BoJaker's Comments (10)

“No, the next part will be

"Should progressives block HealthCare reform just because it doesn't have subsidies? Should progressives block legislation that will heavily regulate insurance so they won't deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, JUST because it's not perfect and doesn't contain subidies? Think of the people being denied coverage! Do you want them to die for your ideals?"

And then...
"Progressives need to be flexible on the regulation of insurance providing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. What about the people that have their insurance cancelled when they need it..."

And on and on until
"Progressives should not sacrifice good for the perfect. This Bill allows insurance companies to compete across state lines which the insurance companies say might increase some competition. Do you really want to stop this progress just because it contains no Federal regulations, allows insurance companies to circumvent state regulations, continues to allow them to operate outside of anti-trust rules, and contains a provision that allows CEOs to legally murder people they find ugly? Do Progressives want to be held responsible for blocking reform?"”

“I think people are missing the brilliance of this post. He's saying "Let's dump the public option and let everyone buy into Medicare" (it's at the bottom of the post). Yes! That's exactly what we need to do. It's just semantics, but the whole idea is to hit the reset button with better framing. See, the Democrats made a mistake with the term "Public Option". It has no definition, so opponents are able to label it as whatever scares people and frame the debate around their misleading view. Medicare, however, is defined. Opponents can't attack Medicare, the seniors who are quite happy with their own Medicare won't buy the scare tactics.

I think this is a great strategy. Democrats can say that they've compromised, but they've really pushed Republicans into a corner AND inserted a public option that CAN'T be watered down or redifined.”

“Economic freedom is a contradiction in terms. Extreme Example: Plantation owners in America before the civil war had economic freedom, but that freedom could only come at the expense of others.

It's like claiming that having to give up some of your wages to pay for a social safety net for seniors and disabled people is a limitation on freedom. But where does that put people with developmental disabilities, born to parents without the means or desire to raise them, and who are unable to work as adults? Under our current system, those of them who are "lucky" enough to be able to live outside of a institution still live Ask a libertarian or neocon, and they either respond with a total lack of understanding for the situation (they don't understand that there is an enormous number of developementally disables adults that have limited ability to work, but ARE able to maintain some independence), or they spout some right-wing idealism where people aren't born with these disabilities (in the same world where industry has no regulations on pollutants­...ha!) and where private organizations take care of them (somehow private-industries will step forward to help people with no money). My guess is actually an extreme version of what is happening now: companies take advantage by paying disabled people "piece-wages", which means they pay them a percentage of what a non-disabled person would make based on their limitations(this is actually legal).”

“Good point. Those people that were murdered by right wing nut jobs were obviously Obama mercenaries, hell bent on the destroying the country by returning it to the pre-Bush policies under which the country was prosperous.

Seriously, if it's Obama's fault for waging class warfare, why is it right-wingers killing innocent people and not lefties killing stock-brokers. Try to justify the hysteria that your heros are driving, but you won't be able to do it with a solid argument.”

“Ummm...are you really that ignorant of how the budget works?? Each of those dollar amounts is a total annual budget, not an accrued speding amount for a President's entire term. And remember, Bush's don't include the War in Iraq. So over 8 years, Bush's budgets totalled $17.27 Trillion PLUS the massive cost of the war. On average, Bush's annual budgets were $2.16 trillion. Obama's budget is only $0.94 trillion higher and INCLUDES the war costs.

As a percentage, Obama's budget isn't as significant of an increase as many budgets under Bush:

Increase over previous budget
6.5% 2009
4.5% 2008
2.5% 2007
11.1% 2006
4.2% 2005
4.3% 2004
9.1% 2003
5.0% 2002
5.3% 2001
5.6% 2000
0.0% 1999
5.9% 1998
0.0% 1997
0.0% 1996”

“We Dems can't get into a circle without busting out the rifles and forming a firing squad.

Obama has almost 2 months before he starts his term, so give him a freaking chance before you start attacking him. It's as if you all assumed he was a liar like the rest of them, or even hoped he was. Also, if you're at all aware of his biography you should have had some idea of what his appointments would look like. When he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, his liberal buddies were dissapointed because he didn't shut out the conservatives.

The another aspect of his biography that should give progressives comfort is that those conservatives that he didn't shut out have talked about how during discussions with him he would listen intently and respond with great understanding of their arguments, to the point where they assumed he agreed with them (since he completely understood their argument, why wouldn't he?). Later, they would realize that although Obama understood their argument and would give them his full attention, it didn't necessarily meant that he agreed with them. He would just take their points and use them to bolster his own reasoning and make his argument that much stronger. Those opposing views in this administration are what will make his policies more affective, because the decisions won't be made without using the the opposing reasoning as a way to persuade those that may be on the fence.”

“It's my opinion that Obama is not only already prepared, but has set a trap that McCain will inevitably walk right into.

McCain and his advisors will expect that the Obama that they'll be debating will be the one who debated Hillary Clinton 20 times, and the one who gives such eloquent speeches. That Obama is one that can be beat by McCain the same way Bush beat Kerry, by looking wordy and indecisive in comparison. I don't think, though, that that is the Obama that will show up on Friday.

First, the Democratic debates call for something althogether different than the General Election Debates. Democrats are, by their nature, more wonkish and want too hear about policy specifics and the nuanced differences between Candidates proposals. By contrast, Republican debates are all about immediate, simple answers to complex problems (go back and watch how they fell over themselves trying to top each other, one pinnacle being when Romney said Guantanamo should be BIGGER). General Election Debates are all about connecting with the rest of voters. Kerry couldn't do that because he is, to the core, a policy wonk. Not that that's a bad thing, but he couldn't switch gears. Watch his performance on the Daily Show back in '04, even off-the-cuff he sounded like a well-bred lecturer. "Would that it were so" was one of his answers to a joke about his wife's money.”

“HAD a record of getting things done. All he's been doing for the last 8 years is running futile presidential campaigns, at least as far as I've seen. It's such a waste of time and resources! I like Nader and I agree with his goals, but wanting to fix our broken system does not equate to running for president! Not only does it take time and money away from causes that could actually fix the system, but people stop seeing the issues he's championing as mainsteam causes because he bacomes another crackpot running for president without having a chance of winning. No one understands the point of doing that!”

“While this kind of candidacy gets on my nerves (not because I disagree with on issues, but because futile runs for office begin to look like an ego trip), I think "the more the merrier" should be the American attitude towards Elections. However, I think his time would be better spent trying to make 3rd party runs more viable. He has a huge base of support, why not use it to push for public financing, campaign finance reform, instant runoff, etc. All of those things together would help get us away from the stagnant 2-party system we're in. It also is more in tune with his roots where he was the most successful and held the greatest respect.

Now he's in danger of becoming LaRouche-lite”

“Exactly.

That's the thing that has really made Obama the clear winner in my eyes. People are genuinely inspired by him to want better and work for better.

It's made me realize, there are politicians that strive for power by trying to mirror what the voters believe. Then there are politicians that want to lead and make the country better DESPITE what the majority might think. We have to be honest with ourselves and know that both are self-serving, but the greatest achievements in our history have never been made by the former. The latter walks a fine line between great leadership and Dubya, but the defining differences are inspiration on one side and arrogance on the other. Obama does not strike me as arrogant, and his ability to inspire is uncontended.”