That's pretty good; but in this instance would it do more harm than I voted to pass a bill that the majority of voters seem not to want. Could be a toss up and hence all the angst.

I don't get Peter Suderman's point about Obama pretending that there aren't any alternatives to his plan. Any plan that the Congress comes up with right now is going to be called "Obamacare", regardless of where the ideas behind it originated, so it's going to be Obama's plan. Brian just spent about fifteen minutes saying that every time a Republican proposes some idea it gets integrated into their plan and then the Republicans all turn around and filibuster against it simply because it's part of the Democrats' plan. Had the Republicans come up with a health care plan when they were in power, there could have been an alternative plan that Obama could argue against. If he and his friends at Cato gotten the Republicans to support a libertarian plan, that could have been an alternative plan. If the Republicans had actually gotten behind Wyden-Bennett or whatever bill they supported when it was still all a theoretical matter, that could have been the alternative plan. But when it actually comes down to implementing a health care plan, the Republicans just aren't interested, so there aren't

Quoting kezboard: all Peter Suderman is saying is that Obama isn't showing enough deference to libertarian think-tanks.

If Obama copied their plan 100% they'd still be against it. They're Lucy with the football. Anyone who takes them at face value is nuts. They're are tool of the propertied. Suderman knows. He used to work for the company that created the teabaggers.

The zombie strategy outlined by Brian in this diavlog seems to be the surest route to a Pyrric victory.

Quoting tahitiwahini: The zombie strategy outlined by Brian in this diavlog seems to be the surest route to a Pyrric victory.

What would be Pyrrhic about it? Do you think that the Democrats will be much more likely to lose power in 2010 if they go through with pass-and-patch? Do you think that it will be ineffective at its stated goals, namely insuring the uninsured, reducing health care cost inflation, etc.etc.? As it stands, I'm not hearing much more from your post than This is Excellent News for McCain(!!!).

Interesting title for one of the segments: "Should Dems should [sic] run to the center to save their hides?" Notice how there is no mention of Democrats voting for what they think is in the best interest of the people overall, it's all about saving their skins. What's so remarkable about Obamacare is the fact that the Dems are so anxious to take over 12% or whatever it is of the economy, they are willing to lose control of the house and senate short term for what they believe is in the long-term an incredible power-grab. Remember, if they get it passed in present form and then lose the house and senate, it's written into the bill that it can never be repealed, but then what entitlement program ever does anything other than metastasize into a Ponzi-style money pit? Reading the commenters here who say they are no republican plans or suggestions is just hilarious, Obama didn't even give lip service to the demands for tort reform and changing tax and interstate insurance rules. He showed no leadership whatever and told Pelosi and Reid

And in other news, it seems that Canadian health care isn't good enough for all Canadians.
"Ultimately, we have to be the gatekeepers of our own health,"

Quoting harkin: Reading the commenters here who say they are no republican plans or suggestions is just hilarious, Obama didn't even give lip service to the demands for tort reform and changing tax and interstate insurance rules. He showed no leadership whatever and told Pelosi and Reid to draw up a winner/loser list. He remained mum when they closed the doors to all participation by Republicans (and those darn CSPAN cameras).

Have you been locked in a closet for the past year? Baucus spent 3 months negotiating with a select group of Republicans and very moderate Democrats with the explicit purpose of soliciting Republican votes. Were you not around for the whole Democratic Party leadership begging Olympia Snowe to stay on for the final bill after she voted for the Finance Committee mark-up? To say that the Republicans were completely shut out of the process is just flatly untrue. At no point were Republicans willing to work constructively on this bill or on any other part of Obama's agenda. You know it, I know it, and we should just cut to the chase so we don't have to waste any more time debating this absurd premise.

Quoting harkin: And in other news, it seems that Canadian health care isn't good enough for all Canadians.

"Ultimately, we have to be the gatekeepers of our own health,"

Yep, getting the same or better results for half the cost sure does suck, doesn't it?

Quoting harkin:
Look to California if you want to see the future of the USA if Obama and the democratic congress have their wishes answered.

A sort of post-apocalyptic existence where toilet paper is black market gold?

Right and that select group consisted of what 2 maybe 4 left leaning Republicans! Get real. The Democrats figured they had unstoppable majorities and the only compromises they need to make were between the far left and the moderate left. Yes they tried to bring the left most Republicans in for the appearance of "bipartisanship" and the leadership couldn't even do that. That's some effective leadership by the trio of President Obama, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi. Moe, Larry and Curley could have done better!

Quoting harkin: The moderate co-founder of Whole foods ...

You mean, as Paul Campos describes him, the ...

Union-busting, health care reform-opposing, global-warming denying John Mackey, CEO ...

... ? Or are we talking about some other co-founder? 'Cause that ain't any kind of moderate I ever heard about. At least not for this century.

Quoting Don Zeko: Have you been locked in a closet for the past year? Baucus spent 3 months negotiating with a select group of Republicans and very moderate Democrats with the explicit purpose of soliciting Republican votes. Were you not around for the whole Democratic Party leadership begging Olympia Snowe to stay on for the final bill after she voted for the Finance Committee mark-up? To say that the Republicans were completely shut out of the process is just flatly untrue.

At no point were Republicans willing to work constructively on this bill or on any other part of Obama's agenda. You know it, I know it, and we should just cut to the chase so we don't have to waste any more time debating this absurd premise.

I know last year is ancient fucking history so I can hardly expect wingnuts to remember some basic facts:

Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of

Quoting Don Zeko: Yep, getting the same or better results for half the cost sure does suck, doesn't it?

Don't you understand, Don? If a nationwide program can be shown to have not completely satisfied at least one individual, the program is by definition a failure. Unless the program was originally proposed by conservatives, of course.

Quoting piscivorous: Right and that select group consisted of what 2 maybe 4 left leaning Republicans! Get real. The Democrats figured they had unstoppable majorities and the only compromises they need to make were between the far left and the moderate left. Yes they tried to bring the left most Republicans in for the appearance of "bipartisanship" and the leadership couldn't even do that. That's some effective leadership by the trio of President Obama, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi. Moe, Larry and Curley could have done better!

It's not Obama's fault that the moderate Republican faction in the Senate consists of Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, maybe Chuck Grassley, and...uhhh...Anyone? Bueller? The idea that a newly elected president with huge majorities in both houses should be expected to completely ignore the core goals of his constituents, and instead push the legislative agenda of the ideologically distinct party that he just soundly defeated in a high-turnout, national election is crazy. We have elections for a reason. If Sarah Palin rides to office in 2012 with huge majorities in both houses, I won't expect her to implement a cap-and-trade system, and I certainly won't start lying about what she and

How's that working so far?

Quoting piscivorous: How's that working so far?

Would trying to implement a Republican agenda, insofar as one exists, against the wishes of his party and his constituents, be working any better?

Quoting bjkeefe: You mean, as Paul Campos describes him, the ...

... ?

Or are we talking about some other co-founder? 'Cause that ain't any kind of moderate I ever heard about. At least not for this century.

What a stupidly biased article. The most damning criticism of both Whole Foods and Starbucks was this....
"Both companies offer employees relatively generous wages and health benefits and routinely make Fortune’s list of “Best Companies to Work For.”"

Quoting badhatharry: What a stupidly biased article. [...]

The article wasn't the point I was making. I just gave the link for attribution. My point was contained in the three links I quoted.

Quoting bjkeefe: The article wasn't the point I was making. I just gave the link for attribution. My point was contained in the three links I quoted.

Ahhh...ha ha ha ha.

Quoting look: Ahhh...ha ha ha ha.

Wow. What a surprise. The dumb kid tries empty laughter, because she can't actually come up with any, you know, words to fulfill her sad wish to mock. To be charitable, I'll write that failing off to the last tendrils of honesty clinging to life in a head that's being swamped with the plejaleejiince to anti-intellectualism.

Quoting bjkeefe: Don't you understand, Don?

Way OT, but it cracks me up when people refer to me as "Don" on this forum. While "Don Zeko" is based on my real name, it's the "Zeko" that approximates what I'm actually called; "Don" is meant to imply the Italian honorific. Eh, there's no real point here, just another way that the internet is an odd place.

Quoting Don Zeko: Way OT, but it cracks me up when people refer to me as "Don" on this forum. While "Don Zeko" is based on my real name, it's the "Zeko" that approximates what I'm actually called; "Don" is meant to imply the Italian honorific. Eh, there's no real point here, just another way that the internet is an odd place.

I will try to keep that in mind, but on the other hand, can't one use Don as a form of address, much like Monsieur or Señor? (I'm not challenging here -- I plain don't know.)

Seems to me there are a number of natural compromises that could have been reached if the so called leaders of the left had actually been willing to compromise.
1.) Federal Option for Insurgence Companies to sell across state lines. This one is almost a no brainier as any national plan is essentially a policy that would be sold across state lines anyways At least this would level the playing field. 2.) Prior Conditions for Tort Reform. Prior conditions is going to drive costs higher tort reform, in states that have implemented it, has shown that it lessens them. 3.) Mandates for Tax Subsidy to Individual Instead of Employer. Mandates are going to require subsidy up to a certain level of income anyways and given that benefits generally increase not decrease higher costs while switching the tax subsidy to the individual purchasing the policy will allow them to control there insurance cost through compromise 1 above. To me that is more along the lines of what a bipartisan compromise would look like and I believe that there are enough Democrats and Republicans in the center to get something like this done.

Quoting Don Zeko: It's not Obama's fault that the moderate Republican faction in the Senate consists of Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, maybe Chuck Grassley, and...uhhh...Anyone? Bueller?

Just happened across this (a different issue, but it still seems relevant):

Anyone know who the seven Republicans are:

And when Obama backed a bipartisan commission to find ways to cut the long-term deficit – including reexamining popular entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security – a handful of Republican sponsors switched their positions and joined in filibustering it, the president said.

“This failed by seven votes, when seven Republicans who had cosponsored the idea suddenly walked away from their own proposal after I endorsed it,’’ an exasperated Obama told the crowd. “I said, ‘Good idea.’ I turned around, they’re gone. What happened?’’

Dollars to doughnuts that Mean Old Man McCain is one of them.

And speaking of McCain and Republicans in general whining about Obama not cooperating when they're actually doing everything they can to obstruct, hurrah for the Senator from Minnesota, I say.

This conversation helped me to understand more clearly a number of important political issues underlying the current health care reform debate. It was well-argued on both sides, with great civility and courtesy contributing to an illuminating discussion. Peter Suderman made a persuasive argument that the President and his party have misrepresented the opposition as having presented no real ideas, when in truth some have done so (and in fact Democrats have incorporated a number of those ideas into their bills). Although it may seem expedient, misrepresentation of the minority opposition does not help the administration's cause. Brian Beutler, citing concrete and specific examples, clearly exposed the hypocrisy of the Republicans' refusal to consider many of the very proposals they themselves had put forth in the first place -- merely because their ideas were now being endorsed by a Democrat. Further, Beutler demonstrated that this morally questionable tactic has been a long-standing Republican strategy. And he rightly points out that the Republicans' failure to promulgate any health care reforms while they were in power demonstrates their inherent lack of interest in repairing the status quo more powerfully than any of their current protestations to the contrary.

Quoting bjkeefe: "And speaking of McCain and Republicans in general whining about Obama not cooperating when they're actually doing everything they can to obstruct, hurrah for the Senator from Minnesota, I say." Sen. Franken continues to impress with his serious and earnest manner -- though it was fun to watch the blonde woman sitting behind the nominee who was clearly deriving much amusement from the proceedings...

Quoting badhatharry: What a stupidly biased article. The most damning criticism of both Whole Foods and Starbucks was this....
"Both companies offer employees relatively generous wages and health benefits and routinely make Fortune’s list of “Best Companies to Work For.”"

Quoting bjkeefe: The article wasn't the point I was making. I just gave the link for attribution. My point was contained in the three links I quoted.

Isn't it funny how they can't handle the truth? Even more hilarious is that the ones who claim I only get my opinions from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh etc are quick to link to specious articles that are only there to spread propaganda. Fact - By any thinking-person's criteria, Mackey is a progressive business owner who treats his employees extremely well. The fact that he's successful may have something to do with his being against the Obamacare takeover of the medical system. He knows business. And notice how bjkeefe list as proof of Mackey's non-progressiveness his aversion to unions taking over his labor? Why should any businessman resist unionization after the miracles they've performed at GM and the entire public employee sector for the state of California? on

Dude, you're getting all Thelma and Louise here. Take a breath, hold, then release. I can only hope that ranting makes you feel better, otherwise it's kind of silly isn't it?

Quoting tahitiwahini: Dude, you're getting all Thelma and Louise here.

Take a breath, hold, then release.

I can only hope that ranting makes you feel better, otherwise it's kind of silly isn't it?

He responded to the substance of harkin's post. You ignored the substance of his. That's the take-away from the exchange. Just so ya know.

Quoting TwinSwords: He responded to the substance of harkin's post. You ignored the substance of his. That's the take-away from the exchange. Just so ya know.

It's funny because it's misogynistic!

Quoting TwinSwords: That's the take-away from the exchange. Just so ya know.

My guess is that behind that veneer of pomposity you understood the point I was making about his hyperbolic manner. I suppose everyone is free to come to their own conclusions. Or they can simply wait for you to announce what the take-away from that should be.

Quoting tahitiwahini: My guess is that behind that veneer of pomposity you understood the point I was making about his hyperbolic manner.

I suppose everyone is free to come to their own conclusions.

Or they can simply wait for you to announce what the take-away from that should be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTqKcojrVY

Quoting tahitiwahini: My guess is that behind that veneer of pomposity you understood the point I was making about his hyperbolic manner.

I suppose everyone is free to come to their own conclusions.

Or they can simply wait for you to announce what the take-away from that should be.

And applying the principle set forth by you, which was never in doubt by any forum participants, I have concluded that you have just upped the number of posters (by one) who will make it their mission to work the refs, complain about tone and act the part of a wise Solomon, who deigns to impart wisdom and impartial assessment of the fray. Ha!

Quoting graz: And applying the principal set forth by you, which was never in doubt by any forum participants, I have concluded that you have just upped the number of posters (by one) who will make it their mission to work the refs, complain about tone and act the part of a wise Solomon, who deigns to impart wisdom and impartial assessment of the fray. Ha!

There are ought to be a separate section of the board for people to just complain about tone and shit. It's boring. And yes, the quality of my meta-meta-tone-discussion is poor but I don't care.

Quoting graz: And applying the principal set forth by you, which was never in doubt by any forum participants, I have concluded that you have just upped the number of posters (by one) who will make it their mission to work the refs, complain about tone and act the part of a wise Solomon, who deigns to impart wisdom and impartial assessment of the fray. Ha!

Late to the party, graz? Let me catch you up: your asses are getting kicked.

Quoting look: Late to the party, graz? Let me catch you up: your asses are getting kicked.

I've been here all along. I'm also amused by your bitchin' and moanin'. Claiming victory is silly when the issue hasn't even been defined. Glad too know that you've identified me as a member of the "other."
Nice job of inclusivity! You're not bitter.

Quoting listener: Quoting bjkeefe: "And speaking of McCain and Republicans in general whining about Obama not cooperating when they're actually doing everything they can to obstruct, hurrah for the Senator from Minnesota, I say."

Sen. Franken continues to impress with his serious and earnest manner -- though it was fun to watch the blonde woman sitting behind the nominee who was clearly deriving much amusement from the proceedings...

Not to mention the woman behind Franken -- an aide of his, maybe? -- who had a look on her face at the beginning like "Where's he going with this?"

Quoting graz: I've been here all along. I'm also amused by your bitchin' and moanin'. Claiming victory is silly when the issue hasn't even been defined. Glad too know that you've identified me as a member of the "other."
Nice job of inclusivity! You're not bitter.

Riiight

Quoting look: Late to the party, graz? Let me catch you up: your asses are getting kicked.

A little better than a post consisting of nothing but "Ahhh...ha ha ha ha," but not by much. And coming from someone who has lately been mewling without end about "ganging up" and "piling on," it is nothing short of comical. The erstwhile-bemoaned "decline of civility" is a wonderful thing, as long as it's you dishing it out, isn't it, look?

Quoting graz: And applying the principle set forth by you, which was never in doubt by any forum participants, I have concluded that you have just upped the number of posters (by one) who will make it their mission to work the refs, complain about tone and act the part of a wise Solomon, who deigns to impart wisdom and impartial assessment of the fray. Ha!

As predicted?

Quoting harkin: [...]

Regurgitated kidneystones, with a slightly duller and less purple crayon.

Quoting piscivorous: 1.) Federal Option for Insurgence Companies to sell across state lines. This one is almost a no brainier as any national plan is essentially a policy that would be sold across state lines anyways At least this would level the playing field.

But there was a debate about whether to make the health care exchanges, i.e. regulated marketplaces in which people will buy health insurance, state-specific or national. If the Republicans were willing to make a concession as big as the Public Option in order to get a national health insurance market, don't you think they would have participated in this debate, rather than promising to filibuster the bill no matter what, propogating Death panel nonsense, etc.?

Quoting piscivorous: 2.) Prior Conditions for Tort Reform. Prior conditions is going to drive costs higher tort reform, in states that have implemented it, has shown that it lessens them.

Obama and other Democratic leaders have been saying that they'd be willing to compromise on tort reform in exchange for Republican buy-in throughout the process. Republicans haven't gone for it. It's just not true to say that R's would be willing to support HCR if

Quoting Don Zeko: But there was a debate about whether to make the health care exchanges, i.e. regulated marketplaces in which people will buy health insurance, state-specific or national. If the Republicans were willing to make a concession as big as the Public Option in order to get a national health insurance market, don't you think they would have participated in this debate, rather than promising to filibuster the bill no matter what, propogating Death panel nonsense, etc.?

I said nothing about "health care exchanges." I guess that limiting consumer options through the bureaucratic regulatory structure of "health care exchanges" it is once again the far left bargaining with the not so far left and is in fact ignoring the Republicans.

Quoting Don Zeko: Obama and other Democratic leaders have been saying that they'd be willing to compromise on tort reform in exchange for Republican buy-in throughout the process. Republicans haven't gone for it. It's just not true to say that R's would be willing to support HCR if they got tort reform.

That's news to me, and I pay fairly close attention, perhaps you can include some links to who said what when.

Quoting Don Zeko: Would such a tax

Quoting claymisher: There are ought to be a separate section of the board for people to just complain about tone and shit. It's boring.

Yes, a separate section of the board for wingnuts, lunatics, and Republicans is a great idea. We could offer them a free crate of Depends as an incentive.

Quoting TwinSwords: Yes, a separate section of the board for wingnuts, lunatics, and Republicans is a great idea. We could offer them a free crate of Depends as an incentive.

Yes, and let's have a section with diapers, sippy cups, and Hot Wheels so you can race around and bang into the furniture.

Better hold on to those depends as it is the left that seems to be wetting their pants over their recent loses in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Quoting piscivorous: Better hold on to those depends as it is the left that seems to be wetting their pants over their recent loses in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Excellent observation. Hey, pisc, did your foot ever heal up alright?

No not really. I can walk on it without a limp, but one or two dances and it is burnt toast. The cold makes it ache and I am a pretty good forecaster on when the weather is about to change. That could be due to having left the plates in instead of spending the $30,000.00 or it would cost to have the hardware removed and with the loss of insurance there is insufficient income, at this point in time, to cover the operation. Thanks for asking.

Quoting piscivorous: No not really. I can walk on it without a limp, but one or two dances and it is burnt toast. The cold makes it ache and I am a pretty good forecaster on when the weather is about to change. That could be due to having left the plates in instead of spending the $30,000.00 or it would cost to have the hardware removed and with the loss of insurance there is insufficient income, at this point in time, to cover the operation.

Thanks for asking.

Very sorry to hear that. From old folklore, I think you'd know the weather change without the plates! So, dancing. What kind? I've wanted to learn salsa and the texas two-step for quite awhile, myself.

Just about anything except line dancing. Couples dancing is what I like, the Waltz, Fox Trot and variations of the Two Step.

Quoting Don Zeko: Obama and other Democratic leaders have been saying that they'd be willing to compromise on tort reform in exchange for Republican buy-in throughout the process. Republicans haven't gone for it. It's just not true to say that R's would be willing to support HCR if they got tort reform.

Correct. In fact, it was even worse. Remember back when this was offered, lo those many months ago? Here is an example of how it played out:

So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by the Republicans and certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.

What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return? Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.

A Think Progress post sights a Time/CNN piece that quotes two unnamed sources. I'm convinced! But then again there is this On Malpractice Reform, Fine Print Is Still Hazy. which sort of jives with Obama Clarifies Position on Tort Reform on "60 Minutes" which seems to be about the same as Obama Speech on Medical Malpractice Tort Reform. That's some deal I guess.

Quoting piscivorous: A Think Progress post sights a Time/CNN piece that quotes two unnamed sources. I'm convinced!

Ah, I love the selective way your critical reading skills fire up! Would that they not slumber when viewing AGW denialist articles!

But then again there is this On Malpractice Reform, Fine Print Is Still Hazy. which sort of jives with Obama Clarifies Position on Tort Reform on "60 Minutes" which seems to be about the same as Obama Speech on Medical Malpractice Tort Reform. That's some deal I guess.

Hmmm. Three links to articles titled or subtitled "Obama Says [or Does] X." What is the word that is conspicuously absent? Oh, right. "Republicans." So, even on this comparatively minor aspect of HCR, the GOP members of Congress evidently had nothing to offer, outside of empty statements (that I'm sure you'll be scrambling to link to any minute now) that they wouldn't stand behind when it actually came time to cut a deal, write legislation, or otherwise do their jobs. Your proposals sound not unreasonable, but as I think I've said before to you and others who have written what I take to be well-meaning posts along these lines, these are very small-bore ideas that could, and should, have been brought up and

Quoting piscivorous: I said nothing about "health care exchanges." I guess that limiting consumer options through the bureaucratic regulatory structure of "health care exchanges" it is once again the far left bargaining with the not so far left and is in fact ignoring the Republicans.

Well, if we assume that the basic structure of the bill persists, then "Health Care Exchanges" is just the name of the regulated private insurance market, and making them national instead of state-based is the same thing as allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines. Again, there was a debate about this point, but it was entirely within the Democratic caucus because there were no Republicans willing to support the bill at all.

Quoting piscivorous: That's news to me, and I pay fairly close attention, perhaps you can include some links to who said what when.

Bjkeefe covered this one. But setting aside quotes and citations, use a little common sense. Do you really believe that avoiding tort reform is more important to Democrats than their biggest domestic priority of the past half-century?

Quoting piscivorous: Doesn't "Mandates are going to require subsidy up to a certain level of income " cover

While your correction is substantive the rest is all just your typical non responsive blather. if you have something to contribute please do otherwise STFU.

Quoting piscivorous: While your correction is substantive the rest is all just your typical non responsive blather. if you have something to contribute please do otherwise STFU.

I see I left you without anything to do except sputter. That says to me that more than just my correction was substantive. Thanks.

All it says it I don't wish to engage you in another one of your typical talking point discussions. But construe it how you will if it makes yo feel better.

Quoting piscivorous: All it says it I don't wish to engage you in another one of your typical talking point discussions.

You mean, you don't have any answers to the points I made (and amazingly, furiously typing "STFU" worked about as well as it always does), so you're now down to trying to slap a cliched label on them.

But construe it how you will if it makes yo feel better.

Yep. The truth does set me free, yo. P.S. And as far as your evidence to support a claim that the Republicans made actual concrete steps to work on HCR goes ...

Where have I made that assertion? I have asserted that the process has been very non-bipartisan. Your response is to lay the blame with the Republicans I see it differently. The only visible efforts were to court a couple of the left leaning Republicans. Health Care Reform is not failing because of the Republicans supposed "Just say NO" philosophy. With a 60% control of the Senate and 59% control of the House the Republicans saying no is no better than talking to a stone. Elections have consequences. The Democrats have won 100% control of the government consequently the have to govern. Their misguided and feeble attempts, at that, are not serving them well and on the whole and they just continue to whine about if the people only knew and understood. If your customers don't like what is on the menu blaming the customers is I don't think a winning strategy.

Quoting piscivorous: [...]

Oh, stow that weak sauce. I heard it from 'fur months ago, and it hasn't improved with age. Meanwhile, why not listen to the man himself, on tort reform and other Republican talking points? P.S. If those excerpts aren't enough, you are reminded that the whole thing is available.

Quoting piscivorous: I have asserted that the process has been very non-bipartisan.

Yes, and I for one would like to know WHY CAN'T OBAMA REACH ACROSS THE AISLE TO THESE VERY REASONABLE REPUBLICANS??1? Thank goodness that in addition to not being prone to hype nonsense, our Senator Shelby is so Fiscally Responsible™. Oh, wait ...

According to the report, Shelby is holding Obama's nominees hostage until a pair of lucrative programs that would send billions in taxpayer dollars to his home state get back on track.

(h/t: Twin)

Shelby knows iokiyar. They always get away with this stuff.

Thanks but no thanks, I've listened to it once and don't feel I need to revisit it. I do think it ironic that the first real open government event come curtsy of the Republicans instead of the Presidents own party. I also found it entertaining the the President agreed that the HCR debate was less than ideal and the polemics on both side have used rhetoric than has been less than helpful. That the process has been less than ideal and in many instances not open. That yes the Republicanxs have not been exactly the party of no or talk about questionable math skills in on line and then talk about tax breaks for 95% of the populace when, thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, 43% of filers pay no taxes but SS, Medicare and Medicaid which I don't believe have been cut or waved. I was not impressed with his repeated I am willing to listen to you and then subs out the whole process to the far left leadership of the House and Senate so does it matter that he listen and hears, because when it comes

Quoting claymisher: Shelby knows iokiyar. They always get away with this stuff.

Look, there's no way this is gonna fly this time. Shelby might as well be wearing a cape, a monacle and an oiled mustache when he announces a move like this. The optics of beating the hell out of this dude are too good even for the Senate Democrats.

Quoting piscivorous: I do think it ironic that the first real open government event come curtsy of the Republicans ...

So you're saying they're all out of the closet now? Well hooray for them, I say.

... the far left leadership of the House and Senate ...

And you wonder why I find it so hard to take you seriously.

Quoting Don Zeko: Look, there's no way this is gonna fly this time. Shelby might as well be wearing a cape, a monacle and an oiled mustache when he announces a move like this. The optics of beating the hell out of this dude are too good even for the Senate Democrats.

I think clay is more right. I'm sure I'm not the only one who can all too easily imagine many Very Serious People stroking their chins on the teevee, "asking," "Is this President Obama's fault? Maybe for not reaching out enough? Did he push Senator Shelby into this? And if it's not entirely his fault, just what fraction is?" And then Rush Limbaugh will say how horrible these State Run Media types are for trying to get Obama off the hook, Glenn Beck will cry on TV about the Liberal Media ruining our country, and Sarah Palin will have Meg Stapleton write her a new more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger Facebook post. And then everyone will report that "Sarah Palin" criticized Obama, the end. I'd bet tall dollars that no more than 5%, tops, of the American people will even know who Richard Shelby is by the end of this week.

Quoting bjkeefe: ... our Senator Shelby is so Fiscally Responsible™.

And so is our Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking Republican of the House Budget Committee! Oh, wait ...

House Republicans don't have an official budget yet. [...]

But Ryan has released a budget he'd like. And it's actually fairly detailed. And if you read it, which we have, you start to wonder why Democrats aren't making a bigger deal out of it.

What's in it? A few interesting things.

First, it calls for big cuts in Social Security benefits for everyone currently under 55 years of age. On top of the cuts it also calls for privatizing Social Security.

Basically the exact plan President Bush tried in 2005. Next, it calls for the full privatization and phasing out of Medicare. It'll be replaced by a system of vouchers in which instead of getting Medicare you get a voucher to buy un-reformed private insurance.

Weirdly, with all that, the draft GOP budget doesn't get the federal budget into surplus until sometime after 2060, which seems like a pretty long time. But isn't this sort of a big deal? House Republicans are poised to run in 2010 on slashing or abolishing the two most popular

Once aging the infamous out of context quote trick is definitive proof right. I think we should do a pole. The question "Does piscivorous give a rats ass if bjkeefe takes him serious or not?"

Quoting piscivorous: Once aging ...

Once aging, twice die?

Quoting piscivorous: Once aging the infamous out of context quote trick is definitive proof right.

No, actually, this was once again the famous quote-pisc's-Freudian-slip trick. For definitive comedy. (Light.)

I think we should do a pole.

I think you should do a poll dance.

The question "Does piscivorous give a rats ass if bjkeefe takes him serious or not?"

Everyone already knows the answer to that.

Sol if everone knows the anser why am I the one that is wondering?

Quoting piscivorous: Sol if everone knows the anser why am I the one that is wondering?

Priceless.

Quoting claymisher: Shelby knows iokiyar. They always get away with this stuff.

If you care about this, rise up with great vengeance and furious anger and sign the petition! And also, ReTweet!

Quoting harkin: ... the raging inferno of exploding government, joblessness and the deficit. Obama goes before the Congress and promises to slash a few measley billion off the budget sometime in the future but btw he and his cronies raise the debt ceiling another $two trillion. and oh yeah ACORN is in line for billions.

Look to California if you want to see the future of the USA if Obama and the democratic congress have their wishes answered.

Some useful thoughts:

Fiscal Scare Tactics

These days it’s hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we’re told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren’t stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they’re reported as if they were facts, plain and simple.

Yet they aren’t facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest

Quoting bjkeefe: If you care about this, rise up with great vengeance and furious anger and sign the petition!

And also, ReTweet!

Heh. New York magazine has come up with a good name for Shelby's stunt: "the Cotton State Cockblock." Sadly, this is probably a bit much for the MSM, and even the cable shoutfests. Thus, the Balloon Juicers are trying to come up with something more G-rated. Visit the thread at "Sen. Shelby Shakedown: America Held Hostage" to help.

I like "Crimson Bribe."

Quoting bjkeefe: Heh. New York magazine has come up with a good name for Shelby's stunt: "the Cotton State Cockblock."

On a related note, look what investigative reporter Ezra Klein dug up.

Obama Evolution: "punch it through" to "let's walk through them in a methodical way" to "acknowledge for the first time that Congress may well decide to scrap health care altogether" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32619.html Move along, there's nothing to see here. Sounds like a pretty smart exit strategy to me. Seems Obama is ready to "move on."

Seems Obama is ready to "move on."

He's waiting for a more favorable legislative environment -- like when the Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate or when they finally win the White House.

Were such a favorable legislative environment ever come to pass... it would probably still be quite difficult to enact something the majority of the American people are against.
______________
From: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1 "Just in case there's any confusion out there, let me be clear. I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform," Obama said, in one of his most feisty speeches since his 2008 election campaign. "I'm not going to walk away from the American people. I'm not going to walk away on this challenge. I'm not going to walk away on any challenge.' Sadly, the last three sentences were difficult for those present to hear since Obama was walking away as he uttered them.

Quoting tahitiwahini: Were such a favorable legislative environment ever come to pass... it would probably still be quite difficult to enact something the majority of the American people are against.
______________

From: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

"Just in case there's any confusion out there, let me be clear. I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform," Obama said, in one of his most feisty speeches since his 2008 election campaign.

"I'm not going to walk away from the American people. I'm not going to walk away on this challenge. I'm not going to walk away on any challenge.'

Sadly, the last three sentences were difficult for those present to hear since Obama was walking away as he uttered them.

Breitbart? Why would anything he's written be of interest?

Quoting AemJeff: Breitbart? Why would anything he's written be of interest?

If I didn't think you were joking, I'd be compelled to ask you how long you've been in the cocoon. As it is, I'll just assume you know what a news aggregation site is, and further that you know what AFP stands for. If any of my assumptions are incorrect, let me know.

AFP: Association for Pricks right? P.S. Perhaps you should look into it somewhat deeper.

Quoting tahitiwahini: If I didn't think you were joking, I'd be compelled to ask you how long you've been in the cocoon.

As it is, I'll just assume you know what a news aggregation site is, and further that you know what AFP stands for.

If any of my assumptions are incorrect, let me know.

Sputter about people who don't share your outlook on life being in the "cocoon" all you like, but here's a suggestion: If you want people to read the links you suggest, you'd probably do better to find the same story elsewhere, assuming it's something other than what's usually attached to Breitbart's name. He has negative credibility, and as soon as I saw the URL, I moved on. Given how you made something up out of whole cloth after the part you quoted, at least as far as your source shows, you'll be unable to do anything except fume about this suggestion, I expect. But, you know, nothing ventured, nothing gained. [Added] You compounded the unlikelihood that anyone not already in your tribe would follow the link due to the comparative difficulty in discerning that your snark was separate from the part you quoted from the article. To this

Quoting tahitiwahini: If I didn't think you were joking, I'd be compelled to ask you how long you've been in the cocoon.

As it is, I'll just assume you know what a news aggregation site is, and further that you know what AFP stands for.

If any of my assumptions are incorrect, let me know.

I'm really not. He's good at attracting attention, of that there's no question. The usefulness of his site as an aggregator is nearly nil; overwhelmed by the polemical screen he filters his choices through. It's pretty much like linking to Drudge - only useful when everybody shares the same assumptions and outlook.

Braying that HCR is dead doesn't make it dead. You think that conservatives would have learned their lesson about the power of positive thinking back when "the insurgency is in its last throes" was hot.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sputter about people who don't share your outlook on life being in the "cocoon" all you like, but here's a suggestion: If you want people to read the links you suggest, you'd probably do better to find the same story elsewhere, assuming it's something other than what's usually attached to Breitbart's name. He has negative credibility, and as soon as I saw the URL, I moved on.

If you understand what a news aggregation site is and you choose not to read the link solely because it is attached to Breibart's name, then either you're living in a cocoon yourself, or you don't really understand what news aggregation means (maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregator). If you wanted to see the quotation yourself but didn't want to leave the cocoon, you could Google them yourself. It's not my vocation to cater to the requirements of whatever cocoon you choose to inhabit. Refusing to consider anything that doesn't originate from people who share your outlook on life is the defining characteristic of living in a cocoon. If I were to follow your suggestion I could never read any link that came from Huffington

[quote=tahitiwahini;150114]If you understand what a news aggregation site is and you choose not to read the link solely because it is attached to Breibart's name, then either you're living in a cocoon yourself, or you don't really understand what news aggregation means (maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregator). If you wanted to see the quotation yourself but didn't want to leave the cocoon, you could Google them yourself. It's not my vocation to cater to the requirements of whatever cocoon you choose to inhabit. Refusing to consider anything that doesn't originate from people who share your outlook on life is the defining characteristic of living in a cocoon. If I were to follow your suggestion I could never read any link that came from Huffington Post, but then I would be living in a cocoon too, and I would find that rather confining. I read pieces from sources that have negative credibility all the time, they call it the main stream media. That's the price I pay for not living in a cocoon.[/sputtering] Yes, even though the punchline is not a quotation, it would have been easier to understand that had it followed

Quoting claymisher: Braying that HCR is dead doesn't make it dead.

Of course it doesn't; braying in general is highly overrated. To discern whether HCR is dead one would have to look at the words and actions of the players involved. That's what I've been doing. If the words and actions of the players involved (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al.) give you comfort, so be it. Let me be clear: I've found their comments on the subject to be quite enlightening. However, if most of one's information comes from the cocoon, the ultimate fate of HCR might come as a big shock because one would have missed the signals that were available beforehand. Maybe not as big a shock as a Republican replacing Kennedy in Massachusetts, but still a pretty big shock. Just looking out for your well-being.

Quoting tahitiwahini: [...]

As predicted:

Quoting bjkeefe: ... you'll be unable to do anything except fume about this suggestion, I expect.

Alright smart guy, what's this information?

Quoting bjkeefe: ... our Senator Shelby is so Fiscally Responsible™.

And so is our Governor Sanford! Oh, wait ...

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) has changed his mind and is now requesting his state's share of a popular education grant authorized as part of last year's federal stimulus. Sanford originally declined the money.

In other words:
The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill

Quoting Don Zeko: In other words:
The six Republican ideas already in the health-care reform bill

Yeah, but how is anyone not on Journolist supposed to know what's in the Seekrit Obamacare Bill?

About the only thing this definitively shows is that the meme of the Republicans being the just the party of NO has been another lie perpetrated by the left. As far as the specifics go it is pretty thin gruel.

Quoting piscivorous: About the only thing this definitively shows is that the meme of the Republicans being the just the party of NO has been another lie perpetrated by the left. As far as the specifics go it is pretty thin gruel.

Your RDF is as powerful as The Master's. P.S. See also, if you haven't already.

Pointing out that Republicans are opposing the Health Care bill because it doesn't include things that are actually in the health care bill is thin gruel? What?

This blogpost from Yuval Levin does a good job I think of explaining why conservatives and liberals are speaking past each other on HCR:

The difference between most conservatives and most liberals on health care is not a difference of degree but a difference of direction—a difference on the question of which we way want to move from our existing highly inefficient system of paying for health insurance.

Both sides agree there are huge problems with the current system, and they even agree on what some of those problems are: there is a shortage of incentives for efficiency, and therefore costs are rising much too quickly, which leaves too many people unable to afford coverage. The system we have is neither a market nor a government program, it’s a private third-party payer system, and so makes very little economic sense. The question is, given that we want to change the existing system, how do we want to change it?

Liberals argue that we should move in the direction of socializing insurance coverage: that the efficiency we lack would be produced by putting as much as

Let's look at the ^ claims made By Mr. Kline. (1) "Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines." Except it doesn’t let individuals buy across state lines. What it does is if states take some action to agree that if the regulators in one or more states agree on some common ground the legislators of those states can take action to allow their citizens buy insurance from those states that they strike agreements with. This at best will allow some subset of the U.S. population buy across state lines. But first the states must take action to do so. How likely an occurrence is this? If it does occur how long will it take the regulatory agencies, and the politicians to act before it is implemented? How big a change is this really? Nothing prevents states from doing this already as the regulatory bodies could approve similar policy requirements and reporting standards and the respective legislators could implement now. This is nothing but milk toast and sophistry. (2) "Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same

Quoting piscivorous: About the only thing this definitively shows is that the meme of the Republicans being the just the party of NO has been another lie perpetrated by the left. As far as the specifics go it is pretty thin gruel.

Here is another "lie perpetrated by the left" (with specifics!) (via Thers):

Cantor Opens The Door To GOP Rejecting Obama’s Bipartisan Health Care Meeting

An update in the latter offers an upside, however: finally, something that Rush Limbaugh and I agree about. So, actually, you're right, pisc. The Republicans are not just the Party of No. They are the Party of Do Everything We Want and Maybe We Won't Say No.

Quoting bjkeefe: Here is another "lie perpetrated by the left" (with specifics!) (via Thers):

Cantor Opens The Door To GOP Rejecting Obama’s Bipartisan Health Care Meeting

An update in the latter offers an upside, however: finally, something that Rush Limbaugh and I agree about.

So, actually, you're right, pisc. The Republicans are not just the Party of No. They are the Party of Do Everything We Want and Maybe We Won't Say No.

More on this: House Minority Leader John "It's not pronounced that way" Boehner is starting to play the same games, it looks like.

From the "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" department: Senator Obama on April 25, 2005, speaking about President Bush's effort to privatize Social Security:

"I mean, the fact of the matter is, is the president has been on his 60-day tour, and everywhere he goes the numbers just get worse. The American people have essentially voted on this proposal and really what you have is a situation now where I think that the president and the Republican Congress are going to need to figure out a way to save face and -- and step back a little bit. And if -- if they let go of their egos -- listen, I've been on the other side of this where -- particularly with my wife. (laughter) Where I've gotten in an argument and then at some point in the argument it dawns on me, you know what, I'm wrong on this one and it's -- it's -- it's irritating, it's frustrating. You don't want to admit it, and so to the extent that we can provide the president with a graceful mechanism to -- to say we're sorry, Dear, then I think that would be -- that

Quoting tahitiwahini: From the "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" department:

Senator Obama on April 25, 2005, speaking about President Bush's effort to privatize Social Security:

And from Megan McArdle, a tale of two NYT editorials:

Are the Republicans merely following the Obama playbook, guided by the sage advice of the NYT Editorial page circa 2005?

These days the NYT sings a different tune:

Is it any wonder Republicans today chafe at the criticism of their behavior coming from quarters that a few years earlier lauded the same behavior?

Of course, Bush was obviously wrong on the merits regarding SS privatization. (Checked you portfolio recently? Had privatization occured, it would have represented a catastrophe. A far smarter fix was [and still is] available - means testing and gradually raising the retirement age.) So the argument that the two situations are analogous is a thin reed, I think. Reforming the health care system is shortly going to become an unavoidable problem. Had the Republicans entered into the process in good faith, there would have no need to line up every single member of the other party - which is the fundamental reason that the pork in the bill became as

all I'm doing is pointing out that both the president and the left's favorite source on HCR have boldly gone, where most of the left wont, and given evidence and support that the Republicans aren't the party of "NO". I can see where you might want deny them but your whining is long past old and tired.

Quoting piscivorous: all I'm doing is pointing out that both the president and the left's favorite source on HCR have boldly gone, where most of the left wont, and given evidence and support that the Republicans aren't the party of "NO". I can see where you might want deny them but your whining is long past old and tired.

You're tired because you have to work so hard to find a few tiny things to hold up to make the label seem like anything less than 100% correct. And what's old is your mindless attempt to make the case in the face of all that is reasonable, including, not least, the open admission by the leadership of the GOP and the conservative movement(s) that their primary aim is to defeat any- and everything Obama ran on and was elected to accomplish. The gist of the label -- The Party Of No -- is spot-on, and is more accurate than any other four words describing any other large group of people that I can think of. Once again you are holding up a few twigs as though they disprove the existence of the forest. It's kind of sad, really.

Quoting AemJeff: Of course, Bush was obviously wrong on the merits regarding SS privatization. (Checked you portfolio recently? Had privatization occured, it would have represented a catastrophe. A far smarter fix was [and still is] available - means testing and gradually raising the retirement age.) So the argument that the two situations are analogous is a thin reed, I think. Reforming the health care system is shortly going to become an unavoidable problem. Had the Republicans entered into the process in good faith, there would have no need to line up every single member of the other party - which is the fundamental reason that the pork in the bill became as monstrous as it did - with more support there would have been far more room for negotiating relevant issues.

Obama might ultimately fall off the cliff; but it won't have been for a lack of taking the right lessons from Bush's mistakes.

I'd add to the above that there has been a long history of the majority of the population wanting fairly substantial health care and health insurance reform. This has not ever been true for privatizing Social Security that I'm aware, although I will

The only thing more satisfying than watching your opponent make mistake after mistake, is realizing that despite all the evidence to the contrary he doesn't think he's making mistakes. Clearly there's only one solution to this problem: more cowbell. Was it Sun Tzu who said: "when your opponent insists on digging himself a deeper hole, let him." Democrats are currently behind in every federal contest in NH, which last time I checked was in the Republican bastion of New England. Can't wait for the midterms. Fasten your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Quoting Wonderment: He's waiting for a more favorable legislative environment -- like when the Democrats have a majority in the House and Senate or when they finally win the White House.

And when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

Quoting tahitiwahini: The only thing more satisfying than watching ...

... conservatives prematurely declare victory is anticipating their sputtering in week two of November, when it turns out due to a combination of incumbent staying power, teabagger-created schisms, and general Republican haplessness, their predictions of midterm gains turn out to be, at best, what happens in any midterm election. Print out your excuse-mongering bumper sticker now!

"ACORN STOLE THE ELECTIONS!!!1!"

[quote=tahitiwahini;150416]The only thing more satisfying than watching your opponent make mistake after mistake, is realizing that despite all the evidence to the contrary he doesn't think he's making mistakes. Clearly there's only one solution to this problem: more cowbell.
LOL I'd never seen that one.

Quoting bjkeefe: Print out your excuse-mongering bumper sticker now!

"ACORN STOLE THE ELECTIONS!!!1!"

Dude, that's just scary! How did you know I already had that bumper sticker on my car? Of course, I've had it there since 2008. [/sputtering]

Quoting bjkeefe: ... conservatives prematurely declare victory is anticipating their sputtering in week two of November, when it turns out due to a combination of incumbent staying power, teabagger-created schisms, and general Republican haplessness, their predictions of midterm gains turn out to be, at best, what happens in any midterm election.

"Incumbent staying power", "teabagger-created schisms" and "general Republican haplessness." You got me there: incumbents (strangely only Democrats) are certainly in trouble, the teabaggers are causing immense problems for the GOP (who needs enthusiastic supporters anyway?), and the general haplessness of the Republicans becomes apparent when you compare them to the well-oiled machine the Democrats are running. If we agreed that the Democrats are headed for a debacle in November, then we could discuss exactly how big the defeat will be: Do they lose two houses or just one? I'm not sure Nate Silver is allowable reading in the cocoon, but he seems to see a pretty bad outlook for Dems this year in the Senate: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...pocalypse.html Of course, that's just

Quoting tahitiwahini: Dude, that's just scary! How did you know I already had that bumper sticker on my car?

The anthropological study of wingnuts is one of my hobbies. As to the rest of your happy babbling, enjoy yourself while you can. We'll see what happens in November.

Quoting bjkeefe: As to the rest of your happy babbling, enjoy yourself while you can. We'll see what happens in November.

You do have a gift. I'm almost tempted to change my screen name to HappyBabbler. There's a long time between now and November, a lifetime in politics as they say. I do plan on enjoying myself every single moment I can, thank you very much.

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Ev'rywhere you go;
Take a look in the five-and-ten, glistening once again
With candy canes and silver lanes aglow.
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas,
Toys in ev'ry store,
But the prettiest sight to see is the holly that will be
On your own front door.

It's beginning to look a lot like it will be an early Christmas....
Christmas in November, that is. Cheers,
The Happy Babbler

Quoting tahitiwahini: You do have a gift.

Thanks.

I'm almost tempted to change my screen name to HappyBabbler.

Anything's better than Tahiniwhiny.