I don't believe I have EVER seen DU so completely discombobulated

[annabanana]

by the standard RW noise machine. Why are so many taking the corpomedia spin as gospel? Granted they are firing on ALL cylinders in a way they haven't since the campaign... but still. It is just more of the same crap they were pulling back then.

Steady on guys.

[HopeOverFear]

1. the last time DU went nuts like this was when Obama picked that homophobe pastor dude for the

inauguration

[ruggerson]

22. yes, thank God that wasn't a harbinger of things to come on gay issues

[Egnever]

30. Incessant whining

Never any credit. As if you expect him to wave his wand and make everything better instantly.

Dem Rep: "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Will Be Repealed Shortly


"President Obama has clearly said he wants to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell," Murphy said. "He has instructed as Commander in Chief his Secretary of Defense and chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff to be prepare to implement the policy but he has respect for the legislative branch, a co-equal branch, and said, 'Guys, I want a bill on my desk. And when it comes on my desk I'm going to sign it to repeal this.'"

[ruggerson]

33. Yes we know

you characterize anything you disagree with as "incessant whining."

I wasn't referring just to DADT, but Obama's chronic repetition that his "religion" tells him that marriage is between a man and a woman, his joke about Iowa legalizing gay marriage at the correspondents dinner (his only verbal comment after three more states historically legalized it), the DOMA brief betrayal, his refusal to use stop loss, his inability to be a strong, consistent voice in the bully pulpit for LBGT interests, etc.

If you think Obama's record so far on gay issues is good, you're living in one fucked up, demented little world. Even many strong Obama partisans acknowledge that this administration so far has been a disappointment in that regard.

He may change for the better. I hope he does. I certainly will be overjoyed if he does. But you don't really give a shit, anyway, do you? You just like to antagonize people for demanding full equality.

[Egnever]

34. Better than any previous president period

Your non stop bitching not withstanding. He has a huge fight on his hands at the moment GLBT rights will come there is plenty of time left in his presidency and he has done plenty to speak up for your rights despite your dismissal of it.

You have one constant theme and thats that anything but what you want is a horrible record. You are entitled to your opinion but it wont stop me from laughing at you.

[ruggerson]

35. There is no record. Yet.

and your sad protestations that you actually give a shit about any of this is completely transparent. You don't. You don't even understand most of it. The laughter goes both ways, eggy.

[Egnever]

37. No record yet? LOL you are comical

http://www.glaaforum.org/glaa_forum/2009/06/obama-signs-order-for-gay-partners-of-federal-employees.html

Obama signs order for gay partners of federal employees

The President pointed out that his action today was not enough, and that congressional action is needed to provide family benefits to gay federal employees that are equal to those enjoyed by straight employees. To address this inequity, he announced his support for the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 1102, H.R. 2517), which was introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) in the Senate and by Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) in the House
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How many Openly gay people are serving in his administration? I have no Idea but I know that its more than any previous administration.

Heres what one of them has to say,



A few days after he gave the address, Berry attended Washington D.C.’s Capital Pride Festival on Sunday, where he announced that the Obama administration hopes to secure passage of the Hate Crimes bill this week and that President Obama will soon announce an initiative that will provide federal LGBT employees with benefits equivalent to those provided to heterosexual federal employees. He also said the Obama administration fully intends to pass an employment nondiscrimination bill, repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” as well as overturn the Defense of Marriage Act “before the sun sets on this administration.”

Prior to his announcement, however, Berry spoke with The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld and said he was “authorized today to say everything that I’m going to be saying.”

Berry first told Eleveld that there is no secret “deal” the White House cut in terms of passing LGBT legislation and that the administration is working in partnership with all LGBT groups.

“We have four broad legislative goals that we want to accomplish,” Berry said, “and legislation is one of these things where you’ve got to move when the opportunity strikes, so I’m going to list them in an order but it’s not necessarily going to go one, two, three, four. Obviously, I think the first opportunity is hate crimes and we’re hopeful that we can get that passed this week. We’re going to try, but if not, we’re going to keep at it until we get it passed. The second one ENDA, we want to secure that passage of ENDA, and third is we want to repeal legislatively “don’t ask don’t tell,” and fourth, we want to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.”

“Now, I’m not going to pledge— and nor is the president— that this is going to be done by some certain date. The pledge and the promise is that, this will be done before the sun sets on this administration – our goal is to have this entire agenda accomplished and enacted into law so that it is secure, Berry said.

[ruggerson]

39. Like I said, there is no record yet

despite your frantic searching, cutting and pasting. Obama himself acknowledges the government employee EO is fairly useless without legislation specifically sidestepping DOMA. It is good that he endorsed Baldwin's bill. Are you aware that he has NOT endorsed Murphy's (previously Tauscher's) bill to repeal DADT? The one that YOU referenced. Sure, he's said that he'll sign a repeal if it comes his way and comments that it's congress' job, but wouldn't you think he would endorse the damn bill that does just that?

"We need to see and hear more from this White House. As a key player in the legislative process, President Obama can help by publicly endorsing HR 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act."

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/the-clock-is-ticking-on-dadt/

Similarly, Obama could write up a three line bill that repeals DOMA and send it down to the hill. He has not done that. Instead his administration DEFENDED DOMA in a very broad and judicially destructive manner, when they could have just given lip service to the brief.

I have no way of knowing if his heart is in the right place on these issues, or if he's just playing politics because he fears rightwing backlash. Frankly, I don't care. I just want to see progress from a President I know is very capable of multi-tasking.

[Egnever]

42. So all of these things you say he has or hasnt done = no record

I continue to laugh. Your post otherwise is great its the over the top bullshit you spout over and over that keepse laughing at you.

Like listing all the things in his record after claiming he has none.

[ruggerson]

44. Why hasn't he endorsed Murphy's bill to repeal DADT?

He claims he wants it on his desk. Wouldn't it make sense to endorse the bill he claims he wants to sign???

There is no record until he actually ACCOMPLISHES something significant. Signing an EO (as a reaction to extreme pressure and anger from the gay community) that affects only gay, federal employees and gives them minor benefits (while a small step) is neither a record nor significant. It doesn't even give them domestic partner healthcare without the concurrent congressional legislation.

So, explain to me again why he hasn't simply endorsed Murphy's bill?

No obfuscation, no flailing around, no high pitched wailing.

Just tell me why he hasn't endorsed Murphy's bill to repeal DADT, when supposedly he wants it on his desk?

[Egnever]

45. Gee i dont know maybe he is busy with other stuff at the moment?

Why do you think he hasnt?

[ruggerson]

46. I have no idea

it would take a frigging one line press release or a comment at a press conference. It's totally baffling. Murphy has hunddreds of sponsors, the bill is supported by 80% of the country - Obama could give it a significant push by devoting five minutes of his time to it.

[PufPuf23]

57. Why just gay Federal employees?

Why not all employees private or public?

Disclosure: I am a heterosexual older male that was a Federal employee for 16 years, resigning during the Reagan Administration.

IMO health care and other aspects of the social safety net -- meaning safe in shelter food, health care, personal expression of self, and opportunity to learn -- are human rights.

[dsc]

49. that is a flat out, gold carat lie

Clinton, for all of his faults, ended anti gay discrimination in federal employment save the uniformed military, appointed openly gay people to every part of the federal government save the cabinet, and attempted to but failed to end anti gay discrimination in the military. In comparision, Obama has made appointments similar to those of Clinton but no better, gave benefits to federal employees (but not health care). By my count this is about equal. It surely isn't vastly better. Add in the fact that we gays have worked to make the world a much more friendly place for openly gay people in the 16 years since Clinton was first elected. All of the big three gets for gays (ENDA, anti hate crimes, and ending DADT) have not only majority support but such overwhelming support that even majorities of Republicans and conservatives favor all three. Conversely only ENDA had majority support and barely at that in 1993.

[Egnever]

56. Really ?

Clinton had 8 years to do those few things that you mentioned obama has been in office 6 months and has already equaled him so I would say he is on track to be at least 8 times better than clinton in just one term. You already give him equal and he is just getting started.

[dsc]

58. He did all of it within the first year

and remember thanks to gays, not Obama but gays, it is lightyears easier for him to act on this issues than it was for Clinton.

[shirlden]

52. Did you forget

to add this to your comment?

:sarcasm:

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Hey! Where is the support from that homophobe pastor

and his flock? Where is that 'moderate voice' Obama praised? Did that 'gesture' gain anything for our side or even for Obama?
I see the right telling lies and shouting like Banshees. I do not hear Warren or McClurkin or any of the ant-gay clerics that Obama used on his campaign saying a word to defend him. Not a word.
Where is that pastor dude, with all those people he was going to make into 'Obamacans'? Remember that? Did it not work? The homophobes did not return the support?
Or maybe it was a stupid and hurtful action, that gained nothing and lost much good faith?

[BlooInBloo]

2. (shrug) They're American. If it's not easy, and if everything doesn't go smooth as silk...

They whine.

[cliffordu]

20. Yep. Perfect.

Comfort and choice, that's what we're all about......

[butterfly77]

They have been ...

on board DU big time since the election especially,stirring up the funk...Isn't that right CONS?

[Wetzelbill]

3. I know

I'll believe it's over when it's actually over.

[BzaDem]

4. I really don't think DU is taking their cues from the media. Many knew the public opt was long dead.

It has been pretty clear for some time that at least one Democrat in the Senate was not going to vote for any bill with a public option, and that it was mainly still there as a bargaining chip to get something as close to it as possible.

[kenny blankenship]

32. What remains a mystery is why Obama keeps directing health lobbyists to negotiate w/ that lone Sen.

instead of routing the parade around him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?_r=3&th&emc=th

Some Democrats and industry lobbyists now argue that, in negotiating deals through Mr. Baucus’s committee with powerful health care interests, the White House was tacitly signaling as early as last spring that it might end up accepting something more modest than the government insurer the president has said he prefers.

The Finance Committee, for example, appears to be coalescing around the idea of nonprofit insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. It is a proposal the health care industry prefers, but many liberal Democrats oppose, in both cases because cooperatives are likely to have less leverage over health care prices.

Fuck Max Baucus and his whole fucking family, etc. and all say Amen. But. But -why send the stagecoach to the one dry gulch where you know for sure a bandito is laying an ambush, WHY, Sheriff?

[BzaDem]

43. Um, maybe because if Max Baucus votes against the bill, it is mathematically impossible to pass?

That sounds like a pretty good reason to me.

[EFerrari]

5. I think I have. It's Sunday, it's August.

People have a bit of time on their hands.

:hi:

[Clio the Leo]

12. ha ha, I was about to say, "we do this EVERY Sunday" NT

[DJ13]

6. Sebelius is a part of the "RW noise machine"?

She is the one responsible, and its a safe bet she was speaking for her boss dont you think?

[JaneQPublic]

18. Remember when Larry Summers was on Sunday morning a few weeks ago?

He no doubt thought he was "speaking for his boss" when he said the promise not to raise taxes on the middle class would have to be broken.

Then Obama came out the next day and said that was not the case at all.

For that reason, I'm waiting until I hear it from Obama's mouth, not somebody who has only a couple month's experience representing this new Administration.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I don't doubt that her statements were given to her by the White House, but...

Sometimes they send people out there to say these things as "trial balloons" to gauge the reaction. I think that Sebelius' comments are indicative of the fact that the administration is testing other options. I don't think it means that the public option is six feet under just yet. If reaction to "co-ops" is negative then that could be good news for the public option.

[patrice]

28. A weak Public Option that doesn't cut costs enough won't stand the test of Time. She has to wring

the best cost-cutting bids out of all stakeholders and I'd bet there's not even anything serious on that order on the table yet from anyone.

She can't just say "We're going for a Public Option" without squeezing as many of the extraneous costs as possible out of the system first, because not only will just going for the PO END any cost cutting bids from Private Insurance (why should they cooperate if it's a done deed and it's going against them anyway), but it also won't wring any cost cutting out of HC Providers, because why should they make a bid for improvement when no matter what happens it's ALL coming their way anyway with increased services and coverage for all.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Don't assume some here are not minions who think of themselves as part of the RW noise machine.

Shit-stirrers, you know.

[rug]

8. And it comes complete with Woodstock and hippie bashing.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Now that just ain't right.

I'm so into the whole Woodstock Anniversary thing. Bashing that should be grounds for tombstoning. Zero Tolerance.

XM Radio has converted Deep Tracks to the Woodstock Channel. The Who's Tommy playing now. None better.

[livetohike]

9. We're observing the last dying gasp of the RW noise machine

They are dying. They're dying fast and when this propaganda fails - they will have nothing.

[Orsino]

10. Why are we buying the RW corporate spin?

Because every day, every word, brings fresh new dilution of the single-payer we need into some weasely "public option." The best possible result of this year's effort seems destined to bring us something not a whole lot better than what the Republicans left us.

I'm not down on the whole Democratic Party, yet, but it's damned hard to get excited and crusade for the weak, pro-corporate bills now taking shape.

[billyoc]

11. Things will get back to normal when the Republicans are back in power.

I don't think governing agrees with these Democrats.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I don't think it agrees with us either....cause we are only happy when we can piss and moan

endlessly, and nothing else seems to hit the spot.

Righteous anger needs a proper outlet, and a Republican president is much, much easier
to cut down day in, day out.

[Bluerthanblue]

15. you just might be right Frenchie-

sadly.


:grouphug:

[Avalux]

16. I think a few here are operates.

Seriously. I'm a bit dismayed myself by all the hysteria and jumping to conclusions. :shrug:

[CitizenPatriot]

26. ditto

and the thing that kills me is a few days later, it turns out to be an error...but the next time around, it's bought hook line and sinker again.

sometimes I wonder if Republicans are paying liberals to hate their new president and majority.

Dems are not perfect, but they know what's at stake here, and in the most cynical terms possible, if they pass public option, they will be in power for a long time. Republicans know that and so do the dems. So there's no way the dems are just going to cave.

Meanwhile, what the fuck are we doing? I'm calling, visiting my reps, writing letters, signing petitions, etc. We need to be a part of the fucking solution. Make sure our voices are heard.

[patrice]

17. The "essential" aspect of ANY proposal is how efficiently it can cut costs AND provide Care.

They are still in the phase in which the cost cutting bids are being put on the table.

I agree with what Sibelius implies that efficient cost cutting has to come first, because that's the ONLY thing that will allow us to cover MORE PEOPLE.

A plan, co-op or public option, that doesn't cut costs enough will end up being nothing more than a label that will sink because the pool will not be diverse enough to sustain it.

It IS a problem that the only TRUE cost cutter, Single Payer, is not on the table, maybe for some of them that's because they know it's cost cutting potential, but it does seem to me that if you want to force a serious cost cutting bid out of the Private for-profit insurance, you need to threaten them with REAL competition from a REAL cost cutting system/Single Payer.

So what we SHOULD have right now is a war between cost cutting in the for-profit Insurance camp and cost cutting in the health care provider side (to justify Medicare for All).

[boppers]

24. True Dat.

I'll take a great co-op over a badly managed and expensive "public option", or vice versa.

A lot of the outrage seems to be attached to the labels, not the goals.

[patrice]

25. People need to think more about HOW it works. The stakeholders are playing Poker right now.

We're saying to Insurance "Cut your costs, so we can get more folks covered."

Insurance is saying to us "Why do we have to bear it all? what about the HC providers cutting their costs?" That's a valid point.

The problem is doing both types of cost cutting without affecting quality.

Think "Poker" you all.

[boppers]

27. I'll sell you some 10 cent plastic booties for 10 bucks...

The amount of waste is staggering, on all levels, because there's been so little market, and regulatory, pressure in the US.

They're all trying to keep their chips, but, well... we don't want their gambling to be that profitable in the first place.

[patrice]

31. Staffing churn is a hugely expensive issue in Long-Term Care.

All systems need to be evaluated for HOW each element **ADDS** VALUE TO THE CARE.

[boppers]

36. "value add" (and similar phrases) strike me as sales terms.

I'd go so far as to guess it's part of the problem, where facilities with equal patient outcomes charge disparate amounts.

One facility pipes in cable channels to all patient beds, has gourmet meals, free WiFi, high thread count sheets, a guest cafe, activity rooms, and personal "runner" staff for all patients to help them run errands.

Another facility doesn't have televisions, serves simple, basic, food, has simple sheets, no extras, no "added value" outside of health value.

Assuming both have the same patient outcomes, the first facility can (and will) justify charging many times more.

I can see why folks with money would also want the former, but right now, we have some 48 million people who can't get the latter, at all.

Addressing your point more directly, yes, value should be looked at, in fiscal and patient care terms, but I fear that "adds value" is ripe with salsefolk and marketeers who will wave satisfaction surveys, while ignoring outcome data.

[patrice]

38. Perhaps I'm thinking of it wrong, but "both have the same patient outcomes" indicates that neither

added value to the outcomes. They added value of some type, but not to the outcomes.

Adding value to the outcome would seem to be improving the outcome somehow. There would have to be standards for what constitutes improvement on an individual basis and resources could be evaluated for how they contribute to that improvement.

[boppers]

47. +1 eom

[Arkana]

19. Where were you during the primaries?

It was like civil war.

[patrice]

23. Insurance doesn't want to offer cost cuts (to make co-ops possible) unless HC providers make cost

cuts too.

None of our "leaders" can make a move toward Public Option, let alone Single Payer, unless and until the see how inadequate the cost cutting proposals are. Problem is the cost cutting proposals WILL NEVER be inadequate. Everyone is going to Blue Sky this thing to get 'er done, whether they can actually achieve any of it or not. So maybe what we need, afterall, is somekind of benchmarks that progress us toward Single Payer as Insurance and HC Providers fail to achieve efficient cost cutting AND expanded Care.

[fadedrose]

29. O Strong One, can I rest my head on your shoulders? nt

[Odin2005]

40. People don't think straight when they are whipped up into a panic.

They are easily swayed by MSM Bullshit.

[SoCalDem]

41. Aaaah. you were not here during the Nader wars in 2001, were you?

:rofl:

[Duke Newcombe]

48. There's worry in the air because...

we have sufficiently spineless so-called "Democrats", and an administration that, for whatever reason refuses to "bust some skulls" in Congress to get things done.

[Jennicut]

53. Like Cheney did? Didn't we vote for something other then that?

When a Blue Dog decides to listen to corporate interests over the President of his own party you begin to realize that the man is thoroughly corrupt and not much of a Dem at all. What would Obama be able to threaten him with? He does not want Obama's support to get reelected any way. We have a 60 Dem majority in the Senate but not all of them are really liberal. Clinton had the same problem back in 1993 with the Dem majority in the Senate. These conservative Dems answer to corporate interests over party loyalty and don't care as long as they are reelected again or in some cases could care less about that and just become lobbyists or go into industries that will pay then what they want.

[democracy1st]

50. the reason is because this admin is a mixed bag ,we never know what we're getting

[a la izquierda]

51. Too true...

I live in Oklahoma, so as much as Democrats have annoyed me in the past few weeks, RW BS is much more aggravating and dangerous.

[ellie]

54. It is really crazy

I didn't realize Congress was back in session. It is like they are creating their own reality.