Progressives Should Vote No on Obama's Health Care Proposal - Cenk Uygur \HuffPo

Progressives Should Vote No on Obama's Health Care Proposal
Cenk Uygur
Host of The Young Turks
Posted: September 3, 2009 04:01 AM


<snip>

Earlier in the week I got excited when I saw Obama was going to address Congress next week. I thought maybe he'll finally get tough with them. How incredibly naïve. Instead, we found out later on Wednesday that Obama had already decided to kill the public option. The only question that remained was how to kill it. Then we found out that there is a good chance that they are not even going to do universal coverage. So, what's left of so-called health care reform?

This is an enormously disappointing day. Obama is not playing chess. He doesn't know something we don't know. It is exactly as we had feared. He did make deals with the private health care corporations. They would never agree to deals with a public option. He picked Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff because politics was his primary concern, not policy. He never intended to do the public option. It was all a joke.

I'm sure Rahm Emanuel thinks there is nothing to lose by angering or disappointing the left. He knows they're not going to vote for lunatic Republicans. So, he figures they can get political credibility by attacking the very people who put them in office. Classy. Except, I think he has miscalculated a little.

We have lost all enthusiasm for Obama now. It's not just me. I thought after I ranted against Obama's pathetic capitulation today on the show that a lot of Obamabots would come out and give the usual excuses -- give him time, he's a master strategist and we mortals cannot understand his ways, yada, yada, yada. But no, not this time. The comments on our website and our You Tube channel were uniformly against Obama. There was one common refrain -- why did we bother electing this guy?!

I think the Obama White House is doing untold damage to its credibility here by scheming against the centerpiece of healthcare reform - the public option. We're not unreasonable; we get that compromise is necessary. And there are many things we are willing to compromise on. But the public option is the very heart of reform. If you don't have it, it turns into a large boondoggle for private insurance companies to make even more money.

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/progressives-should-vote_b_276097.html

Well... I guess were gonna know soon enough...

:evilfrown:

:banghead:

The matter will be settled, at least as far as where the president stands, once and for all.

You will see that some of the text is hyper-linked to articles that support his theory.

And as of now, it's still a theory. I sincerely hope Cenk is wrong on this, but if not...

Any monies and efforts from me in the future will be going to the ACLU, Green Peace, Habitat For Humanity...

But not one goddamned penny to the Democratic Party.

:mad:

friends to an extreme regarding paying their damned bill and recognizing her in-kind contributions during the past election. So from now on, all my contributions go straight to a candidate or the types of orgs you mention who I will check to make sure are NOT contributing to the DNC or the state party here.

Please be aware that posting require that you limit copyrighted material to four paragraphs with a link. Thanks,

cbayer
DU Moderator

How do we determine if it is copyrighted?

I know many authors say in their sites\writings that you may cross-post their articles as long as you give them credit, and link to them.

Other have the good 'ole copyright in plain view.

Since I don't see one here, I'll assume to assume it is copyrighted, and will edit my post in a moment.

I'm pretty sure Cenk doesn't mind, but I don't know about Huffington Post.

:shrug:

hard to find out what is and is not copyrighted.

Huffpo has a copyright at the bottom of this and possibly all of their pages. If you can obtain the article from a non-copyrighted source, then you can post it in it's entirety. But if it comes from a site that has copyrighted everything on the site, you need to just do the four paragraphs and a link. This helps keep us out of trouble.

Thanks
:hi:

and come 2010 and 2012, they'll find fewer people donating to campaigns and fewer campaign volunteers.

That's how parties lose elections. It's why McCain lost in 2008.

:shrug:

Just like in 2004 and 2008.

Bush won in 2004.

:shrug:

Nader's vote share dropped by a factor of 10 . For an arguably more conservative candidate. 90% of Nader voters came crawling back. Just like they will next time, and the time after.

Well played!

I think this is what set everybody's hair on fire:



Link: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/grijalva-white-house-telling-reformers-it-will-cease-support-for-public-option.php?ref=fpb

Either the good representative does not know what he's talking about, or this is one of the greatest misdirects of all time.

Stay tuned...

:hi:

I thought that was coming next week?

:dem:

-Laelth

:kick:

:shrug:

Link, please?????

I like Cenk for the most part but it seems pretty idiotic to tell progressives to vote *NO* on something that hasn't even been presented and is, at the moment, only the subject of rumors, theories, and speculation.

:shrug: