Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lay off DK!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:12 PM
Original message
Lay off DK!

He voted no on principle. We didn't get want we wanted. The bill is watered down thanks to bluedogs and conservadems and he's pissed which he should be.

This actually works in our favor. They can't say we got want we wanted with him out there complaining.

We need someone to point to when they say we didn't give them anything. We can say "If we got what we wanted why is DK so pissed?"

I don't like the bill either but I'm getting use to the idea of changing the law later through the exchanges. Once the structure is set up it may be pretty easy. I'm hoping anyway.

The important thing right now is that we don't want to give one more inch. Think Snowe and her fucking trigger!

That would really SUCK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. What the hell would Snowe's trigger matter if the bill had been killed?
It's lucky we picked up two votes on Tuesday.

Also, the trigger is dead.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. I know. Those two new votes sure came in handy. Thanx teabags!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
115. Again ... People just don't get ...
that there is vote management at play here ...

There were some people who ended up voting for it who were scared to do so, and some got a pass. They knew who was voting for it before it went to the floor - some were flat nos, some would have been whipped to vote for it if the speaker/whip leaned on them. They gave passes to some, did not give passes to others, and there were deals made for both groups ... If they wanted a bigger margin they could have had it, but a 5 vote margin vs a 15 margin would not be that big of a deal - they gave as many people in tough R districts as much cover as they could ...

Kucinich got to vote no, he probably was going to do so either way. But, it provides a symbolic vote noting that more could (should) have been done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. DK is the voice of our conscience...
We never want to hear what it has to say to us.

I agree completely with your points!

K&R

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Hi, Peggy!
I'm with DK here; he didn't cause the bill to fail. While I would have voted for the bill (though not enthusiastically - just happy because it's a first step), Dennis as Congressperson can continue to remind us of the ideal. And he keeps progressives focused. I respect some of the other points of view, but just agree to disagree.

Hope you are having a good weekend! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. My dear mvd!
I'm having an excellent weekend, thanks!

And I agree with you about DK...

He does remind us of how flawed the bill is, and how much work still needs to be done, down the road.

Focus is exactly the right word!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
43. My dear CaliforniaPeggy I have to disagree...
Kucinich tells the people who support him exactly what they want to hear which is that if only we tried harder we could get Single Payer. What they don't want to hear is that politics is an extremely dirty business and that change is slow and incremental. If there were a way to do all of this overnight, it would've been done by now.

I don't mean to say that Kucinich is a bad person. He's just a politician who is speaking to his constituency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. You could be right; I don't know.
I have a good friend who knows him personally. I'll ask him what he thinks.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #43
54. Of course he is a politician, the dif is that he is an honest one.
He just happens to be right on every issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #54
62. No, he's probably the least honest politician in the Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #62
68. Which orifice did you pull that one out of?
I can guess, but its impolite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #68
139. Many of the rest of the congresspeople take all kinds of money
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 02:53 PM by suzie
and cater to the wealthy and powerful. They're opportunists.

Dennis Kucinich catered to the wealthy and powerful Catholic Church for years and voted against all kinds of issues for women, until he decided upon another opportunity--running for president. And bad a bing, he changed his hostile-to-women's reproductive rights voting record overnight, because it wouldn't appeal to his new interest group.

He acts like he's the only "real Democrat" and votes with the Republicans. We hear from the Kucinich claque constantly that he's the only one "for the people". Wrong, he's just as much for himself and himself only as any other congressperson. They're opportunists and so is he.

But he's the most dishonest because he constantly tells us how much he's really for regular Americans. And his adoring fans buy that lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underseasurveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #62
72. Ha ha ha coming from Florida
You of all people should have first hand experience and knowledge about the least honest politicians in congress and how or why you could even conceive of saying that Dennis is the least honest in congress is absurd and a completely obtuse thing to say.

:rofl: so ridiculous it's truly laughable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #72
112. This is the result of a higher than normal high school drop out rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underseasurveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #112
128. Oh really? High percentage of high school drop outs there.
Isn't it sad though that some can't even manage to make it to high school:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. solly cholly wrong place.
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 12:13 PM by ooglymoogly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #72
142. You want to make comparisons with the little jerk from
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 03:07 PM by suzie
Ohio and Florida politicians? Fine.

Let's take Congressman Grayson. Brand new guy from a swing district where it would seem far easier to join the blue dogs and cast a safe vote. In Florida, where the large numbers of Medicare participants means that an opponent can make all kinds of noise to scare seniors.

But, Grayson speaks out, introduces great data to the national discussion about health care, and votes along with other progressives for health care reform. And never says, "It has to be my way or I'll throw a tantrum and vote with the Republicans."

And on the other hand, we have the illustrious and wonderful Ohioan, Dennis Kucinich. Before he became a longstanding incumbent, voted with Republicans and against women's reproductive rights all the time so as to assuage the Catholic Church in his district.

Grayson is a real Democrat willing to risk his seat for Democratic issues. Kucinich...votes with Republicans and acts like he's the only "real Democrat" in Congress.

Major dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underseasurveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #142
144. But you already have made your whiny opinions irrelevant to me
And I know many others here. It's not that DK is "GOD" or that most of us aren't able to handle 'any criticism' of him.

But rather when a most ignorant statement is made about a person that is obviously based solely on a personal dislike and not driven by actual knowledge of a persons true words and deeds, then your emotional tirades that he's a "little jerk" don't hold any water.

Dennis IS fallible just like every other single human being on this planet. To think otherwise is delusional. However when taken as a whole Dennis IS the least fallible of almost all of the others... And to say that he is the least honest politician IS delusional.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #144
148. So, you challenge me to present a Congressperson from my
state who is more principled and fights the good fight more courageously than Dennis Kucinich.

And I did so--but only presented one. How about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who continues to fight for Democratic policies while undergoing all kinds of cancer treatment? Last I looked she was a Floridian and someone who might just have some knowledge about "pre-existing conditions".

As for your "actual knowledge of a person's true words and deeds"--I looked at the individual votes that Dennis Kucinich cast against women and found the record appalling. Sorry, but I'm of the same generation as DK and I'm sure that he heard about the butchery of back street abortions just as I did.

"Little jerk" is a mild term for the disgust which I hold for Dennis Kucinich and his anti-woman voting record of Henry Hyde proportions. I had friends who had back street abortions, so my "emotional" dislike of the anti-choice little jerk is rather more based in reality than the vile attacks on one's character that greet any disagreement with the "Dennis Kucinich is the one, the only, the most wonderful Democrat" groupthink of some DU posters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underseasurveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #148
152. No I challenge you to nothing.
I do agree that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is an AMAZING woman and I do hold her in very high regards. Dennis and Elizabeth are personal friends of mine and I don't say that to be a braggart and I don't mean that I met them once or twice at some function. When they're in town they stay with us for sometimes days at a time and there's a lot of time to really sit down and talk. Dennis is not anti-woman.

Some people do have the capacity for growth and learning.

Aside from agreeing on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz I'm not interested in engaging yet another extreme knee-jerker.

Perhaps another day.

And oh I have been personally touched by a dirty back street abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #62
83. How absurd.
Does he receive bundles of campaign donations from the insurance lobby for his position? The least honest takes blood money, Dennis does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olegramps Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #62
85. Why do you say that? Want to provide us some insight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #85
143. I have challenged the slanderers to back up the wild accusations
that are flying around with the time, or times, Dennis was on the wrong side of an issue that is important to progressive democratic values, excluding this one (wealth care) as its rightness has yet to be proven; But alas none have been forthcoming. I put these folks in 3 categories;

One; they are just silly solipsists who believe they can will any old crap into reality by just thinking, writing or willing it.

Two; They know absolutely squat about which they so adamantly speak.

Three; Something far more sinister; A flock of shapeshifiting bats flying directly into the hair of reality, under the banner of Rahm E., whose purpose is to divide and conquer and to destroy a dagger aimed at his hart. (metaphorically speaking of course)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #62
100. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #62
111. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #111
140. Kucinich adorers spend every day here on Democratic Underground
poisoning the discussion against other Democrats of every kind.

And yet any criticism of Kucinich results in immediate, vicious accusations against anyone who doesn't think that Kucinich is God.

Reminds me of the grade school playground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #140
146. Yea ...and it's cool to say someone is the least honest. I suppose you think Bush was honest.
"poisoning the discussion against other Democrats" The irony is lost on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #62
131. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #131
135. wrong place
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 02:13 PM by ooglymoogly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #131
141. Nice twofer - ageism and classism!
Surely you don't represent the best that progressives or Democrats have to offer with that kind of tripe?

So you look down on people who live in trailer parks? Good going.

Not good form to slam anyone based on their age either. Some of the sharpest people on DU are under 18, and I am damn glad they are unafraid to participate or speak their minds. Their opinions are as valid as anyone's here, regardless of their opinion of Kucinich pro or con.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #54
67. "Every time"
Might be a bit of a stretch, even for DK. I heartily agree with the honest part, though. Even when I disagree with him, I know he is coming from what is in his best understanding the best choice. Its a shame he is not terribly charismatic, because he sure would be an interesting guy to have at or near the presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #54
69. The fact that you think he is right on every issue says it all
What do you think is more likely. That you and Dennis Kucinich independently assessed every single major issue and came to the exact same conclusions? Or that Dennis Kucinich simply looks at whatever position the left is taking and repeats that on C-Span? An honest politician isn't one who tells their constituents exactly what they want to hear all of the time. An honest politician is one who tells their constituents what they don't want to hear when it is necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #69
93. Win
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #69
103. He supports my family's equal human rights
Obama does not. So I support Dennis. This is called politics. Not a new concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #69
127. I'm not sure if you read Dennis' specific and exhustive position papers
when he was running for President this last year, but he was far more detailed and forth coming on where he stood on issues and why he took his positions than any other candidate running.

The rest offered broad platitudes while Dennis explained in detail what he would do and why he would do it.

So i certainly have to give him credit for at least committing to a position instead of the usual smoke and mirrors we get from our more successful candidates.

I figure the reason things are so screwed up in this country is because by and large we the people are screwed up. We don't demand anything of our leaders.

We don't demand they tell us the truth, we don't demand they follow the constitution, we don't demand they quit taking bribes.

We don't desereve any better than we got.

Dennis is better than all of us, and some people hate him for it. I like obama. But i know he lied about FISA, I know he lied about mandates, and I know his very close friend, adviser, and campaign co-chair, Tom Daschle makes his millions lobbying for the insurance industry.

I know Obama isn't about to do anything that would in anyway harm the insurance industry, even if that means I pay more for less health care.

Kucinich on the othe hand, has no strings on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #127
133. Excellent reply nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #127
149. Dennis is better than all of us.
Sorry, but I'm of Dennis's generation. So I knew people who got back street abortions and I'm sure Dennis did too. Which means that I can't consider a Congressperson with his history of anti-woman votes to be better than anyone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #149
150. So you are opposed to Dennis because he changed his views on abortian, or because he
didn't change his views on abortion?

Or is your life's work to punish people who now share your views but who didn't used to share your views?

You can believe and espouse whatever you want of course, but you don't make a lot of sense. In fact, you sound profoundly confused about your positions and beliefs.

What are you in favor of?

What do you oppose?

And how does your pathological hatred of Dennis Kucinich figure into your belief system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #150
151. My pathological hatred of Dennis.
Amazing how Kucinich acolytes spend most of their time on DU slandering any Democratic politician that is not Dennis Kucinich. G

And yet, if one questions anything about Kucinich, there is an immediate personal attack.

I'm not confused at all about Kucinich--he's an opportunist who'll say anything to get attention from a certain group of folks who like to call themselves "progressives".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #151
153. Oh, I see. You are jealous we don't fawn over you. Well, get elected and push our issue tirelessly
and we will.

We just want some representation. Dennis is one of the few who actually represent us. I'm sorry that makes you jealous.

You know Hillary is a corporatist and she hangs out with the god people at that god house in DC. I like Obama but one of his best friends, Daschle, is a multimillionaire who made his dough lobbying for the insurance industry. So we know Obama isn't going to push anything that will really effect the bottom line of the insurance industry. And he hasn't. His plan is to bribe them to be better people.

We like Dennis because he represents us.

Who represents your interests? You haven't said.

You just seem real upset that Dennis represents us.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #153
155. Interesting that it seems that to be a "progressive"
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 01:28 PM by suzie
white males only need apply.

Hillary Clinton--woman. Trash her.

Barack Obama--African-American. Trash him.

Grijalva--Mexican American. He voted for Health Care Reform, I'm sure you can find something to trash him with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #155
156. Oh there are lots of progressives of color and of all the sexes. Just no stupid progressives.
We have a test to keep stupid people out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #156
157. And that would include people not smart enough to grasp that the
electorate would actually choose a black man for the presidency?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #157
159. Susie, what does the fact that Obama is half black and half white have to do
with the right wing wackos on this board who keep bashing one of our greatest progressive champions?

did you just discover that Obama is half white and half black?

We are all from Africa, you know. All humans. Including Dennis Kucinich. His ancestors are from Africa.

But why is that important to the discussion at hand?

Do you hate Dennis because his ancestors are Africans?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. Coincidences are strange sometimes.
I googled up something about Kucinich's voting record and came across a DU post by some prominent "progressive" and Kucinich apologist talking about how he hadn't thought that a black guy had a chance in 08.

I wonder who that was?

Wasn't me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #160
161. Are you being cryptic? Instead of telling me what the fact that Obama is half white and half black
has to do with your hatred of Kucinich?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #69
132. Care to back that up with a few issues that he has been on the wrong side of
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 01:36 PM by ooglymoogly
and that have been vital to this country, other than this vote, the rightness of which is still in flux. It is so easy to just criticize with out having the slightest clue about your arguments veracity or any facts to prove your point...Its a common pug trick. "You have just got to catapult the propaganda"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #43
56. I don't support him - I just agree with him
I can't think of any way in which I've supported DK. Perhaps he is a politician speaking to his constituency, but isn't that a good thing? Don't you think more politicians should do that? There is a major discrepancy between what most people want and what their elected Representatives (capital "R", because they do not actually represent their constituents) do in their name. I wish my congressman was like DK, but he isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. On the contrary, no such discrepancy exists in this case
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 01:30 AM by Hippo_Tron
Elected leaders will vote against the wishes of their constituents when their constituents don't care and aren't paying attention. That is not the case on a big issue like health care. In the case of health care, the problem is not that representatives are voting against the interests of their constituents it's that their constituents are uninformed and vote against their own interests. The representative can't tell people what is in their own interest, vote for that, and then get re-elected. He/she has to vote for what the people say they want. The blue dogs' constituents are saying that they don't want reform even though reform would probably benefit them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #58
84. In some "blue dog's"
states there is majority support for the public option. So some blue dogs would benefit electorally for pushing strong HCR but don't because of the influence of big contributers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #84
145. I admit I haven't seen the polling data district to district, but...
I think blue dogs/conservadems who are genuinely voting against the will of their constituents are a minority. Joe Lieberman is a good example of this minority.

Jim Cooper, a Blue Dog Representative, is a good example of the contrary. He was lukewarm about a public option but voted for one because his constituents demanded it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #43
74. Change started with Nixon in 1974.
Whose health plan sounds remarkably like Obama's health plan. We were lectured then that politics is extremely dirty and that change is slow and incremental. Gotta love that mindless pablum.

Nixon's speech.

To the Congress of the United States:

One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life.

In the last quarter century, we have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.

Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.

Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.

Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk.

Today the need is even more pressing because of the higher costs of medical care. Efforts to control medical costs under the New Economic Policy have been Inept with encouraging success, sharply reducing the rate of inflation for health care. Nevertheless, the overall cost of health care has still risen by more than 20 percent in the last two and one-half years, so that more and more Americans face staggering bills when they receive medical help today:

--Across the Nation, the average cost of a day of hospital care now exceeds $110.
--The average cost of delivering a baby and providing postnatal care approaches $1,000.
--The average cost of health care for terminal cancer now exceeds $20,000.

For the average family, it is clear that without adequate insurance, even normal care can 'be a financial burden while a catastrophic illness can mean catastrophic debt.

Beyond the question of the prices of health care, our present system of health care insurance suffers from two major flaws :

First, even though more Americans carry health insurance than ever before, the 25 million Americans who remain uninsured often need it the most and are most unlikely to obtain it. They include many who work in seasonal or transient occupations, high-risk cases, and those who are ineligible for Medicaid despite low incomes.

Second, those Americans who do carry health insurance often lack coverage which is balanced, comprehensive and fully protective:

--Forty percent of those who are insured are not covered for visits to physicians on an out-patient basis, a gap that creates powerful incentives toward high cost care in hospitals;
--Few people have the option of selecting care through prepaid arrangements offered by Health Maintenance Organizations so the system at large does not benefit from the free choice and creative competition this would offer;
--Very few private policies cover preventive services;
--Most health plans do not contain built-in incentives to reduce waste and inefficiency. The extra costs of wasteful practices are passed on, of course, to consumers; and
--Fewer than half of our citizens under 65--and almost none over 65--have major medical coverage which pays for the cost of catastrophic illness.

These gaps in health protection can have tragic consequences. They can cause people to delay seeking medical attention until it is too late. Then a medical crisis ensues, followed by huge medical bills--or worse. Delays in treatment can end in death or lifelong disability.

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN (CHIP)

Early last year, I directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a new and improved plan for comprehensive health insurance. That plan, as I indicated in my State of the Union message, has been developed and I am presenting it to the Congress today. I urge its enactment as soon as possible.

The plan is organized around seven principles:

First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;

Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;

Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;

Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.

Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;

And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work--consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government.

BROAD AND BALANCED PROTECTION FOR ALL AMERICANS

Upon adoption of appropriate Federal and State legislation, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan would offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs:

--Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment, with the cost to be shared by the employer and employee on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either;

--Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons, and persons who would be ineligible for the other two programs, with Federal and State government paying those costs beyond the means of the individual who is insured; and,

--An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.
One of these three plans would be available to every American, but for everyone, participation in the program would be voluntary.

The benefits offered by the three plans would be identical for all Americans, regardless of age or income. Benefits would be provided for:
--hospital care;
--physicians' care in and out of the hospital;
--prescription and life-saving drugs;
--laboratory tests and X-rays;
--medical devices;
--ambulance services; and,
--other ancillary health care.

There would be no exclusions of coverage based on the nature of the illness. For example, a person with heart disease would qualify for benefits as would a person with kidney disease.

In addition, CHIP would cover treatment for mental illness, alcoholism and drug addiction, whether that treatment were provided in hospitals and physicians' offices or in community based settings.

Certain nursing home services and other convalescent services would also be covered. For example, home health services would be covered so that long and costly stays in nursing homes could be averted where possible.

The health needs of children would come in for special attention, since many conditions, if detected in childhood, can be prevented from causing lifelong disability and learning handicaps. Included in these services for children would be:
--preventive care up to age six;
--eye examinations;
--hearing examinations; and,
--regular dental care up to age 13.

Under the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, a doctor's decisions could be based on the health care needs of his patients, not on health insurance coverage. This difference is essential for quality care.

Every American participating in the program would be insured for catastrophic illnesses that can eat away savings and plunge individuals and families into hopeless debt for years. No family would ever have annual out-of-pocket expenses for covered health services in excess of $1,500, and low-income families would face substantially smaller expenses.

As part of this program, every American who participates in the program would receive a Health-card when the plan goes into effect in his State. This card, similar to a credit card, would be honored by hospitals, nursing homes, emergency rooms, doctors, and clinics across the country. This card could also be used to identify information on blood type and .sensitivity to particular drugs-information which might be important in an emergency.

Bills for the services paid for with the Health-card would be sent to the insurance carrier who would reimburse the provider of the care for covered services, then bill the patient for his share, if any.

The entire program would become effective in 1976, assuming that the plan is promptly enacted by the Congress.

HOW EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE WOULD WORK

Every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement. The insurance plan would be jointly financed, with employers paying 65 percent of the premium for the first three years of the plan, and 75 percent thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums. Temporary Federal subsidies would be used to ease the initial burden on employers who face significant cost increases.

Individuals covered by the plan would pay the first $150 in annual medical expenses. A separate $50 deductible provision would apply for out-patient drugs. There would be a maximum of three medical deductibles per family.

After satisfying this deductible limit, an enrollee would then pay for 25 percent of additional bills. However, $1,500 per year would be the absolute dollar limit on any family's medical expenses for covered services in any one year.

As an interim measure, the Medicaid program would be continued to meet certain needs, primarily long-term institutional care. I do not consider our current approach to long-term care desirable because it can lead to overemphasis on institutional as opposed to home care. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has undertaken a thorough study of the appropriate institutional services which should be included in health insurance and other programs and will report his findings to me.

IMPROVING MEDICARE

The Medicare program now provides medical protection for over 23 million older Americans. Medicare, however, does not cover outpatient drugs, nor does it limit total out-of-pocket costs. It is still possible for an elderly person to be financially devastated by a lengthy illness even with Medicare coverage.
I therefore propose that Medicare's benefits be improved so that Medicare would provide the same benefits offered to other Americans under Employee Health Insurance and Assisted Health Insurance.

Any person 65 or over, eligible to receive Medicare payments, would ordinarily, under my modified Medicare plan, pay the first $100 for care received during a year, and the first $50 toward outpatient drugs. He or she would also pay 20 percent of any bills above the deductible limit. But in no case would any Medicare beneficiary have to pay more than $750 in out-of-pocket costs. The premiums and cost sharing for those with low incomes would be reduced, with public funds making up the difference.

The current program of Medicare for the disabled would be replaced. Those now in the Medicare for the disabled plan would be eligible for Assisted Health Insurance, which would provide better coverage for those with high medical costs and low incomes.

Premiums for most people under the new Medicare program would be roughly equal to that which is now payable under Part B of Medicare--the Supplementary Medical Insurance program.

HOW ASSISTED HEALTH INSURANCE WOULD WORK

The program of Assisted Health Insurance is designed to cover everyone not offered coverage under Employee Health Insurance or Medicare, including the unemployed, the disabled, the self-employed, and those with low incomes. In addition, persons with higher incomes could also obtain Assisted Health Insurance if they cannot otherwise get coverage at reasonable rates. Included in this latter group might be persons whose health status or type of work puts them in high-risk insurance categories.

Assisted Health Insurance would thus fill many of the gaps in our present health insurance system and would ensure that for the first time in our Nation's history, all Americans would have financial access to health protection regardless of income or circumstances.

A principal feature of Assisted Health Insurance is that it relates premiums and out-of-pocket expenses to the income of the person or family enrolled. Working families with incomes of up to $5,000, for instance, would pay no premiums at all. Deductibles, co-insurance, and maximum liability would all be pegged to income levels.

Assisted Health Insurance would replace State-run Medicaid for most services. Unlike Medicaid, where benefits vary in each State, this plan would establish uniform benefit and eligibility standards for all low-income persons. It would also eliminate artificial barriers to enrollment or access to health care.

COSTS OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE

When fully effective, the total new costs of CHIP to the Federal and State governments would be about $6.9 billion with an additional small amount for transitional assistance for small and low wage employers:

--The Federal Government would add about $5.9 billion over the cost of continuing existing programs to finance health care for low-income or high risk persons.

--State governments would add about $1.0 billion over existing Medicaid spending for the same purpose, though these added costs would be largely, if not wholly offset by reduced State and local budgets for direct provision of services.

--The Federal Government would provide assistance to small and low wage employers which would initially cost about $450 million but be phased out over five years.

For the average American family, what all of these figures reduce to is simply this:

--The national average family cost for health insurance premiums each year under Employee Health Insurance would be about $150; the employer would pay approximately $450 for each employee who participates in the plan.

--Additional family costs for medical care would vary according to need and use, but in no case would a family have to pay more than $1,500 in any one year for covered services.

--No additional taxes would be needed to pay for the cost of CHIP. The Federal funds needed to pay for this plan could all be drawn from revenues that would be generated by the present tax structure. I am opposed to any comprehensive health plan which requires new taxes.

MAKING THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WORK BETTER

Any program to finance health care for the Nation must take close account of two critical and related problems--cost and quality.

When Medicare and Medicaid went into effect, medical prices jumped almost twice as fast as living costs in general in the next five years. These programs increased demand without increasing supply proportionately and higher costs resulted.

This escalation of medical prices must not recur when the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan goes into effect. One way to prevent an escalation is to increase the supply of physicians, which is now taking place at a rapid rate. Since 1965, the number of first-year enrollments in medical schools has increased 55 percent. By 1980, the Nation should have over 440,000 physicians, or roughly one-third more than today. We are also taking steps to train persons in allied health occupations, who can extend the services of the physician.

With these and other efforts already underway, the Nation's health manpower supply will be able to meet the additional demands that will be placed on it.

Other measures have also been taken to contain medical prices. Under the New Economic Policy, hospital cost increases have been cut almost in half from their post-Medicare highs, and the rate of increase in physician fees has slowed substantially. It is extremely important that these successes be continued as we move toward our goal of comprehensive health insurance protection for all Americans. I will, therefore, recommend to the Congress that the Cost of Living Council's authority to control medical care costs be extended.

To contain medical costs effectively over the long-haul, however, basic reforms in the financing and delivery of care are also needed. We need a system with built-in incentives that operates more efficiently and reduces the losses from waste and duplication of effort. Everyone pays for this inefficiency through their health premiums and medical bills.

The measure I am recommending today therefore contains a number of proposals designed to contain costs, improve the efficiency of the system and assure quality health care. These proposals include:

1. HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS (HMO'S)

On December 29, 1973, I signed into law legislation designed to stimulate, through Federal aid, the establishment of prepaid comprehensive care organizations. HMO's have proved an effective means for delivering health care and the CHIP plan requires that they be offered as an option for the individual and the family as soon as they become available. This would encourage more freedom of choice for both patients and providers, while fostering diversity in our medical care delivery system.

2. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REVIEW ORGANIZATIONS (PSRO'S)

I also contemplate in my proposal a provision that would place health services provided under CHIP under the review of Professional Standards Review Organizations. These PSRO's would be charged with maintaining high standards of care and reducing needless hospitalization. Operated 'by groups of private physicians, professional review organizations can do much to ensure quality care while helping to bring about significant savings in health costs.

3. MORE BALANCED GROWTH IN HEALTH FACILITIES

Another provision of this legislation would call on the States to review building plans for hospitals, nursing homes and other health facilities. Existing health insurance has overemphasized the placement of patients in hospitals and nursing homes. Under this artificial stimulus, institutions have felt impelled to keep adding bed space. This has produced a growth of almost 75 percent in the number of hospital beds in the last twenty years, so that now we have a surplus of beds in many places and a poor mix of facilities in others. Under the legislation I am submitting, States can begin remedying this costly imbalance.

4. STATE ROLE

Another important provision of this legislation calls on the States to review the operation of health insurance carriers within their jurisdiction. The States would approve specific plans, oversee rates, ensure adequate disclosure, require an annual audit and take other appropriate measures. For health care providers, the States would assure fair reimbursement for physician services, drugs and institutional services, including a prospective reimbursement system for hospitals.

A number of States have shown that an effective job can be done in containing costs. Under my proposal all States would have an incentive to do the same. Only with effective cost control measures can States ensure that the citizens receive the increased health care they need and at rates they can afford. Failure on the part of States to enact the necessary authorities would prevent them from receiving any Federal support of their State-administered health assistance plan.

MAINTAINING A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE APPROACH

My proposed plan differs sharply with several of the other health insurance plans which have been prominently discussed. The primary difference is that my proposal would rely extensively on private insurers.

Any insurance company which could offer those benefits would be a potential supplier. Because private employers would have to provide certain basic benefits to their employees, they would have an incentive to seek out the best insurance company proposals and insurance companies would have an incentive to offer their plans at the lowest possible prices. If, on the other hand, the Government were to act as the insurer, there would be no competition and little incentive to hold down costs.

There is a huge reservoir of talent and skill in administering and designing health plans within the private sector. That pool of talent should be put to work.

It is also important to understand that the CHIP plan preserves basic freedoms for both the patient and doctor. The patient would continue to have a freedom of choice between doctors. The doctors would continue to work for their patients, not the Federal Government. By contrast, some of the national health plans that have been proposed in the Congress would place the entire health system under the heavy hand of the Federal Government, would add considerably to our tax burdens, and would threaten to destroy the entire system of medical care that has been so carefully built in America.

I firmly believe we should capitalize on the skills and facilities already in place, not replace them and start from scratch with a huge Federal bureaucracy to add to the ones we already have.

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN--A PARTNERSHIP EFFORT

No program will work unless people want it to work. Everyone must have a stake in the process.

This Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan has been designed so that everyone involved would have both a stake in making it work and a role to play in the process consumer, provider, health insurance carrier, the States and the Federal Government. It is a partnership program in every sense.

By sharing costs, consumers would have a direct economic stake in choosing and using their community's health resources wisely and prudently. They would be assisted by requirements that physicians and other providers of care make available to patients full information on fees, hours of operation and other matters affecting the qualifications of providers. But they would not have to go it alone either: doctors, hospitals and other providers of care would also have a direct stake in making the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan work. This program has been designed to relieve them of much of the red tape, confusion and delays in reimbursement that plague them under the bewildering assortment of public and private financing systems that now exist. Health-cards would relieve them of troublesome bookkeeping. Hospitals could be hospitals, not bill collecting agencies.

CONCLUSION

Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America.

There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing.

Now, for the first time, we have not just the need but the will to get this job done. There is widespread support in the Congress and in the Nation for some form of comprehensive health insurance.

Surely if we have the will, 1974 should also be the year that we find the way.

The plan that I am proposing today is, I believe, the very best way. Improvements can be made in it, of course, and the Administration stands ready to work with the Congress, the medical profession, and others in making those changes.

But let us not be led to an extreme program that would place the entire health care system under the dominion of social planners in Washington.

Let us continue to have doctors who work for their patients, not for the Federal Government. Let us build upon the strengths of the medical system we have now, not destroy it.

Indeed, let us act sensibly. And let us act now--in 1974--to assure all Americans financial access to high quality medical care.

RICHARD NIXON
The White House,
February 6, 1974.


http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:57 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. You can't compare something in the pre-Reagan era to something in the post-Reagan era
Like it or not Reagan changed the political landscape of this country and we are still living with the effects of that. Nixon also triangulated on pretty much every domestic issue in order to appease Democrats so that they would be more inclined to let him and Kissinger continue their warmongering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #77
78. People were organizing around single payer in 1970.
Our Democratic leaders advised us to go slow. That change would come incrementally and to accept the slice that we were offered because we could always get more slices later.

The same was said with the Clinton plan. Who, like Obama, sounded remarkably like Nixon.

If Nixon was triangulating to appease Democrats to carry on a Democratic war, who is Obama triangulating to appease? The rhetoric is similar, the call for patience and pragmatism the same and it is bullshit. I can and will compare something to the pre-Reagan ear to something in the post-Reagan ear. Yes, politics is dirty but it is the people who end up mired in the mud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #74
86. Mindless pablum is right. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #43
82. I believe you are mistaken
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 06:31 AM by Enthusiast
Look how organized opposition to health care reform was. First, they did not allow a discussion of single payer-no discussion, shut up. They bused protester-disrupters to town hall meetings. And TV cameras were there specifically to capture the paid-for outrage live. This was no accident. The insurance lobby had been dumping vast sums of money in to the coffers of legislators in preparation for this day. The town hall meetings were created to serve this very purpose.

These measures were not designed to stave off slow minuscule incremental change. The insurance industry knew single payer could have been achieved and they were scared to death because of it.

Consider what could have happened with a reasonable discussion of single payer than what we witnessed. What we watched was the same complicit media that were cheerleaders for the Iraq War. Properly informed the American people would have embraced single payer like they did the public option. But discussion of single payer was verboten in the M$M and that was all part of the plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #43
119. What Kucinich is trying to convey to America is that there IS a better way
That DC does not have to be constantly catering to corporate interest at the expense of the masses. He is right, and whether we choose to admit it or not, most of us know it to be true. DC doesn't work for the people, it works for those that funnel the cash. Corporate America is a giant golden cock, and DC is chock full of eager receptive ass holes.

You want Government for the people? Then how about pushing campaign finance reform to end lobbying cash cows that encourage trading votes for gold, or to institute reasonable and responsible term limits to help curtail corruption.

Why is it that the issue of attending to unreliable voting machines has never made the front page? In fact, why were non-verifiable machines ever even developed? Was it pure coincidence that several manufacturing companies produced equally corruptible equipment incapable of even recording a printed record? Or, is it more likely that this was "design flaw" was intentional? To me it was obviously intentional, or "by design". A way to make DC self sufficient at maintaining/dictating who to keep or add in the "good ol' boys" club called Congress, while giving the "illusion" of voter participation to the people.

Kucinich is pointing out to all of us that there are other options, a way to end this dubious manipulation of the public for corporate gain, and self enrichment of entrenched and corrupt legislators. We can look to him and learn to identify other potential candidates like him. People of character that seek to serve for the purpose of enacting the will of the people, as opposed to seeking personal gain. Yes, We Can...LEARN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #43
126. I think DK aims high and doesnt like to compromise. Some people hold that against him.
They would like him to toe the line. They seem to be looking for party unity similar to the republicans have. I may not always agree with DK but I respect his opinions and enthusiasm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndersDame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
57. I knew there was a reason I like you so much Ms. Peggy
I turned 18 in 2004 and was very apathetic about voting. My mom took me to a Kucinich event and he had a one on one talk with me about voting and getting involved in the political process. I registered that day and Joined the Democratic Party .Dennis is my Homeboy

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks, Joanne.
Edited on Sun Nov-08-09 12:15 PM by timtom
He usually gets bashed for the wrong (i.e.- propagandistic) reasons around here. Nothing substantive. Just insinuation and innuendo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. You're welcome timtom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
netania99 Donating Member (172 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. Yes, thank you Joanne.

n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
87. Zactly nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Kucinich speaks for me....
And damn few other dem leaders have the cajones. HR3200 is a terrible reform bill. Kucinich did the right thing. I'm ashamed of the other progressive caucus dems who abandoned their principles and voted in favor of this sham.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
37. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
134. +2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. Dennis did what Dennis does.
What's the big fucking deal. Like we all totally understand the process and know what they all decided behind the scenes. Everyone around here is an expert and presidential adviser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #5
121. Noooo, that vote was on PRINCIPLE!
He's have voted that way even if would have meant it would have failed!

REALLY! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. Exactly.
:thumbsup: well put
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. Fortunately His Vote Didn't Matter...
I was more concerned with my Bluish Dog Congresscritter who ended up voting for the bill. My hope was my personal meeting and calls may have had a little to do with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. There was a negative post somewhere about Dennis on DU?
thats a rarity compared to any other dem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
29. DK is a DU god. You cannot be critical of him and still be allowed to be a Democrat. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. He voted witht he Republicans on the most important legislation in 30 years

Today Fox can boast that it only passed by a whisker.



DK comes from one of the safest districts in the country.


You can't ask people who come from McCain districts to sacrifice their seats when people from the safe seats won't accept party discipline. Once in power you have to accept a certain degree of discipline.


DK is no more progressive or principled than Senator Sanders, Governor Dean or Senator Kennedy.


DK has simply morphed into a gadfly.


Study the numbers on who voted and how safe their district and DKs "principle" becomes a superficial publicity stunt.



http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/us/politics/1108-health-care-vote.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Exactly. Making Kucinich out to be a martyr when he's simply an obstructionist. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. +1. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fedja Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #11
70. Eh..
Politics is a series of publicity stunts by definition, of course this move of his was one as well. Everyone even agrees that he voted nay just to prove a point.

Still, he plays off his publicity stunts on the left side of the spectrum. That's a lonely place to be, and while not alone on the left, he consistently exposes himself by keeping that position. It would be much safer to play the center like so many others. That is where DK deserves credit, his publicity stunts give everyone a bit more perspective on where the left is and where the center is. Were it not for the brave men on the left, the centrists would quickly convince everyone that they're actually liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
95. I agree. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
122. Gadfly... yep... sure seems that way.
So disappointing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. Thank you Joanne. Dennis did nothing wrong and unlike Lieberman's
promise to filibuster, he didn't stop the bill from passing. He knew it had the votes so he could vote his conscience without gumming up the works. As for Snowe and her trigger, methinks that this will be the bill that makes it through conference and onto Obama's desk. I'm not happy about it but I guess these are the crumbs we get for now. We will get real health care down the line in maybe another decade when this plan proves to be a big failure and then Congress will have to work on something that works and that doesn't break the country economically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. I hated the exchanges at first. I don't believe you can fix for-profit crime with
market based ideas. But I'm slowly beginning to see the potential. Once the systems' up and running it will be tweekable. And the public going to like it once they figure out there's competition. Then after that we can start cutting the costs.

I'm not happy either. I think we lost control of the debate over the summer and we never recovered. That was inexuseable. But we're stuck with this or nothing.

I may change my mind though if we start finding out about backroom deals made with the industry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. The back room deals are there.
Why were all those insurance company execs invited to Capitol Hill and the White House for closed door meetings while this was all developing? Why were the doctors who wanted real health care arrested? I think there are some records as to visitors and how many times they visited that can be made available through the Freedom of Information Act. Wendell Potter, the ex-Cigna whistleblower, also alluded to this. My hope is what Potter said in a talk show that this plan will prove to be a big failure and when Congress sees that they have a potential revolution on their hands that they will go back to the issue and do it right this time. This could be a decade from now though. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mixopterus Donating Member (568 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
66. yeah
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 03:56 AM by Mixopterus
or any kind of health care reform involving the government will be seen as a disaster by the general public and we will never get anything. Actually, I think that is the more likely possibility.

Just think about how this plays into the "government is inefficient/evil" meme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
16. Thanks for the positive thread
I still support DK. If he caused the bill to fail, then I would let him know this loyal DK supporter wasn't happy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
17. No kidding! I will never understand why progressives get mad at DK for doing the right thing!
This bill SUCKS - we all know it! Are we all in some kind of brain freeze - what about single payer?!?!? Argh - but yay for Dennis. If nothing else, hopefully he can lead by example. We have a Dem prez, Dem congress, and Dem house and this piece of shit bill is the best we could get? Pffft - not if Dennis was in charge! Sigh. K&R for Dennis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. progressives?
hardly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
39. Progressives? Where...you mean here, on DU?
Not many of us left any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #39
64. Yeah I guess you are right
back when i first joined DU in 2004 it seemed very progressive.. wish there were more of us.. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
49. You're confused.
It's DLC that hates DK and all progressives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #17
110. Progressives ...HUH??? You must mean DLC, Blue Dog and Dino luv'rs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
18. Proud to recommend. Thank you, Joanne98.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleTouch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
20. I agree with his vote...
...though perhaps for different reasons. I just personally don't see how this bill will help me, and in fact will make problems for me. It'll force me to buy something I don't want and can't afford, from a system that I don't trust. How is that good? Politically I want President Obama to have his victory, but in my personal life, this is nothing but bad news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodDamLiberal Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
23. Most democrats are better
at playing "polish the turd" than they are at standing up for principles.
DK did what he thought was right and I agree with him.
The bill is crap and we'll be stuck with it for years.
Some fucking change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. You summed it up right there.
"polish the turn" :rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
24. The republicans voted no on principle as well
Doesnt mean I am cheering them for it, In fact it makes me despise them all the more. Dennis joined with the republicans yesterday in order to grab the microphone for his own agrandizement. I am sure every person with no insurance or a pre existing condition is just pleased as punch he did his part to make this bill weaker.

I for one with a child with type one diabetes thinks he is a selfish prick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. +1000. Principle isn't free and Kucinich expects us to foot the bill.
Potentially with our lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #33
89. What a stretch! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #24
71. Apples and oranges
The principle of standing for a better bill vs the principle of "Obama must fail" are two very different things. I have no insurance, and no money to buy one, not to mention preexisting conditions, and nothing in this bill as passed seems likely to solve my dilema.

I for one with a wife with diabetes and hypothyroidism, think that its amazing that there is a concerted uproar against one honest progressive rep, particularly in the light of the fact it passed anyway despite 38 or so blue dogs. I mark it down to guilty conscience, people knowing that they are accepting failure, but glad to call it victory, myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #71
107. Cheny and Ali both skipped Viet Nam but not for the same
reasons. Unless Ali is a war mongering industrialist.
I agree that the attacks on DK are all about the guilt the attackers feel. 24 Democrats in the House voted for the Stupak amendment, and then against the final bill. Not one word about them from the DLC trash talk committee. Silence in fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #24
88. Republicans voted no
on the single principle of wanting President Obama to fail. That is their only principle, that and coffers full of contributions from the insurance lobby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
27. No. I have the right to criticize Kucinich and the GOP he voted with. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abelenkpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. You have a right
Insinuating he is somehow a traitor to democrats is really low and out of touch with the growing dissatisfaction of voters struggling with the current economy and system though.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waiting For Everyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. I just signed his petition and sent him a contribution
in response to an email I just got. The petition is for health care as a civil right.

I wish now that I had supported him for president.

DK has my support. He's one of only a handfull there who is deserving of it. I'm proud of him for voting against this atrocity. The RWers got more than we did in this bill, and it is unfixable. "Tweak it"? Right, sure. If it gets tweaked, it'll be in the direction of more concessions for the insurance companies, that's for sure. THEY will take this as a starting point, and run with it.

It would've been better just to pass a set of laws governing insurance companies - prohibiting them from dropping people etc. - for the FIRST TIME ever. That would've cost ZERO. And it would've done no harm, which this does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
32. Dennis speaks for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
34. DK was anti-choice before 2003. Some "principles".
He's a hypocrite!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #34
61. because people can NEVER evolve
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #61
101. Well the timing looks damn suspicious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
35. you raise some really good points
I hadn't thought of it in that way - the political strategy behind it. Hell, if Obama is "playing chess", then why can't congress do a little of it too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
36. The many anti DK threads started by a dedicated few are calculated to distract.
Edited on Sun Nov-08-09 02:19 PM by chill_wind
I think one poster here in particular had a frenzy of about a half-dozen separate DK bashing threads in less than an hour last night. That's about a half-dozen more than all the seriously enthusiastic threads you could find for the bill, even today after a lot more digestion.

As long as we can attempt to keep everyone focused on DK's vote, we don't have to focus on the reality of what went down over these many months.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #36
90. Excellent point chill_wind. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
38. Principled politicians used to be in favor here. Now, they're considered traitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
40. He is the only one speaking truth to power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #40
94. Do you even know what that phrase means?
Inconceivable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #94
154. I grew up in a Quaker household.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
41. Bless you & Dennis, Joanne.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
42. That's a great point about needing someone to make a big deal pointing out that this bill is not
what we want.

I have very mixed feelings about this bill, but certainly appreciate Dennis sticking up for our interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProleNoMore Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
44. Thank You Dennis Kucinich
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Midway Rebel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
46. Aww man, I love *DK
The Dead Kennedys

Dennis Kucinich is cool too in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
47. I wonder how he would have voted if he would have been #218.
If he would have to actually make a hard decision once instead of just grandstanding from the safety of a gerrymandered district when his vote doesn't risk anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
48. I'm sick of it! The Dennis bashers and Hope & Change Kool Aid drinkers don't belong here on DU.
:grr:

I barely recognize this place any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #48
137. Who the fuck are you to decide who belongs here?
IMO, it's the Kucinichians who should be looking elsewhere because the Kucinichians are opposed to signature Democratic Party legislation and this is a Democratic site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
50. If people only knew.. Dennis is the LAST person in CONgress not taking Cash..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underseasurveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #50
75. I know
And take comfort in knowing that there are a lot more of us that know he is not beholden to lobbiest or corporate kick backs. He lives an extremely modest life style, drives an old American made car, the furniture is god knows how old, he doesn't have gardeners or house cleaners. Elizabeth picks up the dog poop in their yard and she does the mowing with a push mower.

Yea they live a real high life style those two.

And geesh you should see his personal office in DC. Man what a teeny tiny place and oh the apartment they have in DC when he, or they, are there? Believe me there's no divine decadence or creature comforts there at all. Hell my bedroom is bigger than that place. Plus they walk or take cabs when they're there. No "car" or limo for them.

Yea I'd like to see ANY other politicians walk the walk like Dennis does.

He is a good man and both of them are wonderfully down to earth people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underseasurveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #50
76. dupe post
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 04:32 AM by underseasurveyor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adamuu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
51. "Voted No on principle" hmmm who does that sound like?
Someone in partuclar in the Senate, perhaps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
52. Thank you. I was getting rather lonely defending what I consider a common sense position.
It's things like his hypothesized department of peace that on face value seem easy to criticize. However, it changes the context within which we operate.

If something as simple as creating a society with better health care is so hard to accomplish, than it is time for us all to begin thinking outside of our context. In other words, use common sense.

This episode in health care legislation is an indicator of the state of our nation. It's more about the role of corporations in our society than it is about our health.

The time for playing polite is over. At least he's honest. At least he spoke up. How else was he to make a strong statement? The Harry Reid way? Sorry, that was mean.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-08-09 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
53. Leave Dennis Alone!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #53
81. You all are lucky he even votes with your party at all!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
55. We could be angry at the members of the Progressive caucus
who caved, but not Kucinich.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #55
59. Some here just are such party "OOH-RAH" as the
Marine corp says, they can't stand it when someone with some backbone has the determation to give us legislation that will work - rather than what the Lobbyists want and will backfire politically, when it does not work .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #59
63. Please cite one piece of legislation that Dennis Kucinich
has ever proposed or passed that "will work". Dennis deals in grandstanding, not the possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #63
91. Lines straight from the Repukes.
Besides being incorrect, who needs legislators who give us bad legislation.. Effective. Anyone who has seen him in action before his sub-committee on Government Reform know a leader when they see one.
Democrats should Appreciate DK Cause if not for the likes of him, many of us would not be Democrats..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #91
105. Really. I've seen Grayson in action on committees, asking in a quiet voice
relevant, lawyerly questions that put the witness on the spot.

And Dennis grandstanding like someone on a TV lawyer show, being aggressive with witnesses to please his adoring followers--and getting nothing from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #105
120. Don't watch the same committee hearings I do.
When the took on Insurance CEO's from the health care industry. Kucinich's chair of his sub committee has gone after Wall Street CEO's, Cato's so called insurance experts, Eric Prince of Blackwater, and Wall Street's CEO's regarding bonus..
. How much C Span do you watch. ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #120
138. Committee hearings are rehearsed shows.
Everyone knows what will be asked and answered. The only interesting part is when someone brings up stuff that is unexpected. Grayson does that and pins the witnesses down.

Dennis simply acts hostile and asks questions designed to impress his adoring fans. Are there any witnesses who don't know what is coming from Kucinich? A totally useless exercise.

But great grandstanding!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
60. DAMN STRAIGHT JOANNE
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norrin Radd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
65. No! Please don't lay off him -- this is helping me with my ignore list.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
73. Actually THEY are including him as one who doesn't want HCR
That's how they're spinning it when they cite the number of Dem 'No' votes. I saw Lindsey Graham say it today, basically "even 30 Democrats are against this reform".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #73
79. Thank you
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 05:47 AM by tinrobot
All people see is that he voted with the GOP. They don't look deeper.

The GOP is monolithic for a reason - it sends a clear message about where the party stands. We send a wishy washy message that doesn't resonate with voters.

If all Democrats voted for the bill, it would make the party seem much stronger and inspire more public confidence in the bill. It would also open the door to stronger bills in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
80. We Democrats all should have
screamed loud enough for a single payer system and it would have been achieved. Instead the influence of insurance industry money tamped down enthusiasm by Democratic legislators.

Single payer was achievable! This is why the insurance lobby was out in full force. They felt the threat, they knew it was possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #80
92. Always does, likely always will.
Must be some reason why so many Americans correctly or incorrectly think Rep. Barney Frank is a tool of Wall Street. So what would they think of Laurence Summers, et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
96. I love that Dennis!
:loveya: Dennis!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
97. Reminds me of the guy crying out u-tube about who was it - Britney?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoccoR5955 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
98. NO WAY!!! Lay off the Blue Dogs!
The Blue Dogs were the REAL reason why we didn't get what we NEED. That's because they really work for the insurance companies. Dennis Kucinich works for WE THE PEOPLE, and shows it each and every day.
I am a proud supporter of Kucinich, and will remain one!

UNRECOMMEND!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
99. Private for Profit
Health Insurance with the Government Subsidizing It!:puke:

Dennis was right to oppose this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
102. I disagree with DK on this particular vote - but I strongly respect him for voting his conscience
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
104. Yes I agree - Just Let It GO!. He cast the vote, now move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
106. I have a bad feeling that a lot of Dems would have dumped on DK over the Iraq war!
and his vote against it, if Obama had been in the white house.

they arent thinking of conscience, they are waving pom poms, thats all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #106
108. That's for sure
I used to say that Bush loyalists would defend him even if he strangled kittens and puppies on live TV. They'd come up with some reason why the kittens and puppies deserved it.

The hardcore Obama supporters aren't much better. How can you defend such extreme back-pedaling, private consultations with the insurance companies ("All right, guys, let's talk about what kinds of rules you wouldn't mind obeying." Does ANYONE but a major corporation get asked that question?), and such political ineptitude (allowing several versions of the bill to be circulating in the same house of Congress at the same time)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #106
116. That almost seems a certainty. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
109. Dennis is Dennis
If Pelosi had needed his vote to pass the bill she would have had it. Time to move on. We have bigger fish to fry and Dennis isn't one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SIMPLYB1980 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
113. No I won't he is and always will be an ineffective grandstander.
He is a principled loser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
114. Um, no.
Edited on Mon Nov-09-09 10:02 AM by BzaDem
That was easy. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
117. Agree. He did the Dems a necessary service by staking out one end of the debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
118. K and R for Joanne and DK! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
123. K&R for DK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
124. Sorry, but no.
If people want to continue to talk about DK, then I'm more than happy to do so.

He's a grown man and can handle the consequences of his actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neuvocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
125. He used campaign donations just like everyone else.
Kucinich supposedly voted no out of idealism but when you think about it, that makes no sense.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/-name-office-party-health.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
129. Let's see, a year or so ago he was a hero here. Now he's a bum.................
..............Gotta love it: "Fair weather progressives".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoccoR5955 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #129
147. Yeah, right.
Nope, I'm with DK ALL THE WAY!
Kucinich/Sanders 2012!
Government for, by and of WE THE PEOPLE, not them, the corporations!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-09-09 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
136. I dare any of these trollops who are selling DK down the river
To name any of the issues Dennis was on the wrong side of. You can even use hindsight and his record; with the exclusion of this one (wealth care) whose rightness will not be decided, for its rabid defenders, for months to come when the final bill comes out and the thousands of pages are read and parsed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
158. No
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC