Left in the West - Recent Comments

Shape shifting lizards?

JC — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:30:01 GMT

You mean like this one:

Excellent!

Mark Tokarski — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:47:21 GMT

That would be effective use of the media. Too late for his lobbyist bash, but another time?

Well, you need to stage an event

JC — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:31:22 GMT

and make sure the press is there. They'd love it. If there is one thing that Max doesn't like is an unexpected and choreographed press op in an unlikely location, in front of his buddies, getting to the point.

I say go and present Max with spine (plenty of elk or deer spines laying around the Gallatin), and a chit for a transplant, complements of Montana's uninsured. Complete with a speech about being a spineless sellout.

We did that to him back around 1990 about him being anti-wilderness. The press loved it. He hated it. Didn't get us anywhere, as it was just a local/regional issue, mostly. But if you could get a clip of him being presented with a spine, and get it on YouTube, it could get splashed all over the nationals.

Now that would be fun!

That would be worthy ...

Mark Tokarski — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:42:30 GMT

No press there, however, so no coverage.

The Montana press

big sage — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:46:39 GMT

won't touch Max...they never have and they never will...

The guy is a total menace and they give him an easy ride..

Maybe we should line the road up to Big Sky with protesters?

Forgot about him ...

Mark Tokarski — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:57:18 GMT

But I was wondering about you know, regular coverage of Baucus and his activities rather than just the one decent reporter we have.

Anyway, Adams is likely on a short leash right now, may be toast. He took the Baucus interview down off his blog.

You're not reading

jhwygirl — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:50:58 GMT

John S. Adams, then.

Reagan Democrats are as worried about the economy as BUSHISTAs:

jed — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:43:54 GMT

"We - we who want to see health care reform - we who want to see single-payer or a strong public option - don't need to be convincing ourselves with all these heart-tugging stories. I'm sorry...that might sound harsh, but until we start translating the cost of not doing reform into the cost to the economy - in real dollars....we aren't going to budge over this line in the sand that has been drawn by our elected officials in Washington and industry and PhRMA that was drawn to protect them from us."

Has anybody seen ...

Mark Tokarski — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:16:21 GMT

any state or local mention of Baucus's Fly-Fishing & Golfing in Big Sky lobbyfest?

I am of the impression that he gets a free ride in this state - I asked a Gazette reporter if there was any mention in that paper of Baucus having single payer people arrested. Apparently not before that time, and I don't know if since.

You appear to have missed my point.

Wulfgar — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:10:21 GMT

Corporations and the rich have money, but voters have, well, votes. That is the significant difference between single payer and public option. Single payer is a mandate, a forced payment of tax dollars. It will be cheaper (unless it is manipulated by those who game all mandate based systems ... which it will be.) But you can't convince the majority of voters that it is anything other than governmental control on a universal scale. Voters in this country invariably and without fail vote against anyone who favors that. Arguments stating that people will still get what they want denies that very fact, people don't want the government to be the boss of them. It doesn't matter if they can still choose X or Y if you tell them they have to choose Z. I'm not saying that's rational, but it is very real. Single payer will die on the vine, and I happen to think that it should.

Politicians know that, and that's why single payer isn't on the table. Public option is not the same. It still offers choice between the insurance vultures and a stable and secure public insurance.

I guess I should have clarified. I agree with my argument number one, above. I am one of the overwhelming majority of Americans who has no problem with socialized provision of service, education, roadways, military or law enforcement. But I do have a problem with being told that I have to comply with a system that is untested in our environment, uncompetitive and irreversible. I am not a fan of single payer. I think it will be the logical likely outcome of a strong public option, but not an initial alternative to it.

Now, Mark keeps insisting that I am giving up what I want before the battle has even begun. No. I'm not. Let me be clear: I don't want single payer right out of it's shiny box of promises. I want a competition hardened and efficient system of health care provision. You get that with public option. All calls for single payer will get you is political failure. What I'm fighting for is a superior option, one that is stronger than single payer because it fits the American system of belief and behavior. I've no interest in supporting calls for unicorns and ponies.

Sanders' strategy

JC — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:49:39 GMT

doesn't rely on reconciliation. It relies on all dems voting for cloture--to end a filibuster and allow an up down vote.

So all dems vote to end filibuster, then they only need 51 votes to pass legislation--allowing 9 dems to vote as the true republicans they are, and let the legislation pass.

This is the only sane path. Reid and the rest of the dem leadership need to take the stand that they will not tolerate democrats filibustering with republicans to prevent passage of the mantle of Obama's legislative agenda.

As Baucus' handling of the single payer protesters

JC — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:11:33 GMT

showed, he believes he is still playing by rules of engagement from the 80's. And that is why he isn't showing any details until he is ready to ram his bill through. He misreads the ability of progressive factions to organize against him the second he lays his bill on the table. As the internet revealed so quickly his demands for "more police" so they will reveal him to be sellout he is. Max has no internet quick strike force ready to defend him, so it will be a feeding party when his bill is released.

And when he is attacked from both the right and the left, with equal vehemence, he will think he has done his job. But I don't think that Baucus is prepared for what will happen when a solid majority of Americans react to his sellout position, and how quickly the momentum will swing against his legislation.

And when the sh*t hits his fan, single payer advocates need to keep up with the campaign. So much of what the HCAN coalition was all about was to prevent this scenario--where their compromise position was put at risk by the left. They need to undercut the progressive/left single payer coalition from undermining their centrist position. And to a large degree, I think it has been successful, as we've seen much of the debate here at LitW shift from arguing progressive health care reform with republicans, and the Clinton/Obama debates about taxes and mandates to one of progressives fighting against a centrist democratic party position.

So, if we see HCAN come out in support of Baucus' bill, then they will be the ones to carry his water to defend him online. Then things will get really interesting around here.

I listened to an interesting intereview with Peter DeFazio today ..

Mark Tokarski — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:55:06 GMT

He also voted against c&t. I'm going to transcribe it over at Piece of Mind when I get a spare half hour.

Bernie Sanders is circulating a "No New Filibusters" pledge sheet ...

Mark Tokarski — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:52:57 GMT

It requires Democrats to abandon their use of the Republican filibuster as a means of stealthily promoting the Republican agenda. Not in those words, but that's what Baucus has been doing, insisting on Republican support for health are reform when he knows full well he can use reconciliation.

I'll bet he doesn't sign.

I'll take it one step further - the democrats have been hiding behind the filibuster because they probably can't even mount the fifty votes they need for EFCA or a health care public option. When it came time to put a cap on credit card interest rates, there were only 32 willing.

It is always mistaken to expect unmitigated benefits for

jed — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:54:15 GMT

coolies, peasants, peons and serfs from any congress...

Baucus, Tester, Nelson, Reid,

jed — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:44:14 GMT

Need I go on..?

More debate, less handicapping

steve kelly — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:29:01 GMT

It's way too early to give up on single-payer legislation. One great advantage the internet provides is the ability to debate issues, even when the money and power says it's not possible, so why bother. Don't fall for it. If the status-quo weren't about to take a hit, you'd hear silence.

Chaos and confusion favors industry and politicians under their thumb. A side-by-side comparison of the various alternatives is needed, a nifty chart of some sort, so average people can't be swayed when industry brings the heat. These are our politicians. Our job is to make them do what they say is impossible. We don't believe them, right?

they never knew who i was....idiots!

wolverine6 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:20:35 GMT

but baucus managed to find out.

Hey--it was partly your fault too.

JC — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:18:42 GMT

I'm sure some of your work ended up being looked at by the GJ. :-)

N0w that the dems have 60

JC — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:11:05 GMT

it's time to search for some leadership. If/when they can't pass an aggressive agenda, the blame will be laid at the desk of Harry "I am not this morning suddenly flexing my muscles" Reid.

Better the dems look to Bernie Sanders to lead them through the health care reform morass:

"I think that with Al Franken coming on board, you have effectively 60 Democrats in the caucus, 58 and two Independents," Sanders said in an interview with the Huffington Post. "I think the strategy should be to say, it doesn't take 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. I think the strategy should be that every Democrat, no matter whether or not they ultimately end up voting for the final bill, is to say we are going to vote together to stop a Republican filibuster. And if somebody who votes for that ends up saying, 'I'm not gonna vote for this bill, it's too radical, blah, blah, blah, that's fine.'"
"I think the idea of going to conservative Republicans, who are essentially representing the insurance companies and the drug companies, and watering down this bill substantially, rather than demanding we get 60 votes to stop the filibuster, I think that is a very wrong political strategy," Sanders added.

Now why can't Harry Reid say something like that? Because he is just a flim flam man.

And of course, Sanders puts Baucus' deferring of the goals for the Finance committee bill to Republicans is spot on:

"The people who are sitting around who may determine health reform in the Senate are a majority of Republicans," Sanders said, incredulously.
In its place, Sanders proposed a Coalition of Unwilling -- as in a group of lawmakers unwilling to sacrifice a progressive bill for the sake of bipartisanship.
"Something is very wrong," he said. "What Sen. Baucus said is that the strategy should be to reach out to Republicans. All of them, without exception oppose a public plan. So what you'll end up having is a very weak piece of legislation probably regressively funded. My strategy is different."

I think its time for a Social Democrat to take the reigns of the democratic party, and instill some progressive energy back into it. And Bernie's the guy!

Of course, what we'll more likely get is watered down gruel from Harry and Max, that the republicans will walk away from the table at the last minute and denounce it. Anybody who can't see that the republican strategy is to string out Max, get as weak a bill as possible, and then try and kill it by sucking in the conservadems to vote against it, is deluding themselves.

And that will set the stage for the decline of the Democratic party, as the party of panty-waists. Opportunity lost.