Bat-Sh*t crazy looney left

[Magox]

They just don't get it.

 

 

Plenty of Democrats viewed the Massachusetts Senate upset as a message to move cautiously. But some are convinced Scott Brown’s victory sent just the opposite message, which means the sort of intraparty power struggle that got nasty during the health care debate isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.

 

This week, progressive groups that ran ads pushing Democratic moderates to embrace sweeping reform efforts are expected to launch a new round of ads that are likely to target the party’s already vulnerable incumbents.

 

They won’t disclose many details such as who the targets will be, or the size of the buys, but they do say they will release new polling that shows support for including a government-run insurance plan, the so-called public option, in health care reform — an idea left for dead in Congress some months ago.

 

“There is a real danger that some are taking away the wrong lesson from Massachusetts: to give up on health care reform and embrace a Republican-lite agenda,” said Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org.

 

“If anything, we are redoubling our efforts to make sure our members’ voices are heard and Democrats and Republicans stand up to the lobbyists on financial reform and other key priorities,” he said.

 

The groups are forging ahead despite pleas from the White House, congressional leaders and some of their targets to bring an end to the friendly fire that distracts lawmakers and creates a sense of being under siege from both the left and the right.

“Ads like these never influence how members vote. They can, however, do political damage and ironically assist the opponents of those who are running the ads. The bottom line is, they’re counterproductive,” said Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a moderate who’s been a target of the ads and who announced Monday he would not seek reelection.

 

 

 

You would think they would of received the memo. Meanwhile, GOP strategists are cheering these Progessive groups, free advertising.

[OCinBuffalo]

Another shining example of Democrat tactics serving to get them the EXACT OPPOSITE of their intended purpose. I think it's hysterical....and there seems to be no end in sight...so we can count on many laughs for years to come And these are the people who have convinced themselves they are smarter than we are?

 

Ads that resurrect the public option? That give the Republicans the "See, they are still trying to have the government take over health care" talking point on a silver platter? All over again?

 

The best part: this stays funny, because there is no way in hell it will be successful.

 

Just remember it was Rahm Emmanuel, not me, who first called these people "f'ing retarded" for continuing to push the public option. That makes one(1) thing we agree on

[IDBillzFan]

They just don't get it.

I spent more time than I probably should reading and listening to far left media, like Sirius Left, DailyKos, Huffington Post, Shultz, etc., and I find it especially interesting how crazy they are. Yes, the far right has crazies, too, but the left has it down to an art form. They sincerely believe that the problem with the current administration is not that they're trying to do things most Americans don't want, but that they're simply not trying hard enough.

 

Don't like what the polls show? Do your own poll until you get the answers you want. It simply makes no sense that Scott Brown was elected because he promised to be the 41st vote against health care. No, that's just not true. So MoveOn and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee do their own poll, and it miraculously shows that Mass. elected Brown simply because the health care bill simply "didn't go far enough."

 

That's right. To make their point about the country's deep desire for government-run health care, the entire state of Mass. opted to NOT elect a woman who would get the health care bill passed, but rather a Republican who promised to kill it. And if that's not enough, they are actually going to spend millions of dollars to try and convince people of this.

 

More damaging, I think, is that the current administration implied countless promises to their far left groupies and union pals, and now that they can't deliver on them, the very people who helped elect this group is essentially holding them hostage: do what we want, or we'll stay home in November. Because nothing would help them advance their cause faster and better than helping ensure that the GOP takes over the House and Senate.

[pBills]

I spent more time than I probably should reading and listening to far left media, like Sirius Left, DailyKos, Huffington Post, Shultz, etc., and I find it especially interesting how crazy they are. Yes, the far right has crazies, too, but the left has it down to an art form. They sincerely believe that the problem with the current administration is not that they're trying to do things most Americans don't want, but that they're simply not trying hard enough.

 

Don't like what the polls show? Do your own poll until you get the answers you want. It simply makes no sense that Scott Brown was elected because he promised to be the 41st vote against health care. No, that's just not true. So MoveOn and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee do their own poll, and it miraculously shows that Mass. elected Brown simply because the health care bill simply "didn't go far enough."

 

That's right. To make their point about the country's deep desire for government-run health care, the entire state of Mass. opted to NOT elect a woman who would get the health care bill passed, but rather a Republican who promised to kill it. And if that's not enough, they are actually going to spend millions of dollars to try and convince people of this.

 

More damaging, I think, is that the current administration implied countless promises to their far left groupies and union pals, and now that they can't deliver on them, the very people who helped elect this group is essentially holding them hostage: do what we want, or we'll stay home in November. Because nothing would help them advance their cause faster and better than helping ensure that the GOP takes over the House and Senate.

 

 

Sorry many unions do not want healthcare reform in its current state. Many unions are hoping that changes are made before anything is passed.

[IDBillzFan]

Sorry many unions do not want healthcare reform in its current state. Many unions are hoping that changes are made before anything is passed.

That's my point. The health care bill did not go far enough for the unions, and they threatened to sit out 2010 unless things change.

 

Story here.

 

 

SEIU Chief: If Dems Pass Scaled-Down Health Bill, Labor Will Have Trouble Staying “Focused On National Politics”

 

SEIU chief Andy Stern took a hard shot at Dem leaders just now for considering a scaled-down health care bill, strongly hinting that labor might not work as hard for Dem candidates in 2010 if they failed to deliver real and comprehensive reform.

 

“It’s gonna be incredibly difficult to stay focused on national politics if by the end of 2010 we have minimal health care and minimal changes on what’s important to our members,” he said in an interview, ridiculing the emerging Dem approach as “fear masquerading as a strategy.”

 

Stern unloaded on Dem leaders in resonse to reports today that they’re mulling either a scaled down bill to win GOPers or a broken up bill passed in pieces. His anger suggests Dems risk paying a big price with labor if they fail to figure out how to pass the Senate bill and fix it later, as labor wants.

 

Stern hinted that if House and Senate members don’t move forward with the Senate bill and some kind of fix, they could see union members spending more time on races for governor, perhaps at the expense of their reelection campaigns. “If something significant doesn’t happen in Congress, I hope the legislators appreciate that there are 37 governors races important to our members,” Stern said suggestively.

 

Stern ridiculed the idea that breaking up the bill would allow Dems to challenge Republicans with tit-for-tat legislative maneuvers. “It’s classic inside Washington to think that people who can’t afford insurance want to keep score between the Democrats and the Republicans,” he said. “They want to go to bed with a sense of security.”

 

Concluded Stern: “For the 31 million people who don’t have health care, for the 14,000 who lose it every day, for the 120 people who die every day, they elected this Congress to make change, not to set their sights lower when the going gets tough.”

[pBills]

That's my point. The health care bill did not go far enough for the unions, and they threatened to sit out 2010 unless things change.

 

Story here.

 

 

Yeah, SEIU has been one of the most outspoken. Not only did they not go far enough with the unions, it could potentially help the insurance plans they have set up now.

[Doc]

The question is, does congress want the unions' money, or the public's votes? My guess is the latter, and nothing gets passed.

[pBills]

The question is, does congress want the unions' money, or the public's votes? My guess is the latter, and nothing gets passed.

 

 

I am sure they figure out a way to get both.

[DC Tom]

I am sure they figure out a way to get both.

 

Shouldn't be difficult. It's not like the unions (particularly the extraordinarily ****ty ones like the SEIU) are going to vote for anti-union Republicans.

[pBills]

Shouldn't be difficult. It's not like the unions (particularly the extraordinarily ****ty ones like the SEIU) are going to vote for anti-union Republicans.

 

 

Exactly. They are more concerned about who is anti-union than anything else.

[Doc]

I am sure they figure out a way to get both.

Doubtful at best. These morons somehow found a way to lose Massachusetts!

 

And the majority of people want health care, they just don't want THIS health care. Especially if the unions and other special interests keep getting sweetheart deals to make this POS palatable. If they jam it through, you just might see a revolution.

[IDBillzFan]

Doubtful at best. These morons somehow found a way to lose Massachusetts!

Didn't you hear? They didn't lose Massachusetts because the health care bill went too far. They lost Massachusetts because it didn't go far enough.

 

If the health care bill had single payer in it, Martha Coakley would have won it by 30.

[DC Tom]

Didn't you hear? They didn't lose Massachusetts because the health care bill went too far. They lost Massachusetts because it didn't go far enough.

 

If the health care bill had single payer in it, Martha Coakley would have won it by 30.

 

Health care? I thought it was Bush's fault they lost MA.

[Doc]

Didn't you hear? They didn't lose Massachusetts because the health care bill went too far. They lost Massachusetts because it didn't go far enough.

 

If the health care bill had single payer in it, Martha Coakley would have won it by 30.

Funny. I thought they lost Massachusetts because they didn't get $300M in handouts.

[IDBillzFan]

Health care? I thought it was Bush's fault they lost MA.

Ah, yes. I forgot. The same anger that elected Obama also elected a Republican to a seat held by Kennedy since he was in diapers.

[Simon]

Ah, yes. I forgot. The same anger that elected Obama also elected a Republican to a seat held by Kennedy since he was in diapers.

Maybe it did.

[IDBillzFan]

Maybe it did.

How, exactly?

 

I'm genuinely curious how the same "You're not Bush" anger that elected Obama also put a Republican in a US Senate seat held by Kennedy when the candidate actually campaigned on the fact that if he was elected, he'd KILL a health care bill named after the guy he planned to replace.

 

How does that happen? Please explain the thinking. I'm open. Really.

[Simon]

After years of bungling incompetence by the Bush administration people got tired of popping open their newspapers and reading about how awful things were and then went out and voted in a manner that maybe was not typical of them.

After another year of more bungling incompetence and continuing to read about how awful things were people went out and voted in a manner that maybe was not typical of them.

I don't think it's outlandish to consider the possibility that maybe the same mechanism was at work.

 

How, exactly?

 

I'm genuinely curious how the same "You're not Bush" anger that elected Obama also put a Republican in a US Senate seat held by Kennedy when the candidate actually campaigned on the fact that if he was elected, he'd KILL a health care bill named after the guy he planned to replace.

 

How does that happen? Please explain the thinking. I'm open. Really.

[IDBillzFan]

After years of bungling incompetence by the Bush administration people got tired of popping open their newspapers and reading about how awful things were and then went out and voted in a manner that maybe was not typical of them.

After another year of more bungling incompetence and continuing to read about how awful things were people went out and voted in a manner that maybe was not typical of them.

I don't think it's outlandish to consider the possibility that maybe the same mechanism was at work.

What IS outlandish is to think, even for a mere second, that the current version of bungling incompetence would ever consider himself a bungling incompetent to the extent that he would make the statement based on your rationale.

 

Remember what he said: the same anger that got me elected got Scott Brown elected.

 

But I love the way you race to his defense again. It's awesome.

[Simon]

What IS outlandish is to think, even for a mere second, that the current version of bungling incompetence would ever consider himself a bungling incompetent to the extent that he would make the statement based on your rationale.

 

Remember what he said: the same anger that got me elected got Scott Brown elected.

 

But I love the way you race to his defense again. It's awesome.

 

Considering that I had no idea he ever said such a thing and that I referred to his administration as incompetent bunglers, I guess it's no surprise you interpret that as "defending" him. It goes along well with the other accurate and insightful analysis that you frequently provide.

Apparently the only thing frequently "open" on you is your mouth.