« Sharpton to Limbaugh: Apologize or Be Sued For Defamation | igotmyreasons's Blog | Why The Big Bad Elephant Was So Scared (And How Nothing Changes) »

Democrats Should Try To Ensure Cloture In The Senate On Health Care Reform (My Previous Blog As Edited By Jason Everett Miller)



It ain't rocket science, people.

Confusing image, unrelated... try:

Make caption: It's time to pressure the Democratic leadership to better exert their mandate


There seems to be good reason the hip expression these days has become:

"Really?"

(Too casual... people won't take you seriously... )

A "supermajority", popular Democratic president, unprecedented public support-- and meaningful health care reform is being dismantled by our own party? Really?

Make: While a good percentage of Americans legitimately oppose Barack Obama's seemingly failed bid for "reform", it may not be too late. Are Democratic senators missing an opportunity to force an up-or-down vote on their favored agenda?

The health care industry itself announces to the world that it plans to extort the congress with threats the day before a crucial vote and, yet, WE cannot turn that into a political coup? Really?

Harry Reid hints that he will allow the Democratic senators who vote to support Republican filibusters to stay anonymous. To protect them from the rightfully deserved anger of their OWN constituencies? Really?

And he takes minimal political heat for this.

Replace with: Even ignoring the health care industry's concerns over out-of-control costs, the Democrats could possibly pass the most radical versions of their bill with cloture, yet Harry Reid, a voice of reason in a world of screaming partisans, has chosen to allow people on his panel who may vote in favor of allowing filibuster. Not to question his motives, but this could ultimately backfire, perhaps even hurt him politically in the long run. I believe the correct procedural move here is to discourage filibuster by acknowledging who is likely to vote for it, including the Democrats who may (my apologizes to anyone I may offend with this opinion).

With a straight face, Reid explains the process is difficult because if you do one thing, big pharma gets "mad," and if you do something else, the insurance companies get "mad."

Let me get this straight, Harry. Can I call you Harry?

You expected the major reform and overhall of an industry that is exempt from anti-trust laws, denies coverage to whoever it deems a bad risk, that has followed a for-profit strategy of denying care successfully to record profits ... that has powerful lobbies precisely to prevent any changes in the current system (or more accurately, any changes that don't benefit IT) ... and you expected to do this without making them MAD?

To quote Barney Frank, "on what planet do you spend most of your time?"

You are supposed to make them MAD. That is the point. Why, Harry, do you lack the requisite male parts to ACTUALLY represent the people?

Replace with: Sen. Reid has a real opportunity here to show leadership and courage, ultimately helping the party's image and political clout for the next election. I have faith that the good senator will do the right thing and, no matter what the outcome, set an example of true leadership that people (on both sides of the political spectrum) will respect. I'm sure he can do this with a minimum of bad blood resulting with the health care industry. Lord knows he doesn't want THAT hanging over him in November. (again my apologies to anyone who finds my opinion hurtful, but I feel the industry does need to make some changes, and these may be uncomfortable for them. Please feel free to tell me (at length) what your opinion on this matter is. I believe greater accountability is in order, personally.

And as far as the people go, have we forgotten the populist rage of just a few months ago? Why the deference to huge corporations that ANNOUNCE their plans to rape and pillage? They must KNOW we won't put up any fight.

The sad fact is they are right.

This is Upton Sinclair shit and we sit back and take it. Keith Olberman showed on a recent show that if the current trends don't change, the US will have similar mortality to Dicken's London. And not the good neighborhoods, either.

The tubercular, industrial soot-covered, kick-Tiny-Tim-down-the-stairs, kidney-pie-eating, raw-sewaged, vermin-infested hell that Dickens so famously portrayed will have better outcomes than we do if we let the for-profit Scrooges of our day have their way.

And we are.

Try: Let us not forget that our elected officials should represent us. Certainly those who agree with me can write their senators, blog about it, or take other action (remember tone is very important, please refrain from anger and hyperbole) to compel the good senator to do the right thing! We have the power, folks, but only if we USE IT! (excuse the all caps, I got a bit excited).

Even though the health care industry is spending huge amounts of money to further its (sometimes legitimate) concerns, you do have a say. But only if you use your voice. (not too loudly, please)

One congressman has stood up and given this the full-throated courage, advocacy, and sound-bite ready rhetoric this deserves.

One.

Instead: While I would never begrudge Alan Grayson's right to free speech, his antics could potentially derail our efforts, so I would urge all of us to be respectful in this effort. There is certainly no need to resort to the same sort of theatrics and emotionalism used so effectively against us by our political opponents. Let's be better than this and show Grayson there is a better way, too.

Where's Al Franken? (judging from this video his strategy is to bore the crap out of reform opponents)

He spent his entire career outing hypocrites and he can't come up with a memorable quip about this or a decent controversial moment? Of course he can. Why is he "playing fair" with a corporate monolith that expects, no, feels ENTITLED, to command us all to bend over?

And not for a prostate exam. That isn't covered.

Really?

Add: Al Franken has taken the measured, correct approach here. He even managed to actually engage his critics, which is more than I can say for most of the status quo in Washington. I only wish he would use his powers of persuasion (if I might be so bold as to offer a suggestion) on the Senate leadership as well. This sort of cooperative effort can go a long way in convincing reluctant Democratic senators from voting against, well, Democrats (pardon the sarcasm, but I do find it a bit confusing). If Sen Franken can convince tea party protesters to agree with him, couldn't he apply the same charms to the so-called "conservadems" (a misnomer, to be sure, LOL), with the ultimate goal of getting them to put aside some of their (most likely legitimate) concerns with the ultimate goal of defeating a filibuster and ensuring a majority vote? 


A fellow can dream, can't he?

What's it really going to take for people to get angry enough at the Democrats that they stand up and represent the people?

To paraphrase Alan Grayson:

No one gives a damn about 60 votes or 51. No one cares about Olympia Snow. No one cares about the Republicans "feelings" or the turn-coat Democrats "feelings". People care about getting this done, about us doing what we were elected TO DO.

Why isn't Harry Reid publicly shamed for this disgraceful behavior? Have we all lost our minds?

It's time for people on the left to stop being pussies and invite some controversy into this debate.

If this post makes some people angry there is a simple reason for that.

It was designed to.

And like Grayson, I ain't apologizing for it. When we stop being EXACTLY the clichés the right has saddled us with, I'll shut up.

Until then it's time to realize that this is a fight, a fight against a well-funded and gigantic BULLY.

You don't back down, and you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

And when you get an advantage, you STRIKE. Let's take our balls off the shelf and finish the goddamn job, with or without Reid, the so-called "conserva-Dems" ... without Obama if needed.

If you aren't angry at the health care industry you just aren't paying attention.

And Minnesota didn't vote Franken in so he'd shut up, either. If we just lay down, we will get precisely the bill we DESERVE.


My suggestion is to focus on the ridiculous crime against the voters that is this filibuster nonsense. Democrats will vote FOR Republicans to filibuster?

Really?

And be allowed to stay anonymous? Really? These outrages against US need to be stopped.

But if we cave in to the bullies, we get what we deserve.

You aren't angry?

Really?

Add: the populism that elected Barack Obama. Surely the Democrats have some political capital left to wield against members of their own party who won't vote against a Republican filibuster. And if they don't, we can certainly help by taking measured, sober action to gently steer them to an outcome we enjoy.

I humbly submit that the time to do this is now.

Namaste


25 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Having some tech issues, bare with me...

user-pic

Ok may edit again but you get the jist.

Cheers!!

user-pic

Just went through this with Fred M.

Bad form, igotmyreasons. You don't have to love jem, you just have to share this board with him.

user-pic

You're serious? OK... lol. You might wanna look at our last exchange on his blog.

I believe I AM sharing this board with him, this blog is no secret.

Later.

user-pic

Yeah. Seriously. Bad form to single out any blogger for negative treatment, especially by referring to him/her in the title of your post.

user-pic

Gee wizzo who knew... send me the rules book I can't keep up. And I'm sure any sort of satire or parody is determined to be "negative" by... yeah who gets that privilege?

But don't worry, I promise never to make fun of you using your fake blogger name.

As for Jason I'm sure he can let me know if he feels wronged by this, which I seriously doubt. At least I know HE'S a grown-up.

user-pic

Oh and PS. Fred M is a dick. You can quote me.

user-pic

LOL -- you forgot the part about that if we Democrats conduct ourselves in the measured bi-partisan manner, I, JEM, endorse we can confidently expect that all the moderate Republicans out there who have been dying to find the courage to vote for moderates but have been discouraged by inappropriate Democratic anger at the Republicans actually elected and running the Republican party will suddenly go out to the primaries and find and vote for moderate candidates who will then come up with wonderful bipartisan solutions and nirvana will have arrived.

user-pic

Why certainly. I mean they admired and voted for Obama because of his lack of risk-taking.

But I guess there are people who specialize in studying impotence. Or, at least, are experts on the subject.

user-pic

Ditto Ripper, Bad Form.

user-pic

Bad use of caps.

user-pic

Being elected by 56% is not a mandate. The rest of your "blog" is even less clear than it was before.

user-pic

Sorry, JEM, apparently you missed that the democrats won resoundingly in Congress in the last two elections as well.

And 56% is one hell of a lot bigger mandate than 51 per cent was, and that was accepted by Bush as tremendous political capital, remember?

Sorry you don't get snark, JEM. I thought it was quite spiffy, myself. I've been reading your particular mix of self contradictory philosophy for some time, and I find your "less clear" comment especially ironic.

user-pic

How dare you use that tone in talking to JEM. How dare you disagree with JEM's non-point. Why don't you use your indoor voice when talking? You are the reason that the silent majority doesn't vote (snark).


user-pic

You are becoming a parody of a joke that wasn't funny to begin with.

user-pic

It is 5% bigger, true, but no more of a mandate than George Junior had.

user-pic

OK, so then you would know the EXACT percentage that IS a mandate.

Care to share that little gem of information with us, Sparky?

57%?

60%?

More?

C'mon tell us!! Don't keep us all in the dark WE NEED YOUR WISDOM!!

user-pic

I would start with 60% as a minimum needed for a governing majority.

user-pic

LBJ & FDR both crafter majorities in the 70-percent range. That is a better measure in my estimation.

user-pic

So it's 60% AND 70%. Wow.

Only true thing here is "in my estimation."

You must be a fun customer at Starbucks.

And now you want to spread your political ambivalence to Democrats? Save it.

user-pic

Oh and PS.

The draft version of the caption had mandate in quotations with your fake note:

"Make sure the quotation marks are there, VERY important."

Can I write your next blog for you??

I saw the new Michael Moore film can totally write a whole post about its lack of "balance" and how Moore could make a "better impression" and convince more people that way...

Why getting on the treadmill will HELP DEMOCRACY.

PLEEEEEASE???

user-pic

Just a question. Why is it bad form to mention another blogger? Is it bad form for one MSM reporter to single out errors in a story by another MSM reporter. Olbermann and Maddow criticize Fox.

Should one MD not question the therapy of another. Should there be mortality & morbidity conferences in hospitals, where the care given by named physicians is openly criticized.

If we criticize MSM, radio shock jocks, and politicians of all stripes by name, why is there a line in the sand against bloggers?

Just asking.

user-pic

rmrd0000 - At TPM, if you disagree with a blogger, you have the opportunity to criticize within his or her own blog, and so there should seldom be a need to post a separate blog aimed at the person you're criticizing. The situation would be different, of course, on those rare occasions when a blogger deletes your critical comments.

The foregoing applies to disagreements about opinions, or even personal style. On the other hand, if a blogger violates TPM standards through dishonest actions, the proscription against posting a separate blog should not be considered absolute in my view. If the actions are egregious enough, calling attention to them in a separate blog may not only be acceptable but an assumption of responsibility to address wrongs that can harm the TPM community.

This is a matter of personal judgment, and so disagreements will arise in individual cases. I believe the decision to write a blog critical of another TPM blogger should be undertaken only after much deliberation, and only in exceptional circumstances.

user-pic

Yes, as it says quite clearly in "Rules and Regulations for TPM Bloggers (revised)" under Title IV, Section 31, paragraph 206(c) page 2352 et. seq. the following:

"Argghhh!"

I think that settles it.

user-pic

Of course you think that.

This is satire, it's "light". Not that you would think anything was "light"...

If I call you a dick again will you go away forever? If only... but you won't ever leave will ya?

Leave a comment

igotmyreasons

user-pic

Following: 7
Followers: 6

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

Bio

Full-time artist, part-time Dadaist.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address