Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with liberal bloggers Monday and candidly admitted that the issue in the health care debate was much broader than issues of access to health insurance. She said that the true agenda is to redefine the role of government .


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a longtime advocate for universal health care. She's also demonstrated that she has a good feel for the politics of her chamber and her party, simply by passing so many major pieces of legislation this year. So when Pelosi says that the votes to pass a public option in health care reform just aren't there, I assume she's right—or, at the very least, that she's more likely to be right about it than, say, I am.

Apparently not everybody thinks that way. Last week, after Pelosi made clear the public option would not be part of the final House-Senate compromise on health reform, some public option advocates turned on her. And, on Monday, a coalition of three liberal groups, led by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, launched television ads attacking her.

It's something of an extreme reaction; most liberal groups are focusing on the bill at hand—and doing everything they can to pass it. But the reaction of the public option groups (and those who agree with them) is, I think, indicative of a lingering ambivalence over reform on the left. And it's something Pelosi addressed directly on Monday, in a roundtable with bloggers.

She did so, mostly, by focusing on how much the bill would expand health insurance coverage and help the American economy—argument certainly familiar to anybody who's followed this debate but still, strangely, underappreciated by many on the left. “31 million Americans” she said, over and over again, referring to the number of previously uninsured people who would get coverage if reform passes.

But she made a more subtle point, too. “Think of what it does to the other side, who do not believe in government,” Pelosi said. “This will now be the legitimate political debate in our country. What is the balanced role the government should have in controlling the cost, of expanding the coverage, holding the insurance companies accountable.” In other words, the full measure of this bill isn't simply the impact it will have on lives in the short- to medium-term. It's also the impact it will have on politics.
Republicans say they welcome this debate--because, they say, government's inevitable failure will reinforce their worldview. But the historical record on this is pretty clear: One government makes a promise of something like health benefits, that promise never gets revoked. (This is why Bill Kristol famously advised Republicans to oppose Clintoncare in 1993 and 1994.) And if enacting reform manages to make more ambitious changes possible later on, Pelosi made clear she intends to seize that opportunity: “Now we go from here. We kick open that door and there will be other legislation to follow.”[/

Nancy Pelosi?s Theory Of Change | The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/nancy-pelosi-theory-change)
Ezra Klein - Nancy Pelosi's strategy for passing health-care reform (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/nancy_pelosis_strategy_for_pas.html)

Remaking American society in their image trumps the constitution and traditional limits on the national government . This we have long suspected. Rarely have they so brazenly admitted it.

Remaking American society in their image trumps the constitution and traditional limits on the national government . This we have long suspected. Rarely have they so brazenly admitted it.Hello tom:

Dude! Your fellow, George W. Bush changed American society MORE than ANY president EVER. The Constitution didn't matter to HIM or YOU, for that matter. Yes, YOU brazenly support torture, spying on your fellow Americans, the removal of habeas corpus, preventive war, indefinite detention, rendition, and the repudiation of our treaties, just to name a few.

Those things changed us from what we were - dramatically!

You're happy with the feds doing THESE things... But, when they attempt to use government power for the betterment of the people, you object... That's pretty one way, doncha think?

excon

That is a rare moment of candor, unlike Obama's cryptic "fundamentally transforming the United States of America." Both have the same goal.

Ex nice deflection but wrong .

Let's just assume that the things you mention had no historical precedence ,you would still be wrong . No one had to force the members of either party to vote for any of the intiatives in the war resolutions ,and the Patriot act. No one created Parliamentarian tricks to shove it(oh ,I'll be nice and won't make references to proctology exams) down our thoats . In fact ; the Patriot act was just recently reenacted by the Democrat dominated Congress and the President.

I still challenge you to tell me how the security measure that came after we were attacked by Jihadistan fundamentally altered your life(except that you had to take your shoes off at the TSA screening at the airport).

To point:
I don't support "torture". I do support the principle that jihadists who have an ongoing campaign of terror attacks on the country should be vigorously interrogated so current actionable intel. Can be obtained .

I don't believe on "spying on my fellow Americans " I do think that Americans who are contacting jihadists overseas should have their communications intercepted .

I do not support "removal of Habeas " of Americans . I do not believe that there is a constitutional right to habeas for enemy illegal combattants.

Yes I support preventive war (and of course the Iraq war was not the precedence setter you apparently think) . Do you also fault the Israeli's for initiating the 6 Day War ?

I do not support "indefinite detention " but I do support holding enemies captured until war is over .

Renditions are things I would prefer we didn't need to do. So let me get this straight. You don't want us to rendition the enemy ,you don't want us to detain the enemy ,and you don't want us to preemptively attack the enemy... and the reason for this is so we can retain some romantic notion you have of us as a people that never truly existed .I get it .

Treaties of course are not written forever in stone. You would agree with me that they should be subject to periodic review and renewal based on national interests... no ?

Now lets get back to the OP . You think as a self proclaimed libertarian that the power grab that Pelosi admits to be attempting is OK because it works towards the "betterment " of the people . Please tell me how the vast majority of the people will be better off from this putsch ;and how that squares with your political philosophy?

She said that the true agenda is to redefine the role of government . Hello again:

Recently, the French repeated on old an experiment on TV, where people thought they were on a game show. If somebody answered a question wrong, it was THEIR job to administer an electric shock. The "contestants", of course DID administer shock. They didn't stop, even when they heard the agony of those they were supposedly shocking.

Yesterday, on FOX News, anchors Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum, were outraged that these French people could be induced by the power of television to embrace torture. Speaking as employees of the corporation that produced the highly influential, torture glorifying 24, and on the channel that has churned out years worth of pro-torture "news" advocacy, the anchors were particularly astonished that television could play such a powerful role in influencing people's views and getting them to acquiesce to such heinous acts. Ultimately, they speculated that perhaps it was something unique about the character and psychology of the French that made them so susceptible to external influences and so willing to submit to amoral authority.

I kept waiting for them to make the connection to America's torture policies and Fox's support for it, if only to explain to their own viewers why what we did was totally different. But, the connection just never occurred to them. They just prattled away, shocked, horrified and blissfully unaware about the evils of torture and the mindless submission to authority and the role television plays in all of that.

??

Meanwhile, there's a bill recently introduced by Joe Lieberman and John McCain, called the "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act". It's probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades. It's far beyond the horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act. It literally empowers the President to imprison anyone he wants in his sole discretion by simply decreeing them a Terrorist suspect, including American citizens arrested on U.S. soil. The bill requires that all such individuals be placed in military custody, and explicitly says that they "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities.

This bill has produced barely a ripple of controversy. Isn't it shocking how easily led and authoritarian the French are?

Talk about REDEFINING AMERICA...

excon

PS> Some of my verbiage was borrowed from Glenn Greenwald

...the true agenda is to redefine the role of government . So tell me, what is the tea party goal? I'll tell you: it's to redefine the role of government. I expect your next thread will a railing against them.

Actually that is an old test called the 'Milgram experiment'.It was first conducted in the 1960s on Ivy Leaguers (Yale) .
Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)

So tell me, what is the tea party goal? I'll tell you: it's to redefine the role of government.

If there is one binding and unifying principle of the tea party movement it is a return to constitutional principles. If that is a redefinement it is because the government has drifted so far from it's mandate.

Would someone PLEASE change the air out of Madam Pelosi's head? PLEASE! She's worse than a turd in a punchbowl.

Rep. John Dingell was even more candid (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/rep_dingell_its_taken_a_long_t.html) about the Dems true agenda in a radio interview Monday:


Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.

Finally, truth in advertising.

“a government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” Gerald Ford

The new corollary to that is
“Any government able to redistribute your money is able to tell you what you must do with it.”

The Dems are just coming out of the woodwork all of a sudden with moments of honesty. Durbin told Joe Scarborough the reason they need to raise taxes on capital gains while recovering from the worst economic disaster "since the great depression" is because "It’s the cost, I think, of having the kind of America we want to have."

AkVhz_Am23s

Who's this "we" he's talking about?

Who's this "we" he's talking about?Hello again, Steve:

Well, it's not you, that's for sure. But you WERE right there when George W. Bush lowered taxes for the richest Americans while engaging in TWO wars, thereby taking a SURPLUS and turning it into a humongous DEFICIT. You didn't make a peep.

So, your talk of WHO is bankrupting this country is falling on deaf ears.

excon

Your grasp of history is amazing. Used to be we were a free nation, which is what I want, but obviously not on the Democratic agenda.

Your grasp of history is amazing. Used to be we were a free nation, which is what I want, but obviously not on the Democratic agenda.Hello again, Steve:

MY grasp of history?? Dude!

Let me see.. Under George W. Bush, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution went into the toilet. That's where you'd find habeas corpus that Bush took away. Then he massacred the 4th Amendment when he violated FISA, and gave the NSA permission to listen to ALL of our phone calls and read our emails.. Then he blasted the 1st Amendment when he created "free speech zones" whenever he was in town. He forgot that the entire country IS a free speech zone. Then he threw the 6th Amendment into the crapper when he endorsed secret trials. He destroyed the 8th Amendment when he said we should torture... I could go on...

Nope. All in all, I'd say YOU guy's did a pretty good job of destroying the Constitution and any freedom we had.

excon

Um, free speech zones were a construct of Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young for the 1988 Democratic National Convention. The rest has been discussed to death.

DC Madam arrested...

^^
That's funny? Really?

Even the NY Times comes out with an admission (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575132111888664060.html) on the agenda, saying Obamacare is "the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago." In other words, Obama's big step in wealth redistribution.

Senator Turbin comes closest to outright saying what the agenda is .

When they get cap and tax they will be able to control the very air you breathe .

Even the NY Times comes out with an admission (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575132111888664060.html) on the agenda, saying Obamacare is "the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago." In other words, Obama's big step in wealth redistribution."NY Slimes", can't believe a word they print, right? Unless you believe it. It is to laugh.

"NY Slimes", can't believe a word they print, right? Unless you believe it. It is to laugh.

NK, for such a smart guy you sure seem awfully clueless at times.

NK, for such a smart guy you sure seem awfully clueless at times.
Really? Why do you always call it the "NY Slimes"?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/general-petraeus-general-betray-us-128070-3.html#post612820

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obama-nafta-189598.html#post909419

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/hillarys-lbj-style-campaign-ad-189611.html#post909613

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/calling-al-gore-where-you-303015-9.html#post1515420

Really? Why do you always call it the "NY Slimes"?

Yeah well, if you'd look at the post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/pelosis-true-agenda-458349-2.html#post2287863) that prompted this I wrote "Even the NY Times," not "Slimes." That was you misquoting me (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/pelosis-true-agenda-458349-2.html#post2287958). Aren't you tired of being humiliated when trying to make me look bad?

Yeah well, if you'd look at the post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/pelosis-true-agenda-458349-2.html#post2287863) that prompted this I wrote "Even the NY Times," not "Slimes." That was you misquoting me (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/pelosis-true-agenda-458349-2.html#post2287958). Aren't you tired of being humiliated when trying to make me look bad?I think you miss the point here. You're pointing to the NY Times as someone who got it right when you routinely call it the Slimes because they don't get it right. You're OK with it this time because it fits your agenda. That's the hypocrisy we're used to from the neo-cons.

I think you miss the point here. You're pointing to the NY Times as someone who got it right when you routinely call it the Slimes because they don't get it right. You're ok with it this time because it fits your agenda. That's the hypocrisy we're used to from the neo-cons.

No, you're emissing the point. You misquoted me in an attempt to smear me. Just admit it dude.

Wow, you've lost it.

You misquote me and I've lost it? I pity you...

She said that the true agenda is to redefine the role of government . Hello again, tom:

Wouldn't it be wonderful if she changed the role of government so that it STOPPED prosecuting marijuana violators?? I think it'd be great if the government supported equal rights for ALL of its citizens, and Nancy being from San Francisco, might just think that gay people ought to have the right to marry. I'd LOVE it if she remade government into one that gave amnesty to the illegal immigrants already here. Wouldn't it be cool if she stopped government from torturing people and stopped the government from spying on its own people? Wouldn't it be great if she supported a consumer advocate agency with Elizabeth Warren at it's helm? Maybe then the bankers would stop ripping us off!

Yeah, if she redefined the role of government to do THAT, I'd be mighty pleased.

excon

I call it the slimes even on those rare occasions they get it right. Besides the fact that they are the lefty gospel ,the Ochs-Sulzberger's have historically been some of the sleaziest operators in journalism since the days of Adolph Ochs.

I call it the slimes even on those rare occasions they get it right. Besides the fact that they are the lefty gospel ,the Ochs-Sulzberger's have historically been some of the sleaziest operators in journalism since the days of Adolph Ochs.Better stick with your Fox News then LOL!

Buried by the Times (http://aalbc.com/reviews/buriedbythetimes.htm)