Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
freemason9 wrote:obama's fucked
Cosmic Cowbell wrote:freemason9 wrote:obama's fucked
I'm not so sure.
The real loser is US this time out. Repeal of DADT is most likely off the table for awhile,
Climate legislation will be notably weaker if at all for the foreseeable future
, we'll waste time on bogus House investigations
What's telling is the ignorance of youth. More than willing to start the ball rolling downhill but too lazy to help push it up the other side
Far left negativity didn't help
The Primary Obama Movement Begins Today
2010 November 3
by Ian Welsh
...
Barack Obama took pains to let down or gratuitously harm virtually every major Democratic constituency. Whether it was increasing deportations of Hispanics, whether it was putting in a Presidential order against Federal money being used for abortions which was more restrictive than Rep. Stupak had demanded, whether it was wholesale violation of civil rights climaxing with the claim that he had the right to assassinate American citizens, whether it was trading away the public option to corporate interests then insisting for months he hadn’t, whether it was not moving aggressively on card check (EFCA) for unions, or whether it was constantly stymying attempts to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Barack Obama was there making sure that whatever could be done to demoralize the base was done.
Meanwhile, the majority of Americans think that the policies Obama pursued were socialistic, progressive or liberal. They think this is what left-wing governance looks like. In 2 years Obama has managed to discredit the left, possibly for a generation.
...
The status quo of Democrats coming in after Republicans and accepting Republican policies as a fait accomplit must end. If it does not, the US will experience a full-on meltdown. Not a great depression like in the ’30s (though the US is in a Depression) but a meltdown like that which occurred in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, where the population actually declined, food was hard to find, brown outs were common, medicine was in short supply, and so on.
Any suggested policies or electoral politics which does not act to stop this terminal decline, this end of America’s golden age is unacceptable.
...
The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down. If the left does not do this, left wing politics and policies will be discredited with Obama. This is important not as a matter of partisan or ideological preference, it is important because left wing policies work. It is necessary to move back to strongly progressive taxation, it is necessary to force the rich to take their losses, it is necessary to deal with global warming, it is necessary to deal with the fact that the era of cheap oil is over, it is necessary to stop the offshoring engine which is destroyin the American middle class.
...
Cosmic Cowbell wrote:Far left negativity didn't help
Glenn Greenwald wrote:Ten minutes was the absolute maximum I could endure of any one television news outlet last night without having to switch channels in the futile search for something more bearable, but almost every time I had MNSBC on, there was Lawrence O'Donnell trying to blame "the Left" and "liberalism" for the Democrats' political woes. Alan Grayson's loss was proof that outspoken liberalism fails. Blanche Lincoln's loss was the fault of the Left for mounting a serious primary challenge against her. Russ Feingold's defeat proved that voters reject liberalism in favor of conservatism, etc. etc. It sounded as though he was reading from some crusty script jointly prepared in 1995 by The New Republic, Lanny Davis and the DLC.
There are so many obvious reasons why this "analysis" is false: Grayson represents a highly conservative district that hadn't been Democratic for decades before he won in 2008 and he made serious mistakes during the campaign; Lincoln was behind the GOP challenger by more than 20 points back in January, before Bill Halter even announced his candidacy; Feingold was far from a conventional liberal, having repeatedly opposed his own party on multiple issues, and he ran in a state saddled with a Democratic governor who was unpopular in the extreme. Beyond that, numerous liberals who were alleged to be in serious electoral trouble kept their seats: Barney Frank, John Dingell, Rush Holt, Raul Grijalva, and many others. But there's one glaring, steadfastly ignored fact destroying O'Donnell's attempt -- which is merely the standard pundit storyline that has been baking for months and will now be served en masse -- to blame The Left and declare liberalism dead. It's this little inconvenient fact:
Blue Dog Coalition Crushed By GOP Wave Election
Tuesday was a tough night for Democrats, as they watched Republicans win enough seats to take back the House in the next Congress and began to ponder life under a likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). But one group hit especially hard was the Blue Dog Coalition, with half of its members losing their seats.
According to an analysis by The Huffington Post, 23 of the 46 Blue Dogs up for re-election went down on Tuesday. Notable losses included Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), the coalition's co-chair for administration, and Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), the co-chair for policy. Two members were running for higher office (both lost), three were retiring and three races were still too close to call.
The Blue Dogs, a coalition of moderate to conservative Democrats in the House, have consistently frustrated their more progressive colleagues and activists within the party . . . .
Half of the Blue Dog incumbents were defeated, and by themselves accounted for close to half of the Democratic losses. Some of us have been arguing for quite some time that the Rahm-engineered dependence on Blue Dog power is one of the many factors that has made the Democratic Party so weak, blurry, indistinguishable from the GOP, and therefore so politically inept, and would thus be stronger and better without them
Sorry, dude, I'll be sure not to use my "negative vibes" against A HEALTH CARE BILL WRITTEN BY INSURANCE FIRMS MODELED AFTER A REPUBLICAN PLAN WRITTEN BY INSURANCE FIRMS. I'll also be sure not to ever suggest THAT THE FUCKING RICH PAY THEIR GODDAMN FUCKING TAXES ever again. Oh man, my "negativity" just cost votes again!
Jay-Z wrote:"In order to judge someone, you have to judge what they inherit," he explained. "In order to get to that sort of success and that dream, you have to go through some peaks and valleys."
http://www.clashmusic.com/news/jay-z-talks-mid-terms
Montag wrote:It's funny to me CC, that you think the health bill achieved something:
Pro-single-payer doctors: Health bill leaves 23 million uninsured
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... ealth-plan
:
Oliver Fein, M.D.
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
David Himmelstein, M.D.
Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Mark Almberg, PNHP
....
Instead of eliminating the root of the problem - the profit-driven, private health insurance industry - this costly new legislation will enrich and further entrench these firms. The bill would require millions of Americans to buy private insurers' defective products, and turn over to them vast amounts of public money.
The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:
About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.
Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.
Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.
The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.
People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.
Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.
The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation. Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017.
Cosmic Cowbell wrote:As for health care legislation, no it wasn't perfect but if you think it was ever going to be any other way, you're OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND!!! There is much to admire there and it is a beginning.
Nordic wrote: __________ ___________
Nordic wrote:Cosmic Cowbell wrote:As for health care legislation, no it wasn't perfect but if you think it was ever going to be any other way, you're OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND!!! There is much to admire there and it is a beginning.
I'll do my best to NOT tell you what a __________ ___________ you are, but this propaganda about the health care "reform" bullshit being "a beginning" is just a bunch of goddamn nonsense.
The plan, in case you hadn't noticed you _______________________ is for the Repubs to now chip away at anything that MIGHT actually be good at that plan, and take it back to the bones of corrupt corporatism that got it turned into law in the first place.
Yes, it's a "beginning", it's a beginning for complete corporate control over every aspect of health care and health insurance.
Now go back to Dailykos, where you belong. Bye.
Cosmic Cowbell wrote:You are so cute when you shout Nathan. Seriously.
However, your suggestion the "THAT THE FUCKING RICH PAY THEIR GODDAMN FUCKING TAXES", is in no way a far left ideological position, no matter how much your desire to make it so by TYPING IN ALL CAPS!!!
As for health care legislation, no it wasn't perfect but if you think it was ever going to be any other way, you're OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND!!! There is much to admire there and it is a beginning.
I guess they wuz all to busy reading Greenwald and Hedges. Like I said, it's easy to push something downhill and hard to push it up the other side. It's "work". Ya'll should try it sometime.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 186 guests