"...The ongoing wrongheaded push for bipartisanship, on the other hand, has no apparent upside."

I could be completely wrong, but my take on the 'bipartisanship' approach has been to appease the so-called 'independents'. Thus far it seems to have taken it greatest toll in the version of the bill being comprised by the Senate Finance committee, but so? I've heard that that committee is quickly fading to irrelevance on this matter.

This bill is going to pass with no Republican votes. It just seems that that conclusion with go down more smoothly having taken this 'bipartisan' approach.

(I am, however, a relative newby to all of this.)

Eric -- You're right. To clarify, I meant "bipartisan legislation." There's certainly an upside for head fakes in the direction of bipartisanship as a tactic.

So Bob, what do you think will happen? Do you think that maybe Obama has some cards left up under his sleeve? He cannot be this naive about bi-partisanship. I just can't believe that. Or am I the naive one here?
This crap with the so-called opposition is really getting to me bad. They should have stayed in session. I do suppose that they would never imagine that there are THAT many stupid fucks out there, screaming and hollering and making complete fools about themselves and voting against their own self interests.
Please tell us what you think will end up in the final bill. You are usually right.

I like that you and Lee debate and that we can all chime in, too. Brings up a more info. and insight for me.

Oh come on Bob, $80 billion? And you can't back up anything you wrote with facts?

I hope the facts from Greg Palast can enlighten you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-palast/obama-on-drugs-98-cheney_b_258209.html

Here's the relevant fact:
"In other words, Obama's big deal with Big Pharma saves $80 billion out of a total $3.6 trillion. That's 2%. Hey thanks, Barack! You really stuck it to the big boys. You saved America from these drug lords robbing us blind. Two percent. Cool!"

This isn't a deal at all. It's a complete political sellout no matter how you try to spin it.

Mary from TV: Bob usually is right, but Greg Palast is rarely wrong. Don't expect Bob to be right on this issue though. In due respect, don't expect anyone to be right; we're all being played.

mary from TN wrote:

So Bob, what do you think will happen? Do you think that maybe Obama has some cards left up under his sleeve? He cannot be this naive about bi-partisanship. I just can't believe that. Or am I the naive one here?

It's all political tactics. It's all talk. But don't expect bipartisanship to last beyond September.

Furthermore, Grassley might actually be an unwitting ally. If he blocks the Finance Committee bill, I won't be shedding any tears. That leaves the HELP bill as the Senate legislation -- and the HELP bill includes the public option.

FrictionSoul wrote:

Oh come on Bob, $80 billion? And you can't back up anything you wrote with facts?

Back up with facts? What's wrong with you? I linked to numerous other sources. And sorry if I don't offer up this free content complete with indexes, bibliographies and footnotes. I do what I can considering this is a volunteer effort.

This isn't a deal at all. It's a complete political sellout no matter how you try to spin it.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote before you fell in line with the defeatists. I wrote above that the $80 billion is too low and that, as far as the deal goes, it's inconsequential. The "win" in the deal is the advertising. Not the $80 billion. Read the post again, Friction.

And get a grip on yourself. Do you want healthcare reform or not?

"Bob usually is right, but Greg Palast is rarely wrong"

That's one of the silliest thing I've ever read. You believe Greg because you already believe the deal was bad - no one is going to convince you otherwise.

And as I posted before, the White House is thinking about the cost of NOT getting health care reform and I don't mean in votes/elections. They are thinking about the money being lost every year we go with health care reform in this country. And I think that amount far outweighs any other number you guys come up with.

Go ahead FrictionSoul clutch your pearls. You need them.

I competely agree with Bob on this one. I think it's hilarious how all of these supposed supporters are playing armchair President. "All Obama should do.. or Obama's like Jimmy Carter..." And other sorts of mess. It's hilarious.

It's the same people who tore down the stimulus that is now starting to work. Has anyone noticed that the Dow is close to 10k points? Unemployment is decreasing, but there are still things to be worked on. But nevermind any of the things this guy has accomplished in 7 months, because according to the armchair presidents out there he should have been able to:
End 2 wars, end the recession and create a surplus, clear up immigration reform, straighten out the Health Care system, make our kids immediately smarter by working cleaning up education, closing down Gitmo, and bringing about world peace all in a matter of 7 mos.

I know you write for Huff Post Bob, and you are one of the main reasons that I read it, but lately it's starting to slowly become a tabloid headline rag. I can't read it very much anymore. There's a lot of defeatist attitudes going on there.

We need to stick together and back our President. Conservatives stick with each other regardless of how crazy they seem.

As for the bi-partisanship, I agree with you but I am starting to think that he's playing with them.

For months it's been "The President needs to be more hands on, he needs to be involved in this, he needs to do more, he isn't getting into the negotiating". But, now that he has and someone has or thinks they have found something they are all over it like it was a big bad secret.. it isn't a secret..the president himself announced the agreement.. maybe he didn't divulge all the details, but do they ever?

Have you seen all the details of every agreement between the agreements of your insurance company and your doctor or the hospital? Trust me there are lots of details and agreements between them.

There are also lots of stories about this so called agreement between the White House and the Drug Companies.. I have read at least 5 different agreements.. So, which one do you want to believe today?

As for the bipartisanship, I was listening to Dr. Dean at Netroots a while ago.. he said that he thinks we have to play with the Rethugs and pretend and that is exactly what the President is doing. He believes they are just hanging themselves and Pres. Obama is just handing them the rope... He approves of it 100%... said that's the only way to get this out of the finance committee but once it is out of committee then they can get it done with just Democrats and make it a better bill through reconciliation.

If you get a chance.. look at what he said.. or see if Matt has it up.. it was great.. But basically he said, just get along, then let them hang themselves.

I openly admit to needing to get a grip on myself as well. I'm trying not to be a defeatist, but I don't want to look for salvation too hard because it blinds me. My first response to this was skepticism. PhRMA in the SEIU? It looks more like a trojan horse at first glance. I admit to feeling some tinge of hope as a result of the ad buy. I do believe politics on that level is far harder than I will ever know and you can't just go in guns ablazin' to get anything done. Sell-outs, compromises, quid pro tits all happen all the time. I get that.

My frustration is watching the Dems constantly back down to the Repubs. It just never stops. Okay, maybe Obama had some brilliant plan to totally play PhRMA. Great. We still have the most inept bunch of spineless sacks of crap to ever pretend to be the majority in Congress. How do we deal with that?

@DaBomb -

Playing with them - exactly! Take the example of Grassley and Isakson this week. He singled them both out at the town hall for praise. Almost immediately they 'stabbed him in the back' by dissing the advanced directives business in the bill. They had to - I'm sure their respective bases were raising holy hell with them.

But how did that play with anybody else? I don't think they're any crazies amongst the vast block of independents. I know a lot of dems screamed foul when Grassley did what he did, but my feeling was Obama came out of that one in the plus column, and it made Grassley (and Isakson) look like putzes.

I'm confident about reform, with a Public Option, passing but, vary wary.

In watching Countdown last night, Dr. Howard Dean seemed unusually calm, I think he knows something that the rest of us don't...

Another thing to consider is that almost everyone counted Obama "down and out" early in the election process. How'd that work out?

Lastly, w/r/t "bipartisanship" I agree with DaBomb, President Obama is slowly paying out rope while they these GOP clowns thrash about, entangling themselves hopelessly. All he needs to to is tie it off (when HCR passes) and the GOP will become completely irrelevant.

Mr. Obama will then be able to move forward more aggressively with his agenda, casting away "bipartisanship" because, all he'll need to say to Americans is: "we tried to work with the GOP but they obviously have no desire to work on behalf of the American people. Witness their antics on healthcare, the stimulus, etc."

I love Bob, his work and his tireless efforts.

I'm with him on 98% of his posts (to borrow from Greg Palast article!).....

But, we part ways on this one.

Sometimes I think that the over-focus of the right and the wingnuts --- while very needed and important to fight them with facts and to call out their nuttery --- sometimes detracts from watching what this administration is doing, such as what is occurring now with the Big PhRMA deal.

We not have this lovely man for president which we all worked hard to elect. He's intelligent, poised, smart, elegant, and has a level of sophistication and presence I'm not sure this nutty country deserves.....

.....but he is still the US President just like all the rest and he and his administration need to be watched, too.

I wonder if over-focusing on the extreme right that sometimes it takes the eye off the ball as to what is actually taking place in the WH and there is not enough of a critical eye on that.

Obama is head of USA, Inc. just like all the presidents before him.

Obama is a SYSTEM guy or the folks with the big buckeroos wouldn't have let him in the Oval Office.

They all have to play to big business in USA, Inc, --- Obama is no different, as lovely as he is as a person, which he is.

I won't let his nice demeanor detract me from his stance on the issues and his actions.

Typo correction:

*We not have / we *now have)

Thanks for the big picture perspective! I'm really proud of Obama, he's brilliant. I don't think anyone would have predicted that he would be able to get the support of so many groups for reform.

You commented on the advantages of bipartisanship. I agree, we have to be careful not to give too much away, the line for me is the public option. But, there are some benefits. First, Republicans do have good ideas, 160 Republican amendments have been added to the Senate Health Committee Bill. The Blue Dogs have strengthened the Senate Finance Committee bill to better support small businesses. Even if they don't vote for it, it's still bipartisan, and better for it.

The political advantage is that if the Republicans can take credit for some of the good things in the bill, it might allow them to move away from the crazy stuff to a good legislative discussion, which would be better for the country.

There's also political advantage for the Dems. This is hugely popular with the American people, and it will be even more so once the uninsured are covered, once people can no longer be denied insurance, or kicked out of insurance, and hopefully, once premiums go down, or at least stop increasing, once it's easier for small business. The political gains are huge.

By keeping the discussion bipartisan, when the Republicans all vote NAY on the bill (likely, as they can't seem to make good political decisions right now, ala Sotomayor), it will be great campaign fodder for the next election. Dems running against Republicans will be able to say that the Republican representative voted against the HCR that let's you see the doctor. It will be huge.

Also, remember, the Senate Finance Committee is just one committee in 5. 4 of the bills contain a good public option. After the SFC passes whatever it does, then there is a whole new process, where the Senate and House create their own version, and then that goes to into conference, and that is where Obama is going to work hard to get a strong bill.

We still have a lot of work to do. Obama's done good. We have to help give the Congress the spine to stand up against the insurance companies.

To add, this is a comment from progressive liberal Kevin Zeese, from my FB page:

Kevin Zeese: This is a lousy deal with the devil. Yes, Big Pharma is funding an ad campaign in support of the health care reform plan -- that is because the so-called reform is just one gigantic giveaway to health care profiteers. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries will just get richer. It is a lousy deal and the fact that pharma/insurance/AMA support it just is more evidence that people should oppose it.
about a minute ago · Delete
______________
Terri

Why does this surprise anyone?

Did you think BigPharm would kick in a substantial chunk of the bottom line to HELP people? To improve the quality of life of those who need meds to live?

Excuse me while I go fetch my "DUH!" face.

RIGHT!

Just as Zeese stated:

"The fact that pharma/insurance/AMA support it just is more evidence that people should oppose it
___________________

The system design is such that the BIG CORPS have to be fed. Period.

Maybe we will get crumbs and leftovers. Maybe.

Kevin Zeese said: "...and the fact that pharma/insurance/AMA support it..."

Insurance is supporting it? Since when?

This was a dumb move by the White House for a lot of reasons but consider this one...

It caused a rift among progressives and Democrats.

And OF COURSE it did because it's a back room deal that goes against what many people voted for. How could that NOT piss some people off? I mean, it pissed off a bunch of Demotcrats in CONGRESS, too.

And it did. So now Obama is TANKING in the polls with independents and at the same time losing Democrats.

This isn't brilliant chess. It's stupid political hackery.

Well Lee, you should never vote for anyone again. You should never hold any of our politic figures to any high standard ever. From Washington until now. If you think that deals have never been made to accomplish things, then you are truly naive.

And you are doing what the wingnuts want, which is to turn liberals against each other. Which apparently, they are succeeding, because all I have seen this morning on several blogs has been pearl-clutching, panty-wrangling, church lady fanning defeatists. Waving the white flag on reform concerning a non-existent bill!

FDR didn't create the progressive universe in 6 days and rest on the 7th. And don't think there weren't any not so fresh feeling deals going on.

Like I said on another website, all these defeatists would have not made it through Women's Suffrage or the Civil Rights movement. You all would still sitting on the back of the bus and drinking water out of separate water fountains.

Paul Begala talked about the evolution of Social Security when it was established under FDR till now. This is a work in progress. And if Obama can get this bill signed with the minimums of a public opiton and no pre-existing conditions, then fantastic, we have a paved way to single-payer.

Lee wrote:

>>>And it did. So now Obama is TANKING in the polls with independents and at the same time losing Democrats.

There's no proof that this is because of healthcare. And "tanking" isn't accurate either.

It may not be the polls referred to, but I saw this and found it interesting:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/14/766698/-Weekly-Tracking-Poll:-Democrats-Win-First-Round-of-Town-Hall-War

Obama's poll numbers (especially amongst Independents)probably have far more to do with the fact that the "economic recovery" has not yet benefited anyone except wall Street. We're still bleeding jobs, and the general emotion people are feeling is FEAR. Couple that with the FEAR Independents feel that solid health care reform might not pass despite an overwhelming democratic majority, and you have your motive for independents saying they do not approve of his results to date. Lump in the people who base their "approval" on whatever the news channel they happen to watch is saying.

Lee, don't ever confuse job approval with abandonment. An approval poll is just a measure of how one thinks the President is doing. Besides, any approval poll after the first six months is worthless. I can't remember a president who fared well in Approval ratings beyond six to ten months (besides the G H W Bush/Gulf War). You are reading too much into worthless numbers, and worse yet, you are misreading what those numbers mean.

Obama ran under a big tent walking a fine line capturing dems, I's, and some R's, too.

It seems impossible to govern this way.

What was an effective campaign strategy is an ineffective governing strategy.

However, it seems Obama and his team know this.

You cannot keep everyone on board when your feet are really held to the fire, in this system.

...Obama's numbers are done --- and moreso among certain demographics than others --- he IS down (tanking, perhaps not, but he has lost points) among I's and some D's.

Since healthcare is the issue front and center it appears that this is the reason his numbers are dragging.

If not the healthcare issue, Bob, than what?

The mainline media is not really focusing on other issues at all...it's health care 24/7 on the tube.

No "tanking" among independents:

Research 2000 tracking poll
President Obama job approval
INDEPENDENTS: Approve 67, Disapprove 28
http://www.dailykos.com/weeklypoll/2009/8/13

Go read Nate Silver. Or look at any number of other polls.

Gallup...
The poll finds that 34 percent of Americans say the protests have made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views, 21 percent less sympathetic, and 46 percent unsure or indifferent.

I don't understand the desire to pretend things are on track to get meaningful health care reform. They aren't.

I don't understand the desire to pretend things are on track to get meaningful health care reform. They aren't.

Yeah, you're right. We should probably just give up and join the Anti-Reformists. Wouldn't want to be on the losing, would we? If they find out we opposed them, we might all hang.

Doesn't it make sense to look at the $80B in terms of the contribution toward the cost of health care reform rather than the number as a % of the total cost of perscription drugs over 10 years?

I hear a few things that people who actually bother to debate health care reform on its merits complain about and the cost of the bill is one of them. Rather than say, "Oh it's only 2%" shouldn't we be saying "Hey, it's 8% if the $1T price tag"?

But quarreling over this stuff is stupid anyway. I'm sure no one who voted for Obama is thrilled about his pharma deal, but the broader issue is getting effective health care reform is SO much more important right now that honestly I couldn't care less.

The debate right now, seriously, is centered around convicing people that of some very demonstrable truths:

1. No one is going to deny care to people because they're old, sick, or disabled. In fact, it's private insurance that routinely does this.
2. There will be no UK/Canada like single payer/Govt run health care system (although why this is considered negative is beyond me).
3. No Govmint beurocrat is going to decide what care you get.

There are some very stupid, false and easily disprovable topics out there that are slowly eroding support for health care reform. Let's focus on those please.

Bob and others seemt to want to pretend that the people opposed to the backroom deal are idealistic fools who want to sink health care reform in the name of principle.

It totally distorts what is being said by more and more people.

The problem with the PhARMA deal is that making the possibility of getting real health care reform LESS likely. That's the issue I have and that others who are opposed seem to have.

No Lee, unfortunately that is not what I am seeing. If you are going to refer to Nate Silver, then you also refer to Nate when bringing up the Gallup...
The poll finds that 34 percent of Americans say the protests have made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views, 21 percent less sympathetic, and 46 percent unsure or indifferent.

Because Nate says,
"Polls of this nature, however, are notoriously slippery. If there were some protest in favor of a policy that I supported -- like expanded stem-cell research -- I'd probably tell a pollster that the protest had in fact made me more sympathetic to the cause, even though my mind on the issue was already 100 percent made up and was not going to be swayed. The real question, then, is how many minds are being changed on the issue. And it may not be all that many. Three relevant polls have come out on this subject in August: a Rasmussen poll found some further erosion in support for the bills pending before Congress, but a Gallup poll did not find any further decline in Obama's approval on health care since mid-July. Nor did a CNN poll find any decline in support for the Democrats' health package, although that poll is now about a week old."

And what I am seeing around the pathetic blogosphere today, is defeatism. That's it in a nutshell. Not everybody is talking about that Pharma deal. Some people are just plain frustrated, by all of the craziness going on. Some people are angry because Obama should have snapped his fingers to magically heal the world instead of clapping. We don't know the outcome of this, and I not going to place my tail between legs and screech off in surrender,when the bill hasn't even being formulated yet.

Lee wrote:

Gallup... The poll finds that 34 percent of Americans say the protests have made them more sympathetic to the protesters' views, 21 percent less sympathetic, and 46 percent unsure or indifferent.

You're believing the cable news hyping of these numbers. Josh Marshall and the TPM team determined that, based on the internals, this has more to do with Republicans becoming more entrenched against reform. Sorry.

The problem with the PhARMA deal is that making the possibility of getting real health care reform LESS likely.

And how much in savings would PhRMA have offered without a deal? Not only would they have pledged ZERO, but they'd be spending that $150 million on ads against reform. If not more.

Besides, there's no guarantee that the alleged White House concessions will make it into the final bill anyway. We're talking about the Finance Committee bill -- one bill out of FIVE. And the Finance Committee might not even get a bill out at all, if it's up to Grasshole and the others who are committed to stopping the Finance bill.

Again, I say tempest in a teacup. Meanwhile, we don't have powerful enemies like the AMA and PhRMA fighting against reform -- like they have every time reform has been proposed in the last 50 years.

I do suppose that they would never imagine that there are THAT many stupid fucks out there, screaming and hollering and making complete fools about themselves and voting against their own self interests.

See Also: The presidency of George W. Bush

What's wrong with you Bob? Why is $80 billion worth more than $3.6 trillion to you? I read your fucking post. I read the WaPo article. Why can't you explain why 2% is better than 98%?

Calling me defeatist is really low when you go and proclaim 2% is better than 98%. Read the damned things yourself and quit spinning. The deal breaks his campaign promise to negotiate drug prices and import cheaper drugs in from Canada.

Too rich for you?

Weird.

There's more from Greg Palast, much to Allonfla, who seems to be every bit mathematically challnged on this. You'll take the 2% off at Walmart every single time, won't you.

"Here are the numbers they don't want you to see: Hospitals will be allowed to hike their prices and revenues by six trillion dollars ($5,853 billion) over the next ten years, only $155 billion less than they had projected before the Obama "reform."

In all, the Obama back-room deal will "reduce" our $26 trillion total hospital bill over the next decade by one-half of one percent."

I guess that's just too off topic for you you guys.

I think Dr. Weil said it best: a wrong diagnosis is deadly. If that makes me defeatist, then so what if you guys are a-okay with having any brand of Obama reform.

Kinda hard to argue with Nader's comments: you don't make deals with the system you're trying to reform." But I wonder if you really understand that Bob because you're all about being in the system and complaining about it. You rarely offer up practical solutions. I don't expect you to. I do appreciate your analysis but what part of this math do you (or I) do not get? A deal was made to limit the drug costs over 10 years to 98% of what they wanted. Obama "saved" 2% and broke a campaign promise.

And who is going to pay for that? It's as if BO has suddenly decided that full blown chemotherapy was in order to treat a mole.

And what's this with advertising? Who really cares? Do you think any single payer public option person cares about it? And who cares what Obama says anymore? He sold us out. The real action is and always will be Congress and they know it. It's illegal to bribe the executive branch. It's business as usual in Congress.

Does that make me a defeatist? To be that realistic? I mean I email my reps and I go to their town halls but they listen to money - all of them save for Kucinich and maybe 2 others.

There's a few things to keep in mind. As Bob said, this is by no means a done deal and Obama can hold up his end of the bargin and it can still get shot down. In the meantime, he has pharma support on health care reform.

If pharma helps get health care reform, I wonder what affect that will have on the costs of perscription drugs and hostpital bills over the next 10 years? Might be a more impressive percentage.

Friction wrote:

What's wrong with you Bob? Why is $80 billion worth more than $3.6 trillion to you? I read your fucking post.

Then you read the part where I wrote: "To be perfectly clear, this isn't a fair compromise since the potential financial gain for PhRMA outweighs the comparatively nominal $80 billion pledge." So why are you insisting that I don't understand the difference?

But I wonder if you really understand that Bob because you're all about being in the system and complaining about it.

What are you talking about?

You rarely offer up practical solutions. I don't expect you to.

Ouch! Hey -- here's a practical solution for you. Let's pass healthcare reform in part by disarming the usual villains who typically spend millions to defeat it. That's my whole point. You know what's impractical? The notion that healthcare reform could pass with these special interests fighting against it. History proves this to be impossible.

Obama "saved" 2% and broke a campaign promise.

So your thing is that we should give back the $80 billion in savings and kill the deal, thus endangering the whole reform effort? Practical!

Just answer this, Mr. Practical. Do you think reform would pass with the AMA and PhRMA spending millions to kill it?

I don't want to be sitting here in November writing, "Well, we didn't get healthcare reform. I won't have insurance for my family. Your insurance still sucks and is getting worse. And in the process another 10,000 people died for lack of insurance.... But at least the president didn't break any promises. What a relief!"

Friction asked:

>>>And what's this with advertising?

And what about those airplane peanuts?

>>>Who really cares?

Yeah, advertising is such a waste. Who advertises their shit anymore?

>>>Do you think any single payer public option person cares about it?

So there's the nut of it. You want single payer and anything shy of that is a sell-out failure. I get it now. You realize that single payer would never pass here, right? Not in a million years. The *practical solution* is to pass the public option and allow the private system to phase out. Being a practical guy, you should understand that had the president proposed a bill for single payer as his healthcare reform proposal, it would've failed instantly and we'd get no healthcare reform at all. But I shouldn't have to tell you that because you're so practical.

>>>And who cares what Obama says anymore? He sold us out.

He promised that he wasn't going to push for single payer. You want him to break his promises now?

Why don't you "Chicken Little was right" whiners just go ahead and post this "deal" that has made your asses so red.

This is not a contract!

How do you draft language to promulgate a "pledge"(?) that will, sort of, oppose efforts to reduce drug prices,etc.....? (Or whatever the Hell this "deal " supposedly is).

How long does this "deal" last? Forever?

Sorry, but you are getting all worked up about something that hasn't happened and is totally unenforceable. But it has an excellent chance of keeping major opponents of reform on the sideline and, in some cases, actually helping the effort with advertising bucks.

Bob is right on again.

PhARMA is not on the sidelines. As I posted, they already have an ad produced ATTACKING the house bill.

Did Obama run on 'I'll cut a sweetheart deal with Pharma'? Did I miss that part?

Here's what Nate Silver said...

But Congressmen are, by and large, not the deepest people on earth. They like being popular. They don't like getting yelled at. They don't like taking risks. I still think health care reform is more likely than not. Nancy Pelosi's skills as a vote-whipper are way underrated. But after seeing the Gallup polling on the protests, after seeing the how Democrats turned and ran today on the end-of-life counseling provision, I think any bill is (1) likely to pass by the skinny-skin-skin of its teeth in both chambers; (2) going to require compromise on key provisions like the public option; (3) perhaps going to require a "big" leadership/regrouping moment by Obama in early September.

Lee wrote:

As I posted, they already have an ad produced ATTACKING the house bill.

Totally unconfirmed as well. But if they do, I'm sure they'll wheel it out as soon as the White House or Finance is forced under pressure to reneg on the deal.

If you want PhRMA to run that ad, and a few hundred million dollars in additional ads, we should absolutely pressure the White House to give back the $80 billion and the marketing support.

Adding... This whole climate of liberal fear and loathing right now absolutely reminds me of early September, 2008. Doom and gloom. I think it's a liberal character flaw that when the going gets rough, liberals appear to become defeatists.

Lee

What about my "contract" issues? No comment?

Now about Nate Silver's comments...

"after seeing the how Democrats turned and ran today on the end-of-life counseling provision".....

Do you honestly think that compromising on this "throwaway" provision and shutting up the Caribou Barbee is a bad tactic?

We all need to stay on the Public Option. You don't know what is actually going on with our President. I don't either. But why do you get your scrote in a big knot trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper? Think big picture please.

I am thinking big picture. I'm actually looking at reality. The doom and gloom is 'SHHHH!!!! We all must sing Kumbaya LOUDER! Ignore the headlines! Sing, motherfucker, sing!'

Lee wrote:

I am thinking big picture. I'm actually looking at reality. The doom and gloom is 'SHHHH!!!! We all must sing Kumbaya LOUDER! Ignore the headlines! Sing, motherfucker, sing!'

Ah yes. The Republican opposite-day 'projection' strategy. You've spent the last WEEK screaming about how the president sold us out, how he's a failed leader and how healthcare reform and public option don't have a chance -- and yet you're suggesting that those of us who don't see it with your level fatalism are the 'doom and gloom' people.

Lee, sometimes I really worry about you.