Washblog

I tried the number above and there was a weird message.

I tried McD-im's seattle office, it was busy, so I figured I'd ...

waste more of my life trying to get "DEMOCRATIC LEADERS" to not be pathetic sell outs ...

I ended up telling the woman on the phone how it was incredible how Stupak and Lieberman the liar could rob EVERYONE of money and opportunity to benefit their crooked friends, or, their flat earth friends, BUT

all our side can do is whine and snivel how mean people are mean.

I wonder if I'll get invited to her holiday parties with the other hand wringers?

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:56:24 PM PST

---

If we don't pressure these incumbents - and that means being willing not to support them - we won't get what the country needs.

It's just that simple.

by dlaw on Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:42:25 PM PST

---

Diaries like this one inform my position. McDermott will be re-elected regardless.

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

by ivan on Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 06:40:45 AM PST

---

Ivan is a good man, but he represents the Democratic party Cult Of Collective Careerism or COCC.

The symptoms are passive voice phrases like: "Congressman X is gonna be elected anyway" and "That will never pass".

Also, you'll note fallacious appeals to the status quo, no matter how badly that status quo is failing. Look for the use of words like "reality," "pendulum," "bipartisanship," the all-important "compromise" and phrases like "that's the way it is".

Someone taken in by the COCC will periodically tell you how mad he is at the opposition, but this is just a pledge of cult loyalty. Invariably, the COCC member's fury is reserved for those who challenge the "Cult Core" - those members of the cult's inner circle who represent social safety and to whom the COCC inductee strives only to be closer to.

The COCC acolyte may even appear logical in his discourse, but that's because the logic of his underlying ambitions are childlike in their simplicity.  

Like all cult members, the COCCer is easy prey for pathological narcissists who need only slightly camouflage their naked self-interest by cloaking it in cult-positive language and their own power. In fact, all cults share a "might makes right" philosophy which breeds pathological narcissism through the interesting phenomenon of "narcissism by proxy".  

by dlaw on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 01:15:16 PM PST

---

...cannot be "you do whatever, there are no consequences."

 If this crowd can't do better than this piece of junk bill with the kind of majority they have, then there's simply something wrong with the crowd.

Everyone with any sense knew this summer that President Obama was going to suffer terribly from a split caucus. His Administration decided to reach out mainly to the centrist side of the split. That was a bad decision because they had a bad strategy.

If healthcare is a long fight, as Ivan suggests, then the way to go after it is NOT putting together some huge, omnibus bill that tinkers with everything slightly.

When gay marriage failed in the WA Supreme Court, Ed Murray put together a WINNING STRATEGY of hitting the right with one after another smaller assertion of the RIGHTS of gay couples.

In the face of 10% unemployment and cuts in health spending at the state and county level for at least 2 years to come, the Progressive Caucus should drop the omnibus approach and hit the insurance lobby with one smaller, strategic loss after another.

A public option can built from the ground up. THIS BILL TEARS DOWN THE HEALTH INSURANCE RULES STATES HAVE ALREADY CREATED by allowing insurance companies to buy the regulators in one state and then sell policies to all states. THIS BILL HAS NO STRATEGIC WINS - none. Everything is compromise and almost nothing is enforceable.

MOST OF ALL THIS BILL IS A POLITICAL NIGHTMARE. Tell people middle class people they have to write checks to insurance companies for crap coverage or they get fined????

ARE YOU NUTS???

You do that, you end up taking the blame for all the bullshit insurance companies are going to put these people through.

WE HAVE ALREADY LOST IN THIS PROCESS. That was the way that one went.

Lieberman 1 - American Public Health 0

Time to admit it, cowboy up, and take another shot at these people. I BELIEVE IN JIM McDERMOTT. I think he's a good guy and a smart guy, but if the Progressive Caucus doesn't have the guts to admit failure and get back in the ring, we need a new Progressive Caucus. It's just that simple.

It's not like a tea-bagger is going to win in Seattle. It's time for Congressman McDermott to spend his political capital. The time for "dry powder" is over.

If not him, who?

If not now, when?

by dlaw on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 03:02:18 PM PST

---

In the 1960's the Voting Rights Act passed with less than 60 votes after waiting out a long filibuster.  Almost every actual bill in the Senate can pass with just 50 votes plus the vote of the sitting Vice-President to break a tie, except ratifying a treaty when 2/3rds passage is required.  So why are we fixated on 60 votes?

To pass progressive healthcare reform in the Senate all the Dems in Congress had to do was have 50 votes and VP Joe Biden in town -AND- allow a filibuster to inconvenience the nation for as long as those opposing reform could hold the Senate floor like Jimmy Stewart in the film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".  That's it.  No negotiating with the other Joe (Senator-from-Ersatz-Israel).  No courting Senators; Snow, Nelson ... et-al.

Yes, a filibuster holds up all other pending legislation, but only as long as those doing a Jimmy Stewart impression can withstand the political heat for reading from the phonebook on CSPAN while all other problems facing the nation go unaddressed.  That is what happened with Civil Rights Legislation 40 years ago.  Southern DEMOCRATS filibustered while northern Republicans and progressive Dems sat and waited them out, and finally passed these historic reforms with just a few votes above 50.

So why won't the Democratic Leadership in Congress do the obvious and just wait out a Senate filibuster?  They could have done that months ago, back in May.  That's where I think it gets interesting.   I suspect the Health Insurance Lobby has had at least a dozen Democratic senators in it's pocket for some time now.  We progressives fought hard to elect a President and congressional majority already paid for in advance by Insurance Industry lobbyists.  We never had 50 votes for real healthcare reform, but the Democratic Party could not afford to have that fact made public thru a painful straight-up vote on a good Healthcare Reform bill.  The Leadership's "Plan B"; a political theater Kabuki dance to reach a filibuster proof 60 votes guaranteed that no real reform elements of a healthcare bill could survive, therefore the Democratic senators "bought-by-insurance-lobbyists" would be allowed by their overlords to vote yes.  Any healthcare bill that passed would be spun by the DNC before the mid-term elections in 2010 as, not perfect, but still a "great victory for America".

It all makes sense with the proper campaign cash filter in place.

I have ideas on how we can organize to fight this, however progressives would have to show some real backbone and hold to a longterm strategy for victory that accepted short-term electoral defeats for the DNC.  Since I am unaware of this long view ever actually being adopted on the Progressive Left - I am a bit depressed at the moment.

Try to have a happy holiday season.

by MarkEarly on Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 09:38:42 PM PST

---

I don't want to be guaranteed insurance--I wanr HEALTH CARE.  "Reform" appears to be the government forcing you to buy mandatory shitty underinsurance, with no guarantee whatsoever thar you will get actual health care if you need it.  In fact, you would still be on the hook for 30% of your expenses.  And the new underclass of disposable human garbage, people aged 50-64, get to pay three times as much.

by eridani on Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 12:23:53 AM PST

---

Some of the other "incumbents" you support had a BIG WIN TODAY!.

That's gotta be satisfying for a good union man like you.

by dlaw on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 12:03:28 PM PST

---