Key Democrat Suggests Party Moderates 'Brain Dead'

Source: Associated Press

(08-27) 09:28 PDT WASHINGTON, CA (AP) --

A key House liberal suggested Thursday that party moderates who've pushed for changes in health care legislation are "brain dead" and out for insurance company campaign donations.

Moderate Blue Dog Democrats "just want to cause trouble," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who heads the health subcommittee on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

"They're for the most part, I hate to say, brain dead, but they're just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process," Stark told reporters on a conference call.

A spokeswoman for the Blue Dog caucus did not immediately respond to an e-mail request for comment.

Thursday's call was being hosted by the liberal group Campaign for America's Future to release a report making the case for a strong new public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers as part of any health overhaul legislation.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/27/national/w092821D26.DTL

:dem:

-Laelth

With a multibillion industry dependent on their votes, why don't they hold out for more?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6398996&mesg_id=6398996

To replace those who would refuse to act as such?

a real Democrat would never get elected in most of those districts/States. As long as the ones in the Senate vote for cloture I'll put up with their DINO idiocy but as soon as they start to vote with the pukes on a cloture vote then it's time to start pulling committee assignments and dump them.

You'll live with blue dogs that vote FOR cloture, but not if they vote AGAINST cloture.

Cloture means voting to end debate and bring the measure to a vote, right?

Okay, can you give an example of how this would work.

I'm not arguing, I just had trouble understanding your point.

sometimes I type before I think.

Basically, I'll live with them voting against a bill but not supporting a filibuster.

As much as I detest blue-dogs, I can understand their political situation. If these members feel that their political life is on the line when they vote for or against a certain bill I can see them voting against a bill that is supported by the general Democratic Party.

For example: If a Senator can't vote for the health care bill I can see him voting no and I'm OK with that as long as he votes to allow the debate to end and bring the measure to a vote. He can vote no to the bill but not support a "filibuster". He can cover his ass with the yokels at home by saying he voted no.

When I'd like to see these people shown the door is when they support a repuke "filibuster". At that point they are no longer DINOs but are full on pukes IMO.

Does that make more sense?

A Blue Dog that support a Republican filibuster to block a vote on a Democratic-supported bill is condemned to a more painful punishment than a Blue Dog that simply votes against a Democratic-supported bill.

Punishment being defined as a primary challenge.

Yeah, I'll buy that. I'll support a primary challenge against any Blue Dog that supports a Republican filibuster.

It'll be interesting to see a) if there is a Republican filibuster and b) if any DINO votes for it.

Thanks for clarifying, S_S. I learned something.

However, It is a myth that "all blue dogs come from red or democratic unfriendly distrcits." Many of them just got into office during a conservative swing and stayed there. Some of them just outspent all other primary challenges when they took their seat by kissing up to corporate America.

We cannot allow this "But *sniff* I come from a red state" nonsense serve as cover for backing the insurance companies. A lot of people in red states would like the public option too but the insurance industry and the conservative corporate media are afraid of polling data regarding this.

can be primaried and the person beating that DINO can win the District/State I'm all for it.

Failing that though, I'll take someone voting against a DEM bill as long as they don't support a fillibuster.

There is a whole different category of DINO, not many of them anymore, but they are the Southern "Democrats" like Zig-Zag Zell Miller. They remain Democrats in name simply because the Republicans forced their ancestors to free their darker skinned "property" back in the 19th century. There's one freshman house "Dem" in this category from somewhere way down South. There's no point in even trying to elect someone with brains in these districts, We should just give up on these ones and eject them from the Party.

Just don't start falling into that "electability" trap. It was the argument used to put conservative democrats into competative district/states in the first place. It is the argument used to put forth the candidate with the biggest war chest or has gone to the most bean-feeds at the primary level. It ends up being a meaningless term that actually only describes name recognition.

If a Dem does support a Republican fillibuster there should be a price to pay. If this has the effect of driving them out or if they want to suddenly switch parties then good! It will be far easier to run someone against them that way. Not only will they have to win a Repug primary they will have to defeat a progressive democratic candidate. Good luck with that!

Finally the Zell-bies. Absurd and beneath notice. If they can't vote on issues and if they are constantly making deals with repukes let them go.

I am all for primary challenges and working within the party but I don't accept the famous joking proposition that: "Better inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in"

If you are sabotauging healthcare reform for the sake of insurance companies than you are inside and pissing inside.

She took Elizabeth Dole's place. Obama took North Carolina. Kay Hagan DID NOT have to be voting w/ the blue dogs to get elected or would have to to keep her place. She's voting w/ the blue dogs because she is a WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE INSURANCE/DRUG industry in North Carolina.

She is the type of senator we need to replace with a real democrat. There are a LOT of folks in North Carolina who would really like health care to pass, and a lot of independents who are really sick of republicans. We also have a whole shitload of rightwing extremist nazi types running around in their little camo outfits thinking they're going to assassinate Obama and kill all the black people who get upset about it. But this state turned blue after 8 years of george bush. Kay Hagan is a sellout.

Just one of the blue dogs, but every one needs to be targeted at whatever level they are corrupt.

:fistbump:

person because she didn't win! So in 2008 the same Repuke got elected AGAIN even though he had many, many lawsuits against him, and by a 63% margin! Rahm figured he wasted his money the first time, so why try again! That's the way it works, or so it seems...

Saw it up close and personal with THAT Congressional seat!! It SUCKS, and my Congressman is not only disgusting, he's actually a criminal! His problems with lawsuits have been written about many times in newspapers on and off, but STILL Repukes here vote for him!

This is such a RED District! Even the person running against the criminal would have been a DINO at best. She was once a Repuke and switched to run. I did vote for her once, but the real Democrat got kicked around, or basically kicked OUT and left holding the bag! She was the better candidate, but had no money!

See, it's just so easy to figure out, especially when you see it right in front of your eyes!

saying: If you don't do the correct thing, instead of the "Right" thing, we will cut off all state and national Party money, campaign for your primary opponents, but not for you, and you will lose every important committee seat forever."

But we get bending over backwards and forwards for Republicans and Purple Doggies all the time, including the most important legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

:rofl:

I love me some Pete Stark. :loveya:

who have co-opted the term "moderate", just as the right wingers have co-opted, "conservative".

n/t

and not just the right.

There are no communists in the Congress and only one socialist. All the real Dems are moderates, some more liberal than others. The center has been moved so far to the right that old fashioned conservatives are now called moderates and anyone trying to do the right thing for regular people is a "left wing zealot."

We need a communist party to recenter politics back to a more rational and intelligible center?

I guess the only solution is for people like John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, et al. to say over and over. "I'm a moderate. My ideas and policies are mainstream." Or something like that.

Disclaimer: Kerry and Boxer were chosed off the top of my head and are not meant to represent any particular group or movement.

The existence of communism did sort of push along civil rights a bit. The Russkies made us look like real hypocrites with regard to our treatment of race in America and mocked us for our idiotic support of South Africa.


And it took a hard committed extremely economic liberal movement in America to push the establishment hard enough that Roosevelt would choose to bump the whole system to the populist left or risk the whole country collapsing.


In many ways the townhall outbursts and Tea parties are nothing if not the attempt to manufacture a right wing to jig the political sails to. This is why big oil is contributing to groups opposed to healthcare-as it really normally doesn't cost or benefit them anything. They realize that if they can create an angry visable loud movement of right wing lunatics they can tip the whole system back and prevent a great blue wave.


The cowardice of a number of democrats or their complicity only helps the right wing seize power again. But I suppose most of those conserva-dems don't mind that at all.

:hi:

Thom Hartmann said just about the same thing many times... this "moderate meme" is nothing but a con.

the sole focus of the Dem's right now. Why any dem would be against the public option is beyond me.

DU it seems many of us Liberals are called out about it! Being a Liberal doesn't mean we can't work together, that's what many think! I used to tell all my so called (R) friends to look up the definition of "liberal" and then come tell me what's so horrible about being one!

See, I was always told that Jesus was a Liberal... but then I left the Catholic Church, so now it's even worse!

They really shouldn't let me out at night, and only several hours during the day... never can tell what I might do!

All the above was said "tongue in cheek" but there are times when others want Liberals to just go away, just because!

I feel strange.

Actually, there are a good, solid number of Dems that do this all the time. Feingold, Waters. Boxer, Conyers, Waxman, etc. -- The True-Blue Dogs.

issues do not remain clear.

finally saying it....

These circumstances deserve plain speaking.

Calling his office today to say "go get the bastards"!

I like mine (Sander Levin) fine enough...

But I LOVE Pete Stark!

It felt good, too. :applause:

Gallup poll at http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx#2

Well I consider myself a moderate but any nutjob GOPer would call me a liberal.

These numbers are as meaningless as the term 'moderate' is. I would also like to know the methadology of the poll.

Where you don't understand the methadology or can't answer questions about it?


Let me put it to you another way so that you might understand.

Those terms you toss around in that poll don't mean anything.

The majority of americans are pro-choice, pro-environmental, pro-jobs, pro-education, pro-union, pro-increasing-the-minimum-wage, pro-civil-liberties, anti-war, anti-wallstreet, anti-corporate-wealthfare, pro-legalization freaks.

Now is that the aglomeration of beliefs that you would find in your typical conservative?

The idea of a moderate, a conservative, or a liberal are merely constructs. The moderate is more that case than the other two as it is a subjective-subjective designation without a clear definition.

If a moderate is the majority than the above list of pros and cons should be the moderate position and the democrats should move back to the new deal.


But I digress because the question I would really want to ask is why you would just spatter post that absurd poll on Democratic Underground?

In case you didn't read the “Question wording: How would you describe your political views – ?" it might help you attack the sampling method.

I didn't say 'errors' in sampling. I asked for information about sampling.

An error would suggest something minor or tweakable like a bad formula used to modify or sandbag based on whether the respondant is a college student.

This poll does not have an 'error' in it. It IS an error for most of the reasons I have already pointed out that you have pointedly ignored.

So how about we start with the fact it doesn't define the terms Very conservative/conservative/moderate/liberal/very liberal in a meaningful fashion. If you think "Everybody knows what they mean and what they are" than you have bigger problems than putting up absurd Gallup polls on a message board.


And while we are on the topic, why not a bit more than a one sentence equaivalent to "Am not" in your response? Are the complexities of discussing this scary to you?

Well you post a crappy poll that suggests that Conservatives outnumber Liberals in America and refuse to actually discuss it.


I do not know what kind of democrat you are, but even the bluest of blue dogs I have debated with here would at least spare a few extra words to explain why they think they are right.


It does not speak well of you to toss this in mid-thread and then bail when anyone questions its validity.

right off, I'd say that the majority of Americans have no idea what they are, thus asking them what they are is asking them to choose a meaningless signifier.

The only really valid way to conduct that poll is to not ask for self-ID, instead asking a series of issues-based questions to discern ideology versus a standardized matrix of responses. That is, the person who chooses all the liberal options is a liberal...regardless how they wish to self-ID.

The mother of all bad data is bad polling. That poll is somewhere between useless and questionable to its' motivations. To recap, I'm implying that it's a poll designed to yield a clear and predetermined result.

and conservative can't possibly know what they are talking about.

For example, there are 88 DU threads that use the word "conservative" at this moment and if you are correct, the author of each post using that word has no idea what it means.

You might be right. :shrug:

It is even possible that some that consider themselves "conservatives" might even be liberal if given a proper group of questions. There is no way that this country is predominately conservative no matter how badly the GOP want to convince us of that.

Well just look at the responses I got from the person who posted it.

poll, and from them you can tell that the country is basically moderate.

Just look at the presidents that have won in the past several decades: Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton..... Not one of them could you consider "liberal". Even Obama esentially ran as a moderate.

And if Obama becomes, in the minds of the voters, too liberal, he will lose re-election. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

I don't care how Clinton and Kennedy governed, neither of them "ran as conservatives."

Issues. Tell me about issues, where people stand on them, and what issues they think are important and I will tell you where America is.

Are you another one of those phoney DLCers that claimed that Gore, who after jumping hard and thoroughly to the right during his run, lost because he was 'too liberal'?

believe you, a guy with a name like mr_liberal, that has so few posts.

so...whatta ya think stealth-freeper or somebodies lost sockpuppet?

and judge him by the standards of the Johnson Era and beyond. That is a trick the RW has used, to try to rob Democrats of their heritage and legacy and one of their most popular Presidents. Remember, the nation was not that far out of WWII at the time.

Similarly, cons themselves today claim Nixon was liberal, an attempt to rid themselves of a disgraced and personally unappealing President. However, there is some truth to their claim, given Nixon's efforts in China and his support of health care reform (originally forwarded by a President who was a Republican when he advanced it, TR).

For his time, Carter was liberal, desegregating frickin' Georgia when he was Governor. (Not only liberal, but a REAL profile in courage.)

Reagan was conservative, but a well known and loved figure. Bush had the advantage of being Reagan's VP and hew was still a one termer, despite Genifer Flowers and other rumors.

Clinton was liberal, but a triangulator, whether well meaning or cynically doing what he perceived necessary for his own re-election.

Obama ran a lot less moderate than he governs. Already, people who worked hard for him and donated the maximum they could to him are saying they will not vote for him again unless they see a change in his direction.

When polled on concepts and ideals, Americans poll liberal. When polled on vague terms, they poll moderate, thanks, IMO, to the better progranda machine of the Republicans and their success in making "liberal" seem like evil and insanity, and "conservative" sound like everything that is good and wise in America.

Liberals don't need to sacrifice their principals, which most Americans espouse. Liberals just have to get better at sales, pr, marketing, propaganda, etc. Of course, that's harder when you try to eschew falsehoods, ruthlessness and other evils, but we do need to do better.

self-identification.

The question posed by Gallup is valid, i.e. “How would you describe your political views: very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, (or) very liberal?"

You assert "There is no way that this country is predominately conservative".

Please provide link to a poll supporting your assertion.

See “Vote by Ideology” at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

I've stayed the same - the country has gone bat shit insane right wing - but my "liberal/moderate" views have remained.

Everytime I'm interviewed, I respond "moderate" but according to most of you, I'm "left wing fringe looney"...

those polls are really "meaningless" unless accompanied by "issues" responses...

There is no convincing you of anything. The fervor that you cling to this poll, and nothing else, tells me just about everything I need to know about you and what your intention in posting here is.

smear the word liberal over the past half century. No one has demonized the word conservative. And many people with liberal views probably self identify as moderate because they want to see themselves as reasonable.

I think there may be some validity to that. Pity the person posting the silly poll didn't bother with attempting to interpret it at all.

the question as posed isn't valid. It's based on nothing but a signifier, labels without context or objective measurable criterion are meaningless. I can say I'm a fascist, but if I reject fascistic ideologies and tendencies then I'm not really a facist, am I? Never trust in anybody to self-id in a meaningful manner without confirmation questions.

Posing the question in the manner it has been posed, reduces its' actual meaningfulness to the level of:

Are you a Red Sox or a Yankees fan?

Pick a label, any label; what's it all really mean anyways?

Anyone who wishes to ask other questions is free to do so but its common among many discussing political issues, e.g. DUers, to use the term conservative, moderate, and liberal.

congressional districts and their votes give we Dems control of the House.

That would seem to be the intention of both the poll and the post.

that consider themselves very conservative or conservative.

Even the most liberal or most conservative on a political scale have points of shared interest. If a more issue-oriented poll was taken, the outcome would prove that the slots of conservative, moderate, liberal would become far more watered down.

Moreover, if you add those who consider themselves moderate to those who consider themselves liberal, the self-identifying conservatives are STILL in the minority.

Frankly, I think the conservative/liberal scheme is flat-out bullshit. People are made up of more than that!

issues.

If that is correct, then why do some so-called Dems go off the deep end by insisting that all other Dems agree with them?

We don't refer to ourselves as Dems. Maybe you aren't really a "Dem" as you call us.

us by pretending the left wing was small and insane, then referring to almost every Democrat in sight as part of "the far left."

As I posted upthread, Democrats have great ideals and ideas. They--we--just have to do a better job of selling them. The Republicans take a pile of poo and sell the hell out of it. We have a pile of gold and seem embarrassed.

I am sick of the myth that America is a conservative nation.
That is a bogus claim that has been successfully marketed by the 1% who directly benefit from The Big Lie.

It tells us that the poll you posted is meaningless.

It tells us that the labels are meaningless.

It tells us that the Democratic Party does NOT have to move to the Right to win elections, it just has to do a better job of packaging.

It tells us that America is NOT "conservative", but is instead very Liberal on Economic Issues.

It tells us that LIBERAL Democrats ARE MAINSTREAM on Economic Issues.

It tells us that a charismatic Democrat running on a Populist platform of Economic Justice for Working Americans and avoiding the WEDGE issues can WIN anywhere.

!

Bought and paid for.

has been to make Republicans so "out there", crazy and unpalatable that these blue dog right wing Democrats will get re-elected even if they go against the will of their constituents.

Could this be?

We must admit that recently the crazy has been ramped up, even for RWers.

Loretta Sanchez?? Frankly, I'm a bit surprised.

Blue Dog Leadership Team

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip

Blue Dog Members

Altmire, Jason (PA-04)
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)
Baca, Joe (CA-43)
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Berry, Marion (AR-01),
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)
Bright, Bobby (AL-02)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Carney, Christopher (PA-10)
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)
Childers, Travis (MS-01)
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03)-My Rep
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Griffith, Parker (AL-05)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD)
Hill, Baron (IN-09)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
Marshall, Jim (GA-03)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)
Michaud, Mike (ME-02)
Minnick, Walt (ID-01)
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)
Nye, Glenn (VA-02)
Peterson, Collin (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Salazar, John (CO-03)
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)
Schiff, Adam (CA-29)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)
Space, Zack (OH-18)
Tanner, John (TN-08)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Wilson, Charles (OH-06))

Will do.

need for a sixty percent vote. I'd rather support the House Progressives than bother with the House Purple Dogs.

We as an electorate vote for who has the fanciest ads? The only way the big companies can have so much influence is the fact that we as voters respond to shallow things and therefore whoever has the most $$ wins.

Raising $$ over the internet for candidates, the way Obama did, might be the way to go.

And we have to quit voting for whoever has the shiniest ads! It's stupid and just allows the $$ interests to control things.

Any idea how to start an initiative to re-institue the fairness doctrine?

members of his admin.

It's not only that we vote for the best ads. It's that many don't vote at all and many of those who do vote are low info voters. And, after we vote, we don't hold anyone truly accontable.

It's also that the corporations are so big and powerful, even apart from contributions. Look at the Clinton admin. Many of its prominent "graduates" got high paying jobs in the industries they once "regulated." And many have returned, at Obama's invitation, from those industry jobs again to "regulate those same industries.

The scariest part is that their brains are working properly as far as they're concerned. They see no problem with selling out to the highest bidder. The people that they supposedly represent aren't even an after thought to them until they are up for re-election. Then it's right back to the money trough with no feelings of guilt.

These Blue Dogs are doing the insurance companies' bidding under the guise of representing their constituents. While it is definitely true that many Blue Dogs represent constituencies to the right of the national Democratic Party on certain "hot button" social issues, this is much less often the case when it comes to economic issues- and yet we see which issues they are more than ready to sell out on. "Fiscal conservatism" claims by this bunch are largely red herrings- considering several among this bunch were more than ready to pass *'s budget-busting tax cuts.

Nice to see truth spoken openly for a change

Maybe if more Dems tried it they just might find people will respond.

...then unplug their respirators NOW!

He's in the next district over from mine. A really good guy.

I consider myself a moderate-left, and the Blue Dogs are way, way right of me... so...

Democratic districts. The MSM needs to stop the RW spin!

God bless you Pete Stark.

yet another
Inconvenient Truth!

They are Republicans and it is a fact that the typical Republican is nowhere near the center. Basically any Repuke you can name is a right wing extremist. There is nothing moderate about it.

K&R

Calling fellow Democrats brain dead, while trying to get legislation passed, is perhaps beyond brain-dead. Its self-defeating stupidity - not just everyday stupidity.

or what was he smoking. Be ready for a redaction

"Fellow" Democrats should NOT be
marching in lockstep with Republicans.

We've got one of these in Minnesota called Colin Peterson. Flies around in his Beechcraft and sucks up to the big money. In his district its all about big agribusiness and they bastards gave him the chair of the Ag Committee even though he votes with Republicans more often than not. They have no decency. Every one of these assholes I know of voted for pissing away our wealth in Afghanistan and sides with the big Insurance companies and banks. This one was able to water down Cap and Trade. Boswell in Iowa comes to mind, also. Same shit but he nearly lost the primary last year and moved over a little. The current congressional districting is so bad that there are very few competitive districts left in the USA, so you get Republicans disguised as Democrats from Republican districts. I am hoping the next census will move it a little. I know Michelle Bachmann will be gone, as will Boswell in Iowa. Imagine living in a district with Keith Ellison as your rep and a few miles away the Rep is Bat shit crazy Michelle. Personally I see no advantage in electing any of these blue dogs over a Republican and we need to lean on the party to stop funding them.

Thanks for posting this!

Toll-free Capitol Hill Numbers:


1-800-828-0498 1-866-388-1015 1-866-220-0044 1-877-851-6437

But this should be kept "in house" so to speak. The righties will tear into this statement and could make things rough.

.

I'm liking this Pete Stark.

He should run as VP with Anthony Weiner!!

The come from areas of the country that can go bak to the GOP, and they are scared to even fight for what is right for their constituents. They figure to vote against it, so they can get the GOP vote, instead of standing up and fighting.
WHat a bunch of effin losers.
Brain dead is the least of their problems

We know how much UPMC likes to contribute money to your coffers.

Good Doggie! Blue Dogs Rewarded With Substantial Donations from Insurance, Big Pharma Lobbyists
By Susie Madrak Friday Jul 31, 2009

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/good-doggie-blue-dogs-rewarded-substa

I watch a video like this - thoughtful doctors pointing out the pressing need for health care reform - and I just have to shake my head at the travesty we have instead. I'm especially furious at the obstructionist role taken by the Blue Dogs, the quasi-Democrats.

The thing is, the Blue Dogs are not negotiating in good faith - that is, they are not trying to improve health care - or people's lives, unless that person is an insurance company lobbyist. It's about money and influence, and how much they're willing to do to get it and keep it. Nice to see prostitution pays off!

...........

They cannot deny it!

K & R.

Reid will POWERFULLLY rally the Blue Dogs to the Moment of Truth.

Ha ha aha ahah haha hahahahahahahahhhahahahahahhahahahah

With 'friends' like Stark, there's no need for enemies of health care reform.

And quite frankly, an enemy to the best interests of our society

Even 61% of Republicans support a public option.

Poll: 8 in 10 Back Public Option

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4034269>

And Stark has performed a service for those who are against health reform.

The best words to describe Stark: aggressively stupid.

there is no health care reform.

The best words to describe those representatives who oppose a public option: on the take.

So refreshing to see our Dems acting like leaders and not using mushy words to dance around the truth.

Enough of that nice-guy BS. This issue is too important.

Not only are their brains dead, their hearts and souls are, too. Ted Kennedy today is more alive in heart and soul than the DINOs are or ever were, not to mention ten times as smart. He knew how to fight for those who needed him most AND get re-elected again and again. Doing both took smarts, it took heart and it took work, work, work, but he did both. And not because the state that elected Romney and many other Republicans as Governor is unfailingly liberal, either.

RW tools.