Conyers: “There is no one more disappointed than I am in Barack Obama.” Health care: "crap."

[Karmadillo]

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/conyers-%E2%80%9Cthere-no-one-more-disappointed-i-am-barack-obama%E2%80%9D

The nation's senior Black congressman fears Barack Obama is in danger of becoming a one-term president. Obama's health care proposal is “crap,” says Detroit's John Conyers, and Obama loses whether it passes or fails.

Conyers: “There is no one more disappointed than I am in Barack Obama.”

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

“Progressive congresspersons may wind up voting against Obama on health care.”

Congressman John Conyers says Barack Obama’s stance on health care has been wrong, and it’s going to cost the president “big time.” It might even cost Obama his second term in the White House.

Conyers gave that assessment at Washington’s Busboys and Poets restaurant, bookstore and bar, where the Progressive Democrats of America were celebrating their fifth anniversary. Conyers is the Congressional Black Caucus’s longest serving member, having represented Detroit since 1964, when Obama was a three-year-old. He’s also one of the most consistently progressive members of the House, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of single payer health care bill H.R. 676 – legislation the White House has done its best to smother. Obama once gave lip service to single payer health care, but as president has staked his reputation on a mishmash of corporate schemes and deals-with-the-devil masquerading as health care reform – a thoroughly confused and conflicted legislative concoction that Conyers describes, simply, as “crap.”

Conyers suggests that, at the end of the legislative process, progressive congresspersons may wind up voting against Obama on health carebecause the bill will be simply too bad for advocates of real reform to support.
Busboys and Poets is a favored gathering place for progressives of all races. On the January night last year when Obama won the South Carolina primary, the place was noisier and more boisterous than anybody’s sports bar – so many deliriously hopeful faces, such soaring expectations. Now, John Conyers was telling many of the same people: “There is no one more disappointed than I am in Barack Obama.”

“We’ve got to tell Obama now, or he’ll be a one term president.”

more...

[Moochy]

1. Perhaps if he lodged his complaint in the form of an angrily worded letter!

[Vickers]

20. *snort!*

:thumbsup:

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

97. Nice to see someone calling bullshit on all this bullshit.

I don't want to beat the repubs. I want to see GOOD health care. I don't want to see better health care. I want to see GOOD health care.

Don't fuck with Conyers. He'll smile and cut your balls off. Chicago politics ain't shit. This is Detroit, bitch, where the weak get eatin'. Here's the main problem with Detroit: rain or shine--we don't give a fuck.

Go get 'em Congressman Conyers.

[Uzybone]

2. I am pretty dissappointed in Mr and Mrs Conyers as well

[DevonRex]

22. Hear hear!!! Thank you. +1. nt

[goclark]

83. Conyers disappoints ~ he needs to take care of his wife

Have you noticed how he has changed recently?
If I didn't know better perhaps he is getting some money under the table. :shrug:

[WI_DEM]

3. Oh, John Conyers? the guy who ruled out impeachment for Bush is disappointed in Obama

Obama will get health care and with a public option. Meanwhile, Bush will continue to enjoy his retirement.

[Enrique]

5. if it has a public option, it will be because of pressure from progressives

if the progressives look at Obama balking at the public option and say nothing, then the public option is history.

Fortunately, they're not saying nothing, they're actually threatening to kill the whole deal if it's not there. I'm not sure they would take it that far, I'm not sure if I would want them to, but it's good they're saying it.

[WI_DEM]

6. From the start Obama has said he wanted a public option it was

part of his principles that he set forth. Also, Health Care reform cannot only be passed by "progressives" because there aren't enough progressives to pass it alone.

[Enrique]

8. yes, and the progressives went along as a compromise from single-payer

now, Obama seems to be asking them to compromise further.

[crikkett]

106. I missed something. I thought public option = single payer n/t

[DevonRex]

I think Conyers is trying to avoid responsibility. Disgusting. nt

[Enrique]

13. should Conyers kill health reform if there's no public option?

that would be taking responsibility.

Myself, I'm not so sure, it might not be worth it.

[DevonRex]

17. There had better be a public option. But it's ridiculous for a congressman

to blame the executive branch for legislation the House wrote. If it's crap, then Congress needs to fix it.

[Enrique]

29. there might not be

It's a very real possibility. If there isn't, what should Conyers do?

By the way, the version in question is the Senate Finance Committee version.

The legislation which Conyers is responsible for is Single-Payer. HR 676.

[DevonRex]

36. First of all Conyers needs to shut his trap and do some actual work.

Nobody is gonna buy his excuses.

[robinlynne]

93. He is the sponsor of the best health care bill in America. He wrote it.

and you are doing exactly what?

[TheBigotBasher]

104. No but just as blue dogs can play power games

so can progressives. If the Republican voting Democrats compromise the compromise - public option - then they may not be able to pay back their insurance lobbyists.

[John Q. Citizen]

105. Obama never voiced support for the public option until about a month ago, now he's

wavering.

[mopinko]

obama has NOT EVER BALKED AT THE PUBLIC OPTION.

stop spreading rightwing crap. he has never balked for a minute. progressives should try standing with their president instead of believing the media crap about needing to "hold his feet to the fire", because he has never compromised on the public option.

[Bluerthanblue]

35. WORD!

thank you Mo!

:hi:

[Enrique]

41. the right wing is calling Obama a socialist

I have never once heard a rightwinger discuss the conflict between him and progressives, because it would undermine their propaganda about Obama being a leftist.

So whatever I'm spreading, it's certainly not rightwing crap. Leftwing, maybe.

[mopinko]

73. it is the bull that the media is pushing.

ooooo oooo obama is in so much trouble, obama is going to cave, obama is under attack in his own party, the dems are cracking, they are tearing it apart, yada, yada, yada. watch chris matthews for one night and tell me i am wrong. even npr.

[noamnety]

9. I think you're off base with the ad hominem

Not only is it a weak debate tactic, it's also an inaccurate summary of Conyers, since he's done more than most reps to push impeachment - most did absolutely nothing. Conyers is the one who filed a resolution create an investigative committee to consider impeachment.

However, like I said, that's deliberately off topic to shift away from the actual topic of the thread, which is the health care reform. I'm not convinced he's made a compelling case (or any case) that Obama is responsible for bad legislation that Congress is working on. Why doesn't Congress just write good legislation? Is Obama suddenly the one introducing bills in Congress?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. That's what I don't understand. Congress is in charge of writing legislation

Obama isn't a Blue Dog. It's our conservadems that are the problem.

[redqueen]

25. See post #10... Congress is off the hook because maybe Obama cut a deal

with industry lobbyists.

That looks like the spin from this OP anyway.

[noamnety]

33. I'm still not entirely understanding the process.

I read post 10, got that the administration will "block" (veto?) legislation that isn't favorable to lobbyists.

What I'm still missing is why Congress can't pass its own legislation and put Obama in the position of having to veto it? Why is it on Congress to have to be the obstructionists in that game?

Or is the problem that the Whitehouse has bribed/pressured members of congress to block real reform?

[redqueen]

38. This whole article is 'crap'. It's not "Obama's health care proposal"... it's Congress's.

Congress can of course pass its own legislation... but apparently they'd rather get started warming up with the fingerpointing now, just in case.

As for your theory about the WH bribing / pressuring Congress to block reform... :wtf:

[noamnety]

51. I'm seriously asking the question - not accusing the WH.

I'm asking why THEY are accusing the white house of preventing them from coming up with their own legislation, I don't understand the logic in saying the WH has cornered them into blocking meaningful legislation.

Seems like they can write and pass what they want, and put Obama in the position of having to veto it and take the heat for that. It sounds like (right or wrong - I am not making a judgment call, just trying to understand his point) Conyers is claiming that Obama has negotiated with insurance lobbyists in a way that is preventing congress from passing legislation, I don't know how to interpret that without thinking he's claiming congress people are involved in those negotiations and have stuck some deals/been pressured in some way that involves carrots and sticks - in the way that all negotiations involve carrots and sticks. (Do this or you won't get that)

[Romulox]

52. LOL. All the stands between impeachment and W is John Conyers, huh?

*Profoundly* silly. :silly:

[redqueen]

55. Where does the impeachment process start? (nt)

[Romulox]

57. Stop being ridiculous. The decision is made by Party leadership.

Really, is this a political message board or a middle school? :shrug:

[redqueen]

63. Yes, Pelosi gave him cover the next year... after he tried to start one investigation

and that fizzled. He tried again and and Nancy stepped in. That's why she still gets smacked around for her part in it as well.

And if she were going around talking smack about how "Obama's proposal" :eyes: is crap she'd be getting stick too.

[DevonRex]

4. So if the legislation is so bad, why doesn't he do something to fix it

instead of waiting for an entirely different branch of government to do it? Is he trying to place blame on someone other than himself?

Is Obama the fall guy for lazy and cowardly legislators? Looks like it to me.

[Enrique]

10. maybe it doesn't matter what happens in Congress

"perhaps the deal has already been cut" in the White House.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4002572

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

. . . .

In an interview on Wednesday, Representative Raul M. Grijalva, the Arizona Democrat who is co-chairman of the House progressive caucus, called Mr. Tauzin’s comments “disturbing.”

“We have all been focused on the debate in Congress, but perhaps the deal has already been cut,” Mr. Grijalva said. “That would put us in the untenable position of trying to scuttle it.”

[DevonRex]

28. That's really stupid. Congress writes the legislation, no matter who

talks to each other on the outside.

[Enrique]

32. how do you feel about Obama's deal with Tauzin? n/t

[ThomWV]

7. Why doen't the Recommend feature work for this post?

[redqueen]

14. It does.It's being unrec'd as fast as it's being rec'd.

Some like this kind of stuff, others don't.

[peace13]

11. You go John. We loved your investigation of the 2004 election here in OHio.

Pot tells kettle how it is done!

[tsuki]

103. He was awesome. I had to take off from work to watch it. nt

[redqueen]

12. "Obama's health care proposal"

Is there any such thing? Which version is he really talking about?

Sorry, I'm not wasting my time reading that if they can't be bothered to be a little more clear about what the hell it is they're talking about.

[DevonRex]

15. Seems to me he's blaming Obama for the legislation the House wrote.

:shrug:

Has he lost his marbles, too?

[redqueen]

21. They're claiming the bills are all just for show...

and a deal has already been cut between the WH and lobbyists.

[DevonRex]

24. How could that possibly be, if it relies on legislation to get it done?

That's ridiculous.

[redqueen]

27. Anything to shift blame away from Congress...

that's what it looks like to me.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. But that doesn't make sense...

If the house passes a good bill and the senate passes it, it gets to the WH and Obama vetoes it, then I would believe that. But that hasn't happened. The other way you could try and make that argument is if Obama has introduced legislation to Congress and he is threatening them to pass it. BBut Obama hasn't introduced a bill into the House or Senate, and even if he did both houses would have to pass it...so how could the WH make a deal with lobbyists?

Let me add, I think some people have an unspoken arrangement with Lobbyists, but they are in Congress, not the white house.

[redqueen]

30. Ask Representative Grijalva... he's the only one that I know of who's suggested it.

It seems pretty sad IMO... just lame finger-pointing... when it's up to Congress to get it done.

This is not "Obama's plan"... this is all on Congress.

[DevonRex]

37. I'm wondering if these quotes are even true. They're stupid on their face.

[Enrique]

43. White House says it's true

A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.

“The president encouraged this approach,” Mr. Messina wrote. “He wanted to bring all the parties to the table to discuss health insurance reform.”

[redqueen]

44. Wow you're really good at the spinning... it's not a "deal" it's negotiated drug prices.

That's not an entire bill, in other words.

What sickening, shameful spin from you and the M$M... you should apply for a job with them... you'll fit right in.

[DevonRex]

31. Now you're just being too logical. You have to stop that.

:rofl:

[GreenArrow]

39. the WH makes a deal with lobbyists,

the Congressional leadership aka -- "some people" -- facilitates the deal on the Hill.

[Lerkfish]

16. I'm seriously disappointed in Mr. Conyers, as well.

I've had enough of his "impeachment off the table" and sternly worded letters.

[FLAprogressive]

18. Thank you for standing up for progressive values, Rep. Conyers.

[dorkulon]

23. Maybe he could pretend to impeach him. Worked out so well for Bush. nt

[berni_mccoy]

34. There is no one more disappointed than I am in John Conyers who failed to Impeach Bush

[merh]

40. Oh, send him a letter, send him a letter

show us what ya got, Conyers.

[Karmadillo]

42. Re: impeachment, maybe Conyers was trying to support Obama's view that impeachment was unacceptable

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm

Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable
Updated 7/2/2007 3:58 PM | Comments 97 | Recommend 13 E-mail | Save | Print |

Sen. Barack Obama
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.

<edit>

Obama, a Harvard law school graduate and former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."

more...

[redqueen]

45. Is 2007 really the first time impeachment was mentioned?

Wow it's a good thing Obama showed up to provide leadership for Conyers on the issue. :eyes:

[DevonRex]

46. Wasn't that the dumbest thing you ever read? Well, ONE of the dumbest

things, anyway. :rofl:

[Karmadillo]

47. He may have wanted to be on the same page as a likely Democratic nominee for the presidency.

I don't know. I'm just pointing out that all this anger at Conyers over impeachment should be perhaps apportioned to other Democrats who were willing to give Bush/Cheney a pass.

[H2O Man]

53. Respectfully disagree.

Congress is the legislative branch; the president is of the executive branch. And I know that you know this as ell as I do -- I'm not trying to be obnoxious. (Happens without even trying!)

A member of the House of Representatives is supposed to do the right thing, according to his or her oath of office, in terms of upholding the Constitution. That duty is not supposed to be influenced by the executive office, much less by a potential future executive office-holder.

If Rep. Conyers based his decision in any way on Obama, then what little respect I have for him would go down the drain. I believe he acted in the manner he did because he has grown old and comfortable in his position within the system he once challenged.

[bvar22]

76. That would be true, if....

...there were no such thing as Political Parties.
Since there are Political Parties, and they hold the power over election and re-election AND the operation of The House and Senate, "Party Bosses" and financiers hold way too much power over what gets done, and what doesn't get done.

....but you already know that.

You also already know that Conyers' did MORE than any other Democrat to hold Bush accountable for the International Crimes perpetrated by his administration.

You already also know that Conyers' Health Care Bill (Medicare for All HR 676) has 85 co-sponsors in the House, but has been "tabled" by the Party Leadership which has also blocked the scoring of HR 676 by the CBO.

[H2O Man]

87. Yes, I do know

there are political parties. But that is the only thing that I agree with you on.

I also know that the people at the top, often put on shows that amount to nothing. Writing stern letters falls into that vast nothingness. I think it is curious to think that a stern letter is "MORE" than an effort to impeach -- even if that stern letter involved stern words in capital letters.

And no, as I noted, I do not follow Rep Conyers these days. I did in the past, including donating cash to support him. But those days are long gone.

Thanks for your post, though.

[Karmadillo]

85. Bvar addresses this well. It did seem to be a party decision. If leading Dems

like Obama had come out guns firing for impeachment, I'm guessing Conyers would have been happy to have done whatever he could. I'm not sure why you're focusing on Conyers' age. He seems up for a fight on single-payer. Obama, a much younger man, seems much less inclined to fight.

[H2O Man]

89. I think that

you are either purposely missing the point regarding my comment on the difference between him when he was young and now, or you just don't get it. But, as the OP/thread is about Conyers, and I was responding to a discussion within the thread on his failure to take a bold stance on the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush-Cheney administration, and you also express confusion as to why I choose to comment on that very topic, I note the pattern.

If the best one can say about Rep Conyers is that he was simply going along with the old gang in DC, I hope that you can understand why others do not find that to be a quality to be admired.

[Karmadillo]

98. Shucks

I'm probably so dim I am missing your point. Still the point of the subthread I started was to point out that those defending Obama by pointing out Conyers backed off on impeachment might need to remind themselves Obama was far more vocal in opposition to impeachment than Conyers. Attacking Conyers on that issue seems a strange way of defending Obama. Regarding your attempt to portray Conyers as a worn out old pol, my point was that he's at least willing to fight on single-payer. Obama, who admits it's the best outcome for the American people, isn't. Since Obama wouldn't fight for impeachment or single-payer, it sounds, using your analysis, that Obama is more of a worn out old pol than Conyers.

[H2O Man]

101. Obama was not

in the House of Representatives. Conyers was/is. It's the House of Representatives that impeaches, hence people tend to focus on the actions and inactions of those House members, as opposed to those of people who were not involved.

There was a time when Conyers would have taken his oath of office -- his swearing to uphold the Constitution -- far more seriously than he did when he knew that the Bush-Cheney administration had engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. That's true, even if you want to twist and deny it.

[redqueen]

54. Conyers himself considered impeachment in 2005.

Only the Judiciary Committee can vote on whether to impeach. That's why his decision not to follow through matters so much.

[Karmadillo]

56. Interesting. Did Obama and other leading Democrats suggest he pursue impeachment?

nt

[redqueen]

61. The leader of the House Judiciary Committe is supposed to lead.

Obama was a state senator in Illinois at the time, IIRC.

As for what others might have said that could have provide some spinal fortitude to Conyers... you'll have to do some reading as I don't recall.

The next Year Pelosi joined in with the not doing anything and if she were going around talking smack about "Obama's proposal" being crap, she'd be getting slammed again now too.

[Karmadillo]

66. I thought Obama became a US Senator in 2004.

nt

[redqueen]

67. Yes, he was elected in 2004

and was a freshman Senator in 2005.

So you're right... it's really Obama's fault. :sarcasm:

[Karmadillo]

69. Nope. But he does share some of the blame, don't you think?

nt

[redqueen]

71. Perhaps... but

as for this thread, Conyers drew this fire on himself.

[Karmadillo]

82. Actually, it just appears to be an ad hominem attack to try to discredit

his words about health care. People who seem incensed about his failure to pursue impeachment (what appears to me to be a "leading Dem" party decision) don't seem at all upset about Obama's efforts to take the option off the table.

[redqueen]

86. Which is a predictable response to a flame-baiting, bullshit subject line. (nt)

[Karmadillo]

91. Truth is flame-baiting?

nt

[ima_sinnic]

50. Obama's tolerance of "grave, grave breaches" was apparent even then

I guess taking the country to war on the basis of lies--resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 U.S. troops and more than a million Iraqis--torturing kidnapped "terrorists" who were never tried or convicted for any crimes, looting the public treasury, letting a U.S. city drown while releasing mercenaries into it to use citizens for target practice, and generally abusing all aspects of the office of president are not "grave" enough for impeachment. If he couldn't find any grounds for impeachment during the 8 years of bushco, it makes sense that he won't see any war crimes, either. feh. I'm voting for someone else in 2012.

He lied blatantly when he said no lobbyists would work for his administration--he's got his lips glued to their butts. His dismissal of progressives, wishy-washy approach to health care, letting the bill get distorted totally out of shape in Congress, and not even making a statement about all the RW propaganda and disruption of public meetings are all just too wimpish. where's the leadership?

[SammyWinstonJack]

62. +1 nt

[Romulox]

58. It's the most thoughtless kind of scapegoating to blame Conyers for the Party's invertebrate leaders

:eyes:

[ellacott]

48. Many people ae becoming disappointed in Conyers also

He is wrong for putting this all at the President's feet. I see many of our reps have no courage and are throwing out these types of messages just in case the Pres. proves to be a bad Pres. They can then yell from the sidelines that they told you so. Weak, and pitiful. We have no people of courage in Washington.

This man is sponsoring legislation that can kill minority radio and is being an ass about it.

I've lost all respect for Conyers.

[H2O Man]

49. I always respected

Conyers when he was a young lion. Now that he is old and toothless, I do not tend to listen to him much. And, when I do, I'm usually disappointed in him.

I had an e-mail from his office this morning on health care. I deleted it without reading it.

[Emit]

60. I was disappointed in this comment he made recently about not reading the Health Care Bill

“What good is reading the bill if it’s 1,000 pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find what it means after you read the bill?” says Conyers.

What was he thinking when he made that statement? :shrug: Talk about eating our own...

[redqueen]

64. Is Kucinich really the only guy up there who reads these things?

How is it that nobody else seems to find the time?

[ellacott]

70. It's amazing isn't it?

I believe Conyers was also the one in Farenheit 911 who said that they don't read most bills.

[redqueen]

72. Was he? Oh well... at least he's honest about it. (nt)

[ecstatic]

59. Aren't Conyers and his colleagues in charge of what the bill will look like?

:shrug:

[Romulox]

65. A bill has to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President to pass.

:hi:

[wininboy]

88. The President is the leader of the Democratic Party

On the leading issue of the day, the leader of the democratic party should lead.

[slipslidingaway]

68. Conyers asked that 2 single-payer advocates be invited to the WH Summit

his request was denied.

At the very last minute Dr. Oliver Fein was invited, only after doctors planned a protest outside the White House and many calls were made to the WH.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/11/dr_quentin_young_obama_confidante_and

"While the Obama administration claims “all options are on the table” for healthcare reform, it’s already rejected the solution favored by most Americans, including doctors: single-payer universal healthcare. We speak with Dr. Quentin Young, perhaps the most well-known single-payer advocate in America. He was the Rev. Martin Luther King’s doctor when he lived in Chicago and a longtime friend and ally of Barack Obama. But he was noticeably not invited to Obama’s White House healthcare summit last week. ....


AMY GOODMAN: This brouhaha over the last week with the White House healthcare summit, 120 people, there were going to be no single-payer advocates. Congressman Conyers asked to go. At first, he was told no. He directly asked President Obama at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing. He asked to bring you and Marcia Angell—


DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Yes.


AMY GOODMAN: —former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. You weren’t allowed to go. Do you have President Obama’s ear anymore? You have been an ally of his for years, for decades.


DR. QUENTIN YOUNG: Well, it’s mixed. I think we’re friends, certainly. At this gala that you mentioned, which was embarrassing, he did send a very complimentary letter. And I appreciate that, but I’d much rather have him enact single payer, to tell the truth. And we did—it’s fair to say, after a good deal of protest, I think we were told there was a—phones rang off the hook. They did allow our national president, Dr. Oliver Fein, to attend with Dr. Conyers—Congressman Conyers. That’s fine, but we need many more people representative of the American people at large to get this thing through the Congress, and Baucus, notwithstanding, be overruled."

[Still Sensible]

74. Yep, this is how divide and conquer works

and I fear that it may work in spite of the incredibly poor position the GOP has put itself in. I know Conyers intent here is to put as much pressure on the President as possible. Unfortunately in this media environment the "...Congressional Black Caucus’s longest serving member..." attacking President Obama this way is legitimate news. I don't believe Conyers wants Obama to be a failed one-term president, but his action here does nothing but feed the angle that President Obama's support is tanking, now from both the left and the right.

[Greyhound]

77. Obama has enabled the division through his capitulation to the forces

of corporatism over people.

There is still time for Obama to change course, but it is growing shorter each day. He needs to take a stand for the people, he has surrendered enough to the parasites and now he must demand that they contribute or Conyers may well be right.

[burning rain]

75. Hey ho, time to condemn Conyers as a conservative Trojan Horse &/or a bitter PUMA.

~

[bvar22]

78. I STAND with Conyers and the Progressive Caucus.

They have an excellent record, and Conyers has a superb record of fighting FOR The People and AGAINST the Big Money Interests who are currently dictating the terms of what THEY call Health Care "Reform".
:patriot:

[Ichingcarpenter]

79. “There is no one more disappointed than I am in John Conyers.”

Even though the US might get a water down version of what is needed.
Conyer has proved....................he isn't a leader who I trust any more.
The bill starts in the house along with impeachment.

What a deeb...............Still trying to be a player and playing the progressives once again.

[flyarm]

80. Last night on Philly TV a commercial ran 2 x that was opposite of Harry and Louise..this supported

Obama's plan..and i watched to see who paid for the commerical..it was big Pharma!!..think about that..why would big Pharma support Obama's plan and pay for a commerical with a man and woman saying how good Obama's plan would be?????????

To say the least, I was stunned!

I figured it would be paid by dems or Move On ..but no...it was paid for by the Pharm industry!

[Karmadillo]

81. Maybe the White House's efforts to protect drug manufacturers from Congress is why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=4&hp

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost Sign in to Recommend
DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: August 5, 2009

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.

“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”

A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.

“The president encouraged this approach,” Mr. Messina wrote. “He wanted to bring all the parties to the table to discuss health insurance reform.”

The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration.

more...

[alarimer]

102. Moe slimy corporate dealing by Obama.

We should be up in arms about this but NO we have to go after some Congressman who DARES to criticize the saintly Obama. Fuck that shit. Take the blinders off. Obama is just another corporate tool.

[HopeOverFear]

84. Black Agenda Report = Crabs in a Barrell

nuff said.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

96. Nonsense

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

90. Shouldn't he be more worried about his wife going to jail?

I love John Conyers, but to blame this all on Obama when there are Blue Dogs in bed with DLCers who are in bed with Republicans? That's just ridiculous and short-sighted. John knows better. He knows the process. And he knows how powerful the economic and political elites are in the country. As a liberal myself, and proud of it, I often feel that one of the reasons that liberals tend to lose on major issues of the day is that we are so quick to give up; throw our collective hands up in a 'fuck it' fashion. Doing that allows the other side to win. We have got to do better. We need to fight and fight hard to reframe the terms of this debate!!!

[omega minimo]

92. Rec + 31 for Sen. Conyers, the CBC, Kucinich, Feingold and Progressives doing the People's Business.

:yourock:

[Avalux]

94. Good! Progressive leaders need to fight harder and louder than the Pukes.

They need to PUSH Obama in the right direction. I'm not upset with Conyers at all for this.

[earth mom]

95. Conyers should already know that Corporate America OWNS Washington DC.

How hypocritical of Conyers to point fingers when he helped take Impeachment off the table after pushing it for so long. :wtf:


Heads up peeps: Both Impeachment AND Health Care are OFF the table because the Corporate Masters said so. :argh:

[whathehell]

99. Obama seems to play continuously from a position of weakness

Weakness, concilliation, compromise...Always playing defense.

He doesn't seem to understand the need to play from a position of strength.

[spanone]

100. ...and now to express my disappointment in mr conyers....