Skip to main content

Has anyone else noticed that the split in the progressive blogosphere between those who are saying "it's a good bill in spite of everything" (Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall, to name a few) and those who just can't bring themselves to support Liebercare (Markos and Digby come to mind, among bloggers who have been at it since 2003*) is eerily similar to the split between those who grudgingly backed the invasion of Iraq and those who fought against the war seven years ago?

To a large degree, it's the same cast of characters, with the same tone to the arguments. It's the policy wonks versus the activists. On the wonky side, there is (and was, in 2003) a resigned sense that this isn't an ideal action, but that we don't live in an ideal world, and that consequently we should suck it up and support an imperfect initiative. On the other, there is (and was, in 2003) a resistance born of an awareness that Congressional Democrats will more often than not -- and often unintentionally -- screw themselves and the country, out of a misguided belief that powerful forces with agendas very different from that of the Democratic Party can be managed and trusted.

It's been long enough since the invasion of Iraq that the two camps - the credulous wonks and dirty fucking hippies - have reconciled (and even interbred), but the dynamic that separated us in 2003 is the same. The fundamental difference in approach is still there.  When all is said and done, the wonks trust Democratic politicians to protect our interests. The activists don't. That doesn't mean that we don't like certain Democratic politicians, or that we don't cherish our wonky brethren. It just means that we're not willing to get fooled again.

*I imagine that Jane Hamsher and most of the other bloggers calling for opposition to Liebercare also opposed the Iraq invasion, but Jane et al weren't blogging way back then, at least as far as I know.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:00 PM PST.

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

    •  What does an economist have to dowith healthcare? (0+ / 0-)

      I mean, besides the considerable portion of our GDP being spent on healthcare.

      I haven't heard anything about Krugman and health reform. Can you elaborate?

      I'm writing in Lizard People on my next ballot.

      by George Hier on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:03:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        frandor55, shiobhan, TooFolkGR

        "eerily similar to the split between those who grudgingly backed the invasion of Iraq and those who fought against the war seven years ago?"

        •  Krugman has come out in support of this (16+ / 0-)

          bill.  I don't agree with him.

          Of course, that doesn't mean that I am going to demonize him like a lot of people around here did on the stimulus bill - but I will say that I don't agree with him.

          The commenter is trying to apply his standards of blindly following someone that you admire regardless of whether or not you agree with everything they say to people like me who actually take individuals ideas issue by issue.

          The commenter can't conceive of a situation where a person might respect a person and agree with their positions on somethings and not on others.  

          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

            You said,"The commenter is trying to apply his standards of blindly following someone that you admire regardless of whether or not you agree with everything they say..."

            Well, I have yet to meet a commenter on Dk who DOES blindly follow somebody they admire and disagree with ANYTHING he does. For example, those who blindly follow Obama believe that anytime other progressives don't carry his water, he must be unintentionally misrepresented, or it's a 13 dimensional chess move us mortals couldn't possibly understand, or he's a victim who can't do anything about policy because Congress writes the bills (which Greenwald has a good piece on today). The reason the blind following is getting to me when they give Obama a pass on things, especially HCR, is because Obama is the ONE person who has enough clout and authority, along with semi-decent ratings and political capital to pressure congress so that there is (at the very least!) a public option included in the HCR bill. And yet he won't do it.

        •  comparing war and health insurance is pathetic (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Christin, magurakurin, CoExistNow

          this is supposed to be a logical community

          •  Talk about pathetic. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Uberbah, The Donut

            Do you have something useful to add, I mean besides epithets?

            I didn't read the FP article as comparing war and health insurance. Did you? Really?

            American democracy: One dollar, one vote. See? Equality!

            by psnyder on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:17:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Saying that support/opposition of a healthcare (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              magurakurin, tdub

              bill equates or is analogous in any way to support/opposition of starting an illegal war is indeed fallacy. The comment above was shorthand.

              •  Call it "pathetic," call it "fallacy," (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lawman, Uberbah, The Donut

                call it whatever you will. What's in a name?

                McIntyre's observation of the division between "policy wonks" and "activists" on the left is an empirical one. The rest of the article is his explanation for what he observes. I don't see how his observation is either "pathetic" or "fallacious," just because you choose to call it so.

                Are you saying that his observation is inaccurate or that his explanation is flawed?

                American democracy: One dollar, one vote. See? Equality!

                by psnyder on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:37:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Both (0+ / 0-)
                  1. As has been pointed out, there are people (Krugman for one)  who support passing the bill and also opposed the war. Count me in this group. Plus he says that he sees his argument applying to the net roots at large. where does that leave someone like me?
                  1. The thought process behind taking what you can get in terms of legislative process is very different from supporting the start of a war.
                  •  I should add thought that if someone can figure (0+ / 0-)

                    out a way to get something better passed, I'm all for it.

                  •  Me too. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Attorney at Arms, psnyder

                    I opposed the war. I support this bill. I can't imagine how the two are supposed to be connected, except in the case of people who don't know anything about the issues and take their view from what "reasonable people", as defined by the MSM, believe. It doesn't begin to work in the case of people who actually know about the issues.

                    The idea that, say, Ezra Klein and Paul Starr support the bill for any such reason is insulting. I can't recall whether Ezra supported the war, but I don't think Starr did.

                    I don't wander around saying that the split between people who support the bill and people who oppose it is eerily reminiscent of the split between people who voted for Gore in 2000 and people who voted for Nader. I have more respect for people who disagree with me than that. But that would be just the same kind of argument as the one made here.

                    •  wrong (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      i like bbq

                      The support for the bill comes from:

                      • the companies that'll be making trillions of dollars in profits for negative contributions to health care
                      • people who do not understand how the bill will affect them personally
                      • people who've been bought or pressured
                      • people who care that "OUR TEAM RULEZ!!!", do not care what kind of public policy they make, and do not care that this will probably reduce the average American's access to health care. IOW, the Democratic equivalent of the people who live in decaying trailers in the middle of nowhere with rusted cars on blocks in the front yard and always vote Republican

                      Which of these groups do you belong to?

                      It's OK to select more than one.

                      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                      by alizard on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 03:13:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  LOL! (4+ / 0-)

            Ummmm. Logical? Reality Based?
            Not daily kos. Not now.
            Used to be though -  but that was then.
            This is now.
            This site is embarrassing if not cringe worthy between the non stop hysteria, and ignorance on how basic governance works.
            I guess google is a novelty to some ?
            It's like reading a progressive version of Free Republic - that 's how much cluelessness is on display.

            All I need to do is look at this list:

            that the split in the progressive blogosphere between those who are saying "it's a good bill in spite of everything" (Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall,

            Add Nate Silver, who has become the voice of reason and reality this past year.

            KILL IT!!!!!!!! IT SUCKS! Kill the Bill!

            Kill the Bill : (Markos and Digby c

            And the choice is more than obvious on who is part of the reality based community, is reasonable, a pragmatist, a realist, and isn't looking for to create drama so they are paid attention too.
            And it's not Markos and Digby.
            When Markos proves his predictions right, I might change my mind,
            When the front page goes back to a not screech reality based tone, i might change my mind.
            Neither is going to happen though.

            Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill
            by Nate Silver @ 3:42 AM
            Share This Content
            Pick your subheadline:

            a) It's time to stop being polite and start getting real.
            b) Here's hoping a picture is worth 1,000 words.

            Go read the rest.
            Of course this will kill those people who like to say that anyone who support it is a bot.
            Gotta fit the preconceived narrative you push.

            I've been doing serious activism and politics since 1990.
            nd i'm no longer into the screaming and drama and yelling and emotional bullshit and screeching and profanity laced rants stomping of the feet bitching moaning and crying routine pulled by many on here.
            it's pathetic. sad to watch. and gets nothing accomplished .
            serious commentary, not looking to get on the Ed Shulz show, no conspiracy theories or crazy rants based on emotions - to find that you have to go over to the other sites.
            And that's cool - I've accepted what this place became.
            It's like some freak reality show - Progressives Gone Done Crazy.
            It's why I laugh.
            Seriously. :-)

            "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

            by Christin on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:29:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you dislike this community or what it has (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rayne, The Donut, ahuramazda, polar bear

              become, there are many other options.

              "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine" --Patti Smith

              by andrewj54 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:20:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  again. (0+ / 0-)

                And that's cool - I've accepted what this place became.
                It's like some freak reality show - Progressives Gone Done Crazy.
                It's why I laugh.
                Seriously. :-)

                That was more than clear in its meaning.
                In September - I did leave.
                Because I was aggravated and even frustrated with what this place had become since I joined in 04.
                Without any annoying GBCW diary.
                I came back early December?
                And again - I've accepted it. And I laugh at what and who aggravated me.
                It's that simple.

                "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                by Christin on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:54:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Did you see Kos' 20 Answers? (5+ / 0-)

                  I think they dealt with Nate's fears rather nicely.

                  Rahm's whole thing is that he's convinced himself that the Dems lost in 1994 because they didn't have a health care bill, when in fact the GOP's demagoguing Clinton's undoing of the Reagan-Bush tax cuts, and especially Rahm's demoralizing the Dem base with his NAFTA 'kill the unions' bill, had a lot more to do with that.

                  Visit for Minnesota news as it happens.

                  by Phoenix Woman on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 08:25:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  in honesty? (0+ / 0-)

                    i can't read markos's stuff anymore.
                    It's one of the things that gave me a headache.
                    it was getting to strident and too reactionary - and I never thought i would see that on the front page.
                    diaries yes.
                    keep in mind that is just my opinion and nothing more

                    i'm not Rahm fan, and was hoping i was hearing things when i heard he was going to be on Obama's right side. I don't like him.
                    And it's strange mix.
                    And Nafta - I can rant about that for a very long time.
                    If Hillary did not want that SOS job - that's where I wanted her to be.
                    I think it would have been interesting. kinda fun to tell you the truth.
                    and she would have done an incredible job.
                    But SOS is more her style, gives her more freedom, and I could list the 20 other reasons she was needed there but am so lazy.

                    "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                    by Christin on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 08:33:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Patti Smith quote is win (0+ / 0-)


            •  throwing stones in a glass house? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              socks, mudgod


              It's also worth noting how completely antithetical claims are advanced to defend and excuse Obama.  We've long heard -- from the most blindly loyal cheerleaders and from Emanuel himself -- that progressives should place their trust in the Obama White House to get this done the right way, that he's playing 11-dimensional chess when everyone else is playing checkers, that Obama is the Long Game Master who will always win.  Then, when a bad bill is produced, the exact opposite claim is hauled out:  it's not his fault because he's totally powerless, has nothing to do with this, and couldn't possibly have altered the outcome.  From his defenders, he's instantaneously transformed from 11-dimensional chess Master to impotent, victimized bystander.

              The supreme goal is to shield him from all blame.  What gets said to accomplish that goal can -- and does -- radically change from day to day.

      •  He was, of course, the main voice of reason (12+ / 0-)

        in the MSM concerning the Iraq War. And he supports the Health Care bill and says it will do A LOT of good, even without the PO.
        So constructing this argument as "They got it right in 2002" fails. Activists vs. wonks? Maybe...
        Btw, Obama was a strong opponent of the Iraq War, too.

      •  sorry, Krugman has written a lot about the (7+ / 0-)

        economuic of health care. Are you saying health care has nothing to so with cost and economics? That's a pretty unbelievable and blinkered view.

      •  Read Krugman's take (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        condorcet, George Hier, Theston

        Right here.

      •  Krugman and health reform diary earlier today (6+ / 0-)

        Krugman: Senate bill 'brings security for Americans and greater social justice'  

        Don't think Krugman argued his point convincingly, though.

        Krugmans's blog here:

        Single Payer is the Moral Option. Educate for single payer today.... Visit Physicians for A National Health Plan www pnhp com

        by divineorder on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:18:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  convinced me . (0+ / 0-)

          By all means criticize the administration. But don’t take it out on the tens of millions of Americans who will have health insurance if this bill passes, but will be out of luck — and, in some cases, dead — if it doesn’t.

          "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

          by Christin on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:32:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think I trust Dean over a guy who (17+ / 0-)

      worked freelance for Enron.

      Stop attributing to incompetence that which was really maliciousness on the part of the Bush administration.

      by tdaniels on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:05:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd agree - but I've recently met some former (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tmo, psnyder, poxonyou, James Kresnik

        Enron workers who are great people. One is pacifica radio listening progressive, the other is a very open minded conservative who is actually quite progressive too - more progressive than Obama, by far, very disgusted with Wall Street, etc.

        However these guys weren't big fish, they were middle management - so they didn't fuck people, they got fucked.

      •  I wouldn't criticize him there, BUT (8+ / 0-)

        Krugman did say NAFTA was a wonderful idea and he still won't admit he was wrong. I like Krugman. I still read him and agree with him about a lot, but like his trade theory, politics always gets in the way. That and I like Robert Kuttner much better.

        I think he is absolutely wrong on this bill.

        Robert Kuttner though we shoudl concentrate on jobs and wait till afetr 2010 and then push Medicare for All. It would be an uphill climb either way, but this would be the right tactic rather than pumping a too big to regulate insurance and big pharma industry whihc bought and paid for Obama and Congress which defeated Byron Dorgan's amendment.

        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

        by priceman on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:34:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  haha (11+ / 0-)

      And of course these two subjects have everything to do with one another as well.

      And, hey, here's one person who opposed the Iraq invasion and supports the senate bill: Barack Obama.

      I just don't think I can support a government-run, government-funded alternative to the current military operation.

      by Attorney at Arms on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:07:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Krugman and Obama aren't part of the netroots (8+ / 0-)

        The argument is about the progressive blogosphere. Yes, Krugman "blogs" for a small little blog called the NY Times and I guess Obama "blogs" on youtube.

        Even so ....

      •  Interesting (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, Uberbah, James Kresnik

        But Krugman's obviously a policy wonk, not an activist (and not a progressive blogger by main trade), so he actually demonstrates the poster's main point (as to the wonk/activist split) more than he contradicts the poster's side point (that the activists were righter about the Iraq war than the wonks).

        Right now, the DSCC and the Senate Dems can go fuck themselves... - That Rude Markos Dude

        by willibro on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:16:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so the side point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          magurakurin, seancdaug

          with a clearly correct side and a clearly incorrect side, wasn't intended to, oh I dunno, suggest that folks who are in favor of this bill are just as insanely wrong as folks who were in favor of invading Iraq?

          •  Krugman is a counter-example (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            but the overall tendency is clear.

            "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine" --Patti Smith

            by andrewj54 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:25:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  No (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gavodotcom, lawman, Uberbah

            Or at least, not to me (and my stance is that it would be folly to pass this bill). People who are for the bill could certainly be forgiven for thinking that the poster is pejorative, trying to diss them, yeah.

            But I think he's also trying to make a broader point: Wonks are by nature much more willing to split the difference, accept a tenth of a loaf, all the other stuff, as befits people focused on the making of policy and understanding there are a lot of variables to balance in any policy. Activists are totally focused on achieving a particular goal and less willing to accept partial achievements. It's a basic difference in viewing the outcome of any non-electoral political struggle, that's all. Not that one viewpoint is more reliable that another, or in any way better. Wonks can be just as altruistic as activists, and activists can be as ready to split the difference on purely political stuff.

            Right now, the DSCC and the Senate Dems can go fuck themselves... - That Rude Markos Dude

            by willibro on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:41:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  A lot more to do than some admit (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gavodotcom, bay of arizona, Uberbah

        I have been thinking back to 2002 and Biden's plea to Boxer and other liberal Senators who walked out of talks to get the Lugar amendment passed- an amendment which would have slowed Bush's rush to war down immensely. As Biden said "you're going to get a lot of people killed".  As with Lugar then, this bill represents pragmatism and compromise and getting something done.  Admittedly it's a lot less than what it could be, but unlike 2002, the pragmatists have won out and are getting something done.

        •  When 'getting things done' isn't progress. (0+ / 0-)

          Look at the date:

          On July 12, 2007, Sens. Lugar and John Warner (R-Va.) introduced an amendment to the FY2008 defense appropriations bill that would require the President to devise an exit strategy from Iraq within three months. Seeking bipartisan support, the measure was an attempt at a "third path" in Iraq war legislation, between Democrats' call for an immediate troop withdrawal, and Republicans' call for support of President Bush's troop "surge." The amendment essentially demands that the President develop an alternative plan for Iraq war policy if the "surge" fails by the September progress report deadline. "It would require Bush by Oct. 16 to provide Congress with a plan for the redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq and a change in their current combat mission to guarding Iraq’s borders, training its security forces, fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and protecting U.S. installations. The measure recommends that Bush design plans that can be implemented by Dec. 31." The measure also calls for a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the prospect's of Iraq's stability, along with a review of the intelligence findings that underpinned the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq. The provision includes an "expectation" that the President would request another authorization of force for the war when he reports to Congress in September.

          The surge was going to happen anyway. Can you explain how signing onto Lugar's non-conditional, condition going to end the war any faster? Were you possibly referring to something else?

          They tortured people
          To get false confessions
          To fraudulently justify
          Invasion of Iraq!
          -Seneca Doane

          by James Kresnik on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:54:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  failed Biden-Lugar amendment to 2002 IWR (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bay of arizona, Uberbah, Imhotepsings

            Here's what I was referring to:

            As Biden recalled, on September 30th Lugar, who was in touch with the White House, called him. “Joe, I fear in the next twenty-four, forty-eight hours, the President’s going to cut a deal with Gephardt,” he said.
            Biden was stunned. “Gephardt? Gephardt’s not going to do this.”
            “Joe, I’m telling you. They’re working two sides here. They’re working us, keeping us occupied, but they’re working just as hard meeting with him. Whoever they reach an agreement with first, they’re going to go with.”

            If Richard Gephardt, the House Democratic minority leader, came out for the Administration’s resolution, it would be politically almost impossible for any Republican to support the Biden-Lugar alternative. Biden had to gather the Democratic holdouts immediately and persuade them to stand behind his resolution so that he and Lugar could move it onto the Senate floor the next day.

            That evening, Biden met with half a dozen leading Democrats who were opposed to any war resolution at all. “They said, ‘It’s not right, you’re not principled, asking us to do this,’ ” Biden recalled. “I said, ‘Wait, wait, wait. Please spare me the lecture. I thought our job was to do as much as we could to prevent this President from going off to war half-cocked. Does anybody in here believe that we’re going to get any resolution remotely approaching the constraints this resolution has?’ ” Biden warned his colleagues, “Guess what? Your principle is going to kill a lot of Americans.” But the antiwar Democrats were intractable. At the end of the meeting, Senator Paul Wellstone, of Minnesota, and Senator Barbara Boxer, of California, left the room arm in arm, chuckling.

            New Yorker article by George Packer Feb. 2004

            Seems very similar to what's going on now- true progressives are "all or nothing" and they ended up in the minority in 2002 and Bush got his carte blanche.  We could very well end up "nothing" again now.

            •  Read the article. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I encourage everyone to read it. It is a classical piece self-defeating, or self-serving accommodationalism. It stars with a strongly slanted agenda, adds a series of specious assumptions, then runs with them, pre-empting all other possible outcomes. It's a nicely constructed narrative, but far too narrow and presumptive to qualify as good advice.

              They tortured people
              To get false confessions
              To fraudulently justify
              Invasion of Iraq!
              -Seneca Doane

              by James Kresnik on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:59:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Biden (0+ / 0-)

                It also ignores the fact that the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time. Biden could have -- but didn't -- vote against the AUMF when it came up. But he didn't. He could have tried to persuade his fellow senators not to vote for the bill. But he didn't.

                Majorities of the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees -- the people in the Senate with the best access to information about any threat Iraq might have posed -- voted against the AUMF. The chairs of both committees voted against the AUMF. Biden didn't. Of course, neither did John Kerry or Hilary Clinton,

    •  I think Obama opposed the Iraq invasion too. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmo, africa, TooFolkGR, Theston

      I'm not sure, I remember a speech....something about that being what brought him to the fore...correct me if I'm wrong.

      I'm still proud of my President and my country.

      by second gen on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:10:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dean. There Goes YOUR Argument (13+ / 0-)

      They're both bright and have the best intentions.

      Image Hosted by
      But I have to side with physician, major health reformer, longtime governor, and party strength reviver.

      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 Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:11:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please take the church of Paul Krugman elsewhere (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MJB, SpamNunn, moonpal

      Krugman has supported pretty much everything Obama has proposed however crappy.

      And one exception to the rule doesn't prove it wrong.

    •  I didn't know (7+ / 0-)

      ... that Krugman was a member of the progressive blogosphere.

      •  OK help me out here.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Krugs is progressive and he blogs.  Are there other membership criteria for the progressive blogosphere that he lacks?  Or is it because his "regular job" is as a columnist?

        •  It's a fair point that Krugman is not a member (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          of the progressive blogosphere per se, but if none of conclusions Jake reaches here have any relevance outside the very narrow set of people he's considering, then they're pretty much useless.  Except to start a fire, which of course...

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:46:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  you may want to check the start date for (0+ / 0-)

          that blog...

          I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

          by justmy2 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:59:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah I see.... (0+ / 0-)

            They have to be bloggers who were blogging when the Iraq war was started.  Because if they stated their opposition or support for the Iraq war on a non-blog medium, that doesn't count.  What a useless distinction!

            But thank you for explaining the author's "thought" process.

            •  Actually it does. (0+ / 0-)

              Whether you believe or not, those in the media looked down severely on bloggers until it started to become apparent that these folks actually knew what they were talking about. Krugman was clearly more closely aligned to the village back then, which makes him a non entity in this particular discussion.

              I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

              by justmy2 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 07:41:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Stupidest comment of the day. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gavodotcom, wsexson, andrewj54, Uberbah

      Paul Krugman is not and never was part of the progressive blogosphere. I'm embarrassed for you and whoever rec'd your comment.

      they sentenced me to 20 years of boredom
      for trying to change the system from within

      by wanderindiana on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:22:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please (3+ / 0-)

      It's such a stupid argument, what's the point of even offering up counter-evidence?

      There is precious little space between this and Jonah Goldberg saying "Hey - NAZI -- National Socialist... and Hitler?  Vegetarian!  By jove - I think I'm onto something.... Vegetarians and Socialists... and Nazis!  Why, I'm not saying vegetarians and socialists are Nazis - but it isn't interesting that Nazis were socialists... and Hitler was a vegetarian?  It makes you think."

      Dirt clods as facts... Just grab 'em and chuck 'em.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:22:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In fact - (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Scratch "precious little".

        Explain to me the difference between this dumbass, braindead 'factoid' and Jonah Goldberg's comparison of liberals to Nazis.

        It's the same bullshit line of thought.  Find some thread of commonality with those you disagree with -- and something everyone can agree (in the context of this blog, for the most part) was wrong -- then voila!

        Point out the similarities.

        Dirt clods as facts.

        Grab 'em and chuck 'em.

        Shame on you, Jake.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:27:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I cannot believe (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zonk, magurakurin

        such dumbness was actually on the front page.

        Then again...

        "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

        by SingularExistence on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:53:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Somewhere (0+ / 0-)

          Since we're now in stupid metaphor land -

          I imagine Rush Limbaugh is cackling like the Palpatine in Star Wars....

          Good... Good!  Feel the hackneyed comparisons, half-truths and sins by omission FLOWING through your veins.  You are now my apprentice.

          Of course, maybe I'm the idiot... All this time, I thought it was more than just disagreements over the capital gains tax, Iraq, terrorism, government programs and what not that make people like Limbaugh and his ilk so horrendously poisonous to our discourse and nation.  I was under the apparently mistaken impression that it was horseshit, half-ass analogies, vapid oversimplification, and the shoehorning of the immaterial into the discussion at hand because it suited the ultimate 'goal'.

          I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

          by zonk on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:04:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Krugman today (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      By all means denounce Obama for his failed bipartisan gestures. By all means criticize the administration. But don’t take it out on the tens of millions of Americans who will have health insurance if this bill passes, but will be out of luck — and, in some cases, dead — if it doesn’t.


      The wonk who opposed the war: game, set, match.  

    •  It would be a lot more interesting to see (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anna Luc

      who looooves Paul Krugman now that he supports Obama. He wasn't very popular here about 15 months ago.

      I'm sure Krugman's learned a lot about economics since then though.

      Bitte sag mir wer das Märchen vom Erwachsen sein erfand

      by badger on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:42:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Paul Krugman sways with the wind. (0+ / 0-)

      Far from shielding us from a fascist takeover, the Democrats are fattening us up for one.

      by Paul Goodman on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:49:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Krugman's a wonk (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      BOOOOOOM goes your argument.

      And when did Jake say this was an absolute, as opposed to a general observation?

      BOOOOOOM goes the rest of your argument.

  •  Sounds about right (6+ / 0-)

    I think the key is that the wonks see one move ahead - is this single action better or worse than not acting - while the activists are looking ahead - does this action support our broader goals.

    •  I see the split differently (20+ / 0-)
      I see the split as between Insiders and Outsiders.  People inside the Beltway, literally or figuratively, see these matters as inside ball.  Outsiders see wider possibilities and want better than the choice of chocolate or strawberry-flavored shit.

      To announce that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -TR

      by Dallasdoc on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:12:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very good. (6+ / 0-)

        And Ezra is so far inside health insurance he compromised and wrote about this "divide" before the inauguration even. I wish I could find his article written long ago calling those of us who will push until the end for a public payer "quislings."  

        HR 676 - Health care reform we can believe in - national single-payer NOW.

        by kck on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:15:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Possibilities so wide (0+ / 0-)

        that they fall out of the possible and into the impossible.

        •  They're certainly impossible (5+ / 0-)

          ... if you don't fight for them.

          This bill is very close to what the Obama administration has been asking for all along.  He didn't ask for more, he didn't fight for more -- we have to assume he didn't really want more.

          I don't know about you, but that's not the change I voted for.

          To announce that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -TR

          by Dallasdoc on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:25:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  wider possibilities? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I respectfully disagree. Klein and Krugman know that if this goes down, there's nothing for 15 years or so.  

        Which do you prefer? Subsidies/expanded Medicaid/etc. or NOTHING. That's the choice.

        •  Bullshit (11+ / 0-)

          Enough with the scare tactics.  Even Barack Obama is engaging in scare tactics today, warning that the country will go bankrupt if THIS bill doesn't pass NOW.  

          Does he really think we're that stupid?  I don't accept that this crisis won't be addressed again soon if this bill goes down.  The country can't afford to let the health care crisis fester much longer.  This bill doesn't do enough to prevent the country going bankrupt over health care costs, for that matter.

          To announce that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -TR

          by Dallasdoc on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:28:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look it's not "scare tactics"... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I don't accept that this crisis won't be addressed again soon if this bill goes down.

            You may be right about this, but I'm getting a little tired of people who are upset about HCR as it stands right now acting as if their will be no consequences to failure. Even if your right and HCR returns soon, and I suspect it will, do you think the atmosphere is going to be more favorable to progressives? Shit, we tried to get the PO, a pretty minor piece of reform all things considered and we STILL failed. Won't HCR been even more difficult the next time around? What makes you believe we won't get Health Savings Accounts and Medicare vouchers?

            I can respect people who want the current Senate bill to go down because they've come to a reasoned conclusion that the bad in bill (of which there is plenty) outweighs the good in the bill (of which there is plenty). But some folks insist that there is little or no downside to the failure of HCR. I see some Kossacks pointing out that some people aren't in a position to wait for another crack at reform, and may even die. Almost invariably, a kill-the-bill person jumps in and says how that claim is "propaganda" and people won't be helped because they won't be able to afford care anyway. They act as if the bill is just a giant transfer payment to health insurance companies. It's all just so hyperbolic and over the top.

            You can argue that this bill doesn't do much to fix the fundamental problems of our Health Care System and I think you would be, for the most part, correct. But pushing for the failure of HCR is, at best, a calculated gamble on the part of progressives. It may be the best strategy, but it could also backfire, and make no mistake, people who would be helped even with an imperfect bill will suffer. That has to be part of calculation here. So does the political downside. Watching people deny these things exist really makes me believe that they haven't really thought things through all the way.

        •  i think they should pass the bill. (0+ / 0-)

          but then they can also pass stuff like the PO via reconciliation.

    •  The diary is onto an (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      important distinction. But I don't think its quite wonks vs. activists, so much as elites vs. grassroots. The source of the confusion, I submit is to be found in this passage:

      Congressional Democrats will more often than not -- and often unintentionally -- screw themselves and the country, out of a misguided belief that powerful forces with agendas very different from that of the Democratic Party can be managed and trusted.

      What really is the agenda of the Democratic Party? Is it the agenda of its progressive-minded grassroots, or its corporate-dominated elites? The Democratic Party has always represented itself as "the peoples party" but this has always been a fraud. It has always been beholden to economic elites but also had the task of channeling the discontent of "the people" into relatively impotent forms of action (electioneering and citizen lobbying mainly).

      The problem is that the progressive grassroots need independent organization of their own outside the Democratic Party structures and not dependent (like many non-profits) on Dem elite financing. We nedd to utilize forms of action that go outside established channel and put some actual fear into the elites. Not the fear that elite-supported candidate X will be defeated by elite-supported candidate Y, but the fear of a breakdown in social peace of the sort that occurred in the 1930s and the 1960s. Absent an independent movement willing to break the rules and get unruly, we aint gonna win jack.

      People here lament that Obama has not proven to be FDR. Well FDR wasn't as great as everyone thinks, but he didn't start out as FDR either. He became the champion of certain limited reforms because the survival of the system was in question because there were people in the streets threatening it. If poor and working people were in the streets right now blocking intersections with burning cars, I'd bet you dollars to donuts we'd have a public option.

      Over the coming year states and localities will be inflicting draconian cuts in social services that will inspire protest movements. That is where dedicated grassroots progressives will be, making sure those protests are as big and loud and, yes, militant as possible -- and NOT impotently tweaking out on the latest idiocy to emanate from the orifice of Senator Asshat as if the (D) at the end of his name should mean he is something other than a corporate tool.

      In the meantime:

  •  Great points all (15+ / 0-)

    From a proud dirty hippie all the way.

    I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center. --Kurt Vonnegut

    by SteelerGrrl on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:02:04 PM PST

  •  oh dear. this will be fun to watch. (8+ / 0-)

    folks are fraking nuts!

    by terrypinder on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:02:05 PM PST

  •  don't focus on national security... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    George Hier, Losty
    dont' focus on any states but the outer rim and Illinois...

    don't focus on the liberal anger over HC reform..we will win by sucking up to conservatives!!!

    AND the beat goes on...

    The Seminole Democrat
    A blue voice calling from the deep red

    by SemDem on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:02:36 PM PST

  •  I'm on the "Pass the bill and kick Lieberman out" (9+ / 0-)


    Republicans secret dream = the impeachment of Bo the Dog LOL

    by LaurenMonica on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:02:54 PM PST

  •  Cheap shot (27+ / 0-)

    I opposed the Iraq invasion, too.

    Not anywhere near the same policy arena.

    The egregious analogies is also a feature of the blogosphere, if you haven't noticed.

    •  Ditto... (8+ / 0-)

      I find this offensive, especially since this health care bill, as imperfect as it is, will SAVE lives, not destroy them, as Iraq did.

      •  No - this "coverage" is akin to "ehanced (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:


        To call it "coverage" when the government forces purchase of an expensive junk product from a criminal, monopolistic, mafia cartel is just BULLSHIT.

        No - this "coverage" is as fucked up as "enhanced interrogation". PERIOD.

        •  This is torture? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          This is being kept in a cell the size of a box.  This is being beaten.  This is being alternately frozen and boiled.  This is being kept awake for days at a time.  This is being chained to a floor so you can shit yourself.  This is being electrocuted.  This is being harassed by dogs.  This is being stripped naked and humiliated.  This is being kidnapped.  This is being drugged with suppositories.  This is having your genitals mutilated.

          You think being forced to buy insurance is like that?

          How are you different from the Tea Party, now?  Because they seem to think health reform is Nazism, too.

      •  That's not the parallel. The point isn't (0+ / 0-)

        about saving lives. I expect you already know that. The parallel, and it's an interesting one, is about (among other things) the tendency to trust the experts and the party.

        I was--to my shame--conflicted about the invasion of Iraq. At the very end I decided against, but weakly--and I certainly didn't do anything.

        And right now I'm conflicted about this bill. I'm leaning against, but I'm certainly not gonna do anything.

        "After two years of episodic fits and starts, I finally got past the first three paragraphs."

        by GussieFN on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:26:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Damn right (5+ / 0-)

      This is a really nasty post by McIntyre.  These two issues have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.  And furthermore, being right about one thing does not make you right forever and ever.  Unbelievable that anyone would even try to make this argument.  

    •  It's worse than a cheap shot (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Drew, Attorney at Arms, Imhotepsings

      Like I said above, we might as well put put crap penned by idiots like Jonah Goldberg on the reading list.

      Because - when you get right down to it - the argument that 'Nazi' includes "socialist" and Hitler's vegetarianism means there's some sort of perverse tie between liberalism/progressivism and Nazism.

      It's the same intellectually lazy line of reasoning.  

      You know who else had national health care?

      The Nazis.

      You know who else believed in massive government works programs?

      The Nazis.

      Congratulations, Jake.

      You just gave legitimacy to the most douchebag of arguments I've ever seen used against the left.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:19:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's not (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, juancito, James Kresnik, Anak

      the point. The 'difference in approach' is the point. 'Trust' is the point.

      And I'm starting to wonder if people are willfully misunderstanding.

      "After two years of episodic fits and starts, I finally got past the first three paragraphs."

      by GussieFN on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:27:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the point hasn't actually been argued (3+ / 0-)

        There's the assertion that various bloggers' measured support for the Iraq war had to do with their trust of Democratic politicians. It could be true. But there's no evidence. So I can either try to make the diarist's argument for him, or I can comment on why I find it facially unlikely. I'm not deeply invested in interpreting (say) Ezra Klein's motives one way or the other.

        •  oops, line edit (0+ / 0-)

          There may be evidence 'out there' -- I don't see it in the diary.

        •  Well, I think it's more of a curious (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HudsonValleyMark, Uberbah, juancito

          observation than some sorta empirical claim. It certainly seems true that those members of the leftie blogosphere who supported the war also support the bill, and those who didn't, don't.

          You seems to disagree, but I actually find it pretty obvious: people who reluctantly supported one policy about which they had second thoughts also support another policy about which they have second thoughts. I thought it was interesting to see the names listed, which makes the observation effective--but it's hardly surprising.

          "After two years of episodic fits and starts, I finally got past the first three paragraphs."

          by GussieFN on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:41:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  shrug (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GussieFN, Imhotepsings

            Claims that seem "pretty obvious" but aren't "sorta empirical" are not the kind that I tend to favor! Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant. If the original argument really makes sense, I would like to see someone take the time to walk through it.

            •  It's not an argument, it's an observation. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I could talk you through it, I guess, starting with 'has anyone else noticed,' but it'd be like talking you through this:

              Did you ever notice, when you are sitting at a red light, that when the person in front of you pulls up a couple of inches, you are compelled to move up too? Do we really think we are making progress toward our destination? "Whew, I thought we would be late, but now that I am nine inches closer, I can stop for coffee and a danish!"

              Well, I'm being a little unfair, because I guess the point is to say that the wonks were wrong then and they're wrong now. I think another point, though, makes just as much sense: we support or oppose this bill according to our characters. Rational arguments aren't gonna sway many minds.

              Those of us who tend to mistrust, mistrust. Those of us who are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, give the benefit.

              "After two years of episodic fits and starts, I finally got past the first three paragraphs."

              by GussieFN on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:40:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  See my comment above (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Drew, Imhotepsings

        Explain to me how this line of thought has more legitimacy than the vapid comparisons of liberalism to Nazism that are now fashionable among the wingers.

        It's the same thin strand.  The Nazis did use enormous public works programs to stimulate the economy.

        I'm sure the Savages and Goldbergs would say -- Oh, no -- that's not the point... we're not saying liberals are Nazis - just saying there are similarities between the Nazis the approach to government intervention and liberal theories on it.

        Did we all willfully misunderstand Mr. Goldberg and his epic tome?

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:24:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Explain to me how (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          observing that the same liberal bloggers who regretfully supported the invasion of Iraq are now regretfully supporting this bill is equivalent to the vapid comparison of liberalism and Nazism.

          "After two years of episodic fits and starts, I finally got past the first three paragraphs."

          by GussieFN on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:33:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because Health Care has nothing to do with Iraq (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Drew, GussieFN, Imhotepsings

            It has to do with "trust", right?

            Well - I haven't read Goldberg's book, but I'm pretty sure that nowhere in it does he accuse liberals of wanting to stuff anyone into gas ovens.

            Just based on his interviews on the book, his hackneyed point was Hitler and Nazis were also proponents of significant public works, nationalized health care, and such... and yes - this is simply a fact.

            It's the triangle theory of logic.  Take two facts that are the same 'plane' -- Nazis = government works and programs; liberals = government works and programs... toss out any differences, of course, but take a few things that aren't quite coincidences (and in fact, people like Hjalmar Schact did view government intervention as sound economic policy)... then draw a point on another plane, connecting them into a triangle.

            I suppose - to an extent - the liberal/nazi comparison is more inflammatory... but my point is that it uses the exact same logical thrust so it can draw a conclusion.

            Sure.  I dismiss Goldberg's theorizing out of hand.  Was pretty enraged by it at the time, in fact.

            But - if we're going to seriously say that there's a meaningful connection worth 'observing' between the HCR debate and the Iraq war debate... well... I don't think one can then toss aside Goldberg's 'observations' as nonsense either.

            I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

            by zonk on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:50:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's like saying that if we (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              dismiss one analogy, we must dismiss all analogies.

              Goldberg is saying, 'if you define liberalism as fascism, then liberals are fascists!'

              Whoever-the-fuck wrote this post is saying, 'the same bloggers who gave the benefit of the doubt to one administration are giving the benefit of the doubt to another; and the same bloggers who ranted and raved and ranting and raving.'

              Those things are not equivalent--even if w-t-f's point is, 'and so the benefit-givers are idiots,' which is fairly stupid. To me, the point is this: wonks are right sometimes, activists are right other times, but they seem to be pretty distinct and predictable groups.

              If the conversation them moved into the territory of 'so how to we work together toward common goals,' I think I'd find the discussion more useful than, 'don't say that, you're hurting my feelings.'

              "After two years of episodic fits and starts, I finally got past the first three paragraphs."

              by GussieFN on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:56:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GussieFN, Imhotepsings

                Goldberg was not simply saying "if we define liberalism ass fascism, then liberals are fascists".

                He didn't get there by magic - he pointed out similarities - like I said, "not quite coincidences" - before making the leap.  

                Trapper/Jake is doing the same thing... Start with some "not quite coincidences"... Ezra/Josh/etc tepidly supported action in Iraq... and also tepidly support HCR, while Markos/Jane/etc didn't support either.

                He then makes the leap:

                When all is said and done, the wonks trust Democratic politicians to protect our interests. The activists don't. That doesn't mean that we don't like certain Democratic politicians, or that we don't cherish our wonky brethren. It just means that we're not willing to get fooled again.

                This doesn't invalidate all analogies - none are perfect, after all, but it's the same lazy logic.  Make sure you have the point you want to make first, then go looking for coincidences where you can tie the nominally 'acceptable' to the 'unacceptable'.

                When you get down to it - the world is much more complex than "Nazis support X; liberals support X, therefore we can say Nazis ≈  Liberals"

                Of course, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know or agree with...

                But my point in the context of Trapper's post is that he's taking some "not quite coincidences" to draw a much larger conclusion than an honest accounting warrants.

                I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

                by zonk on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:11:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Well there is a connection, since it seems we can (0+ / 0-)

              have wars or health care, but not both.

              I don't think it's irrational to speculate that liberals who are willing to compromise with militarism and the vast apparatus it has engendered for war, could also be more disposed to compromise with the insurance industry and bluedogs on the core issue of health care. Out of "realism."  

              It's odd to me that so many people think that the core issue of militarily attacking a third world country based on obvious lies, and the core issue of denying the right to health care to millions of families, aren't representative of a common linked set of values, that should be opposed.

              I don't think people line up in slots, and I don't know if the pattern is really there or not. But it doesn't sound so off to me to see if there's a connection.

              Human reason is beautiful and invincible --Milosz, Incantation

              by juancito on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:26:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  The Tea Partiers would probably (0+ / 0-)

        Try to rationalize their comparison of Obama to Hitler similarly.  And they would similarly fail.

  •  But sanctions aren't working! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    at least on Lieberman they aren't.

    There is no relationship between my respect for you and your UID.

    by bergman16 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:04:19 PM PST

  •  Thank you. (18+ / 0-)

    You just articulated what's been eating me up all day.

    I'm an example of a cross-over.

    Never trusting Bush, I nonetheless supported Iraq because I wasn't keyed into New Media at the time and I relied on the Very Serious pundits.

    I vowed I would never do that again. That I would maintain a higher degree of skepticism and judgment on such important matters.

    This lipstick on a pig moment for HCR feels very, very wrong.  Wrong in the way Iraq should have felt for me if I had trusted my instincts instead of the Villagers.

    And this comes from someone who actually supports Obama on Af-Pak policy, and lots of other things.

    Blue Hampshire. Defeating Republicans since 2006.

    by Dean Barker on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:05:23 PM PST

  •  Or the 2007 HR 1591 split? (6+ / 0-)

    I remember a few self-labeled "progressives" backing HR 1591 on the bases of Chris Bowers posts, and I am still suspect about everything they say.

    I am glad Kos, Howard Dean and a few others have caught up to Chairman Conyers and PDA on healthcare at least.

    We can restart this in the spring.

  •  Um, no (16+ / 0-)

    I was virulently, violently opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

    I support passing the healthcare bill.

    FDL = The Teabagger wing of the Democratic Party

    by indubitably on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:06:13 PM PST

  •  that's a low blow (14+ / 0-)

    They're also the people who argued in favor of the stimulus when everyone else was screaming about it being a bailout that screws everyone.  Months later, it's clear that the only problem with the stimulus is that it wasn't even bigger.

    •  seems like a fair blow (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      those guys were actually wrong about Iraq, something they had no special knowledge of.  

      But your point about the stimulus actually working is proof that sometimes the wonky knowledge is actually correct.  

      •  it's a low blow (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Drew, Stevie, missLotus, drache, Imhotepsings

        because it's guilt by association, when health care and iraq are, uh, different.

        and yes, health care and stimulus are different too.

        better to have these examined on the merits, rather than through the lens of what everyone is saying (because, you know, in the blog world, if you blockquote someone else, it means it's true).

      •  Except (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        csquared, Imhotepsings

        To some extent, there was a lot we could only guess at concerning Iraq.  The AUMF was all of a page long.  We had some experts here and there, but no one -- even opponents of Iraq like me --- thought we were privy to intelligence the administration was privy to.

        Now... we DO have all the info in the HCR debate.  We have an exceedingly long bill.  We know what is in it.  We have CBO estimates that are also public.  We have studies from think tanks of all manner.  We have - for all practical purposes - ALL of the information available to those voting on the bill.

        That's where Trapper's analogy turns to shit.

        Now - I don't know for certain, but I suspect Ezra Klein at least has read the entire bill... at least, I know have - but then, I probably don't qualify as a wonk per so or a wonky blogger - but given this is Ezra's area of expertise, I bet he has.

        Has Markos?  Has Jane?

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:25:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, fake documents about yellow cake (0+ / 0-)

          on Niger letterhead, emanating from somewhere in Italy that other intelligence agenices wouldn't touch because they were obvious forgeries? yet used at the highest levels in the US to gin up a war?

          (who actually produced those forgeries anyway? o well. not worth investigating.)

          There were enough lies and enough reasons not believe the liars. At the time.

          Human reason is beautiful and invincible --Milosz, Incantation

          by juancito on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:44:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oh I've got a lot of problems with the stimulus (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik
      1. It bailed out the states, without correcting the underlying unrealities of our tax system. We've been cutting taxes on the rich since the 70s, and now that the economy has sputtered, the states are all going belly-up. Instead of letting the pain drive the state legislatures into reenacting sensible tax policies, we've cut them checks from the federal government (which doesn't have to balance its budget).
      1. It threw a lot of money at existing projects, especially highway projects. Like we need any more goddamn roads. It's the 21st century, cheap oil is running out, carbon dioxide emissions are just starting to fuck us over, and the only infrastructure you people can think of is MORE GODDAMN ROADS?
      1. More measly tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Anybody notice those extra $60 you got off your payroll tax? Yeah, me neither. And all those people WHO DON'T HAVE JOBS sure didn't notice either. There was absolutely nothing in there that would put people to work.

      I'm writing in Lizard People on my next ballot.

      by George Hier on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:15:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, that's amazing (7+ / 0-)

    Reading the wonks saying that buy mandating that everyone has to buy insurance you increase the size of the pool and thus make it cheaper for everyone. And those who can't afford it, get subsidies. Whoopie. It's what Krugman was saying during the primary to defend Hillary's plan.

    EXCEPT they never ever learn. The bastards who run the insurance companies are the same corrupt and greedy pigs that brought us Enron and AIG. They will steal us blind. And we keep letting them do it.

  •  I'm with the DFH camp. (13+ / 0-)

    The "wonks" - who were wrong the last time - are wrong this time around.

    Obama and the Democratic Party has lost me. I will fight against this bill and other bad ones like it.

    •  How about the so-called wonks like me (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maineiac, drache, Theston, jhw22, zabriskie

      who opposed Iraq and knew it was wrong from the bottom of my gut, yet support this bill because - once again - I know from the bottom of my gut it's the right thing to do?

      FDL = The Teabagger wing of the Democratic Party

      by indubitably on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:08:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep! I won't suck it up! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik, Only Needs a Beat

      And neither will the good Dr Dean do so.

      Obama and the Democratic Party have alienated me sadly, especially with Gibbs remarks today. It is distressing since I've worked hard for years and years for what? This? Horrible state of affairs and the Pres tells us to accept it. No way.

      A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who....never learned how to walk forward.-FDR

      by vassmer on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:15:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pragmatists vs Idealists (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skid, Only Needs a Beat

    We have an ideal of health care for all.
    They have a pragmatic view that half of something bad is better than nothing.

    We have an ideal that wars should not be fought based on lies.
    They have a pragmatic view that, so Dems won't continue to be demonized as pacifist wimps, it's better to grudgingly support the Liar in Chief and APPEAR patriotic, than it is to insist that he execute the laws faithfully and defend the Constitution, and thereby actually BE patriotic.

    Idealists have substance and character; pragmatists have a post-modern view of such anachronisms, and are all about putting up a front.

    I know which one I'd rather be.

    Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

    by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:07:04 PM PST

    •  It is idealistic to believe (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmo, DawnG, Skid, Uberbah, turthlover, Clarknt67

      that insurance companies will control costs, or that subsidies will keep up with premium increases, or that high-deductible policies with 30% copays will end medical bankruptcies or improve access to health care.

      The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake

      by beltane on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:13:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's unfair. (8+ / 0-)

      The people who are calling for a public option or medicare expansion are not "idealists".  The idealists are the ones that insist on single payer and the abolition of private health insurenace.

      For most of us, the public option represents our cut off point.  The limit of our willingness to compromise, but we were by and large willing to compromise to THAT point.

      And now that point has been blown over and everyone's acting like "There's nothing to see here".

      Even a shitty public option would have been better than none.  We could have built up on that.  We would have loved to build up from medicare, but that little hope was horribly yanked out from under us in an effort of appeasement.  

      APPEASEMENT!  And now we're getting the whole "Peace in our time" song and dance and it's insulting to those of us who have been paying attention and who know where this is going to lead and who are not getting what we were promised.

      These days, politics only serve to give people an excuse to be assholes.

      by DawnG on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:17:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Aside from being condescending as all hell (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Drew, agoner

      you act as though the two are mutually exclusive. You say your ideal is health care for all, yet you'd rather let the millions of people who would be able to buy subsidized insurance from this bill go without it to maintain ideological purity? That's not idealistic- it's deeply cynical. If you compare this bill to what it should have been, it's terrible. If you compare it to the status quo, it improves regulation and drastically increases access. It doesn't contain costs, but doing nothing doesn't contain costs either.

      And for the record, I was against the Iraq war before it started.

      •  I am mandated to buy junk insurance now (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah, juancito, James Kresnik

        I don't have health insurance. I have prexisting health conditions that are serious.  

        If you can't assure me that now I will have affordable health insurance coverage that will actually pay claims, then you know what, I can't really get all excited about the "millions of people" they say they will be helping.  Sorry if that sounds selfish, but to me this is a life and death matter and not a rhetorical exercise.

        You are correct about one thing.  I am cynical that insurance companies all of a sudden will do the right thing, now that they have everything they want.  That wasn't exactly how TARP worked out, is it?

        Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

        by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:49:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Billions of dollars (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          of TARP funds have already been paid back, and the house just passed a bill that would those funds into job creation and aid to states.

          But more to the point, the bill prohibits denial or dropped converage based on existing conditions, lifetime limits on benefits, and discriminatory premiums. You seem to believe that people who have private health insurance are barely better off than those who don't, which is simply false. There are certainly abuses, and insurance companies will definitely try to get around these new regulations, but the idea that having private insurance doesn't give you access to care is ridiculous. Tens of thousands of people die each year because of lack of insurance- if insurance didn't grant access to care, that would not be the case.

          •  I HAD private insurance I speak from experience (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I suspect you speak from talking points, sorry.  Or you've never been denied or had a claim rescinded.  Or maybe you work for a health insurance company, who knows?

            The banks used TARP funds to buy other banks, give themselves bonuses, etc.  Yes, some of them were shamed into giving them back.  But following up on every sick person who gets denied - what news organization is going to do that?

            Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

            by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:26:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I speak from this study, which offers compelling evidence that access to insurance saves lives. While I appreciate the effort it must have taken to come up with a suitable ad hominem for your reply- I'm an insurance hack! clever!- I'd appreciate it if you actually read my post. I'll quote the relevant bit for you:

              here are certainly abuses, and insurance companies will definitely try to get around these new regulations, but the idea that having private insurance doesn't give you access to care is ridiculous.

              Obviously claims are denied, and I am genuinely sorry that you or anyone else has to deal with the bullshit our health care system puts people through. But that happens today, and will continue to happen regardless of whether this bill passes. What won't happen if the bill fails is increased access to health care for people who otherwise couldn't afford it and substantive new regulations on the insurance industry.

              •  well any access to health care is better than no (0+ / 0-)

                access. so yes, it's better than not getting in the system at all, usually.

                but once the republicans get back in power it'll be easy to ease off any real restrictions on private insurance companies-- let prices rise-- subsidies decline. . .  free market baby. And mandates!

                A program like medicare or scoial security is a social achievement that creates stakeholders, and so survives the onslaught of the Reagans and Chamber of Commerce and the whole apparatus of the right. A program like that changes the social landscape, creates a constituency and accumulates support.

                This minimal corporate-oreinted reform that leaves the insurance companies at the center, doesn't do any of that, I don't think. Be interested if someone thinks that it will . . .

                Anyway I'd like to see realistic estimates of how many of the 40 or so million uninsured will remain so after the smoke clears.

                Human reason is beautiful and invincible --Milosz, Incantation

                by juancito on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:55:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Pragmatists make progress (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Drew, Imhotepsings

      Idealists seem bound to stop any improvements for twenty years because we couldn't get all that we wanted now.

      This bill IS better than the status quo.

    •  Absolutely untrue... (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think its idealistic to think that a war should not be based on lies..That sounds more pragmatic to me. I was vehemently against the war and yet I have mixed feelings about the health care issues, but not because I idealistically think that a PO is going to solve the ills of this country, but because I fear that a bad bill might cause more problems politically and won't help curb costs. That is realism, not idealism.

      Everyone out there as a different reason for why they supported the war or didn't...Some opposed because they lived through Vietnam and saw the horror. Others because they had young sons and daughters. Others because of the lies..and others because of the preemptive manner of this particular war. Others supported the war for a variety of reasons..Children fighting in the war, fear of another attack, fear of nuclear weapons, etc. Same with health care...very different reasons for many people.

      Its very simplistic to split people up into two groups when there are a myriad of reasons why one supports or opposes any issue.

  •  Oh gosh! (15+ / 0-)

    You're right!  Health care?  Iraq war?  Same thing.  Apples?  Oranges?  Same thing.

    Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

    by fou on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:07:05 PM PST

  •  Paul Krugman says pass the damn bill (12+ / 0-)

    There’s enormous disappointment among progressives about the emerging health care bill — and rightly so. That said, even as it stands it would take a big step toward greater security for Americans and greater social justice; it would also save many lives over the decade ahead. That’s why progressive health policy wonks — the people who have campaigned for health reform for years — are almost all in favor of voting for the thing.

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

    by Drdemocrat on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:07:16 PM PST

    •  But he was right about the war .... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Drew, itskevin, Chicago Lulu

      It really irritates a lot of folks that Paul Krugman is so often right.  

      •  I almost always agree with PK but not this time (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson, Skid, StrangeTikiGod, Uberbah, beltane

        I can't see how I would benefit from this bill at all.  I don't have health insurance.  Now I will be mandated to buy junk insurance.  That's a detriment, not progress.

        Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

        by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:18:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No Child left behind never got fixed (6+ / 0-)

          Kennedy knew he got snookered  and don't tell me he didn't learn by that mistake.
           Say there are no votes to pass it and what is Lieberman's reason for filabustering?  If it doesn't pass with Dem votes will the Repubs try to pass it with theirs since it's favorable to the Insurance corporations?  
           Anybody who tells you that once it's passed they can fix it should be directed to the history of NCLB , it only made the other Bush brother rich when he sold the testing componant of the program.
           With this being an unfunded mandate and the States and local govt in trouble this should be thrown overboard as an economy relief measure.

          •  exactly. they didn't fix the extraordinarily (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            harsh immigration law passed by the Gingrich Congress and signed by Clinton in 1996--either-- which is why you have all these bright HS graduates who have been here since they were two or seven or six months old and no criminal record, unable to fix papers.

            They don't go back & fix stuff without immense pressure. Since we couldn't generate it on the heals of the 2008 election, why will we be able to later? anyway I hope that's true. But I think a HCR bill that is perceived as totally anemic and inadequate will be extremely demobilizing. . .

            hope not.

            Human reason is beautiful and invincible --Milosz, Incantation

            by juancito on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 08:00:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Paul Krugman is an economist and I trust (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Drew, Stevie, Imhotepsings

          him more on this.  

          Krugman's last point.

          So there’s a lot of bitterness out there. But please, keep your priorities straight.

          By all means denounce Obama for his failed bipartisan gestures. By all means criticize the administration. But don’t take it out on the tens of millions of Americans who will have health insurance if this bill passes, but will be out of luck — and, in some cases, dead — if it doesn’t.

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

          by Drdemocrat on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:31:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They will be dead anyway. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Uberbah, beltane

            Why would you trust insurance companies to actually pay claims?  When have they shown themselves to be trustworthy?  When we gave the banks the TARP money, what did they do?  Didn't they use the money the way they wanted?  When insurance companies get what they want, what the fuck makes any of you people think they will behave any differently?  Maybe you ARE the idealists.  Or the dupes.

            Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

            by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:38:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Facts! (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Drew, Imhotepsings, HawkRock33

              Insurance companies even today, without the regulation in the new bill, pay out on the vast majority of claims.

              Of course there are real abuses (many of them made illegal in the senate bil), but the insane claim of the day seems to be that private companies almost never pay claims.  No evidence is given for this, it is just the insanity of the day.  

              The Senate bill requires a 75% minimum medical payment ratio, the House bill requires 85%.  

              •  They really do almost always pay claims. (0+ / 0-)

                Inconvenient fact, but true.

                However, there are cases where they don't that are egregious and should never happen.

                And they should be subject to lawsuits for de facto denial of care.

                To love America is to hate the GOP.

                by HawkRock33 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:02:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  you will not be mandated to buy junk insurance (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Escamillo, HawkRock33

          Even the "bronze" plan has, as McJoan admitted today, an OK set of minimum required benefits and medical coverage ratios -- better than a lot of non-group plans on the market today.

          If you can't afford the Bronze plan you are not required to buy insurance.  

          •  Sorry this is personal for me. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Getting preventive care and 4 office visits a year or whatever won't help ME.  

            Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

            by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:30:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  fine (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              that's not what the bronze plan provides.  75% of premiums have to go to medical care.  In the house plan, 85%.  That pays for more than preventative care and 4 office visits a years.  

              •  and what assurances are there (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                that insurance companies won't simply raise premiums to keep their profits at current levels? this is the thing that grates me...there've been far fewer concessions extracted from Big Insurance and Big Pharma than from the citizens who're being mandated to buy their products, with or without subsidization. Unless they're forced to change their practices, not just shift them around a bit, I don't want to be forced to enable their malfeasance.

                -8.50, -7.44 .oOo. "'Every man for himself' leaves us with more monsters than men."

                by StrangeTikiGod on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:40:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think your answer lies in the statement that... (0+ / 0-)

                  75% to 85% of the gains from customer premiums will be required, under the Senate and House bills respectively, to go to providing Health Care, not profits.  By this logic, IMHO, the more money the health insurance companies make, the more they'll have to put towards providing service to their customers.  Am I wrong in this?

      •  And so shrill! n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Hell hath no fury like the vast robot armies of a woman scorned

        by Mike E on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:48:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  well I guess Krugman's got out of his closet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      early again.

      Wonder if this means the doom and gloomers will go back to ignoring him?

    •  Krugman doesn't understand working class finance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Krugman doesn't understand that the mandates are not affordable by a person on a working class salary with student loan debt.

    •  Krugman's a wonk (0+ / 0-) you're just reinforcing Jake's point.

  •  Supporting war on Iraq was not wonky, it was dumb (8+ / 0-)

    And anybody that was a "wonk" on Middle East policy would have told you it was a no-brainer to oppose the invasion. Anybody who knows anything whatsoever about the Middle East.

    •  It wasnt about Middle East policy it was about b (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Bush and Colin Powell and their allegations about weapons of mass destruction.

      Anyone who had read modern European history would have known that Britain tried exactly the same thing and got their asses kicked.  But that would have required a President who read.

      Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

      by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:26:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it would have required a Congress that reads, (0+ / 0-)

        or even gives a damn about something other than their personal prestige and stock portfolios.

        They tortured people
        To get false confessions
        To fraudulently justify
        Invasion of Iraq!
        -Seneca Doane

        by James Kresnik on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:08:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  this is nothing to what horror is coming... (0+ / 0-)

    and now, at this point, there is no changing direction.  I can't even feel sad.

    Never walk into a public restroom while breathing through your mouth.

    by quityurkidding on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:07:29 PM PST

  •  Can you provide links to (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itskevin, frandor55, indubitably, jhw22

    where those bloggers you list supported the Iraq war?

  •  Policy Wonks? How abt inside the beltway hacks? (8+ / 0-)

    My wife was talking with doctors in the doctors' lounge in a small southern town. Clue: mostly they aren't liberals.

    They supported single payer because they are fed up with insurance company non payment and gamesmanship.

    Those "policy wonks" don't know jack about health care.

    They are political hacks.

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

    by FishOutofWater on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:07:40 PM PST

  •  Iraq was like being pregnant (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, HawkRock33

    You either invade a country or you didn't

    I don't know about health care reform. Medicare now is not what LBJ passed even I I could wish away the bad partd od Part D, which has not happened yet.

    Sixty is the New Normal, remember? I'm almost there. And have been told not to look back at Gee Oh Pee screw ups the entire voting life.

    It sucks, but I went in knowing Sixty was also a Myth

    Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices--François-Marie Arouet

    by CA Berkeley WV on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:08:13 PM PST

  •  That is interesting and I would imagine pretty (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    much divides liberals into realists and idealists.

    Hmmmm!!!! I must expand my daily blogging, which is pretty much limited to this site and just commenting in approx. three/four diaries daily, no diaries of my own.

    I am a fascinated observor/participant I guess, and not a true activist. It's both ttraining, a lifetime of observtion and documenting beahviour and struggles, rather than actually participating in the struggle oneself.

    Interesting insight.  I doubt if I shall change now, as I am still working. Its fascinating though to see how activists minds work as opposed to observors of the human condition.

    Some want to effect change, others want to observe change.

    •  Which one is the idealist? (3+ / 0-)

      I could be wrong, but my understanding is this HCR mandates insurance coverage to the tune of $9000 a year for a family of four, doesn't provide any true safeguards against previous insurance company abuses, and doesn't provide any public alternative.

      Half of something bad is not better than sending these people back to the drawing board.

      Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

      by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:11:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Invalid labelling (0+ / 0-)

      I can't in truth call those progressives who supported the war in Iraq or who have misguided hopes about this bill as "realists."  I'd use the term "pollyannas."

      Just two things:  on Iraq, anyone who had ever read anything at all in military history or strategy would have known that you can't invade a nation of over 20 million people with a tiny army and expect to control the country; what will Americans think of a program that increases their health insurance expenses without giving them any choice, and fines them if they won't go along with it?  One, thousands of soldiers dead and a low-intensity civil war.  Two, a program that lasts only as long as the wait until the next election.

      "It was like that when I got here." - Homer Simpson

      by rbird on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:13:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We won't get fooled again. Again. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    timbuck, Ann T Bush

    In which camp does that place me?

    "Everyone thought it smart when Dylan Thomas vomited on your carpet." - Mary Kenny

    by yojimbo on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:08:25 PM PST

  •  i call total bullshit (17+ / 0-)

    comparing iraq and health care in this kind of condescending way is disgusting. And I for one was against the Iraq war completely and find myself to be an incrementalist take-what-you-can-get type in the health care debate.

    the greatest threat to america is its sense of exceptionalism.

    by SeanF on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:08:35 PM PST

    •  did you even read it? (6+ / 0-)

      The ONLY Comparison between Iraq and HCR set forth in this diary is about Trust.  That's it.

      You have a group of people who trusted that those running the show will deliver a good end.  And you have a group of people who trust that the entire country is going to get screwed in the name of conventional wisdom.

      It's an imperfect comparison considering NONE of us trusted the republicans with the Iraq war, but several are now willing to trust democrats with HCR.

      But there are several who don't think the congressional (and especially the senate) democrats have adequately earned that trust considering what's been happening.

      These days, politics only serve to give people an excuse to be assholes.

      by DawnG on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:22:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree with the premise (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Drew, SeanF, missLotus, tdub, JC from IA

        I am not for passing the senate bill yet, but if all roads were exhausted and this truly was the only option left, I'd take it. It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with believing that incremental change is better than no change at all.

        There's a big difference between incremental change in the health care system - passing a luke warm bill now and hoping for better reform later - and starting a fucking war. A war is something you can never take back.

        •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          the very comparison is traitorous, from a partisan standpoint as far as i'm concerned. In my mind, Bush/Iraq War comparisons are the new Godwin Law.

          the greatest threat to america is its sense of exceptionalism.

          by SeanF on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:55:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  oh please. It is not traitorous. (0+ / 0-)

            You've got to be kidding me.

            These days, politics only serve to give people an excuse to be assholes.

            by DawnG on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 10:55:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  it is to me (0+ / 0-)

              not kidding. Me supporting a health care bill means i might as well invade iraq? I don't care what reasoning is being invoked. The only reason someone would make that comparison is to be a total prick.

              the greatest threat to america is its sense of exceptionalism.

              by SeanF on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 11:01:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  that is not what is being suggested. (0+ / 0-)

                and I can't imagine how you came to that conclusion based on what was written.

                The similarities between HCR and IRAQ are that people who protest both are being labled as "ridiculous" just because they have more care for the result than the process.

                Where as those who support both (as they are being presented now) are being portrayed as serious and worthy of consideration)

                Why in the hell can Lieberman pull this kind of stunt and get praise and accomodation, but Dean can't object without being told he's insane?

                Are you serious?

                These days, politics only serve to give people an excuse to be assholes.

                by DawnG on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:57:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Jane Hamsher is 50 - - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Trust me, she was around back then.

  •  One big difference (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, tdub, Populista, Theston, KeynoteLiberal

    Is that Ezra Klein is no expert on the Middle East, but has made himself an expert in Health Care policy.  You didn't get "more and better facts" from Ezra or Matt on Iraq, just the same facts chewed over differently.  In the present debate, many front-page stories on DKos just straight up represent the facts wrong on health care, which didn't used to be true.  

    (I.e. a few stories down approving citing the idea that the bill only creates mandates and "covers no one," overlooking, as one example, 15 million on Single Payer Medicaid.)  

    Another difference is that we know that regulate-subsidize-mandate more-or-less works in MA and that Ezra can provide all sorts of statistics and studies to prove that is true.   Again, he is an actual expert on this now.  Whereas the only reaction coming from this side is to ignore MA or claim that MA is "special" and doesn't count.

    •  I don't have health insurance and it doesn't hel (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I have symptoms of serious health problems and can't get insurance.  Excuse me if I don't trust the same people who fucked me over before not to fuck me over again.

      At this point, I'm sorry, I'm thinking of ME instead of ephemeral people on Medicaid that are probably just a talking point to you.  

      This is my life, it's not a fucking wonk debate at Starbucks.

      Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

      by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:32:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then you really, really need this bill! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Because it makes discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions illegal.  Indeed, this bill is really your only hope.  The only hope in sight, that is.  

        •  not so much (0+ / 0-)

          Obviously his hope is that this shit sandwich gets pulled back and something acceptable passes.

          Because it makes discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions illegal.

          While still allowing recision, spiraling premiums and high co-pays.  If you have an expensive condition and can't afford health insurance, you can hardly afford 20-30% co-pays.

  •  i'm a dirty fucking hippie and proud to (5+ / 0-)

    oppose liebercare and any fucking war anywhere!

    "Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit." Edward Abbey

    by timbuck on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:08:42 PM PST

  •  what we need (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uberbah, beltane, Only Needs a Beat

    are activist wonks.

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

    by limpidglass on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:08:53 PM PST

  •  The United States Has Been in Decline for 40 Yrs (8+ / 0-)

    while policies the left and activists want are much closer to the previous 50 years of our rise to superpower and the building of the first ever global middle class.

    The facts are that contemporary pragmatism and moderation give a society that is NOT SUSTAINABLE. Not for meaningful democracy, not for a large middle class, not for planetary habitability.

    This isn't a 5 or 10 year difference with me, it spans my entire working life.

    The evidence is in folks.

    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 Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:08:59 PM PST

  •  Paulo Feire would, Brazilian educator might ask; (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Who has health care?
    Who doesn't have health care?

  •  More Like Those Who Are Anti-Corporate.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Kresnik, Only Needs a Beat

    ...and those who are more accomodating. I don't really consider E Klein and Yglesias as progressives, more like somewhat liberal Dems.

  •  This is a silly analogy. (11+ / 0-)

    It was policy wonks like Jacob Hacker and Paul Krugman who detailed the public option and many of the reforms progressives love. The similarities between the Iraq war and health care reform, both in policy and political implications, are basically non existent.

  •  History will judge (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreenSooner, Skid

    History has not been kind to those who failed to oppose the Iraq invasion with everything they had.

    History will judge the Health Care sides in a few years.

    It's rather sad.

  •  Joe Klein (4+ / 0-)

    could have cut and pasted his Iraq war build-up commentary with some minor editing of the text when it came to the current bill losing Dean's support.

    •  And its not as much (4+ / 0-)

      comparing the Iraq war to HCR, its noting that the rhetoric and attacks against those who disagree with his position are almost the same.

      Yet again, there seems to be no way to disagree with Klein without being smeared as unhinged or stupid or crazy or dishonorable or acting only out of pique or maliciousness.

      Kos' response to Nate Silver's 20 Questions is a better response that he would have gotten had he gone and commented on a Klein entry at Swampland.

  •  From what I know of this "reform" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...I'd say that it should be considered still born and that Pres. Obama should lay out clearly (more clearly?) exactly what the bill should be and state that he will veto any other version.

    The big hurdle is the vested interests of the "Health Care Industry" and that title should tell you everything.

    Health care should not be a for profit industry.  Making money off the sick, suffering and dieing is a ghouls enterprise.

    Do one simple thing, make a solid publicly funded, single pay system without all the restrictions now in the private, for profit system and let the playing field level itself.  If the for profit providers can figure out a way to survive -- maybe by offering cheaper, better service -- so be it.  If they go under because they can't extort enough money from the sick, suffering and dieing -- good riddance.

    Stop the political process and start the moral process.  The more I watch this spectacle the more I can't believe the people in congress actually are our representatives.

  •  No - it's the exact opposite of what you say. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stevie, itskevin, jj32, Darmok, JC from IA, jhw22

    In 2003, moderate Democrats joined with Republicans to support a right-wing war.

    Now, it's some progressive Democrats who are joining with Republicans to try to defeat health care reform, apparently because it's incremental and imperfect.

    •  Which Progressive Democrats are doing that? (0+ / 0-)

      Which Senators, I mean.  Last I saw, only Ben Nelson was the hold out, and he's never been progressive.

      They have to reconcile the House and Senate bills still, right?  Why shouldn't our Reps do what they said they'd do, and stand for a bill that actually accomplishes something?  Why shouldn't they try to come up with something that will cover everyone affordably?

      I think mandated junk insurance is something worse than "imperfect".

      Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

      by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:57:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  false equivilance (0+ / 0-)

      Bush likes to go mountain biking.  Does that mean that you are going to boycott bikes so as to not be like Bush?

      Now, it's some progressive Democrats who are joining with Republicans to try to defeat health care reform, apparently because it's incremental and imperfect.


  •  Jane Hamsher on MSNBC yesterday (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Margot, wsexson, Skid, Uberbah

    She echoed Howard Dean.

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:11:31 PM PST

  •  Good take on the dynamic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Kresnik, drache

    and it appears that the activists (of which I am one) are realizing the failure of the government overall...which brings us (incredibly) into the same camp as many of the teabaggers.

    The common man vs. the rich will be a theme as we go forward and there will be strange bedfellows in the common man camp.

  •  I wasn't reading such blogs back then, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I can't imagine either camp finding reason to support, however reluctantly, the invasion of Iraq, given the rationale put forward by the administration.

    Did that really happen?

  •  Iraq was pure stupidity (8+ / 0-)

    this HCR has some good points but has a lot of stink in it too.

    i dont see these as the same at all.

  •  OMG! (0+ / 0-)

    You said the F word on the front page.


    Heh.  I love that term.

    These days, politics only serve to give people an excuse to be assholes.

    by DawnG on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:11:58 PM PST

  •  you lie down with dogs ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wiseacre, Uberbah, James Kresnik

    you are going to get fleas ...

    and sometimes, that might be necessary and worth a few itchy bites

    but you bend over and let yourself get fucked in the arse by corporate whore dogs you better believe you are going to be a flea infested abomination

    No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith. - Thomas Paine (-5.75, -4.65)

    by whoisjohngalt on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:12:00 PM PST

  •  Oh sure (7+ / 0-)

    A disagreement about the benefits of a healthcare bill is the same as a disagreement over a vote on an authorization of force used to start a war with false pretenses.

    Yep. Exactly the same.

    I've tried to find a valid point in this post, but I'm coming up empty. Maybe it's too "wonky" for me.

  •  What Bullshit (9+ / 0-)

    Way to launch a new divisive salvo. Yes, the invasion of Iraq is just like the Health Care bill.

    Epic FAIL.

  •  I, for one, opposed the war (9+ / 0-)

    and think we ought to pass this bill. Granted, I'm not famous or anything, proving that... uh... what exactly is this supposed to prove, anyway?

  •  Firedoglake was launched in Dec 2004 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious

    by Scarce on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:12:40 PM PST

  •  nah. (6+ / 0-)

    I'm a wonk I guess, but I don't trust a democratic politician further than their next word, and GOPers even less.  I do give a tentative benefit of the doubt to dems.  I guess that means I can't be a hippie. :-(

    I see politics as the art of the possible.  I won't use the word 'realist' because it demeans the dear hippies, but it is what is.  You get as far as you can and drive a stake, then work on moving the stake forward.

    One thing I know; more things get accomplished when the wonks and hippies are together.

    No news here, the process has always been ugly up close.

    We could try to reason but you might think it's treason.

    by Job52 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:13:26 PM PST

  •  One of the most ridiculous front page posts in a (18+ / 0-)


    The internet played in reverse tells the story of a huge population of idiots being taken over by a tiny minority of super intelligent social misfits.

    by Grass on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:14:48 PM PST

  •  People, please! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wiseacre, James Kresnik, spyguy999

    No fighting in the War Room!

    Rome wasn't burnt in a day.

    by Rob Cole on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:15:41 PM PST

  •  Now I Know I'm an Activist (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    willibro, James Kresnik, Losty

    Let's hear it for the dirty fucking hippies! Seriously, how can anyone trust government enough to mandate health care responsibly? Even if a mandate works well under Obama, his presidency may not see a second term. It feels like President Lieberman took over.  

  •  This is a silly reductionist exercise (5+ / 0-)

    Fun little sorting game, but pretty useless.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:16:18 PM PST

  •  Gee. Which side is the diarist on and who (7+ / 0-)

    does he think are fucking idiots?

    Stop the goddamned strawmen diaries.

    Do illegal immigrants ruin the country or are they model citizens? (the Lou Dobbs polls).

  •  Truth has a liberal bias. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uberbah, condorcet, SpamNunn, TFinSF

    Image Hosted by

    Stop attributing to incompetence that which was really maliciousness on the part of the Bush administration.

    by tdaniels on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:17:54 PM PST

  •  Ah. I get it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itskevin, JC from IA, KeynoteLiberal

    You're trying to create a convenient narrative that suits your purposes.

    You've just excluded a significant portion of the population, however, although you have managed to capture a slice of the blogosphere.

    What does such exclusionary framing say about your data and purposes?

    FDL = The Teabagger wing of the Democratic Party

    by indubitably on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:18:14 PM PST

    •  Pretty funny considering your ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...sig line.

      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:31:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't it, though? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JC from IA

        It's what happens when you get called a shill and such a few times too often, and when the site apparently supports just that.

        This story only confirms my thoughts on that. :) Divisiveness is the name of the game, right? Not for me, but for those who want to be, you know, power brokers. I'm merely the peanut gallery.

        FDL = The Teabagger wing of the Democratic Party

        by indubitably on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:33:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  And the purpose of this diary is? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  I never saw wonks on the other side (2+ / 0-)

    of Iraq or now with HCR.

    I see pathetic and lazy shills on one side and people who care on the other.

    Also I dare you to compare the income of these two groups of folks.

    If I were paid 1 million a year to do a column, or 5 mill to do a show, or even 200K, I would say and do whatever you wanted.

    I already do that for my bosses now and I am barely making it.

  •  Only probelm is that Iraq was based on lies (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rian90, Populista, JC from IA

    and smoke and mirrors.

    So frankly I kinda of resent what seems to be a subtle dig there.

  •  Can You Believe That 30 Democrats Voted (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rian90, Uberbah, James Kresnik, Losty

    against importing drugs to the US.  This would have saved millions or maybe billions of dollars over time for americans.  Older americans are going without food to pay for thier expensive drugs that they are forced to buy when Canada, Mexico, and Eurpoe subsidize the price of thier drugs, or they put cost controls on pharmaceutical companies.  We here in the US let drug companies gut the american people.  I am sick and tired of it, and I will never forget the 30 democrats who voted against the Dorgan bill.  I see it as 30 pieces of silver to 30 senators for their betrayal.

  •  Are we resorting to ad hominem arguments? (11+ / 0-)

    I think it's worse than unfair to suggest that supporting HCR in its current incarnation = supporting the Iraq war. That claim is dishonest and petty- many of us opposed the war with all our hearts, yet we're supporting the HCR bill with various levels of enthusiasm.  Plenty of smart, committed progressives are still on deck for the HCR legislation. Someone mentioned Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Nate Silver, Matt Yglesias- there are many more. What really comes home to me is how complex the legislation is, and how ambitious the effort to achieve any change at all.  I admit I haven't read the bill, so, like many other kossacks,  I'm relying on the opinions of people who have read it, and whose thinking I respect. I can't stand the "my way or the highway" aspects of our dialog here- this attitude infects every aspect of US politics, and its just so destructive!

    "Tenser, said the tensor...tension, apprehension, and dissension have begun. " Alfred Bester.

    by sgrAstar on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:19:30 PM PST

    •  well today seems to be (0+ / 0-)

      insanity is us day so I suppose we should cut Jake some slack after all all the cool kids are doing it so why shouldn't he?

      (and yet that's snark)

    •  Wish I could rec this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      more  than just once! I too dislike this analogy.

    •  I think mandates to buy junk insurance are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades

      a problem, and that remarks like "You're being unreasonable, why are you throwing this tantrum, at least we're doing something, all you want to do is block progress" when in fact what I want to do is be tough and insist that Congress get it right, and I'm willing to wait another year or whatever to get a bill that does it right, ie covers everyone affordably,

      those remarks sound an awful lot like "my way or the highway" on the other side's part.

      I think people are being suckered by this bill. Maybe those who want this bill saying it's going to be progress are right, I hope so.  But I've been around a while, and if there's anything the past tells me, it's that they're not.

      Screw the Plutonomy, We Need Our Own Economy

      by wiseacre on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:18:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I heard zero progressives saying that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frandor55, Valatius, JC from IA

    invasion of Iraq was OK.

    How could I possibly have missed that?

    And, AFA that goes -- how has that worked out, that invasion? Who might have been right?

    This health care system is a moral atrocity. Dr. Ralphdog

    by AllisonInSeattle on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:19:56 PM PST

    •  Outside Hillary's office in 2003 (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah, I was demonstrating outside Hillary's office in March 2003 and I didn't see any progressives either.

      Government is the conspiracy of the Few against the Many. - Francois Babeuf

      by Valatius on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:25:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, and another thing. Kos is suiciding itself (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JC from IA, KeynoteLiberal

    right in front of our eyes. There's enemies on all sides, get it?

    In a few months this blog will devolve into a site for the primarying of Obama exclusively.

    Let's see: Is it Dean or Kucinich that will divide the party and get the GOP elected? And by the way, the GOP
    as enemy is completely submerged here. Obama is the enemy now, and he's openly hated.

    Now's a good time to split and watch the city burn from afar.  

  •  Hamsher and company (4+ / 0-)

    They are doing a lot of harm to people. It's either this bill or NOTHING. Going to kill the bill means that there's nothing.  I can't support that.

    •  In my opinion there are an equal amount of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Drew, ribletsonthepan, agoner

      people at DK, including the owner, who is doing the same amount of harm.  But then that is what the thesis and premise of this FP piece is all about, isn't it.

      Not whether THEY/WE are right/wrong, but that the Liberal/Progressive community are also split and fragmented into realists vs idealists or pragmatists vs. activists.

      History is very murky on the subject. So studying it doesn't help much. Its a very mixed record looking back and almost always incremental change wins out.

      We are handicapped by living in an age of instant results and instant gratification, so maybe we do need to speed things up a bit. But quitting never speeded anything up, in fact it usually brings everything to a crashing halt.

      Probably need to destroy the planet and start over somewhere else.

    •  false dichotomy (0+ / 0-)

      It's not:

      1. Take a shit sandwich with a smile and a thank you
      1. Do nothing


      1. Take a shit sandwich with a smile and a thank you
      1. Do nothing
      1. Pass a better bill
      1. Duh.

      At a bare minimum, the mandates have to be stripped out of the bill.  I wonder if the "smile and a thank you" brigade will still be on board if the final bill passes with the Stupak/Nelson coathanger provision.

  •  It's not the trolls who are in thrall to the ring (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elrod, Christin, rian90, drache, JC from IA


    It's the purists, i.e Dean.  That's why he is no longer chair.

    Politics is the art of the possible.  Purity glowers in anger at what might have been, instead of taking what can be and working for what can still be.  

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

    by SpamNunn on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:22:18 PM PST

  •  would it kill this site to have a single (6+ / 0-)
    "wonk"/pragmatist/center-leftist as a front pager, so we can get some diversity of opinion on the front page?
    •  Dream on, dream on... nt (0+ / 0-)

      It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:41:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you read Plutonium Page? ... (2+ / 0-)

      ...Do you read DemFromCT?

      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:34:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have they come out and said be pragmatic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indubitably, Escamillo

        and pass the hcr bill?  Because that would be more representative of the Dem base than where this site is now.  We are all disappointed with the public option being eliminated (and for sure united in our disdain for Joe Lieberman) but based on the polls I read, there are still plenty of core Democrats who support going forward with the bill however disappointed they feel about losing the public option.

      •  Not 4-6 stories a day on HCR from either of them, (0+ / 0-)

        now, is there?

    •  If your 'center-leftist' (center of what?) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      was actually right about something other than accommodating failure and 'winning' (winning what?), then posting them might be worth Kos' disk space. The problem is, the creatures are rarely right.

      Most 'center-leftists' have been, in a rhetorically obtuse way, supportive of every major concept of the Republican economic platform . . . and have a track record of miserable failure that matches the Republicans. The only difference is the amount of plausible denial and rhetorical cover that allows the losers to distance themselves from their errant prognostications.

      There are plenty of mainstream media outfits for people who almost, always get it wrong.

      They tortured people
      To get false confessions
      To fraudulently justify
      Invasion of Iraq!
      -Seneca Doane

      by James Kresnik on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:40:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Democrats generally range from center-left to (0+ / 0-)

        far-left.  This is a Democratic site, not a "far-left" one (like OpenLeft)  so let's have at least one front pager that's more on the center-left side.  I'm not talking of Blue Dogs.  It's fine that you disagree with the center-left positions, but so what?  This site has collected and advocated the election of many center-leftists and outright blue dogs.  That the front pagers have zero center-left or even pragmatic far-left writers is puzzling, unless Kos wants to turn this site into an ideological blog rather than a partisan one.

        •  That's a rather muddled meaning of 'center-left' (0+ / 0-)

          there. DLC is considered 'centrist' by the political and media establishment. Is that what you mean?

          They tortured people
          To get false confessions
          To fraudulently justify
          Invasion of Iraq!
          -Seneca Doane

          by James Kresnik on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:38:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm center-left (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and I post on the front page.

          I'm not against the bill because it doesn't have a public option. I think it's important for a bill to pass. I like that it seems to cover more people.

          But I'm not for it until I know what's in it, and whether it is affordable to the group it's supposed to be helping.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:28:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I want a center-leftist that shoots from the hip (0+ / 0-)

            and doesn't do thorough analysis before posting, to balance out the likes of mcjoan.  You don't fit that bill (that's a compliment).

            I also want front pagers calling each other out (kindly), and dueling front page stories (like there are dueling diaries).  MyDD actually had dueling front page stories on occasion in 2008 among its front pagers (Jerome, Todd Beaton, Josh Orton?, Jonathon Singer?), and they'd even update each other's front page stories by adding their own paragraphs that challenged the original premise of the posted story, which I thought was pretty entertaining and informative.  But I've never really seen that sort of thing here, and I think it can't happen here due to lack of diverse opinion among the front pagers.

  •  In a parliamentary democracy (0+ / 0-)

    the conservative center and moderate left would form two parties, sometimes clashing and sometimes forming coalitions. Israel is one of the best examples of shifting alliances and splits within a strong (at least for Israeli citizens) multiparty democracy. Such clashes as you describe here are inevitable in any democracy, but here we are constrained in an unhappy marriage by the limited nature of our democracy.

    However, in a more freewheeling and open democracy like Israel's (for citizens, as I say) people would never put up with such an antidemocratic and unrepresentative insitution as the US Senate.  

    Government is the conspiracy of the Few against the Many. - Francois Babeuf

    by Valatius on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:23:18 PM PST

    •  We are a republic and are going to stay that way (0+ / 0-)

      I agree that it would be different in a different system, but the Founding Fathers designed it to be our unique way.  The Senate is supposed to be slow and deliberative.  I think the filibuster is being abused, but a lot of the stuff that is so infuriating about the upper chamber was exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

      •  But not such a democratic republic as some (0+ / 0-)

        I mention parliamentary systems because they tend to be far more open and rambunctious, something like the current infighting within the Democratic party. Even in staid old England, the parliament is far rowdier than in our House or Senate. The problem with our constitutional set-up is that it results in just two eternal parties and is not open to new alignments, much less new ideas. The Senate is not only "slow and deliberative" but makes a mockery of the one man/one vote premise on which nearly all other representative democracies are based. Throw in the bizarre Electoral College, and results like the 2000 election, and it is no wonder we are still tearing ourselves apart trying to settle an issue like national health, long since settled in more democratic democracies.

        The US Senate, which is now blocking strong health care reform, was patterned by the Founders after the British House of Lords, and that institution has no longer any but a ceremonial function.

        Government is the conspiracy of the Few against the Many. - Francois Babeuf

        by Valatius on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:29:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  not the same thing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JC from IA, CoExistNow

    In the health care debate we are talking about whether the current bill goes far enough-not whether to reform health care (of course we need to). In the Iraq war (which I wasn't in the country at the time but I'm pretty sure that's how it went) It was over whether the concept of invading Iraq was the right one, not over how much to invade Iraq.

  •  Who's got balls? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uberbah, CoExistNow

    Look at what people like Lieberman are doing -- they see something they don't like in the health care bill, and they are willing to kill the entire bill to prevent something they don't like from passing. I don't respect Lieberman nearly as much as I respect a steaming pile of dog shit, but I do respect his willingness to use all of his senatorial powers to accomplish his goal.  I hate him for it, but I respect that he has the balls to do it. So I wonder, why doesn't a single senator that supports the public option, or the medicare buy-in, have the balls to use all of his or her senatorial powers to kill the bill unless the public option or medicare buy-in is included?  Why can't the proponents of real reform fight as hard and as dirty, using all the powers at their disposal, to get this done right?

    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

    by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:23:52 PM PST

    •  Because for them (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the public option/medicare buy-in is NOT the be-all end all, and not worth sacrificing everything else that's in the bill.

      It's easy to kill a bill that contains a lot of things you don't give a shit about because of one thing you really hate.

      It's a lot harder to kill a bill that has a lot of things you DO give a shit about just because of one thing you used to want but was watered down so significantly it became not worth giving up everything else for.

      "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

      by SingularExistence on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:50:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But that's the point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ssgbryan, Uberbah

        this isn't a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. This has become a case of the mediocre being the enemy of the incremental nibble around the edges.

        I tell you, given the overwhelming public support for real reform, not watered-down nonsense to please Emperor Snowe and President Lieberman, but real reform, nobody should be surprised if the Dems lose bigtime in the midterms.  This is one Dem that will probably not bother voting...and they should consider that a victory over my voting for a Green or a Republican.

        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:29:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Some of those supporters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Kresnik

    are Villagers and well off.  Different outlook.

    Plus, as Digby says, the conservadems are using the uninsured as hostages.  It's hard to resist a ransom demand, unless you're a Republican.

  •  Did the WH want this bill from the start? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Anyone care to comment on Glenn Greenwald's article today?

    Glenn Greenwald's article

    Did this WH want this Senate bill from the start? If so, why?

    Sorry if this is off-topic... Didn't know where I could just put out a question for discussion.


    •  If they did they went about it in the most (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Drew, ssgbryan, JC from IA

      convoluted, time consuming idiotic way possible. So no,  probably not.

      The internet played in reverse tells the story of a huge population of idiots being taken over by a tiny minority of super intelligent social misfits.

      by Grass on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:31:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What he did was ask Congress (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ssgbryan, Uberbah, svboston

        to reinvent the wheel instead of reforming our HC based on successful models of other western countries.

        He didn't advocate these models, only outcomes.

        Since Obama brokered deals in backrooms, we have no idea what he really wants. We can guess based on his lack of advocacy for single payer or public option versus his support for Lieberman and this bill.

        "unless you have what's called the single payer system... you're probably not going to reach every single individual"--BHO

        by just some lurker guy on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:54:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The WH wants a deal (0+ / 0-)

        They were committed to passing a piece of legislation that bore the word "Health" in the title. The big "lesson" drawn from ClintonCare was that you couldn't draw up a plan in isolation from the Hill. Perhaps the WH went too far in involving the Hill, but at some point the Hill - especially the Senate - was going get its collective hands on this and gut any real reform.

        So here we are. And the choice will eventually be the status quo or tepid, barely discernable change. I'm going to hold my nose and reluctantly concede that we're going to get tepid, barely discernable change and resolve that this is just round one with several hundred to come. And that most of us, including the WH, will learn some small  but useful lessons that we can use in the next few rounds.

        "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass

        by Egalitare on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 01:18:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think it is about trusting Democrats to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    just some lurker guy

    protect our interests; to me it is about whether you believe the received narrative about how things work and how things must work. The difference is more that they see the system as legitimate and doing as much as it can, with no bad intentions; whereas I see the system as increasingly corrupt and illegitimate. I think the consequence is that they buy into the received narrative and I do not.

    Halfway between reasonable and idiotic is not a political position I want to take.

    by lecsmith on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:28:26 PM PST

  •  shouldn't have listened to dumbasses then (0+ / 0-)

    It would literally be almost as absurd to listen to them pushing the cave as it was to listen to them on the war.

    How many people have to die to realize taking political advice from wonks is as absurd as asking the geeks in the booth to suit up and play in the game.

  •  wonks vs activists is a wrong dichotomy (9+ / 0-)

    I think the diarist is trying to see a pattern here that may be too oversimplified.

    Most likely I have been more involved in actual grass roots level progressive politics than he has.  

    My sense of things comes from being educated in the School of Hard Knocks
    where you work towards an ideal and take as much ground as you can, but have to deal with real people in the process that you may wish you didn't have to deal with, but who are there.

    You also have to ready to face the fact that it may take a lot longer to achieve something really worth achieving, maybe several election cycles, maybe years or decades.  Of course, no one really wants to be resigned to that.  So you do the best you can at this time.  

    A lot of bloggers on this site seem to have little sense of history or how reality actually works if you engage with it in a serious way.  

    If you get people in a room who all really know what they are doing, you will get disagreements about something like the best strategy for moving votes on a bill, whatever it is.  This is complex.  

    This is the reason you have legislatures and not committees.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:31:35 PM PST

    •  amen (0+ / 0-)

      And it begs the question: Why are do self-styled progressives feel the need to brand others "either" "or", that is, one thing or another?  It defies logic.

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:38:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  leftover habit from school (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        A lot of this sounds like an argument in a college dorm room.  There, you see people working out skill at debating, but without a grounding outside of the world of classroom essays and libraries.  

        Blogging seems to have created a virtual world version of the real world that people are arguing about.  

        hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

        by Stuart Heady on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:41:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Stuart, don't make assumptions about ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...the experience of the people you're arguing with just because you disagree with them.

          Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:23:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Analyze the content (0+ / 0-)

            A lot of the content actually represents evidence of a lack of education and experience.  Sometimes it isn't clear.  Sometimes it is.  

            Your posts, for instance show an ability to write that obviously comes from a lot of thought and work and you also show evidence of experience and the effort to do research.  What shows in your work, shows in your work.

            I think that there ought to be some standards when there really are people who really are writing in from dorm rooms.  

            hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

            by Stuart Heady on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:29:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yikes, no offense MB, but did you just make (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            that comment in this diary?  You have a Front Page post arguing that a certain subset of bloggers are coming to their conclusions because they "trust Democratic politicians to protect our interests", rather than, say, because they believe a certain set of strategies will be more effective than others.  There's no way you can get that out of reading, say, TPM's comments without making a walloping set of assumptions about where Marshall is coming from.  Yeah, he's a self-styled pragmatist, but that's not the same thing as putting trust in the party.

            I'm not saying your comment to Stuart is wrong, but geez, in the context of this FP post itself?...  

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:44:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Scintillating insight, Jake (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And I'll fill in an unspoken blank.

    One of the two sides was right in 2003, and the other side was not.  Let's just say there's real reasons I blog here - I like to be right more times than not.

    ". . there will be a temptation . . to try to appear constructive, or at least responsible. My advice . . resist the temptation." - W. Kristol

    by thenekkidtruth on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:32:41 PM PST

  •  Proven maxim-R and D two wings of CorpParty (0+ / 0-)

    Apologists for this bill and for the fully-evident-by-now corporatist neoliberal Obama admin. that cares hardly a whit for the people are suckers.

    Time for a third party that is not beholden to the plutocratic corporatocracy.

    GREAT column -  White House as helpless victim on healthcare - Glenn Greenwald -


    Check out all articles here esp. the scary ones on global warming -

    by racetoinfinity on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:33:06 PM PST

    •  Funny thing is (0+ / 0-)

      the "corporate" democratic party in the house passed a bill with a substantive public option. 59 members of that same party were willing to pass a similar bill, and our uncaring, sellout president was genuinely in favor of it. I think the whole process was handled remarkably shittily, but your narrative is not based in the reality of the votes.

  •  At what point... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, ssgbryan, Uberbah

    is it acceptable to rub the wonks' nose in the fact they have been wrong about most things since well before 2003?  

    Democrats are going to get punished for the way they've handled HCR, no matter what in my opinion.  If we pass a bill with an individual mandate and no meaningful cost controls the GOP is going to start talking permanent majorities again.  

    And the DFHs will have to drag to wonks out of their own damn mess... again.

    "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

    by The Rational Hatter on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:33:57 PM PST

    •  well, the wonks actually know what they are doing (0+ / 0-)

      if the 'activists' got off the street and into the real dirty fight of politics then maybe they would know what they are doing and could actually contribute something useful beyond chants about who's good or bad or right or wrong.

      activists are great... but just being for or against something is only worth so much

      at the end of the day... the activists here are only championing what some wonk told them to champion

      and of course every wonk they followed that changes their mind is now a betrayer of the cause

      activists need to get involved more deeply in policy

      the 'i just don't know who to believe' around here is getting embaressing

      •  Know what they are doing... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah, svboston

        like when they said we had to support Iraq? How'd that turn out again?  

        And you're implication that activists don't know what they are doing is just flat fucking stupid. Especially in light of the fact that the last two wave elections happened - in large part - because activists told wonks to take their CW and shove it.

        "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

        by The Rational Hatter on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:47:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dirty Fighting (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Being for something is worth a lot.  Your comment is astoundingly condescending. People are pissed off because this process has not been a negotiation, it has been a capitulation.  Joe Liberman as the poster child doesn't help.

        The bill does some good.  Great.  That's all we get for our effort?  The 'wonks' are rationalizing their side's seeming inability to leverage the power they have. It's one thing to negotiate and get some of what you want.  It's quite another to bend over and take it. Especially when you just won a landslide.

        We just busted our asses winning the presidency and the congress and all we got was this lousy insurance that we have to buy.

        The takeaway for me is that no matter how engaged and informed and successful we are as a political entity (progressives), the entrenched interests in this country will just not accept our agenda.  The Democratic leadership is neutered because they are beholden to the same interests on some level, but still feel like they owe the people who brought them to the party a dance.  We. are. fucked.

  •  If you are talking about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Those you mentioned above then alright but if you are trying to broadbrush this as the majority view of those who say the bill should be passed you are up shit's creek my friend. For one I believe the bill should be passed because CONTRARY to popular belief here this bill actually does do some real good things. It's an OPINION if you think this bill is worse than the status quo, an opinion that the facts seem to disagree with substantially. THAT BEING SAID, I don't trust Dem politicians whatsoever. I am actually done with the Dem party after this, I am registering as an independant probably sometime in January. Progressives capitulated, conservative Dems put regular Americans last and the President, who I LITERALLY donated my first dollar for anything to his campaign, and 499 more of those dollars, didn't even put up a fight...AT ALL.
    SO NO I am for this bill passing because as a progressive, this 1/4 of a loaf is still better than what we have now and this "kill the bill do recon" thing would only go half way "killing the bill and waiting another 16 years" so I want this bill passed because I care about the American people, but it's fucking over for these Dems. I am finished with them

    "I don't want a line in the Sand lines can be moved. They can be blown away. I want a six foot trench carved into granite."

    by theone718 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:37:27 PM PST

  •  Meta Belt Observation (0+ / 0-)

    The divide splits along Inside the Beltway mentalities and Outside the Beltway ones.

    Wonks => Inside
    Activists => Outside

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

    by Limelite on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:37:40 PM PST

  •  Mission Accomplished! (0+ / 0-)

    We have a bill that's a handout to the rich and powerful, with little in the way of policy changes. The same cast of characters are the hanger-ons of the rich and powerful.

    This time last year...I was hoping for so much more.

  •  Of course (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This is broadly not true. But feel free to continue to peddle this "interesting observation."

    This is easily one of the worst posts I've read on DailyKos. And I've been reading for almost three years now daily. Takes the cake for the worst thing I've read today. Congrats, your pettiness must make you feel good.

  •  Let's not forget the progress (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, kimoconnor

    There will always be differences of opinion. But as frustrating as they are, and as obviously wrongheaded as the people on the other side may be, remember:

    Last time we were debating whether or not to start an illegal, immoral, extremely  stupid war. Today we're debating whether or not to enact a flawed health care reform bill.

    Instead of, say, debating whether to start a war with Iran, or whether to enact more insane tax cuts, or whether to privatize the post office, or or or . . .

    We still have a long way to go, but we've come as far as we have by working together.

    Wonks and hippies unite!

    Check out, when it's up and running.

    by Manfromporlock on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:38:58 PM PST

  •  I think I am a wonky hippy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angry Mouse, agoner

    I mean, I tend to be more pragmatic, but want to be more idealistic.

    Help me help kids in Afghanistan:

    by kimoconnor on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:39:24 PM PST

  •  Faulty Equivalency (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, agoner

    I'm real uncomfortable with the implied notion that the camp that didn't oppose the Iraq war is wrong again on healthcare.  Not explicitly stated but could certainly be inferred.

    I opposed the war but support passage of HCR.  I mourn the loss of public option and I am sickened at some of the compromises.  But I know that the bill, as is, does contain very important reforms.  That does not mean that I'm a mistaken wonk with an inherent trust of Democratic politicians to take care of my interests.  I am an active voter who volunteers, donates, marches, writes letters and makes calls.

    I call myself a realist - perhaps maybe a gradualist. I think that reform is almost impossible in the current climate and that maybe, just maybe, this is a good start.  That we can keep trying to perfect it.  That people, upon realization that this is not the end of the world, will eventually expect and demand better healthcare.

    If we sit it out in 2010 we know what will happen.  No one can convince me that conceding the House and possibly the Senate will bring about the result we want.  What we need, as Kos has said, is more and BETTER Democrats.

    "Dogs' lives are too short. Their only fault, really." -- Agnes Sligh Turnball

    by EyeStreetMom on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:39:34 PM PST

    •  Willingness To Enrich Insurance Takeover (0+ / 0-)

      The central part of a Healthcare Reform bill is its ability to provide affordable healthcare by providing real choice. Meaning the public option.

      Without it we merely have vague hopes that Big Insurance will keep their word to include out prior
      and existing conditions, or reimburse claims without finding loopholes.

      Obama caved on with BigPharma last July and made a backroom deal with Tauzin, Big Pharma's top lobbyist. Any chance of fair drug prices are gone, and Obama also fought the Feingold/McCain bill making it impossible for drug importation which would have helped us all.

      Enriching the Insurance Cartel with the biggest windfall to corporate America in our history by delivering by mandate 30 million victims who have no other recourse is madness.

      There is also the regressive Stupak amendment which goes further in its draconian actions against women's rights than the Hyde bill which already prohibits federal funded abortions.  It took Democrats to sink so low as to allow Catholic Bishops and Stupak to limit their right to equal protection because it is politically convenient.

      We have had no leadership and the ensuing vacum has allowed this monster of a bill to emerge. Obama also promised that we would all participate in the process and see all of this on CSpan. Accountability? Transparency?  Sellout.

  •  Trust versus Verify. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Some part of the divide seems to be related to folks who trust the system and want to work inside it.. and those who prefer to take the system on directly, and distrust those who belong to it.

    I think someone wrote a big orange book about that topic recently.  

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, Feb 17, 1755.

    by Wayward Son on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:41:53 PM PST

  •  Yawn, another FP hit piece. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  If you haven't notice (0+ / 0-)

    I like to play devil's advocate. ALot of times we have an opinion on something and we think it is right, but having a retort from someone just as honestly looking at the subject as you are is the REAL way to come to a good solution. As long as you are civil of course.

    "I don't want a line in the Sand lines can be moved. They can be blown away. I want a six foot trench carved into granite."

    by theone718 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:45:25 PM PST

  •  The voice of irrationality again- HC bill= Iraq (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, Grass, theone718, KeynoteLiberal

    What a pile of manure! This place is turning into the rubber room.

  •  The Other© on why they will (0+ / 0-)

    Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

    by RF on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:46:37 PM PST

  •  Hey, the split runs right down the center (0+ / 0-)

    of our house. My wife has decided it's time to KillBill, but I think it's worth fighting for passage and last-minute improvements. Our Rottweiler is in favor of killing anything, and our Lab/Ridgeback would kiss it if it smelled like a turd (which, is, of course, precisely the aroma).

    Ass-crack vodka shots: the official energy drink of the Republican Party.

    by CitizenJoe on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:46:51 PM PST

  •  On Killing the Bill (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rian90, Mike E, agoner

    If the goal is single-payer, universal coverage, how does killing this bill get you closer to that goal? I just don't see how you chess this thing out and come out with a better health care system any time soon. Pass it. Brag about the good stuff. Blame the bad stuff on Republicans. Build on in it in term 2. Boom. Done. Easy.

  •  An interesting observation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    But can't you call them something other than hippies?

    It's not like Kos has any respect for the original hippies, and if we keep calling Kos et all 'hippies' there's going to be no word left to describe those of us who actually fit the description.


  •  Eerily similar to the split between Hillary and O (0+ / 0-)

    bama supporters.

    Eeerily similar to the split between the Dean and Kerry supporters.

    So what, people disagree.

    People set a goal, they work hard at it and then they are dissapointed because they do not get it - they do not see it coming - the roadblock - and then its there, an impasse, a split ensues. Happens all the time.

    As R. W. Emerson said, "Fear springs from ignorance."

    by healthy on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:51:25 PM PST

    •  There Are Two Types of People in This World (0+ / 0-)

      They are eerily split on this bill.

      You disagree with his conclusion that Obama is a boot licker...give examples where this can be shown to be false. -- Dumbest Poster in dKos History

      by TooFolkGR on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:56:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh for pete's sake. I certainly did not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SingularExistence, agoner

    support the war in Iraq nor for that matter anything George Bush did in 8 years, of course I wasn't a brilliant little blogger either.. just a voter, a member of society raising my family and working a menial job trying to make ends meet.. but I do support any bill that will HELP SAVE ONE LIFE by providing healthcare.  

    I think perhaps there are some people who are enjoying the so-called "democratic divide".. which begs the question- why?

    Because our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation.. Barack Obama, 5-25-08

    by sherijr on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:52:29 PM PST

  •  Policy wonks versus activists (0+ / 0-)

    Policy wonks are loyal to party first so it's no surprise they will fall in line and praise the crap sandwich, telling us how good it tastes.

    In a system like ours with only 2 real parties, activists have to use a party to push their agenda. Only problem is the party only listens when they are running for office. Once they have their votes they could care less about the promises they made to the activists.

    With regards to Iraq, there has been no intermarriage. Policy wonks follow the president, telling us there's sunshine when there isn't.

    We liberated the Shia and Kurds in Iraq and removed the Sunnis from power. Based on the recent spate of carbombings, the t.v. channel that broadcasts Hussein and the Baath party's greatness, there is still a civil war to be fought. We're feeling the placebo of fewer American dead in Iraq less overall violence, but the cancer is still there.

    When we leave the killing will resume in earnest.

    •  Not at all (0+ / 0-)

      Policy wonks are loyal to party first so it's no surprise they will fall in line and praise the crap sandwich, telling us how good it tastes.

      That's an incredibly oversimplified and, frankly, insulting description of how "policy wonks" (among whom I would probably count myself) think. Party loyalty doesn't enter into the picture.

      Believe it or not, as a policy wonk, I want progressive change as much as anyone else. If I don't believe that the Democrats will get us there, then I won't support them. All that being a policy wonk suggests is that I have a certain philosophy on the most effective way to accomplish change. For me, its recognition that the rules and regulations surrounding the political process are frequently frustrating and byzantine, but being able to buckle down and work with that framework. It's acknowledging that not knocking every ball out of the park doesn't mean that the game is over.

      You're referring to much simpler division between right about something and being wrong about something. One can be a policy wonk and be wrong (the more intelligent members of Bush's cadre fall into this category), but one can just as easily be a policy wonk and be right. Some of the greatest heroes of the progressive movement were steeped in the rules and protocol of politics: FDR, LBJ, Ted Kennedy, etc.

      Suggesting that being a policy wonk means blindly "follow[ing] the president" is nonsense. It's no more than true than arguing that being an activist means automatically gainsaying anything that comes out of the president's mouth.

      "Intellectually, the Republican idea deserves the tolerance and respect one gives to the dead." - H.P. Lovecraft, 1936

      by seancdaug on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:12:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Real world pragmatists vs dorm room debaters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The character of a lot of the discussion lately has been that of a virtual world version of the real world.  

    Part of the problem is that everyone focuses on campaign times and not so much on building community networks between elections.  That is were the real experience is gained that would better inform these discussions.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:58:06 PM PST

  •  Opposed to the war, for health insurance change (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, rian90

    I'm not a blogger, but for what it is worth -- here is one person who was enough against the war to march against it, but is for getting the health (or, I should say) insurance reform passed now.

  •  Perhaps there is also a correlation between (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, agoner

    those who wear black socks and those who wear white ones and alignment with HCR.

    "This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected." - Barack Obama (3.18.08)

    by lapis on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 05:58:44 PM PST

  •  The DFHs were right in 2003 and right again now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, priceman

    I work full-time with the FDL team on health reform thanks to your donations.

    by slinkerwink on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:03:52 PM PST

    •  Maybe that's my problem (0+ / 0-)

      I opposed the war and never considered myself a DFH. To this day, I don't consider opposing the war a DFH exercise, I consider a realist exercise. It was a bad idea from a realist perspective.

      And frankly, Bush=Hitler signs at anti war rallies really made me angry. Not because I'm a firm believer in Godwin's law, but because it made the entire anti-war movement seem incapable of intelligent argument.

    •  I personally feel the DFHs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, priceman

      have been right all along.

      Teddycare for all...might have saved us.

      by reddbierd on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:26:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Go to hell (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Strawman argument and an appeal to emotion.  Well done.  Comparing these two situations is asinine and insulting.  Get over yourself.

    Bipartisan implies a two way street.

    by Tiparillo on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:06:23 PM PST

  •  It's not really about trust (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stuart Heady

    From a wonk-side perspective, it's not a matter of trusting Democratic politicians. I know I certainly don't.

    But the stuff that's in the bill, even without the public option, makes things better. So we're willing to accept this humiliating defeat of a bill that fails to accomplish the most important goals we set out for it(and it is, really, humiliating) because, point by point, it makes things better than not passing the bill.

    From where I sit, the most effective way for congressional Democrats to screw us and the party would be to kill the bill. We fought like hell to get this far (no recision, no preexisting conditions, billions in subsidies for working class Americans), don't throw away what we legitimately have got because we failed to get the stuff we wanted most.

  •  Bravo! (0+ / 0-)

    And for the same reason, the Dems are about the fuck themselves over entirley once again.

    Only this time, they'll be fucked worse than in 2002.

    In the U.S., owning a gun is a right but having a bullet removed from your abdomen is a privelege.

    by Walt starr on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:12:10 PM PST

  •  how dare you? (4+ / 0-)

    Jake, How dare you try to connect positions on health care reform with positions on Iraq. Is there not enough blood on the tracks for you over this?

    What a petty ass thing to say. You don't deserve the soap box that you have.

    (FWIW, I was against invading Iraq and I don't know what the fuck to think now about HCR. Crap columns like this one don't help.)

  •  This is the equivalent of a playground taunt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stuart Heady, Jampacked

    My side is right about everything and always was right. Your side is wrong about everything and always was wrong.

    I cry foul. I opposed the Iraq war. I was present when the student government made my university the first school in the country to oppose the war (before it fucking started too).

    •  Bravo (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stuart Heady, Jampacked

      That was my reaction too.

      Or no. My first reaction was, "Wait. What does the Iraq War have to do with health care reform?" Briefly I tried to make a connection.

      Then I realized: "Oh. No connection at all. Just 'I was right about Iraq so now I must be right about health care reform too.'"

      My next reaction was the one you describe: this is just a schoolyard taunt. I wonder if Jake is now going to drop his shorts and shake his hiney at those he disagrees with.

  •  One big difference (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, Adept2u, Jampacked

    With Iraq, it was Doing A Very Bad Thing, vs not.

    Here, it's Doing A Somewhat Good Thing, vs hoping for a Better Thing.

    WRT Iraq, that was a bad deal--the wonks were wrong.  And we made a mistake as a country, that we cannot repair.

    This time--the wonks may be right--and we can always get the public option later.  As Nate Silver point out, its the most popular part of the bill (among the electorate), and if Dems quite running around scared that the Rs might run a hard campaign, we can point out WHY we don't get the public option.

    That said, if Bernie can improve the bill by holding out (and perhaps getting Snowe on board--even though she's an R she seems to be a reasonable one--maybe offer her Lieberman's committee chair), I would be with that.

    But the whole "fuck everyone" attitude around here--fuck that.  :)

  •  All I can say is... (6+ / 0-)

    ...F*U*C*K Y*O*U for making such a comparison, Jake.  Warfare and Healthcare are miles apart and the motives for supporting the respective issues are too.  Shame on you for tarring advocates of getting something done on healthcare with the Naderite "war criminal/not pure enough" brush.  It only seems justified that you should have another 8 years of fascists because the Dems are not progressive enough for you.  Viva the revolution and all that...a@@@h_le.

    P.S. FDL/Kos/Dean's moral outrage will be the death of more Americans than the GOP.  After all, just a few tens of thousands more Americans have to die before we get perfect healthcare reform, right?

  •  what a bunch of self-serving psychobabble (5+ / 0-)

    Barack Obama opposed the war as did Barbara Lee and Tom Harkin.

    But hold onto that analogy and think about the success of the anti-war bloggers. Another victory like that and we will all be sitting pretty.

  •  I hope I didn't do anything bad. (0+ / 0-)

    I pressed the plus sign beside the title of this diary b/c I was looking for a way to forward it to my fellow Healthcare Committee members in our DFA group.  I think we are having the same split, although some of the pro senate bill people are wonks and some are folks who are genuinely distressed by the suffering of people in this country due to our profit based healthcare system. This is a good diary. I like it.

    "They had fangs. They were biting people. They had this look in their eyes,totally cold, animal. I think they were young Republicans."

    by slouching on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:20:51 PM PST

  •  BTW, I don't think any of us support Liebercare (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stuart Heady, Jampacked

    We support doing something over doing nothing. It's not like anyone who wants the bill to pass would choose it over a public option if realistically presented with the chance

  •  Not Great for KOS Credibility (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adept2u, Jampacked

    At least in the world of pragmatic realists.  

    The front page seems, up until now, to have stayed pretty well as a place to present well researched facts and commentary that is at least thought through and based on careful reasoning.

    This is a dorm room argument about a fantasy proposed to describe a real world, instead of one that seems based in it.

    To me, this does not help the credibility of the progressive movement, nor does it advance the credibility of the KOS website.

    Daily Kos has reached a level of impact that it has because it has tried to be a reality based approach to politics.

    Whatever happens, sticking to that ideal is likely to be what will help everyone.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:25:32 PM PST

  •  Oh and honestly, the anti-war movement could have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stuart Heady, Jampacked

    used a few more wonks and pragmatists. We might have been able to stop the damn thing. Rather than just engage in a gigantic primal scream that, though justified, accomplished absolutely fucking nothing.

  •  With us or against us. Right or wrong. Black or (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Luftmensch, Stuart Heady, Jampacked

    white.  People here hated Bush so much yet they seem to think the same way as him.  Divide everyone up, and those who are not with you have their character impugned, their mistakes paraded out for which they cannot respond, and are viciously attacked.

    It so happens the writers you denigrate are the ones I admire and learn the most from.  I guess "being right" is more important than being decent or merciful.

  •  This is an understandable but bad comparison..... (4+ / 0-)

    It's apples to oranges, not apples to apples, in comparing the two issues.

    I strongly and consistenly opposed the Iraq War and support this Senate bill, yes grudingly with reservations, and with the hope that somehow 60 Senators ultimately can be persuaded to accept a slightly more liberal conference bill down the road.  But those caveats are not decisive, I would vote for this bill if it were THE conference bill.

    I'm not a blogger, just a backbencher in the netroots, so I guess I don't count.

    But somehow I doubt I'm alone.

    The Iraq War was a right-wing initiative that a few on the "moderate left" were willing to go along with because they let themselves get swept up in the fear-induced fervor of the day.

    Today, the Senate health care bill is a liberal initiative--YES, a LIBERAL initiative--that Republicans and conservatives virtually unanimously oppose, that would set a precedent that THE GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING EVERYONE HAS ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE.  It's a meme that in a lot of senses would be untruthful, but the same was true of the original Social Security program and public education and unemployment compensation (my professional area) and so many other major liberal initiatives that involved socializing a segment of society.

    People who want to oppose this bill need to understand:  killing this Senate bill means YOU GET NOTHING, CERTAINLY NOT FOR DECADES, AND MAYBE NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME EVEN IF YOU'RE YOUNG.

    We take what we can get now, then go back for more later.  We take piecemeal what we can't get right away.  That's the smart way to play politics.

    This was always going to be hard, and lot of people here, Markos and other frontpagers included, need to step outside their echo chamber and see how the rest of the country thinks and feels, which is that they're scared shitless that whatever this Congress passes and Obama signs will be bad for them, no matter what's in it.  So that's going to factor into what our elected leaders do.  And in spite of all that, they're charging ahead to get this done.  I tip my hat to them and am feeling better tonight than I ever have about health care reform.

    In a time of war, is that really the time to be asking whether we should be at war?...When it is over we should ask whether we should leave. -- Stephen Colbert

    by DCCyclone on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:32:12 PM PST

  •  "Policy wonks are loyal to party first"? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stuart Heady, Jampacked

    WTF? Policy wonks are loyal to party first??!!

    If that's true, they need another name. Cuz "policy wonk" doesn't fit.

  •  What a remarkably ugly, dishonest bit of framing (5+ / 0-)

    Shame on you.

    1. folks aren't saying it's a "good bill", they are saying that, on balance, it is still worth voting for.
    1. this has absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq. I opposed that from the day Colin Powell ran his phony show and tell. I support voting for this bill. And both positions are consistent, with a progressive worldview. And I personally know many who share my view - as well as folks who were cheering for Iraq at first, and who have opposed this bill from the outset.
    1. You are promoting the notion that people should evaluate policy not on the basis of its merit, on a case by case critical analysis, but rather a shallow, ideologically simplistic binary calculus.

    This is the kind of smearing and attack on the messenger that the Right regularly engages in. It employs an emotionally appealing logical fallacy, is deliberately charged, and promotes further division rather than reconciliation.

    Truly, a moment of shame for this community, to see this garbage on the front page.

    I may disagree with Markos (more often than not), but I've never accused him of the kind of mendacity that you facilely spew here, Jake.

    Shame on you.

    Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -- Douglas Adams

    by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:36:16 PM PST

  •  I'm not sure I buy this analogy; it seems (5+ / 0-)

    simplistic.  It seems to be saying, "I was right and they were wrong on the Iraq issue, and I am right and they are wrong on this bill, so therefore, the two are analogous."  But they really aren't.  The Iraq invasion was was widely, very publicly and vocally opposed by the actual citizens on the left.  We marched in Washington, we freaked out in every possible way, we were apoplectic about it.  The invasion was clearly illegal and unjustified, and the president and his henchmen were lying, because they had ulterior motives of the worst kind.  Obama and his team, as well as those in the Senate, who think this bill is better than nothing, and who are hopeful that it will continue to be perfected once it is passed, are not craven opportunists or lying scum.  Sadly, they believe, as kos says, in the decency and honesty of the insurance giants.  That belief is probably misplaced.  The left is indeed split, with many, many people on the fence about what is the best course of action.   But the Iraq/HCR analogy doesn't really hold up.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

    by SottoVoce on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:38:54 PM PST

  •  ?????? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, Stuart Heady, Jampacked

    What an incredibly ignorant, juvenile observation. Really, it's a conversation stopper.

  •  Not a good argument - and I've been on the fence (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, Jampacked, TULIPS4DOLPHINS

    So far, the most persuasive arguments for not killing it (not the most passionate, but the non-killing-it arguments that made the most sense to me) have come from those who were against the war.  Paul Krugman is a good example, and I see he was mentioned right off the bat in the comments.

    The divide you're describing is between those who believe that once the bill is passed it will be essentially set in stone, and those who think it can be improved upon over the next few years.

    With Iraq resolution, the view that "once we give the OK, it's all over" was correct, because when we handed that power to Bush/Cheney, we couldn't do a damn thing about it afterward.

    But is that true with healthcare? I honestly don't know.  This is different than war, and different than a presidential election.  But I don't know how different.

    As weak as they're acting, Democrats will still be in power.  So is it too optimistic to think they can improve on it over the next few years, before the impact of the bill fully kicks in?  This is not a rhetorical question. It's a real question I'd like to see answered, one way or the other.

    What kind of power will the Democrats have to modify the bill after it's passed?

    •  The argument will be "the bill hasn't gone into (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      effect yet."

      Since many provisions of the bill don't take effect until 2013 or 2014, Democrats will not revisit health care for at least 4 years. After that, the argument will be "it hasn't had time to work yet."

      Bottom line: Nothing will likely be changed for a decade.

      "Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

      by WellstoneDem on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:54:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I've heard this one before (0+ / 0-)

        But that's a prediction, not evidence.  Not saying this won't happen -- just that we don't know it will.  And I'd like to think we'd have a say in whether or not Democrats will address this.  FOX was blaming Obama for economic problems the day after he took office.  I can see the possibility that some people will start attacking the bill the day after it's signed, from the left and the right.  In which case, it would be tough to just set it aside for four years.

        So let's say, for the sake of argument, that enough noise and political will existed among Democrats to pursue updates to the bill.  The question I'm asking is, what are the options to improve the bill after the fact, assuming it passes?  What barriers (particularly in the Senate) are there to making changes?

    •  i believe that if WE do our jobs right... (0+ / 0-)

      (See my post upthread) will get done right...don't lose heart just yet...I have some of these same questions,,,but also the solution..IMO

      "I'm asking you to believe not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington....I'm asking you to believe in yours."~Barack Obama~

      by TULIPS4DOLPHINS on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 08:13:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I see more and more of a divide based on the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    old scare em to hell message that we grew so tired of under bush. Unfortunately, it appears the WH is engaging in it now, even though they rode to victory partly by fighting that sort of message.

    Got to have it now no matter how bad. We will go bankrupt! It will do what we say it will do, just trust us, and don't mind the details.

    Where was this scary shit months ago?

    It's called the American Dream because to believe it, you have to be ASLEEP! -Carlin

    by gereiztkind on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:48:13 PM PST

  •  This left me speechless (7+ / 0-)

    Seriously?  Let's see.  I opposed the Iraq war like mad.  But I don't consider myself a DFH.  I also support this bill.  But I don't see myself as a wonk.  I resent being categorized.

    This assumption that people who support the bill are being overly credulous is really insulting.  I've spent a lot of time reading about this bill and its individual provisions and I support it on its merits.  I spent that time precisely because I don't trust anyone to think for me.  If I was so credulous, I'd skip all that and save myself a lot of goddamned time, and go have some fun blasting away at DFHs on some centrist site somewhere.  But I don't.  Neither do I question the motives of people with whom I disagree, or whose tactics I think are counterproductive, such as the FDL crowd.  I think their motives are, in fact, very good, and they want to get universal affordable coverage.  But you know what, so do I.  So does Barack Obama.  I'd guess almost all Democrats want that.  But some people think we can do it if we fight harder; some people think we have to take it incrementally; hell, some people think we need to buy off the insurers to do it.  Different means; same goals; good motives.  

    This questioning of motives is the most annoying thing on this site, but usually it's confined to the comments and a few inflammatory diaries on all sides.  To find it in a front page post, well, that's just downright disheartening.  This is probably the most insulting and infuriating front page post I've ever read on this site.  It is literally a primal scream of "SPLITTERS!" aimed at everyone who doesn't agree with Mr. McIntyre.  

  •  Just as those guys wound up twisting (0+ / 0-)

    themselves into pretzels for 3 years until they had to fall into line for their ridiculous stances, the same will happen here when Democrats get led to the slaughter.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    But I do think I am going to change my sig...

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

    by justmy2 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:56:29 PM PST

  •  The split.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So far I've seen disappointed Obama supporters and early Hilary supporters calling for anarchy.


  •  What a fucking load of shit. (0+ / 0-)

    On the other, there is (and was, in 2003) a resistance born of an awareness that Congressional Democrats will more often than not -- and often unintentionally -- screw themselves and the country, out of a misguided belief that powerful forces with agendas very different from that of the Democratic Party can be managed and trusted.

    The Democratic Party has been corporate for quite a long time.  Haven't you figured that out yet?

    To love America is to hate the GOP.

    by HawkRock33 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:00:42 PM PST

  •  Working class budget numbers & mandates (0+ / 0-)

    Consider the case of a person who earns $24,000 per year (a little more than $11 per hour).  That person grosses $2000 per month.  After tax witholding the take home pay will be about $1400 per month.  From that the person has to pay rent, which may be $900 for an apartment.  That leaves $500 for food, utilies, transportation and food.  That person might also have a student loan payment of $65 per month or even more.  Any social services determination system will say this person is way above the poverty level.  This person will be charged a full fee of $75 per visit at a community health clinic, cannot get food stamps or LIHEAP, etc.  Now how is that person supposed to pay premiums?  Suppose that person is older and then owes the higher premiums as Howard Dean describes.  Then when the person is sick how is he supposed to afford the copayments.  This is what is wrong with the bill and such people will be considered in violation of the law if they don't pay.  They will have no money for food and they are working full time.  And this is where a lot of people are right now.

  •  I call BS (6+ / 0-)

    I not only opposed the Iraq War vehemently from the start, I guessed very early on that there were no weapons of mass destruction there either. I knew it was a pack of lies from the moment Bush started making the case for it.

    As for this healthcare bill, I'd rather have single payer. But we gave up on that from the getgo and so we are left between a less-than-great compromise bill that at least begins the process of ensuring a lot more people and throwing the whole process out so we never get a chance at this again.

    Really, people. Think about the politics here. Unless you are Matthew Dowd, do you really think Democratic voters are more likely to come to the polls in the end without any health care bill than with this one? If so you are out of your mind.

    Lieberman is a piece of garbage. I'd love to see a robust public option passed under reconciliation AFTER this health care bill passes with 60 votes.

    But "starting over" is a recipe for giving up entirely and facing 1994 all over again.

  •  Pass HCR, retain your majorities. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Punt, and lose them.

    The poll numbers right now are irrelevant.  People are watching the sausage being made.  It's a disgusting sight.  But fail to pass this and you'll be punished for being "poll driven" and "ineffective."

    And the fucking Republitard devils are going to lie no matter what, so don't even take those evil demonfuckers into account.

    To love America is to hate the GOP.

    by HawkRock33 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:09:49 PM PST

  •  Bad analogy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Drew, mangusta, Stroszek, TULIPS4DOLPHINS

    I opposed the war but support this bill. There are probably more Dems who share my views than those who don't.  

    I think Nate Silver has identified all the reasons why this bill is worth supporting.  When solid liberals on this issue like Brown and Rockefeller are supporting the bill and Dean is yet to persuade even 1 Senate Dem that his position is the right course, then you know that there is a reason why people don't want to throw this package away.

    I think the issue for liberals is sort of the same thing that Bill Clinton ran into many times when he was President.  Clinton achieved more progressive objectives than he was given credit for, and many progressives, who later became Nader supporters, were disillusioned even though Clinton kept more of his promises than any President in recent history and did a lot of good.

    The reason:  Clinton failed to deliver on health care and the GOP's negative campaign had a corrosive effect that blinded folks to the larger picture of what he was accomplishing.

    In addition, differences that Clinton had with the liberal base were outweighed in importance to similarities and there was not enough understanding paid to the difficult political climate of having to work with rabid dog idelogical nut job republicans and even more annoying blue dogs than the characters we have today.  

    Obama has faced similar complaints on a host of issues, but he has a chance to succeed by getting this bill passed and it will reshape the country for the better.  Like Rockefeller said today, health care is something we're going to deal with every year from now on as opposed to every 10 years.  As progressives, we should find that encouraging.

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:16:07 PM PST

  •  I'm sorry to disagree... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sybil Liberty, TULIPS4DOLPHINS

    I was completely against the War of Choice in Iraq, ... damned pissed about it, in fact.  Tears and angry as hell. It was my worst fear (among many) of what GWB would do coming to fruition!

    I am, however, for passing the HCR Bill so that future improvement can happen.

    None of us can be painted so broadly.  I know I can't be.

    •  thank you o voice of reason! (0+ / 0-)

      i posted upthread and we are definitly on the same sheet of music. I hope cooler heads among us prevail.

      "I'm asking you to believe not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington....I'm asking you to believe in yours."~Barack Obama~

      by TULIPS4DOLPHINS on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 08:04:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If we have to choose... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    how about we go with the folks who were right about Iraq since they obviously have better judgement than those who supported the war (and who have inexplicably allowed the Beltway to get wrapped too tightly around their heads.)  

  •  I noticed the same thing. (0+ / 0-)

    Certain people are more serious than others

  •  As before, the DFH's were right (0+ / 0-)

    And I firmly believe we were right in complaining loudly when single-payer was ruled out of bounds right from the start.

    We were right when we said the Republican's cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith.

    We were right when we said do NOT let this go past the August recess.

    We were right when we said Baucus was wasting his (and our) time.

    We were right when we protested the corporate parasites were destroying our country and our economy and our very lives.

    We were right when we shouted "People are DYING, you sociopathic fuckers!"

    We were right.

    "Don't ride in anything with a Capissen 38 engine. They fall right out of the sky." -- Kaywinnit Lee Frye

    by Technowitch on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:34:33 PM PST

  •  Not wonk/activist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There's nothing wonky about Josh Marshall at all.  He's a journalist.  Just one with an unwillingness to see the worst in people or to draw obvious conclusions.  Big Media Matt isn't wonky, either.  I'll give you Ezra, and perhaps Kevin Drum (the far right's favorite "liberal").

    On the other side, Atrios is a professionally trained economist and falls squarely in the anti-Iraq invasion and anti-Liebercare camps.

    The distinction is not between "wonks" and "activists," though the persons defending administration policy no doubt like to think of it that way.  It's between people who habitually gravitate toward the Democratic establishment and those who do not trust it at all after being burned repeatedly.

  •  Post an apology to Marshall, Drum, and ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ... probably, Yglesias.

    You owe the first two a public apology, and Matt Y probably one.  You got your facts wrong, and were too lazy to check them, in your desire to make a telling point about the thinking behind those who would support an obviously flawed health reform bill.  And you engaged in misleading inuendo and guilt by association.

    Josh Marshall NEVER supported the Iraq invasion.  He was a leading critic all along.  His piece--and please google it--"Practice to Deceive"--was the single most prescient analysis of the Bush Administration's foreign policy thinking done by anyone, ex ante or ex post.  Send him a personal, hand-written, letter of apology.

    Kevin Drum was a reluctant supporter of the Iraq invasion until about two weeks or ten days before it occurred.  He then said, in essence, "No WMDs--we've been had!"  There are plenty of post on his website about thsi fact.  Send him a personal, hand-written letter of apology, too.

    Matt Y, I'm less certain about.  Maybe he was a reluctant Iraq invasion supporter.  (He would have been about 24 at the time, at the beginning of the second year of his blog.)

    Egregious, lazy name calling and guilt by association.

    •  For what it's worth, (0+ / 0-)

      Marshall went through a period of being unsure about the threat Saddam posed, and earlier wrote a defense of the military engagement, "The Reluctant Hawk".  If anything he was ambivalent, and found good reasons both to support regime change by force and to battle against the Bush administration doing it.  But I agree with you that McIntyre is trying to squeeze this into a false dichotomy, and draw some specious conclusions from it.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:57:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would heartily agree IF.... (0+ / 0-)

    the comparison was taken out. I have been a progressive all my life (I'm now 56) and I was totally against invading Iraq, a soveriegn nation.
    However, with all the chatter on the blogs/tv/talk cable shows/yada yada yada....I have no real concrete where truth lives. If we pass this piece of seeming garbage...would it be easier to build on down the road? There seems to be no way at this point to get the votes on a great plan/universal OR a robust PO...we  don't have 60 progressives. That is just fact; accept it & move on. So can we amend this later, or do we need to work our butts off primarying the blue dogs in hopes we get a much larger majority (as the republicans had when they pushed the tax cuts for the wealthy) and then get what we want?
    my take is that we, the progressives, may just once again let the ball drop. We get discouraged too easily and so we sit home in a snit fit, instead of working hard consistently in getting a clear progressive majority.

    one thing the rpublicans do they fight and claw their way back into a large enough majority, time and time again to fu** this nation up.
    Do we have the integrity & the true grit to see this throughout the next 8 years? (that's what I voted for!) If we can do that...give congress and ourselves the true majority/power to easily do our good deeds...we would be around for a very long time.
    Think about it out in your mind. I intend to support progressives and get new ones in for 2010. I am showing up to vote. I am going to continue working hard. please join me. thanks.

    "I'm asking you to believe not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington....I'm asking you to believe in yours."~Barack Obama~

    by TULIPS4DOLPHINS on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 07:59:39 PM PST

  •  This is one of the most offensive comparisons (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That I've ever read.

    Comparing support for a war that's killed thousands of Americans and orders of magnitude more Iraqis with . . . a health care bill that will, at worst, cost more and save fewer lives than the ideal?

    Welcome to Tea Party territory, Daily Kos.  I expect comparisons to Hitler to follow.

  •  Democrats Split on HC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman

    Jane Hamsher from Firedoglake has also objected to this bill and rightly so. It is incomprehensible how anyone calling themselves a Democrat, moderate or otherwise could possibly giveaway the American Healthcare bill to the Insurance Cartel and enriching them beyond their wildest dreams.

    Obama has not led on this from the get go, and his secret deal with Tauzin of Big Pgharma in July was just the start of the cadre of corporate whores whose advice he has followed. His capitulation to the Big Pharma lobby before letting the public hear a debate was indefensible. Remember Obama promised us that it would all be on CSpan?

    Among other promises that have been broken the most serious is that there has been a leadership vacum from the White House.  Imagine it took a Democrat to insert the Stupak bill and the Democrats to allow the Catholic Bishops to use women's reproductive rights as a wedge issue in the House HC bill.

    Women's equal protection rights were already sabotaged by the existence of the Hyde bill which doesn't allow federally funded abortions. Stupak went one further by more draconian measures.

    Obama said and did nothing and Pelosi was left to run the House without a strong and effective leader who promised change.

    After this insult to all women and all women Democrats we began to see the erosion of this healthcare bill. Baucus a small State Senator ran the show, as Reid and Obama allowed the Republicans to control and frame the debate.  So much for memes.

    And the fiasco has morphed into a full scale Democratic political drama of splintered and fragmented politics and obvious political pandering and corruption.

    So now Obama expects us to swallow this giveaway to enrich private insurance with no recourse for the suffering public?

    Obama has just  about lost a big part of his base
    with Stupak, and the PO, and his withdrawal from engagement for us.

  •  What a clever way to discredit opponents! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    I support the health care bill, and I marched against the Iraq War.  So I guess I don't fit.
  •   "tired of sacrifice for people who hose me" (0+ / 0-)

    Thank you! I don't think the wonks get out there and knock on doors, work phone banks and give up lots of nights and weekends.

    They seem to miss the whole, "tired of making personal sacrifice for people who keep hosing me" argument.

    I'm an American Liberal. Blogging in between family, work and activism time.

    by AlphaLiberal on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:07:58 PM PST

  •  The Real Difference.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...between those of who think the Democratic Party should represent the interests of people and those who under the guise of realpolitik continue to live the Sisyphean illusion that corporations are people too.  There can be no middle way on this.  The public option was the compromise.  Without it, this is another subsidy for private insurance companies, just like the Medicare Advantage program.  It's a sick joke, one in which industry can continue to charge the prices they want, and all on the taxpayer dole, while the Max Baucus's of the world (who gives a $14,000 pay raise to his mistress at our expense) pretends to lecture us about the need for fiscal prudence as his primary rationale for opposing the public option.  

    I don't know of any other way to say this other than F*CK them.  I'm sick and tired of these people.  I was sick of them back in the '90s when they gave us NAFTA, GATT, and the Welfare Reform Act, and I'm sick of them telling me to roll over for a bill that is a reward to the insurance lobby.  The upper 1% income tax bracket already have their party.  Why aren't we allowed to have ours?

  •  perfection vs progress (0+ / 0-)

    a bill without the public option=the iraq war?

    I understand the point, I worked for Ned Lamont as a staffer from June through the election but I talk about no nuance!

    The health care bill is not ideal, i completely agree. but i dont think people are pushing it for political reasons (while i felt that people were pushing the iraq war saying "dont make us look soft on defense ie politics)

    The current bill has a TON of things that we all agree need to be done and would improve access and care. 1) huge expansions of medicaid 2) subsidies to buy insurance for up to 300% poverty level 3) focus on primary care 4) national exchange with STANDARDS of care (no shell coverage...anywhere) 5) no lifetime limits on care 6) no discrimination based on pre existing conditions 7) no discrimination based on sex

    my signature says "you see things as they are and ask why i dream of things that never were and ask why not"

    Everyone here is asking why not? which is great, but that doesnt mean that we need to get everything as once

    There is a tendency in the blogosphere ESPECIALLY on dkos to say "if it's not perfect, it's not progress"
    I strongly reject this.

    Would it be best to have universal coverage? YES does that mean that this is a BAD bill? NO
    it could be better, it could have more, and if liberal leaders and the president had fought harder and differently could it have happened YES but that doesn't make it BAD it makes it NOT IDEAL

    NOT IDEAL does not mean BAD it actually means PROGRESS

    And that;s what I'm looking for
    That's what I'm Hoping for

    That's what i am.

    You see things that are and ask, "Why?" I dream things that never were and ask, "Why not?"

    by New Frontier on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 10:47:21 PM PST

    •  How many half-loaves are you going to yield? (0+ / 0-)

      There is a tendency in the blogosphere ESPECIALLY on dkos to say "if it's not perfect, it's not progress"
      I strongly reject this.

      Strawman argument. Nobody expected a full national health service, or single payer. And nobody kicked up that much dust when Medicaid reimbursement rates slipped away, then Medicaid + 5. Then the public option shrank to just be available on the exchanges. Then it got removed entirely, so that only those over 55 would be able to opt into a public program. Then even that weak fig leaf got ripped off.

      And all of this didn't even get traded away for a bill! It got traded away for the abstract preference of a bill that would pass with 60 votes instead of 51 votes. Giving up all of those things is not worth whatever useless political cover is generated by having Olympia Snowe vote for the bill.

      Ideal sailed a long time ago. Painting advocates of reconciliation as some kind of irresponsible radicals just because they want to use the tool that got baked into the process back in April to make sure a good bill passed by the end of the year is really unfair. This is the bill that we compromised on everything else to get, and a good bill can be had with reconciliation and 52 to 55 votes. Let's go out and get it.

  •  Wow! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I guess I am an activist after all, just by agreeing with the activist wing instead of actually taking part in any activism. This is, frankly, awesome.

  •  Yglesias has no moral compass (0+ / 0-)

    I don't know about Drum, Klein, or Marshall, but in the case of Matt Yglesias, one thing has been clear since he started blogging: this is a guy with absolutely no sense of right and wrong. I used to blame it on him being too young. Maybe that is still an excuse, but you have to recognize that this is a fellow with interesting ideas and no moral compass. Read him out of curiosity but do not expect to be informed by it.

  •  hahahahaha.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, jim bow, Stroszek, Theston

    It's the policy wonks versus the activists.

    That's hilarious! But you see, in order for one side to be classified as "activists" they would actually have to be activists. Screaming on a blog does not equal activism.

    And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

    by Elise on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 07:10:33 AM PST

    •  thank you! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, jim bow, Elise, Theston

      The anti-poverty activists I'm working for right now support the bill.

      I vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq. I support HCR.

      This patently false and illogical diary is an embarrassment. But go ahead and argue that you, me, Ron Paul and Saddam Hussein must somehow be simultaneously right about everything.

  •  This is just wrong. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Stroszek

    So, I basically stopped commenting here a couple years ago, partly b/c I was spending too much time here and partly b/c I was just really frustrated after the whole Armando "root out suspected trolls!" era.  But I still read it often and I find the site incredibly useful and I'm constantly impressed by the sophisticated analysis that's present, esp. in the diaries.

    But I had to respond to this.

    I'm a liberal and I opposed the Iraq War.  In fact I sought out Daily Kos because I was so angry about how easily the Democratic Party let itself trip over into war.  If you check out my record on this site you'll see it goes all the way back to the redesign in 2003.  

    But I think we'd be crazy to kill this bill.  It gets us universality.  It forces employers to stop free riding.  It let's anyone who wants to buy insurance get access.  While I don't particularly LIKE the mandate, I do like the pre-existing condition coverage it allows.  It has a government role right up front in picking the plans for the exchanges.  More importantly, unlike in 2002, Democrats worked their asses off for this bill.  Sherrod Brown, Sanders, even Reid (for all his flaws), actually took point and have tried to press this through in the face of a massive, unprecedented conservative freakout.  This is such a huge departure from 2002, where Dick Gephardt (remember him?) was lecturing rank and file Dems that we had to do everything the Republicans said if we ever wanted to win an election again.

    Further (and I hate to be inflammatory like this) but when I see people on this site drawing "us v. them" lines in the sand, or flatly stating HIGHLY debatable assertions like "there are no regulations left in the bill" -- well all of that reminds me of how people were behaving in 2002 also.  But they weren't liberals.

    Read James Loewen's "Sundown Towns"!

    by ChicagoDem on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 07:30:28 AM PST

  •  Forget about it Jake ... it's more (0+ / 0-)

    like Chinatown

    Your description is telling ...

    It's been long enough since the invasion of Iraq that the two camps - the credulous wonks and dirty fucking hippies - have reconciled (and even interbred), but the dynamic that separated us in 2003 is the same.

    ... and simplifies the complexity beyond recognition.  Besides, that dirty hippy reference smells like self loathing or suppressed anger or both.

    These are complex issues that have plenty of cross supporters and opponents.  Boiling things down to their apparent essence can have the effect of disguising the truth.  Your analysis has done just that.  

    No quarter. No surrender.

    by hegemony57 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 07:32:00 AM PST

  •  wow, this is the most assholish FP post i've seen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stroszek ages.

    hey ass, i was against the iraq war and support the current senate bill. thanks for your "concern."

  •  Greenwald has a word on this (0+ / 0-)

    Right now, the DSCC and the Senate Dems can go fuck themselves... - That Rude Markos Dude

    by willibro on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:05:09 AM PST

  •  Where does Obama fit in your model? (0+ / 0-)

    He was right on Iraq but he apparently now disagrees with you on health care.

    How does your model account for that?

    FDR: "Yes, I'm for it. Now make me do it."

    by arubyan on Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 01:55:57 PM PST

  •  Well, I think it's a really penetrating insight . (0+ / 0-)
    It's a generalization about two types of netroots participants, and a theoretical proposition about the differences that cause them to approach things a little differently.  And very fairly written- there's no fault-finding or fingerpointing, just an observation.  It rings true to me, and is the best explanation I've seen for this recent schism in the netroots left.

    And for you literalists, I opposed the war but I'm for HCR, too (though the concerns I'm hearing from the activist side are troubling). That doesn't make this theory any less true as a generalization.  Jake isn't close to proposing an ironclad, absolute distinction.  He's just making a general observation about different types in the netroots left and how it might account for their recent division on HCR.  I think it's a useful distinction.

  •  IMO, the split (0+ / 0-)

    is between people who care most about what public policy gets made and those who only care about who makes it, i.e. that "our" team wins.

    If we were getting good public policy out of the Beltway, there would be no split.

    As it stands now, the split will worsen here until either the public policy types (aka Progressives) or "smells like team spirit" (aka [censored - starts with the letter 'O']) are purged from this site or the level of acrimony grows to the point where people will bail out en masse.

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 03:35:42 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site