however, I am grateful for #107 because that is as good an answer to my question as I am likely to get.

namely

“It would also be rather easy find that AN deals in primary challenges and in creating a healthy primary market.”

ah- so it seems I did have the right idea all along when I wrote

I think Accountability Now will not support 3rd Party or (I) challenges, especially if such splitting might result in a win for the (R).

(with the 2nd phrase struck for irrelevance.)

we’ll spell it out simple – JH says “AN deals in primary challenges” fair enough.

3rd Party and (I) runs may or may not have primaries, and they certainly don’t have many incumbents to challenge in primaries. Holy Joe doesn’t have to worry about challengers emerging from the left or right of the “Lieberman for Lieberman” Party, and Bernie Sanders is doing just fine.

I guess I got all muddled by rhetoric like this, found on the AN website:

Accountability Now is an organization built around a single guiding principle: challenging the institutional power structures that make it so easy, so consequence-free for Congress to open up the government coffers for looting by corporate America while people across the country are losing their jobs and their basic constitutional rights while unable to afford basic health care.

(my emphases)

But, after a wee bit of an acrimonious exchange with Jane Hamsher, we google-impaired oafs now have a clarification, or rather, an exception to this “em>single guiding principle“, namely that any challenges to the ‘institutional power structures’ can only originate and be played out within the Primary System of the institutional power structures of the (D) and (R) Parties, if they are to merit the support of the group calling itself Accountability Now.

I do still admire the project, and to the extent it rattles the incumbency racket it is great, but the pre-emptive decision to leave 3rd Party and (I) activities “off the table” reminds me a bit of the ‘pragmatists’ choice to leave Single Payer off the table, and instead try to rally the troops around the banner of something called a Public Option.

we’ll how that battle plays out soon enough.

btw, Jane, I’m not part of any nefarious ‘group’ anymore – the Groucho Marxists kicked me out!

It would also be rather easy find that AN deals in primary challenges and in creating a healthy primary market.

But I do have to thank you and your fellow trolls for being here in our comments section. It’s a constant reminder that it’s dangerous to deal with any movement that trades in complete intellectual “ends justify the means” dishonesty.

I’ve made many decisions I might not have otherwise made just to steer clear of any association, and moving forward I’m taking care to distinguish between honest brokers and anyone who thinks your tactics are acceptable.

It’s a good consistent warning, so thanks for never letting me forget.

I could find no trace of any using the Google.

actions, not PR statements, would best squelch such questions as I have.

and, rather than quoting yourself talking to some journalist, why not put the question to rest, instead of the same sort of wiggling politicians engage in to avoid pledging support to your ‘public option’.

It is of course heartening to see the answer to a question nobody asked, namely will Accountability Now support Libertarian flavored (R) primary challengers, great, go for it.

but, still sitting there, conspicuously unaddressed throughout all this is:

I think Accountability Now will not support 3rd Party or (I) challenges, especially if such splitting might result in a win for the (R).

of course, your belligerent rhetoric provides a clue as to the answer to this one.

Losing Trumka would be devastating.

Jane, do you still need help with researching? I have some time today and tomorrow. Don’t know your email address.

A financial transaction tax — it’s a two-fer, since it also slows speculation, making bubbles harder to inflate.

If it’s significant enough to slow business, then it won’t get through and it would harm the system. If it’s small enough to NOT slow business, then it won’t have the effect you want. But, it could be used to recover money from the financial industry which has been used to rescue the economy.

That’s similar to the idea of taxing the healthcare industry to pay for the reform bill (at least part of it).

At this point I like taxing the healthcare industry a small amount, cutting MedicareAdvantage a small amount, raising taxes on gold-plated healthcare policies and getting rid of the mandates to shrink the reform cost. I’m not sure about a market transaction tax yet. How soon will we know about our return on the TARP monies? Will we need to recover more or will we get back all of it without having to strong arm them? I’d prefer to hold back on a transaction tax until we’re certain it’s necessary to get our money back.

So, the two are similar, but not 100% identical.

AFL-CIO was the most outspoken against the individual mandate (Sweeney called it ‘unconscionable’.

It’s ironic that he and Sen. Ensign (R-NV) could agree on this.

The public option is a last resort for individuals (or companies I suppose) who can’t find what they want or get the service & price they want from private insurers. If the private insurers don’t perform well there’s not just another private insurer who may well be setting prices, there’s the public option.

Will the pressure of the risk of losing customers keep private insurers in line? That’s a fundamental element of market capitalism and it should be helpful.

the community banks and credit unions. They do have a lot of clout. And they have a legitimate grievance: They have not been behind the abuses.

Yes it’s clear they’re not the big problem. OTOH, what’s up with Wells Fargo Bank and their very slow mortgage modification rate?

Maybe if the Dallas terrorist had hit the bank down there they would have something to really complain about, but without that what’s their excuse for letting the other big banks shoulder the burden of fixing this problem?

an attempt to convince voters that a McDonald’s single, no cheese, is a steak.

What do you mean? Oh no. You couldn’t possibly. Oh dear God you don’t …
Noooooooooooooooooo!

/s

I had a teacher in high school who told a story about how there’s a company which supplies all the fast food places. They simply drive a truck in with white powder in the back, pump it into the store where it’s kept in a tank. Then the store just processes teh powder by adding water to make soda drinks or by putting it in a mold to make cups & boxes or by adding a little oil, deep frying it and getting fries. Sounds yummy. /s

It is hard to come up with a “gotcha” phrase (sorry Palin) for “Public Option”

Let me try:

[a|the] [strong|robust]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan].

Yes? No? Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks!