• on a comment on Fault to the Core over 3 years ago

    if you weren't so driven by fear.  To say that a liberal blog which is dedicated to a more progressive country has the power to depress votes by stating opinions which are sincere is frankly pathetic.  Remaining silent is a recipe for political disaster (check the annals of history on this one).  Instead of being cowed by republicans, tea partiers, and moneyed interests, one should unite and form a coalition to battle them.  Telling porgressives to shut up does not promote that cause.

  • on a comment on 2010 polling over 3 years ago

    Democrats have control of the government.  Good legislation and policies are all they needed.  Instead we got mandated health insurance, unchecked credit card rates, weak wall street reform.  Good policies (ie, pro-working/middle class) is all the press they would have needed.

  • on a comment on 2010 in a paragraph over 3 years ago

    There is a difference between enacting some laws and have a record of success.  I would contend that a number of those laws were not successes at all.  See, eg, credit card reform which refused to re-enact the old usury law.  Limiting the interest rates companies can charge would have been a success.  Requiring fuller disclosure, not so much. 

  • on a comment on What's the Point? over 4 years ago

    I have no problem discussing political implications; I don't know where you got that impression. 

    I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim surprise that the term purist has been used against the far left as a pejorative, certainly in the blogosphere.  It is used as an ad hominem attack to dismiss a view as unworthy of consideration. 

    I did not "gloss over" your contention that real progressives need to get their message across more effectively.  I did not think it was necessary to restate my observation from my first response to you that we need to come up with a more effective way of building support.  I stressed the need to build a coalition of like minds to generate action on the issue (supporting new candidates who support affordable health care for all). 

    The progressive position always faces the mostly hostile news media and we learned from this battle that we face significant resistance from our elected officials, including some from whom we would have expected more leadership.  This health care debate was tarnished by the constant bait and switch of our reps.  Was the public option still in play?  What will it look like? Etc.  In fact, up to this week, there was still talk of a public option coming from the conference discussions.  The gaming of the whole discussion worked to the detriment of the left- people didn't want to put the cart before the legislative horse and continued to push and hold out for a decent compromise (still are).  No one would have expected that promises made during the campaign (must have a robust public option, national exchange, etc.)- topped by the stunning statement by our president that he never campaigned on the public option- would have been so readily tossed aside.  I think Obama's comment was the turning point.  That comment dropped the scales from the eyes of many, followed by the vote on the terrible senate bill.  So, I would disagree that the public is hostile to real health care reform (polls have consistently supported this view). 

    On which side has chosen to "give up," we are simply going to have to disagree.  I think those who have so readily acquiesced to a health insurance giveaway with no real reforms on cost are the ones who have given up.  That would include our president who adopted positions on this issue that he excoriated as foolhardy during his campaign.  To me, it is the lowered expectations crowd who have let us down.

  • on a comment on What's the Point? over 4 years ago

    As I suspected, no response.  Don't you have anything better to do with your time than to act like an a**hole, trying to disrupt others' discussions?  I will go back to simply ignoring you.  You offer nothing to the discussion but attempts to piss people off.  That you would get something out of this is pretty pathetic. 

  • on a comment on What's the Point? over 4 years ago

    Come on- I asked you to please explain how FDL and jeopardy killed the bill.  You are quick to throw blame.  I am simply asking you to explain how you reached this conclusion.  I had a conversation in a bar with someone who opposed the bill.  Was that conversation a cause of defeat as well?  Or do FDL and jeopardy have some special powers?  My tone is snarky, I admit, but my question is sincere.  I would like to understand your thinking on this.

  • on a comment on What's the Point? over 4 years ago

    Well, your choice of language (purists) and straw man argument (all or nothing) inform me that you are not really interested in a discussion of this issue.  If that is how you honestly see the debate, your mind is closed to any arguments which counter your preconceptions.  So much for the wisdom of age, I suppose. 

    As to so-called purists, I don't understand what you find so threatening about them.  Our political voices fall on a spectrum.  Someone who argues forcefully for the whole enchilada is not my enemy.  I respect people who take a strong view and hold to it, whether I agree with them or not.  I certainly don't think strong progressives are a threat to my potential willingness to accept less.  The further left some push the agenda, the better we all are in my view.  My ire is reserved for those who push the agenda in the other direction- our elected officials desirous to ram a bad bill (as policy and politically) down our throats with vague promises of "adding rooms" to the starter home at some undetermined point in the future (a low point for Harkin (whom I respect) in my view). 

    You argue that the "reality" is that no one will touch health care again.  Sorry, but that's not reality, that's your opinion/prognostication about future (in)action.  I understand the basis for your opinion (Clinton and Obama failed, yada yada).  I would argue that although Clinton failed to pass good reform, Obama failed because his plan (the senate version per Feingold) was unpopular with the Dem faithful (labor unions, nurses, progressives, etc.), not because the reality is that better health care will always fail.  The industry is broken, people cannot get good healthcare, and, increasingly, more and more Americans can get no care at all.  This problem will have to be faced.  Your willingess to adopt the view that it can't be done and won't be done is what I called defeatist.  That is simply the way I see it.

    I do see health care for all as a struggle that will require some reflection to ponder better means of achieving it, while building stronger coalitions with traditional Dem constituencies.  I personally have been heartened to hear Trumka speak out forcefully for pro-people policies.  Clearly, we need some real coalition building. 

    So, the struggle may be lonely and Sisyphean. I don't agree with your assessment, but even if you were correct, it does not deter me in the least.  Perhaps because I come from a working class background and was given the opportunities that my parents (and siblings) did not have, I have always understood that justice and equity require a fight.  I have seen the inequities in our society from inside and out.  Standing up for my principles and fighting the good fight are not negotiable for me.

    I would love to have you along for the battle, but I get the sense from your statements that you are not interested.  That's your decision.  You can sit in your chair and moan about "purists" ruining your day.

  • on a comment on What's the Point? over 4 years ago

    That's rich- FDL and jeopardy are responsible for the senate bill failing.  Hmm.  I thought it was our reps who came out after the MA election and started hinting (or outright stating) that HIR was dead.  Could you take a moment away from your tedious proclamations that those who wanted a good health care bill won and please explain to me how FDL and jeopardy killed health care reform?  Because I'm under the mistaken impression that our elected officials hold that power.

  • on a comment on What's the Point? over 4 years ago

    I don't know how old you are, but not everyone agrees that healthcare reform will not be addressed again.  It is a fact that the helath insurance/care industry is broken in this country.  It will need to be fixed.  This notion that there is some nebulous force making health care reform impossible is defeatist.  The problem is that our politicians are in the hands of corporate lobbyists.  If we get rid of them we can have health care reform.  The people need only be offered a real alternative to the sellouts to get the change they want.  Sure, it's a rough climb, but we really have no other choice at this point.

  • on a comment on Sunday open thread over 4 years ago

    Just because Republicans oppose a bill, that does not make the bill liberal.  That's fallacious logic.

  • on a comment on Sunday open thread over 4 years ago

    Do you really think the public followed the cap and trade bill?  And where has it gone in the senate?  Compare that to the bank bailouts, CC reform, health insurance reform.  I think the reason why you can name ten liberal things the president has done because we are defining the term differently.  SCHIP and Ledbetter I would consider moderate positions.  Some of the other minor points you raise are just that, minor.  

    And how is it that the unions have control of GM?  They were given an equity

  • on a comment on Sunday open thread over 4 years ago

    Do you really think the public followed the cap and trade bill?  And where has it gone in the senate?  Compare that to the bank bailouts, CC reform, health insurance reform.  I think the reason why you can name ten liberal things the president has done because we are defining the term differently.  SCHIP and Ledbetter I would consider moderate positions.  Some of the other minor points you raise are just that, minor.  

    And how is it that the unions have control of GM?  They were given an equity stakestake,

  • on a comment on Sunday open thread over 4 years ago

    I would certainly consider health care reform with a public option a liberal position- although I would argue that it was not seriously considered given Feingold's comment.  The other initiatives (save cap and trade) are supported by liberals, but I wouldn't necessarily consider them liberal programs.  When I referred to liberal programs, I was thinking of a bold,significant liberal position.  I did not consider cap and trade because it hasn't really gotten anywhere.  Perhaps my standards are up in the clouds to you, but I don't see it as a problem.  I, coversely, think you hold positions which frequently do not demand much at all.  We'll just have to respect our differences in this regard.

  • on a comment on Sunday open thread over 4 years ago

    I would disagree with the contention that the party has tried to do anything "remotely liberal" in the past year.  In fact, that's what was promised during the campaign, but the results have been quite the opposite (tepid credit card reform which still permits usurious interest rates; the bank bailouts; health insurance reform; continuing and expanding wars). 

  • on a comment on Sunday open thread over 4 years ago

    Liberals learned a long time ago that most of our goals are not going to be met by the party establishment.  We're just sick of it, especially given the perilousness of the times.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads