Update [2009-12-16 14:0:48 by clammyc]: I find it amazing and amusing at how there is less of an issue with the substance of the diary than the title, which was obviously intended to make people think. But the whole "let's not invoke the names of dead people" argument is asinine since, for example, Jesus Christ's name is invoked every day for countless things. So if you don't like me using Kennedy's name, fine. But how about addressing the rest of the substance in the diary - because if you can't do that, then this bill is a sure loser.
No public option. Individual mandates that can’t be afforded by many, let along the penalties if you don’t get coverage. Harry Reid slipping in annual coverage limitations. No Medicare expansion. Restrictive slippery slope abortion language. Premiums rising by the day. No price controls on prescription drugs. And at least 4 years before any of the "good stuff" (whatever is left of it) kicks in. Huge giveaways to the insurance and pharma companies.
And that’s just off the top of my head.
What in this bill would the late Senator Kennedy have been proud of? What would he have pushed for or approved of? How would he have felt if this bill was shoved in his face to vote for, support and defend to progressives?
What is sad on top of this all is that every time I log on, there is at least one top rated "STFU" diary that gives an all rosy picture, a laundry list of relatively minor "good things" and citations to quotes by someone that my mother, the independent voter or the struggling family couldn’t care less about. To be blunt, while I like whipped cream, I’m not going to be eating any shit sundae just because there is whipped cream on top, and I (as well as many many progressives, including Howard Dean) don’t like to be told to STFU for the sake of some 96 dimensional game of chess that isn’t being played by the White House.
You want to blame the Senate Democrats, be my guest. I’ll be right there behind you on that. Even more so when you remember that the republicans rammed a whole lot more with the slimmest of majorities under Bush, and 60 votes wasn’t ever a problem back then – at least not until the Democrats gained majority of the Senate. But let’s be real here and stop pretending that this is a good bill – even if it has a few good things in it. Senate Democrats have the votes. They just don’t have the will or the desire to pass a good bill. Period.
That being said, when the White House is pissed more at Howard Dean for speaking out than they are at Joe Lieberman for being a stubborn spiteful pisshead – and when Obama hasn’t taken one bit of a strong leadership position on making sure that HIS HEALTHCARE BILL – and yes – he will be remembered for what is done here – has a public option or lower negotiated rates or no annual limitations or whatever else will help Americans, then he is to blame as well.
With all due respect, this "Obama is a scapegoat and can’t be blamed" is a steaming pile of crap. He is to blame. Rahm is to blame. Lieberman is to blame. Baucus is to blame. And scores of others are to blame as well. A few months ago, I wrote about the framing of any health care reform in terms of many provisions not kicking in until 2013. And it still holds true now - can anyone who defends this bill explain and defend it to their mother, cousin, co-worker or skeptical friend in a manner that is understandable and meaningful? And no, a laundry list of some good things is not a solid defense. That loses elections. Message and meaning win hearts and minds, voters and elections.
And frankly, there is no way that I can defend this "reform" to anyone in a way that is honest or succinct – let alone in a way that will win anyone over. So that should be kept in mind when defending Obama or certain elements of this bill. It’s very telling when such prominent progressives - who have already compromised and defended more than they should have have finally said "enough". To blow that off, scold or chastise those who do so is the exact same groupthink that we worked so hard to rid ourselves of in 2006 and 2008.
Update [2009-12-16 14:0:48 by clammyc]: I find it amazing at how there is less of an issue with the substance of the diary than the title, which was obviously intended to make people think. But the whole "let's not invoke the names of dead people" argument is asinine since, for example, Jesus Christ's name is invoked every day for countless things. So if you don't like me using Kennedy's name, fine. But how about addressing the rest of the substance in the diary - because if you can't do that, then this bill is a sure loser.