RE: Shocker

Paging the women from Maine.

Why? Watching Snowe and her endless efforts to make this already dragged out process drag out even longer, I can only conclude that she is absolutely terrified of making any kind of decision. Why is she in the Senate? Why do the people of Maine keep sending her, and her equally dithering Shadow Senator, back to the Senate to do, effectively, nothing? I have been reading the political internets for years and have never once seen a logical explanation of why Olympia Snowe is a Republican or increasingly, in the Senate at all.

Most people intuitively know — that “if we can just get our Foot in the door, we have a chance of opening that door all the way! And, if we don’t begin somewhere, and start “cooking the egg”, then how much more expensive will healthcare costs become? And, if this reform is not a good thing, then why are they (GOP/ Conserva Dems) fighting so hard to stop it. Is it because they too know that if we just get our foot through the door, there will be no turning back? And, Yes, it is too bad that all Dems are not Jeffersons, Adams and Franklins who truly work for the people, but we have to work with what we have at the moment, take stock of this and work harder for true Jeffersons, and Washingtons and Franklins to be elected in the future. They will come… As for now, I have not given up on Pres. Obama, for I have not given up on what is good! He is fighting old, intrinsic and entrenched patterns of greed which will not die easily or go quietly into the night. He is however planting the seeds for their destruction. Take Heart!

POSITIVE EXERCISE: Sit quietly, focus in the third eye, link up with your Soul (the soul is light/love and always works for the good of all) and visualize health care reform As passed, implemented into law with a public option — for energy always follows thought!

This is from todays ‘chat’ w/ Ezra Klein:

Ezra Klein: Yes. There are people, I think, who believe being called uncivil is the worst of political slurs. I’m not one of them. I’m much more afraid of growing callous.

The critique of Lieberman does not apply to Nelson, or Snowe, or any of the other senators who, though I may disagree with them, have been constructive participants in a long process and are doing their best to weigh long-held policy beliefs against an important bill that will help countless people. As I have argued at length, I do not believe Lieberman fits into that category. And in single-handedly reducing the chances this bill passes, he has a lot to answer for. But this town works in such a way that he’ll probably never have to.

It’s interesting for several reasons. First, of course is that I admire his take on ‘civility’. When lives are at stake, sometimes it’s OK to get a little testy. Second, I find it interesting that while you group Nelson and Lieberman together, he singles out Lieberman. This is because, unlike Nelson, Lieberman’s position is utterly inconsistent and is clearly based on policy that he’s making up as he goes along.

Because he wants to add new abortion restrictions, he’s willing to scuttle health insurance reform if he doesn’t get his way. This will result in more than 50,000 unnecessary deaths per year (as we have now). How very ‘pro-life’ of him.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/17/new-jobless-claims-rise-unexpectedly/
.
Not good.

Joe Klein:

immoderate “moderates” like Nelson and Lieberman have been holding their votes hostage for reasons of extreme ideology, personal pique and showboat narcissism

Actually, you and Joe Lieberman do agree on the nature of this reform legislation.
.
You say:

I also favor a single-payer system, like the one in Switzerland, like the one Senator Ron Wyden proposed–and, ultimately, I think we’ll get there. But, in a democracy–especially a mature democracy like ours–you don’t get radical change overnight. You get it step by step. The steps we will take if this bill is passed will be historic–and they will open the door for other steps in the near future.

When asked about his opposition to the public option, Lieberman said ( link to WSJ online DECEMBER 5, 2009 )

When Mr. Lieberman says no public option, he means no public option—not an “opt-in” or an “opt out” or a “trigger” (a public option only comes into effect if private insurers fail to spread enough coverage). “We are at the point now where this has become the classic legislative process of trying to get a fig leaf that everyone can hide behind. And I don’t want to do that.”
.
Why is he adamant? Mr. Lieberman says that while he is not “a conspiratorial person,” he believes the public option is intended as a way for the government to take over health care.
.
“I started to ask some of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus, privately, and two of them said “some in our caucus, and some outside in interest groups, after the president won such a great victory and there were more Democrats in the Senate and the House, said this is the moment to go for single payer.’” So, I joke, the senator is, in fact, as big a “conspiracy theorist” as me. He laughingly rejoins: “But I have evidence!”

So when you tell liberals that this legislation will “open the door for other steps”, and that you “favor a single-payer system”, you’re making Joe Lieberman’s case for him, aren’t you, Joe Klein?
.
Joe Lieberman says that this legislation is written the way that it is because dishonest politicians are trying to get something past the American people, and so do you.
.
The problems that we have as Democrats mostly come from this terrible predicament that centrists like you have put us in. We wanted single payer openly and honestly to begin with, and you want to “get it step by step”, which means lying to the American people about what you want to accomplish, and what you stand for right now.
.
Your kind of Democrat makes the Republicans’ “you get what you vote for” argument sound almost reasonable.
.
We think that it’s shameful that we have to be here, at this time, with all the supposed advantages of Democratic government, and Obama telling Joe Lieberman on the one hand “No, this is not a means to a government takeover of health care.“, while you on the other are selling this to us as a means to a government takeover of health care “in the near future.”
.
It’s a grotesque perversion of democracy, not “maturity”.
.
Are you prepared to admit that Joe Lieberman is right about your program, Joe Klein, and that you advocate for a fundamentally dishonest reform strategy?

What Jim said. Is Snowe definitely out? What was the purpose of all her foot-dragging?

You know, all this teeth gnashing got me thinking, what would Senator Kennedy think? Amazing how the “win one for Teddy” shtick seems like the leftovers that have hung out in the fridge too long.

As has already been pointed out on this site and many others, most self identified Pro-Lifers are not pro life at all. They are simply anti-abortion. It isn’t the same thing.

Snowe is in a longstanding Maine tradition of good government moderates, people who eschew radicalism.

This was a good thing when Bill Cohen was on the Watergate committee.

But the stance doesn’t work anymore, because the GOP has gone crazy. Or, rather, the transition brought about by the Civil Rights Act is almost complete. (When the two Senators from Maine are Democrats, it will be.)

Of course, Joe and his ilk don’t help. Her position–that she won’t vote for cloture–is appalling. But instead of story after story of how the Republicans have subverted the Constitution, we get the “have to have 60 votes” bit.

@jayackroyd I respect that tradition and had I been born a generation (or two) earlier would probably have been a part of it. It really is galling that no one mentions that this unconstitutional supermajority is now SOP.

No name calling for the extremist Nelson?
.
Only the Left gets slandered on Time, I guess.

Nate Silve makes what appears to be a reasonable point about the relatively low profit rates that are made by private health insurance corporations in his most recent post. The problem here is that other health care industries and services are making unconscionably high profits. Apparently, private health insurance providers are unable to constrain profiteering by big Pharma and others, or rather they’re more than happy to pass on unreasonably high costs to consumers rather than take on the fat cats. One would hope that the a government controlled plan would take the people’s side on life and death issues. Last week Olympia Snowe objected to the Senate bill that included the Medicare buy in provision because her “providers” didn’t like it. Typical.

btw, in addition to Burris, I’m pretty sure Bernie Sanders has said that he can’t vote for the current bill

Ha! You think this bill will actually save lives?
~
Opposing a mediocre reform bill that will do little more than push into poverty those already nearing the brink, yet technically middle class, on the grounds of opposition to abortion coverage is somehow anti-life? You progressives and your twisted hyperbole and propaganda make me sick.

“Pro-life” has nothing to do with life. It’s about gaining and holding power through conflict.

Sorry, Stuart, but you’re going to need to rephrase this in 140 characters or less. Can’t have any posts longer than ebay feedback, or you’ll make Joe very angry.

Joe Klein, I applaud you for this post. I really do. The lie that 60 votes are needed in the Senate is now producing truly amoral monsters, and you are right to point it out.

Can I ask you to consider something? How are Lieberman’s antics any more defensible than Nelson’s?

Foul as is Nelson’s behavior, I find Lieberman’s much more so, for all his public preening and dissembling and moralizing. Because Lieberman’s play was all about money and power. Nelson is at least based somewhat on principle. Anti-democratic, anti-woman principles, but, well…

I’m with Ezra on this one.

” .. – then his “pro-life” position somehow neglects the millions of people, already born, whose lives are in danger because they have no access to preventative and chronic care. ..”

Not necessarily.
Some have suggested that this pharma-insurance company’s favorite HRC bill can be thrown out and the rare good parts still left salvaged through reconciliation.

But that presupposes that we have stronger leadership in the DEMs senate. Good leadership recognizes when retreat or surrender may be the best or only options left – even when victory is so desirable.

[There is enough blame to go around. Reid would rather kowtow to the whims of every flea-bitten senator who wakes up with a bellyache. What if more of them started acting up?
The chances of DEMs getting a replacement for Reid in a hurry? Nil.]

The healthcare industry takes 30% off the top of the payments for salaries, overhead, and BONUSES. That 30% of the payments you mail in or have taken from your check or your bosses operation doesn’t make one person any better, delevop any new procedures or drugs, nor improve medical technology.

Mutualize the damn industry and make the policyholders the shareholders who vote annually on salaries, bonuses, and management retention. Bringing the costs of the policies down will slow down the erosion of family income as well as maybe keep some people from dropping their insurance totally.

The concessions being made by the Whitehouse and Sen Reid remind me of an old saying: If you want something in the worst way, that’s how you’ll get it. I want univerasal coverage and this bill is better than nothing (maybe) but I’m glad some on the left are finally drawing a line in the sand. The demands of the right-leaning Dems will get even worse until someone says “enough”. Maybe Reid should ask himself: WWJD? What would Johnson do?(Lyndon)

Klein is another Bolshevik Jew who is trying to destroy America. God help us all.

If you’re actually serious, f*ck off with that.

Bob and Queen, “pro-life” only refers to one’s stance on abortion. Under your logic, “pro-choice” people aren’t for choice if they oppose school vouchers.