Who do the "message discipline" mafia want to silence? Those of us who want true healthcare reform..

[Faryn Balyncd]

.....instead of a bailout for insurance corporations?


Fellow progressives (and even moderates and independents) who want true reform - - - a Single Payer Medicare-For-All system, and those who are fighting to preserve a public option (the right for younger Americans to opt in to Medicare)?


Those of us who oppose the Emanuel-Fuchs plan (((an "access plan" now being promoted behind the scenes within our own administration - - - a plan which would not only mandate an all-private insurance scheme without a public option, but would actually phase out and privatize traditional Medicare, our most viable model for Single Payer))) ?


Isn't it interesting that the same folks who are rubbing elbows with the corporate interests promoting this corporate-welfare pseudo-reform, are now simultaneously promoting "message discipline"?





Is this the way forward?


Should we imitate the intellectually bankrupt "message discipline" paradigm of the GOP Wurlitzer, a model of efficiency that brought the now discredited Republicans a few years of power?


Or do we have a duty to expose, engage, and defeat the corporate forces that are now promoting pseudo-reform within our own party?





Why is it that simultaneous with the outcry for TRUE healthcare reform - - - just as voices for Single Payer, and voices demanding preservation of the public option - - - we are now hearing demands from on high for "message discipline", patience, and silence??????












:kick:

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Don't You Think The Little People Like Us Should STFU?

People who are much smarter than us - so smart they get paid millions on Wall Street for a few days work - should make the decisions.

Go back to your Tinker Toys, leave this to the *real* men.

[biopowertoday]

5. that is what

even some on this board tell those who want to post about single payer.

[iamthebandfanman]

37. since when is intelligence a requirement

of someone who works on wall street? ha ha. i kid.
but beyond that,
being smart doesn't mean you do the right thing, infact it probably makes you more likely to come up with a 'brilliant' scheme to make yourself some dough and screw everyone else...

best intentions can not be based on how 'smart' you are.

[Political Tiger]

2. "message discipline mafia?"

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

4. The Folks That Call Us Socialist PUMAs For Disagreeing With Obama

The people who want Paul Krugman to STFU.

[Political Tiger]

8. Oh, THAT message discipline mafia.....

LOL

[salguine]

13. That's nothin'—I disagreed with Obama once and got told I was "spewing hate".

[JTFrog]

15. Poor little vicitims.

I really have to laugh my ass off at those that have done nothing but throw daggers of discontent our President's way claiming to be victims on a message board where there are massive archives that prove no one has shut them up.

Do you need some smelling salts?

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Who Said We Were "Poor Little Victims"?

We're simply pointing out that there are folks telling us to STFU for the sake of "party unity". Unfortunately, it's for unity around Reagan Republican values.

I'd be happy to unify around Democratic values.

[glitch]

32. Apparently the "Reagan Democrats" are back.

After helping take our country on a 30 year tour to hell they have returned to our big tent and are now shouting the rest of us down and calling us names like "haters" and "whiners" when we dare question them.
We're supposed to shut up and be happy about it... we're actually supposed to respect them as an authority without their ever having to show us why we should.

[Jim Sagle]

43. "Daggers of discontent?"

Hey genius, he works for us, not the other way around.

[Jim Sagle]

42. And when they don't call us Socialist PUMAs, they call us REPUBLICAN PUMAs.

It's so hard to keep up.

[Ken Burch]

49. And actually "message discipline" sound a little kinky, when you think about it

Perhaps some people take the term "Majority Whip" a bit too literally?

[biopowertoday]

3. You are spot on.

[HelenWheels]

6. We're not repubs

Repubs walk and talk the party line but we Dems like to think for ourselves.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Testy today, aren't we? Know anybody on Medicare or...

Medicaid who is getting good health care without paying a bundle for uncovered expenses, carrying supplemetal insurance, or just getting sicker?

Know any doctors just chomping at the bit for new Medicare or Medicaid patients.

What about the VA or the Indian Health Service-- is that the care you want?

Can you name the country that WHO says has the best health care in the world and describe its system? The second best?

The point is HEALTH CARE and to get it is far more complicated than simply demand the government pay for it or run it.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. VA: Generally The Best Health Care in The US

I work in the medical-industrial complex, so I have a lot of exposure to health care in the US and abroad.

The VA used to suck, but it's excellent now - on a par, say, with UK medical care - medical records are all electronic and they practice the best in evidence-based care.

Medicare is absolutely fine medical care. In fact, people 65 and over in the US have medical outcomes that are similar to the rest of the industrialized world. Those of us under 65 have outcomes that are worse than Cuba's!

Some whiny docs don't like Medicare because it pays less - they can only make, say, eight times a median wage instead of ten times - poor dears. But, despite the economic hit, most doctors now favor single payer - it makes their lives simpler, and encourages better care for their patients.

France is probably the large country with the best medical care. I've worked with European hospitals - in general, they are much better than US hospitals.

The US has the worst medical outcomes and the most expensive health care (by far!) in the industrialized world. We are also the only major industrialized country that doesn't have single payer (or similar) health care. Coincidence? You can think so, but I'll stick to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor">Occam's Razor.

[TreasonousBastard]

56. I am a VA "client," so I know a little about it, too...

and while I can't complain about most of the care I've received, when they finally found out I have Lyme disease (it took me a long time to convince them to do the testing) they kissed it off with "nothing we can do about it now."

There are no second opinions to be had and some of the latest surgical techniques aren't avaiable (I was in the surgery office when another patient was almost crying-- he went to Sloan Kettering for a consult about his cancer and they had a new surgery that the VA refused to either use or pay for)

As I said, most of the care I've received was good to excellent, but I have nothing to compare it to without any other insurance or way to pay for private care.

France is listed by WHO as the best, but they don't have single payer. Nor does Italy, listed as the second best. Nor do Germany or Spain or Japan or...

Most countries have a hybrid system of private, including workplace, insurance and government subsideis and safety nets. More complex than just demanding "singl;e payer" without even defing what that means, but it worksd for them.

And, yes, it's been known for years that we spend more for health care and have worse results than most of the industrial world. What I don't know is how much of the "care" in those numbers is tummy tucks and botox and if our poor populations (the poorest in the industrial world) and possible higher rates of trauma from violence, car wrecks, etc, skew the results downward.

[vaberella]

60. Reason doesn't work here...move on. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Yep. I know many Medicare beneficiaries who love

their coverage. Many more than love their private coverage. Medicaid is a different program, means based. It is run by the States. It is for those with little income. Very different plans and yet you put them together as if they were the same. They are not the same at all. Not administered by the same entities, not providing to the same people. The benefits are different, the charges are different, and on and on. No person in America qualifies for both, one qualifies for one or the other. They are apples and oranges. In reality that is.

Every doctor I use or know personally wants the Insurance Companies out of the system. That is a simple fact. My own damn HMO doctor told me to watch Sicko. Which I already had, of course.
You ask many questions, and I don't think you expected this answer.

[TreasonousBastard]

58. You don't know my mother, who spends a small fortune...

every year on things that Medicare and Blue Cross don't cover. And Blue Cross ain't cheap, either.

Yes, Medicare is much better than nothing if you don't have a good retirement health package (and fewer are getting that now) but my point is that it isn't the best model for a national healthcare plan-- ask those doctors who hate insurance companies if they want to be reimbursed at Medicare rates.

Doctors do want insurance companies out of the system, but that might have a lot to do with the infinite number of forms that have to be filed, late payments, and someone who says she's a nurse at an 800 number telling them how to treat their patients.

Standardized forms would solve the first problem, but I'm not sure if the second could ever be solved to the doctors' satisfaction without them being employed by the provider. Any system where charges are paid by a third party has to have some controls and will have tension over billings and charges.

Medicaid is different, as is the Indian Health Service or Tricare, but I lump them all together as government programs that are not bad ones, but are flawed ones and asking who wants to choose the government bureaucracy over a private one and then given no other options.

[Faryn Balyncd]

26. You make good points. There is no simple solution. Regarding your question ...:

The majority of the people with which I have contact (both as friends & family members, and those with whom I work within the healthcare professions)who receive good healthcare, are happy with their healthcare, and receive it without the fear of bankruptcy, are on Medicare (some on traditional Medicare, some on Medicare Advantage programs).

That is not to claim that Medicare is without problems which need to be addressed.

But our present model for healthcare is reaching a breaking point.




Some examples:

Within the last month I have heard from a friend whose upcoming bill for a $20,000 deductible catastrophic insurance plan for 2 healthy individuals in their early 60's will rise 40% to over $16,600 yearly. This couple has carried insurance all their lives, has not had an insurance claim paid by an insurance company in over 20 years (all expenses were under the deductible). They have been denied other policies because one of them has, as an outpatient, been prescribed low dose antidepressants, and have seen their high deductible policy more than quadruple in price (and rise from a $10,000 deductible to $20,000 deductble) within the last 5 years. This same couple has a parent, covered by Medicare, who has required hospitalization, and whose excellent care has not been financially devastating. Yet when one of the couple had a recommended outpatient cardiac stress test (which was negative), the under-deductible bill was over $7500, far in excess of the (still very profitable) prices negotiated by insurance companies.

These individuals, like millions of others who are uninsured, underinsured, and even many who have high deductible policies associated with Medical Savings accounts, are charged rates that are frequently as much as 250 to 600% higher than those negotiated by insurance companies on other plans such as HMO's and PPO's. Sometimes these individuals can negotiate a 15-20% dicount (from the 300-600% inflated and fantasy "normal" price) if they PAY IN ADVANCE.

2 days ago I learned of a registered nurse whose bill for an uncomplicated coronary bypass operation, with the normal short hospital stay, which fortunately (for the nurse, not for future purchasers of insurance) was covered by insurance, was over $740,000.

Our medical insurance approach to healthcare is broken, and is bankripting us.

Yet Big Insurance is now attempting to create a healthcare "reform" that preserves their administrative cut, mandates insurance purchase, and eliminates a public option. (We have hired "White House adviser", Zeke Emanuel (Rahm's brother, who is pushing a plan that will not eliminate a public option, but will privatize Medicare, and permanently entrench Big Insurance by government decree.)



Equating calls for a Single Payer system modeled on Medicare with "demanding the government pay for it and run it" is simply not true. (The reality is that it is those supporting a government voucherized mandatory insurance program that are operating under the delusion that they can run up unlimited, wasteful expenses that will be paid via the insurance companies and ultimately by government vouchers. Whatever program we have will have to address efficient and wise, effective medical decision making, and the truth is, that the insurance model, with their 30% "administrative" fees is a wasteful extravagance we can no longer afford.)

Medicare is not a British style national health service.

Providers, hospitals, and physicians are independent.

Beneficiaries pay deductibles, which can be structured to encourage sound decisions while still avoiding financial devastation.




I am not quite sure why you asked about the WHO "best healthcare" system. This reference shows their ranking of France and Italy as #1 and #2, and the USA as #37. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

[TreasonousBastard]

59. Again I say that Medicare...

compared to the options, like having nothing, is pretty good. But, fewer and fewer doctors are accepting medicare patients and medicare doesn't pay for everything, so those medigap coverages are necessary.

You have touched on what should be the main point of discussion-- not what insurance costs, but what medicine costs. Why should a common bypass cost three-quarters of a million dollars no matter who pays for it? What are normal births up to? Last I heard, an uncomplicated vaginal birth was $20-30,000, but that was a while ago and may be higher now-- and this for something women are designed to do. (and, yes, I do know births are far safer than they were a hundred years ago.)

As much as everyone loves to complain about waste on the insurance side of things, I don't hear much about inefficiency and waste on the provider side. Just who were those five doctors who traipsed through and signed something hanging off the bottom of the bed? If those thieving, inefficient insurance companies can negotiate prices down, doesn't that mean everyone else should be able to? And, btw, how high would premiums be if they didn't cut claims costs?

I've questioned that 30% "administrative" thing about insurance companies before, and still haven't gotten a good answer-- one person here even claimed it was profit. I spent over 20 years in the property/casualty end of the business, and 30% isn't unheard of, but it is on the high side and few companies survive long with that kind of expense ratio. Expenses can be added up in a lot of different ways, depending on whether you are talking to a state regulator, the IRS, a premium rating agancy, or your stockholders, so I suspect someone grabbed this number and everyone is happily running with it. At any rate, whoever pays the bills has to have claims and auditing systems in place to watch the money, and it will cost something.

France and Italy both have hybrid systems with tightly regulated insurance companies and government subsidies and safety nets. My point was that universal and/or excellent healthcare is not dependant upon single payer.

[Overseas]

31. Yes. Many countries have much better health care than we do.

Even as a foreigner working in Japan, I could walk into my local clinic and get treated very reasonably.

It is a wonderful feeling to know that you are covered in the event of an accident or health crisis.

I have lived over here unable to afford health insurance and that has felt quite frightening.

It is very disturbing to live in a country that can keep bumping up its military budget while allowing so many of its citizens to go bankrupt when hit with medical crises, whether they have our inadequate for-profit health insurance or not.

We may have the fanciest machines, but we have the cruelest medical system among advanced industrial nations.

If Medicare coverage is so inadequate that many need "medi-gap" insurance to cover themselves, then we need to improve medicare coverage, not eliminate it !!

[bvar22]

44. Do you know anyone on MediCare.....

...who would trade it for "For Profit" Health Insurance?

Do you know anyone in Canada who would trade their Universal HealthCare for the system in the US?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Didn't think so.

[vaberella]

61. read post # 58

which is a few above yours.

[bvar22]

63. I read post #58,

and see no contradiction with my assertion.
Go ask your mother if she would like to give up her Medicare any rely totally on the For Profit Health Insurance Companies.

Your mother's complaint is that MediCare is not BIG enough.
I agree. MediCare should be BIGGER and cover MORE.

[vaberella]

64. Huh...I don't know what you're talking about.

Secondly, my mum is not old enough for Medicare. Third, I don't know how my mum came up for discussion.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

9. Managing outrage

This is a crucial component of corporate PR. I don't know if you have heard of a guy named Peter Sandman and the model's used to manage outrage. I'll provide a few links here. The essence though is not to alter policy or admit ot injustice but to control how people think about the situation. This is used to destroy and marginalize enviro,s, political protesters and otherwise social justice activists.

Essentially this is just an extension of propaganda techniques to assassinate the left. People who defend this sort of thing do the bidding of those who work to keep the people in servitude.

John Stauber does an excellent job of de-constructing this propaganda technique.

Dr. Peter M. Sandman
Outrage Management
(Low Hazard, High Outrage)

http://www.psandman.com/index-OM.htm

Here's an old article on what we are discussing here:

WAR ON TRUTH
The Secret Battle for the American Mind

An Interview with John Stauber
Published in "The Sun"
March 1999


Australian academic Alex Carey once wrote that "the twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

In societies like ours, corporate propaganda is delivered through advertising and public relations. Most people recognize that advertising is propaganda. We understand that whoever paid for and designed an ad wants us to think or feel a certain way, vote for a certain candidate, or purchase a certain product. Public relations, on the other hand, is much more insidious. Because it's disguised as information, we often don't realize we are being influenced by public relations. But this multi-billion-dollar transnational industry's propaganda campaigns affect our private and public lives every day. PR firms that most people have never heard of - such as Burson-Marsteller, Hill & Knowlton, and Ketchum - are working on behalf of myriad powerful interests, from dictatorships to the cosmetic industry, manipulating public opinion, policy making, and the flow of information.

As editor of the quarterly investigative journal PR Watch, John Stauber exposes how public relations works and helps people to understand it. He hasn't always been a watchdog journalist, though. He worked for more than twenty years as an activist and organizer for various causes: the environment, peace, social justice, neighborhood concerns. Eventually, it dawned on him that public opinion on every issue he cared about was being managed by influential, politically connected PR operatives with nearly limitless budgets. "Public relations is a perversion of the democratic process," he says. "I knew I had to fight it."

In addition to starting PR Watch, Stauber founded the Center for Media and Democracy, the first and only organization dedicated to monitoring and exposing PR propaganda. In 1995, Common Courage Press published a book by Stauber and his colleague Sheldon Rampton titled Toxic Sludge Is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry. Their second book, Mad Cow U.S.A.: Could the Nightmare Happen Here?, came out in 1997 and examined the public-relations coverup of the risk of mad-cow disease in the U.S.

<snip>

http://www.derrickjensen.org/stauber.html

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Throw a little Edward Bernays in there...

[Faryn Balyncd]

30. great article.......thanks.

[glitch]

33. This post deserves its own thread. nt

[Overseas]

38. Corporate propaganda is a billion dollar business.

It has become so much more sophisticated in the past couple of decades.

I would also like to see more threads about this topic.

Thanks for the links.

[truedelphi]

47. i really love John Stauber. His book

"Toxic Sludge is good for you" got lent out to friends so many times - I think I have had to buy four or five of 'em.

He really pulls apart the pieces behind how our minds are kept controlled.

[lostnotforgotten]

10. Be Careful, Be Very, Very Careful - Just Disagreeing With Obama Is Considered Sinful Here

eom

[Faryn Balyncd]

11. Rahm Emanuel's Think Tankers Enforce 'Message Discipline' Among 'Liberals' . . . :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5433746

[Revolution9]

16. figures it is emanuel.

never trust a DLC'er
you can take the DLC'er out of the DLC but you can't take the DLC out of the DLC'er.

corporate shill rahm.

so suprised.
(sarcasm)

[ecstatic]

18. I suggest that those who want to be heard stop with the shrill,

hyperbole-laden language... maybe then you might be taken more seriously. Shrill whining (especially when not based on facts) is a huge turn off.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Can You Be Specific?

What passes for shrill, hyperbolic, non-factual whining in your neck of the woods?

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Fascinating..

Whenever I ask for specifics, I get radio silence.

[uponit7771]

25. This OP best spells it out....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8334936&mesg_id=8334936

[ecstatic]

28. LOL. I mean seriously!

To Manny, I don't mind answering questions but that one was a bit too obvious and disingenuous for me. LOL

[MannyGoldstein]

29. I See. You Just *Know* It's True.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness">Got it.

[Two Americas]

51. you attacked many DUers

You made a vague and generalized insinuation against many people here. You should back it up or withdraw it.

[Every Man A King]

57. Alot of your posts for sure n/t

[Two Americas]

50. people have been very moderate

You cannot ask people to moderate their speech any more then they already are. Most people are exercising extreme restraint as it is.

This argument has been used against progressive and left wing voices throughout history. The Abolitionists were accused of being too shrill, and of turning people off and so could not be taken seriously. So were the early Labor organizers, the Suffragettes, and the Civil Rights marchers. "Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but you are going about it the wrong way and hurting your cause." Notice the language there that betrays the speaker - "your cause."

Complaining about the way that people are going about their advocacy is a covert way to oppose them and the cause.

When people have no effective counter-argument, they either attack the messenger or complain about the way the message is being delivered.


...

[Davis_X_Machina]

20. Self-dramatizing rubbish.

If you were being 'silenced' here, for example, you'd have been tombstoned.

'Hearing demands from on high about "Message discipline isn't 'being silenced'

'People saying mean and hurtful things about me' isn't 'I'm being silenced'.

It's a policy debate. There will be differences of opinion on goals and methods.

But telling people "Shut up and stop telling me to shut up" is a waste of time.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Who Said We Were Being Silenced?

Rather, it was said that some would like us to be silent.

[Davis_X_Machina]

27. Well, then you have *less* than nothing...

...to complain about.

[Faryn Balyncd]

36. "Message discipline" is the attempt to control the PUBLIC AGENDA in the mass media (not on DU)......

Constructive, principled criticism of our administration is not being silenced on this board.

"The Common Purpose Project" which Scahill and Jane Hamshire describe as "one of the many groups Rahm Emanuel has set up to coordinate messaging among liberal interest groups" represents the kind of "message discipline" whose goal is to silence progressive criticism of the official administration position IN THE MASS MEDIA. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5433746

And whether that progressive criticism involves Iraq, Afghanistan, or health reform, failure to engage corporatist influence on our own administration is perilous.

Obama NEEDS US (and probably is depending on us, despite the efforts of his Chief-of-Staff) to publicly hold his feet to the fire, and prevent corporatist influences from achieving their Bait & Switch pseudo-reforms.



It's "Good Cop, Bad Cop", & it's up to us to do our job. (We can all figure out which)

[bvar22]

45. Who decides what is "Constructive, principled criticism" ?

You?

[blindpig]

34. Ain't nobody getting their feelings hurt.

but some of us do get peeved when the Administration or it's cheerleaders here pisses on our leg and tells us it's raining.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. Then perhaps you should find someplace else to post? This is

Democratic Underground, and for all the Dem bashing, non-donating, shit stirrers it's very simple. We know you have an agenda, and you will most likely be called on it everytime. If you want to control the discussion, perhaps you should think about starting your own site, where you can bash Dems to your heart's content?
:shrug:

[Two Americas]

53. that is out of line

You have no right to characterize all who do not agree with you as "Dem bashers," to speculate and make unfounded insinuations about the motives of other members, and to imply that they have a secret agenda, and suggest that they are not welcome or do not belong here.

It is also dishonest to try to control the discussion by cleverly and deceptively accusing others of trying to control the discussion.

I would be more than happy to discuss my party bona fides and political history, my agenda - I welcome the opportunity to speak out on my political positions and defend them - and my view of this debate. I promise you that I will not merely drop little mean-spirited and dishonest personal attacks and then scurry away and hide, and fail to defend anything and everything I have to say.

Care to make those accusations against hundreds of DUers again, face to face, and stand and defend and support them? Or are you merely going to take a cowardly approach and flit from thread to thread trying to assassinate the characters of other DUers with insinuation and malicious hints, to spread suspicion, animosity and confusion?

I am not going anywhere, and I won't be intimidated. If there is something you have to say, something you would care to discuss, let's do that - straightforwardly and honestly.


...

[Two Americas]

52. nonsense

This is the way the right wingers debate. No one can discuss racism without being accused of "reverse racism." No one can discuss the plight of the have-nots without being accused of fomenting class warfare.

Now you would have it that no one can complain about the relentless attempts at shutting down a free and open discussion, saying that it is the ones objecting to that who are trying to shut down the discussion.

A policy debate is exactly what the defenders of the rulers and the party are trying to prevent. Of course no one outright calls for silencing anyone - that wouldn't work and people do not have the power to silence anyone. So a variety of tactics are employed - personal attacks, disrupted threads, demands for loyalty, insinuations about people's character, accusations that people are trolls or freepers, ridicule, red-baiting, and on and on.

Let's not be confused about this - it is the defenders of the rulers and the party who start with the complaints and who are intolerant of the opinions of others. The complaint they have had is that people were criticizing the president - end of story. That has led them to engage in relentless personal attacks and to disrupt threads, all under the guise of party loyalty or "supporting" the president. Neither of those are debates about policy, they are attempts at avoiding any discussion of policy. When people resist that and fight back or complain about it, then you would have us believe that it is they who are the instigators. It just has not happened that way.


...

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Why do you hate Obama? K&R

I guess I might as well too.

[AtomicKitten]

39. "Help, I'm being repressed!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

[PBS Poll-435]

40. At least you know the difference between a bank and an insurance company

I'll give you that.

[cascadiance]

41. I can't be a part of this Rahm-per Room. I won't be able to behave the way they want to...

[bvar22]

46. Rahm can kiss my LIBERAL ass.

No Non-Profit Public Option = No HealthCare Reform

[Honeycombe8]

54. If the Dems don't get their act together, the Repubs will win back Congress.

Then where are you, regarding healthcare reform?

[Two Americas]

55. where are we

Where are we is the question. You said "where are you" as though your interests or political positions are different than those of the person you are responding to. Is that the case?

I think we have had enough of the fear-mongering on this subject - telling people to not criticize Dems, to stop advocating their principles and ideals, because otherwise we will have Republicans and be worse off. That is a form of extortion, and it is bullying.

If "supporting" Dems requires us to abandon our principles and ideals and be silent, then I have to wonder just what it is we are being pressured to support.

If you are uncomfortable with the rough and tumble of political debate, unwilling to hear contrary points of view, and resistant to looking at politics in any but the most superficial way, then no one is compelling you to participate. If on the other hand you actually oppose universal health care you should be upfront about that and debate the issue on its merits rather than on your notion as to what will best serve partisan political interests.

The only reason that it is better to have Dems in office rather than Republicans is because of the hope that they may listen while the Republicans will not. They cannot very well listen if we are not saying anything. "We are behind you whatever you do because you are better than Republicans" is not an appropriate message to be sending them, let alone should we ever be demanding that this be the only message any of us send to them. That not only cripples us - your presumed allies - but it harms the party, and beyond that it sabotages democracy.



...

[JVS]

62. Fuck them.