Skip to main content

Greg Sargent sheds light on Rahm Emanuel's meeting with progressive groups:

Sources at the meeting tell me that Emanuel really teed off on the Dem-versus-Dem attacks, calling them "f–king stupid." This was a direct attack on some of the attendees in the room, who are running ads against Dems right now.

Tellingly, Rahm raised the specter of a loss on health care, sources at the meeting say — which suggests that the White House may be less certain about victory than officials allow publicly.

"He started out with, `We’re 13 and 0 going into health care,’" one source at the meeting said, meaning that Rahm was touting the White House’s string of pre-health care legislative victories.

Uh:

  1. So a Democrat attacks a fellow Democrat, explaining that it's "f-king stupid" for Democrats to attack Democrats?
  1. Nobody cares what Rahm Emanuel's legislative scorecard says. The only thing that matters is getting good legislation passed. 14-0 won't mean a thing if it's the result of compromising away the most important elements of health care reform.
  1. The public overwhelmingly supports a Medicare-style public option within a strong health insurance exchange. Abandoning that wouldn't just be bad policy, it would be "f-king stupid" politics.

Rahm's got a tough job, and who knows what game he's playing. But if he doesn't understand that the administration's political base is already fed up with having compromised too much in the health care bill and isn't prepared to abandon meaningful reform for the sake of "victory," then he's about to discover what "f-king stupid" really means.

Be sure and check out blueintheface's excellent rant and the comments in reaction to Rahm's remark.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:32 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Rahm needs to do more listening (18+ / 0-)

    and less blithering.

    Insurance, Oil, Banking, and Defense corporations all have a substantial equity positions in what's supposed to be our Congress.

    by Lefty Coaster on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:33:59 PM PDT

  •  I think it's fucking stupid for us (19+ / 0-)

    to attack a fellow Democrat for attacking a fellow Democrat for attacking a fellow Democrat for attacking a fellow Democrat for attacking a fellow Democrat...

    Death to recursion!

    To a Republican, marriage is between a man and the woman he cheats on.

    by kovie on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:34:47 PM PDT

  •  Memo to Rahm: A "Pyrrhic victory" is a loss, (40+ / 0-)

    asshole. (Using Rahm-speak here, so he gets the message.)

    We cannot just have insurance reform. We have to start getting the PROFIT motive OUT of health care. Because it is MOTHERFUCKING killing us. And I mean literally, not metaphorically.

    "Sweet are the uses of adversity. Find tongues in the trees, books in the brooks, and good in everything." As You Like It, Shakespeare

    by earicicle on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:34:56 PM PDT

    •  He doesn't care about you, (15+ / 0-)

      my dear -- he has a job, power and insurance.  It is a game to him.

    •  "asshole" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      earicicle, m00finsan

      is too nice.  "Dumbfuck" would suit him better. :-)

    •  Not a Pyrrhic victory but indeed a loss (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skywalker

      I don't know, I've spent the last two days reading one recc'ed diary after another reacting to the "Town Brawls" and suggesting, rightly, I think, even if it might be the "last paroxysm" of a dying white culture, that what is happening now with the "purified" Repub Party is very scary and could boil into actual violence.  At the least, the right wing is showing us how very differently possibly up to 40% of the country views health care reform, even the mild ObamaCare, from how the progressive advocates view health care reform.  We complain that the current system is killing people.  The right wing infantilists believe ObamaCare will kill people.

      So I'm agreeing right now with Rahm that Democrats need to unite now, and in September push a single health care bill that includes important reforms, but maybe not a straight public option.  I'm also looking ahead to the next (I'm pretty hopeful) 7 years of an Obama Administration.  An actual defeat on health care because both the right and the progressives attack/abandon a centrist health care bill would be bad not only because needed reforms got lost, but because it would serve to encourage the right wingers to keep up the drumbeat and use the same game plan to try to defeat cap and trade, closing Guantanamo, etc., even if it wasn't really the right wing opposition that caused health care reform to fail, but the abandonment of Obama's proposals by the progressives.  Stalemate only serves the right wing.  It's probably the actual goal of the leadership of the right wing.

      The difference between a failed presidency (and if Obama fails, it's not just a failure, it's a catastrophe for all progressive causes) and an historic presidency might just be whether the progressives have the sense to hold their noses while supporting less than perfect legislation now.  Success now can lead to better legislation in the future, but failure now will set health care legislation back for years.

      •  Yeah, well (11+ / 0-)

        I'm 55 and have been told this for years, "just suck it up and we'll get them next time." When is next time exactly? Are they waiting for us to get them 60 Democrats in the Senate? Oh, yeah! I forgot! We already did!

        Nope. This is on them. The Democrats either pass a bill with a strong public option which is supported by the majority of Americans, or they can kiss it as far as I'm concerned.

        They don't win until we give up.

        by irmaly on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:10:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  AAAA-men to that one, irmaly (6+ / 0-)

          ...I was told to suck it up too for the last 40 years of voting as a leftie. Lookie where it's got us.  We are supposed to be "glad" when Dems "negotiate" when in fact it is really bending over and taking it in the shorts.  We are supposed to be "glad" when a Rethug puts a "Dem" at the end of his name.  We are supposed to be "glad" whenever a bill passes even though it is watered down to the point it means the opposite than what we wanted. We are supposed to be "glad" when some Suit invites us on television and then lets the wingnut scream us down ...

          Oh yeah.  Divided we fall and united we fall.  Nice choice ...

          Cat In Seattle

          First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they hurt you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

          by mntleo2 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:32:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  So just give in to the terrorists? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        earicicle

        THAT is your solution? Well-funded astroturf terrorists? That's just plain cowardly.

        As for uniting, it's Blue Dogs who need to get with the program. They, and they alone will be responsible for a failed Obama presidency. Not the people who are demanding genuine health care reform.

        Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

        by expatjourno on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:26:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your false assumption is that all democrats (0+ / 0-)
        Want to wok together.    Some will remain recalcitrant until they fear that the status quo won't get them re elected.  

        If we assume blue dogs and moderates are on our side, we will lose.  Period.

        "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

        by justmy2 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:22:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Um, no. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        earicicle, FistJab

        Respectfully, we need the public option.  The insurance companies have been doing this for too long.  Here's just one reason why.

        "Fighting Fascism is Always Cool." -- Amsterdam Weekly, volume three, issue 18 (-8.50, -7.23)

        by Noor B on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:17:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  making profits on other people's illness or (7+ / 0-)

      infirmity is not a morally defensible position.

    •  I think it's just fine that they're saying (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZenTrainer, earicicle

      the health insurance companies will be required by law to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions and regardless of their age, but has anyone said what the premium for that will be?  The same as everyone else's? If so, are they planning to allow all premiums to raise to cover the higher costs, plus the obligatory obscene profits, of course?

      Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction -- Pascal

      by RJDixon74135 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:22:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not fine, of course, b/c even w/crazy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RJDixon74135

        premiums, the for-profit co's will still have an incentive to deny those patients necessary care. Even more so, b/c these are pricey patients. Better for them to kick off sooner: Decrease the surplus population; Increase the profit margin! Some insurance co. exec probably has that embroidered on a pillow.

        Even Dickens' most Dickensian characters weren't so heartless.

        "Sweet are the uses of adversity. Find tongues in the trees, books in the brooks, and good in everything." As You Like It, Shakespeare

        by earicicle on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:50:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  get ready for... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      delver rootnose, mentaldebris, jct

      We cannot just have insurance reform.

      the whitehouse has already started calling it that...you know, kinda like "repeal" dadt turned into "change" dadt.

      bitter? nah, just pragmatic. we were sold "change" and got a "politician".

      "A time comes when silence is betrayal." ~ MLK, Jr...Where has CANDIDATE Obama gone?

      by liberaldemdave on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:29:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Eliminating the profit motive is not on the table (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      littlebird33

      So if that's the goal of ads attacking Dems, then Rahm's right, the ads are totally stupid.

  •  Rahm is out of his league. (26+ / 0-)

    He is not competent here.

    The Senators are walking all over him - not out of spite, just because he is a lump taking up space on the floor. He has demonstrated no ability to influence Congress since he moved to the White House.

    So he lashes out at his allies, impotent to lash out at his opponents.

    I hope Obama starts noticing.

    •  If i believed ... (14+ / 0-)
      ... that they'd pass a public option without us needing to get disagreeable with fellow Dems, then I'd agree with him.

      But I want a public option.  And if Rahm/Obama have it in the bag, they maybe we should back off.  He didn't say that, did he?

      But if they don't have it in the bag OR (worse still) they're not committed to it, then we need to keep it up.

      I feel like we've already been hosed by them giving up on single-payer.  We're not gonna give up on a public option, even though it's a weak 2nd choice.

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:46:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not defending anyone or anything but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, expatjourno

        the thinking is that they will need those blue dog votes because they may have no Repub votes---and so they don't want the bdogs attacked and risk the chance that these sensitive souls will have their feelings hurt and back off entirely.  or something.

        •  If their feelings are so fragile, then they have (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jct, jayskew

          no business in politics at all, much less Congress.

        •  That "thinking" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gsbadj, jct

          isn't credible.

          The blue dogs will perform the same arithmetic as any other elected officials. Hurt feelings won't come into it.

          If Rahm thinks that we need to pretend not to notice when the blue dogs soil the carpet - the carpet stains will get worse.

          •  Especially on this issue (0+ / 0-)

            There has been enough political capital expended on this that it really will be a huge defeat if Obama and the Dems can't deliver some significant changes.

            "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

            by gsbadj on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:49:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I get it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          expatjourno, chipoliwog

          ... but my impression is that Rahm isn't guaranteeing that those Blue Dogs are going to be there for a public option.  And so far, they've not come out for it.

          And until they do, we shouldn't be quiet.

          It would be one thing if they were on board with the idea of a public option and were just trying to figure how to pay for it.  But so far they're not.

          "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

          by gsbadj on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:47:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think that's right (5+ / 0-)

      we are not his allies. Big Business is Rahm's ally. Is a money man's power man. He is right in his proper place.

      Which is we are getting screwed still.

      •  Rahm hates the grass roots. Always has. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        El Zmuenga, Andrew C White

        He is an elitist prick. He opposed the 50-state strategy. He opposes the whole idea of the unwashed masses taking the Democratic Party back. He opposes the American people taking their country back.

        He is a power broker and power brokers only have a job when there are large centers of power. He has no job system that runs on individual campaign contributions.

        Of course he is furious at the people who will make him irrelevant.

        Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

        by expatjourno on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:33:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It makes you wonder... (13+ / 0-)

    if the corporations have aleady won, with a death grip on this country.

    GOP, The anti-diversity party

    by cyeko on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:36:19 PM PDT

  •  Daily Kos Critics of the Rahm Pick were Right (11+ / 0-)

    to criticize him at the time of his proposed appointment.

    Remember all the people at Daily Kos saying, "the appointments don't matter" and shushing the criticism?

    The crooks are leaving have left office, unprosecuted and scot-free.

    by BentLiberal on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:36:31 PM PDT

  •  I wish Rahm would turn his vective on those that (12+ / 0-)

    deserve it. WTF?

    "Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime" Aristotle

    by polticoscott on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:36:38 PM PDT

  •  Rahm's right in some regard (11+ / 0-)

    We do have to be smarter about alienating the various factions of the Democratic coalition, but--and I know I'm going out on a limb here--calling one faction (or, at least, what they/we do) "fucking stupid" is not a wise tactic.

    Magis vinum, magis verum
    (Blogistan Polytechnic Institute motto)

    by GOTV on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:36:42 PM PDT

    •  He's to the right of most of us (4+ / 0-)

      "Some people meditate. I go watch baseball."--Keith Olbermann

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:40:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "fucking stupid" is how Rahmbo speaks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew

      That is just him.

      I personally don't begrudge Rahmbo for saying that.  That IS his role.  He is supposed to defend Democrats.

      Obama 7/09: "Don't bet against us" (unless the Dems screw it up).

      by Drdemocrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:46:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In a perfect world Rahm is right. In a perfect (0+ / 0-)

      world with the Democrats controlling all three branches of government health care reform should happen.  In a perfect world all democrats would be like democrats and less like Republicans.  So considering the circumstances of the situation, Rahm is wrong.

      •  But see? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Newsie8200, littlebird33

        Not all these Democrats that you speak of believe in the same things you and I might. Some believe in keeping something close to the current system in place.  Some believe that the program, even as it is being formed may be fine, but it just costs too much.  Some believe that if we are going to spend this much, we had better get more fundamnetal change than what the current package is shaping up to offer.  And, yes, still others believe that their careers cannot survive a massive upheaval of the health care/health insurance system.  

        Emanuel is trying to put something together that you and I, I'm sure, will find to be so watered down so as to be unacceptable, even though it will likely be an improvement in real terms, and even a net loser when considering the cost.  I'd rather we get caught up in the details and fighting where it makes sense, and not getting all wounded because Rahm Emanuel--of all people--used corse language and directed it at Democrats.  

        Magis vinum, magis verum
        (Blogistan Polytechnic Institute motto)

        by GOTV on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:50:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We don't really know what was said anyway. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GOTV, littlebird33

      For all we know, the source could be some anti-Rahm guy exaggerating what he said.  Also, tihs was a private meeting.  These ad makers weren't taken to task publicly.  Maybe Rahm did rip into these guys in private.  So fucking what?

      What I'm tired of is that every time there's a meeting between WH officials and outside groups, immediately a member of the outside group goes to Politico or Greg Sargent to leak what was said, spun according to that source's own agenda.  I got sick of it when Repubs did it earlier (they would leak comments that Obama allegedly made during private meetings wrt the stimulus package, for example, spun to make Obama look arrogant or whatever), I got sick of it when self-appoitned "civil libertarians" did it (leaking comments made in meetings wrt treatment of detainees, release of torture photos, etc), and I'm sick of it when these "progressive activists" do it.

      I don't trust anything leaked from a private meeting.  But even if this particular leak is true, these ad makers are big boys.  Someone told them in a private meeting that he thought their ads were "fucking stupid"?  Well get over it.  To be fair, the ad makers aren't the ones whining about harsh criticism of some ads, rather it's the commenters on blogs that are crying like babies over a comment they never even heard for themselves.

  •  I think it's silly to focus on Rahm's comments. (14+ / 0-)

    Our focus should be on teabaggers/birthers. Our focus should be on exposing what the health insurance industry and Republicans are doing to kill health care reform.

    The Rahm thing is just a sidebar and a distraction. It's silly.

  •  If Rahm can't go 14-0 with the majorities we have (21+ / 0-)

    in Congress, maybe he's too f-king stupid to be Chief of Staff.

    What legacy do you want to leave?

    by Jimdotz on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:37:11 PM PDT

  •  Not to mention he is asking us to go to townhalls (9+ / 0-)

    Would be f^cking stupid to go there to defend Max Baucus/ Rahm insurance sellout

    "Bush Derangement Syndrome"
    That's like "Strychnine Allergy", right?

    by lostmypassword on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:37:11 PM PDT

    •  It's impossible to go to a townhall meeting (12+ / 0-)

      to defend a policy that hasn't even been written yet. Hell, it's hard to go to defend a policy that Rahm and Obama are indicating lukewarm support for. Just who do they think is the leader of our party, Obama or slinkerwink ?

      But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor. (1776)

      by banjolele on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:41:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo! They are NOT the center. (5+ / 0-)

      His strategy seems to be that the administration must negotiate with centrists. Okay, so negotiate with the elected officials who represent the policy favored by a majority of Americans. That would be the centrist position, and that would be a public option. It is not "far left." The far left would be single payer; we simply ask for a true public option, which in most other nations would be considered moderate, not far left, radical, or even particularly progressive. We are the centrists, not Baucus, Ross, and Conrad. Not UnitedHealth, Cigna, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

      stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

      by Mother Mags on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:59:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry, what world are you folks in? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kanuk

        ALL the commentary I've seen in the past two weeks, except here at Daily Kos, is that more than 50% of people being polled are very concerned about the cost of health care reform, are concerned that health care reform will negatively impact the health care they currently have, etc.  Some of this downtown is the product of misinformation being spewed daily by the opponents of health care reform (=insurance companies, Republican Party, etc.), but much of it is people's natural instinct to worry about giving up something they like for something that may be touted as better, but they don't know if that's true.

        Anyway, my point is that no current polling, I think, still is showing a majority of Americans favoring a public option, much less single-payer.  Basically, the centrists have won.  We have to adjust to that reality, and protect the "win" that we can get in the face of the vitriolic stupidity being projected by the right wing now.

        •  Uh, no. even if the polls are correct (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jct, Mother Mags

          we do NOT have to "adjust to reality" and accept a bad policy.  I'm more than happy to defeat any reform rather than get a piece of shit bill passed so they can crow victory and put off real reform for another 40 years.

        •  Polls (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ferg

          76 percent favor public option, NBC/WSJ
          83 percent favor a public option, EBRI, Conservative Business Agency
          72 percent favor public option, CBS

          stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

          by Mother Mags on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:36:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I loved those polls, but that was June (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mother Mags

            All three of the polls you cite were from mid-June 2009.  I wish these were still the polls, but they aren't.  In the end, what I expect to happen is that Dems, with virtually no Republican support, WILL vote through a bill which is to the left of where the Blue Dogs are comfortable, and way to the right of what the progressives want (but they agree to accept it).  The new law goes into effect and after a couple of years, health care legislation is revisited, and will creep toward expanding a Medicare type option over time.

            •  Yes, they are from June but isn't that the point? (0+ / 0-)

              Before the teabagging of town halls, 24-hour Fox attacks, and $1 million/day industry lies, the public option was the majority position, i.e., centrist.

              stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

              by Mother Mags on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:47:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Feel free to post a link where the public option (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mother Mags
          Is not supported by a plurality.  

          I'll wait.

          "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

          by justmy2 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:38:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Still nothing? (0+ / 0-)
          Hmmm.  Strange.   I believe that is because the public Orion continues to be supported by large pluralities at a minimum.  62% in the same quinnipicac poll that had Obama approval st 50%.   Funny that.  

          Please try again and enjoy your parting gifts.  

          "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

          by justmy2 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:53:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Did anyone respond to Rahm's comments? (10+ / 0-)

    I would have replied:  Screw you...If we don't keep the pressure on you, you'll compromise liek there's no tomorrow, since you obviously have no f-king backbone.

    The problem is teh Bluee Dog coalition.  Instead of bullyung the VERY PEOPLE who are responible for his boss being in office, he should be bullying the Blue Dogs.

    So F-K you, Rahm...and no, it's NOT stupid. It's how things get done.

  •  WH should offer a "alternative" to insurance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kanuk

    companies' resistance to the evil govt "public option", just like they offered an "alternative" to evil public option in the form of a watered down evil govt 2 or 3 state-wide "crap-ops":

    (1)  Given all the hullabooh Congressional Representatives have witnessed from "everyday concerned" Americans at their town hall meetings that they liked their Medicare and were scared the govt would take it away from them, we offer the alternative to the dreaded public option in the form of lowering the age all persons are eligible for Medicare to 40.  Constituents want it and we will give it to them; there is no need for "govt involvement" as there is a perfectly likeable "private insurance" plan that so many Americans like -- Medicare; or

    (2) We get the dreaded strong public option, but in return will offer up Medical Malpractice Reform measures in the legislation.

    The first "alternative" is offered in the same spirit as the Republicans and health insurance companies lobbyists (oh and their Dem bought Blue Lap Dogs) have been gaming this debate (with the added bonus of hoisting them by their own petard) and the second alternative is a more substantive one that may have the advantage of pulling more Reps on board while still getting them to sign off on a real public option (that reimburses at Medicare rates).  

  •  This is a once in a lifetime opportunity (13+ / 0-)

    to get it right.

    I can't tell you how happy to see, on the FRONT PAGE no less, this:

    The public overwhelmingly supports a Medicare-style public option within a strong health insurance exchange. Abandoning that wouldn't just be bad policy, it would be "f-king stupid" politics.

    (bold is mine)

    The meme has finally change. Public option has finally been defined as a "Medicare-style option."

    Oh, yeah.

    As for Rahm, a message:

    You're either playing politics as usual - or you're fighting for the most important legislation we'll ever see in our lives.

    Best for you to get on the right side of history, sir.

    We need two lists: those we will work to elect and those we will defeat. If you're not progressive, you're not a Democrat.

    by moosely2006 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:38:21 PM PDT

  •  Yes, Rahm, we are (21+ / 0-)

    fucking stupid -- those of us without the insurance you have enjoyed for years and will through your retirement are fucking stupid.  We are so fucking stupid, we believed in a candidate enough that we worked our asses off and sent our pittance to get him elected -- how fucking stupid is that?

    •  As others have alluded to, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wonmug

      there's another election in 2012, which will certainly rely on our support just as much as in 2008.  So yeah, I guess we'll eventually see who's fucking stupid.

       title=

      Also.

      You can't win the hearts and minds of those who have neither.

      by here4tehbeer on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:05:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But it's not all just up to Obama (0+ / 0-)

      if it was, this would be a done deal

      The next step is to remove these Blue Dogs that hold sway over everyone else when their own states don't even top 1 million people each.

      That is ridiculous.

      if these blue dogs can't be voted out, then they should at least have their wings clipped and be put in control of items of lesser import.

      Do I look like a scab? No? Then quit picking on me!

      by heavysole on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 07:13:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rahm ain't seen nothing yet (17+ / 0-)

    If a bill makes it out without a strong public option, I'll be fighting it tooth and nail. Just put me up there in the front row with the mother fuckers who are screaming "Just Say No." This is not just a point of pride. I really don't give a flying fuck what Rahm Emanual says, but without a strong public option, these bills are nothing but a giveaway to Pharma and the insurance companies. There will be nothing to stop or even slow down the price increases, and even poor people will be expected to buy a policy. Mandates w/out a public option = EPIC FAIL.

    Gimme a break. No way.

    They don't win until we give up.

    by irmaly on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:39:48 PM PDT

  •  Rahm the Magnificent: poster boy for stasis (9+ / 0-)

    Mr. DLC, Third-Way-Triangulation, Inside-the-Beltway, Terminally-Arrogant, and Self-Acclaimed-Infallible, epitomizes what is wrong with the Democratic Party establishment.

    I'd love to buy Rahm the Magnificent a drink. Specifically, a foaming imperial pint of STFU.

    And no, Mr. Egotistical Martinet, I have no intention of every shutting up about you or the Republican Lite wing of the party.

    "Some people meditate. I go watch baseball."--Keith Olbermann

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:39:58 PM PDT

  •  Meanwhile Meidcare cuts are in store (10+ / 0-)

    It's starting to look like we will lose more than we gain if we don't come out swinging hard.

    The August break is looking like a set up.

    look for my DK Greenroots diary series Wednesday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:40:07 PM PDT

  •  Rahm (11+ / 0-)

    Hey Rahm tell your blue dog pals to stop holding up health care reform

  •  a convoluted, expensive bill (17+ / 0-)

    with a fake "public option" would be an absolute political disaster for Obama. It would "prove" all the GOP talking points about "government-run" health care not working and Democrats being incompetent.

    What worries me is not so much Rahm's inability to get it, but the president's unwillingness to draw clear lines in the sand about what kind of public option he would accept.

    An individual mandate to buy overpriced private insurance, with a fake public option that excludes millions of people, would be worse than the status quo.

    Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

    by desmoinesdem on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:40:10 PM PDT

  •  Rahm, if you bet against your own base? (6+ / 0-)

    You're fucking stupid.  Stupid.

    Hate and fear in every face; I'm getting ready and I've packed my case. If you find somewhere better, can you save my place?

    by vcthree on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:42:37 PM PDT

  •  Someone is on their 14:55th minute of fame (5+ / 0-)

    Photobucket

    Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:42:49 PM PDT

  •  I personally would rather see MoveOn and (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grytpype, askew, skywalker, TheWesternSun

    other liberal groups ATTACKING Freedom Works and that asshole Rick scott than a Democrat.

    I want to see some hard hitting ads exposing the Rick Scott's fucktardness than even going after Ben Nelson.

    It shouldn't just be Rachel Maddow exposing the teaparty bullshit but it should also be the liberal groups as well.

    Obama 7/09: "Don't bet against us" (unless the Dems screw it up).

    by Drdemocrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:43:49 PM PDT

  •  I pre-dick a lot of swearing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Celtic Merlin, earicicle

    in this thread.

  •  Well, what's really "f*#king stupid" (6+ / 0-)

    is a party system that gives Ben Nelson and Max Baucus et al-- pols who are on the philosophical margin of the party-- so much power to warp and/or derail its agenda.  One thing the GOP knows how to do is use their 'moderates'-- when their party's in power, the Snowes and Collinses mostly sit down and STFU when their leaders are trying to get something done, and then they step forward when the GOP is out of power to extract concessions from the Democrats.  And that's entirely appropriate, if infuriating.  But of course Democrats have it ass-backward, because our conservative pols sit down & shut up when the GOP's screwing the country up and decide to assert themselves when their own party's trying to undo the damage.  And then they wonder why they have such an 'angry left' to deal with!

    Supposedly our party knows how to govern, but I'm not sure I believe that these days.  They sure as hell don't know how to manage and utilize their people properly.  I guess it's no wonder that the media and GOP hacks call this 'a center-right country,' since the only people who are allowed to wield power in DC are from the 'center' and the far right.

    Anyway, Rahm's an asshole.  Often a useful asshole, but an asshole nonetheless.

    "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

    by latts on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:44:44 PM PDT

    •  They're so interested in "bipartisanship" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mentaldebris

      but that's a pipe dream with this current GOP. All people like Boner, McConnell, Cantor, et al care about is getting the Democrats out of power so that they can get back to Business as Usual; they could give a shit about what happens to ordinary people in this country. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Republican voters are too clueless to see that, or they buy into the "fear and smear" cards that the GOP specializes in.

      Civility is the way of telling someone to go fuck themselves in such a way that the someone agrees it probably is a good idea.

      by Cali Scribe on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:02:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Appeasement & bipartisanship rarely work, they (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheWesternSun, m00finsan

    are effing stupid and those who adhere to those tenets? well...

    Have you forgotten about Jesus? Don't you think it's time that you did?

    by uc booker on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:44:55 PM PDT

    •  WE WON for God's sake. Don't they get that? n/t (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Molly M, uc booker, m00finsan, qwertyuiop

      "Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it." ML King

      by TheWesternSun on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:47:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently not, what have reid & pelosi done (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Molly M, TheWesternSun, m00finsan

        besides cash for clunkers?  A whole hell of a lot of bending over and taking it from the loyal opposition.

        Have you forgotten about Jesus? Don't you think it's time that you did?

        by uc booker on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:49:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They openly stole one election (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheWesternSun

        And covertly stole a second.

        No, they don't get it. Like Bush said of Iraq, they view the Obama presidency as a "comma"--a minor wrinkle in their grand scheme to establish permanent power.

        The leaders of the modern conservative movement have no respect whatever for the democratic process. Obama is to be harrassed and undermined at every turn, prevented from achieving even the slightest reform, until such time as they can get their guy into the White House again.

        And next time they get in, they're going to get rid of those pesky elections, and use the police state that Bush/Cheney set up (and Obama has maintained) to lock up their opponents.

        There really is no other way for them to stay in power, but to turn this country into a dictatorship.

        "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

        by limpidglass on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:07:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They will get a "next time" over my (0+ / 0-)

          gray-haired, hobbling body.

          But to clarify, my comment was directed to compromisers in the Democratic Party who now own the White House and a good chunk of Congress, yet some of whom continue to behave like they still are in the minority.

          Sorry for the confusion. I could have been more clear. My frustration was showing :-)

          "Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it." ML King

          by TheWesternSun on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:24:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Blue dogs won their elections too. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheWesternSun

        And they have the numbers to kill this thing.
        Do YOU get that?

        •  When negotiations begin (0+ / 0-)

          by taking single payer off the table right from the get-go, that's debating from a place of weakness. Baucus and several others have come at this with hat in hand from the beginning. Any skilled negotiator will tell you that while flexibility is essential, you don't compromise yourself from day one. That's what I mean by an inability to behave in a manner that's any different from when the Republicans were in control and the Dems took on a demeanor of impotent losers. At a certain point, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  

          "Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it." ML King

          by TheWesternSun on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 09:04:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Your point 1 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, JC from IA, Escamillo

    spectcularly misses the point. Not sure if you're missing it intentionally. But the problem with "attacking" other Democrats is doing it publicly, which can undermine party unity needed to pass reform. Criticizing other Democrats in a private meeting, as Emanuel did, is not the same thing. Not saying he's right, but it's not the same.

    Whatever one thinks of his statement on the merits, the suggestion that it was somehow hypocritical for Emanuel to privately criticize Democrats for public attacks on other Democrats is loopy.

    •  Baloney. (7+ / 0-)

      The only people who can "privately criticize other Democrats" in power are the Beltway elite themselves.

      Regular citizens and voters can ONLY use public venues.

      That's called democracy.

      •  WTF??? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, JC from IA, Escamillo

        That is, to coin a phrase, incredibly "f-king stupid."

        For starters, Emanuel wasn't criticizing other Democrats "in power." And he wasn't criticizing "regular citizens and voters." He was criticizing representatives of Democratic lobbying groups, to their faces, in private.

        And regular citizens and voters like you and me can criticize whoever we want in private conversations.

        So your point would be...?

        •  Oh, how nice. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ferg, expatjourno, jct

          I can criticize elected Dems in private conversations with family and friends at work.

          And have no f-cking impact whatsoever on what happens.

          While Rahm has private meetings with Senators and lobbyists, and calls me f-cking stupid if I speak out publicly.

          Yeah, SOMEONE's being stoopid here.

        •  The point is that private conversations don't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ferg, expatjourno, jct

          mean shit.

          The pressure is public pressure to step up and pass a bill that makes some sense and that delivers meaningful reform.

          If we are circle jerking among ourselves, they can do what they want with few worries.

          On the other hand, having to face some ugly ads while they are home puts their seats in jeopardy.  

          If they step up and do the right thing, we can use some party support to smooth things over, they suck it up and make it through just fine.

          EVERY US CITIZEN SHALL BE COVERED BY MEDICARE FROM BIRTH UNTIL DEATH.

          by potatohead on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:23:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then why (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, Escamillo

            is everyone so upset about what Emanuel said in a private conversation?

            •  Because the Blue Dogs are fucking stupid. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              potatohead

              For blocking what could be the most popular government program since Social Security and replacing it with something that's expensive, won't get the job done and will discredit the Democratic Party.

              And siding with the Blue Dogs for doing that is fucking stupid. It's Blue Dogs who need to be called fucking stupid, not the people who donate time and money to getting Democrats elected.

              Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

              by expatjourno on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:00:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you! (0+ / 0-)

                And nothing in Washington is ever really private.  It's our government, and we pay for it, so those conversations matter.

                With us talking privately, nobody cares, unless we are two CEO's conspiring to fuck people over, for example.

                EVERY US CITIZEN SHALL BE COVERED BY MEDICARE FROM BIRTH UNTIL DEATH.

                by potatohead on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:11:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Another post (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                askew, Escamillo

                that fails to respond to the one it replies to.

                To recap: potatohead said private conversations don't mean sh*t. I pointed out that a lot of people are upset about this particular private conversation, which suggests they do "mean sh*t."

                Your post doesn't seem to be about whether private conversations matter, or if it is, seems to agree with me that this one does. So I'm not sure why you posted it as a reply to mine.

                But since you did:

                And siding with the Blue Dogs for doing that is fucking stupid. It's Blue Dogs who need to be called fucking stupid, not the people who donate time and money to getting Democrats elected.

                Well...Emanuel didn't call "people who donate time and money to getting Democrats elected" anything. He's one of those people. He deserves a whole lot of credit for the Democrats regaining control of Congress. What he called "f-king stupid" is groups that put Democratic seats at risk.

                Again, I'm not taking his side here, though I see his point. But I've also donated to at least one of the groups he was criticizing. But I'm finding it really frustrating that so many people here are convinced that Rahm attacked us, when he clearly did not. It's sort of like townhallers convinced that Obama is proposing things he's just not.

            •  Becasue purists can't pass up any opportunity (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mll, littlebird33

              to take offense to something, even if that something is comments made in a private conversation that they weren't even a part of; comments about particular ads made directly to the makers of those ads, not aimed at progressive activism in general.  But people decided that they themselves are the target just so they could claim an offense themselves.

              Also, most here despise Rahm simply because he had some disagreements with Howard Dean in the past, so they can't pass up any chance to blast Rahm, no matter how flimsy their excuse to do so may be.

              •  You two seem to think that (0+ / 0-)

                a meeting between a top White House official and activist groups in Washington is "private" in the same sense that a family chat is. And then you sneer at other people as being naive.

                •  Well it ain't public (0+ / 0-)

                  in the sense that running TV ads is. Which was my point.

                  And where did I "sneer at other people for being naive?" I never said anyone was naive. I said people were saying things that don't make sense, but never said anything about naivete. (And I don't see where Escamillo's post does either.)

  •  Whether it's dumb for Rahm to (5+ / 0-)

    call progressives out, or not, I am somewhat perplexed at the criticism. After all, didn't OFA start running ads in a number of Blue Dog districts a few weeks ago.  (And of course, OFA is organizing in those districts and so is "everyone" else including HCAN, unions, etc.  At the president's request, I might add.) Seriously, I'm pretty smart and I don't get it.

    Thanks!

    Where are their votes?

    by mindoca on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:48:12 PM PDT

    •  Maybe they've seen that no blue dogs have been (0+ / 0-)

      moved during the weeks that the ads have run, so they've proved ineffective, and it would be stupid to keep running them, both from a resources point of view and a tactical one.

      And some of the ads accuse Blue Dogs of taking bribes.  I'm surprised that Kossacks would be surprised that the WH wouldn't be pleased about ads accusing party members of taking bribes.  And I dont' think such an ad would be effective anyway, as it's just as likely to cause the target to retrench his current position as to change it; maybe even more so.

  •  Rahm is right. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maverick80229

    Obama is doing absolutely everything that is possible in this environment.

    He has the GOP rioting in the streets for God's sake.

    No more "pressure from the left," it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

    If that happens you're complicit with the Repugs in destroying the Obama presidency, which is the biggest hope we've had in decades.

    •  Please define (12+ / 0-)

      "camel's back." I'd like a better idea of exactly what I am being asked to support and work for. If it's a health care "plan" without a public option, then I want it broke.

      They don't win until we give up.

      by irmaly on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:55:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  oh please! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      expatjourno, jct, Celtic Merlin

      So Principles be damned? It's all the left's fault? You sound just like the rightwingers who march in lockstep with their dear leaders

    •  I dispute this assertion: (5+ / 0-)

      Obama is doing absolutely everything that is possible in this environment.

      If he'd really thought this was important, he'd have kept Congress in session until they passed the bill. And he'd have put a lot more pressure on Congress.

      Remember the Paulson bailout? After the bill had already been defeated in the House, Obama stopped campaigning for a week or so while he stayed in Washington, twisting arms and using the bully pulpit and promising favors until the bill was passed.

      That's what Obama does when he really wants to get something done. And that's not what he's doing now.

      you're complicit with the Repugs in destroying the Obama presidency

      If Obama's presidency is destroyed, it will be no one's fault but his own. That's what "the buck stops here" means.

      If Obama can't get this done with a 60 vote majority in the Senate and a majority in the House, whose fault is that?

      Don't blame the Democratic base for trying to get decent health care. We're just trying to survive out here.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:14:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Poli Sci 101 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JC from IA

        If Obama can't get this done with a 60 vote majority in the Senate and a majority in the House, whose fault is that?

        For starters, I remain confident Congress will get it done. But...

        If it didn't, that would be (primarily) Congress's fault. Congress is a co-equal branch of government. The President does not control Congress, and cannot force it to pass legislation, even if his own party is in the majority.

        Secondarily, it would be our fault. Congress answers to us, the voters, not to the President.

        Thirdly, it would be the Constitution's fault, since our system of government is based on a system of checks and balances designed to make major change very difficult.

        Obama would be held responsible, but would not be to blame.

        But I believe Congress will get it done, with support from the President. And us.

        •  Obama wouldn't be to blame, except for the fact (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          expatjourno, limpidglass

          that the only reason it is being considered now is because it was what he campaigned on and part of the electoral mandate that was delivered last November.  That's not to say that Congress won't have some blame.  But, there's some clear leadership issues here that go squarely at Obama's feet.  He isn't just a nonparticipant in the legislative process.  He has the veto pen, and should be threatening to use it if Congress can't do the right thing.  If he can't stand up against Congress's worst inpulses, no one can. Or will.  Except for us, of course.

          •  If McCain had won (0+ / 0-)

            but the Dems had the votes they have in the House and Senate, we'd be considering health care reform. The difference would be we'd have to worry about a presidential veto.

            This is Congress's responsibility. The Constitution gives it, not the President, the power and therefore the responsibility. The President's role is to be a catalyst.

            •  If McCain had won, we would have LOST seats (0+ / 0-)

              in the House and Senate  The senate was already at a 50/50 split, so we would likely not be in the majority there. And, even if we still held the House, it would be by a smaller margin.  The presidential winner always picks up seats  for his party.  Thus, if McCain had won, we likely would NOT be considering healthcare reform.  At most, we would be considering insurance reform coupled with a bunch of crazy-assed tax breaks for health insurance that doesn't really do anything to cover the exorbitant cost. And, probably none of it the kind that didn't give away the store to the insurance industry.

              •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

                The Democrats lost seats in the House in 1992.

                In any case, it was a hypothetical to make a point, which is that we're considering healthcare reform because of the congressional results in 2008. If Obama had won but the Republicans still controlled either branch of Congress, we wouldn't be arguing about a public option; it would be completely off the table.

                You're right that Obama's victory helped increase our advantage in Congress, but presidential outcomes don't always determine the results in Congress. Congressional Democrats holding a filibuster-proof Senate and a large House majority would be pushing for health care reform with or without a Democratic president.

        •  70+ percent of "us" want a single-payer system. (0+ / 0-)

          Congress answers to us, the voters, ...

          H'mmm...

          •  Source? (0+ / 0-)

            Are you confusing public option and single payer? I haven't seen any polls with 70% support for single payer (except up here in Canada, where it's probably a lot higher than that).

            In any case, remember the US Senate? Remember how each state has 2 US Senators regardless of population?

            The House, where representation is based on population, is not the problem. The Senate is the obstacle to a public option.

            And I'd guess that Senators representing something close to 70% of the US population do support a public option. But the way the Constitution allocates representation in the Senate, Senators representing about 30% of the country by population will often have an effective veto (unless we go the reconciliation route).

            So, if I'm right, the contradiction you think you see is a product of the compromise between big states and small states at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and is in no way inconsistent with the view that Congress answers to the voters.

    •  Let's not do anything to make the wingnuts angry. (0+ / 0-)

      Let's just do what they want.

      /snark

      Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

      by expatjourno on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:02:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It Wasn't Us Who Launched This Effort Without (0+ / 0-)

    mobilizing the broad grassroots in advance, the way the Obama team did anticipating a tough nomination fight.

    Maybe Rahm never anticipated the nature and strength of the opposition on this.

    Maybe I'm not the effing stupidest person in all this.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:50:37 PM PDT

  •  Thanks, Jed, for pointing out blueintheface's (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanF, m00finsan, qwertyuiop

    excellent diary.  She nailed it!

    It took me three hours to figure out FU meant Felix Unger! -O. Madison In honor of kos' Saturday hate mail-a-palooza

    by Meggie on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:51:47 PM PDT

    •  Yes, especially since it was getting dissed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meggie

      It was an excellent diary.

      I felt about 1000% better after reading and commenting in that diary. It was cathartic.

      "If you can't afford a boat, and are standing tiptoe in the water, the rising tide goes up your nose." -- Barney Frank

      by JanF on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:59:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I didn't find it until Jed pointed it out. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JanF

        By then, it had over 500 comments.  
        I started reading and thought it was so good that I rec'd it before I even got below the fold.
        Her updates made it sound like she'd been slammed in the comments, but I left her my own comment thanking her for writing it.  She managed to express everything I'd though and felt this week.
        Other people may not like it, but I thought it was excellent.  I did not bother reading any other comments so I do not know what others wrote.  Irrelevant.  She said what I was thinking.

        It took me three hours to figure out FU meant Felix Unger! -O. Madison In honor of kos' Saturday hate mail-a-palooza

        by Meggie on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:03:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Man I expected....... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, De Rat Bastert

    a whole lot more from this guy.  Yet, he is one of the guys behind this 'dog' Democrats (Republicrats) strategy that seems to have ended with some sellouts on the team.  Rahm is f---ing stupid if he thinks we'll allow him to give in to the Repubs who will not vote with us on this bill regardless.

  •  We're 13 and 0? Try 1 and 0. (5+ / 0-)

    The stimulus bill is the only piece of legislation the Administration has passed that wasn't already a "gimmee" based on these majorities.

    This isn't a fucking football game, either.

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:52:09 PM PDT

  •  If the bill is too compromised, it's better dead. (8+ / 0-)

    Not only would a bill that's nothing but a handout to insurance companies via 'mandating' private insurance hurt America, but it would be the quickest way to see Obama lose the White House, and a wave of Dems lose House and Senate seats.

    What's 'f*cking stupid' is working against 70%+ of the American people who actually want real reform.

    You do that, and you lose every independent and every ex-Repub who was bright enough to leave the imploding Republican party, as well as a huge chunk of the left.

    Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:52:18 PM PDT

  •  It's not like he's given us a whole lot to cheer (5+ / 0-)

    about beyond health care reform either . . . DADT, Gitmo, Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush-like secrecy, no investigations, etc.

  •  Question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jct, m00finsan, qwertyuiop

    I allowed Organizing for America to charge my credit card $1 a day until the health care "plan" is passed. I am starting to think I shouldn't be sending money to Obama's organization since it looks, at least today, like it's going to fight for some piece of crap Baucus bill. Am I right? If so, I am going to cancel and give the money to moveon instead.

    They don't win until we give up.

    by irmaly on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:52:59 PM PDT

    •  Senate and House races are already collecting. (0+ / 0-)

      I donated to Jennifer Brunner's race for George Voinovich's seat already.  Surely you could find some good primaries to donate to, like Sestak's run against Specter.  If anybody is primarying Baucus, I'd be happy to contribute to try and unseat him as well.

      Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:08:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  unfortunately, in Baucus's case his seat isn't up (0+ / 0-)

        in 2010.  I think its 2014 before he's up again, IIRC. So, a long time for people to forget what he's done here.  But, we will no doubt remember.

        •  By then it won't be enough. (0+ / 0-)

          I've seen short-timer memory in politics all too often.  Something outrages people, but within a year or so, they've forgotten enough of the outrage to vote the schleps back in, sigh.

          Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

          by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 05:28:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Says the investment banker. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Teabaggers = Tonsil Sticks - tasteless, pale, brittle, only good for depressing and making you gag

    by JerichoJ8 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:53:36 PM PDT

  •  Paying too much attention to Republicans, not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potatohead, jct

    enough to good legislation.

    Some people will never come around.  That's the case with every piece of legislation since the dawn of legilatures.  It's why we don't rule by consensus.

    Those people are not worth attention of energy when there are ears that will listen, minds that will ponder, and hearts that can be won.

    Put together something that people want and make sure that people understand what it is, and the Republicans will be unable to stand in the way.

    Force them to vote.  If Republicans block something the country wants, they will pay in 2010.  Then the damned thing can be passed.

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:56:28 PM PDT

  •  Plum Line razzed him up good, too. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, expatjourno

    Greg has a way with words, too. Rahm will be f^^king stupid if we get a non-plan plan of regulating insurance companies instead of real cost-savings. The jobless recovery will drag on for another two f^^king stupid years

    They ignored us. Then they laughed at us. Then they fought us. Then - on July 2nd 2009 - we won! [ht: Mohandas K. Gandhi]

    by ezdidit on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:58:34 PM PDT

  •  Thumbs up Jed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jct, m00finsan

    Great comments. Rahm may feel he's the victor in passing anything, but all the rest of us may be the losers if it isn't what we want.

  •  Did it ever occur to Rahm (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, mentaldebris

    that by attacking the liberal progressive wing of Democrats at DFA, MoveOn, blogs etc, that he was himself attacking Dems and that by his attack he became a total hypocritical dumbshit? Bwaahahaha, what a tool he is.

    It's called the fierce urgency of now, not the wishy washy urgency of whenever. ~ mentaldebris

    by cosmic debris on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:01:19 PM PDT

  •  this is my take on what Rahm's game is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potatohead, jct

    He wants to use the teabaggers as political cover for a crap-ass bill that gives everything away to the insurance companies without a public option or any meaningful concessions that would help the public.

    You see, if the Democrats were simply to pass a crappy bill, they would be criticized for not doing enough for their base, for selling out.

    But if a mob of right-wing fanatics is opposed to any reform at all, they can totally use the teabaggers as an excuse for why they couldn't do anything more. As long as the Democrats pass a bill--any bill, no matter how terrible, then the Democrats can pass themselves off as being "left" of "center."

    They can play the good cop by passing the crappy bill they really want to pass, then say "Be grateful you got reform--if it were up to those crazy teabaggers the bad cop, you wouldn't have gotten anything!"

    Rahm sees the whole teabagging phenomenon not as a threat to the Democratic agenda, but as the perfect club to use to push the Democratic party further to the right.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:02:21 PM PDT

  •  get with the program (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, JC from IA

    Rahm's the bad cop.  You don't think Obama didn't pick him to play Bad Cop Good Cop with Congress?  He did.  He mouths off... shouts at people, and Obama offers the velvet glove and "reins him in."

    You all have to start watching more of Law and Order.  Or reruns of Dragnet on Nickelodeon.

    DailyKos: the "Free Ice Cream for Everybody" crowd!

    by louisev on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:02:31 PM PDT

    •  The problem with that analogy is that... (0+ / 0-)

      progressive groups are doing the "bad cop" job FOR Rahm out in the electorate, and he's criticizing them for it. If his job really is to play bad cop, he should be coordinating the attack ads, not doing what he is doing.  

  •  What's f@#king stupid is the nonsense claim (6+ / 0-)

    that we need Republicans to pass health care legislation.  We don't, of course.  We just need some Democrats to quit acting like Republicans.  Hence, the ads.

    The really maddening thing about this is that, politically speaking, the smart thing for the Dems to do is pass this reform with a strong public option over the objections of the Republicans.  A health care program that works for everybody and was associated solely with the Dems would keep the Repubs in the wilderness for decades.  On the other hand, the surest way to breathe life back into the corpse that is the modern Republican party is for Dems to resurrect the old saw that there just isn't any real difference between the two parties - which is what it'll look like to a lot of people if they fail to pass real reform.

    At least, that's how it seems to me.

    mj

  •  This is Rahmbo (0+ / 0-)

    At his absolute best (but in this case it's his worst).

    "Polls are like crack, political activists know they're bad for them but they read them anyways."-Unknown

    by skywaker9 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:05:28 PM PDT

  •  Healthcare Legislation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, jct

    The White House might be in store for a nasty surprise.  The healthcare legislation they hope to pass might be killed by the progressives in Congress, rather than the Republicans and the BlueDogs.  If Baucus and his GOP pals offer a water-down, compromised, half-ass piece of crap healthcare bill, it could very well be shot down by the more liberal Democrats, who outnumber the Blue Dogs in the House.

    Regulate banks, not bedrooms

    by Eagleye on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:06:54 PM PDT

  •  Don't blame me. Via Internet Anagram Server (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    here4tehbeer

    the title

    It's "f-king stupid"?

    to your diary scramble is

    Pundit Gift Kiss

    I guess he's stoking the Sunday Bullshit Brigade.

    "They pour syrup on shit and tell us it's hotcakes." Meteor Blades

    by JugOPunch on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:08:34 PM PDT

  •  Ah, the usual nameless 'sources' (0+ / 0-)

    Does anyone have any idea what, exactly, was actually said?

    Kind of like the legendary 'Bloomberg story' about what Obama meant when he said he's got staff members looking into the 'co-op' issue.

    A reporter writing about something somebody told him was said.

    Kind of shitty to rant in advance of any actual facts, IMO, no matter how many alleged quotes somebody is supposed to have heard from someone else.

  •  It's about resource allocation. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Egalitare, JC from IA

    The moderate-conservative Dems who aren't on board tend to represent states/districts that Obama didn't win (and in some cases did really poorly in). (Almost all Blue Dogs in the House in districts that Obama won, are on board for the public option already.) If you want a shot at getting these votes, you need to move the electorate in those states/districts to support the public option. The support numbers for a public option probably aren't as strong in these districts as they are in the northeast. Money spent on attacking Democrats for not supporting the public option is money that's not spent on focusing for the need for health reform now and for why people should support the public option.

    Notice the signs and the message that the union members who showed up at the town halls (see reports that several DKos members have written up today). The message is basically what OFA 2.0 has been using. Have you seen the AUFC ad on health care reform attacking GOP/insurance industry for stall tactics? Notice how that is similar to the message coming from OFA 2.0 and the WH. (Though the WH tone is less partisan.)

    It's how you can tell which tactics Rahm was talking about and which ones he wasn't.

    People who are up in arms about Rahm's comments have completely missed what he's pissed off about. He's pissed at progressive tactics that are making getting the public option through Congress, a tougher sale for the WH. His anger is because he believes that those progressive organizations that are using the wrong tactics are undermining the efforts of those progressive organizations that are using the right ones.

    •  I don't buy it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      potatohead

      I believe they have already sold out the public option, and we are the last thing in their way.

      They don't win until we give up.

      by irmaly on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:22:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no, we're not idiots (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mentaldebris, potatohead, jct

      People who are up in arms about Rahm's comments have completely missed what he's pissed off about. He's pissed at progressive tactics that are making getting the public option through Congress, a tougher sale for the WH.

      We understand what Rahm's upset about.  We understand Rahm's strategy: bribe blue dogs and stomp on liberals.  The problem: Rahm's strategy isn't working.

      Enough with the vague bullshit about "getting the public option through Congress".  Get down to details and give us a whip count.  Pelosi can get it through the House: all three committees have the public option.

      We have the base 50 votes in the Senate.

      We should have 60 cloture votes to stop a filibuster.

      If you can give names of 1-2 Senators who will support a Republican filibuster, and if you can give a specific, concrete argument how Rahm-style eviceration of the public option is the only way to get that Senator, then name names.  If you can't give names, and you can't give a vote count, then you're just bullshitting to support Rahm.

      "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game." Sen. Ben Nelson

      by ferg on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:22:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rahm has never supported (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pundit, ferg, mentaldebris, jct

      public option. Obama administration signalled yesterday that they'll be fine with a co-op and there have been credible reports about white house making backroom deals with pharma and healthcare industry. White house's messaging has changed from "health reform" to "health insurance reform".  It isn't just one thing. If people were sure that white house will not waver on public option, they'd be more likely to cut Rahm some slack but this isn't where we are at.Secondly, your premise is flawed. A public option house bill will likely get passed with a slim majority if votes were held today, the issue is senate and ,frankly, electoral concerns simply don't explain why Baucus, Nelson , Conrad and others are against public option.

    •  If you're saying that... (0+ / 0-)

      ...the WH knows it really doesn't YET have all the pieces to put together a bill most of us would ultimately find acceptable, I agree with you.

      At some level the WH cannot trust most of us with the strategy they are pursuing to get from here (early August with an incomplete plan and without all the votes in place) to there (October with final bills in both houses and a strategy to mold a signable bill in Conference), because some of us would simply brag about it and kill any possibility of success when it counts:

      But the White House indicates to POLITICO that it truly believe the ads aimed at Democrat are counter-productive and largely ineffectual. There is no winking and nodding when Obama and Emanuel deliver their message, say West Wing officials.

      Because "winking and nodding" would be STUPID (since that is the word at issue) at this point.

      No, there isn't a fully formed plan right now with a Robust Public Option that we can all hang our hats on. No, there isn't a fully formed funding device that places most, if not all, of the financial burden on the richest among us. But I'm going to chose to be naive and trust that this President will ultimately either get something that most of us will agree is real and meaningful reform across the finish line or refuse to agree to on cosmetic and inadequate reform.

      Single Payer and WPA 2.0...NOW!!!

      by Egalitare on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:43:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One aspect I find very disturbing is the Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pundit, jct

    administration let big pharma get what they wanted when they visited the White House this week.  There can be no health care reform without doing something about the sky rocketing cost of drugs.  Right now I think the administration is looking at doing what is politically right before doing what actually is right in putting the country back on track.

  •  I'll tell you EXACTLY what's "fucking stupid"... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, potatohead, jct

    Rahm Emanuel is "fucking stupid" if he thinks that we're gonna support anything less than TRUE REFORM in health care.

    We have true majorities in congress.  Does anybody here believe for an INSTANT that the RePubes wouldn't use that advantage as hard and as fast as they could to ram through every last bit of their agenda?

    Oh, WAIT!  They already DID that when Bush was president...

    It is time to get this nation moving FORWARD for the good of the people again - not for the good of the richest 10% of us.

    Celtic Merlin
    Carlinist

    Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

    by Celtic Merlin on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:19:54 PM PDT

  •  probably not a popular opinion... (4+ / 0-)

    emph. added:

    Rahm's got a tough job, and who knows what game he's playing. But if he doesn't understand that the administration's political base is already fed up with having compromised too much in the health care bill and isn't prepared to abandon meaningful reform for the sake of "victory," then he's about to discover what "f-king stupid" really means.

    but isn't his direct boss our president and isn't he also amongst our president's most trusted advisors?

    comments, both public and "leaked", be it from rahm, axelrod or gibbs reflect the president's intent. to pretend otherwise is naive, politically speaking.

    "the administration's political base"? based on who the administration's been "courting" most heavily, that would appear to be blue dogs, moderate republicans, lobbyists and large corporate interests...it's certainly not a majority of the progressive community.

    "A time comes when silence is betrayal." ~ MLK, Jr...Where has CANDIDATE Obama gone?

    by liberaldemdave on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:21:00 PM PDT

    •  This bears repeating: (3+ / 0-)

      "The administration's political base"? Based on who the administration's been "courting" most heavily, that would appear to be Blue Dogs, moderate Republicans, lobbyists and large corporate interests...it's certainly not a majority of the progressive community.

      Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

      by expatjourno on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:09:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ...and not necessarily in that order. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        expatjourno

        "A time comes when silence is betrayal." ~ MLK, Jr...Where has CANDIDATE Obama gone?

        by liberaldemdave on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:53:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The majority of the progressive community is not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grey skies turning to blue

        and never was part of Obama's base (where "progressive community" is defined by DKos standards).  The majority of the progressive community tried to foist the unelectable Edwards on the rest of us.  Well, that majority of the progressive community got routed at the polls in the primaries.  The same thing happened to the "majority of the progressive community"'s candidate in 2004 (Dean), 2000 (Bradley), 1992 (Tsongas/Brown), 1988 (Simon/Gephardt/Jackson).  Hell, the candidate of the "majority of progressives" has never won the Democratic nomination except arguably in 1972, and how'd that turn out?  The fact is, the "majority of progressives" faction doesn't run this party, and almost never has.  Nor did they ever run the Republican party back when that party was the more progressive party.

        And lots of that "majority of progressives" are happier that way because they like to bitch rather than govern.

        •  No Democrat has won without it. (0+ / 0-)

          And Obama would not have defeated Clinton without it. Nice attempt to rewrite history, though.

          Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

          by expatjourno on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 06:31:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Here's why purists are "fuking stupid". (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grey skies turning to blue

      Purists always talk about how great W was at getting legislation through (willfully forgetting the failure of his two biggest efforts: privatizing social security and comprehensive immigration reform), because he got his tax cut for the rich passed.  Well, the tax cut that was eventually passed was a COMPROMISE.  It was only half as large as he wanted.  But you didn't see repub purists running around threatening primaries, threatening to vote for a right-wing version of Nader, crying like babies that they didn't get everything they want.

      The left wing purists showed what crybabies they are when they whined at threatened to kill this whole effort over the very minor compromise that Waxman (a CPC member) brokered with the blue dogs.  The Blue Dogs only got a few minor concessions, and this site and the CPC went ape-shit over that.  Are there any grown-ups on the left, or only crybabies?

  •  That's What I'm Not Sure of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potatohead, jct

    I'm not sure if Obama is becoming more interested in passing any Health Care bill then he is about passing a Health Care that will truly reform the broken system.  Personally, I think he is smarter than that, since if he signs a bill that mandates we all buy into a shitty system, he will get fried by the right, left and center.

    Anyway, our battlecry should be:

    NO PUBLIC OPTION, NO HEALTH CARE REFORM!

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:25:56 PM PDT

    •  Oh I am sure (0+ / 0-)

      that he is a politician first.

      People keep reminding us that he campaigned as a moderate not a progressive.

      I hoped that he would do better; Gitmo, Banking Reform, etc but I am not surprised.

      In the end I expect to see Health Care legislation that will be a test for the House Progressive. Will they actually kill it and stand up for us or will they cave?

      Remember we are talking about dem's.

  •  In Its Eagerness to Work w/ Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    Obama's WH is fine with killing the public option.

    What the HCR Deal Will Be

    "Give me but one firm spot to stand, and I will move the earth." -- Archimedes

    by Limelite on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:30:06 PM PDT

  •  Let's see, $700 Billion for wall street crooks, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, Duke S

    zero dollars for healthcare.  

    That's fucking stupid, Rahm.  

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live. "Sometimes you gotta roll the hard six." - Adama

    by LionelEHutz on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:39:17 PM PDT

  •  This is just plain sad (3+ / 0-)

    Rahm Emmanuel states an opinion that the ads by MoveOn et al are counterproductive, and I can't find one blessed word here considering the possibility that he's right, or even bothering to explain why he's wrong. All we have is heaps of outrage that he would dare to criticize. I understand that, according to the anonymous sources that brought us this story, he put it quite rudely, and that certainly doesn't help. But if the good folks at MoveOn can't get their egos under control enough to even consider the possibility that this guy, who unquestionably has great expertise in politics, might be giving them good advise on how to make their message more effective, then we are all screwed.

    •  Rahm has great expertise in politics? Hahahahaha! (0+ / 0-)

      In whose universe? He opposed the 50-state strategy AND not only helped elect people who are sabotaging health care reform, he's on their side. THAT'S fucking stupid.

      Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

      by expatjourno on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:12:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's see here (0+ / 0-)

        I point out that Emmanuel was criticizing the MoveOn ads, and note that nobody seems to want to talk about that. And here you come, right on cue, not talking about it.

        •  OK. The ads are not counterproductive. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DKinUT

          Blue Dogs are being counterproductive. It is counterproductive to oppose what could be the most popular program since Social Security and try to turn it into an expensive fiasco that will discredit Democrats for a generation.

          Ads counterproductive? In what universe? The contention is that the Blue Dogs have to act the way they do because of pressure from the right wing. If pressure is what they react to, it's counterproductive to let that pressure come from only one side. It is productive to give them something to fear from the other side. Give them enough pressure and they are going to have to sell a strong public option to their constituents instead of selling it out.

          There. Happy now?

          The shorter answer is that Rahm is just an arrogant prick who was talking out of his ass when he said the ads were fucking stupid. His point of view is so preposterous that it's not really worth considering.

          Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

          by expatjourno on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:07:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, I'm happier now (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            grey skies turning to blue

            but unless you were at the meeting, or have sources of info beyond the two articles everyone's hyperventilating about, then I can't see how you can conclude that his point of view is preposterous. Those articles hardly expounded his point of view. They just said he didn't like the ads.

            I don't like them either. I haven't watched all the MoveOn ads, but I sampled a few at their website, and I gotta say every single one I watched seemed quite ill-conceived. Every one insinuated that the targeted Senator had sold their vote for campaign contributions. A better ad would've spent most of its time selling HC reform to the viewers, briefly referred to the Senator's contrary view, and urged viewers to call.

            I don't know if this is what Emmanuel was saying, or if he had some other objection.

            •  Insinuated? (0+ / 0-)

              It's not an insinuation. It's a fact.

              And no, he didn't say he didn't like the ads themselves. He said he didn't like ads being run by Democrats against other Democrats. He further argued that Democrats should aim their fire at Republicans instead, which ignores the fact that it's Democrats holding up health care reform, not Republicans. Max Baucus would still be the chair of the senate finance committee even if we had an 80-seat majority.

              Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

              by expatjourno on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:51:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Give me a break (0+ / 0-)

                Have you watched any of these ads? Your statements bear no relationship to them. If you have information that it is a "fact" that they sold their votes, you should get ahold of MoveOn, because the ads do not state that as a fact. They state as a fact that the Senator in question received campaign money from the health insurance industry. They insinuate that there's a connection between that and their position.

                And you seem to be reading the brief summary of Emmanuel's statements provided by an anonymous source as if it was a detailed description of his position. Face facts, unless you were at that meeting, or have talked to someone you was, then you don't know what exactly Emmanuel didn't like about those ads. Apparently that has left you, and everyone else, the freedom to invent something easily ridiculed.

  •  Rahm is an arrogant prick. And fucking stupid. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, DKinUT

    He may be the stupidest man in Democratic politics today. He certainly has no idea what stupid is. HERE is what's fucking stupid:

    Weakening the Democrats' chances of maintaining or building their majority by fucking up health care reform is fucking stupid.

    Siding with the people who are splitting the party and trying to keep Obama from doing what the voters elected him to do is fucking stupid.

    Writing a shitty bill that will cost a lot of money, fail to do the job and discredit the Democratic Party is fucking stupid.

    Failing to back a program that could be the most popular government program since Social Security is fucking stupid.

    Siding with the Asshole Dogs who are blocking the enactment of a program that could be the most popular government program since social security. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Rahm is fucking stupid.

    Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    by expatjourno on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:53:38 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for this diary. Couldn't agree more. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DKinUT

    I have always been concerned that Obama would choose compromise over conflict to the extent that real reform would be sacrificed.

    We must prevent that.

  •  Do you know what it feels like for a 72 year old (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pundit, mentaldebris, DKinUT

    lifelong Democrat, who remembers back as far a FDR's third term, to have to admit, one more fucking time, that I'VE BEEN HAD!?  I thought we had a statesman this time around.  For the life of me, I cannot find any statement (though there must be one or two somewhere) from Obama's campaign that would have tipped me off to the prospect that he would sweep so many of his principles off the table.  I was prepared to really watch his back in whatever circles I travel and, (just as with so many kosfolks) that's not always the safest course to take.  But goddammit - I don't feel like he's watching mine!  When he talked straight, the people understood and responded.  When he shifted to "11-dimensional chess", or whatever the fuck you want to call that brown crapfog that his boyz keep feeding us, he began the process of losing my trust.  How can we get through to him just how much support he's risking.  If this keeps up, my watchful experience tells me we will soon see a wave of very dark cynicism sweep over the left.  That will be dangerous.

  •  100 Billion a year.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DKinUT

    Makes the Middle East Wars and the Bank Bailouts look like absolute theft by those who already have plenty. We are just asking for a little security and the ability to start businesses with a Public Option.  

    2/3 Financed by savings on Medicare and Medicaid...
    1/3 Financed by taxes on the wealthiest to 2002 levels..
    Shutting down the Cash for Play system in Congress...
    Forcing Blue Dogs to defend themselves in 2010...

    The only thing lacking is Political Will of the 70 percent of Americans who like Medicaid already.

    What is the problem, Rahm? It's time to steamroll the Rear View Mirror Gang.

    If that wont work, kill it, and let's go for 2010.

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

    by OregonOak on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 07:58:03 PM PDT

  •  It's F'ing Stupid to Underestimate (0+ / 0-)

    the fringe fruit loops on the right.

    At least it is according to former right wing Republican and evangelical Christian, Frank Schaeffer.

    But hey.  Who in the Rahm bubble is listening?

  •  Rahm acts like a tough guy (0+ / 0-)

    but has no idea how to act when he is actually in a fight. When you are in a fight, you fight to win and to end the fight on YOUR terms. Period. Republicans understand this and act accordingly.
    Once again this is a perfect example of Democrats wishing that their enemy would just listen to reason and logic so we don't have to fight, then turning on each other when we are angry that things are not going the way we want.

    WE HAVE A COMMON ENEMY. ACT ACCORDINGLY AND FIGHT THEM

    The only thing that republicans respect is strength. They will have to listen after we kick their corporate ass'.

    They will like us when we win. You aren't supposedto like who you are fighting.

    Obama.. fire that cowardly fucking COS. I am available

  •  Just sent my report to flag@whitehouse.gov (0+ / 0-)

    I just pasted the three points in this story rebutting Rahm's tirade into the email.

    Rahm's attacks on open debate rise to the level of need for raising a flag over counterproductive misinformation, so let's report it as such.

    "All war is stupid" - JFK

    by jorogo on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:37:01 PM PDT

  •  I think the administration never got it. (0+ / 0-)

    We didn't send them to DC to give us crap and call it a pony.  We want the fucking pony damn it.  They are more intent on passing something, anything, they can call health care reform than passing the real thing.  Fuck that.  Watered down Health Care that is just another give away to big business isn't the pony.  In other words you can put lipstick on a pig and it's still Sarah Palin or something like that.  The did this crap with Medicare Part D and they're doing it again right under out noses.  It appears from the "Obama Deal" that they've already given up the right to negotiate for drug prices which would be billions of dollars of savings not just for the government but for us as well.  Fuck Rahm Emanual.  Fuck bipartisanship.  Did I say fuck enough or what?   Guess I'm just fucking fed up with this crap.  

    Jihad for Public Healthcare.

    by YellerDog on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:58:47 PM PDT

  •  I dont get my feelings hurt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grey skies turning to blue

    if he calls me fucking stupid.  

    I got called something like that here on a diary the other day so insults by  people who i dont know don't affect me.

    I like Rahm and i imagine hes under quite a bit of stress and if there is anyone out there thats has NOT cut loose and ranted and said some stupid stuff then more power to you becuase you're better people than rahm and ME.

    http://politicz.wordpress.com/

    by GlowNZ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:59:50 PM PDT

  •  So, what are you threatening? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grey skies turning to blue

    "...he's about to discover what 'fucking stupid' is."

    What does that even mean?  You're sounding like these crazy right-wingers.  

    Does that mean you'll begin supporting Sarah Palin?  Now, that's about as f-ing stupid as you can get.

  •  typical ex-financial type BS posturing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mentaldebris

    "smartest guy in the room" bullying.

    If Rahm is so smart, why isn't he getting 5 million Americans in the streets on Sept 5 to march for Single Payer?

  •  50 state strategy fucking BRILLIANT (0+ / 0-)

    Of course Rahm thinks it's stupid for Dems to run ads attacking Dems.  In his 1992, DLC-driven world what Democrats need to do to win in purple districts / states is to act like Republicans without the gay-bashing.  Then the Democrats will get a majority and they can...well...be in charge!  Ask him what they can then accomplish and I think you'd hear crickets.  Being in charge is the ultimate goal...nothing more.  So of course attacking a Democrat in public is stupid since it means they might lose an election and not be in charge any more.

    This stands in stark opposition to the 50 state strategy we've all come to know and love.  The one where Democrats act like real Democrats all over the country and win that way.  Then when we take charge we change the country for the better.

    So, Rahm, you know what's fucking stupid?  It's mind-numbingly stupid to seek power for its own sake when you could do some good instead.

  •  Rahm can kiss my ass! (0+ / 0-)

    I've been paying my way for a long time. I served in the armed forces, I've got kids that are working and paying taxes, and I'm considering flying to India to get my knees replaced. I don't think I should have to, but like my sensible wife Susan said yesterday,"Because you live in America".
    I don't know or care what kind of poker game these fucks are playing--Rahm can dance his ass into the ocean, and I might shed one tear for his kids.

  •  The attacks on Rahm are willfully disngenuous (2+ / 0-)

    and I'm sad that JedL fell into the same pattern because I expect more of him.

    From JedL's story: "1.So a Democrat attacks a fellow Democrat, explaining that it's "f-king stupid" for Democrats to attack Democrats?"

    Surely everyone here can see the difference between comments made at a private meeting and attacks aired on the public airwaves, cable TV, and radio?  Let's not act willfully stupid in order to make a false equivalance point, please.  That's what the MSM does.

  •  Screw Emmanuel. He's just the biggest example (0+ / 0-)
    of what's wrong with this administration.

    It's full of lying corporatist opportunists.

    Hey Rahm, I might shut up because I've gotten really damn sick of you, the Blue Dogs, and Obama, especially after the deal with good old Billy T.

    I MIGHT shut up. But it looks like I'm DEFINITELY going to either be staying home OR voting for my dog in 2012.

  •  Rahm believes in back room deals (0+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately I am all too familiar with the sort of politician Rahm is.  It's not that he entirely against progressive causes but he doesn't believe in progressive activism.  He's the sort that thinks causes are only advanced with back room compromises between business and government.  That is really sad but not uncommon for politicians.  

    How about some real change?

    by noofsh on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 07:56:19 AM PDT

  •  Dear Rahm (0+ / 0-)

    Go take a fuck at a rolling donut. Go take a flying fuck at the moon.

    Unquote.

  •  BTW, Rahmy (0+ / 0-)

    Until you put someone, anyone, on trial for torturing detainees, you're batting zero. Got that? Nada. You ain't got game.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site