Harry Reid: Trigger Happy

“Reid supports the idea from Republican Sen”

For political writers is that phrase “control+r”?

Then why don’t you go for it Reid, if you want the entire liberal wing of the party working against you the next time you run.

A trigger that might actually be triggered is actually a pretty smart political move. It tells the private insurance companies to put up or shut up. If they can comply – hey – great. If not, we have a public option – which is also great. Best yet, it does not cost a cent until triggered.

The worst case is a trigger that is unlikely to ever trigger – or a trigger that could be easily repealed by Republicans at some point.

– hippieprof

If Dems want the entire democratic wing of the Democratic party working against them all, you mean. I have a collection of progressive thoughts on this issue at: No, YOU Beware.

When has a trigger ever actually been pulled?

The health insurance companies have had decades to get their act together. The trigger is now. Harry Reid is Majority Leader. He doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of either of those terms. You don’t hear Mitch McConnell saying that his first choice would be to scrap all the bill and start over, but that co-ops are his second choice.

He also thought that giving Joe “he’s with us on everything except the war” Lieberman everything he asked for was a pretty doggone good idea.
Mr. 60th vote has done nothing but stab Connecticut and the Democratic Party in the face since then.

“The worst case is a trigger that is unlikely to ever trigger – or a trigger that could be easily repealed by Republicans at some point.

Whch is the only kind of trigger we’ll get.

At least his first choice is a public option.
.
Not that he’d ever stand up for that. Or anything.
.
And this man is majority leader why?

“And this man is majority leader why?”
.
B/C he vividly symbolizes the majority of our blue-veined lords? It’s not like Russ Feingold has a lot of company.

Snowe Snowe Snowe, her importance in this whole matter and the way she is being courted is amazing.

Hmmmm at this point in the thorny Healthcare debate, if she says she wants to be carried around on the shoulders of some Amazon warriors, I am sure some deal will be worked out with her! (Just kidding)

Anyway, Reid’s remark was hardly surprising. Of course Snowe wants it and so it is great. Uh huh.

LM
http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/

FYI, Jane Hamsher has a helpful breakdown of the “Prospects For a Public Option From the Senate Finance Committee”

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want the trigger either – especially if it is unlikely to really trigger. Wisely written, however, it could work out quite nicely…..

(Of course how likely is it to be wisely written? Probably not very…)

– hippieprof

http://hippieprof.com

Speaking of “triggers,” here are some excerpts from Bill Maher’s latest:

“I do want to know what happened to ‘Yes we can.’ Can we get out of Iraq? No. Afghanistan? No. Fix health care? No. Close Gitmo? No. Cap-and-trade carbon emissions? No…

Well, I hate to be a nudge, but why has America become a nation that can’t make anything bad end, like wars, farm subsidies, our oil addiction, the drug war, useless weapons programs – oh, and there’s still 60,000 troops in Germany – and can’t make anything good start, like health care reform, immigration reform, rebuilding infrastructure. Even when we address something, the plan can never start until years down the road. Congress’s climate change bill mandates a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions… by 2020! Fellas, slow down, where’s the fire? Oh yeah, it’s where I live, engulfing the entire western part of the United States…

We might pass new mileage standards, but even if we do, they wouldn’t start until 2016. In that year, our cars of the future will glide along at a breathtaking 35 miles-per-gallon. My goodness, is that even humanly possible? Cars that get 35 miles-per-gallon in just six years? Get your head out of the clouds, you socialist dreamer! ‘What do we want!? A small improvement! When do we want it!? 2016…

Even if they pass the sh!tty Max Baucus health care bill, it doesn’t kick in for 4 years, during which time 175,000 people will die because they’re not covered, and about three million will go bankrupt from hospital bills. We have a pretty good idea of the Republican plan for the next three years: Don’t let Obama do anything. What kills me is that that’s the Democrats’ plan, too.”

That’s quite a quote there:

“My first choice is a public option, because I think it will create competition and make the insurance companies more honest,” Reid said Thursday. “My No. 2 choice is the trigger that Snowe talked about.”

Here’s another one:

“My first choice is a Harry Reid who allows an up or down vote on the HELP Committee’s bill, because I think it contains a public option, which a way for folks who want to build a better system with their dollars when private insurers continue to reject or nickel and dime their claims,” Zechman said Friday. “My No. 2 choice is the new Majority Leader that Hamsher talked about.”

Can we please send Harry to live the rest of his days on a farm upstate now? Please!

I think the trigger would be like the oil we put in reserve. There is rarely a situation that warrants using the oil from that reserve.

How long can we afford to do this friggin dance folks?
.
A 22-year-old woman from Oxford, Ohio, died from swine flu on Wednesday. Kimberly Young graduated from Miami University in December and continued to live in Oxford, Ohio, within Minority Leader John Boehner’s congressional distrct. Reports now indicate that after initially getting sick, Young put off treatment because she was uninsured:
.
This not Boehner’s fault. This is the fault of a nation that can’t get its crap together and provide services that people need to live.
.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/reported-swine-flu-victim-remembered-for-her-passion-315472.html
.

Oregon JC:
.
It’s really too bad you don’t live here in Manhattan.
.
I just had the best conversation at a book store this evening with Jay Ackroyd, in part about the show he did last night with Greenwald, in part about the time that Jello Biafra stayed at my apartment.

Because radical, ideological centrists make up the leadership of the national Democratic Party, not liberals –neither moderate nor dedicated.

Having finished my Mencken last night and sensing the above love for congress, I can’t help but post one last passage. In condeming a faux-liberal SCOTUS justice, Menck said:

“The weak spot in his reasoning was his tacit assumption that the voice of the legislature was the voice of the people. There is, in fact, no reason for confusing the people and the legislature: the two, in these later years, are quite distinct. The legislature, like the executive, has ceased, save indirectly, to be even the creature of the people: it is the creature, in the main, of pressure groups, and most of them, it must be manifest, are of dubious wisdom and even more dubious honesty. Laws are no longer made by a rational process of public discussion; they are made by a process of blackmail and intimidation, and they are excecuted in the same manner. The typical lawmaker of today is a man wholly devoid of principle–a mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be applied to him he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.”

May 1930

“It’s really too bad you don’t live here in Manhattan.”
.
It’s about the only place I’ve not tried! 8 states, 4 time zones and two J-prefectures later. But fast approaching middle age and still waiting on my first million, it’s unlikely. That said, I’ve no doubt it’s a killer place to live, Dead Kennedys in your kitchen or nay. Far too many friends over the years who’ve raved/longed to return to think otherwise. Do I need a special passport to visit–isn’t NYC sort of like Tibet?
.
And help out a techno-rube. Jay’s show is in 2nd Life, right? Meaning one has to join to view/observe/wire up one’s avatar? Payment is necessary for this? Are their transcripts that make their way out of the matrix? Just read a weak review of Surrogates this a.m. that mentioned 2nd-L. Sadly, the film sounds lame.
.
But yeah I speak my native tongue (other than phone calls) maybe a couple times a month, mostly with drunken Aussies, which, let’s be honest, doesn’t really count. They use the obscene c— word as a term of highest regard. So, yeah, real conversation, sober, sounds quite appealing. Let me know if you ever make it to J-town!

If these spineless wimps drop the public option, this would be a perfect time for someone to start another third party.

I smell a concern troll.

Hey KT, is there any substance to that crazy rumor that a majority of doctors support the public option?

And when is Klein going to post again? I want to bug him about this link:
.

Is the Afghan army just a figment of Washington’s imagination?

.
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00393

Cliff –

Here is a link to the full survey:

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/48408physician.pdf

It says that 62 percent of physicians support a public OPTION.

The methodology looks pretty good to me, and this was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is quite prestigious.

– hippieprof

http://hippieprofessor.com

But… but… but studies show that people with high co-pays are healthier! Or something.

I have been reading these post for the last couple of days and I haven’t heard any one say what I think is the real problem is that we have business mixed up in our politics why doesn’t some one try to pass a law making it illegal for company to lobby the policy and law makers to get what they want instead of what we need maybe if we took their money out these guy would do what is right.

That may be a bit simple but some times the simple thing need to be said. Even though it will never happen nor will anything worthwhile as long as this is the way this country is run

I really do appreciate the link!
.
But mostly I’m trying to make KT acknowledge this study, or at least annoy her. She’s been demonstrably pessimistic on the public option and health care reform in general.
I’ll have to go check, but I believe she’s insisted that the public option does not have enough support.

Cliff:
.
You remember wrong:
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/21/a-public-plan-contd/
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/18/a-public-plan-three-quarters-want-one/
.
Though there is some complexity to those results, as noted in my two earlier posts on the subject (really, people, keep up), the support has been there. What I’ve said was that a public plan does not have enough VOTES, which I assume you will agree is a different thing entirely. And I still say that. Next week’s votes in the Senate Finance Committee are likely to be our first indication, though Harry Reid’s comments are sort of an indication that that’s what his whip count is telling him, too.
.
Also, worth noting: The White House is not exactly pushing very hard for a public option either. The President–as he has said a number of times in public–thinks the public option is a good idea, but not the only route to a successful reform effort. (For my earlier writing on the subject of the White House attitude toward the public option debate, you might try googling my name and the phrase “unproductive sideshow.”) At this point, the signal I continue to get from the White House is that they would accept a trigger and call it a win.
.
Also, I am anything but pessimistic that a health reform bill will pass. In fact, last night on Washington Week, I believe I decribed it as being within field goal range.

Karen Tumulty says:

“Also, I am anything but pessimistic that a health reform bill will pass. In fact, last night on Washington Week, I believe I decribed it as being within field goal range.”

.
Field goal range? As each passing day goes by the opposition pushes back the pro-Public Option further and further back into the recesses which do not see the light of day. As for HCR all together, liberals would be smart to get on board now and quit their squabbling and incessant rant on passing a Public Option, trigger or no trigger. It simply will not happen.
.
Common sense tells you that if 1/16 th of the overall GDP in this country is affected, business and lobbyist have a TON of money to spend on squashing it. Plus the fact that a MAJORITY of Americans do not want this RADICAL of a change made at this point in time to their healhcare insurance. The risks of failure simply to great. Plus, you have the Seniors out there who are fearful of the major cuts that Obama has proposed in order to fund any Public Option. Those cuts mean that every Senior with Medicare currently will see at minimum substantial increases to premiums that they now pay. You have 1/3 of the Seniors who will see a very affordable and great plan cut out entirely, Medicare Advantage. Those HMO-like Medicare Insurance products that provide Seniors with a very low cost insurance. Those Seniors who live in rural areas and who are very poor are dependent on having this insurance in order to survive on their meager Social Security funds. Its simply back to eating cat or dog food in order to survive again when Medicare Advantage is discontinued.
.
So public opposition combined with big money interests equals the dealth of any HCR that has any notion of a public anything contained within it. Add the pi$$ed off Seniors, and passing any HCR is all but dead.
.
The only thing the Progressives as represented on this site will do is completely kill any reform what-so-ever.
.
We can all agree on somethings. HCR needs to occur. We need to take this more slowly, weigh the costs and effects of the changes. Pass legislation for regulating State to State, allowing for the ability of Insurace Companies to compete with each other to drive down costs. Mandate that everyone has to have coverage, including illegals in the country (no more free rides), and pass fair Tort Reform. None of these proposals would cost the government or tax payers a single dime.
.
And, when are you going to do a story on what changes and cuts to Medicare Advantage will do to Seniors, Karen? When are you going to publish the Seniors anger at this proposal from Obama?

cliff, Karen is right about the White House not pushing the Public Option.
.
I wonder how long the White House can ignore the polls on this issue. I think one reason for the popularity of a government Public Option is that people want the security to know that it is there after what we have gone through this last year and they do not trust the Insurance Companies.
.

pretty much. KT might as well have her checks signed by AHIP at this point.
_
Note how KT is actively promoting the trigger. Reid says flat out that he prefers the public option, and the “trigger” is merely preferable to the much worse “co-op” idea being pushed by Conrad.
_
yet the lede is “According to the Las Vegas Sun, the Senate Majority Leader thinks putting a trigger on the public option is “a pretty doggone good idea”: and when that lede is preceded by the “trigger happy” headline (and that is KT’s headline — she can’t blame the sherriffs for this one), its clear what the message is.
_
This is just horrible, pro-parasite reporting….

Rusty, you missed the real point.
_
KT talked about passing a “health reform bill“, not passing actual “health care reform”. Its all Kabuki at this point, and the insurance companies and PhRMA have won.
_
Karen’s job is now to act like the host at one of those “if you show up, we’ll give you the award” shows that Bravo and other cable networks specialize in. The outcome has been determined, she’s just there to make it look like something significant is occurring.
_
She’d just coasting now — she’s done her job (ignoring the advantages of “payment reform” and instead making it appear as if ‘reform’ consisted of trying to find ways to do the impossible, i.e. replicate Mayo nationwide) and now she gets to sit back and watch as those of us NOT in the top 10% of household income get screwed….

JCP—
you can hear jay’s show at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtuallyspeaking
_
there is a link to the greenwald show at that site as well…

I’m beginning to gain insight into why mushy-middle-Centrists-accomplishing-zero-Everybody’s-mad-therefore-it-must-be-good thinking predominates our discourse.

A few weeks ago I posted “Sometimes a bad argument against a proposition is as effective as a good argument in favor”. I was talking at the time about ‘death panels’ and ‘rationaing’ and the other assorted blatant falsehoods that the right was throwing out as chaff in the reform debate. But if someone doesn’t hold a basic mindset that says Capitalism is evil, profit is theft and corprations are parasites, then the arguments I see here elicit the same sort of response. I’m being pushed away from support for the public option by the arguments in favor.
.
There’s more to prevailing in politics than merely depicting you opponents as satanic. If the last eight haven’t taught us that, then we’ve clearly NOT been paying attention.

[...] a related note, Harry Reid now calls the “trigger” option a “doggone good [...]

I think that Obama should take part of the blame for not being more forceful in response to the insanity. He seems to always be a bit late taking the gun out of the holster.
.
I am almost certain that most Americans don’t have a problem with a trigger. The problem is, as KT pointed out above, getting votes is much harder.
.
But in reality, isn’t that a bit of the tail wagging the dog? Why should it be that we have to hew to insane and frankly empty opposition to a trigger? The very worst that can be said about it is to invoke a ‘sliding slope to socialism’ sort of theory, which I don’t think Americans really fear, with the exception of the 22%’ers.
.
if, like PD says, insanity can trump reality, then where are we really at as a country?
.
The above question is rhetorical, but my take on it is that this is a process. The insanity is, in my mind, the death cries of a shriveling opposition* whose aim is not to help this country, but to inflict a wound on the Obama administration at all costs…

But if someone doesn’t hold a basic mindset that says Capitalism is evil, profit is theft and corprations are parasites, then the arguments I see here elicit the same sort of response.
.
Paul Dirks, You do know that virtually no one – I’m not even sure the “virtually” is necessary – on this thread holds that view? Believing that health insurance companies are parasites is not the same as believing that corporations as a general class are parasites. And wanting a cheaper health care system that makes companies like GM more competitive isn’t exactly anti-business.
.
In Victorian England water in cities used to be supplied by largely unregulated private companies. They would pipe to wealthier neighbourhoods, and the water would typically be available to individual homes at many times. But they had no financial incentive to pipe water to poorer neighbourhoods. They would set up one pump for a poor neighbourhood, often a long distance away from the actual homes in an age before rapid transport, and it would typically be supplied with water only one day a week, and that day was not Sunday, usually the only day of leisure for poor families. The water was also often unfiltered, unlike in the wealthier neighbourhoods. Eventually the disease and inconvenience resulting from this system led to reform.
.
These water companies were parasites. That doesn’t mean all of those corporations in Victorian Britain were parasites. It obviously doesn’t mean that private companies have no place in supplying water either, just as France has shown private companies can play a role in an efficient health care system. But the financial interests of those companies were in direct conflict with the interests of Victorian Britain as a whole. The extent to which there is a conflict of interests in these situations is also shown by how one business sector is hindering other sections of the economy. It was not in the interest of factory owners for their employees to be unclean and spread disease among the labor force. Almost everyone was damaged by the status quo, except the water companies: thus the “parasite” label.
.
Who besides the insurance companies and the politicians they are donating to is gaining from the health care status quo? Acknowledging the obvious answer doesn’t make someone a radical anti-capitalist.
.
You may suggest that in fact there isn’t much waste in the current health care system – I believe you have said something similar before – but as I have said before when you argue that America’s unique health care system is unrelated to its unique costs, you’re facing the burden of proof.

No, I realize perfectly that the White House isn’t pushing for a public option. Quite the opposite, judging by how Rahm is beating Democratic congresspeople into line.
.
KT – good point on those posts. I’m trying to figure out where I got that impression that you’re rooting against it. pluk and Dee think so too, and I don’t think we’re all off our rockers.
.
But the next question is, so if we have all this support for the public option — 70% of the public wants it, ~60% of doctors approve of it, the CBO says it will save billions more than a reform package without it — where is the opposition to the public option coming from?
.
Does the opposition have any good reasons, any at all , for wanting to do away with the public option? Is there anything more to it than the desire to keep raking in money hand over fist?

“where is the opposition to the public option coming from?”

Cliff – sadly the opposition is coming from the teabag crowd. They are a loud minority, but nevertheless they have managed to scare a lot of folks. Those people are sadly more worried about reelection than getting the right thing done.

BTW – if you engage in conversations with teabaggers, they all firmly believe that they are the majority. Every poll telling them differently is written off as liberal media spin.

– hippieprof

http://hippieprofessor.com

…I don’t think we’re all off our rockers. …
.
Uhm…..

Cliff says:

But the next question is, so if we have all this support for the public option — 70% of the public wants it, ~60% of doctors approve of it, the CBO says it will save billions more than a reform package without it — where is the opposition to the public option coming from?

.
70% want the public option? Could you cite your source on that please?
.
60% of Doctors want the public option as well? Could you cite your sources?
.
“Save billions”? The CBO has said it will COST 1.2 TRILLION dollars.
.
You are nothing but a TROLL cliffy. Simply a TROLL.
You can’t back up anything you say.

I spent the most part of the last 26 years living in Manhattan, Stuart.
.
But now I live in Ohio.
.
I think your efforts to encourage interaction on this blog deserve applause. But I do wonder what you think your ‘rustyreturns’ outreach has achieved?
.
Rusty is my favorite example of someone who ought to be smarter yet willingly catapults propaganda for morons: e.g. “…in order to cover for Obama and his Administration of avowed communist Czars. Great job Joe!”
.
Also, your Joe Klein outreach. Do you think this has done any good?
~

It’s from the link KT provided, directly above:
.
Today’s NYT has a poll confirming what we saw last week in the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. Politicians may be deeply divided over the most contentious issue in the health care debate; the public is not. The poll found 72% in favor of “the government’s offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans.” It won support even from half of those who identified themselves as Republicans.
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/21/a-public-plan-contd/
.
Could you please stop being such a goddamned numbnuts for like five minutes.

CongressDaily’s Kasie Hunt and Billy House: “In a bid to wrangle concessions from the Blue Dog Coalition on healthcare reform, House leaders Thursday released CBO estimates for liberals’ preferred version of the public option that show $85 billion more in savings than for the version the Blue Dogs prefer.
.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Important_signal_to_industry_groups_White_House_and_Senate_Finance_Committee_stand_by_their_side_dea.html

I think that Obama should take part of the blame for not being more forceful in response to the insanity.
_
I hate to break it to you, but Obama is part of the insanity.
_
I mean, in a sane sphere of political discouse, the phrase “uniquely American” in regard to health care reform would be denounced everywhere for the chavinistic jingoism that it is. Instead, its what the (supposed) “good guy”, barack Obama, says we need in health care reform.
_
In a sane system, “single payer” isn’t taken off the table. In a sane system, the experience of other nations isn’t merely considered, its considered central to how reform is designed.
_
Its all just one big madhouse — some of the inmates are more presentable than others, but the rhetoric of the white house and the conservadems bears no more relation to truth and honesty than does that of the “death panel” types.
_

But if someone doesn’t hold a basic mindset that says Capitalism is evil, profit is theft and corprations are parasites, then the arguments I see here elicit the same sort of response. I’m being pushed away from support for the public option by the arguments in favor.
.
What if someone thought that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, Paul Dirks?
.
Would you continue to concern-troll for Omni Comsumer Products?
~

Here. Here is a good example of why I and others question your reporting on health care, KT:
.

The theory here, of course, is that [the trigger] is another way of reaching President Obama’s stated goal for a public option, which is to keep insurance companies “honest.” And it is an idea that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been flirting with for months.
.
Insurance companies are likely to go along as well. They backed a similar trigger mechanism when it was used with the Medicare prescription drug program a few years back: The government would be allowed into the market only if private insurance companies weren’t competitive enough on their own. That “trigger” has never been pulled. But for those who advocate a public plan, this is likely to be seen as the weakest possible option, short of dropping it altogether. It would be, in their view, a mirage.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/05/health-care-the-public-option-fallback/
.
We know that a trigger is likely not ever going to be pulled – you say that yourself right in the post.
.
But how funny that Rahm and the insurance companies agree on the trigger, even though, as you’ve reported, we’re in a health care crisis, and the trigger will do practically nothing to help.
.
All I’m asking is to see some more discussion on why this might be the case. Why are the politicians pushing so hard against the public option, when so many constituents support it?
.
What are their motives? Can their actions be considered to be objectively helpful or harmful to our nation and our way of life?
.
(And I know it’s money, I just want a journalist to come right out and say it – the insurance companies are fine with wrecking the country for the sake of profit.)

Thanks for everyone’s thoughtful responses. In particular, when we discuss the incentives and discentives that corporations face, we can all agree that a Church-Of-Reagan free for all is not a desirable situation and that the insurance industry, as currently constituted actually has a strong incentive to rip people off. But the self-serving nature of Corporations is a feature, not a bug and I don’t think it’s helpful to let the emotional responses we apply to individuals shape how we discuss large faceless organizations.
.
Note that my criticisms only entend to the rhetoric being employed here, I think we’re all in broad agreement over the desired shape of health care reform. If that make me a concern troll, then so be it.

P-luk, thanks for the link. Will check it out, as well as future/past shows.

Note that my criticisms only entend to the rhetoric being employed here, I think we’re all in broad agreement over the desired shape of health care reform. If that make me a concern troll, then so be it.
.
I think it might be helpful if you specifically cited some of the rhetoric that concerns you. Are you referring to the use of the word “parasite”? Because if we accept corporations as organizations operated according to rational interests rather than emotional beings whose feelings can be hurt, I can’t see a problem choosing an accurate albeit harsh descriptor. “Parasite” is obviously not a term only applied to humans. Given its meaning in the sciences, it arguably applies much better to corporations than humans.

Why are the politicians pushing so hard against the public option, when so many constituents support it?
.
What are their motives? Can their actions be considered to be objectively helpful or harmful to our nation and our way of life?
.
(And I know it’s money, I just want a journalist to come right out and say it – the insurance companies are fine with wrecking the country for the sake of profit.)
_
I think you err here in blaming “the money” for why the politicians are willing to vote against the nation’s best interests. I want to see “journalists” acknowledge that its ideology,and that the opposition to single payer and/or public option alternatives is not rational, but ideological. We’d be a lot more likely to come up with good public policy in all spheres were KT and her peers willing to label ideas that were based in the irrational faith in markets as ideological

“But if someone doesn’t hold a basic mindset that says Capitalism is evil, profit is theft and corprations are parasites, then the arguments I see here elicit the same sort of response. I’m being pushed away from support for the public option by the arguments in favor.”
.
Dirks, obviously, this isn’t the first time you’ve spoken up for some core/general decency of corporations. I know many of us (not merely reds like me) tend to go over the top at times in our pitchfork rhetoric, but I’m not sure if that alone can explain your reactionary pivot. Again, I know you’re not a let the markets dictate our lives Reaganist or that you fail to see some of the inherent predation corporations practice. Just like I’m not so delusional as to whitewash a century of failed socialist/communist models in practice.
.
What I’d hope we can all agree on, those of us not populating KT’s inner discourse, those of outside that wholly skewed sphere of debate, is that in our society (since Reagan entered office nearly 30 years ago) the little guy is getting a raw deal across the board. We know why the right’s rhetoric is so reality-free–all they’ve got are blatant lies and misinformation to sell. But the left continues to wage this battle with one hand behind its proverbial back, b/c as P-luk alludes to we can’t (or won’t in our reps’/president’s case) offer any full-throated argument in favor of progressive governance. The dems are still by and large waging this war, as Taibbi, GG, Digby etc. so effectively document, with nary a mention of populism. Taxes cannot be discussed, the world beyond your borders cannot be discussed, welfare for war profiteers and Wall St. barons, off the table, not to be questioned, not merely by Joke Klein and co, but by our supposedly liberal leadership.
.
Thus the hyperbole at times, it amounts to frustration IMO. Thus the lambasting KT took yesterday for propping up Carly Fiorina as a reasonable voice in this debate. Meanwhile, someone like Amy Goodman is not. Why Glenn Beck deserves so much stenography but Jane Hamsher doesn’t.
.
What appears to your inner conservative (the pre-pejorative meaning) and faith in capitalism (surely the unfettered version) are welcome, but please, our saying mean things about the uber elites preying on working class Americans, this somehow inspires you to embrace the status quo? In the end, all politics tend to boil down to who your sympathies are with.
.
The most worrisome thing from my distant perspective is that the dems’ terrified avoidance of populist rhetoric, Obama’s coddling of Wall St., that if this jobless recovery advances, if quality schooling, health care, housing, all remain out of reach for most Americans, when Walmart jobs continue to replace real jobs, well, Americans are going to indeed go for their pitchforks, but sadly there’s only one game in town for such populist rage. GG’s take on left-right confusion last week was spot-on.

“I hate to break it to you, but Obama is part of the insanity.”
.
pluk:
.
I just don’t see it that way. I made this contention because the political reality is that only 22% of Americans are “concerned”* over single payer.
.
Obama keeps political pistol in holster, the Insane Crowd screams, the “false equivalence” card is played, and bingo! A 2-inch tail is wagging a 150 lb dog! Talk about Affirmative Action for Crackpots!
.
Now, having kept the hardware hidden, he looks over the situation and his efforts to achieve bipartisanship have turned into death threats, threats of terrorism, and patent rabid insanity. That’s what I blame him for. He’s shown a considerable to drag that iron out and is usually shooting back after he gets Swiss Cheesed by the opposition.
.
Only if one firmly believes in equivalency between the two camps could one come to that particular conclusion, pluk.
.
I just don’t buy it…
.
*loose and euphemistic substitute for “rabidly fearful”

“He’s shown a considerable to drag that iron out…”, should read:
“He’s shown a considerable reluctance to drag that iron out…”
.
Sorry!

That would be a great conversation to have: money vs. ideology.
.
On the right, I think it’s in large part ideological. Witness rusty screaming “Hurk a durr soshalism!” at every chance he gets.
.
But when Baucus and these other politicians get wads of money stuffed into their pockets by insurance companies, I think all of a sudden they find that their ideology has room for insurance industry interests.

Cliff, I’m with you here. P-luk has said before that in his opinion the right-wingers truly believe in what they advocate, and I’m sure this is in part true, but having known republican operatives on the hill and in the hinterlands who say one thing and think quite another, who peddle anti-gay rights professionally while friends or family members (not to mention their own proclivities) are warmly embraced. One of my best mates worked for a wackjob rightist in AZ for years, a guy who seemingly talked exclusively about gods, guns and gays. My buddy was a virulent atheist, thought the gun nutters were compensating for roominess in their joe-boxers, and had loads of gay friends, but his boss, his entire career depended on deceit, and ultimately, friend or nay, the great profits he reaped as a result.
.
It’s not merely congress critters. How many teachers condemn their unions, how many folks employed by the MIC or Time magazine et al, choose to blast the hands that feed them. Our loyalties tend to lie with those who provide for us. If daddy’s dropping a few grand a month on ya, are you really going to condemn him? The corruption in congress is reflective of a larger rot in capitalism writ large.

Anyone have any information on the weak Public Option the Schumer is going to offer for vote on Tuesday?

Jane Hamsher talks about it in this link.

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/25/prospects-for-a-public-option-on-senate-finance/

“I want to see “journalists” acknowledge that its ideology,and that the opposition to single payer and/or public option alternatives is not rational, but ideological. We’d be a lot more likely to come up with good public policy in all spheres were KT and her peers willing to label ideas that were based in the irrational faith in markets as ideological”
.
The ideology you speak of is the one that keeps you in the good graces of your employers and, in a properly organized capitalistic system, your customers (corporate media like Time currently being killed from extending a giant middle finger to the liberal/progressive portion of the latter). It’s not ideology that motivates journalists or even insurance industry executives, it’s their individual psychology, all of which perceive benefit from basic adherence to the status quo and not doing that which is percieved to be professionally dangerous. Exactly the same with Obama. At the end of the day, politician, journalist, butcher, baker, candlestick-maker, it’s always about individual prosperity; don’t make it more grandiose than it ever actually is.

the sentence before what you quoted was…. “I think you err here in blaming “the money” for why the politicians are willing to vote against the nation’s best interests.”
_
“The politicians” was italicised on the original. I wasn’t talking about journalists or insurance companies.
_
And I don’t have a problem with the idea that politicians do it for the money — but its hard to get journalists to say that unless they can establish a “quid pro quo”. Journalists should have no problem discussing the opponents/obstructionists as “ideologues”, because their own rhetoric displays an irrational faith in “markets” and “competition”.
_
Instead of that truth, we get accusations of ideological rigidity from the supporters of the public option, while true ideologues like Baucus and Snowe have valentines thrown at them. That’s a “big lie”….

I’m sorry, guys, I just got back from a bachelor party now, so I won’t quite be in a state to respond the way that I’d like to.
.
Holy Crap. It’s 6:34AM two days later.

.
Good…night?

Do the 65% of Americans who support a Medicare style option for all people realize that it isn’t even part of this bill?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/those_socialist_americans.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Why is Harry Reid allowed to wax about triggers when the public clearly wants so much more?

Are these kids “Trigger-happy”?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/first-person-shooter/

“Journalists should have no problem discussing the opponents/obstructionists as “ideologues”, because their own rhetoric displays an irrational faith in “markets” and “competition”.”
.
They should have no problem discussing “conservative” and Republican radical extremism (and patent dishonesty) either, because most of their ideology (dogma really) is radical and extreme (and they’re forced to lie constantly to try to sell it). Nevertheless, they do have serious social and institutional impediments to telling the truth about them and, at the end of the day, it all boils down to perceived personal risk and reward – just like the obstructionists being paid to obstruct and politicians who would like to pass good legislation but face professional risks from going against the pro-corporate establishment.
.
And I think you put far too much stock in the obstructionists claims that their obstruction has anything to do with market ideology. First of all, we know that they’re all serial liars. Second, “market ideology” is mostly a big lie itself, designed specifically to justify and rationalize otherwise irrational deregulation to the great uneducated masses. And now we’re back to why journalists face institutional dangers for telling them the truth about it.

I’m convinced that Rahm Emanual is becoming (or already has become) little more than the Dem equivalent of Karl Rove, someone who is obsessed with winning but cares little about passing good legislation or really governing.
.
Not sure anything truly good is going to occur as long as he is responsible for activity behind the scenes.
.
I simply do NOT trust him.

Are you sure there wasn’t a “death panel” involved here somewhere?