Who Needs Republicans? (Part Two)

Who Needs Democrats? (4.00 / 4)

Dean, no one contributes more than you do to pushing a progressive message, but I have to disagree with you strongly here, because the booing from the home stands is starting to take its toll.

Did we all work hard to elect Democrats? Yes, as did people around the country, voting for change.  But, as much as I disagree with Hannah on pretty much everything, once in a while she actually is right about something, and yesterday she nailed it - the Republicans kept the campaign going after election day, and Democrats went into a long recovery from their celebratory hangover. I remember a debate here at the beginning of the summer when I pitched the idea that Democrats nationally needed to go to the town hall meetings, and undertake other activities to help stiffen the resolve of some of our elected officials. A response from not just one person was, "hey, we elected them, they should do the right thing without us having to do anything".

Unfortunately, that response was pretty typical across the country, and now we have a Republican base that is energized and a Democratic base that is divided between the sleepers, the activists who are yanking at the arms of the sleepers saying wake up, the house is on fire, and the grumblers, who are standing outside complaining about the fire department instead of picking up an extinguisher. Althought this being the Democratic Party, any one of us could be a sleeper, a warner or a grumbler on the same day!!

In any event, the Republicans are feeling very swaggerish right now, and we aren't. Time to wake up or we are going to be on the receiving end of a Clubber Lang* moment.

*Rocky III, the one where title holder Rocky finds himself laid out by Mr. T, then Burgess Meredith's character dies, very sad.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 07:42:01 AM CDT

How much slack, Kathy? (4.00 / 1)

How much slack do we cut the caucus? When is the right time to criticize them? What type of criticism can they take?

I think Dean is spot on. Don't worry about the base, we'll be there. They need to demonstrate to the country that they can do something.

You want to me to rally to their side? For what, the public option? Then I'm supposed to keep quiet when the Senate Finance Committee votes it down twice in one day? You can't have it both ways. I'm supposed to take what I get, and not get upset?

Not good enough. Sorry, we've had four straight Most Important Elections Ever, and we won all four (though we only got credit for the last three). We just can't do it anymore. They need to put up.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 07:58:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stomp your foot (4.00 / 2)

Go ahead, if it makes you feel better. Just don't stomp it on your other foot.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:02:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stomp yours (0.00 / 0)

And you may find nothing under it.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:31:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Or... (4.00 / 1)

Like Pegasus, perhaps a spring will burst forth.


"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:46:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Touche n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: JimC @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:50:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who said it was going to be easy to bend the arc of history*? (4.00 / 2)

A little fortitude! The interests that benefit from the status quo are powerful and entrenched. They will be very happy to see us returning to our stamp collections, muttering all the while.

Yesterday, Sherrod Brown said that the health care battle was far from over. I personally think it is about the sixth inning. Lets not pull our goalie just yet. (mixed metaphor alert).

So lets mutter and stomp for a bit, and then return to the battle to provide decent health care for all.

(*Not Barack Obama for one. He said over and over that this would be an exceedingly difficult battle against powerful industry foes).


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:26:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was the third inning yesterday (4.00 / 1)

We're on pace to end tomorrow.

Paul, you're right, but whoever accomplished a difficult task without even trying?

---

by: JimC @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:30:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

For me, (4.00 / 1)

the booing from the home stands US Senators in our own party is starting to take its toll.

It's just mind-numbing to me how this whole banana has gone down.

* Candidate Obama put forth a health reform plan that included a public option.

* Candidate Obama edged out all other candidates.

* Nominee Obama wins biggest Dem presidential victory since before I was born. Coattails have huge impact on House and Senate races

* President Obama puts forth same plan, with same support for a public option.

* Polls show it to be even more popular than Obama's victory margin. And even more popular among doctors.

* Harry Reid whistles while Baucus and the rest of his ilk dither the momentum away.

So here we stand, with a chance it could pass, or a chance there will be a major health care bill that forces me to buy insurance from the same broken industry. I don't see how I can go into the mid-terms promoting our team, a team that holds all the levers of power, with that outcome.

Republicans would never let this happen to their agenda.

It's a shame their ideas are so wrong, because they are so much more disciplined than we in getting what they want, even when the public doesn't want it.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 18:52:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dean: (0.00 / 0)

. It hasnt happened yet.
2. How could you support the Democrats if it did happen that a public option is not enacted?

Let me think: climate change, civil liberties, financial regulation, income equality, a non-politicized justice department, civil rights enforcement, gender equality, right to make own medical decisions, Terry Schiavo, Sarah Palen, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, The Club for Growth, voter suppression, a sane foreign policy, sane food and agriculture policies, energy independence, worker safety, right to organize, livable wages, THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE (and all that means for freedom and justice).

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 19:05:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Paul -- (4.00 / 2)

Your argument, while sound, is an election argument. We won the election, now let's have some Democratic policy.

Now, one can argue that our small d democratic willingness to compromise is inherently more virtuous than the GOP's damn the torpedoes advancement of its agenda. But, as Dartmouth Dem likes to say, no unilateral disarmament. They are not compromising with us; John Cornyn called the public option "an entitlement" yesterday. We are compromising with ourselves.

Our candidates -- all of them -- ran on "change." I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this country faces several crises, healthcare being one of them. If our caucus does not deliver, the independents will brutally punish us in 2010, and that election will weaken the president's footing for 2012.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 20:08:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This says it better than I can: (0.00 / 0)

Our candidates -- all of them -- ran on "change." I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this country faces several crises, healthcare being one of them. If our caucus does not deliver, the independents will brutally punish us in 2010, and that election will weaken the president's footing for 2012.

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 20:31:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right -- my argument is an election argument-- (4.00 / 2)

but I was responding to an election comment:

I don't see how I can go into the mid-terms promoting our team, a team that holds all the levers of power, with that outcome.

My point was that whatever the outcome of the health care debate, we cant afford to just walk in the next election away if we are unhappy-- in fact we will have to redouble our efforts.

I dont really think it is accurate to say that all of our candidates ran on 'change' if by that you mean a fundamental restructuring of things like the health care system. I think we are getting what we were promised with Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu etc. Anyone who thought that they were running as radical instruments of change was deluded, IMHO.

The question really comes down to whether it is better to have extreme centrists elected as Democrats in states like Nebraska and Louisiana and caucus as Democrats, or to have a pure party, but a minority party. (I am thinking in terms of the Senate here with its skewed rules on what makes a minority).

I think it is far better to control the agenda as a governing majority, although at times you have to deal with people elected as Democrats who would be Republicans in most other states. I think it is necessary to get their votes on any closure motions so that a bill emerges from the Senate. At that point, I think they have been afforded the cover they are entitled to expect and it is time for the real majority (50 plus one)to govern by passing a robust health care reform.

Now even if that doesn't happen, returning to the stamp collection is not an option in the world we live in now. (And I voted for only third party candidates in presidential elections for over thirty years-- so I understand to urge to say a pox of both of you. I just think at this point in time, it is an unaffordable indulgence to withdraw and fail to support the only viable opposition to those who have done so much to brng our world to the brink of multiple disasters).


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 07:18:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A couple of points (4.00 / 2)

All well said, but two things:

1. No one is advocating abandoning the party. What I -- and I think Dean, but I don't want to put words in his mouth -- am trying to get at is, we need to live up to our rhetoric. We need to demonstrate that electing Democrats means something, and, personally, I need to see that. My faith is being shaken.

2. Yes, Mary Landrieu (who I believe wasn't actually up last year) did not run on change, but that theme benefitted all Democrats in every race, from the president on down. So, in my ideal world, the party would ride its own success to push its agenda (which, presumably, the party already believes is the right thing to do).

Put another way, sure, let's negotiate internally. But let's negotiate from strength, not fear of what the GOP will say. The GOP will damn us if we do or don't, so let's do.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 08:44:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

except (0.00 / 0)

that this is the argument we hear every time. We are told every single election that we must support these candidates, we must support Democrats, even if they do a piss poor job, because they are better than the alternative.

I'm not seeing how that is, any more.

We're still spending over $12 billion a month on the occupation of 2 countries. Our elected representatives are going to pass an INCREASE in the already bloated Pentagon budget. We are  not closing Guantanamo, in fact, we are perpetuating the Bush policies on detainees, rendition, and secret prisons. We have made no strides in transparency - in fact the executive power grab made by Bush is still fully operational under our new president.

We are not going to have meaningful health insurance reform. We are going to have no health CARE reform.

Nothing has changed. So, please, tell me why, exactly, I should work hard for a party that is in thrall to corporate ownership and too scared of Republicans to actually affect any real change?

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:17:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did I say that? (4.00 / 2)

We are told every single election that we must support these candidates, we must support Democrats, even if they do a piss poor job, because they are better than the alternative.

The candidates that we can support are those for whom we can vote. As far as I can tell, Jeanne Shaheen, Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes have all supported a public option in particular and progressive policies in general. Within the party there are always choices to be made, and anyone is free to support whoever they choose. So if any of the above do not live up to your expectations, you can A. run yourself or B. support someone else who is running and more closely matches your policy positions. If you choose not to run, and no one else who you prefer runs in the primary, what are you going to do?

What I don't think is an option is to sit it out because we are angry. If you think we would have a better delegation with John Sununu, Kelly Ayotte, Frank Guinta, Ovide Lamontagne, Sean Mahoney, etc instead of the Democrats listed above, then we just disagree. It's instructive to think back to 2004. Many of us on the left thought that Howard Dean was an infinitely better candidate than John Kerry. But that wasnt the choice we had in the general election (pesky primaries), so we sucked it up and worked tirelessly for Kerry.

How much better a world would it have been if Kerry, flaws and all, had won?

Sometimes you have to continue the internal battle but suck it up in the general and understand that life isnt perfect and that, given the way our political system is skewed to favor the rich and powerful, change almost has to be incremental.

While both of us would easily prefer a single payer system, incremental changes that would ensure portability, forbid denying coverage for preexisting conditions, affordability etc represent life or death improvements in the lives of millions of Americans. That doesnt mean that we shouldnt keep pushing for more, it does mean that we shouldnt act so as to defeat all changes.i

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 09:59:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

You did say that. :-!

And again, it's not that you're wrong, it's that they've got to do something for us. And by us, I mean Americans.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 10:21:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well maybe i did !at least for general elections. (4.00 / 1)

But I dont see an alternative. We only have two parties on the ballot-- so I dont see what you can do but keep on trying.
BTW
For the gazillionth year in a row, a bill is being filed to make it easier for third parties to attain ballot status. As is it NH has the fewest parties with ballot status in the nation, thanks to a GOP bill in the 90's that doubled the requirements to drive the Libertarians off the ballot. I will be testifying for it (for the gazillionth time)and it would be nice to have some non-Libertarian company supporting the right of people to have choices. (In the midst of a war and occupation, the Iraqis managed to conduct an election with 178 parties on the ballot, NH could probably handle three or four).


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 13:47:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hah! (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure we could handle three or four!

Will the bill permit candidates to be the nominee of more than one party, like New York State?  It is an interesting system.  Although that could really make Jim Splaine crazy - instead of one candidate running unopposed in one primary, we could have one candidate running unopposed in several primaries.  But if the candidate was opposed in one or two, but unopposed in a couple of others, perhaps that would work?


"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 14:02:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I dont think the bill allows for that. (0.00 / 0)

A couple of years ago, I met with some people from the Working Peoples Party which often cross-designates candidates with Democrats in NY who were interested in trying to get legislation which allowed for candidates to be nominated by multiple parties. The effort kind of fizzled, in large part because I got sucked into the black hole of the Obama campaign. I am not sure if a bill to authorize this will be filed this year.

The bill on lowering the threshold for ballot status is being filed by David Pierce of Hanover, who has become a strong and consistent voice for election reform in the House. The final language I believe is due at the beginning of November.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 14:25:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

angry (4.00 / 1)

Of course I'm angry. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!  I don't understand anyone who isn't angry! We should all be mad as hell - we worked damned hard for change, and change isn't happening. Obama is breaking campaign promises with dazzling speed.

What am I going to do? I'm not going to make excuses any more, and I'm not going to accept them, nor am I willing to perpetuate this cycle:  We have to vote for a Democrat or things will be terrible. We vote for the Democrat. Things remain terrible. Next election - we have to vote for the Democrat or things will be terrible. We say, but we voted for the Democrat and things stayed terrible. We're told: Imagine how much worse they'd be if we hadn't vote for the Democrat!

Rinse, lather, and repeat.  

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 12:20:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree re: Obama (0.00 / 0)

But otherwise, hell yes.

"Now" is fiercely urgent. The party needs to hear this.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 13:26:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I dont think he has broken any campaign promises. (4.00 / 2)

Care to list a few?

The fact that not everything he said he would support has occurred nine months into an administration is hardly breaking a promise. The only area where I think there is a significant difference between what he said he supported and what he is now working for is in the question of an individual mandate in health insurance, where I think and always thought Hilary Clinton had the better position (as long as you are dealing with non-single payer system).

I am also disappointed in the speed with which he has worked to changed DOMA and DADT, but those hardly are broken promises at this early point. For the rest of it, I think he is trying to implement the programs he ran on. He didn't promise to come in with a magic wand and make K street disappear and make every centrist democrat forget who had paid for their campaigns.

I dont disagree with your anger re health care, but I will wait until I see what happens before allowing rage to take over.

I dont see how you can say nothing has changed. We have a functioning Justice Department, instead of criminal cartel, we are listening to scientists on global warming instead of people who's most current thoughts on science are 2000 years out of date. Justice Sotomayer is not a member of the Federalist Society who wants to eliminate all privacy rights. etc. ( Dont doubt for a moment that they were a vote or two away from overruling all of the privacy cases-- from contraception, to regulating sex between consenting adults to reproductive rights).

Maybe the pace of change isnt quick enough for us in some respects, but to say nothing has changed doesnt seem to comport with reality.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 14:02:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay (0.00 / 0)

I dont see how you can say nothing has changed. We have a functioning Justice Department, instead of criminal cartel.

And they aren't investigating the criminal cartel who came before them. The "let's move on, and put all that in the past" ensures that it will happen again.

we are listening to scientists on global warming instead of people who's most current thoughts on science are 2000 years out of date.

Yeah. Listening. Whoopee!

Justice Sotomayer is not a member of the Federalist Society who wants to eliminate all privacy rights. etc. ( Dont doubt for a moment that they were a vote or two away from overruling all of the privacy cases-- from contraception, to regulating sex between consenting adults to reproductive rights).

Oh, the right doesn't want to eliminate abortion, it's too big a wedge and a money maker for them. How Judge Sotomayor will  rule in future cases remains to be seen - and frankly, this ain't enough change to make me tapdance around the room.

Broken promises:

Obama reversed his stance on ending the embargo against Cuba.

Obama vowed to renegotiate NAFTA. Now, there are "no plans to reopen negotiations on NAFTA."

Medicare Part D - this one may be the one that irks me the most. Candidate Obama wanted Medicare to negotiate for prices with the drug companies. President Obama made a deal with the drug companies. No negotiating for prices. I heard President Obama say that we could "cut the donut hole in half." Now, there's something to be proud of. The Pentagon already gets over half the discretionary budget. The Dems are going to increase defense spending - but the best we can do for seniors is cut the donut hole in half.

Transparency - Obama promised transparency in his administration, but won't even release the names of visitors to the White House.

Continuing Bush policy on detainees at Guantanamo. Continuing rendition and secret prisons. Continuing to spend money foolishly on a war with no clear goals - just like the last administration.

What will it take to make you angry, Paul?

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 16:25:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A lot more than that. (4.00 / 1)

1. Well I think the Justice Department has opened an investigation into torture. (Note that Obama said he would leave a decision on this to his Attorney General, which he has even though it might not have been the decision he would have made). We'll see where it ends. We were talking about whether he broke campaign promises-- not only didnt he promise to investigate Cheney and Bush, he indicated time and again that he would leave it to the AG, but that his inclination would be to focus on the future. Now I happen to agree with you that they all should be investigated, indicted and incarcerated and I wish the administration would do so. But this is not an example of a promise broken.

2. Cuba is a work in progress. Only yesterday it was revealed that an American diplomat had spent  five days in talks in Cuban with the Cuban government. Last week a mamoth concert for peace was put in Habana headlined by Juanes and Olga Tanon. Note that all the equipement that went in did so legally from Miami and the State Department did not seek to stop American citizens like Tanon from appearing. In addition, the past few months have seen liberalization of travel and economic restrictions on Cuban emigrees.

I actually dont recall him ever saying that he would end the embargo, and I am quite sure he never said he would do so unilaterally without seeking an expansion of freedom in Cuba in return. If you can find him saying these things then I am wrong, but this also doesnt appear to be a campaign promise broken. (Again I agree with you that the embargo should be ended, and I think we are on the way).

3. I dont know enough about the NAFTA question to really respond-- again though it is a bit early and I suspect you will see activity both on labor rights and environmental aspects of Nafta before too long.

4. I tend to agree with you on the Medicare D issue. I understand that the Administration wanted to secure the promise to make health care budget neutral and to keep Pharma from pouring millions into defeating reform. If it stays the way it is being envisioned it is IMHO a mistake that will have to be rectified sooner or later. While we still dont know what the final bill will do on this, this one goes to you.

5. Transparency-- I'm not so sure it is a great idea to require lists of who visits the White House. Maybe Presidents should be able to meet with people without it being immediate fodder for cable news-- that is not something that in itself bothers me a lot. I agree that the jury is out on how well the administration will ultimately turn out on transparency, and there are worrisome indications, but the question of guests lists at the White House is trivial at best.

6. Mixed bag on detainees. Lots of positive movement, some slowdowns particulary on the pace of closing Guantanomo-- but it is a tricky issue. Because of the criminal torture used by the Bush regime, prosecutions against some extremely dangerous people have been compromised. I believe that all prisoners are now going to get an opportunity to challenge their confinement, and that alone is a major change. Guantanomo itself is important only as a symbol of Bush illegality to the world. We have plenty of totally secure prison space in US. Again this is an issue that I would like to see faster movement on, but it surely isnt close to enough to make me pine for the good old days of Republican misrule.

7. Afghanistan-- the only thing he promised in the campaign was to 1) consult with generals in a review of the situation and 2) put more, not less, effort into the war. If you thought he was promising to pull out of Afghanistan, you weren't listening. His main critique of Bush was of the diversion of effort from Afghanistan to Iraq. If there is any change from what he envisioned, it is probably that he appears to be becoming more skeptical of the overall mission in Afghanistan. So here too, while it might not be what you want, or what is best, it really isn't a broken promise.

There are many many things in this world that make me angry. One of them is that tens of millions of people in the richest country in the world cant afford health care. I am still hopeful that this will change soon. If it doesn't then I will be madder still, but I wont be mad at the people trying to change it,any more than I am mad at Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson for their failed efforts.

Barack Obama is one of the things that makes me happy-- I dont think he is perfect, but I think he constantly tries to do the right thing in a very difficult moment and a very treacherous environment.

 

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 19:04:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well (4.00 / 2)

you're more easily satisfied than I am. I guess I'm conscious of aging - and realizing that at 53, I'd best resign myself to the fact that there isn't going to be any positive change during my lifetime.

The battle for health care has been going on for over 100 years, and I have belonged to a party who lacks sufficient courage to take bold action to stop the madness, end the injustice, and institute REAL reform.

Cuba

After seeing (thanks Ken Burns) tonight, what FDR accomplished during the Depression, I'm even more glum. We need a leader - someone brave enough to stand up to the neocons, and the corporate interests. Instead we have a guy who is so obsessed with pleasing both factions, that he's willing to sacrifice his base while making marginal (if any) gains. Next year we'll get the rinse, lather, repeat cycle in time for the election.

Obama and the Democrats are about as bold as tapioca.  

---

by: susanthe @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 21:26:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Open, honest exchange (4.00 / 2)

Long live Blue Hampshire.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 07:29:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We agree! (4.00 / 2)

I am more easily satisfied than you or most. Thirty years of being a public defender and criminal defense lawyer does wonders in expanding one's tolerance for human frailties and failures.

I will be pleasantly surprised if my granddaughter is able to grow up in a  functioning democracy in a world not headed for imminent ecological catastrophe.

I dont take either for granted.

On the other hand it is inspiring to again consider what Lincoln, Roosevelt and Truman were able to accomplish in spite of virulent opposition and immensely difficult environments.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 13:46:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So Much Depends On PAC Donations... (4.00 / 2)

...and that has to change.  Individual donations are invasive enough when it comes to political campaigns when those large individual contributors want to promote their own special interests. PAC donations are worse.

Perhaps not with our own representatives as much, but the insurance lobby has its hooks on many of the Senators and Congresspeople in other parts of the country.  The insurance lobby also has great influence on both national parties, the Republican Party moreso, but the Democrats -- especially elsewhere -- are far from "independent."

We need our candidates to say no to that kind of influence.  We get what we ask for.  We don't end up with elected leaders taking the positions we expect if they go after contributions that come with strings when they're candidates.  

And by the way, one doesn't "need $8 million to run for U.S. Senate."  One needs enough money to win, but who put that price tag on, other than political consultants who want to be highly paid?  It's not how much you raise as much as how much you spend, where you spend it, how you spend it, and what your message is.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 07:59:27 AM CDT

Having heard it often enough from their promoters and (4.00 / 1)

supporters and hangers on that they were responsible for their own election, our reps naturally came to believe that to be the case.  Convincing them that they are supposed to be public servants is going to take a while.  In fact, some may never get the message and just need to be removed.

However, in addition to it being part of conservative strategy to depress and suppress the electorate, it really is too early to reach conclusions about the sausage-making in Washington.
Somebody explained in a KOS diary that timing is important and the committee bill is the wrong time to attach the PO for procedural reasons.
I happen to think getting Republicans to all agree that Medicare is part of the fabric of American life is a signal accomplishment.  Now, when there's a proposal to just expand the program and make it open enrollment, who's going to be able to rationally object?  (yes, there are some who are irrational).

Also, since our economy is in the crapper, might that not suggest that, if corporations have been getting what they wanted, what they wanted wasn't good for them and maybe they need a bit of help?

---

by: hannah @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:20:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Republicans Do The Insurance Lobbyists Bidding Completely (0.00 / 0)

Democrats do it too, only less so.

'Aints no more

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 09:52:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Time for public financing of campaigns and real limitations on the buying of elections (4.00 / 3)

(the latter may require a differently composed Supreme Court)

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:17:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not if you put the limits on the candidates and their (4.00 / 2)

committees, rather than the donors.  Individuals should be able to spend their money however they want.  Public officials and aspiring public officials should be restricted in whom they accept money from.  Personally, I'd like to see them restricted to taking money only from people who are also qualified to vote for them--i.e. individual citizens; no aliens and no corporate persons.  If a person is not willing to become a citizen, they should not participate in our agents' selection process.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 16:02:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting ideas. (0.00 / 0)

I think the constitutional equation is not changed by shifting the focus to the receipts-- the idea being that allowing people to speak only when alone is as much a restriction as forbidding them to speak at all.

As for restricting contributions to those who can actually vote, I'm ok with that-- presently campaign contributions are forbidden from foreign nationals, although foreign citizens who are permanent residents of the US can contribute. I wonder if it would be constitutional to restrict contributions to only those who are eligible to vote in the particular election-- thus only NH residents could contribute to candidates seeking election to offices in NH.  

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 17:15:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The regulation has to be of the recipient; not of the contributor (4.00 / 2)

or the contribution.

It's interesting, for example, that Ring, the Abramoff accomplice has plead not guilty and insisted on a trial, even though a number of congressional staffers and other functionaries have plead guilty to taking bribes, because his attorneys are arguing that as a lobbyist, he was not prohibited from taking gifts from individuals seeking to reward his efforts.

The law for public officials is different, as are their obligations.  Candidates for public office would do well to get used to the difference.  In Florida candidates have to prepay all purchases so as not to incur any debts.  Or, at least, that's how it used to be.

It's understandable that public officials prefer to regulate everyone but themselves and their associates and campaign regulations tend to favor incumbents.  But, that's what needs to be changed if legislative bodies are to be less corrupt. McCain/Feingold was un-Constitutional, but the Congress has passed all kinds of un-Constitutional stuff.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 18:52:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

demand side control works better than trying to control supply side (0.00 / 0)

Wherever there is demand, there will be a supply.
We need to require free ads, a certain number, on TV.
That limits the demand. Many other countries use this method.
Until demand is controlled, money will keep slithering around rules.  

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 20:40:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here we go again. (4.00 / 3)

Can we at least get some recognition for the fact that most of the Democrats on the Finance Committee voted for the public option?

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:21:27 AM CDT

NO! (0.00 / 0)

What the hell does that mean?

---

by: JimC @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:30:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It means we as Democrats can be proud of Jay Rockefeller, (4.00 / 2)

Even when we're mad at Max Baucus.  And it is not time to take our ball and go home.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:32:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not advocating taking the ball home (0.00 / 0)

But there is no clear party position.

I've made this point before, but this whole debate really frustrates me because it did NOT start this year. It started in 1980, when Ted Kennedy ran on a national health platform.

No member of Congress, or any serious candidate, can claim this snuck up on them.

So sure, I'll be proud of Jay Rockefeller, but it's the final bill that matters.

Like I said yesterday, the only comfort is the future. There is always another day.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:37:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wait till next season? (4.00 / 3)

Jim that's a little redolent of winning the wild card 9.5 games behind the Yankees isn't it? It doesn't feel that good does it ?

To turn this thing around Democrats have to act like Democrats, not weenies. That includes Obama.

The President must get the 60 Democratic Senators in a room, close the door, and remind them forcefully that if his signature legislation goes down, so do they. It is he, and only he, given the forces of entrenchment that are encamped, encumbering any and all of President Obama's 'change agenda', it is only he and his oratorical skills that will win the day.
The Republicans and their minions, their goal is not to better protect the American people against the vicissitudes of fate...their goal is to destroy our first African-American President, killing health care for all in the process.

Axelrod and Emanuel don't carry the weight that the President does. They can stategize and spin, arm bend and horse trade only so far. Really, as Kathy says, it is all on the line for the work we've done to bring about these new majorities. Last summer in our County Commissioner caucus, Democrats needed only solidarity to govern, fulfill their pledges, and remain elected.But they weenied playing some game for better parking.

Only failure to get a Health Care bill will destroy us...not IraQ/Af-Pak...not Israel/Palestinian...not Tax Code, not Marriage Equality.

I call on President Obama to act now, and bring his coalition to Abraham.

'Aints no more

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:08:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Testify! (4.00 / 2)

Even the Yankee knife twist was worth it.

Congrats on the AL East. The Sox clinched the wild card by losing ... terrible karma.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:13:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did someone say groundswell? n/t (4.00 / 2)

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com
www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:29:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two words: (0.00 / 0)

BIDEN ALERT!

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:54:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

First Democratic Iowa visit of 2016? (0.00 / 0)

per Chuck Todd...Biden to speak at Iowa JJ

This just in from the Quad City Times...9/29

http://www.qctimes.com/news/st...
Biden to speak at event in Des Moines on Nov. 21

Times Des Moines Bureau | Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:25 am

DES MOINES - Iowa Democrats have landed a big-name speaker for their marquee fundraiser. Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Michael Kiernan says Vice President Joe Biden will headline the party's 2009 Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, to be held Nov. 21 in Des Moines.

"We are absolutely thrilled to have the vice president back in Iowa," Kiernan said. "There is a great deal of admiration for Joe Biden among Iowa Democrats."

As the nation's 47th vice president, Biden has been involved with some key issues of the Obama-Biden administration, including overseeing policy in Iraq, implementing the federal economic stimulus package and leading the White House Task Force on Middle-Class Families, Kiernan said.

Biden previously served as a U.S. senator from Delaware for 36 years and made several unsuccessful bids to be president.

The Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner is traditionally the Democratic Party's largest fundraising event. Ticket information for the event can be found online at www.iowademocrats.org/JJ2009, Kiernan said.

'Aints no more

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 12:38:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton is coming to NH for ours. (0.00 / 0)

You could make the same assumption.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 12:46:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

huh ? (0.00 / 0)

He can't run for President Doug.

'Aints no more

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 13:22:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clarification Time (0.00 / 0)

Clearly no president may run for more than two consecutive terms.
Are we certain one couldn't take a break and then run later on?
I'm not advocating it, just wondering.

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 14:34:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Amendment XXII (0.00 / 0)

Can't be twice elected.

I agree. If a Prez could sit a term out and then run again, s/he would hover in DC, keeping their minions on a short leash.

This would screw things up even more than they already are.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com
www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 14:44:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He could run for vice president, and then become president upon death or resignation of president. (0.00 / 0)

Never say never about the Big Dog

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 17:19:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Naver happen (0.00 / 0)

except under a President Hillary or Chelsea...

'Aints no more

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 19:49:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The first of which is a reasonable possibility. (0.00 / 0)

Although I think it is a bit far fetched to think that her running mate would be Bill. It is just an interesting thought that there remains a path for the Big Dog to come back.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 07:25:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He's married to someone who might want to. (4.00 / 1)

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 15:38:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Iowa JJ (4.00 / 1)

I was a guest of the Iowa Democratic Party for their 2007 JJ with the presidential candidates. It was the wildest thing I have witnessed! Imagine a national convention a hundred times more excited.  

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 13:11:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yep n/t (0.00 / 0)

'Aints no more

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 23:19:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Adding: your Senator (Kerry) voted for it too. (4.00 / 2)

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:34:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe, maybe not. (4.00 / 1)

The Senate Club has wonderful arcane rules of posture. Everyone gets to Proclaim whatever they need, to their voters and contributors - so long as the vote come out the "right way."

I actually think Rockefeller and Schumer are working for real health care reform and a public option. But I am not sure. They continue to support all those clubhouse rules - from seniority and chairmanships to the filibuster - that keep the Pretty Speeches and dramatic losing votes from actually challenging the status quo.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 17:59:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jed Lewison nails it! (4.00 / 5)

Here's some numbers Kent Conrad doesn't want you to contemplate about yesterday's vote on the public option:

Put into words: although the Senate Finance Committee defeated the public option, nearly 6 million more Americans voted for the 10 senators who supported it than the 13 senators who opposed it. Moreover, senators who voted for the public option won on 63% of the vote in their last elections compared to 59% for the senators who voted against it.

Another way of saying it: anyone who claims the public option doesn't have public support is full of bull.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com
www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 10:44:27 AM CDT

This is the problem with the Senate-- a result of the deal we made with the Devil to bring the Southern states into the union. (4.00 / 1)

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 17:23:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ahem! (0.00 / 0)

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 20:42:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what I find the saddest of all (4.00 / 2)

is that here we all are fighting for a public option - which sucks to begin with.

Does the proposed "reform" put any price controls or regulations on the drug companies?

Does the "reform"put any price controls on insurance companies? Does it stop them from cherry picking or denying care? Does it challenge the insurance monopolies?

A mandate that forces everyone to buy insurance is a BIG PAYOFF  to Big Insurance.

Does the public option guarantee a universal standard of care?

Health care is a justice issue. Until everyone a basic standard of care, we are continuing to justify injustice.

I'm not going to fight for a shitty plan. Something will be passed, and for the rest of my life, we'll hear "we already did reform, no need to revisit that."  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 13:21:22 PM CDT

I know what to say to pump up Dean... (4.00 / 5)

Charlie Bass.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 13:25:23 PM CDT

OK, OK, (4.00 / 3)

you got me there.  Well done!

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 17:49:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm still betting on-- (0.00 / 0)

what people want = public option

Medicare = what people want

public option = Medicare

---

by: hannah @ Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 16:12:47 PM CDT