Are the Kucinich Defenders going to support Lieberman in his Filibuster?

[berni_mccoy]

Are the Kucinich defenders here going to support and defend Lieberman when he attempts to filibuster the HCR Bill in the Senate? Or will they at least say the bill should get a vote? Serious question. I'd like to hear what they have to say.

I personally think Kucinich was wrong to vote against the bill. Certainly, he has a right to. And I can appreciate a vote on principles. But with his vote against it, he was saying that millions of Americans who can't afford healthcare don't have a right to healthcare because it's not healthcare his way.

Given his vote, I wonder if he would have tried to filibuster it in the House if that was a valid procedure there. And I'm very curious as to what Kucinich's supporters say on this issue.

[peace13]

1. This is DemocraticUnderground.

Why do you have to continue to bash dems today? Not enough of your own kind to pick on? Lieberman is not a Dem so what do you care if anyone here supports him?

[berni_mccoy]

2. I'm not bashing anyone. I'm asking if his defenders will ally themselves with Lieberman

It's a valid question.

If you are a Kucinich supporter (taking that from your response), then I expect you must be feeling guilty from your response.

[trumad]

3. It is quite the slippery slope question though...isn't it?

If DK hates the bill so much, he must delighted that Lieberman will do everything in his power to stop it.... correct?

[peace13]

7. There is no slippery slope.

Wwe have better things to do than put a heel on someone who is working for the people. If you don't like Kucinich fine but what are you proving by *hitting on him here?

[trumad]

62. You did not answer my question>>>>

[berni_mccoy]

89. We understand. You support Lieberman's Filibuster. Thanks.

[Chan790]

164. Given my strong opposition to this bill...

I would just about support anybody's efforts to kill it.

I've said it once and again, this bill is worse than no bill whatsoever...it needs to die. So, yes...I supported Kucinich's position (because it was the right position) and I'll support the right action for the wrong reasons by the wrong people too (because it's simply pragmatic to do so.)

[peace13]

101. My take on Kucinich is that he votes his vote for his own reason and conscience.

I doubt that he is delighted with anything about Lieberman. I don't actually know Dennis Kucinch personally and I don't live in his district. I do watch what he does and learn about his rationale for the way he votes because I happen to appreciate his efforts. I give you this answer in the face of crewel comments from this board. The hostility here toward Kucinich is a mark of the lack of tolerance. Enjoy your day! Kim

[MoJoWorkin]

10. If President Obama can be bashed on a continual basis here, then why not DK? Hypocrisy, a bit?

Don't tell me that DK lovers are not the worst at "bashing" Obama, every chance they get.

[Orrex]

13. Not at all. Kucinich is the divine incarnation of Progressive Perfection

Obama, on the other hand, is a smooth-talking puppet of the entrenched Corporatocracy.

Haven't you been reading?

[MoJoWorkin]

17. I do hope you meant to use this

:sarcasm:

[Orrex]

25. I never use that.

Nope, not me.


Never.

[MoJoWorkin]

27. ROFL !

:rofl:

[redqueen]

112. *roffle*

[tammywammy]

186. ...

:spray:

[peace13]

21. If you are bashing Obama that is your hypocrisy. I don't do it.

Why you might ask? Because * had eight years to dismantle this country. I expect that it will take at least two to get us back on the road. Right now we do not have a way to judge all that is going on behind the scenes. I do however call the WH, and write people who are involved in decisions that I have an opinion on. I do speak out in a way that can make positive changes.

I will add that Kucinich walks the walk. You will see him vote on the essence of the legislation, not how others will perceive the vote. I realize this is confusing to people. He is the only politician that I can say this about. You may not agree with Kucinich. He may be too short or quirky for you. Whatever your deal is, one thing you can't say is that Dennis is not good for his word. I think it is funny that so many here do not value that in him.

[MoJoWorkin]

32. Well, I certainly am NOT bashing President Obama, as I think he is doing a really good job

considering the total mess he inherited----on all fronts.

I don't consider President Obama to be a "saint" or a "saviour" as DK worshipers seem to think of Dennis. Rather, President Obama is a good man trying to do his best for all of the people.

No one is always right, but I know who is working the hardest on behalf of ALL Americans-- and it ain't DK, with that NO vote on HCR.

[spoony]

99. I wonder if that's what all these inane threads are about then

Some misguided, 'now we're going to bash your guy' bullshit.

[thunder rising]

4. Good question. Is it purity of thought or just pragmatic use of an asshole?

I'm sure Kucinich knew the measure was going to pass.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orrex]

11. As are his breathless acolytes

[LWolf]

6. I don't know why you'd think

Kucinich "defenders," ie, those who support DK, would ever support Lieberman.

This DK supporter is aware, obviously, of the differences in their world views and goals. I'm sorry if you aren't.

I DID vote for Gore/Lieberman in 2000; other than that, there has never been a time that I've supported Lieberman in anything.

I personally think that DK was correct to vote against the bill. It's a bad bill. I didn't expect any different, since one of the reasons I'm a Kucinich supporter is because he consistently walks his talk.

There will still be plenty of Americans who, like me, can't afford to use the health insurance they've got.

What DK would do as a senator is as useless a speculation as what the nation would have been like without Reagan or Bush II, or what would be happening right now if we'd nominated and elected a good left-of-center Democrat to the WH in '08.

I expect he'd still be working for GOOD health care reform.

[berni_mccoy]

9. It's a perfectly valid question given the fact that many DK supporters here wanted the bill to fail

And they want a "start-over" on the process. Put your money where your mouth is: Do you want the Senate bill to pass or not?

[LWolf]

24. I thought I made that clear.

I also thought your question was about "what would dennis do," not about what I wanted.

I want the bill to fail, unless the house somehow miraculously:

1. Strips the stupak amendment

2. Strips the insurance mandate

3. Allows every American to opt into a significantly improved public option

4. Restores the single-payer amendment

Items # 1 and 2, by themselves, mean that this bill creates something WORSE than what we've already got, which I thought couldn't happen.

My money has always been where my mouth is.

I've never pretended to support bad legislation.

[bread_and_roses]

and I'll support you in that

I hope it fails too, for the same reasons, and no, I don't support that war-mongering crass profiteer Lieberman.

[LWolf]

61. Thanks. nt

[berni_mccoy]

39. Question is the subject. I'm asking YOU.

[LWolf]

60. And I answered. Didn't you get it yet?

[sabrina 1]

40. No, it is one of the most invalid questions I have seen

on a blog (well, excluding wingnut blogs where intellect is not their strong point)

Consider how ridiculous your question is in view of how completely different these two politicians are.

Either you are attempting to insult those who agree with Kucinich on Health Care Reform, or you really are confused and simply inventing scenarios that could not be possible.

As I said in a post below, Kucinich has taken a PRINCIPLED stand on Health Care Reform. Liebermann's stand is UNPRINCIPLED.

Do you see how outlandish your question is? Why would someone who despises Liebermann's Health Care position and his political posturing in general, support his tactics in any way, on anything?

Seriously, I would be embarrassed if I were you. People might think you yourself might make a decision based on perceived political expediency rather than principles simple because of this question. There is no other explanation I can think of as to why the question even occurred to you.

[berni_mccoy]

46. I'm embarrassed for you. You really have no clue about how politics work.

[sabrina 1]

57. I am hoping you, like Geek Tragedy, do not represent

the party of the people. Politics trumps principles for you? I thought that was the other party. At least that's what Obama said. Aren't we in this period of 'change' where it will not be 'politics as usuall' but rather 'doing what is right for the people'? Or was that all lies just to get votes and we were all so naive we fell for it?

I feel sorry for you if you think that the general public thinks that policians should be so gutless that they vote in lockstep for legislation that is bad for the people but good for their corporate sponsors. I can assure you that I and millions of 'voters' don't want to know about that kind of politics. That is what we voted AGAINST.

I will assume you do NOT speak for this administration because if you do, you can expect a very rude awakening in 2010 regarding how 'politics' work. Without the voters on their side, politicinas get sent home. THAT is how politics works, just FYI.

[berni_mccoy]

58. Who do you represent? The millions that will continue to die with no health care?

[Chan790]

176. Hint: They're still going to die...

all this bill does is make them poorer first.

[suzie]

174. +500,000

[NorthCarolina]

105. Do you believe that the Senate bill will look anything like the House bill?

I don't.

[Selatius]

8. I doubt they will.

It is akin to arguing that a person who is a supporter of FDR is also a supporter of Joseph Stalin because they are both opposed to Adolf Hitler. So, the follow-up question to the person is why he is supporting Joseph Stalin.

[redqueen]

109. "Supporting Lieberman in his filibuster" is not the same as "supporting Lieberman" full stop.

I guess I understand the defensiveness... but come on. *sigh*

[sabrina 1]

128. Very good analogy, but I doubt they will acknowledge it.

They have their script, and they do not stray from it. All is good in their world, and they do not want anyone raining on their parade, by *gulp* disagreeing with 'The Party' on anything even if they happen to be right. One of them told me that 'only the votes count in the end'. It's cult-like thinking, hard to penetrate, probably needs deprogramming.

[emulatorloo]

12. Are you suggesting "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"/"Politics makes strange bedfellows"

I wish we could drain your question of emotion/confronation, and have an "objective" discussion

as it could be an interesting and honest discussion about what kinds of alliances folks might be willing to make to reach a political goal (in this case defeat of the healthcare bill).

That would be fascinating.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peace13]

30. Close your legs your ignorance is showing! n/t

[geek tragedy]

37. Kucinich wanted Paul for his VP candidate.

Because, DK said, an eagle needs both a left wing and a right wing.

Two halves of the same whole.

[sabrina 1]

42. And Rep. Alan Grayson is co-sponsoring a Ron Paul

bill that no one would support for 25 years. What's your point exactly?

[berni_mccoy]

44. LOL. But Grayson would never be naive enough to think Paul could be his VP.

And Grayson knows how to USE Repubs to further an agenda where DK only knows how to sabotage his own.

[berni_mccoy]

16. No, I'm asking a very specific question. Do Kucinich supporters here support Lieberman's filibuster?

[goclark]

129. I have a question ~ does Dennis K vote what He wants or those he serves?

I thought you were to represent the views of your District? :shrug:

[kjackson227]

14. I agree, he was wrong to vote against it. True, it is not the greatest bill...

but it is progress.

[DefenseLawyer]

18. A protest vote when you know the measure will pass anyway

is hardly the equivalent of a filibuster.

[berni_mccoy]

19. It was a very close vote. He didn't know it would.

[DefenseLawyer]

22. Newsflash

They know how many votes they have before they bring something to the floor.

[Gman]

26. Bigger Newsflash

people are known to flake when they've committed to vote a certain way. The potential for flakes really happens on huge legislation like this. DK didn't know it would pass until the vote closed. Best example is Cao after Boner announced not one Republican would vote for it.

[redqueen]

117. He probably knew it would, and I would bet that he did.

However, many people here believe that he'd have voted against it even if it would have meant the bill failed to pass.

[WeDidIt]

63. Actually, he obstructed the bill

Pelosi was short a vote or two and had to allow Stupak to go forward in order to have the votes to get it passed.

So indirectly, Kucinich is responsible for Stupak.

[berni_mccoy]

79. Damn Excellent Point. Kucinich is a closet Pro-Lifer.

[redqueen]

120. He was anti-choice before he was pro-choice... so yeah...

there is that.

[Flaneur]

184. What a wankfest you two have going.

[sabrina 1]

133. Wow, I did not know that it was short votes.

I'm glad to hear that. I do know that some voted reluctantly for it. If it was short votes it was for very good reason and it's a disgrace that Nancy Pelosi would throw women to the wind just to push a POS bill like this. Thanks for that information, I will double check it with reliable sources and if it is true, Dems can kiss the women's vote goodbye for the next election. And for a bill that itself is such a betrayal of the promises made in the election, not even for something worthwhile ~ it gets worse the more we learn.

[Luminous Animal]

172. Not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08scene.html?_r=1

Pelosi had to allow the Stupak amendment to go forward or Stupak and his cohorts threatened to obstruct the bill.

[WeDidIt]

64. Actually, he obstructed the bill

Pelosi was short a vote or two and had to allow Stupak to go forward in order to have the votes to get it passed.

So indirectly, Kucinich is responsible for Stupak.

[Gman]

20. There's a big reason Kucinich had to drop of the presidential race

because he was about to get his ass kicked in the primary for his House seat. He squeaked by. Hopefully Kucinich will lose next year in the primary. I'll send his opponent a few bucks.

[Barack_America]

28. Yeah. Kucinich seems better suited for a career in the blogosphere.

Where he can stick with his "principles" and not fuck over an entire congressional district in the doing.

I mean seriously, when you are elected to Congress, you have to put your constituent's needs over your "principles". You are sent to Washington to represent your district, not yourself.

[bread_and_roses]

38. How progressive of you. Another DLC/DINO would be just great, eh? (n/t)

[Gman]

179. No, I think you, and all the newbie people around here against the bill

are likely trolls working for the Club For Change and other RW organizations. Why else would you oppose a bill that will provide medical coverage for millions upon millions of people that don't have it now?

[bread_and_roses]

181. So you think I'm a troll? And I guess DK is a Corporate mole, too, eh?

Wow. Talk about group-think. As if there were not voices with impeccable credentials speaking out against this bastardization of "reform."

You know, lots of us were called traitors and pie in the sky and unrealistic and naive and political stupids when we opposed NAFTA too. Look how well that turned out. I could go on with the list, but why bother?

This bastardization of reform is not going to accomplish a single one of the goals are necessary to providing health care to those millions upon millions to whom you refer. However, it is a real nice package for the health insurance vampires and big pharma.

Cheer away. Call me any names you like. I am far too old and savvy to care what you call me.

[azmouse]

189. That sounds like a very good idea.

I could spare a few bucks to send to his opponent.

[geek tragedy]

23. Yes, they will. Every single one will support Joe Lieberman.

Which is why no one has any respect for the Kucinich sliver of the party.

[sabrina 1]

31. Did anyone give you permission to speak for them?

You state with certainty, the positions of dozens of people as if they have informed you of their intentions.

Now that you've made a complete fool of yourself, if you don't mind, I at least did not give you permission to speak for me. Read my post below where I speak clearly for myself.

And do not ever presume to speak for me again. I don't like making a fool of someone, but you asked for it.

[geek tragedy]

35. Votes are what matter in the end.

Kucinich and Lieberman share the same vote/intention, but only for different reasons.

In the end, there is a time to choose sides. Kucinich chose to side with the LIEberman/Bachmann types over the weekend.

And you've given no indication that you disagree.

[sabrina 1]

45. Votes are what matter in the end?

Do you realize how much you reveal about yourself with every post you make? So, by your logic, anyone who voted against their Party but FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, in your opinion, would be a traitor?

Thanks, I've got your number and would hope that you in no way represent the Democratic Party.

Btw, do you support the Stupak Amendment?

[geek tragedy]

51. By your logic, you'd praise Kucinich for voting

against the Civil Rights Act because he thought it didn't go far enough.

[sabrina 1]

29. Do you know anything about these two people?

Seriously, I cannot imagine anyone who does, asking that question.



Why would anyone assume that if someone supports Kucinich's PRINCIPLED stand that same person could even consider supporting Liebermann's UNPRINCIPLED stand?



Not to be rude, but it is an an incredibly ridiculous question ~

[Orrex]

33. When the vote is the same, what's the difference between a principled and an unprincipled stand?

Be specific. And you can't fall back on "Kucinich knew that it would pass," because he didn't know that.

Why is Kucinich's "NO" a vote of principle, while Lieberman's "NO" is not?

[redqueen]

121. It's a distinction without a difference, clung to in order to soothe conflicted feelings. (nt)

[bread_and_roses]

34. They are stuck in High School "Team" mentality

Only the logo on the jacket and who "wins" matters to them. If the Ref didn't see their player gouge the eye of the opponent, and that wins them the game, they are just fine with it. And anyone who says otherwise is a "traitor."

It's pointless talking to them.

[geek tragedy]

41. That is how votes work. You pick one side or the other.

Welcome to the real world.

[berni_mccoy]

43. The Irony is so extreme... that poster doesn't see he/she is part of the DK High school "Team"

[bread_and_roses]

182. Oh? Here's two NY Congressional "No" on Health Care votes - which team am I on?

Massa has said from the start he will not vote for anything short of single-payer, and voted no on this Bill.

Murphy, elected to replace Gillibrand, also voted "No."

Now, both these Congressmen are from districts that were R for years and years. Murphy at least had the ground broken by Gillibrand, but it took Massa two tries to take the long-time R Seat, and with a real thin margin, if I remember correctly.

Now, Massa may be being very clever. By voting "No" on this Bill for the reason given, he will retain the support of Progressives while denying the R's of a club to use against him (I think "he voted "no" on "socialized medicine" because he wanted MORE "socialized medicine" is a hard sound bite). However, he has also come out against more troops to Afghanistan, which lends his health care reform stance more credibility in my eyes. Whichever, I support him and his vote based on his public stand on the deformed Bill just voted on.

Now, Murphy has gabbled about the deficit and taxes along with a few sops to real reform and, given other statements he's make, I feel quite sure his "No" vote was plainly motivated by his being terrified of the Rs in his district. He certainly has not made any politically risky moves like calling for single-payer. So, I do not support his vote or his stance. So, which team am I on?

[sabrina 1]

50. I really do not want to make you look worse than you do already.

But is this what you are saying? Your party (side) is voting AGAINST women's rights. The other party (side) is voting FOR women's rights. Which side do you 'pick'?

[geek tragedy]

52. You think the Republicans were voting for women's rights

over the weekend?

LMAO.

[berni_mccoy]

54. She's just digging herself deeper in embarrassment. We should just let her be

and minimize the amount of damage she'll do to herself.

[sabrina 1]

72. Wow, you really are unable to grasp simple concepts.

Let me try again. I'll make it as simple as possible for you.

I want to understand your belief that 'only votes count' so I conjured up a hypothetical situation (look it up if you don't understand the word). I asked you to imagine you belong to a Political Party that is about to vote on an important issue.

Not to confuse you, let's call it 'Party A'. An let's call the other party 'Party B'. Are you still with me?

Okay, there is a vote coming up regarding Women's Rights. YOUR Party, which is Party A, is voting AGAINST Women's Rights. The other party, which is Party B, is voting FOR Women's rights. What do YOU do in that situation since you believe that in the end, 'only the vote counts'?

Simple enough for you? You and your buddy seem to believe I am naive when it comes to politics. I am really interested in your answer to this question.

[geek tragedy]

74. Lots of people voted AGAINST the Stupak amendment

and FOR health care reform on Saturday night.

Kucinich voted against both.

[sabrina 1]

81. That wasn't my question. My question had nothing to do with

the Stupak Amendment. Okay, let's change my hypothetical scenario as you are dodging the question and I really do want an answer.

Same scenario, Party A = your party.

The vote this time is about Civil Rights for all Americans. YOUR party, Party A, is voting against Civil Rights as it is not popular and politically risky, even though it would be the 'right' and 'principled' and 'courageous' thing to do.

The other party, Party B, is voting FOR Civil Rights, for whatever reason. What does someone like you who believes that 'only the votes count in the end' do in such a hypothetical situation?? Should you vote for what's wrong or for what's right?

And btw, since you brought it up, what should a Senate Dem do if that Amendment is left in the bill and the majority of Dems vote for it? Considering your not so principled stand that 'only the votes count in the end'?

[berni_mccoy]

87. We understand you perfectly. You support Lieberman's Filibuster. Got it. Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

118. Thanks. You would have voted against Civil Rights

out of party loyalty. I got my answer. Like the old Democrats who ended up bolting to the Republican Party. Some things never change.

You would have voted against women's rights also, for the same reason.

"Only the votes count in the end"

You know, I didn't really need to ask the question when your buddy said that. 'Only the votes count'. Tell that to women, to blacks and now, tell it to the victims of Private Insurance Companies.

Your attempts at emotional manipulation will not work with me. I went to the political equivalent of boot camp known as rightwing blogs, when I first went online years ago. Every tactic the phony left now imitates, the wingnuts initiated. There is not a tactic, such as your 'you support Liebermann' (very weak by their standards btw) or any label, you know, 'purist' 'concern troll' blah, blah, etc. (mild, compared to their arsenal of epithets) that I am not familiar with and bored by at this point, or that I haven't been called, so I'm immune to your efforts which are pretty weak by comparison.

The only thing I am not immune to are facts. And you and your aptly named friend, Geek Tragedy, have not provided even a single point that vaguely resembles a fact.

All you have managed to make clear is that you would vote against Civil Rights, Women's Rights and now on this issue, which many believe to be the Civil Rights issue of our time, you would vote against the public's right to a Universal Health Care system.

You are on the wrong side of history now, as you would have been back then. I feel sorry for you.

[berni_mccoy]

124. Delusional. This *is* about equality.

People who have pre-existing conditions are already discriminated against. People who are sick are already denied care. People who are poor are already denied care. And now you and your buddy Kucinich are saying unless we have a perfect solution, we can't have it.

Was the Civil Right's law perfect? Did it end inequality? Did it end racism and discrimination? No. But it was a first step. Just like HR 3962.

Dennis certainly would have voted against Civil Rights on principle. You can bank on that.

[sabrina 1]

154. You would havew voted against Civil Rights

if your party did not support it. You are attempting now to wiggle out of it. Your buddy, Geek Tragedy, with whom you agreed said 'the only thing that counts is the vote, in the end'. Not the issue.

You AND your friend refused to answer my very simple question. You and he are about winning at all costs.

Yes, this bill is about equality, or was. This mess they have tried to sell as Health Care Reform is a Private Insurance Bail-out, written by the Private Insurance Industry and if they were not in trouble as Wall St. was, this subject would never have been allowed to come up.

How politically naive you are. Equality can be achieved with an extension of Medicare for all Americans. Simple, already in place, and can start working immediately to save lives, not to mention that a majority of Americans support it.

This excuse for Health Care Reform won't even begin until 2013 and it's questionable just how many lives it will save, how many will end up in jail because they are unable to afford the pay offs to Private Ins.

But even if it does, how many will die while they wait to sort it all out and to get it started?

Dems did not want a Single Payer System and that is the ONLY reason we are not getting one, and because of people like you and your friend who are not willing or too afraid, to fight for what is right. Who put 'party before country' and drag the rest of us down with you.

You know, if they told us the truth, I would be less angry. Like the wars they support. If they came out and said
' we need the oil', I would disagree that killing people in foreign countries is the way to get it, but I would be far less angry than when they take us for fools and tell fairy tales about WMDS.

In this case, just say that Ins Ind. is collapsing and they want to save it. Then let's decide if it's worth saving, but they insult our intelligence and hide from the questions they are asked.

And btw, you never answered my question about the Stupak Amendment. Will you vote against women's rights if the party tells you it's necessary, or like Kucinich, do what's right?

[bread_and_roses]

183. The "real world" eh? Teach your g'mother to scramble eggs, why don't you?

The original phrase is much coarser, though not, as it somehow sounds, obscene, so I modified it for the tender sensibilities here.

The real world. I doubt you can teach me much about the real world. I am almost 60, a graduate of the Vietnam protests, the ERA battle, the abortion battles, labor organizing, health care and education initiatives on the State level, local elections, State elections, Congressional elections. I worked hard on a number of different fronts to take the NY Congressional Delegation for the Ds, and for Obama's election.

I have seen a lot of legislation come and go. I've often worked to help create support for legislation I didn't think was so hot, or elect politicians who I thought stunk. I've watched a lot of "incremental" reform songs sung, and sometimes sung along. I was wrong, each and every one of those times I talked myself into supporting some bad bill in the service of a "larger" objective - like the simple objective of keeping a bad R out of office. It doesn't work. Take a look at the world around you, and you'll see how very badly it doesn't work.

Obama could have had this one. He came into office with the power and the mandate and the people behind him to do it and to do it right. It's really too bad to see this bow-tied present for the insurance and pharma vampires be the outcome.

Will I continue to support Obama where I can? Of course. Will I ever vote for an R? No. Do I think either act is going to get us where we need to go? No.

This is my last word on the subject. I think those of you cheering this on are deluding yourselves, but hey, I can understand that. We all need something to believe in. I wish you well. If you are all right, I'll be very happy. But I won't hold my breath on that one.

[sabrina 1]

78. You're right, I am working on a project and am bored

so I thought I would entertain myself trying to get through the absolutely impenetrable ignorance, which reminds so mcuh of my first experiences online with rightwingnuts. I was not aware back then that such uniformity of 'thinking' if you can call it that, even existed. I tried, I know I am an eternal optimist, to get through to those wingnuts for two years, before I finally realized that it had to be a disorder of some kind that most likely required professional treatment and I was not qualified to deal with it.

It was, at that time, a real relief when I finally discovered Democratic blogs. Back then, about six years ago, there were actually real Democrats posting on blogs. They believed in taking a principled stand and I rearely encountered this kind of mindset, unless we had a wingnut invasion of some kind.

You're right, I think I'll leave them to their 'only the vote counts in the end' mentality, while the rest of us continue to fight for what is right for the American people and continue to support politicians, like Kucinich, who support us.

[suzie]

180. The posters above are correct. You really should stop embarrassing yourself.

You talk about the "real Democrats" who posted on blogs six years ago in the midst of defending Dennis Kucinich.

Are you simply unaware that six years ago, Kucinich was still in his anti-choice Henry Hyde-like voting record period?

Sorry, you may continue with the lie that Kucinich speaks for "the people", but Dennis Kucinich never spoke for this woman. He was a sellout to the Catholic Church's views on a huge swath of issues related to women's reproductive freedom.

Now, I know that Kucinich apologists dismiss that very ugly aspect of Kucinich's electoral career because the little opportunist suddenly switched that position overnight.

But it seems more than a little hypocritical to rail about "real Democrats" from six years ago, when the politician you're making excuses for wasn't one at that time.

[berni_mccoy]

36. So you support passing the bill in the Senate? Good. I'm glad you aren't standing by Kucinich's

principles.

[Ozymanithrax]

47. If they are consistant in their desire to see a perfect bill or nothing?

Yes, yes they will.

[SIMPLYB1980]

48. He will kick and scream and then support it

in the end. Basically the same way he approaches everything.

[Generic Other]

49. A "NO" vote is the same no matter what the reason

People need a health care bill. If this one goes down in flames, I dare say it will be decades before it comes up again.

[sabrina 1]

83. So a 'no' vote on Civil Rights would have been the same as 'yes'

vote because even though the 'yes' vote was the moral thing to do, it was not the right time to be voting in favor of such a difficult issue?

How much do we compromise our principles just to get something, anything passed? How about the Stupak Amendment? Should the Senate pass a bill that includes that amendment? How do you feel about them tossing the Kucinich/Conyers and Weiner Amendments and keeping the Stupak Amendment? How come Dems cannot keep progressive amendments, but can keep extremely controversial and possibly party splitting amendments like Stupak, in their bills? Do you realize how insane this is? How not believable their claim that they could not pass anything the Repubs would not like? After witnessing how little they care about losing the women's vote, why do you believe a word they are saying?

I believe they are lying. I believe we could have had a Medicare for All Bill if the Dems and Obama had wanted it. I believe Kucinich is dead right about all of it. And I am not alone. I also believe that many other people will not be working for a Dem majoritty in the next election. Start reading the reaction to all this on other blogs and in real life. They are willing to lose a majority to hand over this windfall to Private Insurance. What does that tell you?

[Generic Other]

192. where did I say a NO vote was a YES vote?

I said the "NO" vote itself is the one you are remembered for no matter what your "reasons."

[Algorem]

53. Yes we can! Have phony reform,I mean.

[berni_mccoy]

55. OK, I'll take you as a Lieberman Filibuster supporter.

[Algorem]

76. I'll take you as silly person posting timewasting nonsense.

[berni_mccoy]

92. And I'll take you as a Lieberman Filibuster supporter.

[Algorem]

159. faulty.

fraught with faultitude.

[Mari333]

56. Lieberman is siding with the Republicans and health insurance companies

Dennis is siding with people who dont want to pay off the health insurance companies.
The health insurance companies win, either way, whether the Senate passes this or doesnt pass it.

Lieberman is posturing, he knows perfectly well the health insurance companies like this bill and would freak out if it was the one that Kucinich prefers, which is a single payer public option and the european model.

Kucinich is the exact opposite of Lieberman.

You are not too well read, are you?

[berni_mccoy]

59. Dennis sided with Republicans when he voted against the bill. Period. I'll take your response as a

YES for Lieberman.

[Mari333]

65. Dennis sided with the PROGRESSIVE DEMS when he voted

he was against the bill for entirely different reasons then the repubs.

he was AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR TOO WHEN MANY IDIOTIC DEMS VOTED FOR IT WITH REPUBS.

WERE YOU FOR THE IRAQ WAR BECAUSE SO MANY DEMS VOTED FOR IT????

[berni_mccoy]

67. Clue Phone is Ringing for you. Progressive Dems Voted FOR the Bill. Not against it.

[Mari333]

69. honey they arent very progressive when they vote down single payer public option

and choose a watered down bill. they werent progressive when they voted for the Iraq war either.

[berni_mccoy]

77. Weiner isn't progressive? Miller isn't progressive? And I ain't your "honey" sweetie.

The vast majority of the progressive caucus voted for the bill. Maybe you've lost sight of what progressive is.

[Mari333]

80. progressive would mean single payer public option

to reign in the insurance co costs. It would mean a european model.
but, we have wars to pay for dont we. huge stinking wars costing billions and trillions of dollars.
God forbid we cant pay the mercenaries their money.
God forbid the defense contractors dont get their cash.

okay, well you got what you wanted. crumbs from the masters table.

enjoy.

[berni_mccoy]

82. So you are supporting Lieberman's Filibuster. Thanks.

[Mari333]

84. doesnt matter whether it passes or not

it will still be a win win for the insurance companies.

[berni_mccoy]

85. But you are supporting Lieberman's Filibuster. Thanks.

[Mari333]

91. doesnt matter either way

I will ignore it altogether. neither support or not support. the original bill will pay off insurance companies either way.
republican lite or republican. now , go back to C street with Stupak and pat yourselves on the back after praying to jesus.

[berni_mccoy]

96. It matters completely. You don't want healthcare reform unless its your vision of reform

even if it means people will continue to die.

[Orrex]

86. Do you think that your model would ever have passed in the current political climate?

That's the only question here.

[Kansas Wyatt]

123. Would Social Security or Medicare ever passed in the current political climate?

According to the current Health Care debate... NO

The question is, why not and how did the Democratic Party get to this position?

[redqueen]

122. Conyers voted for it too, didn't he? (nt)

[BolivarianHero]

66. The premise of the question is horrible...

People can oppose the same bill for completely opposite reasons.

[BzaDem]

111. I think that was the point of the question. n/t

[aSpeckofDust]

68. Wow.. this thread is making me regret registering on DU.

So much stupid emits from it.

[undeterred]

70. Healthcare his way is the way many Democrats think it should be.

Too bad we only have 2 Democrats to stand up for us.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

71. Just A Bit of Either/Or Thinking Here

Apparently Bush/Cheney are not the only ones you are either "for or against".


Jeesh, try some depth, some nuance, would you please?

[Bluenorthwest]

73. the only Democrat I have heard praise Lieberman in years

has been Barack Obama. He also criticized Democrats who criticize Joe as being short sighted. Interesting. I can not stand Joe, and Obama's constant defense of him has always been a problem for me.
Now, you need to understand some basic politics here, Bern. Just as you support this bill because it will help your loved ones, I support DK because he stands with my loved ones, sees my family as a family. Obama favors discrimination against my community, two sets of law, and he says he is speaking for God when he says that.
So politically, I owe Obama nothing at all. Dennis on the other hand, has much earned support from me, for supporting equal rights for all human beings, unlike Obama with his dogmatic superstitions and religious bigotry against minorities he says God does not like so much.
Politics is simple. Stand with me, I stand with you. Hold my family in contempt, fire my peers, and you get that in return as well. Most political people understand this. Why don't you?
Obama opposes my family's rights. Hard to stand with that for long. And no way will I be spinning and huffing to promote him. Would you, if he said your family was not a family? Would you really?

[berni_mccoy]

75. Sorry, you are way off the deep end if you think Obama says he is speaking for God.

I can't take your response seriously.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. Bernie it is a term of art

He says 'God is in the mix' and he says that his opposition to equal rights for all humans is based on his 'faith' in God. You are here asking a stilted bit of bait and calling it a question, and you have the gall to pick on one tiny term I used? What that is, Bernie, is avoidance, because you are unable to deal with the fact filled post I left.
Can you argue that Obama does not oppose equal rights and that he does not say it is based on his religion? Can you?
And again, would you support any politician who said your family is not really a family like others? Yes or no?
You ask the extremely slanted question you ask in the OP, and yet you can not answer a direct question, and get in a huff over a phrase that is obviously not intended to be a quote, but a spin on the fact that Obama opposes equal rights for all minorities based, according to him, on his religion.
Deal with it Bernie.

[berni_mccoy]

108. Putting words in people's mouths is art? Wrong. It's just dishonest.

[Bluenorthwest]

116. You are whining about a single phrase

Which was not given as a quote. Obama opposes equality for all people. He says that opposition is based on his faith in God. Can you counter that? Or only whine about the way I said it?
I see so much fear in you. You got called. The left always opposed Joe, Obama often supports and praises him. And you can not even answer a question, while you parse words and try to change the subject.

[berni_mccoy]

93. Why don't you answer my question and then I'll answer yours. Are you supporting the Filibuster?

[Bluenorthwest]

110. I already said I do not support Joe, but Obama often does

Your question is just bait anyway, Bernie. Both Dick Cheney and Mohammad Ali avoided going to Viet Nam, and yet, most of us understand that their reasons were not the same, and one was a coward, the other a hero. Is all of that above your pay grade?
So answer my questions, now that I have answered yours twice and played your stupid word games for a time.

[redqueen]

125. Nobody asked if you supported Joe. Do you support the filibuster?

That is the question.

[Bluenorthwest]

171. Joe wants to filibuster against a public option and I support

the strongest possible public option, so yet again, I'd not be supporting Joe's anything, ever, never have, never will. Obama has done much for Joe, and praised him while condemning those of us who did not want to cozy up to Joe. I think Joe should have been shown the caucus door after the things he said and did during the election. During which, by the way, I worked hard for Obama in ways that most people can not, in personal, yet mass audience ways, with my own reputation being held up for his. Joe was out there for McPalin. I never forgave him for ignoring the Primary results. He is a Party of one, CT for Joe, Joe for Joe. He is an Insurance Industry shill of the first order. Unlike Obama, I have never raised a dime for him, said a kind word about him. Just saying, Red. The methodology here is not healthy. This is divisive crap. I get why Obama handles Joe like he does. But when I was lambasting Joe, he was lauding him. To paint DK supporters as being with Joe is absurd, Obama would understand that, as a man who has stummped for Joe. See? Absurd lines some want to draw between Democrats. Bad stuff in my book.
I was with DK from day one of the Primary. Because he stands with my family, and for peace. He is one of the most authentic and decent people I have had time with, none of the rest on that list are in politics. I've had time with lots of politicians. Many I support. None like Dennis.
Some few crazed DUers seem to forget what Dennis brought to the Primary conversation, and the fact that he threw his support to Obama as second in Iowa, and left the race in NH, too early for me, to back Barack. I'd say 99% of DK supporters worked for and voted for Obama after DK left the race. Joe Biden was still in the race. So DK and me, we were working for Barack when Biden still wanted the gig himself, and his supporters too. It is politics. No fucking liberal DK supporter is going to be supporting Joe in any way. And this is already known, which makes this whole thing simply, well, un Obama like, to put it kindly.
As we all know, the ball is still in play. The deal is not yet done. Trying to paint people attempting to get us the very best final bill we can as equal to those who want the very opposite thing is simply not the act of an honest person. This OP does not persuade, it does not inform, so I ask you, what objectives does it seek? Who gains from this manner of politics?

[redqueen]

177. He's planning on filibustering a bill, not an option. (nt)

[rucky]

88. Kucinich voted late.

He made a strategic decision (which may come back to bite him in reelection) - knowing his vote wouldn't kill the bill.

Joe has made his decision before the bill even hits the floor.

So what do you think?

[berni_mccoy]

90. Answer the question. Do you support Lieberman's Filibuster?

[rucky]

100. I don't support DK's "no" vote.

But I understand his reasoning.

So, No - I most definitely do not support Lieberman's Filibuster - and I don't think too many DK supporters here do either. I do see an effort to shame, demonize, marginalize and ridicule progressives here who have been fighting the good fight to try and bring us a good bill. That I can't support. Maybe it's just me, but I like what DK says - I simply disagree with how he approaches things sometimes. He'd be better off being part of a unified voice in the Progressive Caucus (the rest of whom voted FOR the bill).

So it doesn't help us much to marginalize the entire progressive stance on HCR because of a poor decision that one congress critter made.

[berni_mccoy]

104. I'm not marginalizing the entire progressive stance. The entire Progressive caucus voted for HR3962

except Kucinich.

[rucky]

114. Then why start another dogpile?

Let it go, or at least use some salesmanship if you're trying to turn opponents of the final passage.

[berni_mccoy]

119. It's not a dogpile. It's forcing people to admit the consequences of their position.

There are people here who want to kill HCR as much as any Republican. They need to admit that's what they are doing.

[redqueen]

126. Hear fucking hear!

Christ this shit is tiring.

[rucky]

132. We've seen enough of these to know how they end up.

I'm simply suggesting taking a softer approach, if the goal here is truly to persuade.

[redqueen]

137. Some take a softer approach, some a more direct one.

I do understand how the direct approach makes people uncomfortable, what with the congitive dissonance and all... and truly it's not just one way... some DUers can't wait to jump at the chance to point out similarities between some of Obama's policies and the former horror's... so if one camp can take it, the other can too.

[rucky]

165. Yeah, that doesn't work either.

And I'm tired of it, too.

[Kansas Wyatt]

94. Lieberman is not going to filibuster Insurance Industry Giveaways & Mandates...

Forcing Americans to buy overpriced and worthless health insurance from them.

The smart team isn't doing so well at checkers.

[berni_mccoy]

95. Don't dodge the question. Do you support a filibuster?

[Kansas Wyatt]

115. I support the Democrats dropping this Giveaway to the Insurance Industry

And mandates forcing Americans to buy overpriced and worthless insurance from Death Merchants.

And coming back next year and shoving through Health Care Reform, like 65% - 70% of Americans want and like it should have been done in the first place, that at least includes a Strong Public Option and NO giveaways to the Insurance Industry. By doing that right before an election, the Democrats would actually pick up more seats in Congress. As it stands, the Democrats will lose a lot of seats.

If the Republican version (see Medicare Part D) of Health Care Reform (this shit) is stopped, then I support that.

[berni_mccoy]

127. Thanks for admitting it.

Mandates are necessary. Even the French have them.

This bill will save lives. I'm sorry you don't care.

[Kansas Wyatt]

136. Mandates TO the Government, NOT to Death Merchants.

Seizure and prison if you don't do business with Death Merchants is 'Uniquely (fascism) American.'

The advice I gave would save more lives and be less oppressive, I'm sorry you do not care.

"Thanks for admitting it." - I have no problem admitting this Republican Wet Dream is a piece of shit.

[berni_mccoy]

144. LOL. When you have to resort to calling this bill for "Death Merchants", you've lost.

[Kansas Wyatt]

147. Death Merchants / Insurance Industry = SAME THING

Now that you cannot come back with an argument, thank you for conceding that your way will kill more people and be oppressive to the American People.

[berni_mccoy]

151. So HCR is only SP or nothing. Got it.

[Kansas Wyatt]

162. At Least a Strong Public Option & NO Insurance Industry Giveaways as Promised.

I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes when I was 13, 27 years ago.

I've experienced the Insurance Industry / Death Merchants for that long and I've waited for this Government to do something about it.

To bad we do not have the Democratic Party in power, that gave us Social Security and Medicare.

[Kansas Wyatt]

150. Seizure and Prison if you don't do business with the Insurance Industry

'Uniquely (fascism) American'

[whatchamacallit]

97. Silly bullshit

Lieberman can gargle balls. DK wants something better, JL wants nothing at all. Therein lies the (big) difference.

edit: typo

[berni_mccoy]

103. I'll take that as support for Lieberman's Filibuster. Thanks.

[whatchamacallit]

107. Take it anyway your limited cognition allows

but you're wrong.

[berni_mccoy]

113. Spell it out for me then. Do you support passing HR 3962 or not? And do you support the Senate

passing it?

Simple question really. I'm amazed at how many like you are dodging it.

[whatchamacallit]

130. Trying to morph Kucinich supporters into Lieberman supporters is lame

I think the bill is seriously flawed. That said, I don't oppose it's passage. Coverage is the gross, the net is care. We'll see if some kind (any kind) of coverage will actually save those estimated 40K+. If it actually helps people as advertised, I'll be very pleased. I still support DK's right to not support bipartisan-insurance company dreck.

[berni_mccoy]

134. I'm glad you support HR 3962 then.

[whatchamacallit]

135. Tacitly

Now why don't you attempt to employ a different, more nuanced, argument for your cause.

edit: typo

[berni_mccoy]

142. Here's my nuanced argument:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/831

And here's my denouncement of the Stupak Amendment:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/834

Is that nuanced enough?

And I still support HR 3629.

[whatchamacallit]

157. Alright berni

I appreciate the personal, human, perspective you have. I also appreciate DK's right to take a principled stand, and we all know his intentions are not born of callousness. I understand the desperation of the situation, especially for you. I hope this bill really helps stop abuses like the ones you detail, and I wish the best for you and your family.

[Eyerish]

187. You are working from a position of fear...

That is why you are taking this "with us or against us" stance. I understand that you are worried about the future of your family and the health of your children. But you are so desperate, you'll take any crumbs thrown your way. That is what they want. I really do wish you and your family the best, but if this bill passes, I really don't think it is going to help you the way you seem to desperately want it to.

[sabrina 1]

138. 'Are you with us or against us' !!

Omg, and you claim to be a Democrat.

Another poster upthread, called you on your stupid question. Let's see if you can defend it

It is your contention that FDR and Stalin deserve equal support because they both hated Hitler??? Right???

Spell it out for me. Do you agree or not? :rofl: Thought I'd try that to see how it feels!

Simple question really, I'm amazed you didn't think of it yourself, before you made a fool of yourself.

[berni_mccoy]

139. That's your stance. SP or NOTHING. Right? But you don't like getting your feet held to the fire.

[sabrina 1]

163. You don't like to be asked questions, do you?

Well, you started it. So, I ask again, if you support FDR do you have to support Stalin because both of them hated Hitler? This is the question you asked, just different names. Why is it so difficult for you to answer, your own question?

Another one you have refused to answer:

If the Senate leaves the Stupak Amendment in the bill, will you support Democrats voting away Women's right in order to pass it?

It's a simple question, both of them are. Don't know why are avoiding answering them.

And what happened to Geek Tragedy? I asked him a question and he ran away!! Lol!

[peace13]

106. Best answer yet! n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

141. Indeed

[redqueen]

102. I don't see why they wouldn't.

The end result would be the same... if one wants the bill killed it doesn't matter how it's done, really... so... :shrug:


I just read a bit of this thread and it seems like some people are seemingly unable to distinguish the difference between "supporting Liberman in his filibuster" and "supporting Lieberman" full stop.

Sad. I understand the defensiveness, but come one. It's politics. If you support the end result of Lieberman's filibuster, then have the fucking integrity to just admit it.

[berni_mccoy]

131. They'll start a flower collection thread for Lieberman to thank him

if the bill fails to pass the Senate.

[yurbud]

140. Dennis knew the bill had enough votes to pass and he could afford to use his vote as a protest

[berni_mccoy]

143. Bullshit. Try again. And oh, answer the question please. Do you support Lieberman's Filibuster.

[havocmom]

148. Lieberman argument is a straw man

He is bought and paid for by Big Insurance. AND he knows the vote is up for grabs in the Senate, so his intransigence really does have an impact.

Kucinich nay does NOT equal a Lieberman filibuster. Different reasons, different legislative bodies, different math.

Straw man up the ass must itch like hell.

[berni_mccoy]

149. Again, you are dodging the question. Do you support Filibustering the Healthcare Bill?

If you can't answer the question, then you are not being honest, even with yourself.

It means you don't want to admit the truth here: that you only want HCR your way or no way.

[havocmom]

170. No, it means I wouldn't answer a question framed the way you did in OP

A direct question re filibuster is not same question as equating Kucinich with Lieberman. The two have ENTIRELY different reasons for not supporting the bill. They also will be facing different bills, and the math of one vote is different in the TWO DIFFERENT CASES>

Your phony equation might mean you are dense and don't see the differences or that you prefer the bush argument technique: for us or for the 'terrarists'. Kucinich = Lieberman is a false premise and attacking those who don't embrace the false premise is a very un-liberal bully stunt IMO

[yurbud]

153. No, I don't support the filibuster. My point is hardly bullshit since the bill passed.

[yurbud]

156. the OP has set up a classic false dichotomy and supports it by repeating a handful of empty talking

points.

Karl Rove would be proud.

[berni_mccoy]

161. The false dichotomy is setup by the Single Payer or Nothing crowd, and Kucinich is leading the way.

[yurbud]

167. a real, strong public option would be a compromise most would accept

[berni_mccoy]

169. Define "strong"

[yurbud]

173. open to anyone, not tied to your job, doctors would not be able to refuse it and

reimbursement rates would be tied to raised Medicare reimbursement rates which would win the votes of complaining rural representatives.

[havocmom]

145. Are the Kucinich attackers gonna spend one tenth the time attacking Blue Dogs who voted NO?

Or do they just want to beat up on the one guy who voted his conscience and actually explained why?

Sure seems a BIG double standard for the nays on this one.

[berni_mccoy]

146. Don't dodge the question. Do you support a filibuster?

[havocmom]

168. No, I don't support a filibuster. Yes, comparing Lieberman to Kucinich is a straw man

and since that straw-man was part of the original question, I did not answer until you refined the question and lost the straw.

Preparation H for that straw itch?

[freddie mertz]

160. No, because many of them SUPPORT the antichoice amendment

Or worse, a ban on insurance support (even private) for contraception and other women's health needs.

It's really quite scary what this discussion has dredged up on the right (wing) side of this forum.

[peace13]

178. Bingo! n/t

[Forkboy]

190. Yep.

[alfredo]

152. DK, like others knew the vote count before the first vote was cast. That allows

them to make a statement but not kill the bill. That happens all the time in congress. I'm sure Cao voted yes once he saw that his vote wouldn't matter.

[freddie mertz]

155. Mind closed shut. nt

[berni_mccoy]

158. The ones who have their minds sealed shut are the ones saying SP or Nothing. Like Dennis.

[freddie mertz]

166. I am not sure I could have voted for the bill, or if...

I would have voted with Dennis.

Both positions make sense to me, ethically.

I'm glad I wasn't put on the spot, but I have NO interest in this sort of bashing, whether it be aimed at Dennis or someone like Weiner.

It is counterproductive at best.

What we should be discussing is a way to get that horrible language on abortion OUT of the bill.

[bigtree]

175. he's asking for entirely different changes than Kucinich

. . . whose own vote was (knowingly) inconsequential to the passage of the House bill. If Lieberman gets what he wants, the bill is even crappier. Why would we hold up the legislation for his crap? If the Senate holds to form, this bill will get even dicier. I think they can do better, in this term, even if this bill goes down. Preexisting condition provisions can be mandated in separate legislation. The rest wasn't going to provide anything to the Average American without health insurance today, so I don't know what's the hurry in wrapping this flawed bill up so fast. After the 1993 defeat of the Clinton health bill, we got SCHIP (Children's Health Insurance). I believe the defeat of this legislation could spur Congress to put together most of the elements of this legislation which actually would work to our benefit in the increments that this legislation (anyway) promises to dole out benefits -in this Congress. I mean, a watered-down public option promised after 2013?? I've got a bridge I'd like to sell believers.

(I haven't done a thing outside of this discussion board to defeat this legislation, only appealing to Congress to make it better. But I won't work to advocate for this crap as it stands)

[Ignis]

185. How fucking far has DU fallen?

This kind of bullshit flamebait used to get locked within minutes.

[Forkboy]

191. Berni is very threatened by the Left.

[Ignis]

188. Are the DLC Defenders going to stop protecting Lieberman?

Change: That'd be nice.