is unclear, to be generous.

I don’t have any illusions that Obama is going to the mats for a public option.

Jane Hamsher (and all of us as well) are making sure that he doesn’t have to.

All those benefits you list will increase costs for the insurance companies. Unless balanced by some other force, that is going to drive up subscriber costs. I think the public option is necessary to introduce the competition that is the only clear way to drive down subscriber costs. I guess this means I have little faith that any regulatory components will have sufficient teeth.

A love fest.

No worries, just making sure.

The Big Finish.

Did we hear anything that made us feel better?

Bush was impulsive while Obama over intellectualizes making it difficult to make a decision.

Very little.

I think it was a troop rally, nothing more. I didn’t hear any significant policy or content shift. Not that I expected that, I didn’t.

Well, Bush certainly demonstrated that doing the wrong thing can be worse than doing nothing.

Why hasn’t Obama hired Professor George Lakoff as a consultant? He would have crafted a message that would have had even teabaggers and birthers jumping up and down demanding some of that.

Yep. Obama has been a disappointment, but he’s still a huge improvement over Bush.

The Public Option is not dead…it’s just on life support!

New Group – I Support The Public Option!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=236531335386

Tell Congress and President Obama that you support a public option component to any Healthcare Reform Bill.

Let your voice be heard!

Also tell Congress and President Obama what Jane said: The public option IS the compromise. Accept no further substitutes.

Fucking prick. Tell you what, I’ll gladly donate to a TV ad that highlights that quote for viewers in his district.

In making his comments, Ross, who is the centrist Blue Dogs’ health reform point man, questioned one of the primary healthcare goals of the White House and Democratic leaders.

It would do progressives and all Democrats a world of good if they refused to allow rightwing conservatives like Ross to appropriate the status of “centrist”.

Ross isn’t in the center of any universe. He isn’t middle of the road or pro-constituency or “conservative” in the mythic, academic sense that David Brooks drools over. Ross is a reactionary pol who would vote against his mother’s Medicare funding if it would get him a committee assignment or a little more campaign money from Ma and Pa Walmart.

Let’s stop calling reactionary Democrats “centrist”.

Jane, thank you again for supplying truth to power. FDLXLNT

It is time we stopped calling right-wing Democrats “centrists” and started calling them what they are – right-wing Democrats.

It is time we stopped using the euphemism “campaign contribution” for payoff money and started calling payoff money exactly what it is – payoff
money.

Payoff money: money given to political officeholders for favors granted and favors expected.

I see it as a Rahm problem. He owns the Blue Dogs so he can’t ditch them or throw ‘em under the bus, even if they’re against the program. To him, the progressives are the jettisonable ones, not the Blue Dogs. It’s obviously clouded his judgement so far, and he’s been able to get away with it, but now with the health care push it’s becoming clear that he’s set himself up in an untenable position. I’m starting to think that either he’s gonna have to roll on the Blue Dogs, or else PBO’s gonna have to ditch him as CoS.

It’s like I was saying at my own blog. This is either Rahm trying to avoid what he thinks is another 1994 coming, or a triangulation strategy circa 1995-98.

If you visit me, you will notice I was one of Bill Clinton’s earliest contributors in 1992 (1991 actually). So I know about early Rahm.

The early Clinton method was use whoever they had to for whatever they could, and then dump the people over the side. And any criticism of what was going on anytime along the way, well, then, “off” that person. And this is kind of the environment that Rahm built his career in (before he went for the $18 million payout in the investment banking world).

This is the product when you are a political commando of sorts.

So a lot of it is the being brought up politically in the 1990’s. But I think other parts of the “treatment” go back, even to Gary Hart.

The 1972 Hart got McGovern to the finish line by rounding up all the non-established party people and squeezing them for what he could. Finding the discontented of the time (discontented for good reasons or any reason), and getting them to sign on to the cause. (For nothing in return!)

Even though 1972 was a disaster, that approach:

get people to selflessly give to get you there, then no plan to deliver

has repeated itself time-and-again at the national level with the D’s. For many years they just kept running on the successes of the New Deal. Then, when that got stale, the theme was “new and different”. That was a success for Carter and Clinton.

The only successful two-term administration strategies the Democrats have had in 50 years was:

1) Johnson: a tragedy of history (1963), plus running against an eccentric Senator

2) Clinton: being as “Bidness Democrat” as they could to get votes. (1995-99) (And maybe having Ross Perot split the no vote.)

So the crowd that the President has in there with him is heavily influenced by that Clinton Administration. That’s the blueprint against which the construction guys are checking the house.

I think the problem is the opposition has already figured them out, though. This is why new-style progressive Democrats can’t figure out what is going on.

I’m just arguing for the bigger picture to explain why Rahm Emanuel is allegedly doing the things he’s doing. So now he’s hearing from the modern version of the precinct halls that a “bipartisan solution” is trouble, too.

And they’ll come around, I’m sure.