The trojan pony party
Primary tabs
Submitted by DCblogger on Wed, 03/17/2010 - 10:28am
Departments:
Thread:
It seems there is talk of Andy Stern forming a third party. A little background on Andy Stern and why no one should have anything to do with him.

- DCblogger's blog

- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Hamsher's one-time boyfriend?
That explains a lot. More Versailles intrigue.
Though I have to say that anything that causes a legacy party pain is good.
Seems like Stern has troubles with women, too
National Nurses Union:
Nice. Of course, hatred of women is no problem for the access bloggers, or career "progressives" for that matter, so I guess he'll fit in fine.
Stern also has thugs -- for use against the left, of course. Yay! I'd say that Stern, and the career "progressive" crowd who shilled for the so-called "public option," are positioning themselves as better protectors of the neo-liberal order than the Dems. Yay!
As a long-time member of NNOC and now, NNU, Andy is very well
known to me. He is as corrupt and self-serving a politico as any I've ever studied. Just google him and you will understand where he comes from..BTW he was one of, if not the most, frequent guests at Obamas WH.
The money quotes are paraphrased
But the sentiment is perfect for our age -- there's a time and a place to compromise your principles:
http://www.correntewire.com/dont_cave_no...
And great moments in doubletalking points
http://www.correntewire.com/neil_conan_i...
"America has been the only nation on earth that has not found an American solution to the health-care crisis."
I've got a better idea.
Why doesn't Stern put the SEIU at the disposal of real liberals? Think what could be done with that kind of organizational might.
Or better still, why doesn't someone take it from him? He's clearly not using it to the best effect.
I have been wondering if anyone within the SEIU
would challenge Stern for leadership. When is Stern up for reelection?
IF people are afraid of losing their standard of living AND
their health care, will they trade the short term security for possible long term gain?
Yes. And the MCM will tell them over and over that's the wise course of action...or inaction.
Obama et al played this things fairly well. A few, mostly middle class, will get some breaks or perceived breaks. They will get to help their children from 18 (or was it 22 if they went to college?) to now 26 keep health insurance. I'm assuming the BHIPs will find a way to charge for this extension of care to more people, altho' I'm not positive of that. But it is a short time period for greater coverage.
However, if you recall the near bankruptcy of Kate Michaelman, it was caring for their no-longer covered daughter which put them on the path to financial ruin, followed by the husband's serious illness. (Has she recovered from this, anyone know?)
This will make some people enough feeling "cared for" that they will not make waves.
Others will find their consciences assuaged by the thought of the less well off getting insurance through "their" tax dollar subsidies.
It's a form of the wedge issues tactic, divide and conquer.
It will take more and more and more people being unable to afford the BHIP offerings and facing financial distress or ruin due to junk insurance for another wave of any strength to rise for single payer and true universal coverage.
Obama has given BHIPs not only a Bailout, but a long time to keep sucking (in all senses).
He'll keep telling us things that are not reality based, about this bill and, oh, Iran...financial regulation...anything to win votes.
Hedges is so right on.
You got to stop blaming the damn victim
Its the politicians and banksters fault. The middle class isn't what it used to be. A car accident can fuck up a "middle class" person's livelihood (how do they get to work if they can't buy a new car or pay for repairs? injury? etc.). Asking about the middle class being willing to put up with shit is fucking annoying. Blame the persons doing the bad shit, not the fucking victims. Please!
Check out the book I commented about. People will put up
with a lot if they think their lives and livelihood are at risk.
I'm not blaming any individual; it is societal and economic pressures. Your comment only underlines why people are afraid to stand out, step out of line, speak up, take public positions which do not comport with the powerful's thinking.
Plus, there's no real press around any longer in this country to do what the Founding Fathers thought the protected free press would do. In April, Bill Moyers will be gone from a regular slot, the only place on PBS which still covered any real left ideas. Who replaces his, now singular, voice?
gq, link for book I mention in comment, thot it was in this
thread. Nope...my bad.
LINK