Health Care Reform Frauds and Fantasies

At Least 278 Former Congressional Aides Lobbied On Health Care...

Over $600 Million Spent...    

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). "No public option, no extending Medicare to 55, no nothing, an excise tax, God!" he exclaimed about the Senate health care bill to Roll Call. "The insurance lobby is taking over.

Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), told Politico of Senate delays, "It's ridiculous, and the Obama administration is sitting on the sidelines. That's nonsense."

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) argued that it was really Obama who intentionally let centrists take control. "Snowe? Stupak? Lieberman? Who left these people in charge?""It's time for the president to get his hands dirty. Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don't think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth," said Feingold. "I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

Democratic Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar -"The White House has been useless."

Health Industry Stocks Hit 52-YEAR High On Friday.

According to Dylan Rattigan, health insurance company stock prices rose an average of $10 pershare. Yet President Obama and his people expect us to believe this bill is for the benefit of the American people.

David Axelrod keeps saying 'we took on the insurance companies, this is real reform, they're against it.'

Right...but we'd expect you to say that wouldn't we?

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group." -- FDR



Arianna: Lobbyists Should Be Time's Persons Of The Year ffington/sunday-roundup_b_398108.html

Time should, without a doubt, have picked Washington lobbyists -- because no person or group was more influential in 2009. After an inspiring presidential campaign that promised to take on the special interests, the lobbyists flexed their muscles (and their wallets) and showed who really runs the show in DC. Lobbyists carried the day on health insurance reform, banking reform, financial reform, drug pricing, cramdown legislation, and credit card interest rates, to name just a few. And every time they won, the American people lost. It's Time for a reshoot. The Lobbyists: The Real Persons of the Year.


You wanna blame Leiberman.

You wanna blame Nelson.

But this foul deal was always Obamas ideal.

Ben Smith's column in Politico on December 07, 2009.  A second day that should live in infamy...

Insurance industry insider: 'We win'

With the Senate shifting sharply away from a "pure public option," an insurance industry insider who has been deeply involved in the health care fight emails to declare victory.

"We WIN," the insider writes. "Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding.

Glen Greenwald has shown you that it was Obama who maneuvered to get rid of the PO.

Senator Feingold even said this publicly. orm/index.html

From Salon: contrary to Obama's occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it.  From the start, assuaging the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries was a central preoccupation of the White House -- hence the deal negotiated in strict secrecy with Pharma to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation, a blatant violation of both Obama's campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN).  Indeed, Democrats led the way yesterday in killing drug re-importation, which they endlessly claimed to support back when they couldn't pass it.

Obama lobbied hard to kill Senator Dorgans bill - something that would have saved consumers an estimated $100,000,000,000 - as a payback to big pharm he muscled Senators to vote no.

Lets not forget Obama's give away to Big Pharm is part of a secret trade off with the Drug lobby for them to spend $150 million  on pro Obama advertising.

By killing Sen. Dorgan's bill - the White House started to work and earn those big bucks.

The White House deal with PhRMA for their backing of the overall plan, and defeating the amendments was something Obama was far more strenuously behind than, say, the Medicare buy-in or the public option, which he was nonchalant about tossing overboard.

This was a major aspect of reform and could have provided real competition and potentially saved struggling Americans many billions. Its absolutely inexplicable why any honest politician could conceivably vote against this.

Wonder how and why this additional sell out of the American consumer took place?



Pharmaceuticals: Top Recipients  

   Top 3 Presidential Candidates
    Rank Candidate Amount
    1 Obama, Barack (D) $2,135,376
    2 Clinton, Hillary (D) $689,099
    3 McCain, John (R) $671,722

More from Greenwald:

As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage.  Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this -- the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional "centrists." Right.  The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives.  The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start -- the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.   And kudos to Russ Feingold for saying so:


In a payback to big Pharm, this week Obama worked to kill Senator Dorgans bill to import lower cost drugs into the US - something that would have saved consumers an estimated $100,000,000,000 - but he muscled Senators to vote no - and this was barely mentioned on the blogs or in the MSM.    

Please recall that Obamag got $2,5 million for his campaign just from Big Pharm.  That was more than 6 times as much as they gave to McCain or Hillary.

Today on 'Meet the Press', Howard Dean, said  that he was "disappointed" by the lack of fight from the White House -- specifically, the administration's abandonment of a public option.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"Well, obviously, we've been very disappointed by by that," he said. "We -- we don't think that there has been much fight in the White House for that. Another big piece that needs to be fixed is we -- I don't think we ought to be able to charge-- older people three times as much as you charge younger people. The House has twice as much, that's still too much. So, there's a lot of things that need to be fixed. But if they are fixed, you a -- may actually get the foundation of a bill coming out of the House. If most of the House provisions survive, then we could have a bill that we could work with. But this elimination of the public option is a real sticking point, because that, in fact, is how you really save money and bend the curve in -- expenses."

"...This is a serious business. We have seen, essentially, a destructive political process in Washington, where the insurance company lobby essentially wrote a good piece of this bill.

This can't be the final version of this bill. It simply sets us on a track in this country which is expensive and where we're going to have lots more political fights -- where a few senators who are beholden to the insurance industry can hold up the kind of real progress that we could have made, had we passed what the president suggested when he was running for president."

And recall those hated lobbyists that in the primaries, obama said would never be allowed anywhere near his administration? Well,it seems that they have written much of this health care 'reform' bill themselves.


How health lobbyists influenced reform bill

By Andrew Zajac

At least 278 former Congressional aides and 13 former lawmakers are registered to represent at least 338 health care clients .

Their health care clients spent $635 million on lobbying over the past two years, the study shows.

In the health care showdown, insider lobbying influence has magnified the clout of corporate interests and helped steer the debate away from a public insurance option, despite many polls indicating majority support from Americans....

But Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog group, had a harsher assessment, blaming "a toxic cocktail of insiders and money" for short-circuiting a government-run plan that would have competed with private insurers.

"We'll get a bill. And the president will sign it. But it'll be less than the country deserves," said Edgar, a former six-term member of the House.

But lobbyist and former Kennedy staffer Andrew Rosenberg said political conditions, not big money or the predispositions of lobbyists sidelined a public option.


But we'd expect him to say that wouldn't we?

Isnt that what he's paid for?

From Ogilvy website:

Who We Are

Andrew M. Rosenberg

Senior Vice President, Ogilvy Government Relations

Andy Rosenberg brings over 15 years of experience as a lobbyist, Capitol Hill staffer and former congressional candidate to Ogilvy Government Relations, which he joined in early 2006. Mr. Rosenberg has counseled a wide range of corporations, trade associations and non-profits on strategic matters involving public policy and election law.

In March 2002, Influence Magazine named Mr. Rosenberg to its list of Washington's top "up and coming" lobbyists.

Mr. Rosenberg was a co-founder and Senior Advisor to Draft Obama, the leading national pro-Obama grassroots organization prior to the Senator's announcement of candidacy.

Color me unshocked.

Tags: Fraud, hcr, obama (all tags)



Do me a favor

please learn how to use the page breaks so your whole diary isn't published at once. It's really bad form and shows that you do not know what you are doing.

by jsfox 2009-12-20 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Think theres any chance

I really don't care.  Just fix your diary

by jsfox 2009-12-20 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Think theres any chance

If you don't care, why are you here debating form?

by bruh3 2009-12-20 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: seems we're 0 for 4

im a political guy - not a computer guy
You don't seem to be very good at doing either. Maybe it's time to find a new passtime?
by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-20 01:16PM | 0 recs
I want to thank you for deleting the other diary

First we have to get you to abide by Fair Use. Then you have to be able to communicate in a clear and cogent manner. Finally, no one is going to waste their time with a troll.

Deleting that earlier diary today was a good step in that direction.

When (and if) you join this community, then you can be a part of the discussion.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-20 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: get a job

Jerome tells someone to 'Get a Life'
You tell someone else to 'Get a Job'.

But as you say "Jerome Totally Rocks!"

Fanboys all round.

Can I be your fanboi Mr Baitheaven. Really. I'm loving all your comments and diaries. They're so needy, attention-seeking, lost. Maybe I can adopt you. A distance of course. Care packages, the odd allowance to get you through high school (paragraphing and capital letters are so hard).

But I love you, man. I think I'm your greatest fan...

I use that line with a conscious reference to what Mark Chapman said to John Lennon.

Adieu. And keep up the wonderful comic work.

by brit 2009-12-20 01:17PM | 0 recs
No please don't stop

Particularly loved 'densor dissentors'. You can't make this stuff up.

I read the original diary. Reposting it with an abusive 'calling' out intro only calls down the venom you, quite frankly, seem to crave.

by brit 2009-12-20 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: 0 for 11...

My job isn't to defend Obama. If you'd paid attention you'd notice I think the Copenhagen agreement is weak, and I think the Healthcare Bill doesn't go far enough to address the structural and social inequalities in your country. A lot of that clearly has to do with the power of the Senate, the US constitution, the power of lobbyists and corporate money, and the right wing suspicion of any federal or government plans.

I'm disappointed for you guys (and treasure my single payer socialised NHS) but the limitations of healthcare reform cannot all be laid at the door of the President. It's not worship. That's quite simply a fact. The same could be said for getting over a hundred countries, in various stages of development, to act in concert over carbon emissions. Obama is neither a saviour, nor is he President of the World.

You complain others post here mucho. Did you notice that you comment on your own diaries more than others, and a brief study of your comment history in the last 48 hours would suggest that others should actually stay in more often, just to counter you.

But as for the touching idea of engaging in further debate with you on important issues, I think not my friend. My Polish girlfriend told me one of their colourful, and in this context very useful, aphorisms:

Never touch a turd: it just smells worse.
by brit 2009-12-20 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: try these on oh hypocritical one

See, the thing is that I think the majority of these critiques on point.  Not sure what you want here.  I cannot disavow Obama as my messiah, because like most of us you label "fanboys," I never saw him as such.  Not only is this like demanding of an observant Jew that they disavow the divinity of Christ, in my case it's exactly like that as I have been an observant Jew most of my life and have never accepted Christ.  On the other hand, there is much in the history of Christian thought to admire.  Much of my dissertation has to do with early modern applications of Christ's prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction in Luke 19 to London.  Does that make me one of JC's fanboys?  

You want a show of regret that I should have backed Hillary?  I'd back Hillary in many situations.  I would have supported her campaign enthusiastically had she won the nomination.  But I think your arguments that she would have been better are at best conjectural.  I think it likely that she would have been better in some ways and not as good in others.  That position describes the majority of your readers here.  But beyond that, it's totally irrelevant at this point.  I'm not going to apologize that Obama has been a bit more imperfect than I expected and I'm not going to concede a hypothetical and irrelevant point that HRC would have been better on all counts.  So the reason people read your diaries as PUMA troll posts is that it's not clear to me and to many others what you actually are trying to accomplish.  The health care bill is crap.  You claim it's not going to pass anyway, so why are we debating it?  I would support the passage of bad legislation that creates more opportunity for improvement down the road than killing it does.  And that's a hard judgment to make.  But again, in your eyes the question is moot.

So what do you want besides to taunt and yell at people?  You want to primary Obama?  A bit premature to say the least.  You want to primary him with Harkin?  Count me out.  Harkin's a fine fine man.  He might even make a fine president.  But primarying Obama with Harkin in 2012 seems likely to ensure a Republican administration.  That seems, to me, like the politics of catastrophe.  I have 2 and will soon have 3 children.  I don't have the leisure of quixotic purity.  

So what do you want?  You want to pay be back for mistreating Clinton supporters during the primaries?  I never did.  I will not accept that lie.  

You want me to defend a bill that is extremely flawed, while good progressives from Krugman to Harkin to Wyden still support its passage?  I won't, and I will take their perspectives into account along with Anthony Weiner's.  You want me to defend Obama on this issue when I have concurred from the beginning that I think he bears real responsibility for this situation?  Why would I do that?  You want me to join your crusade to demonize him and pick fights with others who remain more enthusiastic about him?  What would that accomplish?

Obama has always required a strong left flank.  This was true of every democratic president this century.  I don't see how these diaries and comments serve that goal.

by Strummerson 2009-12-20 03:20PM | 0 recs
Well said n/t

by jsfox 2009-12-20 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: wouldnt know

It's true.

I'm very scary.

by Strummerson 2009-12-20 07:13PM | 0 recs
Shorter ludwigvan:


Strummerson, I wish I could triple mojo your above dissection of our erstwhile composer's nonsense. Very well said.

by Kysen 2009-12-20 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: still anoter fanboy -

You can only maintain these charges by ignoring or willfully misreading comments.  And you still refuse to answer the simple question: what are you trying to accomplish beyond spewing bile?

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 03:52AM | 0 recs
FYI, Jerome's response wasn't towards me

I did see it, though.

No, our resident troll peered into my diaries, and learned that I had written about losing my job.

I envision him like his idol Rush Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox for his Parkinsons Disease.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-20 03:48PM | 0 recs
I didn't write the letter

But I do enjoy goading you into making yourself look bad.

Don't cry now that everyone's against you. You came here to pick a fight. Your words on that are clear. And now you can't take the heat?

We really do need better trolls.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-20 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: why dont you simply

No one has a right to ask you to stay off this blog and you have no right to demand than anyone stay away from your diaries.  That's simply how it works.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 03:53AM | 0 recs

I'm reccing this diary I love it so much.

Love you too, man.

Don't let anyone ever silence you.

by brit 2009-12-20 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Health Care Fantasies

So, I've gone through and uprated some of your comments that I think have been downrated for no good reason.  I've also hiderated some comments against you that, frankly, violate the site rules by being personal attacks that don't contribute to discussion.  Not that I'm some arbiter, but in the interest of fairness, I think you deserve a little more credit.

I'm glad you're publishing some "I told you so" diaries, because I think they (could potentially) foster some important debate here.  Obama certainly has, in my opinion, failed to live up to some expectations.  But, frankly, I think people had some unrealistic expectations about what he would be like.  I was on the fence between Obama and Clinton, in part because I thought they were both pretty moderate (not liberal enough for me).

With that said, your tone is probably not the best for fostering legitimate debate about where progressives ought to place their (future) allegiances.  You can only speculate about what a Hillary presidency would look like, and it isn't very productive to speculate about a nonexistent counterfactual that will not and cannot now come about.  It would be better, I think, to limit your attacks just to where/how Obama has failed to live up to progressive expectations.

by slynch 2009-12-20 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: true

"but my "tone" is what it is because every single diary ive written has gotten infested by these insulting and most personal attacks from the same few fanboys who live at this site 24/7."

Bullshit.  Your diaries have been antagonistic and uncivil from the beginning.  You want civil responses to "I told your so"?  

Stop with the victim game.  

by Strummerson 2009-12-20 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: true

You got to be kidding with the victimization routine? You do that everytime someone l ooks in your direction in the wrong way.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: thats their sctick

I don't necessarily agree with your tone here (I think you start off  your diary on the wrong foot even with people who are on the fence like me and even where I agree with you here in many ways about the factual elements of your diary- those parts are not in dispute) but I agree that they are hypocrites and talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Stummerson is expert at the came of throwing out ad honinems while whining that others are doing the same. My advice is to ignore them. They will simply crap on your diary no matter how or what you say.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: sorry and i agree

How sweet.  You've found a friend.

I'll say it once more here.  You're a liar.  Sorry the truth hurts you.  But its an issue of definition now.  You asserted as fact a thing you know untrue.  I called you on it, and now you're the victim.  You claimed that I attacked Clinton supporters venomously during the primaries. It's patently false.  Hence, you lie.  Furthermore, you qualify as a liar.

But again, enjoy one another's company.

by Strummerson 2009-12-20 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: sorry and i agree

Like I said my advice is to ignore them. I have never seen an interaction end well with them. They are here to derail. That's the advice i was given in an exchange by a front pager who had to contend with the behavior. If and until Jerome decides to ban them or sets up rules to address their behavior,they will continue to act like jerkwads. My guess is that some of them are paid shills, but that's just a guess.

by bruh3 2009-12-20 08:41PM | 0 recs

my comment above was a general one.  This diary I think is fine, because it isn't full of "I told you so" and "Clinton would be better" language.  So, I recommended it.  I think it's very important for people to be slapped in the face a little with the reality that Obama is a centrist and not a progressive.

by slynch 2009-12-20 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: btw...

Where were you during the campaign? From the far left everything looks like the center. But from the far Right everything looks Socialist, and incongruously, everything simultaneously looks 'fascist' from there. Here, 60 Senators are traitors, the President is the King of the oligarchs, the obamabots can be distinguished by their non-firey hair.

I live Christmastime!

by QTG 2009-12-20 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: try responding to this!

I'd have to read it. You aren't on my reading list. Sorry.

by QTG 2009-12-20 02:48PM | 0 recs
Sounds like somebody's feelings got hurt

Every time you go up against Obama, you're going to lose. The left had their Dean Scream, and then they got big footed by the Big Dog. Sorry, but the CW is shifting on this. Al Franken is the latest to speak out against all this poutrage.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-20 05:02PM | 0 recs
Speaking of Poutrage

Al Giordano has also come out against "Kill the Bill" progressives and gave a fairly decent smack down to both Dean and Taibbi.

by jsfox 2009-12-20 06:14PM | 0 recs
Oh my goodness!

Dean and Taibbi mentioned in the same sentence?!? For shame!

One is a very respectable and well meaning progressive leader who, once again, metaphorically stepped in it on the national stage, and proved again why his Presidential ambitions went nowhere by not having a realistic alternative and not fully understanding the reconciliation process.

The other is a two-bit illegitimate gonzo journalist, nihilist, and drugged out iconoclast desperately seeking to cash in on the Huff 'n Puff blogger train.

Thanks for the link. It was Dean Scream 2.0 last week, and the deaniacs will never understand why (as much as I do believe in the principles espoused by Howard Dean)

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-20 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Al Giordano

Labels are not arguments.

What else have you got?

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: you truly have no shame do you?

Oooo! She speaks French!

by mikeinsf 2009-12-21 10:35PM | 0 recs
Re: btw...

I was here during the campaign.  Where were you?

by slynch 2009-12-20 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: btw...

I'm curious who you were during the primary

by jsfox 2009-12-20 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: btw...

I was who I am now--slynch.  I moved from dkos during the primary, because I thought the tone there became very anti-Hillary/pro-Obama, and I wasn't convinced that Obama was the best candidate.  I voted for Obama, nonetheless, in the general, because, from my view, I will/have (almost) always vote(d) for a Democrat.  

But, I've been thusfar troubled by Obama's performance.  I don't see him as progressive (nor did I see Hillary as progresive; I just disagreed with the ridiculous Obama-worship I saw at dkos that eventually trickled-down here).

In my view, we're getting what we voted for.  It's unfortunate that the Democrats just can't seem to put forward a truly progressive candidate.  I don't think Hillary would've been that person either, but I certainly don't think it should come as a massive shock that Obama isn't that person.  He never professed to be a liberal.  Ironically, WE are "suffering" the same sort of buyer's remorse that the far right wing suffers every time they get behind a contender they think is going to represent their ridiculous right wing religious views.  It just doesn't happen.

by slynch 2009-12-20 07:18PM | 0 recs

not you, the diarist. Sorry about that.

by jsfox 2009-12-20 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: btw...

to be clear:  I always have voted for a Democrat, in every office I've voted for.  And, I expect I always will.  I'm very much on the left wing of things.  I am just disgusted, frankly, that even the "democratic wing of the democratic party" tends to be awfully moderate.  Count me in Bernie Sanders' camp.

by slynch 2009-12-20 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: an open and last comment to the crazy one

"im starting a new program of just refusing to dialogue with outright lunatics."

Glad you've given up talking to yourself.  But if you intended me with "crazy," my comments are always addressed more widely anyway.  And I think your obsessive need to paint me as irrational is as silly as the lies you invented about me to avoid facing criticism.  Now you want to avoid it altogether.  If I was in your shoes, I'd probably avoid debate as compulsively as you do.  But that's your bed.

You seem to think that diaries are for dialogue when they are supposed to function more broadly as round table fora.  So read what you like.  I'll continue to respond as I choose.  

by Strummerson 2009-12-20 03:48PM | 0 recs
and by the way

if you are insinuating that I had anything to do with any diary of yours being taken down, you are completely mistaken.  Spent the day with my daughter.  It was lovely.  No time for shenanigans and it's not my style.  

by Strummerson 2009-12-20 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Il y mai être beaucoup de gens fous ici

Je comprehends tres bien mon petit choux. Tu peux susse ma zorbe, mais c'est trop pour ton petite tete. Peut-etre tu avais etudier a Colombia, mais je crois pas. Tes excrements des mots sont trop faciles.

But if your remark about 'getting a job' was inspired by another posters employment problem, then you're not only idiotic troll, but a malign and vicious one at that.

by brit 2009-12-20 05:27PM | 0 recs
What are you, living in Quebec or something?

When you fly into a rage, you lapse into french. It's very cute.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-20 06:56PM | 0 recs
Aren't you just the most adorable thing!

We have to save that quote for posterity.

I think Canadienne it is, you start to lose your sentence construction when you get angry.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-20 09:15PM | 0 recs
How can one not...

...rec such a spectacular wreck?  Keep doing that voodoo you do, ludwig!

by TexasDarling 2009-12-20 07:24PM | 0 recs
Cpnsider my tru "guven"
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don't think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth," said Feingold. "I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect."

Okay, Sen. Feingold, but which way are you voting?  Oh, I see...  Talk is cheap.but apparently no cheaper than ludwig's adulation.
by TexasDarling 2009-12-20 08:58PM | 0 recs

This diary is idiocy.  How embarrassing.  I've read great diaries taking apart Obama policies, and this isn't one of them.  You think a picture of Obama as Caesar really adds to your critique?  Maybe at a teabagger rally...

by mikeinsf 2009-12-20 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: it quotes six members of congress

I agree with Dean, actually.  Doesn't mean your diary isn't crap.  

by mikeinsf 2009-12-20 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: oh namecallin fanboy

And calling everyone who disagrees with you "fanboy," regardless of how they actually evaluate and address Oabama's presidency so far is somehow not"namecallin"?

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: oh they said teabagger!

Nah.  Lil ol' me?  I'm no Rhodes Scholar.  Hell, I haven't even passed second year French.  I defer to you, mon ami.

by mikeinsf 2009-12-21 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Health Care Fantasies

I confess, I don't really "get" this diary.  It seems to be all over the place.  What is the basic gist?

by Steve M 2009-12-20 08:53PM | 0 recs

The basic gist is something involving "waah" and "Our Girl Hillary Kucinich." Typical Jerome-approved bullshit.

by TexasDarling 2009-12-20 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Gist

Those who exist only to mock add nothing to the discussion, even if they are on the side of the angels in their heart.

by Steve M 2009-12-20 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: it is two diaries in one

but you dont need to address them. ignore them so that the rest of us can read your actual arguments. unlike say kent you seem to make good  points about understand what is hapneing, but you get lose in these pointless debates. as I said, I am trying to learn to ignore them unless it is just mock them. last night with another post nd22 was the final realization that a normal conversation with the extremist not possible. even a conversation that is not about obama leads to their personality driven assaults. this is because they see people as personalities rather reading arguments for what they are. you are not going to change this, and your diaries end up being crap because you focus on them rather than the arguments you are making.

by bruh3 2009-12-21 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: it is two diaries in one

I believe that Obama never had any real motivation to achieve a public option.  I think that is downright obvious, all the arguments that he was playing 11-dimensional chess having gone by the wayside.

I don't really believe that he was an enemy of the public option, that he secretly hoped it would be killed from the outset even though he claimed to be in favor of it.  That's not how I take Feingold's quote, and I don't really know any evidence for this theory.  The more believable theory is that he just didn't care much either way.

by Steve M 2009-12-21 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: it is two diaries in one

I agree that this is the most likely interpretation.  I think Obama would be very happy with a public option and ultimately buys the arguments for how it would reduce costs.  But I think from the get go he's been completely comfortable living without it.  This is where his pragmatic minimalism trumps his vision, and he's always combined both tendencies in how he approaches issues and in how he presents himself.  Given that I think the public option crucial (like most of us) as well as drug reimportation, I am frustrated that he was too minimalist to push harder.  

There was a New Yorker piece a while back that suggested that Obama will succeed with health care to the degree that he successfully casts it in terms of values.  I think he's capable of doing this, but chose not to because of his minimalist disposition and not because he can be reduced to a sellout corporate shill.  It's due to his burkean respect for traditional institutions, which has been evident from his first forays onto the national stage.  But just as Reagan cast Milton Friedman's anti-Keynesianism in terms that resonated with simple American "values," Obama has the capacity to do the same with the public option.  He has the rhetorical skills to point out the dissonance of anti-wealth-redistribution red state republicans who spend all their energy redistributing tax revenues into their communities.  He could try to shift the terms of the debate.  It's this ability that lead me to prefer him.  He chooses not to do this.  The question is not what this president is guilty of or what he is innocent of.  I consider these beside the point.  It's a question of what he is capable of and how to push him to try.  That requires a left flank that doesn't simply grab the opportunity of every setback to re-prosecute the battles of the past.  FDR was no social democrat and LBJ no civil rights crusader.  But they had better organized and broader left flanks to pull them to harness their capacities for progressive goals.  We cannot switch the president and it's not clear what we would gain if we did.  But he has talents we need to try to activate on behalf of our goals.  

We face an irresponsible and entrenched right-wing opposition that would sacrifice everything that is good about this country and about their own lives to defeat its political opponents.  The reason Obama was always going to compromise more to the right than to the left is that the right would be perfectly happy with nothing.  This is why even Bernie Sanders will vote for the Senate bill.  Lieberman would be happy with nothing and celebrate it as a triumph.  We need to spend more energy on exposing them than on prosecuting and/or defending the president.

And it counts for a great deal in my book that many of the bill's most ardent critics urge its passage.  

As Krugman argues:

The reason to pass reform, even inadequate reform, now isn't to gain seats next year; it is to pass reform, which will do vast good, during the window that's available. If it doesn't pass now, it will probably be many nears before the next chance.

But back to Obama: the important thing to bear in mind is that this isn't about him; and, equally important, it isn't about you. If you've fallen out of love with a politician, well, so what? You should just keep working for the things you believe in. 20/the-wysiwyg-president#more-6157

We'll get nowhere if we keep making this about Obama's various merits and deficiencies.

And for PK's analysis of the cost controls in the bill, he argues that it's incrementally better than the status quo while expanding coverage here: 21/coverage-and-costs

It seems to me that if passing this bill gets us further than killing it.  So at this point, though I have been undecided up until now, I say pass it.  It's not the final victory.  Much is left to do and we've got to do a better job with making the arguments against the stop-everything right and do-nothing center.  What next?

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Health Care Fantasies

The basic gist is a high school kid is suckering adults into debating him/her.

by mikeinsf 2009-12-20 10:08PM | 0 recs
There's plenty of debate on MyDD

People take their debate to other threads and don't respond to you, except to mock you, because you haven't earned the respect and right to warrant debate with you.

I realize people were mean to you, including myself. You don't realize it, but your behavior is trollish.

But every day on MyDD is a new day. And you can change. And if I hurt your feelings, I am sorry if you're willing to start fresh.

If you want to have an adult debate, then write a diary or respond to a post, and if it is worthy like so many others here, then people will have a debate with you.

Bear in mind, this isn't Red State. This is a very left web site. Trollish conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated bashing, and ad hominem attacks of elected democratic officials, whether it be President Obama or Secretary of State Clinton or anyone will lead to criticism. Use your sources carefully. Arianna Huffington isn't one of them. Beware of sources who have an axe to grind. And don't cherry pick verbiage to substantiate your argument.

Did you wonder why I (and other Obama supporters) recommended this diary? Because it embarrasses the anti-Obama left.

So if any time you're willing to start over, I will start over too.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: i couldnt care what a fool like you

This is factually untrue:

everyone ...and i do mean EVERYONE... laughs at a loser like you in real life!

I do not laugh at people who face unemployment, nor do I consider them losers.  Nor does anyone named Clinton or Harkin.  I have compassion for those who are unemployed and I'm interested in creating employment opportunities so that they can be happy and productive neighbors and fellow citizens.  In my personal experience, the Republican slur that the poor and unemployed are lazy is simply a lie.  It certainly has no place in progressive political discourse.  But beyond that, given that "EVERYONE" by definition includes me, you are simply wrong.  

My guess is that the vast majority of users here do not mock the unemployed.  I'm not sure how doing so gets your more substantive arguments any kind of hearing.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 09:11AM | 0 recs
Rush Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox

It's kind a the same thing here.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Rush Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox

I'd say, given the context, it's significantly worse.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 09:40AM | 0 recs
Have it your way, troll

You have to realize I'm giving you the rope from which you will hang yourself. Your time here will be short, like so many trolls before you. And you're association with any democratic campaign will also be short, if it is even true.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 09:32AM | 0 recs
Come to MyDD

Where we value freedom of expression we even feature "progressives" and "liberals" who taunt and mock the unemployed!

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 10:51AM | 0 recs
This is really sad. n/t


by louisprandtl 2009-12-21 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: This is really sad. n/t

I'm pretty sure it will prove a self correcting phenomenon.  Pressing on substance just helps it along.  And it gives me breaks from grading papers.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 11:14AM | 0 recs
Well these diaries are height of hilarity.

They surely made my day. Grading papers to meet end of semester deadlines are onerous jobs. I'm glad that I'm not doing it...

by louisprandtl 2009-12-21 11:34AM | 0 recs
Do you really know how to read? Where did

I say that I'm an academic?

by louisprandtl 2009-12-21 12:11PM | 0 recs
Do read carefully what I said..

There is a big difference between grading and "not" grading. Of course, I'm a low info person. I don't have big degrees to flaunt around like you have.

by louisprandtl 2009-12-21 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: so big boy

Most progressives I know respect educators.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 12:11PM | 0 recs
Most progressives do

It's the right that has always objected to the pointy heads.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 12:16PM | 0 recs
I'm just another low info person. Your

high flown Ivy league commentaries are simply beyond me...

by louisprandtl 2009-12-21 12:20PM | 0 recs
He's defending Sarah Palin

This guy has gone through my diaries and learned where I went to school, and is using that as a line of attack. It's kind of creepy.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 12:29PM | 0 recs
My apologies for not having read your

earlier diaries. I've been off and on hiatus from MyDD and blogosphere in general. But I seriously would recommend folks to read your first three diaries.
Pardon me, but I thought Environmental Engineering was a heavily funded field for research work. I'm surprised to see the low funding allocation for water pollution and control.

Lastly you're right, it is downright creepy, unethical and low, what the sock had been doing.

by louisprandtl 2009-12-21 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: a stalker calls me creepy

If you do not want to engage in a public forum, it's you prerogative to leave.  But you do not have the right to ask anyone else to leave.  You still do not grasp this principle.  Just because you don't like me or someone else does not mean we must leave the pub to accommodate you.  You are free to go home and free to stay.  I'm ready for another round.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 01:20PM | 0 recs
Where did you go to school?

I'm really quite flattered that you have gone into my diaries and pulled out personal information. Where did you go to school? Judging from your poor grammar and commonplace gaffes, I'm guessing you didn't. Do you even have a degree? Or has it been the school of hard knocks for you?

So I guess I really bothered you, didn't I?

What's burning you up so badly?

That you came here, thinking you finally had Obama beat on something, to dance on the demise of Obama's health care reform, and now we're laughing at you as it passes? That the public has warmed to the concept, and the dean screamers are being isolated as a fringe? Is that it?

I have given you numerous chances to make peace, and each time, you throw such offers in my face.

You are a highly disturbed individual obsessed with Obama who can't handle the slightest criticism, or a troll.

You think this is a home for Obama bashing? If you want to bash Obama, head on over to Red State. If you do bash Obama, you better back up your arguments, because other people (and I) are going to argue with you. But you put together these childish diaries as if written by someone who hasn't even completed high school.

Did you ever wonder why some people we debate with, and you just get laughed at? Why your average user rating is less than 1? you have the lowest user rating on the site!

If you want me to leave you alone, then stop trolling. Stop the personal attacks. And I'll be gone.

If you continue trolling, I'm going to be all over you here like white on rice, making you delete diaries and such.

So take your pick.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: oh look threats from the

What you mean to say is: "...that i give an ant's hiccup...", not "...a ant's hiccup...".

You use the article "an" before a vowel instead of "a".

I thought they taught that in high school?

The only one getting owned here is you.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: i own you

You care enough that you wrote this diary to complain about it.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 02:58PM | 0 recs
Hey, you're the one who can't stop responding

I'll bet you even respond to this. And write another diary whining about getting bullied in Teh Internets.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 05:35PM | 0 recs
More and more and more and more...

by louisprandtl 2009-12-21 12:44PM | 0 recs
are you working on a cloning sockpuppet

assembly line?

by louisprandtl 2009-12-21 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: sad the pathetic

Hey!  Who's getting paid?  I want in!  My kids need new shoes!

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 12:46PM | 0 recs
"more" and "more"

and "more" sockpuppets are on the "loose"!

by louisprandtl 2009-12-21 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Oooh trying to act smart

Conspiracy theories do not constitute exposure.  But on what grounds do you accuse me in particular of being paid?

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Oooh trying to act smart

I think you are delightful.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 01:41PM | 0 recs
Did ludwig get banned?

Is this a puppet?

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Did ludwig get banned?

nope.  it's simulcast.

by fogiv 2009-12-21 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Did ludwig get banned?

Oh, sock puppets! I love those.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: il veut donc d'etre moi --

I am so impressed that you speak French!  A sure sign of your superiority, since French is such an elevated tongue it's spoken by millions of people.  Shall we all begin answering in other languages?

Mah haketa shelha?  Lama atah mitnaheg b'gasut v'tipshut?  Mishehu paga becha barosh?  Ulai tagid lanu mah atah rotzeh hutz milahlom al nesiut clintonit?  Zehlo barur mah atah mehapes umah atah mekaveh lehasig po.  

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 04:02AM | 0 recs
As Hillary said

"Lobbyists are people too." Why do you hate Hillary?  You sexist or something?

by JJE 2009-12-21 04:58AM | 0 recs
Good spoof

would read again.

by JJE 2009-12-21 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: As Hillary said

I know it would be convenient if we all fit into this ccomplex of cliches.  Sorry I cannot accommodate you.  Hillary never called me a sexist jerk.  She, in fact, works as part of the Obama administration at this point and by all accounts they have a respectful and professional relationship.  And I've never been paid a cent for political activity, beyond some labor work I did years ago in NY.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: As Hillary

Am I looser or am I a tighter?

And HRC could have waited "to rescue us" from the senate and strengthened HCR there.  I don't fault her, of course.  It was the better career move for her and I support her right to choose what capacity she wants to both serve and lead us.  She's an honorable public servant.  Again, this might cause you some cognitive dissonance, but many of us who ultimately backed Obama back in the civil wars always held her in very high regard and continue to do so.  I even composed a diary in support of her nomination as SoS.  

As for all your accusations against all those you lump together into some semblance of Satan's hordes, you are ethically bound to substantiate these accusations or desist.  Your manichaean world view is your prerogative.  My perspective reveals a political universe that is a bit more complicated than Angels and Devils.  I wish it were that simple.  But I don't wish that enough to level baseless accusations at others.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: As Hillary

Did I impugn Clinton's honor?  Where?  On what basis do you impugn mine?  And what does this have to do with anything?  

And I'm neither a looser, nor a tighter.  I'm not even a loser.  I've called you no names.  What does calling me names do for you?  I'm relatively positive that if I ever had the chance to interact with Hillary Clinton, she'd treat me respectfully.  And I would be thrilled to meet her.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: As Hillary

Please produce one instance where I have impugned Hillary Clinton's honor or desist.  If you cannot and you continue, then you are the same kind of liar that ludwigvan is.  As for Palin, my issues with her have to do with her politics not her gender.  

Comparing Hillary Clinton to Sarah Palin is certainly a way to impugn Clinton's honor.  I, for one, would NEVER lump them together.  But I am glad we agree that Clinton is someone to be admired.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: As Hillary

SO how do you know its trollish loser drivel?  

Where do you see me worshiping Obama as a Messiah?  

(By the way, as a Jew, I don't believe in a concept of a messiah that entails an incarnation of the godhead in human flesh.  The messiah in Judaism is primarily a political figure, but far above what Obama or anyone else I have ever known of represents.)

Admit it.  You don't know the first thing about me.  You hate me for what you think I am, not for anything I have done.  That's pretty low.  I have addressed you with respect and you continue with lies, slanders, and cliche insults.  Whose behavior resembles a troll here?

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: As Hillary

Wait, you've lost me.  What are you suggesting that I twist my way out of?

I confess I have battled PUMAs and that these battles aren't always as civil as they should be.  I consider PUMAs to be beneath contempt.  But this has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's honor.  It has nothing to do with my sexual and gender politics.  It has everything to do with what I consider necessary for furthering progressive causes for my family, community, and country.  

Now, if you would like to debate some issue or discuss tactics, that's fine.  But I must attend to my kids at the moment.  

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 03:04PM | 0 recs
and as for Palin

I oppose her because she opposes reproductive rights, diplomatic based foreign policy, progressive economic policies, and she makes inane arguments like "if God doesn't want us to eat animals, how come he made them out of meat?"

If that somehow leaves me open to a credible charge of sexism, so be it.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: and as for Palin

I respect her as much as I respect Beck and Limbaugh.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 03:00PM | 0 recs
First, it's loser, not looser

You never did answer where you received your education.

And HRC could have waited "to rescue us" from the senate and strengthened HCR there.
And you accuse people of being delusional worshipers? Wow. You're the one worshiping Hillary. Does it still burn you that she got beat? In fact, when was the last time you ever were on the winning side?  
by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: First, it's loser, not looser


I supported Obama in the primaries as well as the general.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 06:27PM | 0 recs
Comments are hidden

Sorry for any confusion, this was in reference to ludwig, not to you.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Comments are hidden

Seemed odd.  No worries.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Comments are hidden

...but I do actually admire Hillary Clinton quite a bit.  Didn't back her campaign and disagreed with the behavior of her operatives.  Didn't care for her opposition to Feinstein's cluster bomb amendment and some other things.  But in the grand scheme, a consider her quite compelling.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 07:38PM | 0 recs
hai guyz

i went to colombia yooniversty and obama iz afirmativ akshun babie.  hed be moppin floor if he wuz wite likeme.

by JJE 2009-12-21 12:35PM | 0 recs
o hello dere

new person who is totlly not ludwigvan nosir.

by JJE 2009-12-21 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Censorship is right!

I think you need a drink.

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 03:58PM | 0 recs
Calm down and double the dosage

Forget the drink.

With all your ranting and raving, you're probably keeping your fellow halfway house residents awake.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 05:43PM | 0 recs

"This place held some promise for a while.  Even after Alegre was forced to walk away in despair over the way she was treated there were a few regulars who kept on speaking truth to power.  FRDem, NancyK and the (genuine) TD were some of the best.  But Jerome became busy with real work in politics and once again the lunatics took over the asylum."
We have proof more more more is ludwigvan, and now the confession that ludwigvan (through more more more) is a former user under a new username.
"Even though I haven't been posting I've been reading this dreck off and on and Jerome has fairly recently said that he's working on a system to cull the site ofthe 0bots & senseless fanboys..."
That's not what he said. No, just the trolls, and you'll be the first to go.

You're anger and hatred towards Obama amuses me. In fact, it warms my heart knowing that you're just so miserable!

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-21 05:49PM | 0 recs

After Alegre flounced off ("shining like polished gold," IIRC) to her own litterbox, the torch of MyDD's high-quality discourse was carried on by such luminaries as Nancy Kallitechnis and Texas Darlin'.  Yet alas, these staunch carriers of the fire withered without Jerome's protection.

I eagerly await Jerome's "final solution."

by TexasDarling 2009-12-21 06:39PM | 0 recs

Yes.  Feminists always employ terms like "bitches."

by Strummerson 2009-12-21 06:48PM | 0 recs
worth reposting... wow.

jerome - please clean up your fucking blog.

by canadian gal 2009-12-21 08:08PM | 0 recs
You have very little idea what you're

walking into!

by louisprandtl 2009-12-22 04:06PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads