US Healthcare Reform

[Guest alex]

whats the unemployment level like in the states? a lot of americans would baulk at the idea of paying for someone elses healthcare. just selfish i guess........... (or looking out for no.1, depending upon your pov.)

Aren't they both the same thing?

[Guest Stevie]

America needs a fucking dictatorship...They must be sick to the back of their teeth explaining this shit to what are basically savages.

That's all they are.

[Happy Face 29]

http://pol.moveon.org/brownpoll/results.html

 

95% of voters said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.

 

53% of Obama voters who voted for Brown and 56% of Obama voters who did not vote in the Massachusetts election said that Democrats enacting tighter restrictions on Wall Street would make them more likely to vote Democratic in the 2010 elections.

 

51% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 but Brown in 2010 said that Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.

Nearly half (49%) of Obama voters who voted for Brown support the Senate health care bill or think it does not go far enough. Only 11% think the legislation goes too far.

 

Are you quoting those figures to show you agree or am I interpreting them differently?

 

53% of Obama voters who didn't turn out this week think the reform is too diluted.

 

In the October poll I posted over half were in favor of reform (when a public option was an option). In your poll only 32%-34% of DEMOCRATS are in favor of the reform as it is (as a corporate blow job).

 

Just being objective and posting up the exit poll. I think it does show there are issues about the reform proposals which supports your point. I also think that the conversation inside a voter's head isnt that complicated and that the vociferous criticism from the left has undermined Obama when people need re-assurance about him. They need to be re-assured about the economy, one way to sort that out is to stop the current healthcare expenditure trajectory that will see 1 in every 3 US dollars spent on healthcare by 2020. The other is to sort the economy which means a tough call on how to address Wall Street, since although it may be just, it may not be prudent to fuck them over.

 

Arriana Huffington has an interesting take on it.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...r_b_430678.html

 

Glad to have you on board the with me an Arrianna

 

The left treat their president like Newcastle fans treat Bobby Robson. He could be doing incredible things that no-one imagined possible a couple of years before, but drop the ball for a second and they'll be on his back.

 

I think that's far preferable to the right who treat their president like Leazes treats Shepherd. He could throw them out of their homes and call their wives dogs and they'll still blow smoke up his arse.

[Cid_MCDP 0]

HF I absolutely hate that article, his opposition to the 'blame the left' theme is shit. Iraq is an absurd anology, just cos someone said it was just like underming Bush doesn't mean that it is.

 

The American electorate are facile when it comes to domestic health care policy i.e. they don't give a fuck. People really gave a shit about Iraq though and that guilt ridden article should be dismissed as the incredulous nonsense that it is. The first black president of america with a long term centrist yet progressive 'plan' for this and his second term is going to be the subject of vitriolic criticism, something that will filter through to non engaged and uninformed middle America.

 

What these far left jerks don't get is that the majority are not sure about reform and that the real political and economic objective was and is to sort out the finance. I've sat in ASCO sessions with federal finance guys doing apocalyptic scenarios on the economy, never mind the federal reserve. Reform will hurt everyone apart fom those too rich to care.

 

I've been shocked by the criticism Obama has been under lately and the on-the-fly decsision making of those that could have made a difference by explaining things correctly to the wider populace. I realise now AMERICA CAN'T BE SAVED. It is on a collison course with history and the universe and those boys have yert to drop a set.

 

Welcome to my world. I swear, the only reason I'm still here is my folks are old and won't move. God forbid, if anything happened to them, I'd be asking if any of y'all have a spare room to rent.

 

To address a couple of questions being asked about my country and it's views on things...

 

1) The 40% tax revenue, defense spending, et al

Most people in this country don't really realize how much their being taxed. There's tons of reasons for this (serpentine tax law, relatively low education levels, etc.), but it basically comes down to this point- if you ask a person how much money they make and how much taxes they pay, the first answer will be their salary before taxes (because that's how a business presents it to you, obviously) and the second will be a woefully low estimate. I remember arguing about healthcare with some people back in 2006 and used Canada's model as my basis of argument. One of the opponents said, "Yeah, but don't they pay like 40% or 50% in taxes?", to which I replied, "Motherfucker! You ever look at your (pay)check stub? Your recepit from the grocery store or whatever? I don't know about you, but I already pay well over 40% of my wages in tax- I might as well get free healthcare for my trouble!"

 

2) Criticism of Obama

Right or wrong, when you run on a platform of change, some shit has to change. And as everyone knows, we're the most impatient country on earth. It's been a year and we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still don't have national healtcare, our economy is still shit, and a lot of people are still out of work. Is it Obama's fault? Of course it isn't. Is he taking the blame for it nonetheless? Of course he is. The Bush Administration took over banks in the bailout and yet Fox News Channel and the Republicans can't stop refering to Obama as a socialist. Yes, I'm serious.

 

3) National healtcare

There's a tremendous amount of money being pumped into scaring Americans into thinking the government will destroy healtcare if given the chance. I've personally had conversations here at work where otherwise seemingly rational people will tell me they don't think the government should run healtcare because they'll kill old people. It's mind boggling. I've also heard a co-work rail on about the subject of national healthcare then later mention that his grandson (whom he supports by the way, along with his own deadbeat kids) lost his silver tooth and was hoping the tooth fairy would leave him more of a reward. This kid, needless to say, on public aid programs and we, the taxpayers, paid for a 5 year-old to have a silver tooth put in.

 

Don't know if y'all have run across it, but there have been people in this country speaking out against giving aid to Haiti; namely, Rush Limbaugh. Now, I'm not so much of an unsavvy stooge to realize that Limbaugh only spoke out against aiding the Haitians because it would generate a tremendous amount of media coverage for him and his goofy radio show, but the problem is, there are a lot of unsavvy stooges who listen to that show who now actually believe we shouldn't help Haiti. History and everything else aside, I don't see how anyone could read about the aftermath of the earthquakes and see the footage coming out of that country and not be moved in some way to help. Unsurprisingly though, the Limbaugh listeners and Pat Robertson's zealots are doing just that. If that isn't the definition of heartbreakingly sad, I don't know what is.

 

There have been other events that really made me question the notion that this country could ever recover some of the spirit that once made it great- the bank bailouts and subsequent financial crisis, allowing media conglomerates to merge the outlets to control output of news, the war in Iraq, the two controversial Bush elections, the outright FUD regarding some form of nationalized healthcare, but for whatever reason, this whole Haiti thing really has gone a long way towards convincing me that we're just so far gone, there will be no recovery. All that other stuff you couldn't justify, but could at least rationalize as somebody being greedy, but speaking out against people who are trying to aid people who are the victims of a natural disaster of epic proportions is just evil.

 

Will get back to this. A lot of the ills of 'the West' aren't actually ills of 'the West', they are ills of America, but they are packaged and sold as of all our making. They aren't. Europe really needs to de-link, - this is a child gone bad (America)....

I've said that phrase for years, they're like a naughty child who have no respect for their masters anymore. It was always going to happen to a society based on lies, propaganda and greed though, you can't expect a large portion of the country to grow up being anything other than arseholes.

 

Good post thought CID, if the Haiti disaster happened to Britain do you think people would universally try to support us in the United States?

 

Without question, yes.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Cid_MCDP

[Cid_MCDP 0]

HF I absolutely hate that article, his opposition to the 'blame the left' theme is shit. Iraq is an absurd anology, just cos someone said it was just like underming Bush doesn't mean that it is.

 

The American electorate are facile when it comes to domestic health care policy i.e. they don't give a fuck. People really gave a shit about Iraq though and that guilt ridden article should be dismissed as the incredulous nonsense that it is. The first black president of america with a long term centrist yet progressive 'plan' for this and his second term is going to be the subject of vitriolic criticism, something that will filter through to non engaged and uninformed middle America.

 

What these far left jerks don't get is that the majority are not sure about reform and that the real political and economic objective was and is to sort out the finance. I've sat in ASCO sessions with federal finance guys doing apocalyptic scenarios on the economy, never mind the federal reserve. Reform will hurt everyone apart fom those too rich to care.

 

I've been shocked by the criticism Obama has been under lately and the on-the-fly decsision making of those that could have made a difference by explaining things correctly to the wider populace. I realise now AMERICA CAN'T BE SAVED. It is on a collison course with history and the universe and those boys have yert to drop a set.

 

Welcome to my world. I swear, the only reason I'm still here is my folks are old and won't move. God forbid, if anything happened to them, I'd be asking if any of y'all have a spare room to rent.

 

To address a couple of questions being asked about my country and it's views on things...

 

1) The 40% tax revenue, defense spending, et al

Most people in this country don't really realize how much their being taxed. There's tons of reasons for this (serpentine tax law, relatively low education levels, etc.), but it basically comes down to this point- if you ask a person how much money they make and how much taxes they pay, the first answer will be their salary before taxes (because that's how a business presents it to you, obviously) and the second will be a woefully low estimate. I remember arguing about healthcare with some people back in 2006 and used Canada's model as my basis of argument. One of the opponents said, "Yeah, but don't they pay like 40% or 50% in taxes?", to which I replied, "Motherfucker! You ever look at your (pay)check stub? Your recepit from the grocery store or whatever? I don't know about you, but I already pay well over 40% of my wages in tax- I might as well get free healthcare for my trouble!"

 

2) Criticism of Obama

Right or wrong, when you run on a platform of change, some shit has to change. And as everyone knows, we're the most impatient country on earth. It's been a year and we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still don't have national healtcare, our economy is still shit, and a lot of people are still out of work. Is it Obama's fault? Of course it isn't. Is he taking the blame for it nonetheless? Of course he is. The Bush Administration took over banks in the bailout and yet Fox News Channel and the Republicans can't stop refering to Obama as a socialist. Yes, I'm serious.

 

3) National healtcare

There's a tremendous amount of money being pumped into scaring Americans into thinking the government will destroy healtcare if given the chance. I've personally had conversations here at work where otherwise seemingly rational people will tell me they don't think the government should run healtcare because they'll kill old people. It's mind boggling. I've also heard a co-work rail on about the subject of national healthcare then later mention that his grandson (whom he supports by the way, along with his own deadbeat kids) lost his silver tooth and was hoping the tooth fairy would leave him more of a reward. This kid, needless to say, on public aid programs and we, the taxpayers, paid for a 5 year-old to have a silver tooth put in.

 

Don't know if y'all have run across it, but there have been people in this country speaking out against giving aid to Haiti; namely, Rush Limbaugh. Now, I'm not so much of an unsavvy stooge to realize that Limbaugh only spoke out against aiding the Haitians because it would generate a tremendous amount of media coverage for him and his goofy radio show, but the problem is, there are a lot of unsavvy stooges who listen to that show who now actually believe we shouldn't help Haiti. History and everything else aside, I don't see how anyone could read about the aftermath of the earthquakes and see the footage coming out of that country and not be moved in some way to help. Unsurprisingly though, the Limbaugh listeners and Pat Robertson's zealots are doing just that. If that isn't the definition of heartbreakingly sad, I don't know what is.

 

There have been other events that really made me question the notion that this country could ever recover some of the spirit that once made it great- the bank bailouts and subsequent financial crisis, allowing media conglomerates to merge the outlets to control output of news, the war in Iraq, the two controversial Bush elections, the outright FUD regarding some form of nationalized healthcare, but for whatever reason, this whole Haiti thing really has gone a long way towards convincing me that we're just so far gone, there will be no recovery. All that other stuff you couldn't justify, but could at least rationalize as somebody being greedy, but speaking out against people who are trying to aid people who are the victims of a natural disaster of epic proportions is just evil.

 

What an interesting and thoroughly depressing post.

 

 

It's like the Requiem For a Dream of posts, tbh.

 

[trophyshy 6443]

Good post CID, thank you.

 

Is the Gary Mckinnon story commonly known over there?

 

[Cid_MCDP 0]

Good post CID, thank you.

 

Is the Gary Mckinnon story commonly known over there?

 

 

Never heard of him.

 

Not to say I'm the most informed Yank on the face of the earth, but after watching the video, I'd say only a handful of Wired or RATM types would have heard of him over here. That kind of stuff doesn't generally make the mainstream news.

[Park Life 71]

Old skool hacker. Did it all with dial up and was looking at pc's inside nasa.

[Happy Face 29]

Yeah, well done all the Obama critics, managed to put so much negativity out against him that the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's seat.

 

I blame Happy Face and the Huffington Post.

 

Another take on this....

 

Why is it that all the people who claim to be the base turn out to be self-serving, self-promoting jackasses who have very narrow agendas and love to inform us that if the Obama administration does just what they want them to do right when they want them to do it, they will “keep the base.” Otherwise, if they don’t fulfill their agenda right then and there, they will “lose the base.” And strategically, it always works out so well- see demanding the public option be put in the Senate Bill and shutting down the Snowe negotiations.

-John Cole

 

John is a friend, so I say this with genuine respect -- yes, the Democrats have a base problem. And no, it's not because of Ed Schultz, me, Jane Hamsher, or anyone else. Let's be real, we're just not that powerful.

 

Daily Kos gets about 2 million unique visitors per month, plus maybe a couple more million reading other progressive blogs. Ed (and Olbermann and Maddow) probably get that many watching their shows every month. There's overlap, so let's say 3-5 million progressives reading blogs and watching MSNBC's prime time lineup -- a pittance compared to the 16 million or so that listen to Limbaugh every week, and the 2-4 million that watch Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck every night. Huffington Post is getting about 16 million unique monthly visitors these days, but 80 percent of that is entertainment, and the other 20 percent is split among business, sports, living, style, green, technology and finally politics.

 

Point is, our media machine is tiny. We don't have the power to move our base around.

 

And heck, we don't even reach much of our base. 18-29 year-olds, a key component of the Democratic base, don't read blogs or watch MSNBC. Neither do African Americans or Latinos, at least in significant numbers. Yet look at these voter intensity numbers:

 

In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?

 

 

Def/Prob Not Likely/Won't

 

Dem 54 43

GOP 82 17

 

White 67 32

Black 26 55

Latino 38 51

18-29 38 53

 

 

As you can see, our base is demoralized and tuned out, and plan on sitting out the 2010 elections at rates that will absolutely fuck us if they don't improve by November.

 

But again, African Americans, Latinos, and young voters aren't tuning out because we failed to build bipartisan concensus with Olympia Snowe, or because MSNBC or the blogs made them angry. Making such claims is patently absurd. They're tuning out because we wasted 2009 "negotiating" with bad faith actors like Snowe and Mike Enzi. The tools were available to quickly pass a health care bill, yet Democrats were too incompetent to do so. And on issue after issue, they've proven completely ineffective.

 

THAT's why the base is sitting things out. They don't need blogs or MSNBC to tell them that Democrats can't govern. They already knew that Republicans don't want to govern, but the Democrats were supposed to be different. And they are, they want to govern, but they can't. And the voters that worked their asses off to give Democrats the White House and super majorities in Congress are now realizing that it was all for nothing. That all that talk about hope and change was cynical bullshit designed to motivate them. It worked once, but that crowd is learning the art of political cynicism, and it ain't pretty.

 

Cole may want to lash out at prominent progressives who have tried to prod our Democratic majorities in the right direction, and they certainly offer a tempting and easy target. But the reality is that voters demanded accomplishments, and on the big items, the Democrats have mostly failed. They weren't hired to tinker around the edges. They were hired to enact transformative "change". And while Cole and others like him might wish that progressives banded together to cheer along bullshit negotiations with Snowe and Enzi and repeated capitulations to an irrelevant minority and its corporatist allies in the Democratic Party, fact is, voters aren't that stupid. All the neocon cheerleading in the world didn't prevent Americans from realizing that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had been completely botched. Canned cheering for this health care bill wouldn't have saved it from similar sentiment.

 

Those prominent progressives have, in effect, been canaries in the coal mine -- warning of the disengagement and alienation among base voters we now see so clearly in the polling.

 

It would be absurd to blame those canaries for any deadly gas leaking into mine shafts.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/1...n-the-coal-mine

Edited January 26, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

Two points. Firstly, whilst posting a story into a forum that is read by hundreds of people not even engaged in the US political process, it is a little incredulous to use arguments on unique page impressions of those websites as evidence that their reach is limited.

 

Secondly, politics is about PR and messages, so to understand the impact of the far-left you need to examine how the far left has been reported, not what they have reported.

[Park Life 71]

Two points. Firstly, whilst posting a story into a forum that is read by hundreds of people not even engaged in the US political process, it is a little incredulous to use arguments on unique page impressions of those websites as evidence that their reach is limited.

 

Secondly, politics is about PR and messages, so to understand the impact of the far-left you need to examine how the far left has been reported, not what they have reported.

 

Politics is about the truth and the people.

[Happy Face 29]

Two points. Firstly, whilst posting a story into a forum that is read by hundreds of people not even engaged in the US political process, it is a little incredulous to use arguments on unique page impressions of those websites as evidence that their reach is limited.

 

Secondly, politics is about PR and messages, so to understand the impact of the far-left you need to examine how the far left has been reported, not what they have reported.

 

You seem to be saying the left shouldn't complain, because America is a predominantly right wing country with a right wing media who will spin the facts that justify those complaints to portray the left negatively.

 

How do you see supporting Obama's corporatist, war mongering, civil liberties eroding agenda as having a positive effect for liberals? Would Fox suddenly start championing the black man?

Edited January 26, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

Two points. Firstly, whilst posting a story into a forum that is read by hundreds of people not even engaged in the US political process, it is a little incredulous to use arguments on unique page impressions of those websites as evidence that their reach is limited.

 

Secondly, politics is about PR and messages, so to understand the impact of the far-left you need to examine how the far left has been reported, not what they have reported.

 

You seem to be saying the left shouldn't complain, because America is a predominantly right wing country with a right wing media who will spin the facts that justify those complaints to portray the left negatively.

 

How do you see supporting Obama's corporatist, war mongering, civil liberties eroding agenda as having a positive effect for liberals? Would Fox suddenly start championing the black man?

 

He was refused funding by the Senate for Guantanamo, they voted against him, yet the far left feel the need to villify him for this. Its illogical in some cases. As for the progress of change, its like a set of football fans of a newly promoted club clamouring for the manager to go because they arent top of the premiership. I think some of the younger democrats havent really got a clue about what it means to hold and retain power. Some things just take time. Its the excess of criticism that worries and bemuses me.

 

I'm not comfortable with your association of Obama with corporatism, war-mongering or the erosion of civil liberties. The world is corporatist now, it used to just be the west but not anymore, thats a fact of life. Bush was a war mongerer, think that harsh on Obama and isnt the erosion of civil liberties characteristic of most societies in the 21st century?

[Happy Face 29]

Two points. Firstly, whilst posting a story into a forum that is read by hundreds of people not even engaged in the US political process, it is a little incredulous to use arguments on unique page impressions of those websites as evidence that their reach is limited.

 

Secondly, politics is about PR and messages, so to understand the impact of the far-left you need to examine how the far left has been reported, not what they have reported.

 

You seem to be saying the left shouldn't complain, because America is a predominantly right wing country with a right wing media who will spin the facts that justify those complaints to portray the left negatively.

 

How do you see supporting Obama's corporatist, war mongering, civil liberties eroding agenda as having a positive effect for liberals? Would Fox suddenly start championing the black man?

 

He was refused funding by the Senate for Guantanamo, they voted against him, yet the far left feel the need to villify him for this. Its illogical in some cases. As for the progress of change, its like a set of football fans of a newly promoted club clamouring for the manager to go because they arent top of the premiership. I think some of the younger democrats havent really got a clue about what it means to hold and retain power. Some things just take time. Its the excess of criticism that worries and bemuses me.

 

I'm not comfortable with your association of Obama with corporatism, war-mongering or the erosion of civil liberties. The world is corporatist now, it used to just be the west but not anymore, thats a fact of life. Bush was a war mongerer, think that harsh on Obama and isnt the erosion of civil liberties characteristic of most societies in the 21st century?

 

In October, 2008, the ACLU issued a report outlining the policies needed to restore civil liberties and America's constitutional framework in the wake of the Bush assault, entitled "Actions for Restoring America." On the one-year anniversary of Obama's inauguration as President, the ACLU has issued a new report -- pointedly and revealingly entitled "America Unrestored" -- which details Obama's record in these areas. Although there have been a few isolated bright spots (the DOJ's intensified domestic enforcement of civil rights laws), Obama's overall civil liberties record has been extremely disappointing, and this report from the ACLU comprehensively documents the failures.

 

It's simplistic to say he asked the senate to provide cash, they said no, what more do you want?

 

One of the authors of those reports spoke to Glenn Greenwald last week...

 

Glenn Greenwald: on the closing of Guantanamo. As you say, there was an executive order issued to much fanfare, ordering that it be closed in a year; it's obviously not done. Two questions about that: one is, how much blame do you assign to Obama vs. the Congress, as it was the Congress that banned the transfer into the United States, which as you said caused so many problems in trying to persuade other countries to accept it, they refused to fund the closing of Guantanamo until they knew the plan. How much of the impediment is attributable to Congress rather than Obama as far as that not being done?

 

And then the second aspect of that is, when we talk about closing Guantanamo, I know a lot of defenders of Obama often say, well, he's going to close it - will there be any real significance to closing Guantanamo if the same system of indefinite detention and military commissions is retained and simply transferred to Illinois or somewhere else?

 

Anthony Romero: Well, that's exactly the right question. First off, clearly Congress got in the president's way, and not in my backyard, the NIMBY sentiment, the fact that they got off the farm from where the administration, his first promise, a very symbolic promise with enormous due process implications. But frankly when the party in power under the president doesn't happen readily or easily, or should of, the fact is people got off the farm they were allowed to get off the farm. There were many who speculated within the administration and outside, including some of us, said, why did the president feel like he had to go to Congress for these powers? There were resources in the Department of Justice budget, you don't pick a fight if you don't know you can win. You play mother may I, then mother might say no, and then you can't go out and play, and then Congress gets its back up and the president gets himself backed into a wall.

 

And frankly, whether it was a poor game that they played, and not understanding the dynamics in Congress, or whether it was poor communications with members of Congress, which I heard from some members of Congress, that that was the case, it's that the responsibility lies with both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

And yes, you're absolutely right, that what they're now proposing in terms of buying the prison in Thompson, Illinois, and then basically moving the some legal regime they have at Guantanamo onshore, doesn't fix all the issues with Guantanamo. Guantanamo is not just a physical location or a symbolic gesture. It's also about a set of rules and policies that have been attached at Guantanamo. The holding of individuals without charges or trial, the lack of access to counsel, the conditions of their confinement, the conditions of their transfer, have not been worked out in the Thompson proposal. And in the end, if we move individuals who are being held indefinitely without charges or trial from Guantanamo to Thompson, Illinois, and we still hold them indefinitely without charges or trial, we've not fixed the Guantanamo problem, we've just shifted it to Guantanamo North. And that's part of the reason we've been so concerned about the Thompson proposal.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...mero/index.html

[ChezGiven 0]

Our ability to emulate Arsenal's style of play this year has also been disappointing.

 

However, i agree it is too simplistic to say that about Guantanamo, he tried he failed etc.

 

BUT.. i am not sure that quoting someone who comes out with...

 

"the fact that they got off the farm from where the administration, his first promise, a very symbolic promise with enormous due process implications. But frankly when the party in power under the president doesn't happen readily or easily, or should of, the fact is people got off the farm they were allowed to get off the farm"

 

.. helps your cause in any way. Does this man model himself on John Prescott?

[Happy Face 29]

Our ability to emulate Arsenal's style of play this year has also been disappointing.

 

However, i agree it is too simplistic to say that about Guantanamo, he tried he failed etc.

 

BUT.. i am not sure that quoting someone who comes out with...

 

"the fact that they got off the farm from where the administration, his first promise, a very symbolic promise with enormous due process implications. But frankly when the party in power under the president doesn't happen readily or easily, or should of, the fact is people got off the farm they were allowed to get off the farm"

 

.. helps your cause in any way. Does this man model himself on John Prescott?

 

It's a verbatim transcript of an interview where he seems to have got tongue tied. The point remains though.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

What point?

[Happy Face 29]

What point?

 

Obama wasn't exactly leaning on any democrats to vote along party lines....lines that he dictates.

[ChezGiven 0]

What point?

 

Obama wasn't exactly leaning on any democrats to vote along party lines....lines that he dictates.

 

Why do you think he needs to lean on his fellow democrats at all? On such a clear cut issue that the majority want, why would he need to jivvy-up the troops?

 

Not sure how to interpret the idea that he chose a deliberately risky path through the law for the Guantanamo proposals. Its as though the suggestion is he is evil and not to be trusted. Which is funnily enough pretty much on GOP's messaging. Which has been my point all along.

[Happy Face 29]

What point?

 

Obama wasn't exactly leaning on any democrats to vote along party lines....lines that he dictates.

 

Why do you think he needs to lean on his fellow democrats at all? On such a clear cut issue that the majority want, why would he need to jivvy-up the troops?

 

Not sure how to interpret the idea that he chose a deliberately risky path through the law for the Guantanamo proposals. Its as though the suggestion is he is evil and not to be trusted. Which is funnily enough pretty much on GOP's messaging. Which has been my point all along.

 

No-one's saying it was intentional evil-doing..he says...

 

whether it was a poor game that they played, and not understanding the dynamics in Congress, or whether it was poor communications with members of Congress, which I heard from some members of Congress

[ChezGiven 0]

I notice you ignore my questions about why he needs to lean on his party. Thats because his party, upon whom he relies completely to affect any sort of change whatsoever, are made up of socially democratic yet fiscally conservative members. Which for me characterises the real issues facing Obama everyday. Its through this prism that i look at the leftist credentials of his policies. It may appear like i'm being an apologist but i was one of the few suggesting tempered expectations before he got elected.

[Happy Face 29]

I notice you ignore my questions about why he needs to lean on his party. Thats because his party, upon whom he relies completely to affect any sort of change whatsoever, are made up of socially democratic yet fiscally conservative members. Which for me characterises the real issues facing Obama everyday. Its through this prism that i look at the leftist credentials of his policies. It may appear like i'm being an apologist but i was one of the few suggesting tempered expectations before he got elected.

 

I thought the need for him to lean on his own party was self evident given the likes of Joe Lieberman are in a supposedly liberal political party. They're not just fiscally conservative democrats, they're more like undercover Republicans infiltrating the party and shifting it to the right from within.

 

Democracy Now are trying to secure funding for true liberal candidates to run against democrats who are most egregiously in bed with lobbyists.

 

I totally agree on tempered expectations. Even without the broken promises I was also saying before the election that his policies as outlined in no way suggested more than a tiny fraction of the 'change' his advertising suggested.

[ChezGiven 0]

"Yes we can" was such a thoroughly modern platform, i admired it greatly.

[Happy Face 29]

"Yes we can" was such a thoroughly modern platform, i admired it greatly.

 

Krugman's made the same point today...

 

These days quite a few people are frustrated with President Obama’s failure to challenge conservative ideology. The spending freeze — about which the best thing you can say in its favor is that it’s a transparently cynical PR stunt — has, for many, been the final straw: rhetorically, it’s a complete concession to Reaganism.

 

But why should we be surprised? Here’s one from the vault. Two years ago, I was deeply frustrated with Obama’s apparent endorsement of the Reagan myth.

 

There was a lot of delusion among progressives who convinced themselves, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, that Obama was a strong champion of their values. He wasn’t and isn’t.

 

That doesn’t mean that there’s no difference between the parties, that everything would have been the same if McCain had won. But progressives are in the process of losing a big chance to change the narrative, and that’s largely because they have a leader who never had any inclination to do so.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/2...=NytimesKrugman

[Park Life 71]

What point?

 

Obama wasn't exactly leaning on any democrats to vote along party lines....lines that he dictates.

 

This presidential order lark does it carry any weight?