Glen Greenwald NAILS It! Key DEMOCRATS ALWAYS INTENDED To Negotiate Away Public Option

Glen Greenwald writes a brilliant piece about the realities of our modern political system and how key Democrats NEVER intended to pass a public option much less a single payer system. It cannot be stated strongly enough that the battle over healthcare is not with Republicans, but among Democrats!!!!

Here is a snippet of his article:

Why the health care debate is so important regardless of one's view of the "public option"
(updated below)

The New York Times today has a discussion from several contributors, including me, of the politics of the health care debate. My contribution, which focuses on the role the White House has played and the ample evidence that they have been quite active in shaping the course of events, can be read here. I want to elaborate on a couple of points I referenced in passing.

Over the past decade, the Democratic Party has specialized in offering up one excuse after the next for its collective failures. During the early Bush years, the excuse was that they endorsed Bush policies because his popularity and post-9/11 hysteria made it politically unwise to oppose him. In later Bush years when his popularity plummeted, the excuse was that Democrats were in the minority and could do nothing. After 2006 when they won a Congressional majority, the excuse was that Bush still controlled the White House and had veto power. After 2008 when a Democrat won the White House, the excuse was that Republicans could filibuster.

Now that they have a filibuster-proof majority, a huge margin in the House and the White House, the excuses continue unabated, as Democrats are now on the verge of jettisoning one of the most significant attractions for progressives to the Obama campaign -- active government involvement in the health insurance market. The excuses for "compromising" are cascading more rapidly than ever: We need Republican support to ensure it's bipartisan. The Blue Dogs won't go along with what we want. Centrist Senators will filibuster. There are similar excuses being made to defend Obama from accusations that he deserves some of the blame for the failure of the "public option." Matt Yglesias makes the typical case for shielding Obama from any responsibility:

I think there’s something perverse in the very strong desire I see among liberals to make problems in congress be about anything other than congress. It’s just not in the power of Barack Obama to make the senate anything other than what it is.

I'm really surprised that there's anyone, especially Matt, who actually believes this -- that the Obama White House is merely an impotent, passive observer of what the Democrats in Congress do and can't be expected to do anything to secure votes for approval of the health care bill it favors. As the leader of his party, the President commands a vast infrastructure on which incumbent members of Congress rely for re-election. His popularity among Democrats vests him numerous options to punish non-compliant Democrats. And Rahm Emanuel built his career on controlling the machinations within Congress. The very idea that Obama, Emanuel and company are just sitting back, helplessly watching as Max Baucus, Kent Conrad and the Blue Dogs (Rahm's creation) destroy their health care legislation, is absurd on its face.

More at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/19/obama/index.html

and david frum (?) was saying that the republicans DO NOT WANT a public option. he then said some dems don't want the public option either and are just hoping the republicans quash it. I thought that was interesting and probably true... they get a lot of campaign money from insurance companies. don't want to mess with that gravy train.

he seemed to try to avoid that question....

The "Axis of Evil" idiot is wholly ours now.

are spending millions to defeat health care reform their investment among politicians is obviously paying off...This campaign against reform just didn't start a few months ago..They knew in all likelihood that we would have a Democrat elected and the groundwork probably began before the primaries..Now we are up against very strong forces and they are obviously well funded and it will be very difficult to see any real reform passed..And when I see Obama still reaching out to Republicans I wonder if he is just going through the motions of recognizing defeat and real reform is out of reach and other Democrats see this as well

Insurance companies spend over 2 mill per day
Drug Companies 1.2
Other 750,000 per day.

How do we have real reform when we are up against this kind of well funded resistance...?

Good for him.

A carrot that is always dangled out there as something that will get fixed someday if you keep electing them?

even after they had control of house, senate and WH.

you got it

The WH and Congress cant do anything about it. If theres enough conservatives on the supreme court (and you need just one more) Roe would be overturned.

Yours is a very dangerous view to hold and a very dangerous myth to perpetuate. Because believing that it doesn't matter who is president is what would lead to conservatives taking total control of the supreme court and its that myth that would get Roe v Wade and other important civil liberty decisions overturned.

they have passed legislation over the years that has weakened it... so yes they can.

And if you are a social conservative who gave them the majority, you expect them to do that. They didn't.

if they amended the Constitution, and theres 0 chance they'd ever do that. The idea is laughable, even to social conservatives.

Every other bill has to go through the supreme court.

I do think you make a good comparison between the far-left and the religious right though. Both extremes are needed to do footwork in elections, but both can be a problem then in trying to govern the country. What the extremes want (anti-abortion, public option...) may not be what the majority of americans want.

the Social Conservatives were PISSED... they saw that golden opportunity go to hell and a hand basket.

Now like good drones thought they keep voting for the Rs because of the PROMISES, just like we keep voting for ours due to the PROMISES.

I have a theory. Neither side will even attempt to really fulfill their promises for fear their bases will either demand more or be satisfied and stay home.

But both sides put on a hell of a kabuki theater. Still theater is theater is theater... but the dems may just have found the limit they can screw with the base... I can hope.

Remember Dred Scott?

The Supreme Court ruled that slaves could never be citizens.

And, yet, slaves did become citizens.

Take a gander at how American Government works sometime. I think you might be surprised.

ways you could overturn a supreme court decision, but lets be reasonable. Those two things are very unlikely.

then are you really playing to win?

Democrats could have jumped in to the debate by noting that the Pay-to-Play system has failed miserably to prove its case since last defeating national health insurance.

And gone on to say-- Beat This. We want Single Payer, opening up Medicare to all as a public option, because it is a MIXTURE of public and private systems. Medical services privately delivered. Payment and cost controls publicly administered.

You privatized Pay-to-Play healthcare industries are welcome to compete with that. You have CEOs who are apparently brilliant enough to deserve average annual salaries in excess of $10 million, so they'll surely be able to figure out how you can survive.

Cover everyone for less money than we pay now, with accountable cost controls, and we can talk.

Until then, Single Payer is our public option we will never give up.

Otherwise, they're valid explanations.

I see no offerings as to how to get Blue Dogs to vote for it. I see no suggestions as to how to get the centrists not to filibuster. And if he really thinks Obama can just order them all to vote for the bill, the author is an abject moron.

Yeah, right.

Look, the truth is in between - he obviously has influence, but he is not going to get them to march in lockstep. It's just not going to happen. Stop being ignorant by suggesting that he can.

...when they needed more "Progressive" votes for funding to keep The Wars going.
They were FAR form impotent observers.

"WE will come to your districts and campaign against you."
You will be "locked out" of the White House.

The arms being twisted were very different. For progressives, standing with a popular President of your party is something that is almost required for their continued re-election.

For Blue Dogs - who in many, if not most cases come from districts that Obama didn't even win - standing against the President is likely to be seen as a measure of one's independence, which is also something that's required for their re-election. Twisting their arms will only exacerbate that problem.

If you don't understand that, you don't understand politics.

...is far more powerful than an observer on the sidelines, then YOU don't understand politics.

Locally, for most of the Blue Dogs, Obama does not have a mandate.

Republicans played your game after the 2004 election. Let me ask you something - how'd 2006 work out for them?

That is coming...

You know people do get the Charlie Brown vs Lucy game going on here.

You write,
"For progressives, standing with a popular President of your party is something that is almost required for their continued re-election."

The above statement is absolutely false. Is there anyone that truly believes that Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank or any number of other members of Congress fear NOT being re-elected for daring to oppose legislation backed by President Obama? Do you really think Ted Kennedy fears losing his seat for not standing with the President? There are dozens and dozens of members of Congress that Obama needs FAR more than they need him.

I would offer that your idea about loyalty and power is, in fact, the exact opposite of what you describe. The fact is that it is those Democrats in purple districts that are most easily pressured to toe the line set by the President. The hard reality is that if they oppose the President, they will have NO lifeline and less money for their next campaign. Democrats in safe districts that have been in Congress for many terms are far less worried about winning the next election with or without the help of the White House.

The truth is that the Blue Dogs don't agree with you - they agree with me - and that's really what we're working with here. You can play out all your scenarios about how much they need Obama, but Obama needs them more than they need him.

Obama doesn't necessarily need to win a district that McCain won by 5-10%, the Blue Dogs do. The Blue Dogs don't need to vote with Obama to score points with the people back home, but Obama needs them to vote with him to see his agenda actually get passed. I think you are sorely, sorely mistaken on who actually has the leverage here.

...are not humble enough to listen to tohers, and probably have a self-created, insulated view of politics that just happens to always conform to their own beliefs.

Why would anyone accept a person who is so impolitic as to say such a thing as an expert in politics? I know I would not.

Use your ideas as your weapons and keep the condescending attitude to yourself, please.

out right in the end! All this is planned. Even the anonymous WH adviser (Rahm) who said he was shocked at the reaction from the 'Left of the left' regarding the Public Option. They had no idea how important it was. Not to worry, he's just doing that to fool Republicans. :sarcasm:

Greenwald does offer a tactic to address the Blue Dog problem. He offers that this group should be treated the same way that many Progressive Dems were treated in regard to the War Supplemental Funding Bill. They were threatened with being cut off from the White House if they did NOT vote for the bill and they were promised no help for the next election.

Your second point, "And if he really thinks Obama can just order them all to vote for the bill, the author is an abject moron" indicates that you have not read or fully comprehended what you read in Greenwald's column. He writes, "This isn't to say that Obama can single-handedly control what Congress does. It's possible that even with maximum leverage exerted, a President can still lose."

Offering that the author is an "abject moron" without reading the article seems kind of silly to me.

Progressives need to appear as though they're tight with the President, Blue Dogs derive their power from the fact that they'll stand up to the President. If you spend even 5 minutes studying politics, you can figure that out. Greenwald apparently doesn't seem to understand the concept of electoral motivation.

As to your second point, Greenwald offering one line in a 1,944 word column devoted to the exact opposite of that line doesn't exactly ring true as genuine.

I stand by my abject moron comment.

You write,
"Progressives need to appear as though they're tight with the President, Blue Dogs derive their power from the fact that they'll stand up to the President."

Why do Progressives NEED to appear as though they're tight with the President? Is it because they will be punished if they do not or is it becuase they will lose in a general election for not supporting the President? Also, do you really believe that "blue dogs" derive power from being perpetually in opposition to the President?

You write,
"As to your second point, Greenwald offering one line in a 1,944 word column devoted to the exact opposite of that line doesn't exactly ring true as genuine."

Again, you are either being willfully obtuse or you have not at all comprehended what was written in the article. Greenwald's central point is that there appears to be no real pressure from the White House on those Democrats in Congress that are in opposition to the public option. He never once claims, hints or insinuates that the President can force Congress to do anything. Greenwald DOES offer that the President has the ability to use what tools he has to influence members of Congress. He has already used them to pressure PROGRESSIVES in Congress over the war supplemental bill.

Progressives come from districts that overwhelmingly voted for a popular President. If you want to keep getting elected in that district, you stand with the very popular President.

Blue Dogs, on the other hand, come from districts that either barely supported Obama or didn't vote for him at all. If you want to keep getting elected in those districts, you have to show that you're not marching in lockstep with someone that your constituents don't really approve of.

If this explanation was really required, I'm not the one being obtuse.

Sometimes they reveal more than was intended.

I think you are dead wrong about this. I think that there are far more members of Congress that Obama needs to keep in his camp than fear his retribution. I find it impossible to believe that any long serving member in Congress from a safe district is more susceptible to threats of retribution from the White House than new members from purple/not so safe districts. It makes no sense. Are you really offering that FIRST TERM President Obama would support a campaign challenger to the likes of Ted Kennedy or any other of a hundred long serving members from safe districts?

Obama was elected BECAUSE he had the support of Progressives that were brought to the table by the very members of Congress that you say Obama will threaten with retribution for not toeing the line. That is total madness!

Uh...you are forgetting all the quirks and anomalies of REALITY.

If the president ISN'T doing what progressives want, and their rep still votes with him, then they can lose. If Blue Dogs vote with the Prez on such things....but make it look like they got him to do it, then they can get re-elected. If someone seems wishy washy or ineffective, they lose. And all of the above...sometimes doesn't happen.

Your argument, no matter how logical, is only true in the simplest of models. Reality is much more messy.

Here's a reality...
If all Dems just voted for Health Care Reform, and it works, (which I think it will) then the Dem party wins!

These people were elected not to get re-elected, but to do the right thing. over 70% of Americans want HCR. Why Dems, even in purple districts, must kow-tow to the FEW...the minority of constituents in their districts (who didn't vote for them anyway) is beyond me. The only reason for any Dem to oppose the Public Option, and HCR, is money from the industry. Period.

After HCR how about we go back to the issues of term limits and campaign financing. That would solve a host of problems.

What's wrong with stating that all politics are local?

They need to appear as though they're fighting for their constituents. Anyone who claim otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

(I posted this as an OP before noticing that you had posted about the Greenwald article in this forum)

This time it IS different. This issue reaches deep into each and every American household. We have heard the stories, or worse, lived the stories. We know about the bankruptcies, the deaths by spreadsheet, the insane salaries and bonuses, the lobbyists donations. We SEE how much money comes out of the paycheck every week. We KNOW other countries do it better and cheaper than we do.

It is finally being revealed to us that we are in possession of a political system that IS INCAPABLE of doing the right thing for the citizens of the country and for the financial well-being and stability of the country itself. The corruption is so open and so pervasive that our Congress will pass bills that do things like FORBID drug negotiation right in front of us, in the OPEN, so that corporations will profit at the expense of the entire country. The corporations profit and they pass some of that profit along to the pols and their parties.

AND WE TAKE IT!!! We accept bills like Medicare Part D with no drug negotiation! Are we going to get a healthcare bill that is similarly designed for and by the drug and insurance industries with the complicity of the White House, Senate and Congress? Will we roll over yet again as they stick it in our eyes OPENLY?

What are we going to do about it? I mean that as a serious question.

... i.e. "we'll make sure we vote in someone who will stand up for us next time."

Good christ...amazing that people keep falling back on this nonsense time after time. Real change will never occur in America via the voting booth since the entire process is rigged.

This time it definitely IS different. I've been sitting on this porch for over forty years barking at every threat that came along watching and guarding their house. I got a peek in that door and they have other dogs in there, lap dogs that don't even belong to them, and they are getting prime cuts of meat while I have been satisfied with the bone they have tossed me once in a while. This fucking old yellow dog isn't rolling over for them . Not anymore.

I want to like Greenwald, because he seems like a smart guy and his politics are in the right place . . . but boy, does he come off as a clueless rube more and more frequently these days. Last time I heard about him, he was slamming Keith Olbermann for "caving in" to his "corporate masters" - - which was dead wrong. Now he wants us all to see some sinister conspiracy in the fact that there are "moderate" tools in Congress who don't want to spend any money because if they do, they think that they'll be voted out in their purplish districts.

Here's one thing you can be sure of: Glenn Greenwald has no idea what Barack Obama is thinking. And he doesn't seem to understand how Congress and the executive branch work together. At all.

much that he will write anything in order to get it?

I notice you made almost exactly the same comment to another poster farther down. I guess Glenn Greemwald is not on your approved reading list. He must write things you would prefer not to be read or discussed.

Why don't you try debating the points he writes about as opposed to just making personal slams against him and other posters?




(Edit - added word "not" in last sentence of second paragraph)

as opposed to the kind who practices with pom poms

if you have HER scorn you are doing something RIGHT.

Just a hit and run sneer.

Makes me wonder---who stands to gain by dividing the Democratic Party and throwing the liberal wing under the bus? The same kinds of people who are paying astroturfers to thwart debate on healthcare?

complicit with the high crimes of bush*. No outrage, no resistance what so ever. When bush* wanted to kill a million Iraqi's I wanted my Congress people to fight tooth and nail. They did nothing, some even assisted. Same for torture, Patriot Act, MCA, and on and on.

Today we stand as a defeated nation. China hold enough of our paper to control our policies. The stimulus is a joke. It did nothing to solve our economic problems. It was used to keep the pyramid scheme we call an economy going for a little while longer. So more looting can take place. And on and on.

And why are we in such a mess? Because the republicans raped and looted? Yes, but the Democrats did nothing to stop them, not even slow them down. In many cases, helped them.

I can go on, but assume you aren't listening.

All he has to do is look back at quite recent history, viz. health care reform failing to gain traction in 1993. Does he think that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were not serious about reform at that time? Hint to Glen - - even when the President and the Congressional majority are from the same political party, the advancement of legislation, particularly sweeping legislation requiring the work of five Congressional committees, often bogs down in details and differing perspectives. And shouting about a supposed conspiracy in the (early) midst of that process very quickly reveals the shouter as a foolish person.

thinking.

One thing he made clear today is that he thinks it is Progressives who need a 'gentle chiding'. Why would that be? Does he really think that Progressives will be behind him as they were in 2008 if he continues to 'chide' them while negotiating with the far right in Congress and ends up with a bill that benefits the Healthcare industry more than it benefits those who elected him?

I noticed he did not 'chide' the tea-baggers, the gun-toters, the screamers who call him a nazi. Nope, he singled out 'progressives'.

I am not surprised as it was clear for a long time that Obama was a center right-leaning, admirer of Reagan and appears to value more being in the good graces of the 'right' (why does he care, eg, if they call him names, like 'socialist'?) than the 'left'.

But he was given a once in a lifetime opportunity to be one of the great presidents. He had the support of a majority of the people and he has the intelligence and skills to accomplish that. He was also handed a majority for his party in the House and Senate. Taking him at face value, he seems to be a decent person. But, he has allowed this debate to get out of control and the question is, why? He is far too bright to have been blind-sided by the controversy. Glenn Greenwald's (and he's not alone) observations make sense absent any other explanation.

And btw, I did not see him claim to know 'what Obama is thinking'. He is not that kind of writer, never was. He deals with facts and reports on them.

Could you explain how you concluded that he was talking about some 'sinister conspiracy'. I understood him to simply be pointing out what has become blatantly obvious.

As for calling him a 'clueless rube' ~ :rofl:

chided progressives (and he included the media) for getting all upset over the healthcare debate. He wasn't as overt as the anonymous 'Senior WH adviser' who mentioned the 'left of the left' but adding those comments to Obama's more 'gentle' (as it was described) admonition, you can see the thinking of the WH. It is OUR fault, his base, for not understanding what is going on.

Sorry, I can't find a link right now, but will post one if I do.

Obama better order a new batch of busses!!

So naive were some, hopefull of others that somehow the culture of the beltway would change with President Obama's election. It was a dream that now has come crashing back to reality. Some are angry since they felt "betrayed" by not understanding how powerful the forces inside the beltway are, others are expecting President Obama to act unilaterally as boooshie did and demand some loyalty to a "progressive agenda" that's never quite defined nor prioritized. Then there are those who just don't understand how the beltway games are played...and honestly, I'm not sure which catagory I fit Glenn in these days.

This legislation is moving through the system with sadly predictable results...a product of a system now loaded down with two centuries of protocol and gamesmanship. This bill was never going to be smooth sailing as there was too much money on the table...and too valuable a vote for many, including Democrats. It was obvious the rushbpublicans were never going to support any reform short of the full dismantiling of SSI and Medicare. Those in the middle were the ones who saw a different deal game...which is well underway. It's some moderate rushpublicans (there aren't many) and Blue Dog Democrats...the swing votes in both committee and in final passage that have their votes up to the highest bidder. For many, this vote is their ticket to next year...and the large amount of money needed to keep their seats. Getting corporate checks in 5 figures is a lot easier to deal with than dozens of smaller donors.

It's also squeezing pork and other "considerations" from the party and the administration. Surely in the backroom deals are being cut for new highways and grants for the purple districts and the higher the tension, the more the result is in doubt, the more deals they can make. While I'm hearing some Blue Dogs yelping about the bills, few have come out and said they'll vote against what final comes to the House floor. It's all about playing the system.

The other night Howard Dean said this process will last into December...several months more of stern and drang as we still need to see what bills pass to both the House & Senate...how the two bills are reconcilled before the real end game begins.

:dem:

-Laelth

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

man who's sitting in the White House. We on the "left of the left" are the problem, not the sell-outs. They're just pragmatists.

And I am quite angry that the left is being blamed for actually believing Obama would do what he promised.

Just take a look at this ad that was run by the Obama campaign against Hillary:



And now I am supposed to be happy that Obama hopes to sign a bill that contains the "individual mandate" to buy insurance? I am not at all happy about that. Obama said it was a bad idea last year, and I believed him. It's still a bad idea now. Yes, I am feeling betrayed.

:dem:

-Laelth

I will never forget how the Obama admin has treated people of my ilk who worked so hard to help put them into office.

Ambinder: White House “Won’t Buckle” To Liberal Demands For Public Plan
By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday August 19, 2009 2:33 pm

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/19/ambinder ... /


I know people are reluctant to believe that the President has no plans to include a public option in his health care bill, but according to Marc Ambinder, that is indeed the truth:

The White House and Senate Democrats won't buckle to demands from liberals that they revise their health care strategy, officials said today.

Liberals are demanding the inclusion of a public plan. The White House won't "revise" their strategy to accommodate them.

Glenzilla:

The attempt to attract GOP support was the pretext which Democrats used to compromise continuously and water down the bill. But -- given the impossibility of achieving that goal -- isn't it fairly obvious that a desire for GOP support wasn't really the reason the Democrats were constantly watering down their own bill? Given the White House's central role in negotiating a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry, its betrayal of Obama's clear promise to conduct negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN no less), Rahm's protection of Blue Dogs and accompanying attacks on progressives, and the complete lack of any pressure exerted on allegedly obstructionists "centrists," it seems rather clear that the bill has been watered down, and the "public option" jettisoned, because that's the bill they want -- this was the plan all along.

Max Baucus (who is negotiating the White House's bill) today reaffirmed his commitment to have a "bipartisan" bill. Since Republicans will never sign off on a public plan, that's not-so-subtle code for "no public plan." And any time anyone says that, including President Obama, that is in fact what they're saying.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Matt Taibbi;Obama’s Pre-emptive Health Care Surrender

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08/17/key-feature-... /

Obama’s Pre-emptive Health Care Surrender


snip;

Now, obviously (and this is will be explored in more detail in the forthcoming piece, which will be out this week), the public option was not a cure-all. In fact, the Democrats had in reality already managed to kill the public option by watering it down to the point of near-meaninglessness. But the notion that our president not only does not have any use anymore for a public option, but in fact “will be satisfied” if there is merely “choice and competition” in the market is, well, disgusting.

I’ll say this for George Bush: you’d never have caught him frantically negotiating against himself to take the meat out of a signature legislative initiative just because his approval ratings had a bad summer. Can you imagine Bush and Karl Rove allowing themselves to be paraded through Washington on a leash by some dimwit Republican Senator of a state with six people in it the way the Obama White House this summer is allowing Max Baucus (favorite son of the mighty state of Montana) to frog-march them to a one-term presidency?

They're trying to throw the left (moderate Democrats, and everyone leftward) under the bus, and tell us it's our fault that healthcare reform won't pass. We just want too much.

I don't want it to be true, but the sooner we realize this president is squarely against us, the sooner we can do something about it.

...was proof enough for those with open eyes.

Could you fix it, please? It just opens to a blank page. I'd love to read the entire piece.

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08/17/key-feature-of-obama-health-plan-may-be-out-washingtonpost-com/
Matt Taibbi
Taibblog

:dem:

-Laelth

For what we have been seeing.

What a disappointment this has all been.

I am reminded of the scene in "Willy Wonka" in which Gene Wilder spots one of the children about to meet calamity by sampling a Wonka work-in-progress. He stares dispassionately in another direction and says, "No. Don't. Stop." almost in a whisper (clearly with no intention of stopping anything at all.)

Obama never wanted single payer or public option.

just handled. :thumbsup:

If you're going to make the claim that the public option was just a stalking horse, it's a LOT more believable to make the claim before the health-care negotiations began.

I LOVE hearing from people who predict something AFTER THE FACT. Not.

sadly, he seems about right on the button here.

When such a bill is signed into law, everyone can feel free to denounce Greenwald as some sort of fiction writer. Until that happens though, his speculation and analysis are sound.

Corporate whores, the lot of them.

They're not engaging in all this "bipartisanship" in order to pass significant reform and say they tried to compromise with right wingers.

They're doing it because they fully intend to tell US, "Aw, shucks, we tried, but we just couldn't do it."

Fuck that.

Seriously, fuck them.

:dem:

-Laelth

It might be MY party, but they never listen to me! I guess because I don't have all that cash to buy real representation. "Taxation without representation"...now where have I heard that?

I paid my taxes and all I got was f**ked over!

:bounce:

To hear them talk, they think the tea baggers, birthers are in the majority....

The anti-war movement was in far greater strength than the health care reform opponents; they got no publicity and were dismissed as looney tunes...The same thing should be happening to these fear mongerers 'they're going to pull the plug on grandma' health care opponents.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6352983
Fire Dog Lake also nails it.

It just got out of control. T - parties and meetings. If repugs would not got so crazy, the full public op would have passed by now.