I just came across this story that says that the Senate democrats will pass health care reform within the next 60 days. They will do it by using budget reconciliation to pass a series of fixes to the bill they passed in November. I’m still skeptical whether it can really happen, given so many loopholes in the rules in congress, but it’s great to hear that they are at least considering doing it. I think the democrats are screwed in 2010 if they don’t pass something. From The Hill…
“We’ll do a relatively small bill to take care of what we’ve already done,” Reid said, affirming that Democrats would use the reconciliation process. “We’re going to have that done in the next 60 days.”
The move would allow Democrats to essentially go it alone on health reform, especially after losing their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate after Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) special election victory in Massachusetts.
Of course the Republicans are crying fool play, which just cracks me up. They think it is a “hyperpartisan” move to ram through the bill. Now I guess using a 41% “majority” to stop EVERYTHING including low level appointees….well, that wouldn’t be hyperpartisan, would it? This is the height of hypocrisy. They also are saying that this really makes the bipartisan health care summit moot, and of course what have they been saying since the summit was planned? More hypocrisy for you from the party of No!
Speaking of hypocrisy, Jane Hamsher and her Firedoglake brigade are showing us once again, that hypocrisy isn’t just a conservative thing. These so-called progressives are fighting the president not just on healthcare, but many other things. I read a post from Jane herself where she scoffs at the public option coming back, makes several snarky comments, the usual crap she and her gang trot out. Here is a particularly snarky comment from Janey…
The last of the rationalizations for ditching the public option have been peeled off the pundit apologists, who now stand naked and exposed atop their piles of selectively chosen factoids and statistics. (And therein lies the danger of laundering “tips” fed to you by “anonymous sources” who keep their hands clean while you affix your name — you ultimately have to own it.)
Her posts are always stream of consciousness rants, that often make no sense not just because of the lack of support, but for the confusing wording. But she does throw in her buzzwords periodically as red meat to the brainwashed supporters she has tapped into. I wonder what exactly she means by “selectively chosen factoids and statistics”? Would that be oh, pre-existing conditions, not being able to drop peoples coverage, expansion of child health care, community clinics, children being able to stay on their parents insurance till age 26, subsidies for poor people? Are these the “factoids” she is demeaning? What a complete absence of compassion for those who would benefit from any versions of the bill.
In another segment of her rant, she says this…
But the bottom line is that the health care bill that the White House drafted, the one they pushed through the Senate, the only one they ever wanted, is dead. There is not enough graft and payola in the world to get the Blue Dogs to line up for Martha Coakley duty.
Now, I could go and weed through all her previous bullshit posts and find where she criticized the president for letting the congress write the bill. They railed against Obama for not writing the bill, but now that the congress has made the sausage, she wants to put it all in Obama’s lap. It’s only recently that the White House has tried to pull together all sides in the debate and this is because they didn’t want the repeat of Hillarycare, which was criticized for not including the congress in the process. Remember? So her above statement is pure propoganda, she’s trying to appeal to those teabaggers she has been reaching out to and apparently lying is her best tactic. It’s pretty sad, really. The Martha Coakley comment to me reads like she is dancing on her grave, a democrat. Her gang was part of the chorus trying to spin the loss in Massachusetts as a referendum on Obama, another democrat. Hmmmm, what’s wrong with this picture.
This one is subtle, because it doesn’t necessarily equate it with the president, but of course we all know that he is taking the blame for everything these days and has the responsibility to try to fix things. Here is the headline.
Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not, but the article it links to is a New York Times piece that says this…..(emphasis is mine)
Economists fear that the nascent recovery will leave more people behind than in past recessions, failing to create jobs in sufficient numbers to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.
Call them the new poor: people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives — potentially for years to come.
Ok, so the passage they get their headline from says “Economists fear…”, well economists might fear a lot of things but it doesn’t make it come true. And then the last sentence “potentially for years to come”. So that is the basis for this headline that is ominous, fear based (Bushlike), and has no qualifiers….it’s a bold statement “Millions Of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs”. Now the reason why this is so bad in my opinion is that it is playing on people’s fears, making a definitive statement that isn’t even backed up in the actual article that it links to. The New York Times is guilty of this too. The editors at the Huffington Post just love doing that shit. I don’t know how many times I clicked on one of their slanted headlines only to find out that the article inside often doesn’t have anything to do with the headline. They seem to use their screaming headlines to further their anti-Obama agenda. I think they also count on people not really reading what’s inside, because they probably skip over these economic type stories and go to the latest “nipple slip” of some celebrity.
It all adds up over time and has the impact of lessening support for this president who is trying to bring American back from the brink of the Bush/Cheney years. How does misleading people help to accomplish that? It’s obvious that Arianna and the gang in her syndicate (Hamsher and all her minions, Uygur) really don’t care about progressive progress, they want to take down this president. Why, I really don’t understand except to say that Arianna used to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich and his “Contract on America” and the rumors have it that Newt is prepping to run for President. Hmmmm, is Arianna setting the stage to support her buddy Newt again?