Gang of Sickos: Six US Senators Sell Out Constituents for $11 Million from Health Industry
A bipartisan group of six "moderate" US senators, dubbed the "Gang of Six" by news agencies, issued a demand July 17 for a slowdown on Democratic health care reform. These senators - including three conservative Democrats, one conservative Independent who caucuses with Democrats, and two moderate Republicans - asked for a slowdown on health care reform not because their constituents wished it so: recent polls show that a clear majority of Americans want health care reform now including a public health care option such as that proposed by President Obama and progressives in Congress. No, these senators asked for a slowdown on health care reform because the for-profit health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries have bid them to do so in the hope that reform can be stopped, and because these same industries have generously provided them with career campaign contributions totalling more than $11 million.
These six senators - whom I'll call the "Gang of Sickos" in honor of Michael Moore's film on America's health care crisis similarly titled - are Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Ron Wyden of Oregon; Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut; and Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine (Paul Krugman calls them "the six deadly hypocrites"). Their career total and average daily contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries are summarized by Paul Blumenthal at the Huffington Post based on figures from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Sicko #1: Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the ringleader of the group, has raised more than $2.2 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of his career according to Blumenthal, averaging more than $700 per day since taking office in January 2001. Public Campaign Action Fund (PCAF) gives a slightly lower career total of just over $2.0 million for Nelson, and provides extensive detail on his ties to the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries. Before entering politics, as PCAF notes, Nelson spent his career as an insurance executive, as an insurance company lawyer and, early in his career, as Nebraska's state insurance regulator. As PCAF also notes, a number of Nelson's former Senate staffers have moved on into lucrative careers as health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. Comments may be addressed to Senator Nelson via his Senate contact page (Nebraska residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@bennelson.senate.gov (CRP: Ben Nelson).
Sicko #2: Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has raised more than $1.6 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of her career, averaging more than $300 per day since taking office in January 1997. PCAF provides extensive detail on Landrieu's ties to the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries. Like Nelson's former staffers, several of Landrieu's have also gone on to work as health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. Landrieu's opposition to the public option was attacked in a TV ad from MoveOn aired in her home state. Landrieu is also listed as one of the twenty most corrupt members of Congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Comments may be addressed to Senator Landrieu via her Senate contact page (Louisiana residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@landrieu.senate.gov (CRP: Mary Landrieu).
Sicko #3: Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon has raised more than $1.4 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of his career, averaging almost $300 per day since taking office in February 1996. Comments may be addressed to Senator Wyden via his Senate contact page (Oregon residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@wyden.senate.gov (CRP: Ron Wyden).
Sicko #4: Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut has raised almost $3.6 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of his career, averaging more than $500 per day since taking office in January 1989. This former Democrat has been the bane of progressives since his signing onto the Bush war program and his opposition to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Comments may be addressed to Senator Lieberman via his Senate contact page (Connecticut residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@lieberman.senate.gov (CRP: Joe Lieberman).
Sicko #5: Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine has raised more than $1.1 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of her career, averaging more than $200 per day since taking office in January 1995. Unlike the "Democrats" listed above, Senator Snowe and her junior Republican colleague from Maine, Susan Collins, can perhaps be partially excused for their actions based on the fact that they are Republicans, and are only doing what all Republicans do: Deny the needs of the poor, working, and middle classes in favor of the wealthy, while pretending in Bush-Palin fashion to be the champions of "Real Americans." Nonetheless, comments may be addressed to Senator Snowe via her Senate contact page (Maine residents only) or by direct e-mail at: olympia@snowe.senate.gov (CRP: Olympia Snowe).
Sicko #6: Republican Susan Collins of Maine has raised almost $1.6 million in campaign contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries over the course of her career, averaging more than $300 per day since taking office in January 1997. Comments may be addressed to Senator Collins via her Senate contact page (Maine residents only) or by direct e-mail at: senator@collins.senate.gov (CRP: Susan Collins).
Based on the average daily contributions given here, Paul Blumenthal estimates that in a 70-day delay in health care reform such as that proposed by the "Gang of Six," these six senators stand to gain a further total of more than $170,000 in contributions from the health, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries, or an average of more than $28,000 ($400 per day) for each senator. While they and their families remain fully insured throughout this period, many of their less-fortunate constituents including children will remain uninsured and at risk, some will grow ill and be unable to receive care, and some will die unnecessarily. But that's not your problem, is it, Senator Sicko?
Throughout this period of bipartisan "moderate" foot-dragging on health care reform, Americans should be encourged to watch or to re-watch Michael Moore's film, Sicko, by which the title of this blogpost was inspired; and which lays bare the reasons why the United States still ranks far below the rest of the developed world in health care for its citizens. With all due respect to Mr. Moore and his intellectual property rights, I think that the urgency of the moment merits mentioning that Sicko may at present be viewed in its entirety for free at Google Video, a link to which should be sent to anyone who has not yet seen it or who may need to see it again.
Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com
In my view, posts like this are unhelpful, and will tend to give TPM a bad name, or at least discourage readers from taking TPM any more seriously than other blogs that publish unsupported allegations.
I say this as a fervent supporter of current health reform efforts being drafted in the House and Senate by the relevant conmmittees and guided by the Democratic majority. I hope these efforts proceed as expeditiously as possible, and with minimal vitiation from opponents intent on obstructing meaningful reform.
I do not object to reporting financial support to Senators from various interest groups, so that readers can judge its relevance. What I strongly object to is attribution of motives in the absence of compelling evidence. My reasons are twofold.
First, it's unfair to level accusations that can't be proved - i.e., a moral "presumption of innocence" should apply. Second, it's seriously counterproductive. While accusations of this type may rile up the faithful who are already convinced of the righteousness of their cause and the villainy of its opponents, it has the opposite effect on open-minded readers seeking objective reasons for arriving at conclusions. It alienates them, and discredits the accuser.
This is unfortunate because there are so many convincing reasons to proceed with health care reform that diluting them with unconvincing personal attacks is a distraction that weakens the case to proceed. These documentable reasons should be the basis of arguments against unnecessary delay, not imputations of base motives. In fact, I suspect that not all of the six Senators harbor identical motives. I'm not even sure that some of the reasons for an avoidance of undue haste are unjustified. Excessive delay would be a different matter, but it already looks impossible for legislation to expect final passage before the August recess, and so the fuss about this is probably an overreaction.
I do agree that we need to maintain pressure on Congress to continue forward momentum, and on the President to push Congress in that direction. Reiterating that thought would be a very appropriate response to the latest events.
July 19, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ironic. You advocate a high evidentiary standard concerning the the attribution of motives. Yet you do not hold such standards for your own arguments.
I challenge you to provide any evidence that attacking a political opponent's (And that is what these six Senators are - opponents) motives is unproductive.
Having been involved in many political campaigns over many years, I can find no evidence to support your assertion that "accusations of this type" are unproductive. To the contrary, negative attacks are extremely effective in lowering an opponent's numbers and can be pivotal in forcing that opponent to comply.
This tactic is regularly employed by many powerful interest groups such as AIPAC and the NRA with much effect.
Politicians so fear the wrath of AIPAC that they often support bills they would otherwise oppose. Why? Because they know that AIPAC will come in a destroy them in their district.
If progressives would grow a pair, they could actually hold some sway over Washington. But instead, they listen to those with great concerns over hurting anyone's feelings.
And one final point: Your other argument, that we should apply "a moral presumption of innocence", is comical. Not because there's so much empirical evidence that congress is bought and paid for.
It's because you have it ass backwards. This isn't a criminal trial. This is politics. And politicians should have to earn our presumptions.
Or is there something in their record of representing the interests of the American people that you think warrants that presumption? Seriously. Comical.
July 19, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Or is there something in their record of representing the interests of the American people that you think warrants that presumption? Seriously. Comical."
something like this;
http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Legislation/Healthy_Americans_Act.cfm
July 19, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did civil rights get passed? Without anger? How about Woman's rights? The end of slavery? HOW WAS THIS COUNTRY FOUNDED?
Without anger?
Well?
July 19, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that Martin Luther King Jr. was one angry dude! Oh, wait, anger actually burned down the urban centers of America when he was murdered. He would have wept at the anger his death inspired.
July 19, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
His death sparked the anger that led to the passage of that legislation.
Try again.
July 19, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? The civil rights legislation was passed in 1964. King was murdered in 1968. Didn't you grow up in this time frame? I wasn't even born yet and seem to know more about it than you. Have you seen Eyes on the Prize? That is a great place to start your education on the civil rights movement.
July 19, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look up bloody sunday.
And which legislation are you refering to, be specific before you act superior.
July 19, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The main legislation from the era devoted to civil rights and one of the only things LBJ did that was halfway progressive.
Again, you miss the main point which is that significant and sustainable change in this country has always been accomplished through calm and deliberate action on the part of visionary leaders. Sometimes those movements are spurred by violent incidents but rarely are they determined by them or governed by them.
Women didn't get the right to vote because Alice Paul was angry, which she most certainly was though mostly at the women engaged in the very movement she almost died to promote. It was through calm and deliberative action that inspired a new way of thinking. It was through perseverance in the face of torture.
July 19, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was talking abot the civil rights act of 1968.
Whose death led to the quick passage of the civil rights death of 1964?
July 19, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Civil Rights Act.
LOL
Sorry, but you are just ignoring how things get done in this country.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Thanks.
July 19, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but you are ignoring the way leaders actually accomplish great things. It isn't by getting angry. It's by keeping it cool.
July 19, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whie the mob lights their tailfeathers on fire?
well, OK.
July 19, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said a death led to passage of anything. His effort while alive led to passage of the original legislation. His death sparked little more than a decades long tragedy that is even now causes heartache and pain in the inner cities.
July 19, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, so his martyr status is unearned? We learned nothing and DID nothing?
How many days after he ws shot, (yes, DAYS) did the 1968 civil rights legislation get passed?
How about the 1964? How long after JFKs murder did they "wit and deliberate" before it got passed?
You can ignore reality if you like. Sorry if it offends your tender sensibilities. I'd prefer no one gets shot this time. You want t wait until someone gets angry enough to do something that desperate? How horrid of you.
Anger will be just fine.
July 19, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 1968 legislation was mostly related to fair housing and while important it was hardly revolutionary. Mostly it built on the earlier Civil Rights Act that had been in place for a few years and needed some holes plugged. Most of the holes having been brought to light through King's efforts.
While the legislation may have been signed shortly after his death there is no proof that his death was a mitigating factor. However, it is clear that the aftermath of the riots his death have done far more harm than good. Anger is rarely an emotion that effective leaders carry in their bag of tricks.
July 19, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come now Jason. Now you are being dishonest. His death certainly had as much t do with it's passage as JFKs had to the earlier 1964 legislation.
If you re truly saying it didn't we have nothing further to discuss.
July 19, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the marches and sit-ins and all the rest is what led to the passage of that legislation. Their deaths were tangential at best, although you seem to be ascribing more power to their deaths than their lives. Odd position to take.
July 19, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
JFK's along with James Chaney's, Andrew Goodman's, and Michael Schwerner's.
July 19, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU should be the one trying again, Bwak.
You have absolutely no knowledge nor understanding of history if you think King's death moved actual Civil Rights legislation. Or perhaps you'd like to explain who died to make the Civil Rights legislation of the 1950's and early 1960s into being.
Or made more obvious: perhaps to get Obama's plans across we should be hoping that he gets taken out? I didn't think so.
Martyrdom is sooooooo last millenium.
It's hardly surprising you think anger is a motivating force by the way you act here. You might be fool enough to want to unleash the so-call "mob anger" like Maximilien Robespierre. Of course, like him, you will be shocked when you, too, are consumed in the anger of your peers as they "take care" of you -- recall Robespierre lost his head in more ways than one.
It's steady pressure that changes thing. Your romantic notions of hot protest influencing things perhaps allows you a means to feel less than insignificant, but it is not grounded in historical fact.
May I suggest you read (or re-read) Malcolm X's autobiography. His later-in-life epiphanies may yet save you from this destructive path you propose.
July 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The legislation was passed three years before King's death.
July 20, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your link was surprising. My senators haven't indicated that they have so much as even thought about health care reform. One, a Democrat, won't say anything, the other, a Republican, just spouts GOP talking points. A sorry lot.
July 19, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the empirical evidence indicates someone is a liar or a dumbass or a criminal I don't have a problem saying so.
Ignoring what is right in front of us because someone might not like how the truth sounds is just tough shit for them.
You have no right to ask us to to ignore this behavior and I wish you would just stop it right now. We have every right to be pissed at the way we are being insulted by these senators. What really needs to happen is for someone to punch their lights out. And that isn't even close to being even for the attack they have made on us.
July 19, 2009 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This blog contains little or no empirical evidence towards it's conclusions.
July 19, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's some. Those six are holding up healthcare.
Refute. Thanks.
July 19, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called a pay-off. When I see money from a suspect source I want to know why. Assuming that they are getting something for it is an allowable inference.
Further, go look at Fivethirtyeight.com which examines the influence of money on the votes expected from politicians on the basis of the preferences of their districts.
There is a question about whether the money produces the bad votes or whether the bad votes produce the contributions.
In either case, as a matter of practical politics it does not matter -- the ordinary citizen is gettin $crewed.
In the 1970's this was known as a sell out.
July 19, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So do you believe that Obama is a stooge of Goldman Sachs?
I believe he took in more money from Goldman Sachs than John McCain. So did you vote for McCain in the general election?
July 19, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's your explanation for the appearance that Goldmansach got a better deal than some other outfits?
I did my homework on Obama. His record with Exelon did not and does not inspire confidence: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html
I thought that he would bring about a war with Pakistan, cave to the center to the point of ineffectiveness on choice, global warming and health care in ineffectual pursuit of bipartisanship.
Choice is a marker for caring about people. If a politician was pro-choice you could usually count on them supporting things that helped people like health insurance for children. So that used to be my prime issue. It is still highly important to me but the overriding issue is global warming since there is the potential that the scientists are wrong and the outcome may be far worse than we are considering.
I believed that McCain would be able to enact an effective anti-global warming program most probably based on the use of nuclear energy. It is not the best way to do that but he would be able to get enough Democratic votes to get it passed. Obama's plan may or may not be passed and may or may not be effective.
I also despised Obama's lack of political morality. He made phony charges of racism, applied double standards to friends and enemies, and used McClurkin as a dog whistle to homophobes.
I have had no reason to regret my vote.
July 19, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, 4 of the 6 senators voted in May of 2001 for the Bush tax cuts that were being rammed through the Senate. Now, they think August is too soon? Give me an effing break. The longer the delay, the more chance to water down the bill until it means nothing more than the status quo with a Sponge Bob band aid. At the very least, the contributions mean they have a conflict of interest on health care reform. At worst, they're in the pocket of the industry. Either way, sunlight is the best disinfectant. I applaud this post.
July 19, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
agree
July 19, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, sir, are very likely an idiot.
I make the charge based on proof, as reflected in your meandering apologia.
July 20, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Eades, for this post and the convenient links.
Democratic lawmakers, as a whole, have been notoriously inept at defending their positions when it comes to pushing legislation that truly benefits the people of this country and our environment.
To get meaningful health care reform, pressure on lawmakers from well-informed constituents likely will have to far outweigh pressure from the health care industry.
Information like that which you provided, Eades, is very helpful, whether its linked to motives or not. These lawmakers, and I'll bet many others, aren't too eager for this kind of data to become common knowledge.
CM
July 19, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately, the number of comments above responding to mine is small, and I infer that most individuals understand why the post is both unfair and unproductive. It is the same kind of unproductive ranting that causes Obama to enjoy seeing Rush Limbaugh claiming the mantle of Republican spokesman.
It was the same kind of unproductive alienation of uncommmitted voters that cost John McCain support during the presidential debates.
Note that personal character assassination is not synonymous with negative campaigning. In fact, skilled negative advertising usually presents itself as factually oriented rather than directed at an opponent's character. That is why the campaigners hire advertising experts to design the ads rather than doing it themselves.
In my view, many individuals whose personalities tend toward quick rises in anger convince themselves that insults will convince others to agree with them. It's important, however, to distinguish between emotional venting and achieving one's objectives. This post seems to be an example of the former, and an example of how not to attempt the latter.
I don't doubt Eades' sincerity, but if he is results oriented, I believe he can find ways to disagree with the six senators that are more likely to achieve the desired effect.
Finally, as a practical matter, healthcare reform will require 60 Senate votes (a reconciliation mechanism needing only 50 has been dismissed as unfeasible for the most critical parts of the legislation by most congressional experts). Those 60 votes will require persuading a few reluctant Democrats and probably one or two Republicans to go along. If I were one of those reluctant individuals, I would probably not become more favorably inclined to support reform as a result of this post.
July 19, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your inference is wrong. Your equating this post with Limbaugh is offensive and inaccurate.
Most people just haven't read this post.
And it is and excellent and needed and quite credible post though it doesn't meet your standard of wishy washy moderation. What is presented is true and is information that needs to be understood by more people. It's hard to get the word out though when there remain so many people who would rather obfuscate the truth and dilly dally with ineffective insurance reform and not deal with the health care reform so desperately needed in this country.
Bravo Eades!
July 19, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would suggest that it's Limbaugh from the opposite end of the spectrum, in that it substitutes a personal attack on character and motives for an argument based on evidence. As I mentioned above, there's nothing wrong with reporting financial contributions from interest groups, but the post went far beyond that, and thereby weakened its argument.
The problem, oleeb, as I see it, as that those of us who already share Eades' view on healthcare reform may not recognize the counterproductive effect of insulting commentary on objective readers still waiting to form an opinion. If you put yourself in their shoes for a moment, you might find that you would form a negative view of the one who posted, and that would weaken his arguments. Anyone who comes across as intemperate and insulting tends to lose credibility, and credibility is the coin we need in pursuing this issue.
I hope I'm not too immodest in hoping that the points I make in these commentaries will undo some of the damage that the original post does in antagonizing both open-minded audiences and uncommitted Senators when we need the support of both.
July 19, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Flat out wrong again.
You seem more interested in etiquette than in noticing this is an out and out fight. There are few people like those you describe. The vast majority of people want universal healthcare right now and the majority of citizen's views are more compatible to single payer than anything else, in fact the majority would support it in a heartbeat. But thanks to people like you who are okay with a half assed, unworkable "compromise" with evil we aren't even discussing it at this point. On top of that you then want to have rules for discussion as though you are a Sunday school teacher? Oy! Adding insult to injury you then accuse those who are interested in winning the fight of being like Limbaugh? What a load of crap that is!
July 19, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred is 100% correct in his assertions. The attitudes shown here against Fred and "compromise" will get less than 50 votes in the Senate.
July 19, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he isn't, he is muddying the water.
Not very well, either.
WHO is standing in the way of healthcare in the Senate? CLUE: It ain't Barack Obama.
Think about that before you bring him into it again.
July 19, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely true.
When you see the same group who pick words and imagine they know if someone is a sexist, yet defend Ted Kennedy despite his horrific record on the subject, you know that no one is thinking clearly.
TPM is slowly turning into a RedState or HillaryIs44 website (in terms of user blogs). All just screaming about party line issues.
Electing the same officials to Congress (of either party) over and over again and thinking they will change is the very definition of stupidity.
July 19, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You actually should be WAY more modest when you consider the ramifications of your posts.
Eades is completely justified, and wrote a well-documented, non-hysterical post. You are simply wrong. Not the first time, either.
July 19, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, CVille: when I use the phrase "simply wrong" you call it condescending.
I guess the real point is to be part of the groupthinking crowd here. Then you can do whatever you want.
But thanks for providing a neat metaphor about Congress.
July 19, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT do you realize that your group thing comments suggest that it is wrong and no people should ever agree with one another if they don't want to be othered into your group o sphere... we should be against cooperation and interaction etc?
July 19, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that unless you are able to articulate your argument to a roomful of people who are hostile to your basic position, then you haven't thought through your argument enough.
Sometimes we see examples of lazy thinking here that wouldn't fly without the group to mumble "co-sign" after the post.
July 20, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I concur! Bravo!
If you listened to the MSM this morning they're all hyped up over the Sickos and they're doubt, doubt, doubt about Obama's healthcare plan. Doubt! Fear! Scary! Radical! Even Democrats are afraid of Obama's Plans!
When are you wishy washy moderates going to figure out that it is you who undermine Obama. The left strengthens him to take stronger stands and the Benedict Arnold Sickos undermine every stand he takes.
July 19, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you ever consider that the number of comments refuting your point is small because the readership here sees no point in beating a dead horse, (your argument), after it has all ready been put down?
July 19, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Fred. I'm usually open to and interested in what you have to say. But this particular comment is staggeringly arrogant and offensive.
July 19, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm sorry you find it offensive, but I'm actually trying to mitigate an offense caused by Eades' original post. I find it harmful to the cause he and I (and you) all believe in. Probably the best thing at this point is to solicit the views of some reader here (if any exist) who still hasn't made up his or her mind on the issue. Does the post accomplish what it sets out to do - prove itself to be a compelling argument to uncommitted Senators and to the public to support reform? The factual information about financial contributions may be a small step in that direction, but everything else then destroys the effectiveness of that point.
I believe the take-home message is to avoid intemperate, angry diatribes when trying to convince rational, open-minded audiences to support your position.
July 19, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing the point. This blog was a call to arms for the constituents of the above named sickos.
As the constituent of one of them, it accomplished it's purpose quite well, as I did immediately write and let my senator know of my outrage and disappointment in his unethical behavior.
Now is not the time to "be nice." Good grief!
Now is the time to call out these people on their blatant and disgusting breach of ethics and honor. They are supposed to be the people's representatives, not the Health Insurance companys. Money does not equal speech, and if enough of us say so in honest, plainspoken ways, it will have an impact.
No need to sugarcoat the truth, they are acting unethically, and should be called to account for it.
You are out of line and acting as an insidious apologist. It's getting old.
July 19, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word!
July 19, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo!
July 19, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
One isn't an apologist for pointing out the obvious deficiencies in this blog.
This entire blog post is basically without merit because it loses the context that this six senators are no more compromised than any of the other 94. They all take cash from industry in various amounts. An intellectually honest blog would show these guys in contrast to the rest of the senate and not simply to each other.
Fred is objecting to the inference of some grand conspiracy based on flimsy evidence at best. If a newspaper printed this blog as an analysis they may be open to libel. Or is printed slander? What about online as that is printed and broadcast?
At any rate, the point being that screeds from the left are no more helpful in framing the debate than screeds from the right. That is legitimate criticism, no matter how much you may disagree with the point itself.
July 19, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to reread the blog. I don't care what they got in the 2008 election. I DO care what they are getting now, and NOW is the point of this blog.
The others aren't holding up healthcare, they took money and are doing the right thing, these six have taken money and are doing the wrong thing.
See the difference? It's massive.
When are you going to stop muddying the waters are work for the RIGHT thing? Why are you 3 suggesting people stifle their outrage? These reps need to hear it, because they haven't heard enough of it yet.
July 19, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are not getting millions of dollars now. 2008 are the only numbers available. We aren't talking 1998. This was the last election. This blog hyperbole and conjecture based on fantasy.
July 19, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I am suggesting that people use facts and that outrage is counter productive. This blog is long on outrage and short on facts. As is your defense of this blog. I am tired of any objection to Damn The Torpedoes is painted as crazy. You need to take a peek in the mirror.
July 19, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you refuse to refute the obvious flaw in your arguments. My points, which you hav e yet to address:
1. It takes anger and outrage to accomplish positive change in goivernment. Refute.
2. Taking money from interest groups is OK as long as it doesn't buy one's vote. Refute.
Otherwise, you ain't got nothing. Just hot air.
July 19, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have refuted over and over again. Taking money doesn't mean your vote is bought if everyone else is taking money too. So, the aye votes aren't bought but the nays ones are?
That is a ridiculous assertion that zero basis in fact. Where is the proof of collusion? Where is the investigation and prosecution if this is such a open and shut case? Wanting to make sure we pass the right legislation isn't the same thing as being bought. Their objections have nothing to do with the insurance industry.
An accusation is not the same thing as a conviction, even in the court of public opinion.
July 19, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it does. Logically, if everyone takes the money, but doesn't act bought, then they aren't bought. If on takes the money and acts bought...
THEY'RE BOUGHT!
THAT is logic, Jason, what are you talking about?
If you stub your toe on a rock in the middle of your living room, it means that the living room is out of place, not the rock?
What?
July 19, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have yet to offer proof that they are acting bought other than the fact that they disagree with your stance on the legislation.
So do millions of other people. Are we all bought? I prefer a more deliberative process to craft a solution that might actually have a chance at success than another Congressional clusterfuck of massive proportions, which is just as likely of an outcome. A bad bill that fails to deliver will be more devastating to reform efforts than a short delay may or may not be.
Just because you're a chicken doesn't mean the sky is falling.
July 19, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cute.
But I look at it practically. Nothing gets done until people get angry. Your calls for restraint are counterproductive.
SOP, in which nothing gets accomplished.
(yawn) You can go back to sleep, now. We'll wake you after the real work is done.
July 19, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your calls for unreasoning anger that has a deficit of facts but plenty of volume is truly sad given the fact that such thinking rarely leads anyplace a civilized person would want to go.
July 19, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
WRONG.
It is reasoned and deserved anger Jason.
You still haven't refuted a thing, and you ignore the reality of how things get done.
We disagree. I'll stick with the angry mob. They've been wronged and are rightly angry.
I don't know what you are doing, but it's counterproductive.
You go ahead and roll over. I'll work to keep the violence simmering in the country manageable and dampened with ACTION.
July 19, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as you find me a mob that has led to sustainable change, I will consider your tactics as something that should be emulated.
Until that very unlikely moment arrives, I'll go on following the lead of people who actually accomplish great things by using their anger in a more constructive fashion. Most of our greatest leaders have been very critical and wary of the mob.
Namaste.
July 19, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean they respected it.
Your lack of doing so shows where your real loyalties are. They aren't with reform.
July 19, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
More nonsense with zero basis in fact. There isn't a single thing about the current system that I wouldn't change, but replacing it with one that could potentially make matters worse is hardly a worthy goal.
July 19, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure there were folks like you that said the same thing to Thomas Jefferson.
It is past time to ACT.
Your biovating is just that. The fact is no legislation is perfect, and I'm quite sure that if it was, there's be no one left to pass it.
July 19, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound just like the rabid right wingers we just got out of government. Sorry if I prefer my change a little more logically sound.
July 19, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
More ad hominem? Golly.
July 19, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not ad hominem. Descriptive of your tactics. You can choose to disagree but it is not ad hominem.
July 19, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least I didn't call you a brownshirt.
July 19, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You talk too much.
July 20, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign, Jason. Big time. Right wing anger is "bad". Left wing anger is "good". Yeah, right.
July 19, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Bwak... instead of just being full of chicken shite, why not accomplish something instead?
However about actively joining government? How about helping to advise policy? How about making a real contribution, rather than just rant and think you've done something mighty?
Or is it that you can't inspire in person? Or don't have an ability to convince anyone of the facts.
Your SOP is to pull up hoary images of a working class that never existed anyway.
If you want to change the world, join it.
Of course, then you'd actually have to make compromises among the vary competing interests, all with valid viewpoints.
I know it's much easier to pretend life is a fairy tale and there are only forces of good or evil. Seriously, for as long as you have been posting, have you ever influence policy in the real world?
Listen to Jason, you might learn a thing or two.
July 19, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... IT'S A DUCK!
July 19, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, am sick and tired of the grip the lobbyists have over our government. I have no idea when this happened or how long it has been going on, but it needs to stop now.
I am not sure yet if I prefer insurance reform or single pay, so in that respect I fall into the "undecided" camp. I most assuredly believe we can't go on like we have been with insurance companies making obscene profits while so many suffer. I find this post helpful. Even if you cannot know for certain that the suggested delays are prompted by the money given, the appearance of impropriety cannot be overlooked.
At this point I would vote FOR whatever the insurance companies are AGAINST...
July 19, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, the solution is easy:
Lobbyist exist because campaigns are run on money. If we didn't re-elect our representatives over and over and over again, the lobbyists would not be powerful.
Once upon a time, elected office was not viewed as a tenured position.
However, the vast majority of people are mere sheep, sleepwalking. That includes the people here at TPM that also feel comfortable with their pre-approved choices. (Example? Ted Kennedy. Imagine if a GOP Senator (a) killed a woman and left the scene of a crime (b) pulled huge pork into his state of a public project that was laden with corruption and (c) routinely sexually harassed women -- to the point where he was compromised in the Clarence Thomas hearings.
Of course, some people are forgiven and others can't be. Depends on the "party" you want to pre-approve.
But: prevent life-long careers in elected politics and magically, the influence of lobbyists are reduced.
Just a thought.
July 19, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted by the turn of events. Originally, this post and comments were about six Senators, but now the comments are mainly about me. I'll probably offend some people even more by saying this, but I interpret these responses as evidence that I'm doing my job.
What am I trying to do?
First, as anyone who has read my many posts and commentaries will realize, I'm trying to convince readers that proposed healthcare reform legislation is vitally needed. Readers have generally found my comments to be evidence-oriented, and in many cases persuasive for that reason, although not everyone has agreed with every point I made.
Second, I try to express my view that TPM is most effective when it is most credible to those who don't already have an entrenched opinion on a contentious issue. That requires some restraint in the way our views are expressed. It requires that we try to elicit intellectual and emotional responses from audiences by providing information that engenders those responses, without telling the audiences what to think, and particularly without telling them what to think in the form of insults hurled against those with opposing views.
Politicians and political advertisers already know this. They can "push buttons" emotionally by avoiding the insults and instead using their version of facts (often very slanted) to impel audiences to react the way they want. I don't believe in the slanting, but I strongly believe we need to follow their example in avoiding the insults and accusations that turn people off.
Finally, a legitimate point is made that we also need to rouse our own side to action. I would very strongly insist, however, that we can do this without resorting to insulting language. Our readers are intelligent enough to respond to facts and calls for urgency, so that there is no need to engage in tactics that will alienate uncommitted members of the public.
July 19, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your version of robo-blogging, seems so tame as to be practically narcoleptic in character, like lunch at a great aunt's house. You should probably write a blog on the subject rather than hijacking eades blog by refuting your critics by countering that since you have provoked such a negative response, you must be right.
July 19, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your tireless work on the subject of healthcare reform. You are right that meaningless data (see my comment below) in combination with invectives is no way to win support.
July 19, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now it's all about you? Man, you have got a major ego problem.
First, you say that because not that many disagreed with you it must mean that everyone thinks you're right, even though the blog itself is the subject here. How about most people just agree with what Eades wrote?
Then, when people bit, and began to dispute your very arrogantly stated lecture; it is now "all about you."
Fred, read my lips: This is not all about you. It is about health care reform, and good people may disagree on how to do it. If you disagree with Eades, you might say so, rather than to make the point that actual harm was done by even printing the words about the Six Objectors.
Write your own blog on how you think it would work to win those Congresspeople over. If you think they are going to change their vote because of a blog at TPM, I respectfully disagree. Bwak made the point, and I think it is well-made, that the only chance we have of changing their votes is by their constituents raising hell.
There is nothing in terms of facts that is not already known. It is all out there. If these people want to stay in office, all the money the health insuance industry throws at them will be only temporary if they don't get the votes.
They have to realize that they will LOSE the next election if they don't respond in the way that their constituents believe they should.
But go ahead. Write a blog and tell us all how you would influence Joe Lieberman, for example -- do you think he doesn't know all the facts by now? Please. Tell us all. How would YOU do it?
July 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But go ahead. Write a blog and tell us all how you would influence Joe Lieberman, for example -- do you think he doesn't know all the facts by now? Please. Tell us all. How would YOU do it?"
Donate a ton of money to his campaign :)
July 19, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
health professionals money to congress;Obama, Barack (D) $12,032,368
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $5,464,492
Kerry, John (D-MA) $4,626,825
Brown, Sherrod (D-OH) $1,705,897
Specter, Arlen (D-PA) $1,569,340
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) $1,363,602
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $1,006,384
Reid, Harry (D-NV) $879,176
Bradley, Bill (D) $876,286
Edwards, John (D) $869,384
Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV) $862,377
Cardin, Ben (D-MD) $858,240
Gore, Al (D) $833,148
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $824,265
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) $784,289
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) $779,903
Durbin, Dick (D-IL) $764,943
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR) $706,612
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) $706,291
Kennedy, Edward M (D-MA) $696,242
Torricelli, Robert G (D-NJ) $692,154
Nelson, Bill (D-FL) $676,593
Wyden, Ron (D-OR) $629,406
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $615,432
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $614,170
Feingold, Russ (D-WI) $610,373
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $598,866
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $581,757
Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM) $547,616
Reed, Jack (D-RI) $511,736
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) $491,269
Graham, Bob (D-FL) $486,856
Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-DE) $482,325
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $472,998
Udall, Mark (D-CO) $422,137
Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $408,345
Levin, Carl (D-MI) $403,460
Cleland, Max (D-GA) $400,814
Bayh, Evan (D-IN) $373,962
Mikulski, Barbara A (D-MD) $355,421
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) $351,735
Murray, Patty (D-WA) $337,568
Warner, Mark (D-VA) $333,151
here is some more meaningless data I obtained at;
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H01&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&mem=Y
July 19, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonnie - Thanks for moving beyond the exchange of arguments onto something that is actually quite relevant in its own right. I believe that financial disclosure is important, and I also believe that financial contributions from interest groups can exert a corrupting influence on our elected representatives. However, the subject is more complex than that.
The problem lies in cause/effect attribution. Campaign contributions can influence the way a Senator votes. On the other hand, the way a Senator votes - i.e., his or her known position on an issue - can influence campaign contributions. In that sense, it's hard to determine in individual cases which is cause and which effect. That is why we must be careful not to accuse any Senator of "selling out" simply because of contributions he or she has received. It's unfair and dishonest, and most intelligent members of the public realize that.
The problem with contributions, therefore, is one I see as a systemic issue involving the role of money in politics than it is a particularly effective weapon in opposing a particular individual. I don't suggest we avoid it, but we shouldn't overestimate its potency. In particular, if we are trying to influence Senators themselves rather than only the public, I think that we should realize that in the case of the senators, accusations based on contributions would be simply ignored.
July 19, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bit of a red herring there. What they got last year is hardly applicable.
Sorry, but if one can not act outraged at hush money being paid NOW as regards to upcoming legislation, we may as well roll over.
Blowing smoke is certainly not helpful, which is what I told my senator.
What did you do with yours? Offer a no hand job? I'm sure that got their attention. (not)
Angry letters work. How do I know? It worked quite well when me, and code pink, and the NRA shouted down proposed changes to the FCC rules about consolidation. Anger works.
Politeness doesn't. They have to hear our passion on the issue, or they'll walk all over us, again. What you and Fred are asking for is "nice" but ineffective.
July 19, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
this year;
Candidate Amount
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR) $128,950
Reid, Harry (D-NV) $95,750
Specter, Arlen (D-PA) $56,400
Meek, Kendrick B (D-FL) $54,900
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $47,500
Wyden, Ron (D-OR) $46,850
Bayh, Evan (D-IN) $40,750
Murray, Patty (D-WA) $38,250
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $30,800
Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND) $28,100
Feingold, Russ (D-WI) $27,800
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) $24,825
White, Bill (D-TX) $21,300
YOUR PERSONAL REMARKS ARE REPUGNANT
Mongiardo, Daniel (D-KY) $20,500
Brown, Sherrod (D-OH) $20,000
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) $19,000
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $18,000
Torsella, Joseph M (D-PA) $16,650
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $15,100
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $14,700
Inouye, Daniel K (D-HI) $14,600
Giannoulias, Alexander (D-IL) $14,400
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $11,000
July 19, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And are they holding up healthcare? No. So why should I care?
Strawman argument. Try something pertinent.
This are just ridiculous. Why are you throwing mud at these other pols? OK they took money, but unlike the six in question, THEY AIN'T BOUGHT
Got it?
July 19, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to speak slowly for your chicken-sized brain:
If someone can take lots of money from the healthcare industry and put forward legislation on healthcare, then it also follows that just because someone takes lots of money from the healthcare industry and not be putting forth legislation.
In other words, you've proved that taking money from this lobby may not impact someone's decision.
YOU'VE proved that.
Congrats.
July 19, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something more meaningful;
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/19/orszag-health-care-delay/
July 19, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonnie - thanks for the link to the video. It provides much more eloquent evidence than I succeeded in providing here on the point that to be most convincing, an advocate is best served by adopting a reasonable tone, a reasonable manner, and civil language. Notice how both Orszag and one of the Representatives advocating delay instinctively knew how to do that.
July 19, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonnie and Fred,
If you don't like the blog, move on. The endless "love your representative" is tiring.
My personal view is that politicans understand two things--money and votes. In essence this writer is asking folks who reside in the individual states and who VOTE, to contact their senator and register either their outrage or their support of their senator's position. This is very much a request for an engagement of the voter in the political process as healthcare legislation wends its way through congress.
Apparently, you disagree that TPM writers should present this sort of request and allow the readers to make their own decisions.
Bit silly of both of you.....
July 19, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the writer said: "Look all the money these dirt bags are taking from insurance companies! They are trying to derail this legislation because they are in the pockets of Evil Health Insurance!"
The list Jonnie provided shows that every democrat in the senate takes cash from the insurance industry. Obama more than any of them. That is not a valid criticism of whatever points the Big Bad Evil Sickos are making. Wait. They want to take a little more time to craft legislation to actually fix the problems. They want to see if the points the CBO raised can be addressed before the final thing goes into law. It certainly doesn't entail some sort of implied collusion with the health care industry that any worse than 94 other senators.
I don't think that a few extra months when deciding to design a trillion dollar fix for the health care system is all that controversial of a stance.
July 19, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
BUT THEY AREN'T HOLDING UP HEALTHCARE!!!!!!!
OY!
Hello, Captain Obvious? You're needed in Eades blog!
July 19, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what this comment means.
These six apparently have problems with the legislation as it stands and the CBO report perhaps confirmed some reservations they already had or whatever. They are hardly some evil cabal out to scuttle health care reform on behalf of their paymasters in the insurance industry. That is the only critique offered by this blog and it lacks a certain intellectual heft and is quite vulnerable to dissenting views based on facts combined with context.
Hyperbole is hardly necessary to debate this issue. This shit should sell itself. Hysteria is also not likely to win converts, which are still out there to be had even among people who basically agree with a strong public option.
July 19, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No but anger will turn heads, as it should. Nothing to benefit the masses in this country has ever been accomplished without it.
Ever.
Think on that.
July 19, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think on why angry people never accomplish a fucking thing that lasts. Anger is great to stir up the idiots but it doesn't change anything. It makes intransigent people even less likely to listen. This country has been fucking saturated with anger for 40 years now and nothing of note has been accomplished. Anger independent of thought is always counterproductive.
July 19, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me? When did Black People et enslaved again? Oh, right we elected one as President last year. And when did this country revert to the British?
Good grief Jason! Where is your logic?
Try again.
July 19, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the fuck are you talking about? Did you have a little early siesta or something?
July 19, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF are YOU talking about? You don't like being shown that you are full of crap?
Stop posting crap.
THANK you!
If it were up to you there wouldn't have BEEN an American Revolution. You would have whined for more time, and more reasonable discussions with King George. That wouldn't have happened then and it won't now.
We tried reasoning with these bastards. Now it's time to call them out for the crooks and scum that they truly are before one MORE person dies from lack of access to healthcare.
I speak for the undertrodden. Who the FUCK are YOU speaking for?
July 19, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because Thomas Jefferson LOVED the mob.
Oh wait, he didn't. Nor did any of the founders. Why? Because the mob is uncontrollable and volatile and can't be molded to strategic ends. They may have found ways to use the mob but they never fully trusted it.
You should read a few more books before you go around insulting people.
July 19, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can dish it out, but you can't take it. LOL
Ben Franklin loved the mob.
OK? Now what.
What did your non sequitur have to do with anything?
You and Fred and Jonnie can't answer me because you can't admit you are wrong here.
That is a sign of immaturity. So noted.
July 19, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because you are pointing to some sort of mythological efficacy of "mob rule" without ever once providing some actual cases of such rule as having led to substantive change.
The mobs that actually accomplish things have had calm and rational leaders who think before they act. Action independent of thought is worse than useless, it is counterproductive, but go ahead painting anyone who disagree with your rather murky positions as being evil or idiots or whatever it is you are trying and failing to say.
When you offer anything of substance then perhaps we can have a substantive debate.
July 19, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I haven't Jason. I have pointed out that nothing gets done that benefits the people without anger on the part of the people (or mob, a term you use to denigrate all of us.)
You have yet to refute that simple fact.
I'll assume you can't. You've tried to change the subject, twist my words, bring up irrelevant nonsense, and insult me and others here as "brownshirts" but you can't refute that basic point because it is irrefutable and it blows your calls for restraint out of the stratosphere.
As I pointed out to Fred below, you are apologizing for liars, thieves, and scum. That is worth getting angry over.
July 19, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who exactly are these liars, scum and thieves I am "apologizing" for? More unfounded accusations that are disconnected from the reality of what I have written on this thread.
I call you brownshirts because you use invective and insults instead of reasoned debate. You call any dissenting view treason and then go out of your way to belittle and cajole the person until they go off. It is an ideological style of debate that I had more than enough of from the right wing to push back when I see it on the left.
You have no idea what my actual thoughts are on the health care reform debate because you would rather be right than be effective.
July 19, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, what I have done is punch large holes in your ridiculous calls for "civil" debate.
There is nothing "civil" about 22,000 Americans dying every year over lack of healthcare.
July 19, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Provide a link where I called for civil debate. I called for factual debate. Two different things.
July 19, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, present some facts, rather than belittling asides.
Thanks.
July 19, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've been angry all your life and what has it gotten you, Bwak?
How many people have you inspired (not on TPM)?
Yep, I didn't think so. You've been an impotent burp on the pages of history.
July 19, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to you, oh great boil on the ass of a self-satisfied muddymuser?
July 19, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I've advised people -- successfully -- who write the policy of this country. Possibly allowing you to sleep feeling more secure at night. In fact, some of these people have solicited my thoughts on key issues of expertise.
And Jason served his country in uniform.
So, yes, some of us have been involved in the front lines.
You?
July 20, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
THE ONLY THING YOUR ANGER HAS DONE, BY WAY OF YOUR CRUDE AND INSENSITIVE REMARKS TOWARD ME IS, IS TO MAKE ME DOUBT YOUR OPINION IN ANY DISCUSSIONS. Anger is one thing, insults are another. Insults did not free the slaves, bring women's rights to the forefront nor did they found this country. Three honest brokers have offered an opinion on this blog and have been thoroughly castigated by "mob rule"; if that's liberal and progressive my dictionary needs an update.
July 19, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
July 19, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, what my anger has done is sharpen my arguments. As for insults, I tire of the insults to my intelligence your strawman arguments brought. NONE of which you bothered to refute.
Barack Obama is holding up healthcare? Yes or no?
No.
All righty then, then WHY did you continue in the same vein? Why?
Am I angry? Hell yes I am. I ain't alone either.
Either discuss honestly or stay out. This whining is contemptuous.
July 19, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
(crickets chirping)
Thought so.
July 19, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are all anger and no focus. All emotion and zero logic. You offered nothing refute so I hardly see lack of such as an indication of anything.
July 19, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
MORE ad hominem? Double Golly.
Watch out, Jonnie will yell at you.
July 19, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should reread the definition of ad hominem. You seem to have forgotten that as well in all your self-righteous anger.
July 19, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Jason, I am hardly the one that needs to review.
Mirror check
July 19, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thirded. Bwak continues her "welcome wagon" streak!
July 19, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got an ice pick?
Stick it through your right eye. It may make you a happier camper...
~OGD~
July 19, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I merely look forward to the fact that you are leaving this planet before myself, old man.
July 20, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah . . .
So you have no ice pick?
I'll send ya' one...
Oh plus ... Don't go placing no money on your desired bet.
And watch out for buses.
~OGD~
July 20, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious!! They want to take more time to fix problems. No way. They want to take more time to put the fix in the bill.
July 19, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on what I have read of their problems with the current legislation that is far from proven.
In any case, that isn't even the point of what I am saying. I have different reasons to think this legislation is flawed and missing huge opportunities. However, disagreeing with the way this plan is being designed isn't treasonous. Taking every objection to a very complicated subject as being such is counterproductive to accomplishing the very goals you so loudly promote.
I am a little tired of our little Brown Shirt Brigade shouting down every dissenting opinion with illogical one liners.
July 19, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch out Jason, you might get angry. Wouldn't want a little anger to shake you out of your complacency.
July 19, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He just doesn't like getting caught out for the illogic of his position. So, he demeans everyone. Rather churlish.
(shrug)
Politics ain't beanbag.
July 19, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially when the opinions are generally in agreement on the greater goal.
July 19, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wait and be nice and we'll all get what THEY think we deserve.
(which in nothing, crap, and more nothing)
Your squeamishness has been noted.
Thanks.
July 19, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your inability to comprehend a simple point and defend your own irrational argument has been noted.
July 19, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your intellectual dishonesty has been noted, I'm just the latest one to do so.
July 19, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You lack of understanding doesn't make my point intellectually dishonest. Your continued ad hominem attacks cheapen the debate.
July 19, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
More hypocrisy? Nice.
So tell everyone Jason, what's a brownshirt?
July 19, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone who comes out swinging against every opinion that doesn't match up with theirs no matter how minor the disagreement. The Brigade of Firebrands who will make everyone line up with their brand of change, no matter differing views on the subject. Brown shirts are the ideological enforcers of any political movement no matter what it calls itself.
July 19, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no, they are Nazi's.
Nice wiggle.
July 19, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink