‘Virtual radio row’ no help in killing health care

The House passed the health care bill with a public option Saturday night with a comfy two-vote margin. This, after everything plus money was thrown at it from insurance lobbyists and Republicans.

It’s a huge victory for Speaker Nancy Pelosi who wrangled the votes like a pro in the face of opponents who had everything except enough votes.

Talk radio was little help in the effort.

Wednesday, House Republicans held a “virtual radio row” to bring their message of “die quickly” to the folks at home by availing more than 40 Republican members of Congress to speak with 20 right-wing radio hosts, and 25 bloggers.

According to Talkers magazine, "This is the third such 'virtual' radio row (so-called because the radio hosts aren't physically gathered in one location) the House Republican Conference has organized this year."

The effort was not fruitful, because the power of the right-wing media is exaggerated by their own reporting, and the GOP failed to get anyone but 2nd-tier talkers. (OK, they got Bill Bennett...) 

Where was the touted clout of the tea-baggers, and the talk radio right? Those "gums of August" that scared hell out of timid Congessmen last summer?  They may be getting a potent (single digit) audience share, but in real politics, as Michael Medved wrote last week: “… that segment of the electorate remains an irrelevant and non-viable fringe factor.”

Comments

[Drew]

Con talkers get a lot of cheer leading by a few commentators here, but this proves that, despite the ratings of the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck, any real clout they have in steering social or cultural change is imaginary and irrelevant at the end of the day.

[AuthenticAndrew]

"radio row" is quite a bit more catchy than "virtual radio row." That's a good example of sacrificing grace for the sake of accuracy.

[mrogi]

Pelosi ramrods that healthcare bill through the House in the dead of night on a weekend. There is something unsavory and disturbing about this whole thing.

[mrogi]

Pelosi ramrods that healthcare bill through the House in the dead of night on a weekend. There is something unsavory and disturbing about this whole thing.

[AuthenticAndrew]

there was something unsavory about the 750 presidential signing statements employed by Bush but conservatives didn't have a problem with that

[Puget Sound]

Poor Authentic A-Huckleberry hasn't got the memo: Bush isn't president anymore so it's okay to strip the Impeach Bush bumper sticker off your car.

So it passes 220-215 with a huge democratic majority in the house. Good luck getting this thing through the Senate.

Then good luck again getting the reconciled bill passed by either legislative body.

What was interesting is that Pres Obama spoke to the Nation a few weeks ago telling us that funding for Abortion would not be in the Bill.
YET, it took 60 plus Dems and the Repubs to pass the Stupeck Ammendment and expressly strip it out.
Change you can believe in? Same old politics...

[Coiler]

The bill wasn't rammed down anyone's throat. I recall the Boner saying there should be an up and down vote as soon as possible. He lost. Many employers are looking at passage as a way to stay in business. Republicans don't care, they like the country to fail over politics.

[Puget Sound]

Coils
You really did pick the wrong week to start huffing paint cans again.

Special all day Caucus topped off with a Saturday Night Session, Pres Obama coming to Capital Hill to rally the Dems, and then having to strip out the Abortion Funding aspect at the last minute to get some of the conservative Dems on board. Then just making it with two to spare and 35 plus Dems joining a bipartisan effort with Repubs against it.
Yeah, not rammed through...right!
Sheeesh, if you can't even be honest about that then you are not in touch with reality and should just put those paint cans down.

Lets see how it rolls in the Senate and then the Reconciliation process.

[Mark C.]

jesus, how could have this been more analyzed, and public?

[sparky]

If you had bothered watching the proceedings Puts, you would be aware that there WAS already language in the bill that prohibits spending federal dollars for birth control. The Stupak amendment was not only not necessary, but it goes even farther and says that a woman cannot use private insurance coverage paid for out of pocket to pay for an abortion. This is in essence, an attempt to void what is already a legal medical procedure protected by a Supreme Court ruling.
Watch for that amendment to be stripped out in conference, leaving behind the original wording that will still prohibit federal funds for paying for an abortion.

Of course, the screamers on the right will continue to try to scare people into thinking that the Dems will secretly insert language that requires women to have an abortion.

No, Bush is no longer President. But don't expect us to stop pointing out the hipocracy of the right when they holler about something that they themselves had no problem with during that Administration.

[Puget Sound]

Oh Sparkles
If that was true, then why did all those Dems (64 in total) refuse to vote for the bill without the Stupack Ammendment?
Just asking...
This is what the Stupack Ammendment does per the author of the bill, Democrat Congressman Stupak:
"Passage of the Stupak Amendment does not impose a new federal abortion policy; it simply continues what has been the law of the land since 1977 and I am pleased that with the addition of this amendment the House health care reform bill will continue that policy.”

Sparkles, you really need to get past the same three blog sites. It will open a brave new world.

[Puget Sound]

and Sparkles
If the Stupack Amendment was such as you claim (and not just the Hyde Ammendment continued forward) the fact that Speaker Pelosi had to agree to it to get the Health Care Package passed (with two votes extra) tells you what a fragile coalition she had to begin with. Remarkable since Speaker Pelosi has a huge majority.

BTW, this morning Senator Lieberman has stated he will filibuster any Senate Bill that has a public option in it.

I'll pause why the collective Nutroots has another tantrum.

(Coils, put down those spray-paint cans...)

[Drew]

Lieberman has pocketed over 1 million from the insurance lobby in just the last month (a campaign premium), and now they are making a claim.
People like he and Lincoln, Baucus, and McConnell are the textbook examples of why this country needs to publically finance every political campaign now.

[fRed]

How dare you criticize Abraham Lincoln at a time like this. Are you prejudiced against tall bearded men who wear top hats.
Get your fucking act together Drew or retreat to London.

[Drew]

Abraham Lincoln, the last great Republican, would have undoubtedly voted to protect our citizens from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Blanche Lincoln is more interested in protecting her campaign donations.

[fRed]

Thanks for clarifying that Drew, now get back in the suck up line and resume kissing ass.

[KS]

Stop smoking crack, dude ! It has obviously perverted your brain and made you incoherent.

Go Lieberman and filibuster the Senate Bill ! Those who support this Health Care monster are inherently more corrupt and lack common sense than those who do not. Why would they be going against the wishes of the majority of Americans if that weren't the case ?

This is about ideology and even experts in Europe have said that big government in health care is the wrong solution - they should know they have been through it and a number of countries (Netherlands, Belgium and Germany) are trying to dismantle the government control part of their health care delivery system.

This administration is ideologically obsessed on bringing us a European government model (against the majorities wishes) and it will be their downfall unless they drop that and move toward the middle and you can take that to the bank.

[AuthenticAndrew]

The idea that an organization can get big enough to run away with power and crush anything in its path is a recurring theme lately. Banks that are too big to fail only getting bigger, and now the pharmaceutical industry is using the money it gouges from Americans to buy off politicians and isnure that they will continue to gouge us. Big pharma is very much like a cancer in this respect, it's killing the very thing that nourishes it.

And then it doesn't help that we have these bible thumping lemmings walking around voluntarily forming a human shield around their oppressors, voting against their own best interests time and time again.

[Drew]

Ask anyone in Europe (especially, France and the UK), if they want to trade their various government-subsidized health care systems for for-profit "sick-care" like we have in the U.S., and they will all tell you no. There is no "dismantling" going on, except in the minds of some cons over here, who are desperate to cling to their failed system of "if you have the money, you get to live" plan. But we are going to dismantle this "profits-before-patients" mess before more Americans die. Even the queen of privatization, Margaret Thatcher, wasn't stupid enough to privatize the NHS- something about the bad taste of an overnight recall didn't quite fit her plans.

[Drew]

Even Hannity (part of this "Radio Row") had to resort to putting on a member of the EU Parliament on his show who happened to have an opinion against the NHS. Hannity couldn't be bothered to explain that 1) Daniel Hannan is NOT a memeber of the British Parliament- he's with the European Union Parliment, and thus, has no say in the implementation of the NHS. Or 2), that Hannan is very wealthy, and his district includes the most wealthy of English citizens, in Kennsington- Hannan can quite easily afford private insurance from BUPA, and surely does. It was also not mentioned that 3), Hannan has been a recipient of NHS care, along with members of his family. He can easily afford to travel to the U.S. to receive any care he needs, but he never has.
Of course, Hannity isn't known for telling the truth, or for that matter, being an honorable person, so none of this should come as a surprise.

[The Quiet Man]

Most americans including rightwingers have never been outside this country. they whould get their ass kicked for telling others that american health insurance is the way to go

[AuthenticAndrew]

It really comes down to greed, which is more and more being recognized as acore American value thanks to Ayn Rand and Reaganomics. Most Americans have health coverage and are not sick and are satisfied with the $10 copay when they do become sick, and they can't bring themselves to give a shit about the uninusred, under insured and the tiny minority that gets fucked over by the inurance companies.

In my debates with conservatives I've noticed that America's staunch ideals of freedom and self reliance are on the one hand considered a strength, but on the other hand fuel the idea that it's OK to insulate yourself from the outside world and only look out for number one. They claim to love their country but they only vote on behalf of themselves.

[KS]

"Ask anyone in Europe (especially, France and the UK), if they want to trade their various government-subsidized health care systems for for-profit "sick-care" like we have in the U.S., and they will all tell you no. There is no "dismantling" going on, except in the minds of some cons over here, who are desperate to cling to their failed system of "if you have the money, you get to live" plan."

You are obfuscating the issue, lemming. The current system is broken and those who you reference and not fully informed, like you. Contrary to your talking points, here is what is really going on. View this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZum_o-GAEI

Your ignorance is astounding. There is no dispute about the American Health care system needing reform. The dispute is about how it is being done and enacting more Government control is dead wrong. It will further damage the already fragile economy and also hurt those on Medicare.
Pelosicare is an unacceptable solution. Only a real bipartisan bill is acceptable.

But we are going to dismantle this "profits-before-patients" mess before more Americans die."

That type of ideological nonsense is being spewed by Pelosi and Obamao. This new system, if in place would have worse consequences than the current system because of more health care rationing specifically in Medicare. This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue - it is about the independent heart & soul here.

[Puget Sound]

They claim to love their country but they only vote on behalf of themselves.

Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | November 08, 2009 at 01:39 PM

Authentic A-Huckleberry
Nice pontification. That's easy to do. Let's see if you walk your talk.

Can you give us an example in your own life in which you have given of yourself for the greater good?
Ever serve your country in the military for example.
Maybe served in the Peacecorp?
Something that shows genuine sacrifice on behalf of others.

Just one example.

This should be interesting...(crickets chirping)

[KS]

Tea baggers is a half-wit term conjured up by a CNN leftwing pretty boy with no ratings. The progressive nutroots just keep being cocky and tone deaf in the face of losing two governorships in the elections last week. The mojo that was apparent one year ago is suddenly gone...

and the opposition is just getting warmed up.

[Puget Sound]

hey KS
even that 'democratic win' in the NY congressional seat was against a last minute candidate who didn't even live in the district. and the nominal republican nominee actually supported the democrat.
with all that baggage, the 'conservative party' candidate still almost pulled it out.
imagine if he had campaigned for oh say a month and actually lived in the freakin district.
too funny to hear the Dems claim a mandate off of that but wait, it will happen. LMAO.
to be honest, i wouldn't have voted for that particular 'conservative party' candidate due to the fact that he didn't even live in the district and the number of outsiders ie Palin, et al coming in like they did at the last moment.

[Drew]

Governors are not federal positions; they have much more to do with state and local politics and issues than anything going on in D.C. Additionally, both of the democratic governors that lost did so because they were too moderate for their progressive constituents. Corzine was a good example of that.
The cons have yet to "put up or shut up" with a plan for health care reform. Not because they are slow thinkers, or because the topic confuses and mystifies them: it's because they really don't want any kind of reform. By any legitimate poll taken in the last 4 years, Americans want health care reform by at least 68%, to include cost-containment, oversight, and accessibility for more Americans. Cons can't have that, because of the belief that at least part of the population should always be wanting of something basic, but never quite able to get it. Like clean air and water, good-paying jobs, and strong, viable public education, this country needs to do what other nations figured out a long time ago: invest in your people's health, and the people can focus on being productive members of the community. It has worked in every other industrialized nation in the world, except this one, because we believe the financial health of CEOs and shareholders to be much more important than the actual physical health of the consumers that make them wealthy in the first place, to say nothing of the nearly 50 million Americans who can't even afford the premiums. Unlike their counterparts in France and England, they worry that a simple appendectomy or orthopedic emergency could bankrupt them.

[willamette]

Tea Baggers, Tea Baggers, Tea Baggers.

[sparky]

Drew, this same kind of whining from the right took place when Social Security and Medicare became law. The country was going to "fall apart" and become totally socialist.
They had 8 years to get a health care plan in place, and did nothing.
It doesn't matter how many votes were cast against it as long as it passed...which it did. That's all that matters.

[Puget Sound]

Drew, Sparkles, et al
If what you said was true then you must not have a high opinion of the intelligence of the 39 Dems who defected.
If what you said was true then the Health Care Bill should have flown through back in June when it was first promised.
If what you said was true then the Senate will have no problem passing the bill.

If what you said was true...LMAO

Why did Brain Baird, a person trained in mental health, vote against the bill?

[Puget Sound]

and yes Sparkles, it does matter that Speaker Pelosi had bi partisan support against her Health Care Bill to the extent that she made it by two votes despite having a 41 vote majority.

Harry Reid doesn't have that luxury.

And those Dems that did vote for it in the McCain carried Districts will pay a price for their vote. Hope it was worth it if the bill ends up being stalled out in the Senate like Cap and Trade.

[Drew]

When a republican votes against a bill like this, we all know it's because he or she is (say it with me now...), a CON. They have a really bad, and long-standing reputation for taking money from lobbyists in exchange for favorable votes in upcoming bills. Many of these blue-dogs have been doing the same lately. It devalues my vote, and your vote, and every other citizen's vote.
But these issues that tear down a democracy are rarely questioned, and almost never by the cons.

But then, why would we expect the teabaggers to complain...they know they shouldn't talk with their mouth full.

[Tommy008]

The squirrel man will have another of his redfaced, whining fits and snits over this vote come noon Monday.

[joanie]

Oh, FCS. What's this sparkles, coils crap? You two ought to sock him in the mouth in a literary fashion. What phoney baloney.

And the reason it took so long was that the rethugs kept tactically slowing it down. I mean, what else are they good for? The party of NO I mean. At least the Dems let the People of NO talk. That's more than the People of NO did for the Dems when the Bush was in power.

Amazing that you guys even show your faces on this one. Just amazing.

But, Drew, I have to disagree with you: Bill Clinton was the last great Republican President. Ask Theodore Lowi of Cornell. And I agree.

I'm going to find a Connecticut blog. Somebody must be talking recall on Llieberman. I mean, 70% of the people - all over - want health care reform. Somebody should kick his ass to Israel. He can settle in Gaza for all I care.

BTW, his wife was on the payroll of a health insurance company. Who's bidding do you really think he's doing?

[joanie]

Listening to repeat of Press tonight returning from the North (Canada's unemployment is 8.2% and that's their REAL numbers unlike so say 10.2% but it's really around 17%) and he said as hard as Pelosi worked to get this through, Reid is going to go one better. It seemed like he was saying that Reid is going for an even more robust public option. Hope so.

Press said they should be twisting arms a la Johnson in his Congressional Hey Day (Hay Day?). Threaten to take away some of the tax money for bridges, airports and rich developers in those Blue Dog states where even there the majority of the public wants health care.

[Drew]

Too true, Joanie (although I meant to amend my statement to say that Eisenhower was actually the last great Republican of any merit, and who still believed in the Constitution). But I think that the Clintons were the best conservative friends a trade treaty could ever have. Particularly if you are a CEO that aims to benefit from one of those trade treaties.
Yes, I read where Mrs. Lieberman got a nice little chunk o' change from hubby's efforts on the Hill to crush the single-payer plans- how nice to be able to keep it "all in the family".
The cons are spending their good ol' time with health care reform, because they really don't want it to happen in the first place. 122 Americans every day will die from a lack of health insurance coverage. Nearly 45,000 annually, which apparently is an acceptable number, if your a con.

[joanie]

The numbers and facts don't seem to faze them. They are hook, line and sinker'd into sheep-like obedience to their elitist leaders.

I don't get it. Reason vs emotion I guess.

Saw a spectacular lighting storm in Seattle last week - the kids and I were entranced. Then, another Friday night at BB. A downpour like you wouldn't believe. My place in BB is a mobile home -a trailer. Two bedrooms and large but still a trailer. I've never experienced a lighting storm and down pour before up there. I thought the place was going to cave in. I was glad when the downpour ended. I kept expecting to see water come through my roof. But it didn't. You see some spectacular storms on the east side, I know.

I have a nice gas corner stove so I sat and watched the flames for a while. I'm discovering that in Canada it is hockey all the time. Hockey Friday night and hockey all day and night Saturday. I only watch cbc but I couldn't believe any station could air that much hockey.

Beautiful day today. Cold. You betcha.

I'm off. G'night.

[KS]

Yes, Puts - the election in NY-23 was one that was screwed up. The conservative candidate may have stood for the right stuff, but he was a carpetbagger who only campaigned for a month and was not a good campaigner from what I heard, yet got almost 46% of the vote. The Democrat (Owens) broke 4 of his promises the first day after elected - he fits right in with the House Dems (Rangel, Murtha, Waters, etc.). He won, but the Republicans captured a majority of state seat in PA and VA - that David Brooks mentioned in his column on Friday.

"The numbers and facts don't seem to faze them. They are hook, line and sinker'd into sheep-like obedience to their elitist leaders.

"I don't get it. Reason vs emotion I guess."

What facts are you referring to ?
You're talking that way about the Democrats ? Regardless if that was your intention, you inadvertantly nailed it, because that describes them to a Tee. Actually, I concur that Bill Clinton was the last good (not great) "Republican" President.

[KS]

I elaborate -
but the Republicans captured a majority of state legislative seats that were up for election in PA and VA - that David Brooks mentioned in his column on Friday.

[Drew]

"The cons are spending their good ol' time with health care reform, because they really don't want it to happen in the first place. 122 Americans every day will die from a lack of health insurance coverage. Nearly 45,000 annually, which apparently is an acceptable number, if your a con."

[Corporal Non-fat]

Here's the $64,000 question:
Now that he has his beloved healthcare, will Duffman now fuck-off and not post on blogs? or continue teabagging?

[mrogi]

The House Bill is DOA when it gets to the Senate.

[Drew]

If we don't pass reform with a strong public option, $64,000 will buy about 2 years of health insurance for a family of four in 2018, complete with fat deductibles and pre-existing conditions clauses. Folks like Hannity and Limbaugh will still be able to afford that, but their cheerleaders here will not- Damn you, cruel Irony!!!

[Puget Sound]

but you are not going to get that strong public option.
do the math.
unlikely you'll get to 60 to obtain cloture.
harry reid doesn't have the votes.

adam smith had a nice article as to why he came off the fence and voted for this bill. the tone of the article reflects someone who knows he better explain the vote to his district.
even an adam smith who has had my vote every year he was up for election becomes vulnerable in the upcoming 2010.
with a 10 plus percent unemployment rate who knows what can happen in a throw the incumbents out off year election.

[Puget Sound]

The Wall Street Journal (a great paper for adults) has an editorial that explains a lot of reasons why people have issues with this bill.

here

[Puget Sound]

For a different slant another great online source for adults is Mother Jones.

Mother Jones

For my friends who only read papers that slant one way you run a real risk of missing the other side of an argument.

Take a look at National Review Online and The Nation. Different perspectives.

National Review

Or for a liberal perspective

The Nation

[joanie]

I'm a liberal. I can think for myself.

[Puget Sound]

joanie
as an educator, i know that you support the concept of getting to know both sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion. as such, reading differing points of view can be informative.

btw, i wish you well and hope that things work out for you.

[Unionless]

Then why are you so taken by Randi Roads and CSpan and why are you so enamored with Gen Clark and Chucks. I think you lie with regularity.

[Drew]

Yes, C-Span is well known for it's liberal slant. It's supported by commies that want transparency in government.