"We're going to run single payer candidates against Dems who vote for a bill w/o public option."

This is what Jane Hamsher from Firedoglake just announced on Big Ed's show.

It's exactly what we need to do!


On edit: You can help Jane come up with the platform: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/10/what-should-medicare-for-all-candidates-agree-to/

Considering what the public option had become, there was little left of it.

Only to those between 55 and 64 who don't have insurance - not nearly enough to create competition.

duh.

duh

that's not insignificant.

rolling on this is stepping up to the plate. I'm in, in my district even though it's been gerrymandered into a really red district, I know of a demography to tap that hasn't been and isn't even being noticed by other candidates including the incumbent who thinks he has a really secure seat.

...to get non-corporate Dems in office.

Better than whining, in any case.

:rofl:

As it is, the blue dogs- who have the smallest swings- as well as Harry Reid and Blanche Lincoln are toast.

Sort of a silver lining, all things considered.

"It's the economy, stupid."

I'm not worried about losing our majority in Congress. It's only 2009 and the economy is only going to get better.

by standing up and fighting for main street!

In quite possibly the biggest strategic blunder in American histroy- the Dems have managed in 10 short months to squander the populist wave that swept them into office and create the perception that the party stands for the banksters' and health insurers' interests- andagainst the interests of small businesses and ordinary Americans.

Amd inevitably- as with the poster below- you'll get simple minded apologists coming out and saying "but we CAN'T ELECT PROGRESSIVES in certain districts becuase- BLAH, BLAH, BLAH" despite the fact that even in those district, credible polls and researchg shows that progressive positions on the issues are more popular- sometimes substantially more popular than Republican policies- which have been proven failures.

In light of all that- a lot of us are coming once again to the conclusion that Democrats deserve to lose- and keep losing until they learn their lesson, stop making lame excuses and start standing up- with party dscipline- and fighting for traditional Democratic values again.

Indeed- over the longer term, perhaps the best thing for the party is a series of massice defeats that sweeps the pandering incubants out- and sets the stage for responsible and effective representation again.

LMFAO.

if they think anyone to the left of Blanche Lincoln could get elected as Senator from Arkansas.

Sure, she sucks on some issues...but she is right on many others while a Repug would be right on virtually none. And she caucuses with the Dems, giving us strength in numbers. Wake up, people.

now that would be a public option.

hahahahah.

Apparently Weiner is willing to bail.

but when push came to shove he knelt.

Geet'im... Geet'im... He ain't pure enough.

This is distrubing.

if the compromise does not have a PO that they agree with. What a colossal waste of money and effort.

There might be a primary in the future of the entire Congress.


:rofl:

There is no way that people they would approve of could be elected state wide in all but a few states and Congressional districts.

The Medicare expansion is very appealing to single-payer advocates. I certainly wouldn't call Bernie Sanders and Anthony Weiner Blue Dogs! Running a single-payer progressive candidate against a conservative Democrat is great. However, it seems silly to run single-payer candidates to try to defeat other single-payer candidates.

I'm fine with it! Best of luck!

Recruiting quality challengers will be tough

...but not nearly as tough as actually staying competitive once the race begins.

FDL seems to be suffering from delusions of self-importance. The whole thing screams "rinky dink" to me.

:rofl:

We wouldn't want to keep our majority thanks to the stupidity of the teabaggers/conservatives who are shrinking the Repub. party, would we?! :eyes:

What you just said. :-)

"We're going to run single payer candidates against Dems who vote for a bill w/o public option."

Even if they voted for expanding our existing single payer system? Even if they supported Medicare for all but are not willing to vote no on a good bill?

don't care about average citizens,just your vote.

Every living person in the exact same pool sharing health costs!
What could be better?

No more high risk health pools, no more CEO's of health insurance skimming
of the cream, no more denials of service.

There are plenty of issues by which to judge whether a candidate is for the people or for the corporations.

If they put corporate interests before the interest of the people, kick them out.

Ed Shultz does carry a lot of weight with me, though. He might be on to something.

is to assure that the issue is off the map by 2010. I am sorry, but by November next year, healthcare will be "so 2009". There will be a new "issues environment" because there always is. My guess is that the "issues environment" scheduled to be on tap for the election will favor re-election of the incumbent dems and election of more dems elsewhere. This sort of thing is nowhere near as accidental as it seems, and Barack Obama has shown a fairly adept hand at managing the issues environment.

Run them if you want, they will seem rather anachronistic by then.

don't know when the primaries are in your states, but ours is feb 5. i think it is still possible to file, but sure the hell not possible to defeat an incumbent at this point. especially not an incumbent with big money.