Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Urges Liberal Advocacy Groups to Stop Attacks
President Obama, strategizing yesterday with congressional leaders about health-care reform, complained that liberal advocacy groups ought to drop their attacks on Democratic lawmakers and devote their energy to promoting passage of comprehensive legislation.
In a pre-holiday call with half a dozen top House and Senate Democrats, Obama expressed his concern over advertisements and online campaigns targeting moderate Democrats, whom they criticize for not being fully devoted to "true" health-care reform.
"We shouldn't be focusing resources on each other," Obama opined in the call, according to three sources who participated in or listened to the conversation. "We ought to be focused on winning this debate."
Specifically, Obama said he is hoping left-leaning organizations that worked on his behalf in the presidential campaign will now rally support for "advancing legislation" that fulfills his goal of expanding coverage, controlling rising costs and modernizing the health system.
In the call, leaders of both chambers expressed optimism that they will hold floor votes on legislation to overhaul the $2.2 trillion health system before Congress breaks in early August.
For his part, the president vowed to use his strong approval rating with voters to continue making the case for sweeping reform, according to one congressional staffer with knowledge of the conversation. Obama also hinted that efforts are under way to discourage allies from future attacks on Democrats, according to the source, who did not have permission to speak on the record about the discussion.
The White House had no comment on the president's call.
In recent weeks, liberal bloggers and grass-roots groups such as MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Service Employees International Union and Progressive Change Campaign Committee have targeted Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.).
A fundraising video produced by Democracy for America suggests Landrieu is a "sellout" because she has received $1.6 million in campaign contributions from the health-care industry and has yet to endorse the concept of a government-run health insurance plan to compete against the private companies. The public-option concept, which Obama supports, has become a litmus test for many pro-reform activists who accuse the insurance industry of failing to deliver affordable, accessible care.
"Tell Senator Landrieu to support the people of Louisiana, not insurance companies," the spot concludes.
Founded by former Vermont governor Howard Dean, Democracy for America argues that inclusion of a Medicare-style public option in health-care legislation is "non-negotiable."
MoveOn, a Web-based political action committee that works to elect "progressive" leaders, intended to run commercials over the Fourth of July holiday criticizing Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) for her silence on the public option. But after she endorsed legislation crafted by Democratic colleagues on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that includes that provision, the group dropped its plans.
"This measure is the heart of health-care reform and is supported by MoveOn's 5 million members, as well as the majority of the American people," said MoveOn's executive director, Justin Ruben. "With the support of legislators like Senator Hagan, we can come closer to our goal of making quality health insurance accessible and affordable for everyone."
Health Care for American Now, a labor-based coalition of 1,000 groups, has organized a petition pressuring Feinstein to support legislation that includes a public option.
"We need a senator who is championing, not nay saying, the need for reform," the petition says. "We're hoping Sen. Feinstein becomes a 'champion' for the people of California and stands up for President Obama's health reform."
Richard Kirsch, who runs the coalition, said most of the group's ads are educational or focused generally on the need for broad-based change.
"We've been promoting reform and yes, asking members of the public to contact their senators," he said yesterday. "It's all in support of reform."
Feinstein said in an interview last week that she does support health reform but has concerns about the cost of legislation and the impact on her home state. She discounted the attacks as unhelpful and counterproductive.
Obama was joined on the call with lawmakers by White House health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, though he led most of the conversation. DeParle and White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina have been in intense negotiations with hospital representatives in the hope of extracting guaranteed spending reductions from the industry.
155 Comments so far
Show All"Obama also hinted that efforts are under way to discourage allies from future attacks on Democrats.."
So much for "make me do it".
Cornell West, on Bill Moyers bought the line that we had to "push Obama" and a few minutes later complained that, "he wasn't listening".
Well, apparently he does hear, but he doesn't like what he hears and is taking steps to thwart those doing the pressuring.
The question is Cornell West, are you listening?
The people won't compromise with the elites. If the elites want the people's support, the elites will have to change the policy to reflect the interests of the people.
"Obama Urges Liberal Advocacy Groups to Stop Attacks"
After all, what have liberals ever given him, except his job.
At least conservatives give him money.
The truth is, there will be no _real_ reform if whatever legislation they vote on includes the greedy insurance companies in the mix. A "public option" isn't a REAL option, it's a sellout to the insurance industry, and chances are it will fail, because the insurance companies will dump all the "uninsurables" and "pre-existing conditions" into that system.
The only _real_ reform is Universal Single-payer, completely independent of the greedy insurance companies.
People taking the time to comment here ought to also comment about this BS at the White House website. Let the MFSOB Obama know he doesn't represent you, nor are you willing to follow his "orders." Let him have a full broadside: Heathcare, Accountability for BushCo crimes, and so forth. I do; and if I can, you can too. I call these commonsense suggestions, not orders.
A lot of really excellent comments.
It's healthy to give it to that liar, manipulator, operator, demagogue, bomber, torturer, killer, elite placator, hypocrite, empire and Israel servant of a president.
Abendland, yes, we can all congratulate ourselves for excellent comments. but we're preaching to the choir. Those who need to hear these comments, who cast the deciding votes, are wandering in the dark, and will make the same mistakes.
Ranjit, as far as I can tell, you haven't learned that voting for the lesser of two evils will not change anything. The corporate dictatorship has your number.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"Ranjit, as far as I can tell, you haven't learned that voting for the lesser of two evils will not change anything. The corporate dictatorship has your number."
I could say the same of you. I have seen you admit to voting for Obama last year so I think it would be best that you not condescend others for who they voted for and reform yourself first. If the corporate dictatorship has my number, then it has yours as well. You think you can use violence to solve problems? I'm sorry but so far that has failed. I suggest that you work on getting your Main Street Party to work first and building up support as another non-violent solution. I'm not any more satisfied with the corporate mess than you are but what makes you think that 3rd parties are fool proof and corrupt proof ?
Ranjit, the corporate dictatorship does not have my number. I made a mistake voting for Obama. I knew I was taking a chance on him and that I could be wrong, and he proved I was wrong. I misread him. My bad. But there is no way I would repeat that mistake. That was the first and last time I have voted for a major party candidate since 1972 and it wasn't Nixon. Even more than betraying me, Obama betrayed all the young people who for the first time became enthusiastic about the political process. I also realized the corporate empire has complete control of both political parties. I already knew they will never allow any major party candidate like Kucinich, Gravel or Ron Paul near the White House, but I didn't appreciate how thoroughly they own this country. So we must start from the bottom and build up a party with people who will not accept corporate funds. I chose not to go with the Greens partly because the public has been taught to view them as too radical and partly because they can't get their act together. They also take sides on social issues, which are divisive, not inclusive. We need a fresh start, and a party that is inclusive, not just for the left wing, as the Greens are.
You have said that you are not ruling out a vote for Obama, depending on how he behaves (and we've gotten a good look at who he is looking out for) and also who the Republicans put up (lesser of two evils). I think we need to put our energies into changing things, not maintaining the status quo. There are plenty of people doing that. I am not condescending of them, I realize they vote out of fear, and I know how controlling fear can be. If you are one of those, so be it. But the problem with enabling is that each time, it gets worse. And that makes the choice to stop enabling more painful and harder to face, like a death spiral.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"You have said that you are not ruling out a vote for Obama, depending on how he behaves (and we've gotten a good look at who he is looking out for) and also who the Republicans put up (lesser of two evils)."
Ok, so Obama is bad and the Republicans put up an ultracon such as Sarah Palin or a Bobby Jindal as the nominee. Then what? I have plenty to be concerned with Obama on such as possible mishandling of Pakistan and Afghanistan along with the way he deals with the economic reality and am open to voting 3rd party but so far I don't see any on the horizon. If a third party wants to step forward and show what it has to offer, no problem. Since I vote on a moderate and somewhat practical point of view, I don't know who I will be voting for but it most certainly won't be a Republican unless that nominee is more moderate and makes Obama look too conservative which I doubt the Republicans will allow. When I have a chance to see which 3rd parties make it to the ballots by 2012, I will have more information to decide. Right now, judging by the ignorant masses and the Republicans still in fallen apart mode, Obama would look like he has no trouble winning despite his regression. Things got worse in FDR's time and yet FDR still won another term. That probably won't be easy for Obama to get just like that but we'll have to see. In the meantime, I would look out for the midterm Congressional elections next year and test our strengths to hold the represenatives' feet to the fire.
1) There is nothing wrong, in my book, with being supportive of like-minded folks (what you call 'congratulating').
2) Not everyone is in agreement with everyone else on all things on this forum. By no means.
3) Discussion and getting other people's views are very important political activities.
4) There is no politics without large doses of speech.
5) Only in this way, can change arise. Before people become convinced that such and such has to be changed, there has to be a lot of talking, a lot of "back and forth," of testing the waters and one's beliefs. In the process, new beliefs arise, which can then motivate action. You may also call it 'working through'.
correction: corporate DECIDERSHIP.
good night - you've been a wonderful audience.
It is amazing to me that the rich and powerful have now taught the poor and stupid to start screaming "socialism" whenever someone proposes something that will revoke their license to steal.
Having a for-profit system in charge of our health care is ridiculous on face value. What do you think they are more interested in? Profit, or our health?
For those of you who "don't want to pay for other people's health care", guess what? YOU ALREADY DO ! Everytime you pay for goods or services, that company passes the cost of their employees' health care on to you. So, unless you are living on air, you already chip in.
Which brings up another question. How is corporate America supposed to compete in a world marketplace, when they are the only ones in the industrialized world that allows their government to pass the health care buck off on them? When you have a fixed monthly expense that has risen 115% in the last 10 years, that foreign competetors don't have to pay, it kind of puts you behind the 8 ball to start out with.
The detractors are trying to make us believe that EVERY other industrialized nation in the world, besides US, are all "socialist" countries. (?)
If our system is so great, then why is no other modern country trying to copy it, and why does the WHO rank us 37th in the world in health care, right between Costa Rica and Slovenia?
We are the only country in the modern world where a person can work hard their entire life, be smart with their money, and build a good life for themself and their family, only to lose it all, not because they did something wrong, but simply because they got sick. There is something perversely wrong with that.
Your healthcare insurance premiums pay for other peoples healthcare too.
reggiebrown July 5th, 2009 2:07 pm, sez:
"It is amazing to me that the rich and powerful have now taught the poor and stupid to start screaming "socialism" whenever someone proposes something that will revoke their license to steal."
Yes, remarkable isn't it?
The primary and secondary educational system of this country, as well as the mainstream media and Hollywood, have performed such an effective feat of ideological indoctrination that many people will actually defend the interests of the very rich and of the corporations against their own interests. They may not know proper English syntax (see soon-to-be ex-Governor Sarah Palin's farewell speech on her official Web site for an example of such) or barely more than elementary mathematics, but they certainly have learned the lesson of supporting and defending the very people who shaft them decade after decade.
Did we realy have allusions that Obama would not be for big business or wealthy elites?
He is not our leader. We do not take orders from him. We are our own leader. Let's be the biggest thorn in his side to get stuff done. The worst thing we can do is quit.
Right on!
The audacity of hope has become the audacity of telling the people how to behave politically.
"We ought to be focused on winning this debate."
No, you ought to be focused on being a leader of the people of whom over 80% still think the country is on the wrong track. There are reasons for that. If you were a leader instead of an audacious liar you'd be working to make government work for us, not competing with GWB for title of Worst President Ever.
So true.
**DeParle and White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina have been in intense negotiations with hospital representatives in the hope of extracting guaranteed spending reductions from the industry.**
What are they going to do about the serial bankruptcies, the organized crime-like exploitation of hospitals and nursing homes? What are they going to do about the Wall Street packaging of bonds, the skimming and the passing off the bad paper onto tax payers? What are they going to do about the profiteering in the hospital "industry"? How are they going to make those spending reductions come out of the profit and not the patient? Who will be the watch dog on the "industry's" back room deal to give us marginally more care for slightly less profit and why should I believe they will even do that? The current system is a license to steal from the vulnerable.
Obama: "We ought to be focused on winning this debate." What debate? You own 60 seats in the Senate. The debate is over. Go with single payer and let the Republicans pound sand, and let the Democrats who aren't really Democrats reveal themselves to their voters.
exactly.
he was elected because of the supposed HOPE and "change" where clearly the US health care system is not just the most corrupt , mendacious and unethical - not to mention wasteful and costly - and it's his position to LEAD his "party" rather than to pretend making accomodations in the name of "discourse" where discourse is no longer RELEVANT about something that is all too obvious:
health of people - and their care - is a RIGHT - not some PRODUCT that an economic "system" can merely use as one of its functions towards "profit". if anything the Health of people in a CIVILIZED society which can not be entrusted to "privatization" and its inevitable aim towards profiteering - is the most fundamental REASON for the existence of a social contract if anything.
that is the foundation of LIVING, and very reason that any organism SEEKS to exist and be fully functional and therefore reach its full potential .
obama is merely making a pretense.
if HE can not support single-payer, and eventually the REMOVAL of profit-motive from health care - ENTIRELY - then HE should "lead" in NOT taking part in the government medicaire system itself and if any of his family gets sick - why ..........GO TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES and see if they'll give HIM his medical care based on his SMOKING habit!
"let the Democrats who aren't really Democrats reveal themselves"
and have 0 run the risk of blowing his own cover?
Excellent!!!!
Since Obomber was unwilling to even have single payer advocates speak at big meeting of oligarchs there's is no reason for me to listen to a word this shyster says.
You know it!
"give 0 a chance" the apologists say.
he had a chance, folks, but he blew it when he refused to go after bush and his criminal flunkies.
Right on!
EKATON
Single payer means that one entity pays for your health care. That entity is the federal or state government. The money comes from the TAXPAYER.
You, if you are a federal or state employee, have a choice of insurance companies and choose from several plans. Each plan has different coverages and co-pays.
You pay co pays and have some conditions not covered because it is handled and administered by for profit insurance.Indeed a single payer the taxpayer pays for the bulk of your care.
While my taxes pay for your coverage I have none because I am self employed.
We are supposed to live in a free society that allows for dissent. What exactly does Obama want? A totalitarian state where the public isn't allowed to question its leaders and their policies? Who the hell does Obama think he is? Bush? Maybe he's on to something.
JH we also can't get the Democrats out of the pockets of insurance and big pharma as well. It isn't just Republicans who are selling us down the river.
I don't know what today is like anywhere else, but it is unusually quiet around here tonight. A very few fireworks went off. I guess most people don't feel like celebrating. Usually it starts getting noisy days before the 4th. That didn't happen either. This is the first year in my memory it has been like this. I think change is coming.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
not only do people not feel like celebrating - they can't afford to.
(or perhaps all the gunpowder has been seconded to the war effort - or is being hoarded for an upcoming attempt at revolution.)
Same in my neck of the woods with the fireworks--but being in the South, it is always possible that such is due to the general funk of Southern racists having to put up with a beige President and not just the result of economic downturn.
If it continues through Thanksgiving and Christmas, then it really will be serious.
Poet
I guess I'm one of those people who finds Obama's plea to be good news. It means that the Dem apparatchiks are sensing that the grassroots attacks are taking their toll on the party, which is as it should be. Obviously Obama's trying to ratchet down the noise for the interests of his party, not our interests as citizens. Nevertheless, I hope they continue to drop membership and support as people slowly figure out how this system is completely and irredeemably rigged.
It's just such a transparently stupid argumetn he makes: be quiet so Ben Nelson ("my" senator, by the way, and a cretin he is) might possibly doexactly what his contributors paid him not to do? I've asked Nelson's staff, and still have the emails to prove it: they are not under ANY circumstances, regardless of agitation or not, going to support anything that doesn't put cash into thepockets of the insurance industry. Ever.
See my recent response to VDB on the previous page: Obedient Servant July 5th, 2009 2:04 pm
[I don't think this comments platform indexes each comment with "permalinks"; please correct me if I'm wrong. This is a hassle in longer threads, because new responses to older comments are easily buried. Including the time-stamp helps to pinpoint the message, which can be accessed by using the "find" PC feature.]
· Yr Obd't Servant
what response? which previous page? which ARTICLE?
i'll keep looking or see you over at "0's nuclear vision"?
We can't get the Republicans out of the pockets of the insurance company's and big pharma. And the Republicans are so good at maintaining discipline in their ranks, that there will be no votes forthcoming from that side of the aisle. Where else, then, do the votes to pass any health care reform come from? Only if all Dems vote for reform will it happen. If they, too, are going to vote for their owners (insurance companies and big pharma) then there will be no reform. No public option, much less single payer. And the status quo of private insurance controlled health care will remain for the foreseeable future.
I hate to say this, but maybe it's a good thing Obama is showing his true colors now.
Mike Gravel VERY astutely predicted exactly what would happen. It's too bad that more people didn't listen to such a wise man.
Watch these (especially the first one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpiy2E242bo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhZzh83C0iM
Mike Gravel is also the same senator who used his power wisely and peacefully to bring the Pentagon and other members of Congress into slowing their spending on the Vietnam War. Except for Kucinich, Paul, and Sanders along with a few, we do not have such representation and the other side is very well prepared. We need to thin the corporate/war herd on the other side by silently and peacefully removing those war/corporate representatives and senators every election and replacing them with real representatives. Only then will more people in Congress be on our side and heed the words of Gravel.
Mike Gravel, a true hero of the Vietnam War.
Mike Gravel was right before about a number of things. We need to follow his lead on the National Initiative as well. http://www.vote.org/ We should all be voting for this (an amendment to the constitution that will allow US the citizens to participate in making legislation). And telling everyone we know about it.
Here are some other things we need to do:
1 - Push for approval voting or IRV (I prefer approval, but IRV might be an improvement to our current method).
2 - Push for proportional representation.
3 - Stop voting for Republicans and Democrats.
4 - If no independent or third party is running for local elections, we are going to have to start running for office ourselves.
We need to get the entrenched parties out of power. I don't care if I vote in an independent, a Green or a Libertarian. Any are better than what we have now.
I know there are some greens and libertarians posting on here. I keep asking... where are the candidates? NOW is your chance. People are frustrated with the inaction of the "democrats", especially when there are so many blue dogs. Where the hell do those folks come from? Why bother voting for a blue dog. Just vote republican. What's the difference? I think the answer is there are no other parties running for these offices. Now is the perfect storm for this. Get new candidates out there NOW.
It is unfortunate that Cindy Sheehan is not running again. I think she did fairly well for an independent candidate. After Pelosi's push on the war supplemental, I wonder if San Franciscans are a little more annoyed with her now.
Debbie, these are non-violent solutions I think we all can agree on and I love it. I just don't see the point of people reelecting the same representatives, expecting different results, and then protesting on the streets hoping that they will listen and changed. Those representatives are already well guarded. The only thing that cannot protect them is our votes and our push for better voting methods such as what you have suggested.
In India, there are multiple parties and while some may complain about anarchy resulting from it, the result is usually a coalition government. There have been ongoing issues and corruption there too and even attempts to turn democracy into a duopoly but people do pay attention to elections and won't hesitate to fight the yuppie style capitalism even if their kids are hooked to it. We need to the same here in this country.
So is Obama a blue dog disguised as a liberal?
I don't believe he was EVER disguised as a liberal. All one had to do was look at his voting record to determine that. It's just one reason I didn't vote for him.
Would a liberal have voted for FISA with retroactive immunity?, the Patriot Act?, the bankruptcy law that is preventing people from claiming bankruptcy even when they should be able to?
He also does not support marriage equality, obviously doesn't support single payer health care and put "all options on the table" for Iran (i.e. nukes). He supports "clean coal". He was in favor of more nuclear power plants. Sorry, but nothing about him is liberal to me. It was in plain sight.
"(0) put 'all options on the table' for Iran (i.e. nukes)"
see the ironical new article elsewhere here on CD praising 0's "vision" for a nuke-free world.
Mike Gravel may just turn out to be the best president the USA never had.
"Mike Gravel may just turn out to be the best president the USA never had."
Ain't that the truth? :-) What a shame that people in this country can't seem to separate the wheat from the chafe. We really did have some wonderful choices this time: Kucinich, Gravel, Nader, McKinney. All of them are true fighters for the people. Instead, the masses take their queue from the mainstream media who decides for us who is "electable" and "viable". And those choices invariably are shills for the corporatocracy.
So, how do we wake up the rest?
Here in the UK, at the start of the primaries, the BBC told us "These are the names you'll be hearing over the next few months."
None in your roll call were listed, and none were, indeed, heard of or from.
Thanks, I know, it was just me being ironical.
Nice sentiments, but the Democrats in 2006 who unseated Republicans by claiming the house did so on the promise of ending the war. The most recent war spending Bill for Afghanistan and Iraq, were recently passed with the help of the very same people who won office promising to end war, are now funding the escalation of war in Afghanistan. Instead of rosy scenarios like replacing the old for the new, one need look at the past to understand how corrupt the entire system is. What needs replacing is the duopoly. As long as you keep voting Democrat you will be getting perpetually more of the same. Democrats were threatened to capitulate to the war spending measure. That is how the system works. Changing one Dem with another will get you nothing more than the big blue team shaft. And the sooner the rest of the herd wakes up, the sooner you will start to see authentic change.
I did not say vote Democrat. Please reread my post. Whoever you want to replace your representative, Republic or Democrat or whatever, with the job of the voters is to vet the replacements over time and find peaceful and silent means. Street protests rarely accomplish anything. And what's the guarantee that all Democrats will remain the same? Dennis Kucinich isn't like most of them. And what's the guarantee that all 3rd parties are fool proof? If money taints them, we're back to square one. I don't believe in violence of any means.
With all due respect, if you voted for Obama, or anyone else who funds war, then you got blood on your hands and every bit as culpable. Thus to claim yourself as "non-violent" is a contradiction in terms.
Obama is a war president: he is funding war, escalating war, using unmaned drone attacks on non combatants that have claimed hundreds of innocent lives.
"And what's the guarantee that all Democrats will remain the same?"
None. But so far they have "remained the same" as we have seen with the broken promises of freshman Democrats voting almost unanimously with Obama's was escalation agenda.
Kucinich is the exception to the rule, but is marginalized and ridiculed by members of his own party. Go back and research some of the comments about him and Gravel during the presidential debates as a case in point.
I understand all that but if you want to call everyone who voted Obama guilty and advocate violence, I'm afraid you're missing the boat. I voted for Obama only because he presented himself as if he were a balanced moderate with peace in mind but I never envisioned that he would be this degrading. I apologize and wish to correct this and help you. Will you accept or is violent talk and action your only answer?
Your rationalizations which put human life in an antiseptic frame, is not a place from which I choose to live my life.
If you take my rebuttals as "violent talk" then so be it, it is better than cleaning blood off the streets in Pakistan and Afghanistan funded by a mistaken vote.
We can be forgiven for past mistakes, but the question that needs asking now is: will you be voting for Obama in 2012, now that you know what he advocates for? And if the answer is yes, then your remarks are tanned with hypocrisy.
"it is better than cleaning blood off the streets in Pakistan and Afghanistan."
And what have the protests accomplished? Nothing. The dictators are still in power and little has changed except for maybe Mushraff and even that only due to reasons outside of protest. The people in those nations did what we're doing here. Vote for the wrong leaders and hope for different results and then protest in violence and look what happened? Do you really think that putting religious fundamentalists in power helped the poor? If you had actually paid closer attention, the violent forces are exactly what the corporate/military interests wanted so that people would lose their focus. You call this progress? Violence never has worked and never will.
"The question that needs asking now is: will you be voting for Obama in 2012 now that you know what he stands for? And if the answer is yes, then your remarks are tanned with hypocrisy."
That depends on who's running by 2012 and how worse off Obama would have gotten. Technically, 3 years is still a lot of room so who knows? That doesn't mean I'm an Obama loyalist or whatever you want to paint me as. I'll have plenty to decide by then. If you want to keep hurling insults like that, don't expect people to take you seriously. You're only sowing the seeds for more violent talk and action which only leads to long term failure.
I did not say anything about protests in Pakistan. I was claiming a metaphor along with a juxtaposition to drone strikes authorized by Obama; those strikes have continued killing non combatants in Pakistan and Afghanistan without abating.
"That depends on who's running by 2012 and how worse off Obama would have gotten."
You introduced 'non violence' into the debate, not me. I was pointing out the contradiction of your vote as measured against your non violent philosophy; non violence is not an either/or proposition, nor is it a and/both proposition. Advocating for it as either/or (as you seem to be doing) is just another form of conceit, rooted in unconscious norms.
The sentence I quoted above, is just another rationalizaiton seeking to dismiss Obama's violent geo-political agenda currently; when you then offer the suggestion that you will 'wait and see' what three years brings, is of no current benefit to the dead, and the families now mourning their memory.
The sense I take away from your stated values is a perpetual contradiction; while asserting non violence, you assert the violence of Obama's war actions in the same breath. By offering what? If Obama claims less lives, or if he suddenly pulls out of Afghanistan in three years, then maybe he is worthy of another vote. Just a reminder, occupying forces in Afghanistan has never prevailed since Alexander the Great, and he only pacified the country nominally and for a short time.
Will that bring back the lives of the innocent or guilty who were brutally murdered?
Of course, you are a 'free being' and can vote anyway you choose, and as such, can satisfy your own values under two contradictory terms all you want.
Please take the last word on the subject, I have no further desire to convince you of your own contradictory behavior.
If only elohim had learned these two sayings:
SLOW BUT STEADY WINS THE RACE
HASTE MAKES WASTE
You sir/madam are no progressive or liberal but just a loose cannon. Please get some mental counseling.
Thanks for your latest 'non violent' outburst.
Ranjit,
You don't seem to understand how the US electoral process works. Bad representatives cannot simply be voted out and replaced with genuinely progressive ones - either within the Democratic party in primary elections or by "third party" candidates in the general elections. The incumbent and/or officially selected democratic candidate has the enormous resources of their parties campaign committees and from corporate donors. Other candidates get nothing - they are ignored by the media - unless thir polling numbers reach 10-15%, then they get media exposure in the form of ridicule. The Cindy Sheehan campaign was an example of this.
I worked for a democratic congressional candidate against our incumbent, vulnerable Republican. With some TV advertising and money for canvassers he could have easily won, but he was "too liberal" (supported single payer, and getting out of Afghanistan) So, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee virtually endorsed the Republican by locking him out of any resources. Our campaign consisted of small gatherings at street corners, waving signs. Our candidate was barely mentioned in the local media.
Meanwhile, the re-election of a business friendly "moderate" Democrat in a district to our north somehow received lavish funding including hourly TV advertising - and lavish news media exposure. Of course, he won.
"You don't seem to understand how the US electoral process works."
I understand a lot about the electoral process.
"Bad representatives cannot simply be voted out and replaced with genuinely progressive ones - either within the Democratic party in primary elections or by "third party" candidates in the general elections."
Yes, they can at least technically but the fear of money seems to be blinding the voters and that must be overcome.
"I worked for a democratic congressional candidate against our incumbent, vulnerable Republican. With some TV advertising and money for canvassers he could have easily won, but he was "too liberal" (supported single payer, and getting out of Afghanistan) So, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee virtually endorsed the Republican by locking him out of any resources. Our campaign consisted of small gatherings at street corners, waving signs. Our candidate was barely mentioned in the local media."
I understand those kinds of scenarios and have seen it here in Washington DC, MD, and VA itself. That doesn't mean give up and keep it that way. I never said allow the corporate interests to stay. It is possible to take down the DCCC by bringing those who are controlling it exposed. Those people could be primaried and voted out or at least made to answer to the public for their scandals. That would deprive them of dirty money. From there, the less monied could counter-hijack the DCCC.
Gravel tells us:
Question: "What do you think of Obama raising expectations?"
Gravel: "Foolish, Dangerous...because he raises the expectations of the youth, and after he cannot deliver, he is creating another generation of cynics."
Man, that hits the nail on the head. Gravel is a prophet. Where is Ted when you need him?
Thanks for posting those links, Debbie.
Watch the last 1:15 of the second one. He totally predicted this.
Besides the media blackout of the words single payer, universal healthcare or everybody in nobody out it must be understood that the largest group of people with healthcare are in a single payer system.
It is not just our representatives that have single payer but all of the military, all government employees, all postal workers,all governors, all state representatives, all state and federal departmental employees from janitors to snow plow drivers, all police, all fish and wildlife employees, IRS agents, FBI, homeland security agents, border patrol agents, FAA employees, ticket agents at air ports, baggage handlers, TSA employees, Food and drug inspectors, argicultural employees and inspectors, firemen and women and any people working for the government in anyway. It is more than 50% of the population of this country.
Only the self employed, corporate workers and the poor have no single payer.
Obama is braking the basic contract that holds this nation together. Our constitution that states clearly that "We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union.....PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE... do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." This is our preamble.
We understand that we have declared that we hold certain truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are created equal.
Our first black/ multi-racial president Obama is stating here that we are not all equal. That some of us will be provided welfare while others will not and we are to shut up bugging him about it.FU I will not shut up, sit down or behave as he clearly is braking the bonds that bind us as a nation and therefore we have no allegience to him or this nation.
Bush was dumb. Obama is dumber. He believes that we will suffer this evil that we have become accustomed to. It is absolute despotism and corporate fascism. It is our right and our duty to throw off such abuse and tyranny. I will not back down. It is my right and my duty to stand up to him and his corporate mistresses.
When we give up on this issue we give up our freedom and liberty. We lose our equality as we have already lost the right of self rule, to decide when and if to go to war.As we have given up our right to be free from searches of our persons, property,papers, letters and conversations. As we have lost open government for secrecy and allowed corporations to steal our airwaves for propaganda. We are being abandoned like the citizens of New Orleans floating in a sea of trash and dead bodies.
The choice is ours to stand up or lay down. If we lay down we do so understanding we are no more than his new dog following our masters commands.
I think what the author of this post means is that you can get pretty good healthcare insurance when you come at the corporations with all the numbers and financial clout of the government. When they are dealing with smaller companies or individuals, the health insurance corporations pull out all the legalwork that makes you overpay for undercoverage. But, when its the government applying for health insurance, that all gets put away, and the corporation accepts a smaller profit margin for the chance to serve a larger segment of the population.
Its not single payer, but its an example of the kind of savings single payer can create when insurance is 'bought in bulk'.
I remember in the early days of privatized insurance and HMO's (1980's), I was without insurance through my college or workplace, so we had to pick up insurance ourselves. We were all basically healthy, except for I had stomach problems (pre-ulcers) and my daughter had occasional kidney infections. The insurance company took us on, with two exceptions: they would not pay for anything related to my stomach, or my daughters kidneys. I couldn't believe it. I'm sure its gotten better, but the cr*p these guys are capable of pulling when dealing with us as individuals is still OFF THE WALL. We need to negotiate from a position of strength, and the ultimate strength comes from single payer.
It is not just our representatives that have single payer but all of the military, all government employees, all postal workers,all governors, all state representatives, all state and federal departmental employees from janitors to snow plow drivers, all police, all fish and wildlife employees, IRS agents, FBI, homeland security agents, border patrol agents, FAA employees, ticket agents at air ports, baggage handlers, TSA employees, Food and drug inspectors, argicultural employees and inspectors, firemen and women and any people working for the government in anyway. It is more than 50% of the population of this country.
FLAT OUT UNTRUE! Federal employees have a choice among many plans offered by PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, various HMO's, etc. The employee pays part of the cost and the government pays part of the cost.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DO NOT, REPEAT DO NOT, HAVE SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE INSURANCE.
YOU ARE INCORRECT.
As a former state worker, let me also assure the author that the overwhelming most of state employees do not have single payer insurance either. Neither did (or do) letter carriers with the Postal Service.
There are some examples of such workers with really supurb medical coverage--which ususally means that they have low co-pay requirements and many supplemental services provided that otherwise would be unavailable, but they are provided by insurance companies.
Poet
"Obama Urges Liberal Advocacy Groups to Stop Attacks"
******************
Liberal advocacy groups to Obama: "Make us do it"
Hahahahaha!
Poet
That was good, Poet! Made me laugh.
Kathy
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
The comments above are inspiring, unlike Obama's command to obey his compromises opposing healthcare for all and to maintain the corporate "health" system.
Fortunately, true progressives don't take orders from corporate Democrats, be they President Obama, or the many corporate Democrats in Congress.
Fortunately we have some true progressives in Congress on health care. They include the many supporters of HR 676, such as Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers and Barbara Lee.
There are 93 such co-sponsors in the House. Here is a link to their names.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00676:@@@P
The problem is not the Democrats in general, but the corporate Democrats who are willing to compromise basic human rights such as health care for all, as a right of citizenship. That is what HR 676 provides. Lets support the 93 co-sponsors of HR 676, and oppose the corporate Democrats who won't support it.
Did you notice that the words "single payer" never appeared in this article? The media blackout continues.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3834
I want to hear those Three Little Words that say they care - "Medicare For All."
Obama,
Progressives are not stooges. It is fruitless to call Progressives into line as though they are Democrats, especially since you've reneged on your progressive campaign rhetoric, compromised your policies, and have continued policy after policy of the Bush administration. We'd rather vote for Independents rather than the lesser of two evils. We are waiting for real results, not just changing a few national park policies. Hillary Clinton thumbed her nose at Progressives in her primary campaign and look what it got her.
Obama is turning out to be a huge disappointment." Change you can believe in" has become "the same old stuff we voted against". Just like Bill Clinton, the Obama presidency's loyalty is to those who fund his campaign. Without significant real campaign finance reform, the American democracy is lost.
We need a new liberal movement, based on real equality with regards to access to the political agenda. The politicians are very, very far behind the general populace on the reform of our government, our health care, or our foreign policy. Either we find Democratic politicians committed to a new system of campaign finance, or we will be forced to find a new Liberal party. Whatever, it has become necessary to "dump Obama".
There already are new liberal parties such as the Green Party. Another interesting party was the Main Street Party (thank you BeForKids). The Democratic Party is just as untrustworthy as the Republican Party.
At a time when American's need a statesman, we get a big business president who claims to channel Lincoln but who is actually channeling Hoover. This silver tongued harvard educated deceiver is nothing more than a bad south side chicago hustler who believes he's too slick for the rest of us. Burn his political arse to a crisp.
I'd say he's channeling reagan and coolidge. There may be a lot of similarities between him and hoover but I actually think hoover was probably a more decent man than obomber is.
Hoover agreed to the Revenue Act of 1932 that raised income tax on the highest brackets from 25% to 63%. Obomber proposes cuts in social spending. Hoover doubled the estate tax. He raised the corporate tax at least 10%. Obomber gives hundreds of billions to banksters. John Nance Garner, Roosevelt's running mate, said Hoover was "leading the country down the path of socialism". Rexford Tugwell, a New Dealer remarked that no one would say it at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started." Hoover probably did as much to feed starving people in Europe after both world wars than any other single person. Obomber advocates for ethanol thus ensuring more famine.
I'd take the engineer over the shyster lawyer anyday.
I don't think hoover was that great though but his actions seem much more humane than Obomber's. Hell, hoover even removed the US troops from Nicaragua and Haiti whereas Obomber wants thousands of more to send to Afghanistan.
Telling a liberal not to do something, especially something they've already decided is worth doing, really isn't a good way to get them to stop. In fact, it indicates that these actions are having an effect, arguing for their continuation. It ain't dodeca-dimensional chess but it's a pretty good feint.
Single Payer Is A Life Or Death Issue
"Based on?"
"The number of people who'll die should President Obama & Congress establish a totally privatized health care system."
"Cause of death?"
"No single payer plan."
"The answer being?"
"Mass uprisings."
"Otherwise?"
"Mass die-offs."
you just didn't get it, did you?
when 0 said "make me" it was just the schoolyard bully's taunt.
now get back in line!
there's a new Decider in town.
Well, I'm gratified to find that I'm not the only person who detects a darker significance to Obama's "Make me!"
And even giving the "make me" position its most positive interpretation, it still leads to an unsavory cat-and-mouse game. As we've seen in this very health-care debacle, citizens have been trying every which way to "make" our government respond to the demand for single-payer.
But the activists may just as well be a vast ball of yarn, batted and tangled between a cat's paws. Far from "allowing" himself to be "made", Obama repudiates the very activism and push-back he purports to encourage. Reducing the wishes of We the People to a ball of yarn is not enough; Obama even prefers that the yarn go away-- perhaps to turn itself into mittens for his kittens.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Yr,
I FOUND YOU! (my iMac does not have the search capability you mentioned)
I've posted this suggested "make me" interp a few times - poet seems to have picked up on it - and you are to first to see it as more than a joke.
Elsewhere I was reminded that 0 is doing what he CAN; as opposed to what he SHOULD.
Politics - a good friend told me - is doing the possible.
i.e. what you can get away with.
It's always nice to read you.
vdb
ps - great yarn yarn!
And this is the same Obama who would never criticize the rightwing advocacy groups for all their phony advertising ! My husband and I are already regretting our votes for Obama and worry that in addition to our children dying in Iraq during Bush's presidency, more of our children will now face the same fate thanks to Obama's push to send more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan while denying our citizens here at home any hints of single payer unless they sign up and join the military. My apologies to all of you who have or will be the victim of Obama's betrayal.:(
Bring America Back !!!!..........!Yes, we were Betrayed, Marlene, but please do not regret your votes, because we had no other choice. We voted for change, promise, and hope against the option of keeping a Neocon Administration of Tyranny in power !
***Our system does not protect us against Deception. Our founding fathers never, ever contemplated that any Congress would fail to Impeach a President for War Crimes, as did Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats--and Republicans as well ! Bush got away with murder, and has set a criminal precedent at the highest office of the Nation.
***please Marlene--continue to join the progressive groups in protesting our President backing down to Big Med, Big Pharma, Big AMA, Big HMO and making his promise of Single Payer impossible.
**We need to insist the President himself view the DVD "SICKO", by Michael Moore, which depicts the true state of Healthcare in America ! The truth is there and is being ignored, as well as the real Final Solution: Free medical care to all Americans because we are Human Beings in a Democracy !
**For his Betrayal of our Votes for Him, Obama needs to be Voted out of Office,
and he needs to become a One-Term President only.
"Yes, we were Betrayed, Marlene, but please do not regret your votes, because we had no other choice."
You could have voted for Ralph Nader.
Keep up the good work!!!
They must be running a little uncomfortable. Especially when the 70% of taxpayers who want single payer are beginning to wake up.
What do we want?
SINGLE PAYER!
When do we want it?
NOW!
What do we want?
SINGLE PAYER!
When do we want it?
NOW!
What do we want?
SINGLE PAYER!
When do we want it?
NOW!
What do we want?
SINGLE PAYER!
When do we want it?
NOW!.......
You get the idea - pass it on ... and call your congresspersons!
But I could be wrong !
Obama will only give it to you if you're in the military. Otherwise, it's back to the insurance companies to rob you. My husband and I offer our deepest apologies for voting for Obama.
Mr. O, you are coming apart...your "center" will not hold!! Day by day, you expose more and more, the shallowness of your idle campaign dribble/rhetoric.
Those power elites in the US capital and their mouthpieces such as the Washington Post live in a different time zone from the rest of us-- the Twilight Zone.
Oh, and no the US Congress doesn't have to pay for its health care, but instead gets the very federal government funded, at our expense, health care which it refuses to consider for us.
AD
AD rejoice! The WP is losing about 20 million dollars every month. Unless some wealthy and crazy savior arrives WP will soon have to apply for chapter 12.
I left out we as British subjects would have to fight on the wrong side in the irish Uprising of 1921, but eventually we would get out of the empire business. Also by now that old brother man Jesse Jackson Sr would likely be a peer of the realm, holding forth in the British House of Lords, likely with Aretha Franklin also being a peer of the realm and doing likewise.
AD
AD-- Your comments remind me of a CD comment I published here last August, during a running argument between those defending supporting the Lesser Evil, and those of us who rejected this approach as leading to more of the same. I exhume it for your persual:
______________________________
If “Common Dreams” existed in the 1770s, there would surely be a contingent of pragmatist and realist royalists arguing, mutatis mutandis, for the absolute necessity and inevitability of accepting the political status quo and working to redress North American colonial grievances within the existing framework.
It might go a little something like THIS: Look, like it or not, we are loyal subjects of the British Crown! The Prince Regent isn’t PERFECT, but he is no friend to North and Townshend. We must devote all of our efforts to cultivating influence with the Prince’s ministers, and persuade them to abolish the ruinous laws and taxes that lay like a heavy boot upon the neck of the Colonies. If we steadily and patiently argue our case, a more benign monarch will necessarily appoint more benign ministers and agents.
THAT, sir, is a PLAN! But what do its opponents offer? No plan at ALL, that any man of sense can discover! Instead, these madmen advocate wayward and ruinous rebellion, with no clear prospect of a way forward, much less success! Rather than patient persistence, they would incite treachery, faithlessness, and a ruinous anarchy! They appear to be motivated by a reckless and irresponsible taste for self-indulgent adventure– and damn the honest common man!
Such men are either drunk on moonbeams, or simply thrive on fomenting mischief for its own sake. What else can motivate them? Assuredly, their heads are thrust into their fundaments, and we need not treat with them further!
· Yr Obd't Servant
love the flavour of the period tongue you hit there!
choosing between two evils is still choosing evil, as you correctly point out.