Game Recognize Game

Back when the public option collapsed in the Senate last fall after President LIEberman declared he wouldn't vote for any hcr bill that contained a public option, I noted how supposed progressive champions of the public option were unwilling to pledge to vote against a bill without one. In short it was all kabuki theater meant to shield those supposed progressives from backlash for the failure to include a public option.

Well now the clearest indication that I was right has come in the form of one of those supposed progressive heros, Jay Rockerfeller, coming out against passing a public option through reconcilliation.

We've been punked folks, it was never going to happen.

The REAL Question We Should Be Asking

I know that since Joe LIEberman pissed in the punch yesterday many of us on the left have been apoplectic over it. By in large the questions have been asked over and over again to the effect of "What will they do about Joe LIEberman?". Meaning what will Harry Reid do? Will he threaten LIEberman with his seniority and committee chairmanships? What will President Obama do? Threaten to campaign against him and run him out of the party and politics? Cut off all of his earmarks?

That is all find and good, and if you have read this blog for any period of time you know that I have no problem and in fact encourage Democratic leadership to cut LIEberman off at the knees. And that was before he was threatening a filibuster. But here is the thing, there is another way of looking at this.

It is time to ask what are our progressive leaders in the Senate willing to do to counter LIEberman? He has pledged to join a filibuster if there is a public option in the bill. Is there a Democrat in the Senate who has the courage to now come out and say that THEY will filibuster any bill that does not have one?

This is a very important question and it goes to the heart of whether Joe LIEberman will be allowed to ruin this health care reform bill. You see if our side is not willing to show that we will be just as strong in our advocacy for the public option as he will be in his opposition to the public option just who do you think President Obama and Harry Reid are going to defer to? They will defer to the person or persons that they feel most threaten the passage of the bill. And until we are sitting on that equal platform we will not be taken seriously.

So if you are worried about Joe LIEberman and his opposition to the public option our path should be clear. We need to pressure all of the proponents of a public option in the Senate to come out with their own statements about cloture. Its really that simple. It is time to meet fire with fire and prove that progressives in the Senate are not just all talk. Getting Harry Reid to put a public option in the bill was basically just the first step. Now we have to put pressure on people like Chuck Schumer and Jay Rockerfeller to draw a line in the sand to show that we won't allow it to be removed.

It is what it is.

Judgement Day

I can't wait to hear the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee who are against a public option try to explain why today when two public option amendments come up. I hope Jay Rockerfeller and Chuck Schumer both hold their feet to the fire and make them announce to the world that they are more concerned with the health insurance companies than Americans who can't afford health insurance.


Stay tuned for updates throughout the day...

A Message From The Rock For DiFi And Rockefeller

Bloomberg has a good piece up today about President Elect Barack Obama's choice to run the CIA Leon Panetta. Through out the piece you will find wide spread approval of the choice by some pretty reputable people.

A number of other experts in intelligence -- including former Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet and Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9-11 Commission, praised the choice and dismissed the reservations of Feinstein and Rockefeller.

Tenet, CIA director during Bush’s first term, said Panetta was “a great choice.”

“He will bring stature and leadership to the agency,” Tenet said in an interview.

snip

Senator Ron Wyden, a member of the intelligence panel, said Panetta is a “savvy” Washington veteran who can change the agency.

snip

Hamilton, who once headed the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Panetta’s lack of experience in intelligence gathering operations isn’t a hindrance in running the agency.

“He will bring a very needed perspective, an outside perspective, to the CIA at a critical time in the agency’s history,” Hamilton, now president of the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center, said in an interview.

snip

Milt Bearden, a former CIA official who was the agency’s station chief in Pakistan during the 1980s, said Panetta’s lack of an intelligence background may be a benefit.

Bearden said that, with retired Marine General James Jones serving as Obama’s national security adviser, Panetta would help offset the influence of the military.

“I have nothing against the military, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having a civilian balance in the national-security establishment,” he said. During his service in Pakistan, Bearden was in charge of the CIA’s program of supporting and supplying Afghan fighters battling Soviet forces in their country.

So you would think everything would be sunny in Obama land right? Of course not. You see some fellow Democrats namely Senators Diane Feinstein and Jay Rockerfeller are a little pissy about it because nobody bent over to kiss their ass about the appointment.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who will be head of Select Committee on Intelligence during confirmation hearings for the CIA job, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, the current chairman, said they weren’t informed about the choice of Panetta, a former U.S. representative from California and chief of staff and budget director in President Bill Clinton’s White House.

Feinstein said in a statement she knew “nothing” about the selection of Panetta until media reports yesterday. An aide to Rockefeller who spoke to the senator said the West Virginia Democrat wasn’t consulted. Feinstein said she wants an “intelligence professional” in the post. Rockefeller also expressed concern about Panetta’s lack of experience, his aide said

Mind you these same too goofballs both voted FOR Porter Goss who was an absolute disaster as the head of the CIA but not only that you would be hard pressed to find ANY appointment that President Bush made that they voted against. But instead of keeping their mouth's shut they decide to crap all over the appointment on the day that it is announced. They are all bent out of shape because they weren't "consulted" about the pick. They also would rather have "pro torture" debuty CIA director Steve Kappes to run the agency. Yeah that would be change we could believe in, heh.

This is just another example of Democrats getting in their own way. And if you are wondering, YES I blame Harry Reid for this too because its indicative of how much of a weak leader he is that he can't keep his own party members in line. But I was reminded this morning of a catch phrase one of my favorite wrestlers used to employ. You see Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller, when you become President then you can pick whomever you want to run the CIA, but until then, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!