home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Is it too early for a "Let's Go Gators!" chant?

In other news, Barcelona faces Arsenal in a do or die Champions League soccer game at the Camp Nou this afternoon. Arsenal won the first leg in London. Go Barca!

Open Thread.

< Obama Issues Order Resuming Guantanamo Military Commission Trials | Opening Arguments Begin For Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Currently witnessing... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    a fine small manufacturing company being rendered incompetent and useless due to monolitch corporation buyout...its so sad.

    What was a simple task and a satisfied customer just 6 short months ago has become an excercise in futility and unsatisfied customers...I wish I could say it was just a transition period, but another fine small manufacturing company this monolith bought out 3 years ago is still all fubar...and the sales graphs look like the Hindenburg.

    I, in turn, think of banks and government...bigger is not better, bigger is not better.

    Very sad (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:00:47 PM EST
    I used to work at a place that was located in a small industrial park outside of Detroit.  When I used to drive into work, it was easier to count the number of open businesses still there - the number of empty buildings / "for lease" signs was too many to count.  Very sad - they were all small businesses like tool & dye shops.

    Parent
    I remember (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:14:28 PM EST
    reading about how the Eisenhower Administration believed that the big guys should pay big taxes to encourage them to break into smaller entities because smaller was more efficient. That seems to be your case.

    As someone who's worked for both Fortune 500 companies and smaller companies each of them has both their pluses and minuses.

    Parent

    Working for the big boys... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:35:36 PM EST
    has its perks...like my best friend and his 6 months pay severance package.  I'd never get something like that at my small outfit.  But I'm also much less likely to get laid off so some gambler can see his stock go up a point.

    As far as being a customer, nobody values your business like a small business...I'm amazed at the ways this particular monolith treats customers so poorly, a "don't bother me unless you're gonna drop 6 figures right now" attitude, compared to the old company that valued customers large and small.  I root for this hubris to bite them in the arse and hard one day...and hopefully when that day comes Uncle Sam doesn't bail them out like they did the financial monoliths.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:49:59 PM EST
    they usually have a lot of hubris. Basically only the big boys can really play with the big boys. It's very hard for a small business to deal with them because a lot of times they want the small business to invoice them at net 90 days and a small business usually doesn't have the cash flow to do that kind of thing.

    Parent
    Double yeah... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:57:57 PM EST
    and volume pricing...how ya ever gonna move that volume if ya can't get the right price?  

    Never mind 1%, does it end when one person owns everything?

    Parent

    Bigger is not better (none / 0) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    Another wonderful incremental step on (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    the health insurance legislation supported by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is arguing that Democrats should accept IRS penalties on working- and middle-class health insurance consumers as the price of making one key tweak to the health care law.

    "The 1099 is something we're going to look at," Reid said at his weekly Capitol briefing with reporters. "Me personally I like the House payfor better than ours, so we'll have to see." link

    As explained here, the penalties are designed to offset the cost of repealing a tax requirement on businesses. They work in several ways, but one would have particularly adverse consequences for middle-income consumers, and for the popularity of the health care law itself.

    Under the House plan, if families get even modest compensation bumps after qualifying for health insurance subsidies, they can be required to reimburse the IRS with thousands of dollars. In particular, "if a family's actual annual income [grows] even one dollar above 400 percent of poverty, the family would have to repay the entire credit," according to a Families USA memo. "Those who live in areas where premium costs are higher and who end up with incomes slightly above 400 percent of poverty will not only have to pay back the full credit, but they will have to repay more than those with the same income and amount of credit received who live in areas where premium costs are lower. Because the premium credits protect individuals and families from having to pay more than a set percentage of income on premiums, those who live in areas where premium costs are higher will receive a larger credit and thus be required to owe more than others who live in regions with lower premium costs."
    ...
    Here's how CBPP describes the secondary impact.

    [T]he offset would discourage many people with modest incomes from applying for subsidies in the first place and lead more of them to remain uninsured instead (and pay a modest penalty for failing to have insurance). Those who elected not to purchase coverage would predominantly be people who thought they could risk going without coverage because they are in good health. As a consequence, the pool of people who enroll in the exchanges would consist, on average, of less-healthy individuals than would otherwise be the case -- which would push up premiums for policies available through the exchanges and thereby depress exchange enrollment further. The Ways and Means provision also likely would fuel backlash against the health reform law on the part of lower-middle-income families and individuals who purchased coverage and then found themselves owing large sums to the Internal Revenue Service. link

    Way to go Harry! Get that bipartisan mojo working and make real sure that the POS legislation is so draconian that only Congresscritters and the rich get actual health care.  

    It really is just impossible to (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:47:38 PM EST
    do it this way, with all of the various conditions, incentives, and disincentives. Can we have single-payer now, please?.

    Parent
    What are you? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:55:42 PM EST
    Some kind of socialist?  (/snark)

    Parent
    After being a member of the Democrat Party (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    for most of my adult life, I became an independent voter rather than become a member of the New Democratic Party which pursues what I consider Republican policies. After further review, I now think I will become a self-described democratic socialist. A few hundred million more voters and we may have a chance to elect politicians who pass legislation that helps rather than penalizes the poor and the middle class.

    Parent
    Which reminds me... (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:09:57 PM EST
    ... wasn't it you I was joining up with to support Bernie Sanders?

    Parent
    Yep I'm the one (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:15:39 PM EST
    promoting a write in campaign for Bernie Sander for president in 2012. No believable way for anyone to say that I voted against Obama because he wasn't moderate enough or did not adopt enough Republican policies.  

    Parent
    I admire Bernie Sanders (none / 0) (#94)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:05:54 PM EST
    But, as I'm sure you know, he is rather practical as well...even as Vermont's independent, he does seem to support the WH on the principal votes taken in the past two years.

    Parent
    Some kind, yep!!! (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:19:36 AM EST
    Me, too! (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:58:07 AM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    No (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:54:14 PM EST
    Not given the way that the opposition would portray it and the environment.

    Baby steps unfortunately.

    Parent

    At some point, we have to take some (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 04:01:39 PM EST
    responsibility for how issues are framed; if we keep allowing the "other side" - and I'm not even sure who that is - to define what single-payer is and how it works, then, of course we are going to lose that argument every time.

    We have to stop caring how the other side views and/or would portray these issues and start providing our own portrayal; I think they call that the "bully pulpit" - part of that whole leadeship thing that seems to have died on the altar of the Obama 2012 Campaign (est'd 2008)...

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 04:07:04 PM EST
    I never tire of this article by Kevin Drum from 2008 - "The Great Persuader."  

    Let's not forget that among those who disapprove of the ACA many of them do so because they don't think it goes far enough.  The Left should remain active in encouraging changes to the bill that provide more and better healthcare.

    Parent

    Baby steps? (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 04:36:05 PM EST
    The country will spend $900 billion to force people to buy overpriced health insurance that deprives them of the ability to actually afford health care and  make the penalties for getting subsidized coverage so draconian that people will be willing to incur the fines rather than applying for the subsidies. Shades of the company store mentality.  

    Most people attempt to teach their babies to walk forward and not backwards.  

    Parent

    Messi touch proved immaculate. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:10:51 PM EST
    Lionel Messi's touch proved immaculate.

    That said, Barca better get Puyol and Picque back and tighten up their set piece defending or they're not gonna make it.

    I love this post (none / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    I assume it is about soccer (after reading it about 5 times), but it is like a foreign language to me.

    Parent
    Alan Simpson (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:59:49 PM EST
    went completely off the rails trying to chastise the elderly for complaining about Social Security being targeted.
    "This is a fakery," Simpson said on Fox News. "If they care at all about their children or grandchildren, and sometimes I doubt that - I think, you know, grandchildren now don't write a thank-you for the Christmas presents, they're walking on their pants with the cap on backwards listening to the enema man and Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg, and they don't like them!"

    Link
    I think he needs to go sit down somewhere and shut up.  

    Surely you are too harsh :-( (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:38:02 PM EST
    Alan Simpson is one of Obama's premiere advisors on economic policy. The gang of six along with all mainstream media venues are busy selling the Cat Food Commission's recommendations. His policies may soon become the law of the land thanks to President Obama so he definitely must be one of the very knowledgeable and serious people.

    Parent
    Happy International Women's Day (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:17:19 PM EST
    to TL and all the women of this community, on the 100th Anniversary of its celebration.

    Goodbye, Dems. Hello, Pirate Party. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:42:00 PM EST
    Yes, there really is a Pirate Party. And now voters in the great state of Massachusetts can register as members of the Pirate Party. Look out two-party system, the Pirates are coming to town.

    Finally, a place to call home after being shunned by the Democrats.

    Jeff, kdog, check it out.

    Which reminds me... (none / 0) (#115)
    by sj on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 01:12:50 AM EST
    ... do y'all have a flag yet?

    Parent
    Nice find Captain Casey... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    where can I regist-ARRRRRGGGGHHHH?

    Though I'd like to see some anti-prohibitionism in that platform...the booty in my seachest is my business.

    Parent

    there was an amazing segment on Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:56:34 AM EST
    Talk about (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:09:08 AM EST
    creepy. Maybe the good citizens of MI will rise up and go against this?

    Parent
    I think they are (none / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:14:25 AM EST
    I doubt they get away with it but he idea that it would even be tried is sort of terrifying.

    well, both terrifying and in a way encouraging because apparently the one thing republicans can always be counted on to do is overreach.

    Parent

    HA! (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:48:54 AM EST
    Gingrich: Past Adultery 'Partially Driven By How Passionately I Felt About This Country'


    Gingrich: (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    Even people in GA don't care what he says anymore. He's become a punchline. And frankly, it couldn't happen to a better person.

    Parent
    Heh, ... classic (none / 0) (#179)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    Gotta feel for the guy, though.  Working on the Hill with all those flags flying everywhere, ...

    ... bound to get anyone a little excited.

    Parent

    Ya know (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    There are many times that the flags are flying at half staff in this town.

    If you know what I mean.  (wink, wink)

    Parent

    Well he certainly did f*** his country over (none / 0) (#188)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 04:08:52 PM EST
    DEATH PANELS (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    Roughly 3 out of 4 Americans, 78 percent, said that palliative care and end-of-life treatment should be part of the public discourse, and 93 percent said they believe such decisions should be a top priority for the U.S. health care system, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Regence Foundation and National Journal at a policy summit.


    Sometimes (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:11:55 PM EST
    you aren't even really given this choice at all. I don't know how many people even realize that.

    Parent
    from my own family experience (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    anyone who does not have these conversations with thier doctor and family is making the biggest mistake they could make.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:27:10 PM EST
    I was mostly speaking from experience with my Dad who's cancer was found so late that they couldn't do anything.

    Parent
    sort of the same (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:34:45 PM EST
    left on life support with family squabbling about what to do.

    Parent
    Uh the death panel (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    stuff has nothing to do with living wills and discussions with the doctor.

    What it refers to is the $500 billion to be taken out of Medicare which will result in a shortage of Doctors and hospitals.

    At that point the government will step in and expand the existing panels that approve drugs prescribed by your doctor to be partially paid for by Medicare?(Where you aware they do that?)

    This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it sug- gests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citi- zens in public deliberations-are to be socially guar- anteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsycho- logical services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason

    Ezekiel Emanuel and one of Obama's healthcare advisor.

    Parent

    health care for all (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by the capstan on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:33:22 PM EST
    "Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

    Ok--'yell' at me again for bringing up the Nazis; I don't mind.  My severely retarded daughter has a human right to obtain health services under medicare and medicaid. Take that away, and I refuse to stay in America, and the US would likely lose her 'productive' siblings also.  

    Just head right toward the euthanasia procedures of the Hitler regime; save a little more money.

    My husband, who had a German grandmother, once speculated if he'd would have had the courage to leave Nazi Germany.  Finally, he told me, "I would have had to leave; I could not have let them kill my daughter."  Refuse her health care?  Not a lot of difference.

    Parent

    Hmm, (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:55:43 PM EST
    I see the NCPA has no problem with insurance industry "death panels". These people apparently also support fundamentalist nutjobs like Cal Thomas.

    Parent
    I don't think gthe NCPA (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    cares. They just prescribe/sell whatever the panel approves although they obviously are in favor of small private type pharmacies.

    Of course since they probably know the person who has been told Medicare won't pay for a specific drug they undoubtedly have a deeper interest than say your CVS employee who doesn't see the customer.

    Of course my larger point was that treatment direction/denial is already being done and will get worse when the shortages hit.

    Anecdotal. A friend with COPD goes to the hospital. Stays a day and a night. Released because he barely passes the O level test even though it is apparent he won't be able to take his meds.

    But rules are rules, eh?

    Parent

    while I make it a rule to not (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:31:18 PM EST
    argue anything with you since no one else is apparently going to say it I will.  
    you are full of it.

    death panels:

    Sarah Palin is fighting back against attacks over a statement she made last weekend where she said Democrats' health care plans include "death panels."

    The claim has been widely debunked as a myth by the media, but last night the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee sought to explain and defend her original remarks.

    In her new statement released on Facebook, Palin accused President Obama of making "light" of her concerns during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday. Mr. Obama called such panels a "rumor" and said that the provision that has been talked about within the House bill (Section 1233, which is titled "Advance Care Planning Consultation") would allow Medicare to pay for consultations with doctors about end-of-life care, but would not require them.

    Palin responded by saying that the president is being "misleading."

    "With all due respect, it's misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients," she said in the post. "The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context."

    Palin argues that peopled would be pressured by their doctors to have these consultations, and that they would also be encouraged to undergo cheaper alternatives in end-of-life care. Democrats deny those charges.




    Parent
    Obama started the discussion (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Madeline on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:16:20 PM EST
    In June 2009, Obaba held a town meeting about Medicare and Medicare expenses. During that meeting, he veered off into 'end of life' suggestions and what Medicare would pay. Then he spent several minutes relating to the end of life of his Mother and Grandmother. Then he gave a talk on living wills and preparations. Of course, this was unexpected.  I assume that many people at that meeting heard what Palin said...Death Panels.

    Obama made a very big mistake. The talk may have been meant to be informative but it was invasive. People in that room heard the instructions; once every 5 years, talk to doctor about dying and have him counsel you on what to do.  His voice was matter of fact....it was information ...and he just talked and talked about dying.  

    I think as soon as Palin whispered Death Panels and the Tea Party formed, thousand of seniors were right behind them.

    While Democrats were always a Democratic voting block, because of Medicare and SS, they are the largest group the party has lost in the last three years.

    Of course Obama did not day anything about death panels.  He talked about End of Life panels.

    Parent

    Madeleine: Your comments...very analytical (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:33:53 PM EST
    Thank you. I share your evaluation that the WH/Obama/Administration did not appreciate how the matter-of-fact discussion on the process for confronting the medical needs in the dying process did not comport with emotional feelings. I felt the same pangs when I heard that early explanation. My heart & head could not get together (even tho I have lived through the excruciating pain of loved ones' deaths.)

    While the Death Panel exploitation & scare talk by Palin & Co. verges on disgusting, I very much agree that the President's early remarks were not helped by his collected, cool personality & delivery. I'm guessing that the WH learned a lot from that episode. This is an area where the wise should allow wisdom to evidence legitimate caring, empathy, and warmth. (And, to be very honest: A good part of me says that the WH needs to take care that people of some years should be in the forefront on this.  Having experienced the reality of family and friends loss teaches a lot...this is not about theory.)

    Parent

    Seniors (none / 0) (#60)
    by Madeline on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:26:43 PM EST
    While SENIORS were always a Democratic voting block, because of Medicare and SS, they are the largest group the party has lost in the last three years.

    Sorry


    Parent

    I was going to to post that (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:35:01 PM EST
    but did not have the energy to argue. Sarah Palin is the one who popularized the term, and that is how she uses it.

    Parent
    The Ezekial Emanuel myth ... again? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    Popular with Michelle Bachman, but it's been debunked a gagillion times.  For example:

    So the question is, is Emanuel saying that he thinks health services ought not to be guaranteed to patients with dementia?

    No, said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the White House Office of Budget and Management. "He just unequivocally doesn't believe that."

    In fact, he said, one need look only as far as the next paragraph:

    "Clearly more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services."

    ...

    What it means, Baer said, is that Emanuel was exploring different views of political theory as they apply to health care decisions and following one school of thought through to the point where he notes that it would lead to "potentially disturbing types of policy ramifications."

    Furthermore, he said, you need to balance McCaughey's claim against Emanuel's 25-year record of caring for very sick people, and specifically providing quality care to very ill patients at the end of their life.

    "He's a little surprised at how his record is being twisted and turned," Baer said. "It is preposterous that Ezekiel Emanuel would deny care to someone who needed it, or that he believes we should be making the sort of horrific medical decisions he's been accused of."

    ... Emanuel has also written extensively in more mainstream media -- the Atlantic and Wall Street Journal , for example -- about his opposition to euthanasia and his belief in appropriate end-of-life care.

    Here's a quote from a Jan. 7, 1997, commentary written by Emanuel for the Wall Street Journal : "For the millions of others, legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide would be of no benefit. To the contrary, it would be a way of avoiding the complex and arduous efforts required of doctors and other health-care providers to ensure that dying patients receive humane, dignified care."



    Parent
    Yman, et al (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:39:20 PM EST
    Yman - Your problem is, he wrote what I quoted. And the next paragraph, which you quoted, doesn't refute or change it. You quoted:

    Clearly more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services."

    He has previously noted that a "way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services"  is guided by this:

    Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citi- zens in public deliberations-are to be socially guar- anteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsycho- logical services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason

    He had just laid down the "principled way."

    Capt Howdy - Yes, Palin said what she said. But the facts are that $500 billion is planned to be removed from Medicare and shortages will result and Death Panels will come into play. This is not an Obama/Palin thing. It is just noting facts and recognizing that loss of funds always result in shortages and that always leads to rationing. Death Panels is merely a way to describe the bureaucratic groups that will okay pulling the plug and denying treatment. And they already are involved in saying what drugs you may get.

    The capstan - No one should yell at you. Do some research on what is going on now in Europe. Focus on the Netherlands.

    Madeline - Yes. And the above is one of the reasons.

    Parent

    That's why you look at the context (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    As Politifact noted, Emanuel wasn't endorsing the ideas falsely ascribed to him by the wingers - and you:

    But to make the sensational claim that Emanuel says health care should not be extended to the disabled is a gross distortion of his position, lifted out of context from an academic paper in which he poses philosophical ideas but doesn't necessary endorse them. Emanuel's hefty medical record also counts for something, as well his unequivocal public position against euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide.

    If I quote or describe someone's position when writing an academic paper (as Dr. Emanuel did), it does not mean I subscribe to or support that same position.

    Not a difficult concept.

    Parent

    Emanuel wrote what he wrote (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 07:47:51 AM EST
    He didn't need to say anything about the subject unless he wanted to discuss the whys and whens and ways that treatment could be denied and people killed to meet the greater goal of lower cost and better service to those who can serve society better.

    He wrote:

    Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citi- zens in public deliberations-are to be socially guar- anteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.

    Parent

    You can quote from his paper (none / 0) (#123)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:15:02 AM EST
    until the cows come home, but you have yet to demonstrate any attempts via Obamacare to carry out what he was talking about in his paper.

    Parent
    It is called cause and effect (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:26:46 AM EST
    The removal of the $500 billion from Medicare will cause shortages. The effect of that will be the requirement for someone to determine who gets treatment. (That's known as rationing.)

    That someone is the "Death Panels."

    Parent

    Ohhhh, ... so it's what ... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 06:12:04 AM EST
    ... you're imagining the effect will be.

    That's called "speculation" ...

    ... not facts.

    Parent

    At least he tries to (none / 0) (#199)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:14:04 AM EST
    fine a basis for the 'death panel' claim, that's more than the Quitbull ever did.

    Parent
    Rationing of scare national resources (2.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:51:49 PM EST
    is a well known and historical demonstrable activity of the government.

    You are denying reality when you think that taking resources from Medicare won't result in shortages.... and rationing will follow as sure as night follows day.

    Parent

    He did indeed. He just didn't SAY ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:53:15 AM EST
    ... what you, Bachmann and Coulter are trying to twist his words to make him say.  Factcheck also debunked this winger myth, noting:

    ... Emanuel discusses possible philosophical justifications to "distinguish basic from discretionary health care services." Emanuel argued that thinkers on both the left and right were beginning to converge on a single answer when it comes to allocating medical resources. Here's the quote in full context:

    Communitarians endorse civic republicanism and a growing number of liberals endorse some version of deliberative democracy. ... This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. ...

    ... the context makes it clear that Emanuel is describing the implications of a particular philosophical trend, not offering a policy prescription.

    As noted, Emanuel's quotes clearly were not spoken in the first peron - he was describing positions held by others.  It's like a historian discussing winger myths and conspiracy theories.  Just because you mention birther fantasies or militia Blackhawk helicopter stories doesn't mean the historian is advocating those positions.

    Really not a difficult concept ... unless someone's feigning ignorance.

    Parent

    Well, I hope that historian (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:35:39 AM EST
    doesn't leave out the Truthers...

    He wrote what he wrote. If he thought what he wrote was wrong he could have just not written it, or after bringing it up, condemning it.

    Parent

    No need to (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 06:10:03 AM EST
    It's obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension abilities.

    Parent
    Here's the conclusion of (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:12:48 AM EST
    the paper by Dr. Emmanuel, not that it will change PPJ's mind about the subject:

    Ultimately, none of the eight simple principles recognise all morally relevant values, and some recognise irrelevant values.
    QALY and DALY multiprinciple systems neglect
    the importance of fair distribution. UNOS points systems attempt to address distributive justice, but recognise morally irrelevant values and are vulnerable to corruption.
    By contrast, the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations, it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles.
    Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off , maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.

    Click or PDF Me

    Parent

    Thank you for showing us what (2.00 / 1) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:48:33 PM EST
    Emanuel, and Obama, think.

    From your quotation, this is the summary of his beliefs,

    To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.

    As he wrote:

     

    Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citi- zens in public deliberations-are to be socially guar- anteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsycho- logical services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason


    Parent
    didnt take long (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    If it will stop the recent dumbing down of NPR (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:51:03 PM EST
    I support withdrawal of federal funds too. I admit to being condescending and arrogant.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:51:58 PM EST
    I think that is what he meant and I agree.

    Parent
    I'd watch the video, but O'Keefe makes me sick (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:50:31 PM EST
    and I don't want to give him the hits.

    Parent
    Dead fish, I kid you not (none / 0) (#3)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:48:50 PM EST

    Redondo Beach officials said initial assessments suggest oxygen depletion in the King Harbor basins caused the massive fish die-off.

    City Manager Bill Workman said city officials with the help of marine experts would help determine if there was any environmental issue involved. Tests are now being performed on the water as officials begin removing the dead fish, which city officials estimated to be in the millions.

    "There are no visible signs of any toxins that might have caused [the die-off] and our early assessment is that this was oxygen depletion," Workman said. "This is similar to what we experienced five years ago but that was distinctly a red tide event but there's no discoloration of the water, no associated foaming in the waves, Workman said. "There are no oil slicks or leaking of substances into the water."

    Workman noted that the harbor had been teeming in recent weeks with bait fish that even after their deaths "had no signs of degradation."

    "It looks like what happens to goldfish when you don't change the water in the tank, mouth open and belly up," Workman said.



    Click or LAT Me


    happening just a little (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:54:37 PM EST
    to often? or is it me?


    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:57:37 PM EST
    Update: Dead Fish (none / 0) (#129)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:00:10 AM EST

    Authorities said it appeared that a massive, churning ball of sardines, and some mackerel and anchovies, was chased toward shore over the last few days, primarily from a spring storm that brought wind gusts of 45 miles per hour off the coast last weekend. Hungry, migrating whales spotted offshore in recent days may have added to the sardines' plight.

    So the sardines did what anyone might -- they headed for safe harbor, to a picturesque complex of four marinas home to 1,400 boats, mostly private fishing boats, sailboats and cruisers, a jewel of an easygoing town of surf shops, dive bars and tanning salons.

    There, they suffocated.

    Even at high tide, King Harbor is only 22 feet deep, and though it is home to mackerel and perch, there simply wasn't enough oxygen to support such a massive influx of fish, even of the four-inch variety, officials said. The basin of the marina complex the fish chose also happened to be a spot with very little water movement, critical for maintaining oxygen levels.



    Click or LAT Me.


    Parent
    Dick Lugar - statesman (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:06:37 PM EST
    Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the most senior member of the Senate Republican Conference, said Tuesday he will oppose the House-passed proposal to make drastic cuts to the federal budget.


    What's with (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    Indiana lately? Mitch Daniels coming out against Walker and now this? Not that it isn't a good trend....

    Parent
    and Lugars (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:18:38 PM EST
    looking down the teabagger barrel too.

    Lugar, who is facing a Tea Party-backed challenge in the 2012 Indiana Republican primary, is taking a political risk. But he and other centrist Republicans have concerns about steep spending cuts that will eliminate funding for some federal programs in mid-year.

    ps
    a few days ago I praised Mike Huckabee for speaking truth to the baggers.  never mind.  clearly it was part of a plan.  denounce the central absurdity that he is not an american and embrace every other batsh!t crazy thing he can find.  he is trying to become the new Palin.

    Parent

    Mitch Daniels (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:22:42 PM EST
    Is not a crazy Tea Partier.  He speaks with facts and figures, and while pretty conservative, does not seem toe the party line with the crazy talking points.

    Parent
    and soon to be ex-Senator (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    statesman?

    Ha

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:48:43 PM EST
    But, it seems that Richard Lugar is not going to make it easy for the numbers of Republicans in Indiana who have followed some of their state tea party officials off the rail. In my reaching-out mindset, I welcome Lugar's stand...and, really, he has probably arrived at the stage of his career and life where he gets to make his choice. Good on him if he has come, however lately, to exercise some independence from the latest version of the Know Nothing Party.

    Oh...because Indiana doesn't really resemble Alaska, I doubt a repeat of reinstated Senator Murkowski. Being an old Bloomington committeewoman from long ago, what I do expect--based upon the political demographics of Indiana--is that the fervor of the tea party will only benefit Hoosier Democrats. Thank you very very much for the gift.

    Parent

    Dick Lugar had an epiphany (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:25:00 PM EST
    Tuesday afternoon.  He said he made a mistake and will vote with the Republicans on the cuts to the federal budget.

    Parent
    saints preserve us (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:21:55 PM EST
    Three Democratic Senators (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    dedicated to selling the Cat Food Commissions recommendations.  Mark Warner speaking to his true constituents:

    The nation will be "up the creek" economically, Warner told a crowd of more than 200 lobbyists and business leaders in Richmond, unless Congress and the White House come together in support of highly unpopular measures such as raising taxes and overhauling Social Security and Medicare. link

    The other two Democratic gang members are Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee; and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and a close Obama ally. Both are on record as supporting the recommendations of the Cat Food Commission.

    Parent

    well I sort of meant (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    relative statesman

    Mardi Gras Fun Facts: Floats (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:32:38 PM EST
    from our internal news groups

    Costs for a medium sized float runs around $40,000. Huge signature floats can cost over $1 million. Kern Studios is one of the largest float manufacturers in New Orleans and has expanded their business to include parades all over the world.  (My sister worked at Kern Studios for years designing floats.)

    To be on a float you have to be a member of a krewe. Membership is up to each group. Riding on a Zulu float, one of the biggest Krewes in New Orleans, costs ordinary people $1,500. Krewe of Ponchartrain floats cost $660 per person. Other Krewes have special requirements: Krewe of Iris is all female, and the Krewe of Rex consists of 600 all-male members and is the most exclusive group in Mardi Gras.  (My mother is a member of the Krewe of Iris and rides every year on the Saturday before Mardi Gras day.)

    See more floats like this one in Kern Studios Portfolio




    Cool floats (none / 0) (#72)
    by sj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:03:40 PM EST
    There is nothing quite like a Krewe parade through the French Quarter.  So much fun.

    And Mardi Gras season is longer than just a week.  It starts on Twelfth Night (January 6) and ends on Fat Tuesday (the day before Ash Wednesday) so its length varies.  

    I intended to bring in a King Cake to work this year during Mardi Gras season but I started a new job and didn't know my colleagues well enough to know if they would enjoy the find-the-baby-and-bring-the-next-cake fun.

    I worked for a long time for a company headquartered in Louisiana and it was really kind of fun.  Everyone would be kind of hesitant to take a piece until the baby had been found but eventually pastry temptation wins out.

    Parent

    We had (none / 0) (#162)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:33:32 AM EST
    a store-bought King Cake yesterday that someone brought in, but alas, no baby.  Big warning stickers on it that there wasn't one - I guess the choking hazard and potential lawsuits prevented them from doing it.

    But it was still delicious.

    Parent

    Sometimes it's hard being Canadian (none / 0) (#36)
    by canuck eh on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 03:49:45 PM EST
    I went to check the score of the Arsenal game only to find that my local sports network (holder of the CL contract) is not showing the game and instead has chosen to broadcast the Brier (aka Canadian Men's Curling Championships)

    My kingdom for Direct TV!

    For your consideration (none / 0) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 04:11:23 PM EST
    ....[Obama] forcefully asserted his commitment to seeking compromise and used the adjectives "sanctimonious" and "purist" to describe inflexible positions on issues like the public option and the deal on the tax cut extension.
    .....the campaign also created a totally new expectation--that Obama would be able to continue to play the role of inspirational moral leader once he entered office.  In retrospect, it was comparable to imagining Martin Luther King running for president, being elected and then trying to continue to lead the civil rights movement from the oval office.

    James Vega, The Democratic Strategist

    IMHO, long-term thinking is long overdue for supposed liberals and progressives alike.  The realities of governing a 50/50 nation make it inevitable that leaders will disappoint.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lentinel on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:25:36 PM EST
    don't think that people who supported GW Bush were disappointed in the least by his performance as president.

    It is only we who hoped for an alternative who are supposed to accept the wishy-washy lackluster performance of the present incumbent as inevitable and acceptable.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    know. It sounds like Obama has the same Jesus complex that Bush had only that type of thing only works on evangelicals and not the rest of the country.

    Parent
    Personally, (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lentinel on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:34:38 PM EST
    I don't know if either Bush or Obama believe in anything.

    They come across as salespeople for the interests they represent.

    They come out, read what is placed in front of them, ad lib a little to give it that personal touch, and then they recede.

    Parent

    What that (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:32:52 PM EST
    excerpt is saying is that only liberals are purists while the tea party people are willing to compromise? He is the most clueless person I have seen in a long time.

    When Michelle Obama said that the country had to elect Obama to heal our souls she wasn't joking.

    If he wants to be an inspirational moral leader then he needs to become a minister and leave the oval office to somebody who can handle the job.

    Parent

    That is not what the excerpt is saying (none / 0) (#87)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    I am wondering if anybody actually read thru the entire essay.

    The issue we face is not that Obama wants to be an inspirational moral leader; he may want to be, but really, that's irrelevant.

    The issue and point about purists is that they were expecting Obama to do all the heavy lifting w/o also considering the need for a consensus based movement to change the thinking of the country, your fellow citizens.  

    No politician can "handle the job" by themselves.

    Parent

    Oh, okay - I get it now... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:28:23 PM EST
    we don't want it bad enough to make him do it, right?

    It's our fault.

    Got it.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:41:48 PM EST
    if you believe all the president needs to do is state your point of view over and over and magically, 435 congresspeople and 100 senators and some 300+ million of your fellow citizens will agree and move quickly to do what you want - all I can say is, you have a right to that opinion.


    Parent
    Do you think that's what leadership is? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:06:40 PM EST
    Because I don't.  Stating your point of view over and over is how people get elected, but after that a higher and different skill level is needed to bring people to your position.

    Networking, arm-twisting, horse-trading, finding places where the policy you believe in works, and showing a wider audience that it works and how it can work on a larger scale.  We have history to turn to as a way to show what can work - and what often is a mistake.  We have education - the more people know about an issue, the more open they are likely to be to new ways to solve our problems.

    What Obama has done has been more in service to a conservative, corporate-centric point of view; I can't speak for anyone else, but that isn't my idea of how a Democrat should be operating or leading, but...this is, after all, a country that comprises people of disparate views.

    Parent

    Same tune, new package? (none / 0) (#91)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:37:02 PM EST
    Without a real mandate and with slim (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:10:31 PM EST
    majorities as well as having his party in the minority, Bush was able to push through conservative legislation. With a large mandate and large majorities in both house, Obama has been able use his bully pulpit to validate Republican movements and build a consensus on adopting Republican policies to better enable him to push through conservative legislation in the spirit of bipartisanship.

    Some of us were never bought into the inspirational moral leader meme but it was IMO a reasonable expectation that when people voted for a Democratic president and large Democratic majorities in Congress that Obama would show some leadership and put some effort into selling Democratic policies.

    BTW, lack of agreement does not denote lack of understanding of the multiple excuses and rationalizations used to justify Obama's actions.

     

    Parent

    Thank you for bringing up Bush, you make my point (none / 0) (#103)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:46:46 PM EST
    What did Bush have that we don't? Wait for it.....consensus across his party. From the representatives to the constituents, they act as a team.  They also had majorities of Americans supporting their positions when they did jam things thru.  (and it's not really jamming something thru when the American people want it.)


    Parent
    Oh no, he didn't (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:23:36 PM EST
    What did Bush have that we don't? Wait for it.....consensus across his party. From the representatives to the constituents,

    He used "my favorite philosopher is Jesus" to win the hearts of the fundamentalists (who were boots on the ground), and never bothered to go to church.  He had some from beginning, convinced others, and dragged the rest along with him.

    They also had majorities of Americans supporting their positions when they did jam things thru.

    I don't think so.  Majorities of Americans didn't say "I think you better create a whole new Department of Homeland Security" to stop a small number of terrorists.

    Majorities of Americans didn't want bankruptcy laws changed to protect credit card companies.

    Majorities of Americans didn't want to go into Iraq.

    Majorities of Americans didn't say we need to round up and torture some people.

    He just did it.

    Parent

    We could go through a whole list of (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:05:52 AM EST
    things that the majority of American support and rather than use and build on that support, Obama and the Dems pursued policies and passed conservative legislation that went against what the majority of Americans wanted. They continue to do so. American want jobs and for the politicians to leave SS and Medicare alone. Under the guise of a deficit commission, Obama chose members who were known to favor gutting SS and Medicare. Top members of the Democratic Senate are now out selling the commissions recommendations on SS and Medicare which weaken the programs and reduce the benefits. At the same time, Obama and the Dems are on board for cuts to domestic programs that will eliminate jobs rather than promoting any real job creation program.
     

    Parent
    It might be more a more accurate (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:46:46 PM EST
    comparison imagining Martin Luther King running for president, being elected and then validating the KKK as American as apple pie, vilifying Rosa Parks from the oval office and preaching that civil rights was not a pragmatic objective or politically feasible regardless of the platform he ran on.

    Parent
    I think you missed the point (none / 0) (#56)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:20:15 PM EST
    of the article. The reality of governing a nation of disparate views is quite different from leading a movement.

    Parent
    And that (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:22:50 PM EST
    is why, depsite being told by the blogger boyz, that experience really does matter.

    Parent
    I don't think I am the one who (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    missed the point. This country has always had disparate views. If all of our leaders had adopted Obama's governing style, civil right would have failed miserably.  

    Parent
    Civil Rights was successful because of pressure (none / 0) (#83)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:00:03 PM EST
    put on public officials by a movement of people w/similar viewpoints.  The people came together around a baseline of ideas.  They did not rely on a politician for their successes.  The governing style of the politicians at the time was irrelevant except to the extent that their style gave them the ability to build consensus and actually get civil rights laws passed.  

    If you remember, Hillary said the same thing during the campaign.

    Parent

    But the point is that if Obama had been the (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:26:59 PM EST
    leader during that time period, he would have validated the positions of the anti-equality crowd while lecturing the pro-civil rights crowd about the folly of their inflexibility, and being annoyed that they weren't suitably grateful for some incremental legislation that wasn't going to take take effect for another four years.

    What?  It wouldn't be possible for a person of color to support the views of bigots?

    Surely you jest - he's a "Democrat" who worships Reagan, gave an anti-gay performer a stage, invited an anti-gay, anti-choice, "man of God" to deliver a prayer at his inauguration, convened a commission with two noted entitlement-haters, further entrenched the worst of the Bush/Cheney policies...do I really need to go on?

    Parent

    You're kidding? (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 05:11:27 AM EST
    Without LBJ twisting arms and willing to go against his own Dixiecrats there would have been no civil rights legislation. Yes, the movement was started by individuals but it took a tough guy like LBJ to bring it to fruition because I'm telling you there was no way the state legislatures were going to change the Jim Crow laws.

    Parent
    Actually the tough guy (none / 0) (#130)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:01:55 AM EST
    image of Johnson is very overstated on that bill.  He wasn't sure it would pass and didn't want to lose political capital so early in his presidency on a possibly losing cause, so largely let others -- AG Bobby Kennedy, Sen Hubert Humphrey the floor manager, the Maj Leader Mansfield, plus Dirksen -- get the public attention during the lengthy process until the filibuster was broken.

    The real story there was that it did take both the grassroots c.r. effort, including one major (Birmingham 1963) incident, and a president willing to listen and boldly act (JFK, acting more in a positive, moral sense of right, and taking great political risk) or a president acting more in a negative, political sense of fear of repercussions if he didn't act (LBJ, fearing he'd be attacked by the liberals and blacks and put his '64 election in jeopardy).

    I don't think we'll often get Obama acting in the first, Kennedyesque bold sense of doing right despite considerable political risk.  It's possible however, with a lot more organizing from below, that we could get the 2d scenario, the negative actor who finally acts lest he lose all power.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:08:28 AM EST
    even think the second scenario would happen with Obama. Look at WI. What was his response? Everybody needs to accept cuts. Obama couldn't take a stand on anything it seems. You have to have some leadership capabilities even to do number two which Obama does not possess. The only thing that Obama seems capable of doing is caving to the GOP and the tea party. It's really sad.

    Parent
    He probably hasn't (none / 0) (#140)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    been more vocal about WI because to date he hasn't been called out forcefully and consistently by the activists there, who've been focused on going after the gov and the Gooper state senators.  So, no political risk for him at the moment in keeping quiet.  Ditto for some other issues re civil liberties, Afghan war, etc -- just not much activism directed at the president on these issues, so he feels politically safe in staying somewhat out of the picture and doing/saying only the minimum necessary.

    Parent
    He hasn't been (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:31:27 AM EST
    called out by the activists mainly i would imagine simply because they know he is useless. I mean if I were them, i certainly wouldn't want Obama involved. I was speaking more to the fact of what he says to the press about the issue.

    Parent
    A Democrat needs... (none / 0) (#150)
    by sj on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:45:08 AM EST
    to be called out forcefully and consistently to support Unions?

    Do you see what is wrong with that picture?

    And anyway you're looking at it through the wrong lens.  The White House has weighed in on the Wisconsin protests.

    When West Wing officials discovered that the Democratic National Committee had mobilized Mr. Obama's national network to support the protests, they angrily reined in the staff at the party headquarters.

    Because it was a distraction from the WTF message Obama introduced in his State of the Union address.

    Parent

    Yes, there's something (none / 0) (#158)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    wrong with the picture, but it's the reality of Obama and the modern Dem party he represents, who on the one hand want union backing at election time, but in between elections find it politically useful, as they see the lay of the land, to keep their distance lest they be tagged as too pro-union.  

    But as for WI, I wonder if the local Wisconsonite workers aren't doing a good job of battling the Gooper forces w/o help from the WH, as I read the trend of the news there.  Perhaps if this were a more solidly pro-O state, which it isn't last I checked, it would be more obvious that Obama should step in.  

    But beyond WI, since similar GOP power grabs in favor of their party and the big corps that fund them appear to be happening in a number of other states, I think Obama currently risks looking weak, feckless and almost irrelevant as a leader if he lets too much time pass w/o a stronger statement from the bully pulpit in support of union/workers rights and economic fairness, as he calls out the Repubs for their brazen, antidemocratic conduct.

    Parent

    That we are a nation of disparate views (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:26:06 PM EST
    did not happen overnight; it wasn't a phenomenon that was ushered in with Obama's appearance on the political scene - but it seems, at times, as if he is so conflict-averse that he has come to believe that everyone is right, no one is wrong, and if he can get us all to see that, we will be happy with whatever decisions of governance are made.

    But, Obama's supposed to be the leader of the Democratic party who is also the leader of the nation, no?  And while it's true that he represents all of the people, isn't the whole point of wanting to lead to bring people over to your point of view?

    Or not? Does a leader shepherd people where they want to go, or does he convince people that where he - or she - is is the best place for the people to be?

    Obama would be perfect for The United States of Stepford, where the people all defer to each other's points of view and none of them has any deep belief in anything, but that's not only not where we live, it isn't where I want to live, sorry.

    Parent

    Reminds me of this quote (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:44:55 PM EST
    "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."

    (attributed to Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin)

    Parent

    And what does a leader do when the people are not (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:02:15 PM EST
    convinced?  IMO, exactly what Obama has been doing.

    Parent
    Okay, help me out here... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:19:37 PM EST
    Who is the leader who has failed to convince the people?  Obama - or someone else?  And if it's Obama, what hasn't he convinced people of, and what is he doing that is exactly right?

    Parent
    Reaching consensus where he can (none / 0) (#97)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:22:19 PM EST
    Doing what he can w/executive powers.  A true leader tries to represent all the people, not just the half of the country that elected him.  You talk about lack of courage and yet despite polls to the contrary on healthcare, Guantanamo, taxes (not much of a stretch to advocate for higher taxes for the rich, but in light of talk on nixing the deal this poll is noteworthy,) the president has stuck his neck out there on issue after issue.  You may not like how far his neck has gone, but he has tried to move things in the direction a liberal or progressive should support.

    Parent
    Stuck his neck out on taxes? (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    Obama's tax policies reduces the taxes paid by the rich even more than Bush's tax cuts while they raise the taxes paid by individuals making under $20,000 and couples making under $40,000. More tax cuts for the rich and increasing taxes on the poor would not normally be considered a liberal position. Providing huge bail outs to the banks so that they can continue to pay out billion in dollars in bonuses to CEOs who ran the businesses into the ground while freezing the pay of ordinary workers and cutting back domestic programs would not normally be considered a liberal position. Taxing health benefits so that people lose good health care coverage in use those funds to shore up the insurance industry by paying for their overpriced products would not normally be considered a liberal position. Eliminating human and constitutional rights would not normally be considered a liberal position.  

    Not only do we get a New Democratic Party who has publicly stated that they don't need blue collar workers but all of a sudden we get corporate centric and conservative policies newly defined as progressive or liberal.

    Parent

    Two points on taxes (none / 0) (#108)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:12:34 PM EST
    re: 2011 - better that rates don't go up for everyone. If two years from now is a better time to revisit upper income brackets, so be it. Most Americans felt that way, I agree with them.

    On Making Work Pay, it is true that some will see a small increase, but the vast majority will see a benefit on swap out for SS tax cut as this chart illustrates.

    Further, from your link earlier today:

    Although low-income singles who don't qualify for certain tax credits will pay more, the White House said Wednesday it isn't fair simply to look at the impact of the Making Work Pay credit versus the Social Security reduction. Other provisions of the tax deal -- such as the child tax credit -- affect low-income families; when combined with the Social Security tax reductions, families will be better off under the negotiated deal.

    Experts who were disappointed in the impact on lower-income workers were still generally supportive of the overall plan, however. That's because -- whatever the impact on individual Americans -- the impact on the broader economy will be greater with the Social Security tax reduction.

    The proposed reduction in Society Security taxes will pump an estimated $120 billion into the economy -- twice as much as would have the Making Work Pay credit.

    As far as I know, nothing else in your post has actually happened yet.

    Parent

    Making work pay benefited the (none / 0) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    poor and middle class people. Social Security tax reduction only benefits those people who actually pay into the Social Security system. So not only do the rich receive even more tax breaks, those on the lower income scale and people like teachers, local, state and government workers will now pay more in taxes. IOW no tax breaks for them. Not everyone who is poor will receive the child tax credit.

    Lets list some of the things that you claim did not happen:

    40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion (link)

    WASHINGTON -- President Obama on Monday announced a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers as he sought to address concerns over high annual deficits and appealed to Republicans to find a common approach to restoring the nation's economic and fiscal health. (link)

    WASHINGTON--The U.S. pay czar is expected to issue a potentially embarrassing report as early as Friday detailing large sums paid out by financial firms to top executives and employees during the height of financial crisis, according to people familiar with the matter.
    ...
    The review is expected to detail large payouts for top executives and employees at a time when banks were receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. It's unclear how many banks will be cited in the review or the total amount paid to employees. link

    WASHINGTON -- President Obama, who is proposing his third annual budget on Monday, will say that it can reduce projected deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next decade, enough to stabilize the nation's fiscal health and buy time to address its longer-term problems, according to a senior administration official.

    Two-thirds of the reductions that Mr. Obama will claim are from cuts in spending, including in many domestic programs that he supports. link



    Parent
    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:09:04 PM EST
    A true leader tries to represent all the people, not just the half of the country that elected him.  

    A true leader is not a reflection.  A leader holds the mirror and shows what s/he wants to show.  A leader doesn't follow focus groups, s/he focuses the groups.  

    He's doing this job laying down with a damp cloth on his forehead having the vapors because we're not grateful that he deigned to notice us enough to lecture us on how we have to sacrifice more.  Those with wealth?  Not so much.

    And before this gets sidetrack into a primary holdover the "s" in s/he is NOT Hillary specific.  She's far from the only female leader.  

    Parent

    In your opinion (none / 0) (#109)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:13:13 PM EST
    You can't (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 05:14:10 AM EST
    please all the people all the time. I know that's something that people like you don't seem to understand. Obama is going about this ALL the wrong way. He can please the middle and the left at the same time. There is policy that both agree on but he has chosen to try to please the beltway pundits and the conservatives---conservatives who will NEVER vote for him and stomped on the necks of the people who DID vote for him. All in all, that is just stupid politics.

    Parent
    And what does a leader do when the people are not (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:08:49 PM EST
    convinced?

    Convince them for crying out loud.  Not back away in submission.

    At least that's what he would do if he were a leader and that his real preference is for traditional Democratic ideals and platforms.  

    Parent

    How? (none / 0) (#110)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:13:43 PM EST
    Beat them with stick? Yell at them?

    Parent
    Do you realize (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 05:15:20 AM EST
    that the public option was extremely popular until the GOP started railing on it? The GOP was able to convince people it was bad in the face of Obama's ineptness.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#142)
    by CST on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:30:45 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure the public option was STILL popular even after the GOP railed on it.

    The problem was Joe Schmoe Lieberman and friends - not public opinion.

    Of course from that it was clear reconciliation was the way to go.

    Parent

    Or twisting (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    some arms instead of letting Joe run things and then trying reconciliation.

    Parent
    Joe Lieberman (none / 0) (#148)
    by CST on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:41:57 AM EST
    was throwing a hissy fit because his guy lost the presidency.  I don't know that his arms were going to be twisted.

    It could have gotten 50 votes though.

    Parent

    sort of immaterial (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:45:20 AM EST
    since the PO was traded away in the summer of 2009 anyway.

    Parent
    Can we please kill the term (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    "public option?"  It was never more than a bumper sticker - pretty much without real meaning - and served only to drain energy and resources from a single-payer or Enhanced Medicare For All movement.  Now, that term may have come about because everyone in Congress had their marching orders that single-payer was off the table, and maybe there was some hope that they could somehow get to single-payer from a more sideways direction, but for the most part, it was a throwaway label that served no purpose other than to distract from single-payer .  I mean, if you got any ten people together, pretty much all ten of them would have a different perception or understanding of what, exactly, it was.

    As for Jane Hamsher and FDL, yes, they were probably more responsible than any other outlet for pushing "the public option," and utilized in that effort people who were little more than shills for the industry; those who dared to hold Jane's feet to the fire and who wanted to know why she came so late to the single-payer table, were treated like dirt for their temerity in questioning her judgment.

    FDL does a lot of good work, but they did a lot of damage to the health care reform fight - and still have not owned up to it.

    And so "public option" lives on - with people still believing it was a real thing, and a real fight; it wasn't.

    The only way to advance the discussion is to make it about something real, so remove the term from your vocabulary: if you are for a single-payer system, call it that; if you feel like Enhanced Medicare For All is a better way to describe what you favor, call it that.  

    Please.

    Parent

    Killing the term PO (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:20:33 AM EST
    You can't kill it.  Like it or not the idea it represented and variations thereof were discussed ad nauseam.  Did the concept serve to distract from the actual project of Medicare for All?  Certainly.  

    The reason it wasn't a real fight is that it was traded away.  Perhaps it was easier to trade away because it was so vague.  But I don't think that was the reason it was traded away.

    Compared to most other major players I don't see how FDL did a lot of damage to health care.  They didn't take single payer off the table.

    Personally, I would've accepted in the healthcare debate any of a variety of public options.  So I am much less adamant on that topic than others here are.  I think how the Obama Admin handled the public option concept was inexcusable.

    Parent

    And who lobbied to (none / 0) (#154)
    by sj on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:55:36 AM EST
    let him retain so much power after he supported McCain for President?  Oh right.  The current President.  That's a major favor that could have been called in.

    But that's political capital that's gone now.

    Parent

    Oh please (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:27:51 PM EST
    He hasn't even tried to make a case for anything other than capitulation to the Republicans.  

    There is he showing leadership.  There he is using the bully pulpit.  "We must give in" is the message he's promoting.

    Not "we can do better than that".  

    Parent

    What does a leader do when people are (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:11:55 AM EST
    already convinced? I don't know what a leader would do but I do know what Obama has done. He has gone against the wishes of the people and pursued legislation that goes against their wishes.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#63)
    by lentinel on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:36:37 PM EST
    isn't governing anything.

    Parent
    It probably won't surprise you to learn (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:49:36 PM EST
    that I am pretty much completely repulsed by Obama's opinion with respect to many of the "purists" who helped elect him, and by any reference to Obama as an inspirational moral leader; as near as I can tell he isn't inspiring, he isn't leading, and I'm pretty sure MLK, Jr. would find little that is "moral" about far too many of Obama's policies.

    As for that whole long-term thinking thing, we out here in the real world would really like the people we elect to understand that our idea of "long-term" extends quite a bit farther than to the next election; many of the decisions that are being made are designed to win a very short-term goal - and that goal doesn't have much to do with us.

    Yes. leaders will disappoint, but first they must have the courage to lead, something that is sorely missing from the current equation.

    Parent

    See my reply to Mo Blue (none / 0) (#57)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:21:35 PM EST
    JFK's "Profiles in Courage" (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:30:53 PM EST
    stands as a major 20th century study of leadership and the different styles.  Different styles called for in different situations...from the commander model to the servant leader. The concept, reality of American leadership is a fascinating study. One of the aspects that is most provocative and runs throughout the various course material in leadership studies is the caution that it could well be counterproductive to get too far out in front of the people who you are attempting to lead. That caution especially applies to democracies where the persuasion process involves longer time to change perceptions, beliefs, goals, etc.

    Parent
    I will agree with that (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by sj on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:09:15 PM EST
    Different styles called for in different situations

    But post-Bush, this is not the situation for a why-can't-we-all-get-along style.

    Parent

    Well, you just agreed that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:09:51 PM EST
    Obama is attempting to lead the people who aren't Dems -- the people who don't support the Dem platform and principles.

    Nicely done.

    Parent

    Um, the President is expected (none / 0) (#192)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 05:43:54 PM EST
    constitutionally & otherwise to lead ALL the people. (Obviously, there is a lot of "campaigning" even in a non-campaign time.) It is a dilemma...the President as leader of the party and, foremost, as leader of the republic and all its people.

    The dilemma is more than word play.  If most of the country is against what a political leader wants to do, they won't be led. And, the loss is to everyone...because you have a type of government paralysis until the next election. That is why it is far better to find a way to keep moving forward--inch by inch, step by step--via a mix of legislative approaches, including classic compromise(s) when enervating stalemate would otherwise result.

    So, yes, that is also why the many books/studies/writings on leadership only talk about the command & control of yore in very limited (usually battlefield and, of course, foreign policy situations.) Today, in the Senate, we saw what the boundaries would be on the FY budget...the Republican product voted down decisively and the Democratic product voted down just as decisively. Ergo, crossed arms & harangues for awhile.  But, soon enough, the move toward the center is inevitable for the very, very obvious reason that neither side has the votes. Leadership, then, will be how to reach a compromise wherein both sides lose something and both sides gain something; not a morality play, but a recognition of the reality of numbers...and the American public's impatience with ongoing stalemate. (Maybe a professional juggler would be a good "leader" in this situation?)

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#99)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:42:15 PM EST
    Seems to me some posters appear to crave what sounds like dictatorship - with the caveat that their team is in control of course.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 05:17:26 AM EST
    Bush screwed up everybody's opinion of leadership.

    Parent
    Hey, couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#193)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 05:46:46 PM EST
    Article is very good (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Madeline on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 11:51:15 PM EST
    finally someone has the courage to write that --he really  isn't that into you - progressives.

    So, it appears that they are saying we go back to what worked for my generation; organize, relationships, inclusiveness and large numbers. And the internet as the tool box, not the epicenter.

    Parent

    Continue to play the role of inspirational (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:34:41 AM EST
    moral leader? When did he start playing that role? He was inspiring to about half of his own party, and I still don't know what he was trying to inspire people to do. Get involved, I guess, which is good. But to compare him to MLK even from the get-go pre-election is flawed.

    And of course it is hard to be a moral leader as president - it is not really that kind of job. It is an executive job - requiring equal parts inspiring your staff, persuading the public, arm twisting congress, knowledge of issues, and other things having nothing to do with being a figurehead moral leader.  It almost sounds like Obama should have been a figure head king and get a prime minister to do the rest of it.

    Parent

    It's called (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:59:47 AM EST
    rerun the 2008 election and pretend the last four years haven't happened.

    It ain't gonna work this time. He has a record to run on and it's going to be about issues and his performance in office. He's never had to run an election like this in his lifetime. Should be interesting to watch.

    Parent

    Oh I think it's (none / 0) (#137)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:20:07 AM EST
    essential that our leaders have a strong moral sense of right and wrong.  Otherwise, you tend to get either your cold-hearted technicians or the types who are just out to enrich and empower themselves in office.

    Lincoln arguing about how if slavery isn't wrong, nothing is wrong.  JFK holding firm against killing millions of innocent people in the missile crisis and nixing a JCS plan to nuke the USSR just because we didn't like their system of govt.  Presidents who push for a minimum wage, for helping the poor and sick, etc.  All that gets lost or put on the back burner when we just look only at narrowly considered qualities in our leaders.

    But otoh obviously, we'd be better off with fewer priggish and sanctimonious moral types for the Dems like Jimmy Carter and Joe Lieberman and the many moral hypocrites in the other party who've combined to give moral leadership a bad rep in recent times.  

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:27:36 AM EST
    but you are arguing for morality based on issues which Obama is not. He seems to see himself as more of the national minister than anything else.

    Parent
    middle manager (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by dandelion on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 12:04:34 PM EST
    I think Obama actually sees himself as the highest elected middle manager.  

    Parent
    True - I guess I am drawing a fine distinction (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    between a leader who has morals and a moral leader. I want the first, don't necessarily care if I get the second.

    Parent
    All of this (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:10:36 AM EST
    makes no sense to me when you look at our current unemployment levels.

    Face it:  when Obama came into office, it was a historical moment in which appropriate solutions to our problems (more stimulus) could have moved this country to the left.  That didn't happen.  That's a failure on his part, you can't sell it to me as a success.  This kind of stuff has been going on for 2 years...at first it was

    (Obama Supporter/OS):  Don't criticize Obama for thinking about selecting John Brennan!  Just let him do his thing, he's progressive!!!!

    In fact, the pressure made Brennan publicly step away from the CIA Director seat, where he could've protected his buddies.  ...Thereby indicating that he was in fact a very serious candidate for that seat.  We got Panetta at CIA instead.  But Brennan became a Counterterrorism adviser anyway, so I guess that's a draw.

    Then we have the stimulus, which was crafted extremely vaguely (as if the amount didn't matter!!) and in the end sold as a kind of kiss off to people like Paul Krugman.

    (OS):  Trust me, Obama has a a plan for the public option!  Don't be disappointed with him for not openly supporting it!

    Well, if he had a plan for it, that plan failed.  Daschle indicates that the public option was traded away in July of 2009 as part of negotiations (other sources suggested the same thing).  This fits with Obama's negotiating style over the past 2 years.

    So then the Obama Supporter, who previously supported the public option, supposedly, says

    (OS):  The public option wasn't important!  I mean, Obama did support it, but couldn't do it!  You guys are making the bill unpopular!  

    And then, repealing the tax cuts for the rich...something Obama ran on in his platform...something oh, basically the ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY has supported for YEARS...doesn't happen.

    I know Obama's approval ratings are about 50%.  That's great - for him.  Too bad he can't do anything with that but repeat the same old performance of "suck up to the middle [aka conservatives]."  It's one thing to pander when your approval rating is 30%...to constantly pander so you can stay at 50%...c'mon.

    Good things have happened over the past 2 years.  The repeal of DADT, for example.  But how did the repeal of DADT happen?  If Obama's legislative strategy was actually "let's trade in tax policy for the repeal of DADT, that's the only way" I mean, damn, I'm happy to have DADT repealed, but that doesn't seem like the smartest strategy to me, or a necessary tradeoff.

    The ACA is a whole 'nother can of worms, but I don't think you can look at how that played out and not ask questions about what could have been done better.  A lot of dumb sh*t that hurt the bill (like the summer of Grassley) was the product of a desire for bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship.

    And now I'm told we have a 50/50 nation.  Well, that's not actually true and many of the various policy initiatives that Obama has had on the table have received overwhelming public support (a real public option, tax hikes for the rich, etc.).  Yet none of them happened!  Tax hikes for the rich was the Democratic Party...and that didn't happen!

    The Democratic Party was taken hostage in the summer of 2009 by the Tea Party.  And that's where they have stayed.  Why is that happening?

    And let's not forget, that building consensus for policy initiatives was what FDL was doing with their public option campaign.  And they were thoroughly slammed by many so-called progressives in the blogosphere for doing just that.  Taking an independent POV means doing so without consciously positioning Obama as a kindly pater familias when there's no evidence that he is actually that.

    Parent

    Incremental (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    Health Care Reform.

    As most people here know, in MA we have essentially had the federal plan in place for a few years now.  As it stands, we have the lowest rate of uninsured individuals in the country, and it's not even close.

    Now for part 2 - cost controls.  Last year, the gov rejected rate increases for a whole host of premiums.  And contrary to what fear-mongerers were saying at the time, this did not cause the insurers to go bankrupt.

    Now, in an effort to further reduce costs, Patrick is introducing a bill that will drasticly change the way health care is paid for.  Link

    "If enacted, Patrick's current plan would give the state more authority to reject insurance increases based on existing medical contracts and would provide incentives for doctors and hospitals to base their fees on quality of care. The state could reject rates if they exceed the increase in the state's gross domestic product or total medical expenses in the region. Medical providers that move from a fee-for-service system to an alternative payment structure aimed at improved efficiency and patient care would be given favorable consideration."

    We'll see what happens.  But there is nothing to say we can't continue moving forward once this is implemented.  And contrary to what some people here think, I consider 97% insured vs. 71% insured a step forward for sure.  That doesn't mean we've won the race, but we're not running backwards.

    And you (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:50:32 PM EST
    can't do incremental from DC on this type of thing. It has to be like medicare--up and running and people see immediate benefits. Even if this was the best bill in the world, it probably still wouldn't work simply because it doesn't go into effect until 2014 and that gives the GOP years to demonize it and convince everyone that it's a bad bill.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:46:34 PM EST
    right now it looks like the bill is going to be going down the tubes little by little. The senate is probably going to repeal the 1099 provision and they are going to pay for it by cutting the subsidies. This is what I said would happen and everyone else is going to have to pay a lot of money for junk insurance because of this poorly written bill.

    The so called "magical" exchanges will never be set up. I'm willing to bet that this bill may not even survive to 2014.

    Parent

    I'll take that bet. (Let me know --email available (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:04:35 PM EST
    Insurance does not guarantee care (none / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:39:54 PM EST
    Massachusetts regulators granted more exemptions last year to residents who said they could not afford the health insurance required by the state, waiving the tax penalty for more than half of those who appealed, according to state data.

    Of the 2,637 people who applied, 63 percent received an exemption with 107 cases pending, up from 44 percent the previous year.
    ...
    Most of the remaining uninsured are among the state's poorest, with incomes below 300 percent of the federal poverty level -- $66,150 for a family of four. That is prompting regulators to take a fresh look at how Massachusetts defines affordable when it comes to mandatory health insurance and whether some of the rules need to be tweaked.
    ...
    This year, consumers without an exemption will face a tax penalty as high as $1,116 if they were uninsured for all of 2010. link

    Having insurance does mean that you can afford health care,

    In March 2009 MA released the first results [PPT] of how that state's health care reform had improved access. It showed that 21% of the total population-and even 12% of children-forgo necessary medical care because they cannot afford it. Of the 21% forgoing care, most (something like 18 or 19%) have health insurance-but it is health insurance they can't afford to use.


    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:58:29 PM EST
    Oh, voice of reason.

    Parent
    all of those exemptions (none / 0) (#134)
    by CST on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:13:54 AM EST
    are included in the percent uninsured.  And yes, in the poor economy there are more uninsured.  It went up from 2.5% to 3%.

    And exemption just means they paid no penalty for it.

    Yes, some people have insurance and forgo care.  It doesn't mean they forgo all care, for example, preventative care is covered very cheaply.

    However, even if you include that 21% as completely uninsured, we STILL have a lower % uninsured than the country average, and I guarantee you those states don't have an under-insured population of 0.

    This is a marathon, not a sprint, and we aren't at the finish line yet.  But I don't see how you can look at this by any metric and call it a step backwards.  Compared to what we use to have, compared to what other states have, this is absolutely progress.

    Parent

    Would it be safe to say (none / 0) (#68)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:48:06 PM EST
    it's much easier to move along a rational route of incrementalism in a place like MA vs the whole country/our congress?

    Parent
    easier yes (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:18:25 AM EST
    impossible, no.  The federal government changes/tweaks laws all the time.

    And honestly I think the best possible way forward is for the more liberal states to show the way.

    I think a big part of the reason that the federal plan was modeled after MA is that it was the only game in town really.  So as states make progress and move forward on their own, you have a framework to base a larger plan on.

    I think the best thing possible would be for a place like VT to implement single-payer and show the rest of the country it can work without death panels and waiting 6 weeks for an appointment.

    But considering that the current system is based significantly on MA, I would think that they would continue to pay attention to how some of the other challenges are being dealt with.  I'm really happy with Deval for taking up this mantle and running with it.  And he has the president's ear.

    Parent

    " MA ... was the only game in town" (none / 0) (#141)
    by sj on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    Not hardly.  Does the phrase "Medicare for all" ring a bell?

    Parent
    where do they currently have (none / 0) (#144)
    by CST on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:31:32 AM EST
    medicare for all?

    Parent
    Oh lordy (none / 0) (#155)
    by sj on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    Where in the national arena does Massachusetts fit in?

    You're talking a model to follow.  They could have followed the existing model of Medicare.  The MA model was not only game in town.  Vermont could have also been a template.

    They implemented the Republican model of 1993.  But not because it was the only game in town.

    Is that comment what you consider a gotcha?

    Parent

    Wait what? (none / 0) (#156)
    by CST on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:12:54 AM EST
    I'm not saying they should have done what they did.  Just that that seems to be what they did.

    And frankly, this whole conversation is irrelevant.  You cherry-picked on one sentance I made and are trying to turn that into a "gotcha"?  Did you even read the rest of my comment?  I'm not talking about what should have been done, I'm talking about what WAS done.

    They more or less followed the MA model.  The VT model in 2006 wasn't that different except it doesn't cover as many people and didn't have a mandate - they're only moving toward single-payer now.  In my opinion, one of the reasons they followed that model is that it was the only obvious existing model to follow.  Medicare for all is not an existing model.  But that statement about why I think they chose that plan to follow is really not my main point - you want to disagree with that, fine, it's just my opinion.  My main point is that it is a step forward.

    Parent

    Stop for a moment (none / 0) (#160)
    by sj on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    Think.  Medicare for all is just Medicare.  For all.  Medicare exists.  It's a model.  I'm done with this conversation.

    Parent
    Oh, CST, accept my handshake & hugs, etc. (none / 0) (#71)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:03:15 PM EST
    Really. In all sincerity...it is hard to go up against the group in any place or any stage of our life. Thank you for directly stating what is going on in the Massachusetts health care arena.

    The provision from Deval Patrick sounds promising. My husband & I saw him at the annual JJ dinner in Denver this past weekend. Quite an effective speaker; and, quite a commitment to people (at least, that was my impression.) BTW, our new Democratic state chair is a strong union descendant from Pueblo Co (whose grandmother was at Ludlow.)

    At times, here, I want to throw up my hands, walk away, shake my head. Then I remember that I sounded like the height or depth of cynicism at an earlier point. Given everything we have been through as a nation in the past 50 years or so and given, especially, the long battle to see any changes at all in the real day-to-day, untheoretical life of real human beings, I can say with real belief that I am again growing in optimism.  

    Parent

    I am a bit surprised there is no discussion (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:18:14 PM EST
    at TalkLeft re what, if anything, the U.S. government should do in response to what is happening in Libya.

    You could start the discussion by (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:46:51 PM EST
    giving us your views on the subject.

    Parent
    I think we should stay out of it (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 09:19:03 PM EST
    except to the extent we agree to help relocate people who have chosen to leave.  I certainly wouldn't follow the recommendations of Sen. McCain.

    Parent
    What do you think? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:47:47 PM EST
    The leader Ghadaffi should go but I sure don't want to invade another country.

    Parent
    Obama is (none / 0) (#88)
    by Madeline on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 08:26:44 PM EST
    'mulling' military intervention. Per WaPo, he is speaking often with David Cameron and to others at the UN about no fly zones and other interventions.

    Of course Gates is just about to have a bird.  He thinks we should be getting out of Afghanistan. He keeps saying that we should not do the no fly and practically begging the President to not intervene. He is retiring soon and appears to be more willing to offer an opinion.

    I think if Obama uses military force, as many Republicans are screaming for, then, again it's about the oil. Is he channeling Dubya?

    If he does intervene, then I am convinced it will be political suicide.  Seriously.

    Parent

    I think we should not (none / 0) (#138)
    by CST on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:26:55 AM EST
    invade another country.  And from what it sounds like, implementing a no-fly zone would essentially require that, or close enough.  I'm also unconvinced it would be very effective.

    I'm starting to really admire Gates, and I'll follow his lead on this one.

    I also think Ghadhafi's days are numbered either way.  If you listen to him, he is literally saying the rebels are both Al-Queda, and backed by western imperialists - which is quite a feat.

    Ironically, on the home front, John Kerry has been itching for a fight and Scott Brown has been urging caution.  Who, btw, I think is well on his way to winning re-election.

    Parent

    I don't know of many (none / 0) (#147)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    people advocating a US military invasion.  But doing nothing with all our firepower while Gaddafi brutalizes and murders thousands of freedom-seeking civilians just seems wrong.  

    Not sure of the technical details of a no-fly, but ideally we'd act militarily only in some limited way directly and only in conjunction with NATO or UN forces though the latter situation seems unlikely given the China/Russia veto power.  Meanwhile we could be quietly arming the rebel forces and  otherwise acting to make it difficult, in various creative and technical ways, for Gaddafi's army and air force to be effective.

    And re Scott Brown, if we can't beat that Koch Bros-backed empty-suit Gooper in Massachusetts of all places ... grrr ...

    Parent

    From what I've been reading (none / 0) (#152)
    by CST on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:51:04 AM EST
    Not only would we have to send in fighter jets to shoot down planes, but we'd also have to take out the anti-aircraft - which means extensive bombing.  And all that wouldn't necessarily be very effective, because the vast majority of their arms are on the ground, and the strength of their air force is in helicopters which fly too low to shoot down anyway.

    In theory, quietly arming the rebels seems like a good idea.  In practice... I have visions of the Taliban dancing in my head.  That being said, it may be the best way forward.

    Scott Brown is not as stupid as I thought he was.  He knows where he's from and he's playing his role.  One of the smartest things he did when coming in was attempt to take up the Kennedy constituent services mantle.  He's not there yet, but he's actively trying, and that makes a big difference here at home.  And he's been getting really good press.

    Parent

    You did see the clip of Brown... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    ...sucking up and begging David Koch for money, right?  That one clip proved, conclusively, that Brown is a fraud.  I never throw the word around lightly, but the Koch Brothers are just evil. Wretched human beings without a whit of essential humanity.  They make Charles Foster Kane seem almost charming.

    Parent
    To be clear (none / 0) (#173)
    by CST on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    I have no intention of voting for him.  I just think he will win.

    And it doesn't prove that he's a fraud, it just proves that he's a republican - something he's always claimed to be.

    Parent

    America's heartland (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:14:45 PM EST
    is moving southwest

    When the Census Bureau announces a new mean center of population next month, geographers believe it will be placed in or around Texas County, Mo., southwest of the present location in Phelps County, Mo. That would put the center at the outer edge of the Midwest, on a path to leave the region by midcentury.

    SNIP

    Among census findings:

    In Arizona, which gains a House seat, Hispanics accounted for roughly half of the state's population increase since 2000, according to census estimates. Arizona has picked up at least one House seat every decade since 1950; its total seats could outnumber Ohio's as early as 2040 -- so long as anti-immigration sentiment and recent mortgage foreclosures don't curtail its long-term growth.

    In seven of the eight Mountain states, Hispanics accounted for nearly 50 percent or more of the population gains among children under 18. Montana, which had a population loss of children, was the exception.

    The western U.S. grew 13.8 percent from 2000 to 71.9 million people, surpassing the Midwest as the second most populous region. The Midwest rose 3.9 percent and the Northeast gained 3.2 percent. The West's growth rate is nearly equal to the South's, which rose 14.3 percent to 114.6 million on the Sun Belt strength of Texas and Florida.

    California, which failed to add a House seat for the first time in its history, would have lost population if it weren't for growth among Hispanics and other minorities, according to 2010 figures released Tuesday. Los Angeles posted a gain over the past decade of just under 100,000 people, its smallest numerical growth since 1890-1900, as many of its Hispanic residents moved elsewhere. The state, the nation's largest with 37.3 million, continues to grow primarily from immigration and births.



    Clearly,.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 07:32:41 PM EST
    Clearly, they'll vote gop and opt to have themselves rounded up and deported whether they're US citizens or not.

    That's how Jesus would play it.

    Parent

    This wasn't very smart (none / 0) (#146)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:36:50 AM EST

    he agent for Kareem Jackson said the Texans' cornerback knows he used bad judgment when he tweeted cockfighting pictures from his vacation in the Dominican Republic.

    Jackson, 22, was on a tour when the guide stopped at a cock fight, according to Tony Fleming, who represents Jackson, the team's 2010 first-round pick who started 16 games as a rookie.

    When Jackson posted the photos on Twitter, it created a controversy on Tuesday.

    "That was one of the places where they stopped," Fleming said about the tour. "He realizes it was bad judgment to put (photos) on Twitter and that it was insensitive on his part."

    Click or Houston Chronicle Me

    I love this story (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:44:43 AM EST
    saw that (none / 0) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    amazing

    Parent
    You really have to wonder (none / 0) (#163)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    sometimes.  What the he!! could he have been thinking?  Hint to home invaders:  Don't stick around long enough to take a shower.  And then don't call 911 yourself.  Another for the Stupid Criminal Tricks file.

    Parent
    Stupid people (none / 0) (#170)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:01:49 AM EST
    Keep lots of lawyers in business. And Jay Leno  It's good for the economy overall.  :)

    Parent
    completely amazing (none / 0) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    this is a tech demo for a game development engine. most people who watch this will not understand how amazing it is.  to really understand that you have to have been involved in trying to do some of the things done in real time in this video the old way.
    I have.  we did lava and water for RFA.  and let me tell you this demo had the people who did it literally weeping.  

    remember what you are seeing is real time.  painting on trees making a mountain with a crater and filling it with water which flows downhill.

    this is what I mean when I say game technology is developing so fast it is mind boggling.

    wonderful (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    I actually remember that in real time. (none / 0) (#166)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:47:33 AM EST
    Can't look now or I'll cry.

    Parent
    That was a famous (none / 0) (#167)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 10:47:52 AM EST
    appearance that I might have even seen in real time.  I miss seeing some of those old Hollywood stars, when they'd show up for a major visit on a big teevee show.  And someone like Jimmy Stewart was always welcome since he didn't seem to want to intrude his own private political leanings (towards the GOP) in the festivities.  It was just entertainment, and he was quite a character.

    Parent
    winning (none / 0) (#176)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:59:03 AM EST
    ok, I think this is weird.

    After starting what will go down in Hollywood history as the most highly publicized meltdown of all time, Charlie Sheen is finally admitting to his problems and reaching out for help.

    In the latest issue of Life & Style, the actor admits that his life has taken a sharp decline in recent months and that, despite adamant declarations that he's "winning," his life has fallen off course.

    "I'm really starting to lose my mind," says Sheen. "I'm ready to call anyone to help."

    so he has this epiphany in an interview in a magazine?  this is a good thing?

    Just curious as to where (none / 0) (#180)
    by sj on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    in the timeline of his mental breakdown the interview took place.

    I don't care how much money he has, I really feel sorry for the guy.  He can't help himself.  He has to find help.

    A friend of mine conjectured that his being off cocaine might be what triggered this manic public behavior.  Much like Ritalin is used to treat ADD, the cocaine may have been serving an additional function than just recreation.  I don't know, it's just so sad for him and his family.

    Parent

    just happened (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    its the latest

    Parent
    David Broder dies (none / 0) (#178)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 12:07:12 PM EST
    whats worse than being (none / 0) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    swept out to sea on an iceberg with a bottle of vodka?

    being swept out to sea on an iceberg without a bottle of vodka?

    "Precious Treasure Holiday Company" (none / 0) (#185)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 02:08:35 PM EST
    MARCH 9--In an aggressive bid to entice prospective "sex tourists," the Department of Homeland Security last year launched an undercover web site that purported to arrange trips from the U.S. to Canada, where clients could engage in sexual activity with minors, The Smoking Gun has learned.

    The "Precious Treasure Holiday Company" web site was active until a few weeks ago when its Massachusetts-based web hosting firm removed the site from its servers, apparently in response to a complaint about its content. Now, visitors to precioustreasureholidaycompany.com are greeted with the message, "This site has been suspended."



    Does anyone know a site (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 03:53:23 PM EST
    where you can get unemployment numbers by state? I have been googling and the numbers that seem to always turn up and the ones for Dec 2010 or is that the latest that's available?

    probably the latest (none / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 03:58:08 PM EST
    available.

    Parent
    Julianne Moore (none / 0) (#190)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    to Play Sarah Palin in `Game Change'

    wonder who is playing Halperin and Heilemann


    even better (none / 0) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 05:06:59 PM EST
    who will play Obie?

    I say Chris Rock.

    Parent

    Thanks to everyone on this thread (none / 0) (#202)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Mar 11, 2011 at 08:08:20 AM EST
    who played the modern version of "The Sky is Falling" including PPJ.