Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Naturally, this doesn't apply to the deep-sixing of single-payer

vastleft's picture

Chris Bowers calls out the process dodge, insofar as it might keep us from getting frim-fram sausage:

Instead of arguing against the public option in policy terms, the Senators instead argue that the public option simply cannot pass. In fact, among these five Senators, only Joe Lieberman has even stated his opposition to a public option--and Lieberman cites the inability of the public option to pass as his "most important" rationale for opposition.

Such arguments are, apparently, bad politics when they stand in the way of the mystery-meat known as "a public option," "the public option, or "the plan." Not so much re: single-payer, of course. Because...?

(See also)

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

I had exactly the same experience over at TalkLeft, with the normally reliable BTD.

If HR3200 is OK because it serves as a basis for further discussion, then why is the Baucus bill not OK for exactly the same reason? Why is it, too, not "the camel's nose under the tent"?

Submitted by lambert on

People can read the thread, and some can see.

Watching mildew spread is always a discouraging experience. It's the Versailles touch!

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

And the comments a couple different times. Call me thick but I can't really see what he's arguing back against you with? His argument seems a little...circular or something else.
I just can't seem to follow it this morning.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

People who won't accept public option (whatever it is) on faith are losers. On account of because. It's an airtight argument, for sure.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

But what is it he disbelieves?

http://www.openleft.com/showComment.do?c...

My best guess is that he imagines you see a conspiracy afoot and he doesn't believe it, but that's just a guess, since there's nothing in your comments that would seem to justify that response.

A more fitting response would be "A-list rulez, C-list droolz," since he seems to be operating under a tribal need to make you not just wrong but incapable of being right. Much the same as Digby needed to recreate me as someone who calls her a douchebag, because my actual words weren't mean or odd enough to pigeonhole me as her ego and status apparently demanded.

Submitted by lambert on

... but incapable of being right."

It's amazing. I threw everything out except a question he should have been able to answer, and he wouldn't.

Seems to me it boils down to a marketing piece. We need a better way.

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

But ISTM that you went out of your way to stipulate to a couple of the things he was hiding behind so that he didn't have to answer your question.
You then put those on the shelf and he comes back with the whole, "I'm not sure what's going on here, or why you're saying these things" routine.
Then he put the "I don't believe you" out there so he could positively not engage your question.
Either I've lost IQ points recently (which is more than possible), or he just flat out doesn't have an answer or doesn't want to answer.

Jeff W's picture
Submitted by Jeff W on

He was pretty clear that he felt like being "dragged into" some sort of "backstory." But he could have just answered the question instead of getting incredibly defensive. He didn't have to step into the "offensive"/"I have no desire to communicate with you further" territory. Maybe "defensive" isn't the right word—he came off as sniffily priggish, like he was Margaret Dumont or something.

I backed up vastleft's comment with my own.

Submitted by lambert on

Did Margaret Dumont ever answer?

Submitted by lambert on

I enjoyed this quote:

Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada would "meld" the Finance Committee bill with a more liberal measure from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Then, the House and Senate would pass its own version of legislation. Finally, a negotiating committee with representatives from each chamber would have to reconcile the two bills.

"The important thing is to keep moving the process forward, and to keep the big goals in mind, even if there are concerns about the specifics," said John Rother, the top policy strategist for AARP.

Of course, AARP is in the insurance business now...

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That the die-hard liberals of the progressive blogosphere have served as a powerful antidote for all that. Oh, wait....