You wouldn't believe how many of the posters on this thread were actually stupid enough to have voted for this clown.
Now they say they are upset with the way the health care agrument is going.
He ran a " moderate's" campaign. Now the radical is out of the box. He is very far left of the mainstream. Why do you think Dems are losing inVirginia and New Jersey and his popularity has dropped? In November you will see the precursor to 2010.
Yes people wanted change from Bush but not to Hugo Chavez Junior.
No, nor is he a Socialist. He's a corporatist. He's one of the "Clinton Democrats" who bought in to the notion that the Democrats could abandon their traditional constituencies of Labor and the working class, and raise more money by doing the bidding of multinational corporations on a "pay-to-play" basis. It was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA into law in 1993, with Yes votes from 132 Repubs and only 102 Dems.
As head of the DCCC, Rahm directed Democratic party funds to conservative, pro-war (Iraq), corporate, "Blue Dog" Democrats, and denied party funding to progressive Democratic candidates, even when they had a better chance of unseating entrenched GOP candidates.
I generally support Obama when he supports progressive causes, like health care reform, but his appointment of Rahm suggests that the administration, like Rahm, is too addicted to the corporate money -- especially from health insurers -- to make real reform happen.
If Rahm & BO were serious about health insurance reform, BO would announce, "No Public Option, No Signature." But instead of doing that, and biting the hand that feeds them, he's leaving the "dirty work" of including the Public Option to Congress and the American People, who are pushing harder for real reform, including a strong Public Option.
The version that the Senate Finance Cmte approved is as good as it's gonna get for the health insurers, who are currently spending $1.4M *per day* in their lobbying efforts against reform.
The Dems are realizing that if they don't pass a bill that really helps the overwhelming majority of Americans, they are useless, and not likely to win re-election, no matter how much health insurance $$ they get.
The final outcome on health care reform will determine who's in charge in the U.S. -- the lobbyists, or the People.
Rahm? He's pulling for the lobbyists.
Dude you must have really loved the ex green jobs czar
Van Jones who is as Red as they come.
Whatever Rahm was and I think you give him way too much credit he certainly is left of the progressives like his boss Hussein
I think that the "corporations/ the people" rhetoric is nice and all but in practice it becomes "beauracracy/ the people"
It is the beauracracy that is becoming steadily more powerful, more wealthy... Look at the recent surveys of where the richest young americans live, and where their numbers are growing fastest... Washington DC and environs... the new silicon valley is the beltway and the new product of choice id other people's money in the form of taxes.
Funny you say that the American people want the public option. Er, it's only a portion of the American people who want a public option.
Of those who have private insurance (and that's >160,000,000 U.S. workers and their families), >75% of them are happy with their insurance. Only about 40% of this fraction wants a public option at all, and then again of this 40% who want the option, <20% would ever use the public option. They just want it to exist for everyone else. I wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement.
As a past president once said, "America's business is business."
America's business is not suppoprting freeloaders and other sponges sucking off our coountry's assets.