Earth to Harry: the public option is more popular than you are.

Guess it hurts to be a spineless, wishy-washy wimp. I’m not crying for him.

Why, oh why, is this man the Senate majority leader? I read elsewhere(?) that he has always only cared about taking care of Nevada. Shame on all of them for putting us in this position. It’s tragic – and that’s no exaggeration.

I feel bad for Reid he got fucked by Obama, but not bad enough that I won’t help ruin his re-election, and then the O-man’s after that.

Well, you can’t be majority leader if you’re not in the Senate. Buh-bye, Harry.

Yeah, and before him it was Tom Daschle. It’s always a centrist with no spine.

Jane,

What’s the situation with Brown’s efforts to stop Hagan and the other PhRMA-friendly members of the Senate?

Please see When Pharmaceutical Companies Dominate Ultra-Niche Markets. It’s about you and Eshoo, about Hagan and the Senate, and especially about the recent exploits of the Genzyme Corporation.

Yeah but who will be the next majority leader, Max Baucus?

And that’s assuming the Flaccidcrats retain the majority status.

CW says Schumer has the inside track

Well, that would be an slight improvement, IMO.

although I don’t care for him, he probably would be a good leader – with fingers crossed.

I’m really tired, and maybe a prig, but the headline surely does not contribute to any inspiration, IMVHO..just to say. Is there any courtesy left?

Not that I can remember that well, but was Lyndon Johnson a spineless centrist? Was Mike Mansfield? Weren’t they former Majority Leader?

I realize that as a Reverend you have to say that, but personally I love it when Jane talks dirty. :-)

damn, I should have said

CW says Schumer is angling for the inside track

and of the opinion that No, it will not be any better, they all play the same game, just with a different batting order, or different pitches. Schumer would please us on some things but be equally bad on others. the problem appears to be systemic – rethink the Senate blah, blah, blah – waaay above this waitress’s pay grade

How times have changed!

My bet is that Joe Lieberman will sell his vote for cloture in return for the promise of being voted Majority Leader. /half-snark

LBJ would have tolerated about 2 seconds of this stuff. He would have told them that they would lose their committee chairs and would get no money from the party for their next campaigns. End of discussion.

I’ll see your half-snark and raise you a quarter-snark.

just now checked the Weather Sat – flurries definitely on the way – oy

Yup.

I thought Dick Durbin was next in line for Majority Leader. I also think he might not be half bad.

What is the current polling on all the Blue Dogs fighting healthcare up for reelection. Popular wisdom says you need Moderates to win those Districts.
However if only 5% of the Hard Core Lefty Dem base stays home on election day can any Blue Dog win?
Without enough Blue Dogs in the Senate can another Harry Reid be elected Senate Leader? Are enough Blue Dogs in the Senate in trouble this election to make that scenario possible?

We must tie the Dems expected election failure to Rahm and Moderate half loaf policies.

Well we know that he has already sold out to AIPAC, the banking industry, pharma, the insurance industry and of course the MIC so he is fully qualified.

Harry Reid has raised a small fortune for his reelection campaign, and it’s not working:

The poll was taken after Harry ran his TV commercials? If so thats really sad.

As Josh sez, this probably didn’t help Chris Shays.

“Ha Ha. Fuck You, Harry Reid. Kicking Your Ass is Going To Be Fun.”

*Snicker* Indeed.

Nevadan here…and much as I hate spineless Harry Reid, I hate Sue Lowden (who won’t win anyway because she pissed off the sizeable Ron Paul contingent by shutting down the state GOP convention) and Danny Tarkanian (who couldn’t even win a state-level election last time) more.

There are no Democratic candidates here who will run against Reid (Barbara Buckley is too worried about keeping the state assembly on the D side in 2010, and all the others are aiming at knocking off Jim Gibbons). And forget about bringing in a Dem to run against him – Nevada loathes “carpetbaggers” with an intensity that rivals the Deep South.

So if I had to, I would vote for Reid over the other chuckleheads and kooks we have to choose from. I wouldn’t like it, but better the devil you know.

Harry Reid has raised a small fortune for his reelection campaign, and it’s not working:

Interestingly enough if the bloody idiot would just do the people’s bidding and not bow to the wishes of big business and the Mormon church (same thing really) he would be leading in the polls in all probability.

Reid might not care since he’ll end up as a lobbyist or health care exec, etc – go after his son. Target the Nev. governor’s race.

A probe by the Shays campaign reportedly found that Sohn had spent the money on Red Sox tickets, limousine travel, and a donation to his synagogue.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/shays_campaign_manager_charged_with_embezzling_fun.php?ref=fpblg

I bet the donation was a bribe for a political endorsement.

Either we find a candidate or with those poll numbers the GOP will win.

for me it remains to be seen what he’d be like outside of Reid’s shadow – am mindful he is running the same Public Option fundraising/list building scam as Reid

His son is running for Gov? I think your onto something.

“Is there any courtesy left?”

I sincerely appreciate and respect where you’re coming from on this, Rev. However, in Harry Reid’s case, I think we’re way beyond such niceties. He has (along with too many of his cronies) been given every opportunity to come around on this – and he has failed miserably. At this point, therefore, he deserves unfiltered contempt, scorn…and to lose his cushy position in the Senate.

In environmental news,

Tom Tancredo Will Not Run For Colorado Governor

Well, if it’s any consolation to you, if all the Blue Dogs lose, then Harry getting elected again probably won’t matter because Dems will no longer be in the majority (unless a miracle happens!) so we will no longer be setting the agenda or naming committee chairs. In all likelihood, Mitch McConnell will.

So if I had to, I would vote for Reid over the other chuckleheads and kooks we have to choose from. I wouldn’t like it, but better the devil you know.

But of course that is the very problem. By voting for reid even though he is bloody useless you are allowing the system to run as usual. Eschew voting for “the devil you know” and vot for a Progressive candidate even though they may lose. At least the statement will have been made and surely it is better to have a GOP swine backbencher than it is to have a Democrat swine in charge.

Well, then…better start organizing a group to select a primary candidate from outside the broken D insiders’ circle.

You’re basing your analysis off of a poll conducted on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

I wouldn’t use that rag to line a birdcage. They’re the most ultra-conservative outfit in the state. Hell, they went after Dubya for not being conservative enough for their taste.

Not to mention that their polling data has always skewed rightward.

That improves the atmosphere in all 50 states. :)

Point taken do you think Harry can win?

We don’t have any progressive candidates! Nobody is willing to primary Reid, as I said in my first post.

And I don’t want another Republican senator. Ensign is bad enough, thank you very much. Even though he is in the minority, he does enough to make a mess of things.

Are any of Harry’s opponents Mormon? The Mormons will vote for him but if the vote is split it could be a real problem for him.

If he can carry Clark County (solidly Democratic) and Washoe County (narrowly Democratic), yes. That’s always been the electoral strategy here – win the two big counties and it doesn’t matter how you do in Elko or Winnemucca, you’ll win the state.

Reid won in 1998 by just 400 votes over John Ensign. Also, he and Ensign have had a handshake agreement not to campaign against the other since that election (one of the few promises Ensign has actually kept).

Emptywheel has a fresh cross-post available: “Why Not Send 30,000 Troops to Somalia?”

There’s a new wrinkle to the Big Pharma – generic issue. It seems that Big Pharma has been buying off generic manufacturers in deals in which the generic manufacturers receive payment for not bringing out competing products.

I don’t know what “restraint of trade” is defined to be now, but at one time that behavior would trigger anti-trust action.

I’ve said all along that the move to remove this spineless simp from his seat in the Senate next year should have been made way back. Threats alone work with these clowns.

But now that threat should be foremost in his mind, the realization that he will no longer be in the Senate. That threat alone is what will curb his enthusiam for fucking over the PO and placating scum like Lincoln, Landrieu and the rest.

“its going to be fun kicking harrys ass”

its going to be more fun taking the down the obama administration. I dont come here very often anymore becasue i cant take being that pissed off all the time. i donate when jane says donate and i sign when she says to sign. But when the day comes and obama and “organizing for america” (what a pathetic imitation of the dean organization) are begging for money and my vote, Im going to REALLY enjoy putting the screws to them. Im going to gloat over their political destruction and not care a whit what mike huckabee or sarah palin or mit romney has to say about it because obama DESERVES to lose. i despise that lying sack of shit.

moot point. without a lot of work from the nevada and national activists reid is toast. yeah it sucks in a way, but in another way he hasnt earned it. We havent gotten anywhere electing the democrat just becasue it’s not a republican. but dont feel bad republican activists didnt get anywhere voting republican just because either. we dont matter. only what the goldmans of the world want matters and both parties are on thier knees to service them 24-7

Oh, my. Solerso is mad. I’m not to that point yet, but I’m on a path leading there.

Uh …I DON’T feel sorry for spineless loser Reid…….and as far as being f’d by Obama how do u know that is what it is…Reid is great at f’ing himself he doesn’t need Obama for that!

Reidless Harry could show that he is, in fact, as tough as Harry Truman by passing credible health care reform legislation. Or not.

Mr. Reid could also put his millions where he says his principles are. He could insert into the bill (hell, during the Bush regime, aides inserted provisions at midnight Congress never saw), a provision requiring that health care benefits for members of Congress shall be limited to those provided to the general public in this legislation, at the same cost and without subsidy, and that no other taxpayer funded medical, dental or mental health care benefits shall be available to members of Congress.

I hear that Washington, DC, and Baltimore have some of the best medical facilities in the country. For those who can pay for it at Georgetown, GW and Johns Hopkins. Rumor has it the senate’s millionaires could easily do that. As for Mr. Vitter, I hear that DC has several free clinics open to the public that specialize in STD’s, though not diaper rash.

The provision Mr. Reid has inserted into his legislation merely puts members of Congress into an Exchange, where they would have an option to purchase private insurance. His language would not cancel Congress’ existing, expensive, full-dollar, taxpayer-funded benefits. Nor does it allow the staff of the Naval medical facility in the Capitol’s basement to do something useful, such as be re-assigned to the Middle East to help Marines in country.

Come on, Harry, hurry up.

i despise that lying sack of shit.

Well said and I could not agree more.

Oh and ol’spineless Harry was a big loser before Obama even decided to run for Prez!

Courtesy? Are you seriously going to ask that about a headline.. in response to a “leader” who has sold out everything from Habeas Corpus to the nations health care… And is ardently anti choice ta boot?

Courtesy!

though not diaper rash

Delightful snark.

According to this Mar 2009 press release, Genzyme expects Myozyme revenue of $370 – $380 million in 2009. And that’s just for one of their biologics.

I suppose buying off members of Congress is cheaper, but I’m not surprised to learn that, with such fortunes at stake, Big Pharma would resort to plan B – buying off generic manufacturers – in order to protect profits.

They don’t care much about screwing patients from every getting access to medicines, do they?

Nor do they seem to care if some of their drugs have been potentially contaminated by bits of junk, “including stainless steel fragments, non-latex rubber from the vial stopper, and fiber-like material from the manufacturing process.” (Well, maybe they start to care once they see a big hit in value of their stocks on Wall Street… before then, not much, it seems.)

Btw, who’s been helping out with funding for research again?

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

First of all Sister Jane, thanks for the organized effort to use the progressive political power of women and choice to bear on the Democrats in the House of Representatives…Mrs. Norske and I dropped a few $$’s we can’t afford on the action but I remain convinced that in the immediate long run progressive women need to take down the high priced hookers from NOW and NARAL to free up the millions they’ve got banked to juice up the Democratic base in 2010.

Now as for kickin’ corporate Democrats’ sorry asses startin with One Hung Harry Reid I would like to offer the following caution: ObamaRahma are findin’ it difficult to triangulate progressives and progressive solutions out of political action because there are too few Republifascists sittin in the legislature. So the short term strategy for the corporatists is to stall and prolong economic and social insecurity in order to bring more Repubs to Congress and thus justify “bi-partisan” solutions to domestic AND international problems. Look for the claim that “America is a divided country” to be used to bludgeon progressives into submission. In the long term this strategy will discourage the people and subdue political participation and bring us General Betrayus as the last elected President of the constitional period in our history.

This analysis fits nicely with what I have been sayin’ since September of 2008 [Edited by Moderator: advocating violence is not permitted. Please refrain even in your rhetoric.] The only way economic recovery could be stimulated in the current political environment is if the institutions that protect the wealth of the oligarchy split apart and the huge banks and investment trusts go belly up…that didn’t happen and instead, tax payers dollars were printed and thown at these fascist institutions so that they could buy the Democratic President and Congress and provide space for the fascists to reclaim enough political ground to prevent real change from occurin’.

So I am all about kickin’ Blue Dogs and fascist fellow travelers out of office on the Democratic side but remember that that means a leaner but necessarily meaner Democratic Party if it is still in the majority after November of 2010.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THE FUCKERS ARE JUST REGROUPIN’!!!

I think Chris Bowers had some interesting analysis on the electoral situation some establishment Democrats find themselves in:

So, why should progressives really care about the dismal electoral situation Democrats face? The non-progressive majority will stay in place no matter what. Not many Progressives are in danger. A lot of non-progressives are going to lose to conservative Republicans, but those losses will actually make it a lot easier to get a 50%+ progressive into those seats in 2012 and beyond. Demographics remain in favor of progressives over the long-run, as well.
As such, I’m feeling pretty ambivalent about the dismal electoral situation Democrats face. Those losses do not appear to threaten the goal of a progressive governing majority in the House in either the short-term (it doesn’t currently exist) or the long-term (in fact, the losses might make it easier over the long-term). It just isn’t enough for progressives to be a junior partner in a centrist majority governing coalition. We need to be the dominant partner, and that probably requires the current dominant partner–Blue Dogs and New Dems–to suffer heavy losses.

http://openleft.com/diary/16247/democrats-are-in-electoral-trouble-progressives-are-not

Frankly, I would have been happier going after Blanche by helping a primary challenger, but Harry “Ask Tiger, Not Me” Reid is mostly to blame for this fiasco in the Senate and he’s just so flipping vulnerable Poll: Democratic leader in trouble.

Having said that, I’d like to point out Democrats’ 2010 Electoral Woes; What Progressives Should Be Doing Now, which includes discussion about an exchange between Chris Bowers and Nate Silver on 2010 strategy and about Nate’s failure to see how helping Republicans defeat Democrats will advance Progressives’ agenda.

Take a look at Nate Silver’s response to Bowers: This is Great News!!! For Progressives!!!.

Problem being… House progressives have no spine… less than no spine. It’s where I want to make the most difference with my activism. But I do like the point.. and think it supports the better Dem, not more Dem meme.

We helped push for a majority Dem in the Senate, House, and WH. That help should come to an end for what we got out of it. We need fire-breathing liberals leading the way in the progressive caucus. Graysons… who would actually vote against bills like the final health care package the House just passed… or produce better bills to begin with.

Here here. Amen. And ALL of that.

I’m right there with ya. And this from someone who got the most excited in voting for a President in his life last year. I now wouldn’t piss on the man if he was on fire. And the I’m beginning to feel the same way about the Democratic Party as a whole, truth be told.
Just. Tired. Of. Their. Lameass. Shit.

TO THE MODERATOR:

I WAS USING AN HISTORICAL REFERENCE TO RICH PEOPLE JUMPIN OUTTA BUILDINGS IN 1929 IN THE POST AT #60…THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO IMPLICATION TOWARD VIOLENCE OR VIOLENT ACTION…RESTORE THE POST IMMEDIATELY!!@!@!!

Let us know when the polls in Nevada show Reid is trailing to a genuinely progressive democratic challenger in the primary. Having him lose the general election to the Republicans—-that is in the interest of progressives, uh, how?

Take a look at Nate Silver’s take. Link in my comment @ 63.

How exactly is it in the interests of progressives for him to win against a Republican?

I rather wish someone had his back. Without Obama, or Rahm, he is out there alone.

Reid has repeatedly demonstrated his leadership and support for the public option – even more than the WH according to a few scattered anonymous sources (see Jane’s TPM link.) Why would we call Nevada? Phonebanking is a great idea, and I want to help fight for the public option, but can we please target CT and NE, where the last battles have to be won?

Reid is, right now as I’m typing these very words, in the process of negoitating away the public option once and for all with Landreau, Lincoln, et al.

I’m not sure how that demonstrates “leadership and support” for the public option when all he has to do, it is in HIS POWER TO DO SO, is use reconciliation and then he only needs 51 votes, and not 60. The fact he chooses not to, is a choice he makes of free will, and speaks volumes of his “support” for the public option.

Well, in a word, Yes. Thanks for asking.

Isn’t it now time for progressives to demand that any real or even perceived idea of mandates be equally weaken to the point that they no longer exist? What will be left without either the PO or mandates?

Just because he’s making one last effort to find 60 votes doesn’t diminish at all the likelihood that he’ll use reconciliation (or Snowe will give in and abandon the trigger.) See this TPM article yesterday quoting Sherrod Brown:

So what if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tries to amend the bill to include triggers to win over the centrist hold outs.

“The leader’s not going to do that,” Brown said. “The leader knows where the party is, knows where the Senate is, knows where the country is.”

I admire all of your concerns and vigilance, but Brown’s statement has been true for months.

Prediction: They have finally engaged the wedge that will split the progressive wing of the party. They are going to trade away the public option in exchange for dropping the Stupak Amendment. They are going to trade away the promise of real HC reform for the status quo on abortion under Hyde with the expectation that they can get back the women’s rights true believers.
I hope the woman’s rights coalition is smart enough to recognize that if they go for this trade, they will become the pariahs responsible for killing the public option and it may be the last legislative victory they ever achieve.
Let’s see if the progressives can stick together and let this turkey of a bill become the roadkill it deserves to be. I’m not holding my breath.

MODERATOR:

You get your head outta your backside and read the posts before you censor ANYthing…you have gotcher head full of the hot air of power…your actions are in direct contradiction to everything that this site stands for…I been postin here since the beginnin’ and I won’t stop because some little twit can’t figure out the difference between historical reference and violent rhetoric RESTORE THE POST AT #60 DAMMIT!!!@@@

Go to the Activote website and scrutinize Reid’s voting record on dozens of issues. You’ll find he is alternately consevative and liberal depending on the particular issue.

My point is that were a Republican voted in and Reid voted out chances are the Republican would vote the conservative position on all the issues Reid did…and also vote the conservative position on all the issues Reid did not.

How does that help the liberal cause?

Instead, liberals in and out of Nevada need to be the ones who boot him out of Congress by voting in a more committed progressive man or woman.

Getting pissed off at Reid for his crony capitalist agenda [and I do all the time] is one thing, watching an even more conservative legislator take his place, another thing altogether.

I have no illusions about replacing the Democrats with a Progressive Party. Not at this historical juncture. I’m a realist. You have to be in the world out there as it actually is.

I hear you, and understand.

But I’ve voted the lesser of two evils my whole life, and I’m old now, and nothing has changed. And voting the lesser of two evils is never going to change anything. So, I’m done with it. If you’re not, great, good luck with that. I am.

The “Democrats” in Virginia ran the bluest of blue dogs for Governor this year (he even said he would opt Va. out of a public option) and I gladly and proudly voted for OldFatGuy in that election. And yes, the right wing nutcase Republican won. But so what? Like I said, I’ve been voting for the lesser of two evils my whole life and haven’t seen one goddamned motherfucking thing change. With both R’s and D’s at times in power, it’s the same. So, like I said, I’m done with it. And from now on would rather see right wing Republicans win than wannabe pretend Democrats, because IMO those wannabe pretend Democrats are just delaying the inevitable. At some point, we need REAL CHANGE. IMO. YMMV.

Progressives need to stop supporting Dems. Not just spineless loser Dems like Reid but all Dems. The Dem leadership is corrupt just as the Repub leadership is corrupt. The leadership and the majority of both Repub and Dem parties represent only the corporations and the very wealthy. The rest of us might as well be invisible to them.

The only solution to this problem is the emergence of a robust third party. We will never see a robust third party until we stop voting for anyone with an R or D next to their name. I for one have no intention of ever voting for a repub or dem ever again.

I didn’t see what you originally wrote, so can’t comment on the mod’s action.

Right or wrong, my guess is that the original line in your comment can’t be restored because, once the mod changed the line and saved the moderated comment, it was deleted for good. So, unless the mod remembers the exact words…

Maybe you could repost the comment with the original line, rephrased for clarification if you think it’s appropriate.

The majority of Democratic Senators chose Reid as leader because of his temporizing weakness, not in spite of it. His job is not to lead, his job is to give them cover. The cover most of these folks want is to vote the interests of their contributors most of the time while seeming to vote the interests of their constituents. A clean vote on a popular, progressive measure is something they never, ever want, and Reid has done very well for them to make sure that never ever happens. Unless the composition of the Senate changes a great deal, Reid’s replacement will be chosen for the same reasons and will frustrate us in the same way. (Today’s Republicans choose strong, fighting leaders, of course, but this crop of Democrats will never do that.)

The reason the public option is alive is not only that it is popular, and supported by all the work Jane and others have done — single payer would be on the table if that was all it took. Reid’s, and sadly Obama’s, first priority was to make sure that never happened. The problem for Reid and his cronies is that behind the scenes, I’ll bet everyone who understands the issue (including their staff) knows that without the public option, the reform will be a failure, and will lead to lots of these folks losing that Senate club membership. The big contributors are likely promising to give enough money and help in re-election efforts to pave over the lost support (A promise they will break, I’ll bet, because they’d rather have Republicans take these seats). So Reid and his cronies are trying to “succeed” in the narrowest way possible, to thread the needle of barely effective reform.

I’m not averse to holding Reid accountable; being a scapegoat and target is part of his job, and it will send a message. However, I think we should spend the bulk of our energy going after people like Blanche Lincoln.

I hear you as well.

At sixty I’ve been confronting both the lesser of two evils and the evil of two lessers for years and years myself. And sometimes in particularly outraged moods I’ll come into political blogs and say just what you and Jim1212 do above.

But I learned my lesson in 2000. I voted for Ralph Nader. Not in Florida mind you but the consequences of those who did vote for him down there have been nothing short of devastating. For both the country and my mental health.

No, a Gore presidency would not have vanquished crony capitalism or the Bilderberg agenda. But look at what might not have been? Just focus the beam on the Supreme Court….the conservative agenda Bush has embedded in the judiciary branch far out into the future. How long will it take for that damage to be undone?

And Democrats are still far, far less reactionary then Republicans on most social issues.

No, I say abandon the dream of a Greenish Party here in America. Or maybe I have precisely because I’m not young anymore. I see no possibility of it happening anytime soon. Instead, I see only more victories for Republicans.

Unless, of course, in pursuing the same dream of a “pure” conservative party, the Republicans go down the same route. Who knows what that might mean for politics in Amercia.

We Dems never had 60 votes to begin with when you look at all of the fake Dems out there. Obviously I’d rather have better Dems, but I before I’ll yearn for Dems that vote like Republicans, I think I’d rather have a Republican. At least they’re honest enough to wear the label that goes with their pea brained, self-centered thinking. Dems have always shot themselves in the foot. Look at the Carter years and his relationship with the Dem controlled Congress.

I have no problems in seeing Harry Reid go up in smoke. And I’m terribly disappointed in Obama. Maybe we need someone to primary Barack. He’s not thrown any elbows to win the battle on healthcare, yet he wants to be compared to Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ. You can’t be the Superbowl MVP if you’re not ready to get dirty and play rough. Barack doesn’t have it in him. He knows how to talk the talk but that’s about it. But he really hasn’t proved that he’s on the progressive team anyway. Or how about an independent run by Bernie Sanders?

I voted for Nader in 2000 as well. The difference between us though, is that knowing what I know now, and given the chance again, and even living in Florida, I’d vote for Nader again.

As long as the Democratic Party knows they can “count on our votes” no matter what, well, then you get no matter what. Guess what. If Dems started losing every election to R’s that they ran corporatist D’s in, and started winning every election against the R’s that they ran true progressives in, guess what lesson what be learned then? Because right now, the lesson is, hey, we can run a fake ass D, the progressives will vote for us anyway.

IMO. As always, YMMV.

I voted for Nader in 2000 as well. The difference between us though, is that knowing what I know now, and given the chance again, and even living in Florida, I’d vote for Nader again.

Well, I respect your point of view. It’s no more or less irrational than mine. But I do not in any way, shape or form share it.

The horrors of the Bush administration speak for themselves.

And I suspect that Ralph Nader only had to deal with them abstractly. How, for example, did putting Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court effect him. You know, personally? Did any of his friends and loved ones die in vain in Iraq? Were they among those who lost their insurance or job or suffered as a result of hissocial, political and economic policies?

How about you?

Well, first of all, it seems you’re trying to suggest that somehow voting for Nader led to George Bush being President. So rather than get into the specifics of how the result of that might’ve affected him (or I), I object to the pretense.

The reason George Bush became President is because Al Gore, and his Democratic big shots, didn’t have half the cajones that George Bush and his right wing big shots had. Meaning, they were willing to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING (including civil disobedience as witnessed by the fake “protest” stopping the recounts in one of the counties).

Al Gore won Florida. With Nader and Buchanon on the ballot, he won Florida. The only reason he didn’t become President is because he quit after the Supreme Court ruling. Do you really think, for a minute, that had that Supreme Court ruling gone the other way the Republicans would’ve quit? Cause I’m telling you I don’t believe they would have.

The mess would’ve gotten interesting, and indeed messy, but eventually cooler heads would’ve prevailed, and they would’ve recounted the votes in the whole state, and found, like the consortium of newspapers found, that Al Gore won Florida. And the Presidency.

So, please, I’m not answering any “what if” questions based on my vote for Nader when Nader and the votes he receieved HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Al Gore quitting and Goerge Bush becoming President.

While we’re kicking his ass, let’s kick him in [modnote: nevermind].

<a href="Here is the consortium’s findings.“> If you note the results page, had a statewide recount been done in Florida, Gore would’ve won no matter the various methodologies used reg. dimpled, overvotes, etc.

Gore won Florida. Period. All the horror’s of the Bush and The Dick years are not Nader’s fault, nor the fault of those that voted for him. The blame can be laid where it should (with Bush and The Dick) or, with Gore for being a quitter if you’re so inclined.

Yes, I’ve read all the arguments about Nader, Gore and Bush. And there are honest differences of opinion. But, again, I garnered as much info and analysis as I could back then and was convinced Nader swung the election to Bush.

But, sure, the Gore campaign was an unmitigated disaster. Instead of embracing the perceived “peace and prosperity” of the Clinton years, he allowed the Republicans to frame the campaign from start to finish.

But Nader’s immense ego gave us Bush in my view. The worst thing I ever did was campaign and vote for him. In hindsight, as it were.

I voted for Nader so Bush would win and show Democrats that they needed to nominate someone like Obama. Glad it worked out – I like Gore now, but there was no reason to think in 2000 that he would turn out to be the first real Democrat in many decades like Obama has. Now Gore might be able to actually be himself and win in 2016.

mikesong
I think you are joking.
No one thinks in advance like that. And if they do they ought to be ridiculed. The reason is because what you wish for is the destruction of your values and maybe your country for the sake of maybe one day getting a a savior. It doesn’t work that way.
Anyone who thought Gore and Bush were alike wasn’t thinking much.
Especially if they voted for Nader in a swing state.

Welcome to the world of knowing that party affiliation does not guarantee enlightened policy … can we have a third party now?

Thanks for the link, Knoxville. There is a part of me that wishes progressives were organized enough to target key Democratic incumbents with the threat that progressive voters were being mobilized to vote for the Republican opponent since it’s easier in the end to replace a batshit, crazy Republican than a DLC incumbent. Unfortunately, actions like that probably confuse low information voters and hard line partisans and create more problems than they solve.

I guess the way I feel these days is that the Netroots are essentially a political party with funding streams and a powerful voting block, but they are stuck pleading for admission into the Democratic Party and recognition from its leaders. The main problem I see for the Netroots as a political entity is that they are incapable of grooming candidates for office. You want to know what terrifies establishment Democrats? Someone like Marcy Wheeler or Jane Hamsher or Rick Perlstein or Nicole Belle actually getting fed up enough and seriously running for office. The Democratic Party would come groveling to the Netroots if Netroots leaders suddenly decided to start seriously running for office or began grooming qualified candidates from within their ranks for office. And if they ran, en masse, as left wing third party candidates I think the Democratic Party would either radically transform or the Netroots third Party would become an actual power in Washington. I think something close to that is coming in the future. Unfortunately, we’re still stuck in a stage where Netroots leaders are knocking at the door of the Democratic Party and being ignored. It’s just a matter of time before they stop knocking, but it’s anyone’s guess how long it will take for them to figure out that transforming the Democratic Party from the inside is inefficient and, perhaps, impossible.

The majority of Democratic Senators chose Reid as leader because of his temporizing weakness, not in spite of it. His job is not to lead, his job is to give them cover. The cover most of these folks want is to vote the interests of their contributors most of the time while seeming to vote the interests of their constituents. A clean vote on a popular, progressive measure is something they never, ever want, and Reid has done very well for them to make sure that never ever happens.

[...]

So Reid and his cronies are trying to “succeed” in the narrowest way possible, to thread the needle of barely effective reform.

Spot. on. nwrain. Thank you for that.

[Harry Reid's undemocratic backroom manipulation of the present floor "debate," so as to require/accept (the secrecy shields the exact mechanism) 60-vote super-majorities for passage of all amendments offered on the health reform bill - as put into effect by unanimous consent (despite the absence of either filibusters or cloture motions) yesterday and today, in public interest-damning alleged fear that "the Republicans want amendments that they can use in 30-second attack ads” - is Exhibit A of the methods you outline.]

Yeah no kidding. That was damn good.

ObamaRahma are findin’ it difficult to triangulate progressives and progressive solutions out of political action because there are too few Republifascists sittin in the legislature. So the short term strategy for the corporatists is to stall and prolong economic and social insecurity in order to bring more Repubs to Congress and thus justify “bi-partisan” solutions to domestic AND international problems.

*

WORD

This is the best explanation I’ve seen for the whack that we’re seeing from these DINO fucks.