Yes, Rahm is Totally Vindicated

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/18/yes-rahm-is-totally-vindicated/

"...Ben Smith writes that if the health care bill passes with “unified, if grumbly, support on the left, it would seem to vindicate the White House’s fundamental approach, which was to take the left for granted as much as possible and focus on courting marginal members of the Senate.”

He’s absolutely right. As I told Jonathan Weisman of the Wall Street Journal the other day (which he didn’t print), “f#%king r$%ards” worked.

Whatever Barack Obama wants to do will be the farthest left any piece of legislation gets, and if anyone should try to challenge from the left, the unions and the liberal organizations and party blogs would rise up to condemn them and whip them into line — even if it means completely reversing themselves and devolving into total incoherence. And they’ll be rewarded with carve-outs and corporate money and expensive advertising and personal sinecures for playing their role in facilitating the corporate cash pipeline. Because that’s the job of the ever-expanding veal pen: cover Obama’s left flank and shut down progressive opposition.

Donna Edwards specifically requested that we hold a fundraiser for members of Congress who signed the July 31 pledge to vote against any bill that didn’t have a public option. It was a cheap shakedown that raised $430,000 for little more than a theatrical performance, and now when donors call her office and ask what she plans to do, they’re being told to “check Thomas after she takes her vote.”

I disagree with Ben, however, that this was “smart.” It left the White House triangulating against their own campaign message, depressing the base and risking not only their majority in the House but also down ticket races across the country that could suffer from low turnout in November. The mandate will feed 33 state legislative efforts across the country to revoke it, 24 of which are constitutional amendments (the Missouri House approved theirs yesterday). It will become a campaign issue in states like Florida, where Attorney General Bill McCollum is running for governor and threatening to file suit against it. And nobody will notice if Republicans are lying through their teeth when they deliver John Shadegg’s message. If Rahm truly was the one who wanted to ditch the mandate and go with a stripped down bill, he was right about that. But his plan to run against the “left” to pass this bill on behalf of PhRMA could have serious long term consequences.

Union members across the country are bitter about the way their leadership has sold them out..."

But FDL are fucking liars.

Were you there?

Glen Greenwald comes to much the same conclusion:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/18-9

though Krugman is considerably less sanguine about it:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/credit-where-it-isnt-due/

It has occurred in spite of the fact that the bill hasn't really gotten any more liberal. Whatever might come out of the reconciliation process will be marginally more liberal than what the Senate passed on its own, but still lacks a public option or a Medicare buy-in, and suffers from most of the same flaws that some liberals were critiquing in the first place. It might have helped a little bit to get the Senate bill off the front pages -- but the differences between the "Obama"/reconciliation bill and the Senate's December bill are fairly cosmetic.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/18-9

so sure and so belligerent to others who suggested there would not be a public option in the final bill.

:shrug:

It's splitting hairs, but saying a person did a stupid thing or has a stupid idea is different than saying they're a totally and perpetually stupid person.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If it comes down to FDL or your DL fucking C, I choose FDL. Why do you love Ben Nelson.

He said IN PUBLIC that the liberal blogsphere strategy is fucking retarded. And frankly if you have spent any time behind closed doors with politicians you would know if he said that in public then the shit he's been saying about us "off the record" is much... nicer :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

But hey, you want to trust a guy who thinks your thoughts are retarded be my guest.

Which is all the more reason to get rid of Rahm considering he's always been about shifting blame away from himself.

implementing policy.

:shrug:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/14/john-shadegg-gives-mike-stark-a-preview-of-the-gop-2010-campaign/


SHADEGG: I don’t understand either bill. Both the House and Senate bills contain mandates that compel, or would compel you and I as individual Americans to buy insurance from Americas private insurance industry. I think America’s private insurance industry is the problem…

STARK: So are you for a public option?

SHADDEG: Well, you could better defend a public option than you could defend compelling me to buy a product from the people that have created the problem. America’s health insurance industry has wanted this bill and the individual mandate from the get go. That’s their idea. Their idea is “look, our product is so lousy, that lots of people don’t buy it. So we need the government to force people to buy our product. And stunningly, that’s what the Congress appears to be going along with. Why would they do that?

STARK: Congressman, you’re making the progressive argument here.

SHADDEG: I’m with the progressives on this one! The notion … I mean, I completely agree with my progressive friends here. The notion of forcing Americans to buy a product they don’t want to buy from companies that aren’t doing it right right now is goofy..."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=423155&mesg_id=423155

'The insurance companies ARE the problem and the Democrats with these bills will mandate you purchase a product from the private insurance industry.

Making the IRS the bill collector for Aetna and the rest of the insurance companies is not the way to solve this problem.'

earlier to renounce health reform, and I apologize as I'm terrible with names, but it was the woman and the man who fill in for Thom Hartmann, and Shadegg stated in that clip that he was for single payer. I almost wrecked the car! Why wasn't he pushing this before?

I have thoughts, but I'll keep them to myself for now.

All I was trying to demonstrate is that he used the baby as a prop against the 'gubmint run takeover of health care', and yes, I almost wrecked the car when I heard that clip. If he'd been such a supporter of single payer why pull the stunt with the baby (against even a public option) and his yapping now.:shrug:

however I still think that Shaddeg is confused, an opportunist, or a confused opportunist as this is a complete reversal of his earlier position. He made no effort to push for single payer when his party was in power, nor has he pushed for it since, that I'm aware of.

Bludgeoning the dems is in his sights, but I'm not aware of anything that he's done to promote single payer.

hard to believe that the dems are mandating the purchase of private products.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

love the quotes you post.

:)