The irony of the most conservative and the most liberal uniting to kill one bill

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

One side because it is too effective at regulating the healthcare industry and will bring "socialized medicine" to the masses

and the other side because it is not effective enough in regulating the healthcare industry and will not bring socialized medicine to the masses.

Thus the strange and unholy alliance of Dennis Kucinich with the Michelle Bachmanns and Glenn Becks of the world.

And of course, where does that leave the rest of us who think it's somewhat effective at regulating the private industry (at least removing the most egregious practices) and is a beginning at introducing the concept of a public option - socialized medicine?

(FWIW - I think the Stupak amendment must go from any final version)

[John Q. Citizen]

1. I don't recall your simular piece on the IWR when Ron Paul joined Kucinich

Pelosi, and and in spirit, Obama, to try to kill that bill.

But i suppose that's because you were also against that bill and it would have kind of undermined your own position.

Somehow, that unholy alliance goes completely un-noted.


Ironic, isn't it?

[KittyWampus]

4. Well, in the instance of IWR, that would have prevented War. In the instance of the House's Health

Care bill, voting against that prevents reform and progress for the American people and furthering a liberal cause.

Dennis can talk all he wants but accomplishes NOTHING towards his goals. Ever.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. Yes, it's ironic that liberals sacrificed women's rights. Quite a forward accomplishment!

The Irony never stops, does it?

[KittyWampus]

11. Dennis spent YEARS sacrificing women's rights.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Is that your excuse?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. Actually, many have noted that strange confluence as well

I very well may have posted something about it, I'd have to look. I know that I posted and was completely flabbergasted when Kucinich made his strange comment about "the eagle has two wings" and implied that he would consider Ron Paul as his running mate - you could find those if you feel like it. I started as a very strong Kucinich supporter in the primaries and that was my first own personal "uh oh" moment with him.

So, you really don't know anything about what I have posted or noted in the past.

I was completely against the IWR and have always admired the few who voted against it regardless of party affiliation.

My post was commenting on the irony of people with completely opposite views in the political spectrum opposing the same bill for reasons that are diametrical opposites of each other, but which align and come together if the goal is to kill a specific bill.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. I've read your peices for years. I usually agree with most stuff you write. Not all, but most.

Most of us know that the Repos oppose the bill first and foremost because they see it as politically expedient to kill it.

Fewer of us see or at least admit that most Dems support the bill because they see it as politically expedient. As Rahm said, to paraphrase, what in the bill is irrelevant. All that's relevant is passing a bill.

Kucinich is one of the few in congress who is actually voting based on the content and not on the context. He believes that the bad parts of the bill outweigh the good parts. He also made a commitment to oppose any bill without a strong public option and he's is honoring his political commitment.

It is the vast majority of Democrats who voted for the bill who did it for the same reasons that the vast majority of Republicans opposed the bill. Political expedient.

And lets face it. That means good public policy is being sacrificed to the alter of political expedient. But since we cheer it on, I guess we get what we deserve to get, and no more.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. Thanks for you kind comments. I'm afraid I was more brusque than I meant to be.

I know what you mean about Dennis and I agree with everything in your post above. It is true that this entire debate has been about political expediency and getting the least amount of reform the pols can bear to give us without upsetting their personal apple carts.

BUT, while I am willing to take the shortterm gain but I absolutely demand more. We should take this bill and then mobilize and organize and agitate unceasingly from this time forward to demand the healthcare we deserve from ALL of our reps. I am willing to take the small goods offered in this bill and then use it as the starting point.

No one can believe this is the end of it. The Republicans will continue to try to erode it and we have to continue to build it up against their assaults.

[aSpeckofDust]

2. The stupak amendment will not be removed, if it is, it will never leave the committee.

It's sad that the bible thumping reps just won't vote for reform if it isn't discriminating against someone.

[JVS]

3. The truth is not found by taking the two extremes and splitting the difference

If person A says this porridge is too cold, and person B says this porridge is too hot, don't assume that it's just right because you may burn yourself quite badly and find out that person A is a loony tune who lies about porridge.

[KittyWampus]

5. In the case of the Health Reform Bill that passed the House, there are objective measures

that prove American people would be making progress.


So it isn't all subjective.

[JVS]

9. There are objectively observable rules that would be in place.

The effect of those consequences and especially the unintended consequences are estimates at best.

[leveymg]

8. The idea is that persons A and B get into a foodfight, and the stuff splattered on the wall is "Just

Right." Or, so it works in DC fairytales.

[KharmaTrain]

7. It Also Proves That The Extremes Mean Inaction

While we've had differences on what constitutes reform, we can agree that at least there is change in the air. This isn't a do-all, end-all game, but an ongoing process that can easily be derailed by the "purists". Seems some would prefer the status quo...in the end giving the corporate exactly what they want.

I have plenty of things in the current bills that I'd like to see eliminated or ammended and that won't be accomplished with a winner take all attitude. I guess they just don't see how their zeal for absolutes are impractical in our political system...and this was why the framers put in separation of powers and the bicammeral system. Ironically they're calling for the same unitary executive type system in reverse...one that so many of us here worked tirelessly for 4 years to put out of power.

Cheers..