Lawrence O'Donnell is the most negative anchor on MSNBC re: HCR I've seen yet.

[jenmito]

He subbed for Olbermann tonight and, as always, made the most negative argument about why he thinks a bill won't get passed. Tonight he had on a Dem. Rep. from NJ, Frank Pallone, and he asked everything he could to try to get Pallone to say it wouldn't pass.

The most ridiculous thing he said was, paraphrasing, "How can you in the House vote for things in the Senate bill that you're against? How can you be for something after you were against it?" Pallone explained (again) that the things they wanted changed would be fixed through the reconciliation "fix." In the past, O'Donnell has said this bill will never pass, that Clinton got closer than Obama in passing HCR, that they still need 60 votes before the reconciliation bill, etc.

O'Donnell really seems to have a problem with the idea of HCR passing since it didn't get done during the Clinton administration.

[vaberella]

1. I'm a bit weirded out by his schticks lately.

Do you think this is a loyalty issue? It does seems like he's pushing the same right wing talking points in order to support his argument and also making Dems to be weak.

[jenmito]

5. It might be a loyalty issue...

he's had this attitude for several months already. Whenever I see that he's going to be subbing for Keith, I just know I'm about to hear a bunch of BS negativity.

[tekisui]

2. It sounds like he is asking good questions.

I like O'Donnell. He isn't an ass kisser.

[jenmito]

6. I like him, too, except for his attitude on this HCR which he had from

the beginning. It's like he's in a competition between the Clinton admin.'s attempt to pass HCR and the Obama admin.'s attempt to pass it.

[DURHAM D]

103. O'Donnell was chief of staff for the senate finance committee.

It was Moynihan's committee. Senator Moynihan opposed health care reform. Therefore, O'Donnell (to keep his job) did not work/help/want to pass the Clinton health care reform bill.

Frankly Moynihan was a jerk about health care issues with the exception of funding for N.Y. hospitals. His passion was welfare reform. You know - third generation of boys in south central L.A. growing up without a father...

The Senator would not consider health care reform until welfare reform was complete. Ring any bells? Ding Ding Ding - he forced/got his welfare reform but no health care reform 'cause the "time was just not right". What a surprise.

[Solomon]

32. I thought his argument was a technical one. That is to

say, the deomcrats can use a 51 vore majority only if they first change the rule which requires a 60 vote majority. They can't get the 60, therefore there is no way they can vote in a bill with a 51 vote majority.

If that's true, that is a problem. Somethings out of whack. Either he's wrong, or the democrats are wasting their time on HRC.h

[jenmito]

34. He's wrong about it. n/t

[Solomon]

37. I certainly hope so. I don't understand why he's so

adamant about it. I haven't watched him recently, but he was spouting this theory weeks ago.

[jenmito]

38. He didn't mention it tonight so he must've been schooled on it...

or called on lying about it.

[karynnj]

55. That would only be if they wanted to pass a new bill through the Senate

The whole point of the complicated pass the Senate bill as is in the House - and pass a separate "fixes" bill in both is to avoid that.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

65. It is a technical one

He worked in the Senate he knows how it works, he isn't against HCR at all. He knows more about the inside baseball aspect of how this works than anyone on MSNBC.

[CTyankee]

73. Yes, except that I'm wondering if his information isn't a bit "old."

Yes, he USED to work in the Senate and he DID work on the Clinton HCR bill, but O'Donnell himself admitted that he "didn't know how they'll do it." I don't think he said "They'll never do it." That says to me that he isn't really up to speed on how things are being done now, some 16 years after he was working in the Senate...

[spiritual_gunfighter]

76. I think he said he didn't know how they would do it

because it is a legit. question. How exactly are they going to do it? He is definitely up to speed working in a leadership position in the Senate. He knows better than most.

[CTyankee]

83. That's what I meant, he didn't know how and it IS a legit question.

But in my view, he worked in a different atmosphere than today's. As partisan as it was, the Senate of 1994 was not as it is today. Every Congress changes and new coalitions form around certain issues and priorities of the day. So I am sure he knows the rules and the mechanics of the Senate, but with different people you get a different tenor of the times...

Don't get me wrong. I like Lawrence and think he's very good, very smart. And I'm sure he has lots of contacts on the staffs of the Senate commitees and members. I do trust him more than lots of talking heads...

[karynnj]

54. Me too - and his questions are good

Until this is voted in both Houses and signed by Obama, it is not done and there are powerful forces against it. I actually PREFER him to Olberman. Olberman is always "on our side", but I actually prefer someone who is really giving their best view of what is happening.

I have never heard him say that Clinton got further. I took what I heard more to mean that there were bills proposed and there was, at various points, CW that one of the alternatives would work. (They even had moderate Republicans then, so there was even some believe that a bipartisan bill could have been reached (more than we think today). From the Clinton book, not one member on the Finance committee was willing to commit to the Clinton bill. Neither House ever passed a bill - so Obama is clearly further ahead.

I wish he balanced pessimism with a bit of cautious optimism, but that might be more personality. Overall, I find him more consistently interesting, challenging and knowledgeable than any other commentator. (KO and Rachel are more consistently partisan on our side)

[spiritual_gunfighter]

66. I prefer O'Donnell to Olbermann as well

He is a realist and knows the in's and out's of how the Senate works better than anyone on MSNBC. Plus I love that he isn't afraid to battle with Republicans, something that Olbermann will never do.

[karynnj]

69. He was incredible defending Kerry against the SBVT liars

and another reason I will always respect him was that in 2005, when many Democrats - allied with the Clintons and many on the far left - joined the Republicans trashing John Kerry, he was always there correcting them. Given Kerry's life of public service without scandal and the dignified, high minded campaign he ran, anyone who had the guts to stand against the commentator mainstream will forever have my respect - and O'Donnell was among the best.

[quiller4]

82. I really like Olbermann but I think O'Donnell asks more insightful questions

and doesn't hesitate to ask difficult second and third questions.

[SusanaMontana41]

136. I see that

Sometimes Keith gets a little cartoonish, especially when quoting — in a Muppet voice — Limbaugh, Hannity, Rush, et. al. (as if he needs to hammer home "did you get it did you get it did you get it?") We get it. Just read them straight, KO, the way Rachel and Lawrence do. They're much more powerful when reported straight.

Having said that, I love Keith as much as I love Lawrence, Dylan, Ed and Rachel. Keep up the excellent work, MSNBC!

on edit: Added Ed. Shame on me for forgetting him!

[xchrom]

3. Do you trust these dems who seem SO deaf

To the progressive base to really 'fix' anything?

Party cheer leaders and the prim rose path.

All this BAD was never necessary.

Now you're gonna tell me -- repukes are better than.

A stupid argument if there ever was one.

[jenmito]

9. If they tell Pelosi (and Obama) that they'll pass an agreed-to "fix,"

I trust them to do so.

[karynnj]

56. Not to mention - Obama can assure the House that he will

not sign the Senate bill without the companion bill.

[tabbycat31]

13. Pallone's not deaf to the progressive base

he's just walking a VERY fine line right now as his town hall meetings over the summer were taken over by teabaggers, and he's made it very clear to progressives that the teabaggers call his office much more than progressives do. His district is on the conservative side though and the GOP wants to come hard after him come November. In his heart he's as liberal as most at DU are but he's scared to show it.

And I'd sure as hell take him over a Repuke any day. If you want to I can post the letter that I got from him after I contacted his office on healthcare

[jkshaw]

24. Congressman Pallone seemed extremely

tired during that segment. He looked as though he could hardly hold his eyes open. Also, Lawrence whom I really like, seemed to be missing a lot of cues, there was a lot of dead air, interruptions of Corn, too. I wondered if Lawrence was asked to take over at the last minute, and wasn't prepared. It was very distracting. I'd already heard a lot of the news with Rachel and just gave up and left.

[jenmito]

43. O'Donnell does that often...

misses cues and has dead air. After his guest says something, there will be silence and then he'll just end the interview by thanking the guest-no comment on whatever the guest says.

[katandmoon]

4. Maybe he's just being realistic. It's not like we can count on Obama not to give away the store.

[Supersedeas]

108. well

[Pirate Smile]

7. He is ALWAYS like this on HCR. I don't watch him anymore when hcr is the topic.

He is horrible on it.

[jenmito]

10. Thanks for noticing the same thing.

:hi:

[Kber]

23. I've noticed too.

It's almost like succeeding now will make the failure to pass HCR in the early 90's that much harder for him to take.

[jenmito]

27. Yup...

it's like he has HCR PSD.

[karynnj]

57. Or, it might be that the pain of it being dashed then, makes it hard for him

to let himself be sure that it will happen - until it does.

[gateley]

8. Wasn't he in Congress or something? I figure he understands the goings on

better than we do (it always seems so cut and dried out "here"). He always tells like it is and is sharp, but even so, that doesn't mean he's right. :shrug:

Apparently KO is still out -- was there any explanation? Thanks.

[jenmito]

12. I know that whenever he interviews current congressmen, they

disagree with him and try to set him straight regarding what's going on.

Keith's father is apparently in terrible shape and Keith is with him.

[gateley]

39. I knew about Keith's dad -- I was wondering if they had mentioned that's where

he was (although we all assumed that was the situation).

It depends on the congressmen, of course, whether or not I would give more or less credence to what O'Donnell says. Regardless, I do like him, but maybe I'd better pay closer attention to what he's saying.

Thanks! :hi:

[Raineyb]

118. Current congressmen would disagree with him wouldn't they?

That's what they do shine us on then when it fails they're like "Well we did our best." I wouldn't use that as a barometer of anything.

[hlthe2b]

14. O'Donnell was Chief of Staff for the Senate Finance Committee

So, he's seen how the sausage is made and undoubtedly was left rather jaded...

[gateley]

40. Good point. Not really sure exactly what that position is, but it indicates, as you

said, he's seen how the sausage is made. Thanks. :hI:

[Pirate Smile]

15. He was a biggie staffer on the Finance Committee the last time it was tried - with Clinton - and

since it didn't happen then, he seems to think it can never happen or will never happen. He seems to WANT it to never happen.

[gateley]

41. A couple of different takes on him, and all with merit. Thanks - I appreciate your

take, too! :hi:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

67. It is dishonest and untrue that Lawrence doesn't want HCR to happen

He just knows the realities of the Senate and how it works, he is bringing up legit. questions on policy. He knows how the Senate works better than anyone on MSNBC with maybe the exception of Chris Matthews who also worked in the Senate. But O'Donnell had a more powerful position. Anyone who thinks that O'Donnell doesnt want HCR to pass I dismiss completely.

He has been skeptical of HCR passing since the summer because he knows the realities of this. So far he is been totally correct.

[Pirate Smile]

74. He's done just about everything he can to stop any progress. They have already passed many points

he said they would never pass. I've never heard him say that they should pass the existing bill with fixes. All I've every heard him say is negative comments regarding it. If he actually wants it to pass, he hasn't shown it.

I usually like Lawrence but his personal experience in '93 have made his analysis a bit off. I know he knows the mind set in Congress back then. He does not seem to get the current Congressional state of mind on the issue which is shown when they constantly tell him he is wrong when he interviews them. I've seen it over and over and over again over the past year.

I'm not sure what hcr he actually wants passed. I'm sure he wants people covered. He is a Democrat and I believe he has the same moral feelings about it that almost all Democrats have (which Republicans obviously don't). I don't know that he wants the current actions Congress could actual take to pass the bill done - which isn't all that unusual when you look at all the kill the bill people.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

75. You give O'Donnell way too much credit

He is a TV pundit he can't "stop any progress", he is a commentator on cable news. O'Donnell understands the realities of the Senate, the bill is still not passed, it is still going to take some doing to get it passed even now. He understands that.

In all these months I have never seen O'Donnell give a personal opinion on what he wants passed in the HCR bill, he just comments on the realities of getting it passed in the first place.

O'Donnell has always defended liberal policy against the worst of the worst, whether it's the boneheads on Mourning Joe, or Liz Cheney and Eric Cantor. I will take a guy like that on my side any day of the week.

The OP is just pissed because he wasn't cheerleading, he was being real.

[Bryan]

91. "I'm not sure what hcr he actually wants passed."

On a Countdown a couple of months ago, he stated forcefully that universal extension of Medicare was the only way to go, so that stance may be what's coloring his analysis.

[freddie mertz]

110. I can't find anything to disagree with in this statement.

Lawrence rocks!

[havocmom]

133. Yep. He knows ANYTHING short of that would just be a mosaic of gimmes to various groups

and not really be much help to the people who need health care and can't get real health care. This crap about calling insurance wrangling 'health care reform' is disgusting. It doesn't make it likely we get more than 10 minutes of a doctor's time, and ten minutes is not care, it's a crap shoot. Maybe the doctor will guess right, maybe not, but when the clock ticking is the primary driver, it ain't health care.

[Raineyb]

119. Last I checked Mr. O'Donnell wasn't in the senate. So your accusation would be better suited

to someone who can actually vote on the bill.

[Imajika]

11. O'Donnell is kind of right...

At this time, HCR is unlikely to pass.

It will be a very uphill fight. One worth having, but a real uphill dog fight nontheless.

We are talking about trying to reshape around 15-20% of the entire US economy without a single member of the opposition. They will put up EVERY roadblock they can, and the public will be skittish upon seeing such a one sided approach even though it is necessary. The ONLY bipartisanship there truly be is the Democrats who end up siding with the Republicans in opposing the "big bill". If it becomes clear HCR can be killed with certainly, the few special interests whom have remained relatively docile will flood the media with advertisements against HCR. People want to be seen on the winning side, if the tide truly turns against this in a way that becomes obvious to most insiders, this entire effort could collapse rapidly.

The polls will probably be against us, and we are now in an election year. Right now there are probably not the votes in the House to even pass the Senate bill to get the ball rolling.

Make no mistake, this will be VERY difficult to pull off. I would strongly advise people to not get their hopes up too high.

This needs to be attempted at this point. Obama and the Democratic Party can't spend a year on their signature issue and get nothing, but the odds are long now. Get involved, make calls, write letters, be a participant in this fight, and finally, say a prayer to whatever God you may speak with (we will need his/her help).

Edited to suggest, if we are going to force the House to pass the unpopular Senate bill, and the Senate is going to use reconciliation anyway to make further changes, then if we can get 50 Senators to support the Public Option, now would be the time for them to come out as a group (all of them as proof that it can be done) and make that promise to the House. Knowing the Senate has the 50+1 to get it done, and sweetening the pot with a PO would really go a long way to moving this thing along. Just my opinion anyway.

[jenmito]

16. No, he's not...

they're going to have a bill signed into law by Easter.

[depakid]

17. He's been like that since the outset

I think a lot of it has to do with sour grapes about not getting it done when he had the chance with the Clinton administration.

[jenmito]

18. I noticed...

and I agree.

[bluestateguy]

19. He actually said that Clinton got closer?

His bill didn't even come up for a floor vote (much less pass either chamber).

[jenmito]

20. Yup-months ago...

he claimed the Clinton admin. passed the bill in the Senate (before this congress passed it in the Senate but passed it in the House).

[karynnj]

60. They never got a bill passed in either House

Here is NPR's Newsline time line, which is fascinating bringing up many things that have echoes in what Obama faced and faces. The fact is that they did get a bill through Kennedy's committee, but that is it. Not to mention, that was far later than the time that Obama got bills through both Houses of Congress. We are much closer, but as others post, it is still tricky and their are major forces against it. Here is what they say for August 1994.

"August 25, 1994 - Democratic leaders of both congressional chambers give up on health care and announce they are letting their members go home for their much-postponed vacation. Neither the Senate (where Democrats outnumber Republicans fifty-six to forty-four) nor the House (with a Democratic majority of 257 to 176) has come close to passing, or even voting on, any health bill. "

Then,

"September 20, 1994 - Newt Gingrich privately warns Bill Clinton in the White House that if he continues to push for health reform in the closing days of the session, he will lose the Republican support needed to pass GATT, which the President believes is critical to the U.S. economic position as the leader of the Western alliance. George Mitchell, repeating this Gingrich threat to colleagues privately immediately after, describes it as "an atomic bomb blast."

September 26, 1994 - At a news conference in the Capitol, George Mitchell pulls the plug on health care reform. "
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page2.html

After that, we lose the House (where we had a 257 - 176 majority) and the Senate ends up with 55 Republicans.

The next think done on healthcare by the Clintons is that a WH initiative on children's vaccinations passes.

The next big change occurs when Ted Kennedy, takes a bill he and John Kerry wrote based on MA's use of taxes on tobacco to fund Children's Health Care, and works with Hatch changing the bill to be not an entitlement and to allow states to design their own programs, rather than a national one - and were able to pass it under the name SCHIP.

[jenmito]

90. Thank you for the info...

I didn't know for sure, but I KNEW he wasn't telling the truth when he rejected the fact that Obama got further than any other president on HCR.

[Pirate Smile]

25. They didn't even get a Bill through a single committee in either the House or the Senate.

This time, Obama & Congress had 5 bills passed out of committees. In the House, three bills passed out of their respective committees were reconciled down to one and passed by the House in November. In the Senate, two bills passed out of their committees (HELP and Finance) were reconciled and passed on Christmas Eve. Nobody could rationally say Clinton got closer. I can't imagine Lawrence saying that. I didn't see the show tonight so I don't know.

edit to add - I see he said it months so ago - before things passed. He's been wrong about a lot on hcr. He never thought it would get as far as it has. He's fighting the last battle and isn't clear on the current one IMO.

[jefferson_dem]

62. If he really said that...anything else he says is instantly discredited.

[themaguffin]

21. oh jesus come on. o'donnell generally gives some of the best commentary on tv

his job is not to tell us what we want to hear.

[jenmito]

22. Yes, he does, except for on HCR. It has nothing to do with

what I want to hear unless you take FACTS into account. I want to hear facts. He doesn't give facts on this subject.

[themaguffin]

30. and you say that based "negative commentary?"

[jenmito]

33. I say that based on lies as well as what sounds like spiteful comments.

[themaguffin]

35. i've been watching him for a long time (among many others) & your comments don't fit any of what I

have seen. nobody is perfect, but the level of complaint stated is not rational.

[jenmito]

36. Tell it to the others on this thread who agree with me. n/t

[Raineyb]

120. Just because others agree with you doesn't mean you're right. You're all dead wrong

and it seems that your need for an advocate for YOUR point of view is coloring your view of O'Donnell's questions and comments.

[FrenchieCat]

49. I have to agree, that when it comes to the HCR, he becomes very, very skeptical,

more than he should be if he's doing straight up reporting.

When he interviewed both Corn and the congressman today,
it was like he wanted them to be negative, but they really weren't.

He went on quite a bit on how politically it might hurnt those Democrats in the House
who would be voting "For" a bill "after" they had voted against it, or something like that.

The congressmen had to tell him not once, but twice, that the only bill that House Democrats would
be judged on would be the bill that Pres. Obama would sign, and the procedural votes getting there
wouldn't really be relevant in this case, far as he could tell. It was like O'Donnell
didn't believe him....which was kind of strange, since the congressmen seemed
to be talking pretty straight....and wasn't playing any kind of games. :shrug:

[themaguffin]

88. being skeptical makes more sense then taking things at face value

again, i think people have a problem with his comments purely because he is skeptical.

Everyone should be skeptical at this point. After all of the complete bullshit this year (and the history of this issue) how could anyone not be. I'll believe reform can happen, the day I see the President sign the bill into law.

In the meantime, I truly hope that the Democrats get their shit together and work for the American people and finally get this accomplished.

[JamesA1102]

26. I think it is an ego thing.

Early on in the Healthcare debate he kept on saying 'If I couldn't get it done in '94, it can't be done'.

[jenmito]

29. That's right...

he DID say that!

[jillan]

28. He almost seemed like he was pissed off to be there tonite.

I used to be a big fan of his, but he lost me. He's always Mr Party Pooper, about everything.

[jenmito]

31. He sounded miserable...

like he always does.

[Supersedeas]

123. truly not enthusiastic about making democracy work

[backscatter712]

42. I'm hoping Keith's dad gets better soon.

The situation with his dad is heartbreaking, and I really want to see Keith back.

[onehandle]

44. From what he has witnessed in his history, he has good reason to be pessimistic.

He and Howard Dean are worth listening to closely on this whole thing.

Saying that he has a problem with it passing since it didn't get done back then is a ridiculous thing to say. He ANGRILY wants to see this pass. Much like Keith. That is what you are probably detecting.

[jenmito]

45. But he makes stuff up...

that doesn't do anything to help the situation.

[SoFlaJet]

46. The reason Lawrence is so skeptical is because

as a Chief of Staff in the senate he failed to get Hillary Clinton's HC proposal through the senate-so I suspect he doesn't want to make it seem like it was only his (and that senate's) failure.

[BlueIdaho]

47. Bingo!

"If I couldn't get health care reform passed, no one will ever be able to get it passed either..."

[Hekate]

48. O'Donnell's not a bad sub for Keith. I'm more worried about Keith and his dad than I am about O'Don

>sigh<

[sohndrsmith]

50. Huh... I didn't watch tonight (I'll have to catch the repeat). LO'D does

get mad, usually when someone is trying to make an argument based on incorrect, politically transfigured nonsense and he doesn't care for that nonsense. But I really like him, and of all of KO's subs, he's the one I prefer. (Heck, he was a writer for West Wing, which I consider a plus).

He doesn't suffer fools gladly, at least that's how it looks. Yep, he's served in Clinton's administration (not sure what position he held). He's very sharp on political process, and I like commentators who do their homework well.

From your description, it sounds like he's being pessimistic, and I have zero doubt he's explosively frustrated with the moronic, destructive subterfuge that the R's are so blatantly playing. Or maybe he's just on edge because of why he's substituting for Keith.

I don't know - I like O'Donnell. Doesn't mean he isn't being a nitwit. We all do that now and then (I do it a lot) : ) .

Now I'm curious - gotta go see if it's on. : )

[sohndrsmith]

51. Oh poop. That "Lockup" drub is on. Don't like weekends. Miss my news. Oh! Bet it's online! Cool. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

52. Come back and post after you watch it, and give us your opinion.....

What I'll say is that the folks he spoke to were both progressive, very level headed, and weren't being fools at all.

[karynnj]

53. Might be either "once burned, twice shy" or that as part of the 1993 effort,

he sees it working now as somewhat a statement that they did it wrong in 1993. From his bio:

"O'Donnell is widely known as an outspoken television political commentator, and was the Democratic Chief of Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Finance from 1993 through 1995."

[polichick]

58. O'Donnell is just very familiar with how it all goes down on the Hill. nt

[Vinca]

59. I think he's a realist.

We've been screwed over so many times, what are the odds it won't all go to hell again?

[jefferson_dem]

61. I'm convinced Lawrence trying so hard to show that he's the smartest in the room that...

he sometimes makes shit up to try to impress.

I generally find something else to do when he's guest hosting.

[LatteLibertine]

63. It depends

if some Democrats are merely paying lip service to HCR it certainly will not pass. There are some who are well compensated by the insurance industry. Many of these career sorts decide it is easiest and best for them to take lobbyist money and kick the can down the road. Some are gearing up to go into lobbying themselves, others have come from that industry.

Sadly the "industry experts" that have shaped the bill are merely lobbyists.

If they were dead serious about helping the mass of our people, they'd pass medicare for all, or "universal" care.

A public option and some HCR would be better than nothing. The reason medicare for all is not a possible "reality" would be lobbyist influence and a corrupt system that needs to be reformed. Of course it takes greedy politicians with uninspired and narrow vision to enable this.

[flpoljunkie]

64. I do think he suffers from knowing how dysfunctional Congress is,but love his combativeness with R's

He's great on Morning Joe, for example. He fights like a dog with a bone.

[karynnj]

70. I think it is better to be aware of possible pitfalls - so the fact that he knows

how tough the Senate really is is a plus. It is better hearing this - though it needs to be balanced by some cautious optimism.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Let me just say that I once got all huffy over O'Donnell being

negative. Wrote him a letter. His response was this: I'm right, sorry, but I am. And you know what? He was right. Had I listened to him, I'd have saved myself much grief, money, and energy.
He's got experience. He's a good man. He does not speak lightly.
Just saying. When I see folks like you speak of 'loyalty' it is chilling beyond compare. Just so you know. To many of us older Democrats, talk of 'loyalty' are words for right wing nut jobs on a crusade. Very off putting. Very.

[freddie mertz]

71. Sounds like you are trashing this man because he doesn't say what you want to hear.

And it gets even worse in the responses.

O'Donnell is a realist with relevant experience in the Senate on this issue.

He tells it as he sees it, and has no tolerance for happy shiny fairy tales and kind of cheap but ultimately misleading statements we have heard from politicians over the course of this endless, discouraging, and still far-from-resolved process.

I consider it a lessing when he comes on the air, because I know that I will get tough-minded analysis and no-bullshit-zone questioning.

I will admit, however, that his innate pessimism probably also also appeals to our shared Irish sensibilities.

I have no tolerance for the sort of "happy talk" that our culture tends to promote as a preferred response to experiences of loss, disaster, and failure.

There is poetry in anger and, yes, in sorrow and despair.

And given the government we have, I'd say that sorrow and despair are perfectly rational responses to the situation, nine out of ten times.

Hope has been shown to be shallow and cheap. Give me realism and a good, true fight anytime.

[jenmito]

78. You're wrong. As I said in my OP, he also makes stuff up.

As I said, in the past, O'Donnell has said this bill will never pass, that Clinton got closer than Obama in passing HCR, that they still need 60 votes before the reconciliation bill, etc.

I don't like when someone tries so hard to be negative that they lie. He's NOT tellin' it like it is-he seems to be tellin' it like he WISH it was.

[freddie mertz]

85. So far he is not wrong.

Remember, he is fOR the reform.

He just has a very jaundiced view of our government.

Which I tend to share.

Also, he is one of the only really tough questioners of politicians in the entire media.

[jenmito]

86. Sorry, but he IS wrong and the examples I gave you are proof.

You can share his view of our govt. all you want. That doesn't make what he said factually true.

[freddie mertz]

92. Anyway....

[Paladin]

72. Well, By All Means Let's Trash Lawrence O'Donnell.

I mean, it's not as if we don't have a whole slew of additional liberal spokespeople on TV to choose from, right? Right? Anybody?

Democratic circular firing squad time, yet again. We're going to end up getting exactly what we deserve with this kind of behavior.......

[Robeson]

89. Sad, isn't it?

[xultar]

106. +1 miilion gazillion

[freddie mertz]

107. Lawrence has committed thought-crime. He has refused to acknowledge the perfection and glory...

That is this administration's performance on HCR.

He must be discredited and called a liar, "bitter", a racist, an MSM tool, ANYTHING that can be thrown at him and stick, like Krugman, Olbermann, Schultz, Maddow, Klein, Greenwald, Taibbi, Thomas, Hamsher, Dean, Feingold, Kucinich, Weiner, and everyone and anyone else whose loyalty to the Anointed has been anything short of perfect.

[PurityOfEssence]

114. Testify!

Couldn't agree more. So many--who shall remain nameless--on this board have their egos so wrapped up with the contention of our President's supernatural perfection that they rage uncontrollably at anyone who points out inconsistencies.

Once again, it's like celestial mechanics experts contriving ways of the planets stopping mid-sky and then reversing their paths just to prove Galileo wrong and once again assert the faithful truth: the earth is the center of the universe.

It's hero-worship writ large, and it's been endemic from the beginning. To admit having been played or having misinterpreted the man's character is such a terror to them that any whiff of such suggestions must be purged with a pile-on of righteous dudgeon.

Fragile egos are often the loudest, starting endless threads, and then petulantly polluting the board with parallel threads when theirs meet any substantial resistance. Cutting and pasting vast documents to wow the masses and smugly swat at those who threaten their cosmic perfection, they need nothing short of echo-chamber unanimity and praise for their virtue.

O'Donnell's a good guy, and he's a refreshing breath of rationality and honor.

[jenmito]

115. You sure say a lot

but so does Rush Limbaugh. And it makes just as much sense. :eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

116. Yes, everyone who disagrees with your adulation must be equated with thugs like Limbaugh

Nothing but arrogant and blithe dismissals with no substantiation. Of course, none is needed once the truth has been found.

Get your slurs straight: I've been criticizing Obama from the LEFT, not from Limbaugh's side. You might also note that it's not particularly difficult to find oneself to the left of our President, either.

At some point, what's talking is loud, fragile ego that needs to destroy anyone personally for any difference of opinion. Doubt is sheer horror. There's a reason for this: debates on policy leave blinkered, in-all-cases supporters of Obama with thin ice under their feet, so resorting to personal character attacks is one of the few rejoinders left.

Take a cue from your fellow Barackolytes: put me on ignore and you won't have to hear anything unpleasant of this sort. Fantasylands are much better served by limiting the information flow.

La la la la la.

[jenmito]

122. I compared you to Limbaugh only in the sense that you use a lot of words to say nothing truthful.

I guess your blind hatred of Obama and his supporters made you go on a rant about some people's supposed worship of Obama when this thread has NOTHING to do with him. It's about Lawrence O'Donnell and his provable lies about this HCR bill.

And no thank you, I will NOT put you on ignore like your fellow Obama-haters wish the rest of us would. Why should you just go unchecked in your posts?

Duh.

[PurityOfEssence]

127. "Blind Hatred" and "Provable Lies"

You made the accusation, please back it up: what are O'Donnell's "lies"? Don't huff and sneer, make your case; this isn't the Soviet Union where the accused needs to prove himself innocent, the accuser in this society needs to make his/her case.

Just as a refresher, a "lie" is when one deliberately says something he/she KNOWS to specifically be false in an attempt to deceive. What are the lies? Your supposition about Obama's intent is not superior to his; you need facts, and facts that he knew and deliberately misrepresented.

As for the dudgeon at being called into account, you do NOT have the automatic moral high ground simply for being a staunch supporter of Barack Obama. This is the Democratic Underground, and not the Obama Appreciation Society. Just as those who believe in religion are not morally superior to those who don't, those who give Obama the benefit of the doubt in every instance and cover for missteps as "necessary" or "chess-playing genius" are not necessarily "good", and those who hold him to his word or democratic ideals aren't necissarily "bad".

I've said some good things about the President, but I am VERY far to the left of him, even though I'm not all that far left. I have ethical issues with him, but I have HUGE policy issues and many criticisms for his supposed tactical wizardry. As for the self-appointed commissars of proper thought who demand abject obedience to his every move and fawning over him as the admission price to the public forum, I have only disgust.

My principal contention still stands: there's a huge personal ego element to the vehemence of many of the true believers that makes them quake at the very notion of having been even slightly wrong.

What are his lies? You made the accusation, so please put forth a detailed accounting of actual "provable" lies.

[jenmito]

128. Here are two provable lies:

He said Clinton got closer than Obama in passing HCR after the House and Senate passed their versions and that they still need 60 votes before the reconciliation bill can pass.

And you sure are defensive about your Obama hatred just as you are accusatory of my supposed "cover for Obama's missteps" and other things you can't back up such as me being a "true believer."

So, anyway, I gave you two provable lies O'Donnell has told on more than one occasion. And this thread is about HIM-not Obama.

[PurityOfEssence]

129. That isn't "proof". It's an opinion and a disputed paraphrase. You offer no quotes or links.

I could not find video on line, and the only link to a transcription I could find requires a subscription. That should have been YOUR job, anyway; you're the one making the accusations.

If he thinks that this isn't going to pass, it's his OPINION that Clinton got closer. For all I know he's talking about passing "meaningful" legislation, and much as I hope this frankensteinian patchwork gets passed, that's pretty much true: this bill is feebleness itself.

As for saying that reconciliation requires 60 votes, at least one poster on this thread questions your memory on this point, and you offer no proof.

Furthermore, you rail that O'Donnell's lying about the legislation in a way that intimates that he's habitually going around smearing lies left, right and center, yet you can only come up with two. This is an ad hominem attack on a dissenter to drum him out of the public discourse, which is PRECISELY the tactic that so many of us are sick of from the sycophants. Riled up with righteous bloviation, words like "hatred" pour forth to terrorize any critics and disgust the onlookers.

Show some quotes. You offer one opinion of his as if it's a lie and one disputed paraphrasing. This is NOT PROOF, and it's a smokescreen to cover accusations of rampant, multiple "LIES".

Hell, you could barely come up with enough to make it plural.

This is disgusting venting from the exalted perch of truth, and reeks of the disdain of fellow board members to even present proof, while once again savaging the messenger at hand.

(edited to add two words for grammar's sake in the last sentence)

[jenmito]

131. You make no sense when you say,

"If he thinks that this isn't going to pass, it's his OPINION that Clinton got closer." Wrong. It's a fact that OBAMA got closer. O'Donnell DID say Clinton's admin. got closer, saying they passed the bill in the Senate. That's false whether he thinks this is going to pass or not. If you don't believe me that he said it, I can't help you. And I'm not the only one here who heard him say it. And check this post out:

60. "They never got a bill passed in either House

Here is NPR's Newsline time line, which is fascinating bringing up many things that have echoes in what Obama faced and faces. The fact is that they did get a bill through Kennedy's committee, but that is it. Not to mention, that was far later than the time that Obama got bills through both Houses of Congress. We are much closer, but as others post, it is still tricky and their are major forces against it. Here is what they say for August 1994.

"August 25, 1994 - Democratic leaders of both congressional chambers give up on health care and announce they are letting their members go home for their much-postponed vacation. Neither the Senate (where Democrats outnumber Republicans fifty-six to forty-four) nor the House (with a Democratic majority of 257 to 176) has come close to passing, or even voting on, any health bill. "

Then,

"September 20, 1994 - Newt Gingrich privately warns Bill Clinton in the White House that if he continues to push for health reform in the closing days of the session, he will lose the Republican support needed to pass GATT, which the President believes is critical to the U.S. economic position as the leader of the Western alliance. George Mitchell, repeating this Gingrich threat to colleagues privately immediately after, describes it as "an atomic bomb blast."

September 26, 1994 - At a news conference in the Capitol, George Mitchell pulls the plug on health care reform. "
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/heal...

After that, we lose the House (where we had a 257 - 176 majority) and the Senate ends up with 55 Republicans.

The next think done on healthcare by the Clintons is that a WH initiative on children's vaccinations passes.

The next big change occurs when Ted Kennedy, takes a bill he and John Kerry wrote based on MA's use of taxes on tobacco to fund Children's Health Care, and works with Hatch changing the bill to be not an entitlement and to allow states to design their own programs, rather than a national one - and were able to pass it under the name SCHIP."

He knows better than to claim Clinton's admin. got closer to passing HCR. So he's lying.

And re: the repeated claims that the Senate can't pass HCR without votes requiring 60, check THIS post out:

104. "Anybody listen to Norman Goldman on teh radio?

His show got picked up here in Portland on KPOJ when AAR died. He's not bad actually. He's a lawyer and he's saying that O'Donnell is inaccurate in his portrayal of the need for overcoming more procedural hurdles by the Pugs in this reconciliation process.

I think I'll believe the lawyer, not only because it's what I want to hear."


He's smarter than that but he keeps saying it anyway. So he's lying. Again.

[PurityOfEssence]

134. You still don't make the case.

Yes, I'm aware that neither the House nor the Senate passed anything on the Clinton legislation, so if he said that Clinton got farther in passing legislation, that's incorrect and very possibly a deliberate lie, since O'Donnell should know full well what happened back then. If he's saying that Clinton got farther in passing meaningful legislation, THAT'S another matter, since the repeated capitulations on what's been recently passed can easily be characterized as capitulation and thus a resulting bill, even if passed unanimously still wouldn't fit the bill. Not seeing the direct quote leaves this all in your court.

The example you offer of O'Donnell misrepresenting obstacles to come doesn't mention 60 votes for a reconciliation, it talks of procedural stalling that they can do, and they can effectively kill it by adding amendment after amendment and who knows what else. If he said flat out that they need 60 votes for reconciliation, he's wrong. Once again, without the actual words, no fair dispute can be made.

Using a paraphrasing of a person you haven't even heard speak that's taken from another post in this thread that says "he's saying that O'Donnell is inaccurate in his portrayal of the need for overcoming more procedural hurdles by the Pugs in this reconciliation process." as PROOF that O'Donnell LIED about needing a 60 vote cloture is ridiculous. The person you're quoting is paraphrasing someone who SAYS NOTHING OF THE SORT, and there ARE ways that the Republicans can glomb this thing up seemingly forever. That's just more opinion from someone who was heard by the person you're quoting. Even there, you don't have a quote, and it DOESN'T PROVE THAT HE SAID 60 VOTES WAS NECESSARY.

Maybe he DID say that, and if he did, deliberately to mislead, then he IS a liar on this issue, but you offer no "proof". You repeatedly waved the bloody shirt of "provable lies", and still there's nothing.

Regardless, this doesn't make him a serial liar.

Habitual character assassination ("liar" is pretty heady stuff, mind you) of anyone who impedes the President IS endemic of the extreme scorched-earth partisans, though, and that's my point here.

Enough already. I can't defend smoke, and apparently you can't come up with actual quotes.

Kill the messenger. Salt the messenger's land. Anyone who isn't with you is against all that's holy and true.

O'Donnell is an ethical guy, and someone with a valuable approach to things, he also keeps himself MUCH less shrill than other leading progressive pundits, and that's a GOOD thing.

Unless you can confirm quotes, please just drop it.

[jenmito]

135. "Regardless, this doesn't make him a serial liar." I NEVER said he's a serial liar.

And no, I can't find quotes from him, but I heard him myself-I didn't get it from someone who heard from someone else who heard from someone who paraphrased him... So don't believe me. I can't prove it, so you can choose to believe he never said these things, but just to clarify what I HEARD him say, he said the Clinton administration got closer to passing legislation than the Obama admin. He said nothing about the "meaningfulness" of it.

And he has said MANY times that Dems. would need to get 60 votes for several votes before reconciliation could happen with 51 votes. He said this to most Dem. congressmen he spoke to, all of whom corrected him. But it didn't stop him from repeating the same thing again to the next Dem. he spoke to who said they only need 51. I'm not the only one who has heard him say this. Since you apparently never heard him say this, and you're inclined to dismiss me as some sort of crazed maniac who would do anything to block all things negative towards Obama, which is not true, even though this has nothing to do with Obama, please just drop it.

[freddie mertz]

117. Thanks for kind words. I love the celestial mechanics metaphor!

We all know that there are people out out there who will say ANYTHING, do ANYTHING, to discredit anyone whose POV threatens the fragile construct of the president's infallibility and absolute virtue in all things.

It's a syndrome of some kind, and we've had to deal with it for the past two years and more.

Thing is, I voted for Obama in the primary (PA, which he lost), but this was DESPITE what I already viewed at the time as the intolerance and fanaticism of some (by no means all) of his more ardent followers.

Since then, the governance of the administration has proved surprisingly controversial and divisive among Democratic ranks.

As the Obama admin has lurched ever further to the right, this has pushed his more committed defenders to advocate for policies they would almost certainly have abhorred coming from the likes of Bush.

Either that, or the alienation of liberals and progressives has become so strong, that only conservative Dems are left in the unqualified defense ranks.

The proposal on HCR today will reportedly contain even more concessions to the right.

So I guess we are stuck in this argument for the time being.

Very dispiriting.

[PurityOfEssence]

121. Yet there was ample foreshadowing

Sure, I voted for him too, although not in the primaries. He was well advertised as a standard-issue appeaser with a solid legislative record of avoiding all controversy and skewing far to the right on corporate issues. To be fair to those who tweak liberals that he never pretended to be that far left in the first place, he really didn't. Still, he was far too happy to allow peaceniks to think he was generally anti-war, and let anyone else think he was on their side on particular issues when he wasn't. The HUGE joke of it all is that he touted some kind of "new" and honorable politics, while practicing the oldest, crassest, crudest form of "old" politics: being all things to all people and hiding behind subordinates and proxies when getting any heat.

I'm a BIG Beefheart fan, by the way; I'll have to trot out "Bongo Fury" and listen to "Advance Romance" today...

Glad to hear your voice, too...

[freddie mertz]

125. Beefheart is the greatest.

I love Bongo Fury as well, especially "Debra Kadabra"..

I saw that tour in 75.

[burning rain]

77. Possible there's some personal motivation there.

But not a Clintonista loyalty. O'Donnell's old boss Moynihan critically undermined Clinton, denying there was a health care crisis. O'Donnell has self-identified as a socialist and his tough position in favor of single-payer may function as a sort of compensation, though I don't doubt his motives. It's quite credible he has a hearty disgust for, say, the Senate health care bill, more conservative than Clinton's proposal and closer to old Senator John Chafee's (R-RI) Republican counterproposal from back in the day. The creeping conservatism would naturally be striking to him, as he recalls the history first-hand.

[Sebastian Doyle]

79. O'Donnell seems to suffer from the same multiple personality disorder that Tweety does.

One day he'll deliver a well deserved smackdown to a Repuke, and the next day he sounds like a DLC apologist who crawled right out of Rahm Emanuel's ass.

Must be something in the water over at NBC, and I hope Keith & Rachel never drink it.

[karynnj]

81. I don't think so - he is just not an ideologue

Sometimes he likely does agree with Rahm and he often disagrees with many Republicans. I have never seen more than one personality. (If I had to guess where he was politically himself, I would guess liberal, but not far left. I also think he wants government to work, understands the difficulty and is generally thoughtful.

[jn2375]

80. O'Donnell is really getting annoying to listen too I agree

[rufus dog]

84. He does seem to have a very large blind spot on the issue.

Wether it is past history or other influences, he is extremely negative.

[FrenchieCat]

87. There is almost this bitter look on his face.......

and I generally like the guy,
and compare to the brain dead other newsfolks,
he is certainly better than most....
but still, when talking about the HCR bill,
it's like he sucking on a lemonhead.

[warm regards]

93. Do you think he is wrong?

[jenmito]

96. I KNOW he's wrong.

[warm regards]

97. Really...? How can you be so sure?

[jenmito]

99. I listed some things he said that are factually wrong...

like-he has said this bill will never pass, that Clinton got closer than Obama in passing HCR, that they still need 60 votes before the reconciliation bill, etc.

[Supersedeas]

94. MSNBC

[DianeK]

95. I had no idea he was an actor

I am watching the first season of Big Love and he plays the lawyer!

[HughMoran]

98. I think it's a form of argument designed to shame Dems into action

I actually don't mind his negativity - I think it's productive in that it's designed to motivate Dems by pointing out their fecklessness.

[Cleita]

100. I don't get him until 5:00 PT. I didn't know the show aired earlier? n/t

[jenmito]

101. It doesn't. 5pm PT, 8pm ET. n/t

[freddie mertz]

102. He's on again tonight, and doing his usual excellent job.

Go Lawrence!

:thumbsup: :patriot:

[travelingtypist]

104. Anybody listen to Norman Goldman on teh radio?

His show got picked up here in Portland on KPOJ when AAR died. He's not bad actually. He's a lawyer and he's saying that O'Donnell is inaccurate in his portrayal of the need for overcoming more procedural hurdles by the Pugs in this reconciliation process.

I think I'll believe the lawyer, not only because it's what I want to hear.

[jenmito]

109. Thank you for that info.! I'm glad someone other than an anonymous poster called him out

for lying (or being "inaccurate") about his claim that the Senate would still need 60 in order to get through the reconciliation process.

[nyc 4 Biden]

105. Didn't see the piece but IMHO...

Larry O is one of the best news people in the business. MSNBC should give him his own show.

[jenmito]

111. He's STILL at it-asking Kent Conrad how many ways it could take 60 votes before

passing reconciliation with 51. Conrad gave examples of several things that may not be suitable for reconciliation so THOSE things would have to be voted on getting 60 votes, none of which, I'm sure, the Dems. will TRY to pass through reconciliation. At the end of his list, O'Donnell smiled (maybe for the first time) and changed the subject. He's really hell-bent on this bill failing like HIS failed.

[backscatter712]

124. Yeah, O'Donnell's got a chip on his shoulder on this issue.

Normally I like Lawrence O'Donnell, but I don't know what his problem is on health care. Every other commentator - Rachel Maddow, Ezra Klein, etc. seem to think that Byrd Rule issues and other problems with reconciliation are manageable.

[jenmito]

126. He sure does...

I normally like him, too, but he DOES go out of his way to misrepresent the chances of getting a bill passed.

[Arkana]

112. O'Donnell doesn't realize that we are so much closer to it

now then we ever got during the Clinton years.

[jenmito]

113. He HAS to realize it...

he's not stupid. It's like he can't admit that it's going to happen and it's already way further along than Clinton's.

[freddie mertz]

130. Another great show tonight. Thanks Lawrence.

[voteearlyvoteoften]

132. His position since before Obama even elected

He truly does not think it can be done. And he is a true insider and intelligent. I pray he is wrong. I hope he can exert some positive influence on the process since he is clearly connected. Larry Help us please!!