Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.
Make a new account
"Giap understood what the French and Americans did not: that a peasant army, imbued with patience, nationalism and a willingness to endure untold suffering, could defeat a far more powerful force whose cause was not enthusiastically supported at home. Giap lost an estimated 1 million Communist soldiers in winning Vietnam's independence as a unified state, but he never expressed the slightest doubt that such huge casualties were worth the sacrifice."
The man was a genius at his craft, and came to define patriotism in his homeland, in a manner by which few others ever do in their own countries.
Aloha to a worthy adversary in war, and a trusted friend in peace.
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory? A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us. Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits? A: Keenly.
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.
And helps even more if you had Uncle Walter making false claims....
Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [lloks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight] Q: What about the results? A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.
Q: What about the results?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.
Link Parent
Face it Jim: as painful as it is to admit, Bill Ayers and Hanoi Jane were right and the chickenhawks are still wrong. Parent
Our country's military involvement in Vietnam was pure folly, based as it was upon a pointed misreading on our part of the inherent nature of that conflict. It was a war waged by the Vietnamese people for their sovereignty and independence, and not as proxies for the Soviet Union. Communism wasn't the end game for Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap, but rather the means to attain that end.
From a military and strategic standpoint, we violated perhaps the most fundamental of the noted warrior / philosopher Sun Tzu's stated tenets for waging war, which is that to ensure one's success in battle, one must know both one's enemy and one's own selves.
In the case of Vietnam, we ultimately knew neither, because we gravely underestimated North Vietnam's capacity to absorb enormous punishment, and greatly overestimated both our own ability to inflict that level of pain for a prolonged period, and the capability and willingness of our South Vietnamese clients to stand up for themselves. Hitting that dubious trifecta as we did, small wonder that our leaders in Washington finally exhausted the American people's patience and resolve to stay the course.
Aloha. Parent
"an adversary who refuses to be defeated, cannot lose." Parent
Specifically (and do try to read this without rolling your eyes or hooting in derision):
Good morning, everyone. When we have a crisis like the one we're in the middle of this week, the American people expect their leaders to sit down and try to resolve their differences. I was at the White House the other night and listening to the president some 20 times explain to me why he wasn't going to negotiate. I sat there and listened to the majority leader in the United States Senate describe to me that we're not going to talk until we surrender. I get the Wall Street Journal out and it says "we don't care how long this lasts because we're winning." This isn't some damn game. The American people don't want their government shut down and neither do I. All we're asking for is to sit down and have a discussion and reopen the government and to bring fairness to the American people under Obamacare. It's as simple as that. But it all has to begin with a simple discussion.
Is John Boehner aware of who is responsible for the shutdown? Does he have one of those weird kinds of amnesia that renders his memory blank with respect to the 30-something times his caucus tried to repeal the ACA - and failed?
These people - the John Boehners and the Ted Cruzes, the Mitch McConnells and Louie Gohmerts (how has that guy not been pronounced brain dead?), the whole lot of batsh!t-crazy Tea Party Republicans - AND - the craven Democrats who waited until they had a giant gun to their heads before locating their spines ought to be run out of town and forbidden to return or to ever hold a position of "public trust" again.
AND the - I'm sorry, there simply is no other word for them - MORONS who keep voting them into office - this is on them, too.
Maybe the answer is for them to don their skimpiest thongs, light the sage sticks, dance around the well of the Senate and recite Dr. Seuss, while goats scamper up and down the aisles...it would make about as much sense and would do as much good as Permanently Orange John Boehner informing us that what they've been doing isn't a game.
Thank my everloving God it's fking Friday.
It's scary to think that the teavangelicals want to suicide bomb the entire country. Parent
Wonkbook: Obamacare's Web site is really bad ... the Obama administration doesn't have a basically working product that would be improved by a software update. They have a Web site that almost nobody has been able to successfully use. If Apple launched a major new product that functioned as badly as Obamacare's online insurance marketplace, the tech world would be calling for Tim Cook's head. ... Yes, the overwhelming crush of traffic is behind many of the Web site's failures. But the Web site was clearly far, far from prepared for traffic at anywhere near these levels. That's a planning flaw: The Obama administration badly underestimated the level of interest. The fact that the traffic is good news for the law doesn't obviate the fact that the site's inability to absorb that traffic is bad news for the law. Part of the problem, according to a number of designers, is that the site is badly coded, which makes the traffic problems more acute. There's a darkly amusing thread on Reddit where web designers are picking through the site's code and mocking it mercilessly. link
Part of the problem, according to a number of designers, is that the site is badly coded, which makes the traffic problems more acute. There's a darkly amusing thread on Reddit where web designers are picking through the site's code and mocking it mercilessly. link
According to Erza, there are signs that the site is improving. The wait times are improving yet they aren't the only problem as the site crashs five or six screens in. I'm in total agreement with Erza's statement:
The Obama administration need to get the marketplace working, and fast.
It would be about as believable as Best Buy advertising 72-inch, high-def flat-screen TVs for $99, and expressing surprise when 5,000 people showed up to buy the 5 of them they had in stock. Really? You didn't think this would be of that much interest to people? Parent
This is the part that is aggravating me to no end:
...the site is badly coded, which makes the traffic problems more acute. There's a darkly amusing thread on Reddit where web designers are picking through the site's code and mocking it mercilessly.
Who in the "h&ll" was in charge of overseeing the development of this site? No way with a 3 year lead time the code should be so sloppy or not fully and properly tested prior to implementation. The need for a high level professional roll out should have been one of the first concerns as Klein points out:
But the Obama administration did itself -- and the millions of people who wanted to explore signing up -- a terrible disservice by building a Web site that, four days into launch, is still unusable for most Americans. They knew that the only way to quiet the law's critics was to implement it effectively. And building a working e-commerce Web site is not an impossible task, even with the added challenges of getting various government data services to talk to each other. Instead, the Obama administration gave critics arguing that the law isn't ready for primetime more ammunition for their case.
Parent
I haven't read the whole thing. I don't know if I will, either, because it's pretty demoralizing. Parent
It's quite possible that the caching headers for the site were not set as aggressively as they should have, causing the site to wilt under load. That would be a disappointing oversight, if true, but (as a developer of an election-day system with similar large one-day loads) I can state it can be quite hard to properly test a million people hitting your site at once (at least not without quite substantial budget devoted to the task). It should also be noted that (as far as I understand it) there are actually 51 or so separate IT projecand then there are separate state-specific sitests here: there's the central connector, . Reading the anecdotes at {link} it seems that a number of the failures encountered were at state-specific sites. Here in Massachusetts apparently our state site performed with few problems -- but that's not surprising, since we set up our site years ago when Romney invented Obamacare. ;)
It should also be noted that (as far as I understand it) there are actually 51 or so separate IT projecand then there are separate state-specific sitests here: there's the central connector, . Reading the anecdotes at {link} it seems that a number of the failures encountered were at state-specific sites. Here in Massachusetts apparently our state site performed with few problems -- but that's not surprising, since we set up our site years ago when Romney invented Obamacare. ;)
As someone that deals regularly w/large code releases, it is more often than not, that large implementations such as this DO NOT go off w/some glitches in the beginning. Performance testing is always done - but it's usually dependent on some baseline that frankly, probably didn't exist before now.
That being said, if these issues persist well into next week...Houston, we have a problem.
What they should've done is a trial/test implementation where they invite users to try it out or something similar. Don't know how you do something like that with deadlines tied to laws. Parent
It highlighted coding problems as well as capacity problems. From what was being highlighted by the designers discussing the coding, the coding errors were sloppy and amateurish. That was implied even in the part you quoted:
It's quite possible that the caching headers for the site were not set as aggressively as they should have, causing the site to wilt under load. That would be a disappointing oversight, if true,
Once again, they had 3 years to put this system together so time should not have been a factor. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the actual law that would have prohibited a trial/test implementation period by select users as long as the insurance was not actually sold prior to January, 2014. Parent
Recent example of the issues involved w/large scale implementations - discussion I was having the other day w/MilitaryTracy re: ICD-10. Concern about issues led CMS to move implementation out a year.
Like I said though, they need to get the issues worked out quickly. That's another piece of a successful rollout - emergency fixes that occur quickly. Particularly when the brand (in this case the gov't) is at stake. Parent
Obamacare's Web site is really bad
Regardless of the implementation schedules of the other systems that you reference, the Federal insurance exchange does not have the luxury of implementing it over several more years and I doubt seriously that it would be wise to move implementation out a year due to concerns about issues like CMS. Parent
In addition, I missed a month because I needed to get back on my medications for my Bipolar because if I didn't, there was a strong possibility that I would get fired.
If no one has ever tried to go through county services, I suggest you come to Texas and try here.
Anne, this is not directly to you. I just wrote this after reading a bunch of responses re: ACA. I hate the word "Obamacare." It polarizes both sides and it should be called its lawful name. Parent
Fact is, many of us are procrastinators. Not that one would have been able to enroll prior to know, but your point about a lack of info being available is just wrong.
If by dearth, then you mean, letters mailed to every person in the country suspected of not having information and being told where to go, well then, yeah.
Other point here is, information sharing requires funding - approved by a tight wad House of Representatives. Parent
As of the close of business on Wednesday, enrollment counselors in Texas were saying that they hadn't been able to get anyone all the way through the process.
"We haven't gotten anyone all the way through the process," said Tim McKinney, president and chief executive of United Way of Tarrant County, in Texas, which has one of the nation's biggest teams of enrollment counselors. "Yesterday, we were completely frozen out. Today, some of our navigators were able to at least get into the system, but they can't get very far into it." link
Notice its choice of language in its summary of the article:
The United States and Afghanistan disagree over the role American forces should play beyond 2014, officials say, raising the specter of a total pullout.
"Raising the specter" ???
How about raising the "possibility" of a total pullout?
Or - "...raising hopes for a total withdrawal from a totally untenable, unending, deadly and prohibitively costly quagmire that is draining our economy and driving many of our soldiers to suicide"?
But it think it truly refects the ambivilence that I always sense from the NYTimes.
I think that Times is still knee-deep in the pro-war consevative "patriotic" fever into which it sunk during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Parent
spectre US, specter [ˈspɛktə] n
My point was about the political inclination of the Times - not than the spelling or mispelling of a word.
I wonder why you missed that. Parent
He was distracted by the spelling.
I think this is a time when we can't afford to be distracted.
I don't mean to be judgmental.
I'm a bit frightened to tell you the truth. Parent
But publicly both the US and Afghanistan governments claim that a complete withdrawal will be a very negative outcome. Of course, this is just the public face they put on. But it could explain what the NY Times author was referencing. Parent
They are more like:
"Madison -- A 26-year-old woman was charged Thursday with two felony counts and two misdemeanor counts accusing her of making email threats against Wisconsin lawmakers during the height of the battle over Gov. Scott Walker's budget-repair bill.
Link
None are Tea Party members, though some may have been members of groups like:
Code Pink
BTW - I see that you got all of your info from this source yet you didn't acknowledge it.
Are you Joe Biden in disguise??
Hey Jim!!!!!!!!! Know what I mean????????? Parent
;-D Parent
But it won't. You are truly a lost person who has never contributed to society in a private endeavor.
Look up drone in the dictionary.
It defines you. Parent
Good night. Don't forget to take your meds. Parent
a person would have to have god-like powers to make a pronouncement like that about someone else.. Parent
lol Parent
Hey shoephone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Guess what two words I am think about you????????
... I guess we can rule out "proper" and "English". Parent
Junior high school must have been truly traumatizing. Parent
Are you changing your mind??? Parent
Because your strawman's pants are on fire.
Your desperation to justify the absurd is refreshing. Parent
Those names on the list aren't on TV spouting their hatred.
So these rightwing nuts committing actual/real acts of violence don't count, because they're not on TV, as opposed to your examples, which include a comedian making a joke, a union protester knocking a phone away from his face, and angry, anonymous voicemail messages left at a winger group? Uhmmmm, ... not that it matters, but you do realize that only 2 of your examples were "on TV" - the two comedians making jokes.
So rightwing murderers actually committing murder are worse than left-wing comedians telling offensive jokes.
Heh.
None are Tea Party members, though some may have been members of groups like: Code Pink
You didn't ask for acts of violence from Tea party members, Jim. You asked for examples of rightwing violence.
How about some examples of Right Wingers doing things like I have shown??
BTW - You have absolutely no idea whether these guys were Tea Party members, but your claim that they "may have been" members of groups like Code Pink is funny. Yep - because so many Code Pink members are "Sovereign Citizen" members, anti-abortion activists and trying to a$$asinate President Obama.
BTW, Jim - Since you've figured out how to Google, you might be able to figure out that the examples I gave were from one of my previous posts to you, and I provided lots of links in that post. But when you start linking to all your sources, maybe you can start complaining others. Parent
You changed it just enough to make it appear as if it came from multiple sources...
Really, Biden should be proud of you.
In the meantime another Leftie icon strikes:
Calling Republicans the "devil incarnate" in tweets filled with expletives, she suggested they be put in jail and ultimately killed. "WE R NOT HOSTAGES.If UR REPUBLIC IS FREAKING THE WHOLE WORLD OUT,MAYBE WE SHOULD DEEP 6 THEIR WEAK A**'S (sic)," she screamed.
"WE R NOT HOSTAGES.If UR REPUBLIC IS FREAKING THE WHOLE WORLD OUT,MAYBE WE SHOULD DEEP 6 THEIR WEAK A**'S (sic)," she screamed.
I know you were going for something else, Jim, but you gotta appreciate the irony and humor in your use of that phrase.
BTW - Funny how you're outraged by a celebrities use of the phrase "deep six", comedian's jokes, and fairy tales of imaginary violence, while ignoring the actual, real rightwing violence that occurs all to often.
BBTW -
Hooey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yman That's as weak as tea made from a used tea bag. You changed it just enough to make it appear as if it came from multiple sources... Really, Biden should be proud of you.
Hooey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yman That's as weak as tea made from a used tea bag.
It's been awhile since my original OP (which can easily be found by Googling), but my source for the original post was an article on Democratic Underground. So, once again, besides being completely irrelevant to the accuracy of the facts, your accusation is an outright falsehood/fabrication/fairy tale/etc.
Heh. Parent
But it's nice to finally hear you express your love for me, Jim. I knew you were repressing something all this time. You know, ...
... something more than the truth, that is. Parent
Off to the National Yo Yo contest in Chico CA this weekend with my son and his best friend. It'll be about 500 dudes and 2 chicks. And, hey, who doesn't love a full day in Chico?
Today/tonight is my cousin's wedding...I know he's sh*tting a brick right now. Dead man walking, dead man walking here
Gonna miss the church but I'll be there where it counts...the reception. Our side of the fam that isn't in the wedding party have rented a party bus...no drinking and driving, just lots and lots of drinking. Let the festivities begin! I just better not be the only one bringing any reefer, I'm packing lighter than I'd like to be, and all the McArabs always assume I have enough sh*t to bless 20 people. Usually a sound assumption, but not this time. I better make some calls. Parent
Peace out, have a great one. Parent
I wish I was kidding my friend...surely you've heard about the somewhat recent laws passed prohibiting sagging pants that expose underwear, nevermind just a thong!
Personally, I side with those who would rather not see it in a park...with some "never too young to be a dirty old man" exceptions of course;) But I am dead set against indecent exposure laws.
Not sure what any of this has to do with the legality of thongs in Seattle... Parent
When our kids are young we loved to hang out at the parks, cuz that's where the kids could play on the swings and slides and stuff.
Now that our kids are teenagers we make sure they don't hang out at the very same parks, cuz that's where the kids selling/doing drugs are. Parent
We pay the bonuses of already-over-compensated shysters on Wall St, but let too many of those kids twist in the wind. Unconscionable. And then we end up paying for it later anyway.
Meanwhile we get fired up because some guy looks like he's smuggling grapes into the country.. Parent
Meanwhile we get fired up because some guy looks like he's smuggling grapes into the country..
Since we're well into a discussion of the unsightly and distasteful..
I heard recently that in the NY art scene it's common for Warhol and Koons prints to go for much more than some Goyas and Brueghals..Surely we're in the End Times if that's really true.. Parent
And I'd have a problem with a breast-feeding mom being arrested for "exposing" her baby's meal supply. I breast-fed both my children, but I would guess that most of the time when I had to do it "in public," no one knew that's what I was doing. It's called "discretion."
There's context to be considered here, too. Someone wearing a thong on a public beach is no more distressing than anyone else in a bathing suit. But some guy in a skimpy thong strolling around or near the playground, well, that's more of a concern.
I still can't believe how much bandwidth we've used discussing freaking butt-floss. Parent
I don't know what you're picturing, but it ain't gonna be Kate Upton patronizing your local park prancing around in a thong.
Probably more like this Parent
No law! Parent
Shutdown Brings Toilet Paper Crisis, Protesters
Another Shutdown Casualty: Pro Football for Deployed Troops
And my favorite, in response to the civil disobedience of some nonagenarians...
WWII Memorial Barricade Wired Shut
Sh*t 7-9 might take the NFC Least. As long as it ain't the Cowboys I'm good;) Parent
Jim - I, like you, want a Medicare-for-all single payer plan. Unfortunately, the Republicans in Congress wouldn't allow such a plan (save me the BS about the Democrats having a majority in the House and Senate - every Republican filibustered and voted against cloture). You're one of those that put them in office. Maybe you can send them the bill!
Correct me if I am wrong Obama had a large majority in both Houses.....
Yet he did not even introduce a single payer plan for the Repubs to attack...
Face it, your Dear Leader is just another phony politician paying of the big corporations.
BTW - Why no links on your claims??
Not that I don't trust you....
:-)
Oh wait! That's me.
Jondee, your comment is about as nasty as it gets.
But we all know that is just you. You really can't help it. Parent
On the one hand, you are a vociferous "social liberal".
On the other hand, you vote for representation who will oppose those interests. Vociferously. Also strenuously.
So there's no downside for you. You can throw your "positions" out as evidence of a functioning cerebral cortext and never, ever worry that you will in any way help make those things a reality.
Like I said. Balanced. Parent
OTOH, I confess that there hasn't been a Democrat worth a damn when it comes to national defense since Truman.
We both know that you chugged down the koolaid and voted for Hope and Change.
You seen your healthcare premiums yet??
Obamacare is a killer. Of the economy. Of people.
We could have had a V8.
He sold you out.
I knew he would.
That makes me smarter than you.
But in just as bad a shape. Parent
Actually you have no knowledge as to I (1.00 / 2) (#87) by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 07:49:42 PM MDT vote for. OTOH, I confess that there hasn't been a Democrat worth a damn when it comes to national defense since Truman. We both know that you chugged down the koolaid and voted for Hope and Change.
vote for. OTOH, I confess that there hasn't been a Democrat worth a damn when it comes to national defense since Truman.
And while it is true that I don't have names in the local elections, you said not long ago that you have voted for every Repub since you voted for Carter in 76. I didn't even need to bookmark the comment because it was that easy to find.
I don't know if it makes me smarter than you, but... I have this memory, you see. Parent
I mean GD Jim, wast has gotten in your drawers, you disappear for months, then come out swinging with like 100 ratings of '1'. Most folks would realize that those ratings are worse than GWB at his lowest or Romney at his finest, not Jim, he is burning up the comments area with pure and utter non-sense and won't be held back by facts and reality.
Whatever you are doing with the meds, it's time for the opposite, so either get back on them if you forgotten to take them, or stop with the new ones because you have seriously come unhinged. That shred of reality you used to cling to, seems to have left the building.
And for the love of god, turn off the Fox News, it's clearly aiding in your hatred of reality. Parent
And yeah, I just can't help calling you on your neverending stream of b.s. For what it's worth. Parent
You are just another Leftie barking at the moon.
Perhaps Anne will join you and you can hold hands. Parent
soiling yourself over the excess human-generated free inquiry and tolerance in the atmosphere.
You're not even a clever fraud: if you really wanted to pull it off, you should've interspersed some posts about the futility of the drug war etc with the wingnut radio rants at your blog. Parent
He could not change course and then propose a single payer plan and be taken seriously. Parent
"Barack Obama's Plan for a Healthy America" stated that:
(1) OBAMA'S PLAN TO COVER UNINSURED. Obama will make available a new national health plan that will allow individuals without access to affordable insurance coverage, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.
That amendment was changed and the Public Option was lost in the Senate.
If the opening offer has the Public Option, then you have to win without any concessions to keep it.....That is why many say you need to start with Single Payer....But that was never possible. Parent
And I'm not going to speak to the effort to establish single payer. It is your opinion that it was never possible. The only thing that makes that a "fact" is that there was no political will to do so. Again, by leadership. There was already in place the closed door meetings with the representatives of insurance companies. Parent
For a while the Public Option seemed viable, and seemed to be getting a head of steam. More and more quotes coming out of the Congressional delegations, all positive. I remember thinking, "wow," this thing might really happen.
And, then, seemingly out of the blue, the P.O. was "off the table." No fight, no debate, no explanation.....just, "thud."
I just remember thinking, "wtf?" Parent
No public option, no C-SPAN hearings and backroom deals with the Insurance/Drug lobbies.
Maybe that's where we get the expression, "Don't write checks your @$$ can't cash." Parent
thatHe could not change course and then propose a single payer plan and be taken seriously.
But since you asked, this should get you started with why a minority of Republicans were able to filibuster even the moderate ACA:
With the Republican minority in the Senate vowing to filibuster any bill that they did not support, requiring a cloture vote to end debate, 60 votes would be necessary to get passage in the Senate. At the start of the 111th Congress, Democrats had only 58 votes; the Senate seat in Minnesota that would be won by Al Franken was still undergoing a recount, and Arlen Specter was still a Republican. To reach 60 votes, negotiations were undertaken to satisfy the demands of moderate Democrats, and to try to bring aboard several Republican senators; particular attention was given to Bob Bennett, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe. Negotiations continued even after July 7--when Franken was sworn into office, and by which time Specter had switched parties--because of disagreements over the substance of the bill, which was still being drafted in committee, and because moderate Democrats hoped to win bipartisan support. However, on August 25, before the bill could come up for a vote, Ted Kennedy--a long-time advocate for healthcare reform--died, depriving Democrats of their 60th vote. Before the seat was filled, attention was drawn to Senator Snowe because of her vote in favor of the draft bill in the Finance Committee on October 15, however she explicitly stated that this did not mean she would support the final bill. Paul Kirk was appointed as Senator Kennedy's temporary replacement on September 24. Following the Finance Committee vote, negotiations turned to the demands of moderate Democrats to finalize their support, whose votes would be necessary to break the Republican filibuster. Majority leader Harry Reid focused on satisfying the centrist members of the Democratic caucus until the holdouts narrowed down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Lieberman, despite intense negotiations in search of a compromise by Reid, refused to support a public option; a concession granted only after Lieberman agreed to commit to voting for the bill if the provision was not included, even though it had majority support in Congress. There was debate among supporters of the bill about the importance of the public option, although the vast majority of supporters concluded that it was a minor part of the reform overall, and that congressional Democrats' fight for it won various concessions, including conditional waivers allowing states to set up state-based public options such as Vermont's Green Mountain Care. With every other Democrat now in favor and every other Republican now overtly opposed, the White House and Reid moved on to addressing Senator Nelson's concerns in order to win filibuster-proof support for the bill; they had by this point concluded that "it was a waste of time dealing with [Snowe]" because, after her vote for the draft bill in the Finance Committee, Snowe had come under intense pressure from the Republican Senate leadership who opposed reform... On December 23, the Senate voted 60-39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60-39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against (except for Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[101] The bill was endorsed by the AMA and AARP.
To reach 60 votes, negotiations were undertaken to satisfy the demands of moderate Democrats, and to try to bring aboard several Republican senators; particular attention was given to Bob Bennett, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe. Negotiations continued even after July 7--when Franken was sworn into office, and by which time Specter had switched parties--because of disagreements over the substance of the bill, which was still being drafted in committee, and because moderate Democrats hoped to win bipartisan support. However, on August 25, before the bill could come up for a vote, Ted Kennedy--a long-time advocate for healthcare reform--died, depriving Democrats of their 60th vote. Before the seat was filled, attention was drawn to Senator Snowe because of her vote in favor of the draft bill in the Finance Committee on October 15, however she explicitly stated that this did not mean she would support the final bill. Paul Kirk was appointed as Senator Kennedy's temporary replacement on September 24.
Following the Finance Committee vote, negotiations turned to the demands of moderate Democrats to finalize their support, whose votes would be necessary to break the Republican filibuster. Majority leader Harry Reid focused on satisfying the centrist members of the Democratic caucus until the holdouts narrowed down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Lieberman, despite intense negotiations in search of a compromise by Reid, refused to support a public option; a concession granted only after Lieberman agreed to commit to voting for the bill if the provision was not included, even though it had majority support in Congress. There was debate among supporters of the bill about the importance of the public option, although the vast majority of supporters concluded that it was a minor part of the reform overall, and that congressional Democrats' fight for it won various concessions, including conditional waivers allowing states to set up state-based public options such as Vermont's Green Mountain Care.
With every other Democrat now in favor and every other Republican now overtly opposed, the White House and Reid moved on to addressing Senator Nelson's concerns in order to win filibuster-proof support for the bill; they had by this point concluded that "it was a waste of time dealing with [Snowe]" because, after her vote for the draft bill in the Finance Committee, Snowe had come under intense pressure from the Republican Senate leadership who opposed reform...
On December 23, the Senate voted 60-39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60-39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against (except for Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[101] The bill was endorsed by the AMA and AARP.
BTW, Jim - I couldn't care less if you trust me. Unlike you, I deal in facts, not lies. Parent
Actually, I was agreeing with you and blostering your point, so trying to pick a fight is silly.
You seemed to place me in Jim's camp, in other words, arguing where there was no argument. Parent
If someone else pays for it then they are exempt from paying for it.....
And why did the Demos not agree that everyone should be under Obamacare??
Very strange.... Parent
The point is they receive a subsidy. If someone else pays for it then they are exempt from paying for it.....
Read the links from Factcheck or any other non-winger source. That "subsidy" is the employer contribution, which any employee with health benefits receives. In the case of Congressional staffers, their employer (the federal government) pays the employer portion of their premium. They pay the rest.
You really need to do some basic reading before you start making these ridiculous accusations. Parent
It is interesting to see what happens when someone repeats a talking point without understanding what they are saying. Parent
But look at CNBC's over the top defense of him earlier in the week.
Although Taibbi is an appropriate person to comment on this, I wish I had a clear version of the CNBC vid. It even more damning without the commentary. It was all over YouTube a few days ago. But this fair use example is the only one I could find that hadn't been taken down.
Will the criminal enterprise, known as JP Morgan, scapegroat their way out of a crisis once again? The government shutdown is providing plenty of cover. But that's just a coincidence, right?