Disqus - Latest Comments for LynnDee

Re: The GOP had at most 55 Senators during Bush's presidency

LynnDee — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:12:01 -0000

I don't believe that's what the Fairness Doctrine was ever intended to do. The intent was simply to match air time for the expression of different points of views, not to "prevent bald faced lies."

Re: The GOP had at most 55 Senators during Bush's presidency

LynnDee — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:17:56 -0000

Awww... didja run out of snark, DC?! Well fine. Flounce your petticoats and huff off into obscurity.

But hey, you sound like someone who probably passed the GOP purity test with flying colors. So, no worries, right?!

:D

Re: The GOP had at most 55 Senators during Bush's presidency

LynnDee — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:18:53 -0000

Yeah, I really am pretty funny. Great sense of humor. But seriously, then, Dirty Creature (and aren't you the laugh riot as well?!), what is your point? No libs I know of are advocating for the Fairness Doctrine -- the only time I hear about that is from conservatives (or teabaggers or whatever you're calling yourselves these days). Further, the Fairness Doctrine doesn't try to silence dissenting voices. That's really coming from your side of the aisle as well. (Purity test, anyone?!)

Re: The GOP had at most 55 Senators during Bush's presidency

LynnDee — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:05:44 -0000

English only, pal. I can't tell what the fuck you're saying or trying to say.

Re: The GOP had at most 55 Senators during Bush's presidency

LynnDee — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:49:08 -0000

Hilarious. The GOP doesn't mind when folks who disagree with them speak??!! Oh please. I repeat: hilarious.

Re: The GOP had at most 55 Senators during Bush's presidency

LynnDee — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:53:44 -0000

Quote: "Perhaps. But then how was George Bush so effective in passing legislation during his presidency when he never had more than 55 Republicans in the Senate? In fact, during Bush's most effective years, from 2001 to 2005, the GOP had a grand total of 50, and then 51, Senators. The slimmest margin possible."

I'll tell you exactly how: It's because even with that idiot Bush in office, the Dems negotiated in good faith. A mistake, perhaps, but we did. And because the Dems -- or enough Dems -- negotiated in good faith, no one GOP Senator could hold a bill hostage.

It's because the Republicans are a virtual block of "no votes" that the conservadems (and Lieberman) have so much leverage, even individually. There are almost literally no GOP votes to peel off. This means that each and every Dem has a veto power if he or she is inclined to use it.

I keep hearing folks say: "It wouldn't be like this under LBJ!" Well, under LBJ, bills couldn't be held hostage in quite the same way, at least not by a single Senator with a bug up his ass. So arm-twisting was more effective then.

I'm not letting either the conservadems or the Democratic leadership off the hook here. But the bad-faith GOP has a role in this too.

Re: An amazingly sexist ad from Levi's

LynnDee — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:42:57 -0000

Quote: "While it is a silly ad, I think it is more than sexist. It appears to prescribe all of society's ills upon 'men not being men,' being emasculated, etc. It is tapping into the 'angry white man' demographic that Reagan pursued, except maybe not just white males this time."

Plus, it seems to think it can sell pants by telling men they've been emasculated and a pair of dockers will fix that.

Re: RTCA votes are in: McMichael wins, Russert loses - mediabistro.com: FishbowlDC

LynnDee — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:55:19 -0000

These numbers don't seem to add up unless one ballot was worth more than one vote, or folks could vote for more than one board member? Yeah, that's probably it. Folks were probably voting for more than one board member and the winners were the top vote-getters (enough to fill the open slots).

Re: Dump the sweetheart deal with drug makers, says NY Times

LynnDee — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:49:57 -0000

"Given the industry’s last-minute price increases, it seems prudent to ignore the supposed deal and demand a greater contribution."

Hear hear. If not an actual breach of the supposed deal, it sure is bad faith. So dump the deal.

Re: Catholic Bishops will kill health insurance reform over abortion issue

LynnDee — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:47:04 -0000

Stupak is a Congressman, not a Senator, so he can't kill health care reform on his own. Can he get enough fellow Dems in the House to go along with him? Can he get a Democratic Senator to go along with him? I think that remains to be seen.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

LynnDee — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:11:29 -0000

Could you drop the sarcasm? I know how it can become a habit, but you don't know me and I don't know you. And to whine that I haven't answered any of your legitimate points? Please. Save it for those you know.

I'm well aware there was a backroom pharma deal and have many times myself been disappointed by what I thought was a failure to lead on Obama's part. I am now entertaining the possibility -- not that Obama is playing 3-D chess while everyone else is playing checkers -- but that no one can know how this is going to play out. Obama may hedge to the point that come spring, we'll all be saying, "Jesus, why didn't he just freaking lead??!!"

Or, we may get another month down the road and find the bill stalled in the Senate and wish Sen. Reid had saved deploying the whip for the final bill.

I don't know, and YOU don't either.

Further, I am not advocating for any particular point of view on this. What I'm advocating is reading opposing points of view, if only because more information -- and yes, opinion -- is better, IMO, than less.

For example, everyone's wailing now about Lieberman's latest stunt. Well, it helps a little to know, for example, that he's talking about filibustering the final bill, not the bill that will presumably be voted on in the Senate in the hopefully not too distant future. Not that that makes Lieberman any less of a jerk, but it does change the calculus a bit.

So, if you want to be embittered, be my guest. But I'll thank you to save your sarcasm for another target.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

LynnDee — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:02:01 -0000

Oh come on. What does anyone offer? If you don't want to read it, don't read it. But it's clear he is basing his opinion on experience and knowledge.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

LynnDee — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:00:22 -0000

Well, if you read the booman posts, he's saying that the cost of waiting for what he calls stage 5 -- the vote on the Senate on the final bill -- to whip the vote, then the cost is that it makes it more difficult for Reid to whip the vote now, but ensures that the bill doesn't get stalled. Basically, Obama wants to whip the vote only once, not twice.

Booman's post after Reid announced the opt out public option would be in the bill was congratulatory as long as Reid has the 60 votes -- because if he doesn't, then Obama has made a big mistake that he didn't have to make.

Folks need to read that. Not that booman is right and everyone else is wrong, but simply that to simply assume that Obama is hedging to protect the corporate stakeholders is simply wrong.

He may be being more risk averse than is necessary or wise, but it's not to protect the insurance companies or pharma.

Go to boomantribune.com and read. You don't have to agree, but you'll be more informed.

Re: Obama administration officials says Reid including public option in health care plan is "dangerous"

LynnDee — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:50:25 -0000

Okay, here's what I don't understand. Booman over at boomantribune has a couple interesting posts about how what the W.H. was doing was trying to ensure that bills got voted on and passed in both houses before trying to whip a combined bill with a public option, so as to keep a bill from stalling.

Do you disagree with this, John? If so, why? I'm genuinely curious and trying to sort this out.

Folks at huffingtonpost, talkingpointsmemo, firedoglake and here seem genuinely upset. But booman and Jon Cohn seem fine with what the W.H. is doing. Why the difference of opinion? Who's right?

Re: White House now blaming it all on Harry Reid; Obama happy to help Reid get the 60 votes he needs after Reid already has the 60 votes he needs

LynnDee — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:19:58 -0000

Folks should read the following at boomantribune -- very helpful:

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/10/26/1...

Re: Hitchens: Christianity is a fraud if it’s not literally true

LynnDee — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:27:24 -0000

Then there are people like me who think religion is false, although not necessarily a delusion and not necessarily bad for you -- even if most of the time it works out to be bad for humanity.

I think it's mostly... wishful thinking and that sometimes good things are done in its name.

Re: White House now blaming it all on Harry Reid; Obama happy to help Reid get the 60 votes he needs after Reid already has the 60 votes he needs

LynnDee — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:33:43 -0000

Huge disappointment the W.H. has been on this. I'm trying to entertain a rather far-fetched explanation that the W.H. is trying to keep the corporate stakeholders off balance by being unclear about what exactly they're doing and making it seem like they might be acting as a drag on Sen. Reid -- but that's the proverbial three-bank shot when there's a simpler explanation.

Re: "I started volunteering for the Obama campaign as soon as there were means to do so in our area."

LynnDee — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:33:27 -0000

What Mike said. I can understand being disappointed with this or that decision of Obama's. I've certainly felt that way too, and I'm biting my nails over health care reform. But "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"??

Holy cow. What's wrong with you people?

Re: Leader of the free world, or cardboard cut out?

LynnDee — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:58:39 -0000

It would be helpful if we could compare this to a similar montage of someone else's posed smile. Without that, how can we know if this is unusual?

Re: Condensed version of GOP response

LynnDee — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:31:06 -0000

For a heart surgeon to be sued only three times for malpractice is hardly significant. He must've had a short career.

That said, his response to Pres. Obama's speech was close to totally empty.

Re: Idaho GOP gubernatorial candidate jokes about hunting Obama (But, it was just a joke)

LynnDee — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:43:09 -0000

I like the part where he says he "would never support [Obama] being assassinated."

Really? That's the best you can do? You can't come right out and condemn such talk or such an idea?

Oh right. The base. The base wouldn't go for that.

You know, it's because of these crazies in the GOP that dishonestly trying to recast Ted Kennedy as a "centrist" -- as Orrin Hatch, John McCain and Judd Gregg have been doing -- now passes as "elder statesmanship."

A pox on the whole freaking lot of them.

Re: This isn't leadership

LynnDee — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:42:47 -0000

Sigh.

Well, my hope is he's trying to keep a lid on things till the August recess -- and the tea-baggin', gun-totin', you-tubin' townhalls -- are over. No reason to assume this is what he's doing. Just hoping.

Meanwhile, we have to keep up the pressure on our Senators and Representatives that the public option is essential.

Re: Taegan: Obama Willing to Stake Presidency on Health Care Reform

LynnDee — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:11:11 -0000

I'm reading this differently. I'm reading it as a commitment to health care reform and a willingness to fight for a good bill rather than any old bill to the point of getting no bill -- and if he ends up going down because of that, the blue dog dems. might want to consider whether they'll end up going down with him.

Re: DNC ad targets House Dems on health care

LynnDee — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:33:08 -0000

Is Obama upset about that? I thought it was Harry Reid who was.

Re: The Michael Jackson conundrum

LynnDee — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:39:52 -0000

I'm not conflicted at all. I want Michael Jackson coverage off the air, and I'm hoping the Palin resignation does just that.