BACKBONE: Howard Dean says: Vote the Senate health-care 'reform' DOWN

RUE

Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:42 AM

BUMP for a REAL world event.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, December 17, 2009 3:49 AM

What set me off at Dean was after they sold him out, pulled the rug out from under him, and they threw him under the bus like that - not the opposition, mind you, but HIS OWN PARTY...

He went *crawling* back to them begging for approval instead of cutting loose and going either independant, or breaking with them and causing a schism that would have led to some very needed reforms of the party itself - he had the power to do that and he squandered it for a pat on the head from the very same folk who stuck the knife in his back.

That was the end of any support Dean or that party ever got from me, and it's funny, the first time I tore into Conyers for being a nutless pansy (to the RIAA, at the time, before the DMCA was even written) was at a Dean rally, and he was ever so pissed at me for correctly stating his wife had more balls than he did - she stood up, too, and paid for it with her political career, but at least she TRIED.

I got a big laugh at when Conyers ran outta here to avoid the wrath of his angry wife and ran smack into Cindy Sheehan down in washington waiting on the other end, always had a few suspicions about how she mighta known he was en route...


Anyhows, I don't trust Dean, not after that mess, no.

As for the Rethugs, we can not only manipulate them into killing the bill, when the media mourning parade over it's demise starts with the pissing and moaning, we can even BLAME them and degrade them and their stupid backwater neanderthal party just that much more without tipping our bloody hands to the Dems (who are so gonna be next) just yet, you see ?

I call that a win-win situation, sink em both in one hit.


-F

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:31 AM

You prbably know more about Dean than I do. He did continue to work within the democratic party, but he didn't exactly do things their way after the election. The DLC wing of the party never liked how he was allocating resources, or anything else. They wanted it all spent on the most conservative choices, in the bigger fights, if I remember correctly(though this might just be a lot of chatter I was hearing over the last four years on other blogs).

He can be credited in a lot of ways for envigorrating a grass-roots liberal environment, and a retaking of a lot of government seats at local and state levels...

of course the end result is that he got us all marching to the polls for a progressive cause that was then promptly dismissed by the Presidency and the Senate, and in large part, the Congress. I suppose that in that way, he could just be carrying water for the status quo...

..................

By the way, in my fantasy world, and man does my brain get tired suspending this kind of disbelief, I keep pondering the possibility of the senate ratifying this crappy ass bill for the good that it does(one step forward, five steps back), getting the Nelson's and lieberman's and Lincon's on board for the vote that needs 60,

and then going straight to reconciliation to add a public option. Without getting into the talk about whether Democrats are engaged in political policy or political theater for their base, does anybody know if something like this would be possilbe, if entirely unlikely?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:21 PM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Obama is almost a lame duck right now, especially after his Afghanistan speech. Reid & Pelosi, by virtue of their own ineptitude and stubborness, are just adding to Obama's problems. Obama's approval rating, while slipping, is still more than double that of Reid's and Pelosi's. He has to step in and hammer out a Bill with Congressional leaders of both parties that is shit simple, yet effective. I believe his personal power and charisma can pull it off.

---

One thing I think you're overlooking, Jongsie - The only approval numbers that matter for Reid and Pelosi are the numbers in their own state and district, respectively. I think you're looking at NATIONAL approval numbers on them, not the numbers within their own electorate, which is really all that matters come election time.

It's funny, because seemingly EVERYBODY hates Congress; polls routinely show their numbers at around 17-18%. But oddly enough, when you ask individual people about THEIR Representative or Senator, they tend to think they're doing a GREAT job, with ratings usually around 75% or better. So according to most Americans, ALL of Congress sucks, but MY guy (or gal) is doing great in spite of that. Yes, it's a paradox.

---

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:36 PM

The punditry out there is predicting the Senate bill will pass. Then Pelosi will present it as is to the House for a vote. They will not even try to reconcile with the House bill that has a public option. Obama wants a bill passed asap. Pelosi will deliver the House votes to pass, and it will be on Obama's desk to sign before the State Of The Union speech. Count how many times he calls it "historic."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

JKIDDO

Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:30 PM

Jong, you hard-bitten realist, you... you're prolly right about the bill.

I'd like to add a "however" tho, about term limits: IMHO they've do more harm than good. Look at California- we've had Legislator term limits since 1990... that's a LONG time to see changes (if any). From my humble citizen's standpoint, California is an even bigger clusterf*ck than before. But it was interesting to see tis written about it:

Quote:

---

The authors find that term limits altered—but did not revolutionize—the type of legislator who comes to Sacramento. Specifically, Proposition 140 accelerated trends of increasing female and minority representation that were already under way in California. Rather than representing a new breed of “citizen legislator,” however, new members after term limits behave a great deal like their precursors. Many have local government experience and run for another office—for an Assembly or a Senate seat—when their terms expire. Careerism remains a constant in California politics.

The effects on Sacramento’s policymaking processes have been more profound. In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages. The practice of “hijacking” Assembly bills—gutting their contents and amending them thoroughly in the Senate—has increased sharply. As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the Governor’s Budget, and its own budget process neither encourages fiscal discipline nor links legislators’ requests to overall spending goals. In addition, legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly. The authors’ interviews with members and their staff revealed a widespread sense in Sacramento that something needs to be done soon to provide more stability and expertise to the Legislature’s policymaking process. Yet there are continuities in the Legislature’s internal operations as well. For example, leaders remain central to the process, and term limits cannot be blamed for Sacramento’s intensifying partisan polarization.

Term limits have had a mixed effect on the Legislature’s policy products. The authors find no effect on the breadth and complexity of bills passed into law, although this continuity may be the result of the Senate’s increased propensity to amend Assembly bills. Using simple measures of legislative performance, they also find that recently instituted programs to train members and staff do not appear to improve a legislator’s “batting average”—that is, his or her chances of passing a bill or seeing it signed into law —although legislators who receive that training tend to write shorter bills that change more code sections...

Many veteran legislators and staff members regret Proposition 140’s effects, which include a decline in the Legislature’s research capacity. (The Legislative Analyst’s Office, for example, lost a large portion of its staff, with the sharpest drop coming immediately in the wake of Proposition 140.) Even the measure’s major proponent, former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, recently voiced his discontent with the results

---

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME