Right now, there are about 60 Progressive members of the House who have signed a pledge to vote against a bill without a robust public option. There is some controversy on the left as to whether this is such a good plan or not. I support these Representatives strongly, although I understand some reasons why people who do support a public option might think this is a bad idea or even silliness.
First, I think the arguments against are basically the same old idea that you should take what you can get, and maybe we just can't get a public option. People don't want health insurance/care reform to die entirely just because this one aspect of it isn't there. To an extent, I agree with this. I would rather we get some of it done than none of it.
However, I think this is a watershed moment for both the future of health care and the future of Progressive politics in America, and I think that if House Progressives roll over on this, they will be unlikely to ever get the White House or anyone else to listen in the future. Right now, it seems that the White House and the rest of the Dem leadership has been willing to roll over on basically every piece of craziness coming from the right, such as death panels and this nonsensical argument about coverage of illegal immigrants. However, everything the left wants seems to be consistently watered down or abandoned entirely. It seems to me that this is because the Dem leadership knows that the right and the right-leaning Dems will really, truly, actually vote against a bill if they don't get what they want, and the White House then has to cave because they assume that Progressives will still vote for the bill anyway. It's like a game of chicken, only so far, the Progressives have always caved. I know, because I vote for people like Senator Mark Warner because the alternative is a disaster like Gilmore. And I'm about to vote for Creigh Deeds because the alternative is Bob McDonnell (who apparently thinks I need to go find a man who can support me because women in the workplace is detrimental to families).
Not this time. Progressives need to finally stand up and say "no more." We need to prove to the rest of the political world that we are here, we're not going away, and we are powerful. Yes, I'd rather have some of it than nothing at all, but if we show we are willing to walk away from the table, then it becomes politically hard NOT to include the public option, rather than only being politically hard TO include it. Furthermore, it will guarantee the Progressives a seat at the table in the future, and probably grow the movement significantly once people see we can actually get things done. Obama supports the, 58% of Americans support the public option, and we are very close to having enough votes (yes, even in the Senate!) to get it done.
Thank you to the brave, principled Congresspeople who have taken this pledge. Please, for all our sakes, stick to it!
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Speech
Wow. I thought it was going pretty well, and that was before he started talking about Teddy. I'd have liked a bit stronger of a stand on the public option, and I especially could have done without him scolding the progressives who got him there, but all in all, I think he made our side seem both eminently reasonable and the bill to seem bipartisan. He made those who oppose the plan as a whole sound petty, childish and irrational, and invited reasonable debate and new ideas.
The last part of the speech, starting with some things about Teddy and moving into the moral and humane case for health care reform, and then into a discussion of the need for people to stop being petty and obnoxious, and stop trying to score political points at the expense of working for the good of the country - was awesome. Legendary, in my opinion. Moving, convincing, and great. If there are any people out there that can be convinced to come to the table, that was the speech to do it.
Meanwhile, the response was terrible. Not only was Boustany a terrible speaker, sounding totally canned, his speech made no sense next to Obama's. He repeated some things Obama just debunked or clarified, like the Medicare cuts, the budget, and the government takeover nonsense. He listed some things he says Pubs and Dems agree on (including, apparently, co-ops? I could have sworn the Pubs have said absolutely no to that). Then he claimed he was going to list some things that we disagree on, but the first thing he mentioned was medical malpractice reform, which he admitted Obama had just said we were going to do. Terrible speech. Great for us, though!
The last part of the speech, starting with some things about Teddy and moving into the moral and humane case for health care reform, and then into a discussion of the need for people to stop being petty and obnoxious, and stop trying to score political points at the expense of working for the good of the country - was awesome. Legendary, in my opinion. Moving, convincing, and great. If there are any people out there that can be convinced to come to the table, that was the speech to do it.
Meanwhile, the response was terrible. Not only was Boustany a terrible speaker, sounding totally canned, his speech made no sense next to Obama's. He repeated some things Obama just debunked or clarified, like the Medicare cuts, the budget, and the government takeover nonsense. He listed some things he says Pubs and Dems agree on (including, apparently, co-ops? I could have sworn the Pubs have said absolutely no to that). Then he claimed he was going to list some things that we disagree on, but the first thing he mentioned was medical malpractice reform, which he admitted Obama had just said we were going to do. Terrible speech. Great for us, though!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Frothing at the Mouth
All the frothing at the mouth from the Obama-haters is beginning to make me froth at the mouth, and I'm not even that happy with him at the moment. I cannot believe that Loudoun County, among apparently many others, is really not going to broadcast a President's speech to schoolkids on the importance of education. Has it really fallen this far, that it is not just a very small, minor fringe that is willing to go to this sort of extreme? This week, the same day I heard about the Florida GOP head and his accusations of Obama's intention to indoctrinate children with his "socialist ideology," there were LaRouchies outside my metro stop on the way home from work, complete with Obama-as-Hitler posters and all their other nonsense. I wanted to get into a fight with them. And at this point, I really don't see any reason for this kind of reactionary garbage except racism, and I think the witchhunt that has lost us Van Jones is probably further evidence that is at the root of things. I'm worried for this country if the Republican "leadership" won't stand up and denounce the crazies and try to tone things down.
And for those who want to claim that Dems were like this about Bush, first of all, you're flat out wrong, and second of all, think about this: at this point in Bush's presidency, 9/11 hadn't even happened yet. The biggest complaints about him were about pulling out of Kyoto and taking too much vacation...
And for those who want to claim that Dems were like this about Bush, first of all, you're flat out wrong, and second of all, think about this: at this point in Bush's presidency, 9/11 hadn't even happened yet. The biggest complaints about him were about pulling out of Kyoto and taking too much vacation...
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Thought for the day:
With all this crazy talk about "death panels," can we turn it to our advantage? Can we promise to drop the (already nonexistent) death panels in exchange for something?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Creigh Deeds
So it looks like McDonnell's lead just keeps growing, and according to a new poll, it looks like it's got a lot to do with a lack of interest in supporting Deeds from the Democrats.
Somehow, this doesn't really surprise me. I'm a pretty avid Dem, and I REALLY want McDonnell not to be the next governor - I think it could actually be pretty disastrous, unless we can magically get back control of the House of Delegates (not bloody likely). However, I can't get excited about Deeds. Most of what I can do to try to convince people is tell them what an extremist candidate McDonnell really is - I don't have a lot of pro-Deeds stuff to say, although I'm sure he'd be a fine candidate. And while negative campaigning works, you really need to have more positive stuff about your own candidate to go along with it...
This is the problem with McAuliffe and Moran having split up all the votes and having left us with Deeds. Deeds isn't a liberal. At all. He's probably to the right of center. He'll be a competent governor, and would actually probably be particularly effective because he's so centrist, but it does make it difficult for the partisan Democrats, i.e. the ones who usually get out and vote in non-national elections and especially the ones who donate and volunteer, to get motivated to get involved and get behind the candidate.
Well, here's hoping we can find some enthusiasm somehow, because I'm not kidding around about McDonnell. Gilmore and Allen nearly destroyed the state - and McDonnell's at least of their mold, if not worse.
Somehow, this doesn't really surprise me. I'm a pretty avid Dem, and I REALLY want McDonnell not to be the next governor - I think it could actually be pretty disastrous, unless we can magically get back control of the House of Delegates (not bloody likely). However, I can't get excited about Deeds. Most of what I can do to try to convince people is tell them what an extremist candidate McDonnell really is - I don't have a lot of pro-Deeds stuff to say, although I'm sure he'd be a fine candidate. And while negative campaigning works, you really need to have more positive stuff about your own candidate to go along with it...
This is the problem with McAuliffe and Moran having split up all the votes and having left us with Deeds. Deeds isn't a liberal. At all. He's probably to the right of center. He'll be a competent governor, and would actually probably be particularly effective because he's so centrist, but it does make it difficult for the partisan Democrats, i.e. the ones who usually get out and vote in non-national elections and especially the ones who donate and volunteer, to get motivated to get involved and get behind the candidate.
Well, here's hoping we can find some enthusiasm somehow, because I'm not kidding around about McDonnell. Gilmore and Allen nearly destroyed the state - and McDonnell's at least of their mold, if not worse.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Bar Exam = Over
Well, at least this time - here's hoping I never have to go through that again! Anyway, now I can get around to finding out about what's happened in the rest of the world the last couple of weeks - looks like we might have some sort of compromise on health care, Obama's approval ratings may or may not be plummeting and somehow McDonnell the crazy right wing extremist has taken a commanding lead over moderate-to-right wing Deeds for my fair Commonwealth's governorship. We're gonna have to get to work on these things!
Just in case anyone was wondering, McDonnell is anything but the moderate he's recently been claiming to be. He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and health of the pregnant woman (and repeatedly tried to find ways to limit this right in the state legislature), he backed Gilmore's tax cuts that nearly bankrupted the state, and he has opposed orders by Kaine and Warner forbidding discrimination against homosexuals as well as attempted to prevent the appointment of a judge because she was gay. I'll write more about all this soon, but it's important that people know that whatever moderate stances he may be pretending to adopt now, McDonnell is anything but. We've gotta get Deeds in office.
Just in case anyone was wondering, McDonnell is anything but the moderate he's recently been claiming to be. He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and health of the pregnant woman (and repeatedly tried to find ways to limit this right in the state legislature), he backed Gilmore's tax cuts that nearly bankrupted the state, and he has opposed orders by Kaine and Warner forbidding discrimination against homosexuals as well as attempted to prevent the appointment of a judge because she was gay. I'll write more about all this soon, but it's important that people know that whatever moderate stances he may be pretending to adopt now, McDonnell is anything but. We've gotta get Deeds in office.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Neocons and Hating Everyone
While there are times (becoming ever more frequent as the bar exam approaches) when I, too, feel like I hate everyone, I don't think I've ever felt that quite as frequently as the neocons, and especially Charles Krauthammer appear to. He had a column in the Washington Post today complaining about Obama, as he is wont to do, because Obama is *gasp* trying to create better relations with Russia.
As I assume everyone knows, Russia is a nuclear power and has been doing a somewhat less-than-fantastic job of keeping up security on its nuclear weapons in the last fifteen or twenty years. It also tends to have somewhat different views from the U.S. as to the best approach to dealing with other nations, particularly Iran. It's also had a somwhat volatile political atmosphere for the last, well, forever, really, but Putin's machinations have been tending towards attempts at restoring totalitarian rule in Russia in the last decade. So, I understand why Krauthammer would be suspicious of them. However, hasn't he ever heard the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
Meanwhile, it isn't as though Obama's inviting them over to become our new closest allies or anything of the sort. He's merely trying to smooth diplomatic relations between our two countries, which had been deteriorating towards the end of Bush's presidency. This is much like the whole fake-controversy over Iran during the election here, when people claimed that Obama was basically going to start hanging out with Ahmadinejad and perhaps even Bin Laden, simply because he said he didn't think that freezing people out of diplomatic relations was the best way to, well, have good diplomatic relations with other countries, and that he would like to start moving towards a situation where there could be talks with Iran.
I suppose what I'm driving at here is that Obama's approaches to all of these countries are methodical, and generally aimed towards preserving and increasing diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, the neocons scream bloody murder any time Obama isn't just a complete warhawk and basically threatening to bomb everyone who ever does anything we don't like. Now, I clearly disagree with the neocons on most things, but I admit that, at least the ones publishing in major national newspapers, are generally intelligent and well-educated. I do not, however, understand how anybody who fits that description can possibly think that America is currently in a position where we can just take on all comers, and refuse to work with anybody! I'm not sure that Krauthammer and the other neocons who espouse these various positions realize that's what it looks like they're advocating for, but it really does seem to be the case. If we're worried about Russia, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to try to work to overcome the problem. It's not so easy to do that when you refuse to talk to the other countries.
It reminds me of something David Sedaris wrote in one of his books - and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't remember which one it's in - but he said something about how as Americans, we often go around thinking our country's the best, because we're taught all our lives that it is, but what we fail to realize is that other countries have nationalistic slogans of their own - and none of those is "We're Number Two!" Other countries don't want to be treated like disobedient children by America when we disagree with them - nor should they be. We can't just try to send them to their rooms without dinner. We have to engage with them. That is the only way we can truly make the world a safer and better place.
As I assume everyone knows, Russia is a nuclear power and has been doing a somewhat less-than-fantastic job of keeping up security on its nuclear weapons in the last fifteen or twenty years. It also tends to have somewhat different views from the U.S. as to the best approach to dealing with other nations, particularly Iran. It's also had a somwhat volatile political atmosphere for the last, well, forever, really, but Putin's machinations have been tending towards attempts at restoring totalitarian rule in Russia in the last decade. So, I understand why Krauthammer would be suspicious of them. However, hasn't he ever heard the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
Meanwhile, it isn't as though Obama's inviting them over to become our new closest allies or anything of the sort. He's merely trying to smooth diplomatic relations between our two countries, which had been deteriorating towards the end of Bush's presidency. This is much like the whole fake-controversy over Iran during the election here, when people claimed that Obama was basically going to start hanging out with Ahmadinejad and perhaps even Bin Laden, simply because he said he didn't think that freezing people out of diplomatic relations was the best way to, well, have good diplomatic relations with other countries, and that he would like to start moving towards a situation where there could be talks with Iran.
I suppose what I'm driving at here is that Obama's approaches to all of these countries are methodical, and generally aimed towards preserving and increasing diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, the neocons scream bloody murder any time Obama isn't just a complete warhawk and basically threatening to bomb everyone who ever does anything we don't like. Now, I clearly disagree with the neocons on most things, but I admit that, at least the ones publishing in major national newspapers, are generally intelligent and well-educated. I do not, however, understand how anybody who fits that description can possibly think that America is currently in a position where we can just take on all comers, and refuse to work with anybody! I'm not sure that Krauthammer and the other neocons who espouse these various positions realize that's what it looks like they're advocating for, but it really does seem to be the case. If we're worried about Russia, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to try to work to overcome the problem. It's not so easy to do that when you refuse to talk to the other countries.
It reminds me of something David Sedaris wrote in one of his books - and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't remember which one it's in - but he said something about how as Americans, we often go around thinking our country's the best, because we're taught all our lives that it is, but what we fail to realize is that other countries have nationalistic slogans of their own - and none of those is "We're Number Two!" Other countries don't want to be treated like disobedient children by America when we disagree with them - nor should they be. We can't just try to send them to their rooms without dinner. We have to engage with them. That is the only way we can truly make the world a safer and better place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
