
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) says he's in for health care reform, even though his key initiative--the public option--and all of its alternatives, have been swept into the dust bin.
"I'm going to vote for it," Brown told reporters. "I can't imagine I wouldn't. I mean there's too much at stake. And it's not at me, it's not about any senator, it's not about Lieberman, it's not about Harry Reid."
I asked Brown if he'd challenged Lieberman on his opposition to the public option and the buy-in.
"In the meeting with the President, I just made a direct appeal to him...I answered the arguments I've heard him make from your reporting: that it's revenue neutral, that it doesn't hurt Medicare," Brown said.
So what of the fact that Lieberman supported the buy-in as recently as three months ago?
"That's for him and his...that's for him to figure out.
polar bear
December 15, 2009 8:27 PM
So sad. I thought Sen. Brown would hang tough. I would feel sorry for him, if he wasn't saddling Americans with expenses we can't handle right now and turning it over to the insurance corpses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LindaR
December 15, 2009 8:58 PM in reply to polar bear
Remember he voted for the torture amendment "for the greater good" when he was in the house. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/sherrod-brown-now-opposes_b_52775.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
December 15, 2009 9:13 PM in reply to polar bear
Don't feel sorry for Sherry Brownnose. He's just another fart in the wind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
December 15, 2009 10:09 PM in reply to polar bear
You needn't feel sorry for Sherrod. We voters here in Ohio understand that sometimes you don't win even when you fight the good fight. The millions of uninsured people who will get coverage under the reform will be thanking the Democrats for this, unlike all the limousine progressives on the net who don't really need help from the government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 15, 2009 11:35 PM in reply to OhioGuy
Why don't millions of people have insurance? Number one reason: they can't afford it. This bill obliges them to buy it. At actuarial values of 60, 75 and 85...junk, slightly better junk, and decent. What do you think most people will choose? What they can afford: junk. And God help them if they then need to use their insurance, because they'll be filing for medical bankruptcy and, if their condition is bad enough, out of a job and a depreciated home, quicker than you can say 'Food stamps'. Wan't to live in a third world country? We're well on the way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
December 16, 2009 12:54 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
Without the cost control of the public option, and aditionally Medicare buy in, insurance-run health care costs will go up like a rocket and all those government subsidies, for people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford insurance, would go up like a rocket too. All the saving to the deficit will go out the window because Democrats caved in to the only cost controls in the bill, the public option especially, and Medicare buy in in addition to that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elpretentio
December 16, 2009 12:40 AM in reply to OhioGuy
you are so full of sh**.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 16, 2009 10:57 AM in reply to OhioGuy
Amen!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gizmo
December 15, 2009 8:37 PM
I wonder if the progressives have thought about the extent to which they are exposing themselves as wimps? Who will believe them next time around, when they draw a line in the sand on another issue? They will cave every time, and the GOP knows it. Shame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
December 15, 2009 9:16 PM in reply to gizmo
You're assuming these asswipes are progressives. Their Trojan Horses, Progressives are the horse's ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
December 15, 2009 8:37 PM
This is why we always lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 15, 2009 9:58 PM in reply to theone718
No, you don't get it. The Democrats are winning. Sherrod Brown is winning. They're achieving a major victory on a campaign goal of last year and a general party platform goal of the last 20-30 years. The reason you're angry isn't because the Democrats are losing, the reason you're angry is because they beat you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
December 15, 2009 10:31 PM in reply to mcc
Here is a link to a piece in the New Yorker by Atul Gawande. It is long but well worth the read.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/091214fa_fact_gawande
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
December 16, 2009 1:02 AM in reply to mcc
Winning would be a bill reducing costs. Since all cost controls have been given away to Joe Lieberman and his insurance company masters, insurance-run health care costs will rise like a rocket and the government subsidies will have to increase as fast, so it will add to the deficit, where it would have reduced the deficit with the cost cutting measure of the public option. That sounds like a loss to me, except for the one way that Republicans and Joe Lieberman will be seen as what they are, the cause of astronomical rise in health care costs, whereas cost controls could have been had if the bill still had the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IDB
December 16, 2009 1:07 AM in reply to John M
It does. Read the CBO report.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
de TOQUEville
December 16, 2009 10:14 AM in reply to IDB
What does what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 16, 2009 11:01 AM in reply to mcc
TheOne, Cranial and the rest of the turds are trolls. Don't even give them the time of day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 15, 2009 8:39 PM
It is quite simply amazing that anyone actually believes a bill that subsidizes insurance for families that make up to $88000 (an absolutely ridiculous amount)is somehow going to save money. You have to either be the most gullible moron on earth or completely ignorant of the entire history of entitlement spending in the United States to belief such total bullshit. All the major entitlements in the US are all going bankrupt, yet people are still willing to believe spending more money on health care subsidies will save money. It absolutely boggles the mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 15, 2009 10:24 PM in reply to masanf
For progressives who are upset about this bill, you can take some solace in the fact that people like masanf are shitting their pants over the prospect of his tax dollars finally bringing the majority of African-Americans and Hispanics into our currently segregated health care system.
And masanf, you can always hope that the savings you don't expect to see from this will be made up for with the belated appearance of that magic tax cut-generated revenue your guys Bush and Reagan promised us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
December 15, 2009 8:52 PM
Sherrod Brown, December 3 article:
==============================
No more compromise. "We've compromised the public option three times, maybe four."
So the opt out is where you draw the line?
"Yeah, the opt out was not our first choice. Delinking from Medicare was not our first choice," Brown said.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/brown-no-negotiations-on-the-public-option-as-far-as-im-concerned.php
================
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 15, 2009 8:52 PM
Congratulations Senator!! You have arrived! You have passed the rights of initiation into the faux progressive caucus. You sir, have a future in the party of change we can believe in, but don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
December 15, 2009 9:12 PM
Another empty suit. Another scrotum with no balls. Another Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 15, 2009 9:15 PM
Sherrod Brown and all the rest will forever be rubber stamps for whatever Lieberman wants. Enjoy your role as Liberscum bitchboys (and girls).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 15, 2009 9:39 PM
Back-stabbing sons-of-bitches. Okay, bitches too. Which is not gender specific, BTW....
Now that Senate Majority Leader Lieberman (Asshole-CT) has gotten his way - whatever that may be today - I hope we can get on with other pressing business: eliminating the minimum wage, removing remaining financial regulations, killing off what's left of the Bill of Rights.... The possibilities are endless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weeferdog
December 15, 2009 9:41 PM
Tough crowd. Maybe Brown and the other progressives actually believe the bill will do some good. People like 'masanf' only give a shit about their taxes; I got mine, screw you; typical GOP. And the Republicans in the Congress are the same: soulless, compassion-free corporate whores who couldn't care less if a bill passes or not. That's their 'strength' - not giving a shit. Democrats take governing seriously, most of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
December 15, 2009 9:42 PM
Say'taint so Share-rod! How kin a feller wit such a deep manly voice squeel "Unkle" jes like a girl?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
December 15, 2009 9:44 PM
Ha!ha!ha! wow! these guys are so wimpy it ain't funny.
I remember Brown & Haarkin talking tough a few weeks ago that without a PO he ain't supporting legislation.
Now they are singing a different tune.
Now they are on TV telling ya ....a shit sandwich
is prime Montana sirloin wrapped in bacon.
I knew once these wimpes were on all the Radio & TV
shows talking tough,the sellout was what they were selling.
Fact of the matter HReid played progressives once more:Make
like he was toilng for the PO and then scuttle it at the end,this way the gullible can say HReid tried is best,now go
out and donate to Harry's re-election in Nevada.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 15, 2009 9:46 PM
So, if the health care reform bill for the insurance companies passes, how long before they start working on one for the rest of their constituents?
And, why should anyone think that improvements to this bill will pass in the future if they can't get them to pass now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 15, 2009 10:04 PM in reply to chimpale
And, why should anyone think that improvements to this bill will pass in the future if they can't get them to pass now?
Congress will have a different set of members in two years than it has now, and it is easier to pass individual corrections to an existing health care program than a 2000-page health care overhaul
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
December 15, 2009 10:24 PM in reply to mcc
Yes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 15, 2009 10:33 PM in reply to mcc
Those new members will be Rs. The Democan'ts have lost my vote, and I'm not the only one. And please, don't start with that "You want the rethugs to win? You have to vote for the Ds" crap. It's total bullshit. If the Dems think they can piss on the Left and still get votes, they're even more stupid than this capitulation indicates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
December 15, 2009 10:40 PM in reply to EastWest
no one here is begging for your vote. Do what you want to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 15, 2009 10:54 PM in reply to Viva!America!
This one was among the more unhinged of the primary warriors: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/obamabots-are-filth.php
And to think it's already been more than a year since he informed us that McCain was going to win the election because Obama supporters were mean to him on the internet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 15, 2009 11:34 PM in reply to Stroszek
And you know what? I held my nose and voted for Obama. Wasted the vote, didn't I?
Maybe you're stupid enough to think things will be better in 2010. 2008 hasn't worked out so well, has it?
Piss on the base, they stop being the base. Except for those of you with weird sexual habits, anyway. You'll keep on voting for these losers.
Check out fivethirtyeight.com. Keep checking. Watch what your hero has sown.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
December 15, 2009 11:23 PM in reply to EastWest
Then you don't get shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 15, 2009 11:49 PM in reply to dtOZONE
See above.
I "get" that the Democrats have sold America down the river.
I "get" that Harry Reid loaned his balls to Joe Lieberman, and Joe won't give them back.
I "get" that Obama absolutely refuses to exercise actual leadership on this issue - he's more interested in passing HRC at any cost in order to score political points.
I "get" that with a 60-vote majority, the Democrats continue with the "no bill can pass without 60 votes" nonsense. And can't come up with 60 votes.
I "get" that the Michelle Bachmanns of the world are laughing their asses off at the Dems, much to the joy of the wing-nut base.
I "get" that the MSM continues to call the ConservaDems and their butt-buddy Lieberman "moderates" - with the underlying message being that anybody who disagrees with them is some sort of fringe radical.
I "get" that too many self-proclaimed Progressives just can't accept the reality that they're being royally screwed.
So yeah. I "get" shit. I recommend you get your head out of your ass, stop smelling that "shit" and realize what's happening to you. The implication of your witty repartee is clearly that no matter what they do to you, you'll continue voting for these bastards. Nothing smarter than consistently voting a straight-party ticket, is there? You're being taken for chumps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 16, 2009 11:02 AM in reply to EastWest
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 9:15 AM in reply to chimpale
Maybe because we took Civics in high school, or majored in political science or just generally have some understanding of history and politics in this country?
Because, maybe, having that knowledge we know for a fact that that's what's happened to every piece of paradigm shifting legislation since 1933: Social Security, Medicare, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, OSHA, MSHA, just to name a few? Sometimes they take a step back under Republicans and two steps forward under Democrats, but, generally, the trend line is more progressive.
And we also have the institutional fact of life that, other than dealing with budgetary bills and military appropriations, tinkering with existing domestic laws is 90% of what Congress does.
And then there's institutional reality the fact that a big part of the way Congress does that tinkering, once the foundation is in place, is by tacking amendments to such acts onto "must pass" spending bills, something that's politically impossible to do with the big bill itself.
On the other hand, for those of you insisting that if this bill is passed in imperfect form, it's imperfections will forever be frozen into law, immutable and unimprovable, for all time, there's the history of . . . [*crickets*] . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 15, 2009 10:06 PM
Heckuva job, Brownie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 15, 2009 10:20 PM
Hollow. Useless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
numediaman
December 15, 2009 10:37 PM
The Democrats have successfully tamed and emasculated the progressives. Congratulations.
Now the Democrats can continue to govern without those pesky activists -- the ones that wanted real change -- that's over.
Rahm Emanuel wants a center-right party -- and he's won. But it will be a pyrrich victory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
numediaman
December 15, 2009 10:38 PM in reply to numediaman
Sorry for misspelling "Pyrrhic" -- not something one types every day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
N. Anderthal
December 15, 2009 11:09 PM
The older I get the more I love LBJ. He was supposed to have told his cronies to accuse an opponent of having carnal relations with a goat. When they objected that it was not true he told them he didn't care if it was true, just make the bastard deny it.
At this point I don't care what happens to the bill. Retrench and put back in the public option AND Medicare buy in at 45. Make the bastards vote against it. Put in great oaths about keeping Medicare whole and - screw it - perks for gun ownership. Make the Republicans vote against it!!!! They are terrified to vote against it; put in enough poison pills so that you can smear every Republican with excrement prior to the next elections.
Obama screwed up with Lieberman ... he should have euthanized his political career when he had the chance. Actually I know when he should have shown his claws. He was at rally at a Caterpillar plant and he was talking hopefully about rehiring Cat workers. The CEO nipped that in the bud right there at the podium. No purchases of Cat equipment by Contractors should have been allowed till that chucklehead was gone.
Remember: MAKE THE BASTARDS DENY IT!!! MAKE THE BASTARDS VOTE AGAINST IT!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
December 16, 2009 12:58 AM
The mandate must be removed from the bill until such time as congress can deliver a public choice!
The unprecedented federal mandate to purchase health insurance should not be allowed to remain in a bill this weak!
It is equivalent to giving the health insurance companies a BIG :Wall-street-like' Bonus for screwing the American people all these years!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
December 16, 2009 1:07 AM
This is an interesting article for those uninformed Americans who think they have the "best health care system in the world". The fact is you have the 19th best health care system in the industrialized world.
http://bipartreport.com/2009/05/health-care-in-canada-better-than-in-the-us-2/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IDB
December 16, 2009 1:20 AM
What the hell is this. Some of you need to get a grip. Read some analysis of the bill. The consensus is that it lowers costs. I thought so called "progressives" valued the truth. Calling for death of this bill is incredibly irresponsible. If this doesn't pass healthcare reform won't be revisited for years. Incrementalism is how things get done these days. This is a acceptable first step.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 16, 2009 2:57 AM in reply to IDB
What I'm curious about is all the people claiming that the public option was the cost control mechanism in the bill. Didn't the CBO conclude that a "negotiated-rates" public option (such as were present in the House and HELP versions of the bill) would have premiums higher than those of private plans?
The public option served a purpose in the bill, it wasn't cost control.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 16, 2009 5:20 AM in reply to mcc
It would have saved the government money. Something like 85b over ten years (7, really, since it wouldn't have started until 2013 or 14). And the higher cost to customers would've been offset by the fact they would not be looking to deny claims, unlike private insurers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IMNOTBITTER
December 16, 2009 2:40 AM
Another pussy democrat bending over the sofa for Joe liberman and his whore wife! KIL THE BILL AND THEN LETS SWING THE "GUNS" AT LIEBERMAN EUPHAMISTICALLY SPEAKING OF COURSE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rscarcpac
December 16, 2009 6:29 AM
Is there no way to pass some kind of public option afterwards through budget reconciliation ? Maybe that's the plan. If so, the progressives have to shut up on this until Joe, Ben and the others finally pass this first bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
December 16, 2009 8:28 AM
Until now I've been proud of my Senator. Right now I'm very, very disappointed. The abused-spouse behavior of progressives is what prevents them from ever having real leverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
December 16, 2009 8:47 AM
The bill does nothing to control costs...insurance companies can charge whatever they like...pre-existing condition, no problem, they charge ya more!
Insurance is 30% more than when the process started, which means I still can't afford it, but now I get penalized for that.
Well the rest of the sick and the poor can suffer with me...and the dems will never get a dime or a vote...they are just a bad as the rethugs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 9:02 AM in reply to madmatt
You have heard about the subsidies, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 9:06 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
And where is THAT money coming from? The taxpayers, as in the national debt. The whole point was to lower systemic costs, not shuffle them around. Anywho, bottom line:
Obama got no wasta and now everybody knows it. Good luck governing now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 9:19 AM in reply to wbgonne
Well where the fuck did you think the money for the progressive holy grail of single payer was going to come from?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 1:33 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
With single payer there are cost controls. That's what single payer is. Idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 9:12 PM in reply to wbgonne
There are cost controls in this one. You just refuse to believe in them because your ideology tells you it cannot be so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dijamo
December 16, 2009 9:21 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
The subsidies only apply up to 400% of poverty. Which means if you make 44k a yr as a singleton, no subsidy for you but you need to pony up $400 or so a month (based on my current cobra rates) or face a tax penalty. Yeah. Mandates are going to go over swell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 16, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to dijamo
Your COBRA rates (and I'm really sorry to hear you're in that hellhole)are not the proper measure of how much policies will cost when they can't set up risk pools of one to try to force COBRA recipients onto someone else's plan or into insurancelessness.
Granting your worst case scenario assumption (i.e. that there are, in fact, no provisions in the bill that will lower rates, no benefits from pooling and the insurers won't normalize rates over much larger pools such that everyone will have to pay COBRA rates), going bare is still an option. The tax penalty is 750.00. That's not chump change if you're making 44K but it's less than two of the COBRA payments you're talking about. It's going to require people who choose to go bare to do some planning, but it's not like they're going to come toss you in jail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dijamo
December 16, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Having a vivid recall of the primary days, i'm pretty sure Obama's argument was that the focus of healthcare reform is to make insurance more affordable. No mandates until that was accomplished. It's immoral to punish people for not buying healthcare they can't afford. Hillary's cap in costs was 5% of income max.
How did we get to this bizarro world where the public option to bring down costs is not essential, but we're enforcing mandates at almost 10% of income if you're lucky enough to get any subsidy. If you make more than 45 as a single or @ 65 as a family of 4 you are shit out of luck. No subsidy. No caps on premiums as percent of income. No mechanism to bring down premium costs or pass savings onto consumers. A giveaway to insurance companies or pay a penalty for zero coverage.
Egads Steve,this bill puts us further away from real reform for the next 15 years. And the GOP is going to have a field day hanging the dems for this bill which will be deeply unpopular. Victory in name only may feel good for a day or two but when people figure out what this means for them, dems are screwed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 5, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to dijamo
Bullshit djiamo... you get zero coverage UNTIL you get a serious ill... then you can immediately sign up for a plan at a flat community rated premium and pay the universally capped deductible. The mandate penalty basically means everyone gets default catastrophic coverage via the preexisting condition ban.
Also, the mandate doesn't even apply if the premium for the basic plan exceeds 8% of your monthly income, but that inconvenient fact is ignored by fanatical Obama haters like yourself.
The reality is that you want to see Obama defeated. The fact that you think Hillary would have passed her untarnished white papers proves that the PUMA delusions are still clogging up your neural pathways.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
iVoted4Nader
December 16, 2009 8:49 AM
I voted 4 McKinney last time 'round. Nader before that twice; Wow! Back then, I got nothing but P-O'd comments from many here telling my what a waste my vote is/was.
NOW, after seeing FISA & retroactive immunity for Telcoms, the continue of torture or other crimes not prosecuted, and now Health Care reform evaporated,
I THINK I CAN SAY THIS maybe without being attacked;
*)nothing will ever change with a 2-party system.
what the world would be like now if I hadn't
"THROWN AWAY MY VOTE".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
December 16, 2009 9:30 AM
Maybe the problem is a weak Majority Leader in Harry Reid.
The Republicans mention the word filibuster, Reid shits his pants, and bills and amendments that we never see, die.
When the Dems took the Senate and the Repugs threatened their first filibuster Reid shoud have said, Go to it. Instead Reid keeps babbling "60 votes, 60 votes". I say let the public see the Repugs and the Lieberman's of the Senate filibustering and voting against cloture on C-SPAN and the cable channels.
The Democrats shot themselves in the foot when they elected a Red State Senator to be majority leader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
December 16, 2009 9:32 AM in reply to JohnW1141
My post on Reid doesn't mean we should ignore the spinelss and the corporate friendly Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 16, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to JohnW1141
The Democrats shot themselves in the foot when they elected a Red State Senator to be majority leader.
Shot themselves in the foot, kicked the rest of us in the balls and then sold our asses to the Corporatocracy with a smile.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
December 16, 2009 1:35 PM
Yet another sell-out and disappointment, Yet another example of "Change you can Believe In".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?