Skip to main content

View Diary: Pryor makes Medicare, Social Security early issue in Arkansas Senate race (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Normally I'm a purist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe, enhydra lutris

    but in this case it is possible that supporting a lesser increase in Arkansas might be acceptable. Besides, in California I have Diane Feinstein, so I cannot fault Arkansans too much for tolerating Sen. Pryor.

    •  I see it all the time, unfortunately many (0+ / 0-)

      "progressives" don't bat an eye when people die or suffer needlessly so I suppose it is a monologue.

      The same people probably think the ACA should have been vetoed (which would result in the deaths of thousands of people) because the ACA isn't perfect enough, so it's better to wait probably 20 more years and have probably tens of thousands of people die.

      Just like how they'd basically rather Mark Pryor lose and get an extreme Tea Party Republican who is going to make things worse for millions of Americans via Senate votes because it's more important for them to make their point online and go back to their white upper middle class lives.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 06:01:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  let me defend purism (0+ / 0-)

        just because its the middle of the night and I'm feeling stupid.
        Let me give you the purist argument:
        Back in '94 we rightly turned down the Clinton health care plan. Our failure was not in the rejection, it was in not demanding something better, even if it cost us President Clinton's second term. In fact, we should have sacrificed that second term - the truth is that after NAFTA and that terrible health care bill he did not deserve a second term, and just to prove it he gave us the bank deregulation that was the ultimate cause of the '08 meltdown and the 2000 recession that was the real reason Al Gore didn't win enough states and allowed Florida to steal the election. Had we fought for single payer, even if it cost us the '96 election we would have gotten a 1 term Dole presidency, but no bank deregulation, no W, and single payer in 2004 or 2008. Instead we had 4 years of Clintonistic betrayals, the hell of W, and in 2014 a health care bill that is almost as bad as the Clinton bill.
        You are clearly correct in lauding the lives saved by the ACA, but the difference between the ACA and single payer is $1.2 trillion a year - you have to deduct the lives that will be lost by sacrificing that $1.2 trillion and the lives that will be lost because of the corruption that that money will facilitate. Looking at it that way I say the ACA is a net negative.
        As an illustration  let's look at a purist strategy that worked - the US extreme right: They sacrificed the second Bush (elder) presidency, but got the Gingrich house, the Boehner house, and the DLC.
        That is the purist argument. It is admittedly based on ultimately succeeding, but all strategies are.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site