Just a quick call-to-arms on health care.
This morning on MSNBC, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) essentially drew a line in the sand. Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and until now, has been one of the few GOPers who it was thought could be counted on to help with health care reform. That all changed today. With rumors circulating DC that the public option is not a sure thing anymore, Grassley was asked if he would vote for a bill that didnt include a public option. Not only did he say no, he said that even if the bill was exactly what he wanted, he probably wouldn't vote for it.
Read that last sentence one more time.
Even if we locked Sen. Grassley in a room and let him write a health care bill to his own liking, he still wouldn't vote for it. So why in the hell are Dems trying to craft a bill that Republicans would vote for? This proves it: the GOP isn't going to vote for any health care bill in any form. So a message to Democrats in our nation's capital: FORGET BIPARTISANSHIP.> Republicans have just announced their intention to not cooperate no matter what. We have the White House, a 70 seat majority in the House, and a 60-seat, filibuster proof majority in the Senate. We do not need the Republicans. They are basically quitting. So lets get this done. Put the public option in, along with whatever else we need, and pass the bill.
It feels to me like universal health care is slipping away quickly. When Congress reconvenes in September, they need to get to work and get it done before October. I encourage anyone reading this: contact your Democratic Congresspeople and let them know: if they cant get this done, maybe we need to get some people up there that actually want to do the job we sent them for. This is our big chance: do not squander it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Justin – lets make sure you get your facts right. I took the following quote from MSNBC’s web page. According to MSNBC, here is what he actually said.
ReplyDeleteFrom NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro In an interview today on MSNBC's "Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R) said he'd vote against any health-care reform bill coming out of the committee unless it has wide support from Republicans -- even if the legislation contains EVERYTHING Grassley wants.
"I am negotiating for Republicans," he said. "If I can't negotiate something that gets more than four Republicans, I'm not a good negotiator."
I read this to mean that even if the bill contains everything “HE” wants, he wouldn’t vote for it without the wide spread support of his fellow Republican. Perhaps he has different views than his fellow Republicans and is unwilling to sell them out. (Probably hasn’t been given any chocolate chip cookies.)
Nice try with the “half” truth tactic. You don't want the facts to get in the way of your point. Your whole argument is based on a falsehood because you cherry picked the words needed to support it. Others reading your blog may not look up the facts and would walk away believing your argument. I guess to a progressive, intellectual honesty is no big deal.
You must be reading “Rules for Radicals” too. Here is what Alinsky says about “Of ends and means”:
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24
"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26
"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p.29
"The seventh rule... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...." p.34
"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time... Who, and how many will support the action?... If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly..." p.36
I guess Alinsky has about the same view on radical organization as George Bush has about the war on terror. Looks like you are going to have to make a "moral" decision. Either write with integrity to argue your views or continue to follow Saul and George and justify the means by the end result. Decisions, decisions. Life can be such moral quick sand.
We will know your decision by the future content of your blog. I hope you go the honesty route and not stoop to George Bush's level. Your previous posting indicates you don't have a much love for the past president. It is a much more difficult path, but most people respect an honest opponent in the war for the public mind.