If Barbara Boxer is still on board with the HCR bill, then so am I

I said a while back that I would be looking to certain people I trust in regards to whether to move forward and support it or not. I do support it as far as I understand it and when I look around, true progressives in Congress are still on board.

So either someone like Boxer is fooled (ha! not likely) or beholden (ha! again, look at the record).

I'm still in. In fact, she was the one working with Nelson to get him on board. If nothing else tells you where Boxer thinks the best chance at reform is right now
then I'm not sure where you should look.

============================

Abortion remains at the heart of Nelson’s resistance to supporting the bill. Also in the negotiations was liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a leading abortion rights supporter in the Senate. She expressed confidence that the Senate could craft language to create a “firewall” that would segregate government funds away from any private funds used to pay for an abortion.

“We spent all day trying to address the issue of a firewall, we've made progress and I'll talk to you about it more tomorrow, for sure," Boxer said. “I'm optimistic that we can get 60 votes, yes.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30798.html

except you can't.

so don't bother.

heck, do you even vote?

.

no evidence of that has been offered. but oh well.

off and Sanders was bought off, why would I not even think Boxer was paid off? if she has such strong principles then she needs to stick by them. If she's so pro-choice she wouldn't vote for an anti-choice amendment, would she?

hey, if you are just talking to yourself, whatever floats your boat. if you want to think Sanders and Boxer were bought and paid for by the health care industry, then me and logic are obviously not going to get in your way.

but if you are posting here to actually speak to others, then under the "the bigger the claim the bigger the need for evidence" would suggest some sort of evidence that would be strong enough to suggest Boxer and Sanders were bought and paid for despite decades of public service and voting record that say quite the opposite.

it just comes down to why you are posting. you are already convinced, or are you? as for me, you would consider me a fool if i went along with your idea with nothing to back it up.

whole watered down bill, which I thought was going to save me money in the long run, but is going to end up costing me more in the longrun, should be dumped and started over. You may not be scared but I am. I pay over $7,000 per year out of my own pockets for health insurance, I can't afford much more, and I find out this bill most likely will cost me more. I'm angry about it and I feel I have a right to be angry.

litany of reasons why, 1 reason was the low amount of Doctors who take Medicaid, then all of a sudden today it comes out that he took 10 billion dollars in Medicaid funding for his state:

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Sanders_gets_funding_for_community_health_centers.html?showall

And you wonder why I have no trust in these politicians?

did you not catch that? they have votes to spare for the bill, they don't have votes to spare for cloture.

and Sanders all along has said what he thought were the weaknesses in the bill and that he was working to make it something he could vote for. at no point did he EVER say he would filibuster it.

Sanders is a lot smarter than opponents of the bill here give him credit for, and sometimes I think he's smarter than those who oppose this bill with simplistic one liners and expect me to agree with them.

when only 51 votes are needed?

and that's the game now.

if he said that now, it's a game changer, but he hasn't been saying it.

you know, the guy is not perfect, but our interests are better served by his work than almost any other Senator's.

piece of the bill and tells me I'm going to pay more, then that scares me.

Obviously.

:rofl:

:think:

:rofl:

When a topic is so complex that I have no way to clearly understand it, then I too look to see who's backing it that I respect.

And since Barbara Boxer is on board, then so am I.

Reluctantly, to be sure, but still...

K&R

so if that's your instinct, you are in good company. :hi:

:hi:

Boxer is one person who can be trusted to follow through with what she says.

for some reason.

maybe they like what Nelson is trying to do to the bill, or what the Republicans are doing to it. :shrug:

act after it becomes law

Too bad so many here are hell bent on pronouncing HCR DOA.

I suspect the two are liable to influence how willing Boxer may be to buck the party on HCR at this point... unless it is a truly awful bill.

Her support is a good sign though. I'm starting to hear something about "exchanges"... but I can't help thinking that if they were a good substitute for the public option, then someone would've gone to some effort to try to explain the set up that's being contemplated. Or maybe they just don't have time to be bothered talking with the public. Or maybe they just don't give a shit, and they're sick of being bothered by people whose lives they are about to change for the foreseeable future.

I'm still leaning against.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Your honesty is refreshing.

she's toast to me.

seriously. you and i agree so often and for you to just boil the issue down to Boxer "selling" out women's rights says more about your limitations than Boxer's.

i'm sorry it's come down to this but you and I have both been in the Bay Area for most of Boxer's career and you damn well know that's not what she's about --selling women's rights out.

I know she's done more on women's rights in her career than I'm aware of you doing.

So when it comes down to it, who do I trust more?

Hey, you got nasty about Boxer first, and I came in to defend her. You and I know what she's stood for over the years and you're ready to throw her into the trashbin without considering for a moment that she might be doing this because IT IS PART of her life's work on behalf of civil and human dignities, not in contradiction.

This just sucks.

And that has nothing to do with me but is simply a fact.

I know you and I and Barbara are usually on the same side and I'm grateful for that.

But this was wrong.

i don't know what the purported impact of a statement like that is supposed to be.

does it mean when she's pushing for global warming legislation that you are not on board because of this unforgivable thing? (I'm not agreeing with you by the way)

does it mean when she opposes a judge's nomination because of his/her record on choice that you will not side with her?

and if it doesn't affect any of that, then is the statement meaningless?

and if it does affect all those things, is it useful?

me, i would just like people to THINK about what they say and what the impact of their statements should be. i have NO IDEA what the hell to do do with "that's unforgivable".

:shrug: :crazy:

all over the country by the right wing and that puts women at risk of their lives.

And it means that Barbara Boxer should be one of the very last people to fail to stand up against that.

And, it's okay if you disagree with me. That doesn't mean we have to get a divorce or something.

I'm sure if Senator Boxer yelled, "Kill this bill!" then she'd be once again considered a champion for women's rights. :eyes:

on women's rights and health care.

it's ridiculous to look at their actions now and conclude that one or the other was in the tank all along and that explains everything.

why should a person defend a politician? you know, i feel ridiculous doing it but then i see the most simplistic, brain dead ignorance applied to politicians with long records of doing and supporting the right things and activists treat them like shit on the flimsiest of evidence.

and then i find myself defending Dean, Boxer and the like because even if they've let me down here and there (can't really say that they have though), i'm not in league with bone headed ignorance which does nothing to serve the causes we care about.

:hi:

You totally speak for me.

I hope you stick around GDP and put out these sensible OPs more often because so many of us have
been dealing with "the most simplistic, brain dead ignorance" for way too long.

:hi:

Proud to have her standing with me any day.

"This was clear when I was in Connecticut and she stumped for Lieberman, calling him 'Sir Gallahad' after he said rape victims denied contraception at a Catholic hospital could just take a short cab ride to another hospital."

<http://openleft.com/diary/2657/>

They have to also consider how their vote on one issue will effect their influence in other political matters going forward, within their house of Congress and with the Executive branch. I am not saying that a member of Congress would not vote their conscience because of that pragmatic potential conflict, but it has to be considered and when loyalties are honestly torn regarding a specific matter it can be a persuasive tie breaker.

External organizations such as Planned Parenthood however do not face that type of inevitable conflict. They are not inside of the Democratic caucus personally furthering or blocking the agenda of their party's leadership. Planned Parenthood rejects the Nelson compromise.

"if you want to know why serious action in DC against climate change isn't happening, you can point to Barbara Boxer, Environmental Defense, and the NRDC. They have enraged a good number of economists and environmentalists with their support of regulating the entire economy for the benefit of coal companies.......

This was clear when I was in Connecticut and she stumped for Lieberman, calling him 'Sir Gallahad' after he said rape victims denied contraception at a Catholic hospital could just take a short cab ride to another hospital."

<http://openleft.com/diary/2657/>

those complaining-not you).

:eyes:

If Dean himself changed his mind and said the current bill was good, it wouldn't change my opinion of it.

Barbara Boxer came and stumped for him on the campaign trail. This was AFTER he lost the Democratic primary and was running as an Independent. She did not campaign for her fellow Democrat, Ned Lamont, but for turncoat Lieberman.

Needless to say I find it hard to hold in in very high esteem since the.

I don't care whose for it, it's a bad bill and I'm against it. If Dean came out in support of it (as it is) I would still be against it.

:toast: :toast:

Claiming that Boxer has your "trust", and because of it, whatever she does is what you support.

That is a logically fallacious argument. You do not consider the myriad reasons she would be a good soldier for the party now (ignoring the effect of being "whipped" by the Whip), nor do you consider her personal motivations (be a good soldier and we will help you with X issue), nor do you consider he past history of taking an anti-progressive stands for the sake of ambition/party loyalty (the Leiberman argument brought upthread).

No, to you, if the authority says "jump", you fall into line.

Unfortunately, that is not a real argument because it has no inherent logic. Authoritarians may consider it to be so, but to the rest of us it just seems like "I believe X because Simon says".