Sadly, his cynicism on the subject was perfectly justified all along. Meaningful reform was the crazy outlier possibility that everyone hoped for, but no one expected.
I never said he wasn't right, just that if he wasn't joking when crowing about it, it's a little undignified.
Cynicism is one thing, but the "Yay! I predicted this! I am the smart!" attitude sucks. He is actually happy that things didn't work out, not because he didn't like the bill for any reason; but merely so he could have one of his "predictions" come true so that he could tell himself that he was smart.
I'm sure everyone had grave doubts about things working out perfectly. However, everyone seemed to HOPE that things would be different this time. Of course, in Kilarney's world, that hopefulness and/or lack of immediate agreement with the Kilarney "predictions" is tantamount to stupidity. Because that's what this was all about, of course - proving who was smarter than anyone else, not better health care policy.
No more so than dancing after spiking the football to celebrate your touchdown.
Dancing about after getting a touchdown in American Football is a perfect analogy. Though I won't lie and say my opinion of American football is really that high.
No more so than dancing after spiking the football to celebrate your touchdown.
Dancing about after getting a touchdown in American Football is a perfect analogy. Though I won't lie and say my opinion of American football is really that high.
True. Football player shenanigans are not exactly a good guide for how to behave.
I was being snarky in that post, but I do honestly believe that my political intuition is extremely well tuned. I put my money where my mouth is, go out on a limb, and am more than happy to admit a blown call. As for the public option, I made an early prediction and stood my ground when people were dancing on my grave. (Changing thread titles to suggest that I was an idiot, for example.) That ought to show that I've got some fortitude. And whether or not that suggests some arrogance, I've earned it. Why is it fine when the FRC show some arrogance, but it isn't okay for someone you disagree with to do the same? Either way it's earned. People with character don't change standards, even for those they don't agree with.
If this form criticizes its members for being smart, and recognizing that they are smart, things have changed GREATLY since I last listened to the podcast. Nobody should be made to feel ashamed for using their intelligence. That's all I did when I analyzed the public option.
I was being snarky in that post, but I do honestly believe that my political intuition is extremely well tuned. I put my money where my mouth is, go out on a limb, and am more than happy to admit a blown call. As for the public option, I made an early prediction and stood my ground when people were dancing on my grave. (Changing thread titles to suggest that I was an idiot, for example.) That ought to show that I've got some fortitude. And whether or not that suggests some arrogance, I've earned it. Why is it fine when the FRC show some arrogance, but it isn't okay for someone you disagree with to do the same? Either way it's earned. People with character don't change standards, even for those they don't agree with.
If this form criticizes its members for being smart, and recognizing that they are smart, things have changed GREATLY since I last listened to the podcast. Nobody should be made to feel ashamed for using their intelligence. That's all I did when I analyzed the public option.
I always assume you are being snarky...
Just a note, the public option still exists in the house version of the law and who knows how that will completely work out.
Why is it fine when the FRC show some arrogance, but it isn't okay for someone you disagree with to do the same?
It's about the way it's done. For example Scott prime is a right arrogant bastard, but we still think he's alright. But Tucker Max is also an arrogant bastard, but he comes off as a complete jackass and an uninteresting narcissist. Admittedly, that's a pretty extreme contrast, because Scott is moderately successful with the podcast, con appearances, etc, whereas tucker max recently blew about 6 million on making a movie about how awesome he thinks he is, but still, I think it illustrates my point at least decently.
Why is it fine when the FRC show some arrogance, but it isn't okay for someone you disagree with to do the same?
It's about the way it's done. For example Scott prime is a right arrogant bastard, but we still think he's alright. But Tucker Max is also an arrogant bastard, but he comes off as a complete jackass and an uninteresting narcissist. Admittedly, that's a pretty extreme contrast, because Scott is moderately successful with the podcast, con appearances, etc, whereas tucker max recently blew about 6 million on making a movie about how awesome he thinks he is, but still, I think it illustrates my point at least decently.
It's also because disagreement wasn't the issue. Disagreement was never really discussed because Kilarney didn't actually engage in any discussion or analysis. He just started saying "the public option is dead" and that anyone who hoped that the public option survived was "counting chickens" or "moving goalposts". That's not analysis. That's not smart. That's nothing to be arrogant about. That's just someone who took the easy position that thing probably won't work out the right way in Congress. It doesn't take finely tuned political intuition to arrive at that conclusion, unsupported by any real analysis or thought.
What it is, really, is trolling. He's just a sad little man who gets a lift when he thinks he's gotten under someone's skin.
The senate would have been more likely to kill the bill then vote for one with a public option and in a lot of ways the white house not playing up the option or the buy in, was playing a conservative game to make sure it didn't crush hopes. I think the media and far left hopefulls did more to inflate a dream that they might have a public health insurance plan then anything.
Hey, Scott, you need to sort out your use of "then" and "than". You used "then" two sentences in a row, and had me completely confused both times! "Â… more likely to kill the bill [with a public option] then vote for one with a public optionÂ…" means something very different to "Â… more likely to kill the bill [with a public option] than vote for one with a public optionÂ…"
So am I nuts, or does the Senate bill include a public option? The wording that defines a "community health plan" in HR3590 is virtually identical to the wording that defines the "public health insurance option" in HR3962, the House version of health reform (which is still on the Senate calendar). I thought Joe Lieberman was committed to voting against a bill that contained a public option in any form. I've read several articles saying that the Senate bill doesn't include a public option, yet I see provisions in the bill creating that very thing. Am I missing something?
I'm surprised that nobody has commented on the election in Massachusetts. If you ever want to see how NOT to run a campaign, look at Coakley's. Brown should be a distant second, and yet he's close to Coakley in the polls. He's actually stolen the populist message from Coakley, and it's working. Coakley's TV ad that misspelled Massachusetts didn't help. And while Brown was shaking hands with real people a few days before the election, Coakley was in Washington meeting with corporate insiders. She also stated that there were no terrorists in Afghanistan. Not too smart on the heels of the underpants bomber. (I know that he didn't come from Afghanistan. The point is that terrorism is a valid concern right now.) The photo of Coakley's thug knocking down a reporter who had the gall to ask a question has made every newspaper in Boston.
I'd still be surprised if Brown pulls this off. It's Massachusetts after all. But that's not the point. The bigger issue is that if Brown comes close, this could very well torpedo health care reform. In a 3:1 Democratic state, where Kennedy's seat is being replaced, the Dems should easily win this election. If it's close, that will be a major wakeup call to other Congressmen. They won't have the fortitude to vote for health care reform. In BOTH houses the margins are razor thin. So, yes, this election is tremendously important.
I'm surprised that nobody has commented on the election in Massachusetts. If you ever want to see how NOT to run a campaign, look at Coakley's. Brown should be a distant second, and yet he's close to Coakley in the polls. He's actually stolen the populist message from Coakley, and it's working. Coakley TV ad that misspelled Massachusetts didn't help. And while Brown was shaking hands with real people a few days before the election, Coakley was in Washington meeting with corporate insiders. She also stated that there were no terrorists in Afghanistan. Not too smart on the heels of the underpants bomber. (I know that he didn't come from Afghanistan. The point is that terrorism is a valid concern right now.) The photo of Coakley's thug knocking down a reporter who had the gall to ask a question has made every newspaper in Boston.
I'd still be surprised if Brown pulls this off. It's Massachusetts after all. But that's not the point. The bigger issue is that if Brown comes close, this could very well torpedo health care reform. In a 3:1 Democratic state, where Kennedy's seat is being replaced, the Dems should easily win this election. If it's close, that will be a major wakeup call to other Congressmen. They won't have the fortitude to vote for health care reform. In BOTH houses the margins are razor thin. So, yes, this election is tremendously important.
Hey some of those big state names are hard.
Seriously though, I haven't really been following the Mass race. We'll see. My concern is that republicans show up infinitely more to special eletions then democrats...
Anyone who has spent even one minute in MA should know how shocking Brown's win is. Having followed the local coverage, it is also amazing how this was a vote on health care, and not a vote whatsoever about local MA issues.
Coakley ran perhaps the worst campaign I've ever seen. Pissing off Catholics and Red Sox fans in MA is unbelievable. Saying that there are no more terrorists in Afghanistan was a huge mess.
I'm interested in two things: 1) What happens to the health care bill. 2) How Obama reacts. Bill Clinton was in a similar situation and he adapted perfectly. We shall see if Obama does too.
Anyone who has spent even one minute in MA should know how shocking Brown's win is. Having followed the local coverage, it is also amazing how this was a vote on health care, and not a vote whatsoever about local MA issues.
Coakley ran perhaps the worst campaign I've ever seen. Pissing off Catholics and Red Sox fans in MA is unbelievable. Saying that there are no more terrorists in Afghanistan was a huge mess.
I'm interested in two things: 1) What happens to the health care bill. 2) How Obama reacts. Bill Clinton was in a similar situation and he adapted perfectly. We shall see if Obama does too.
I predict. 1) House passes the senate bill without changing anything thus preventing the senate from voting again on the bill (possible) 2) Obama will have to shift towards things that he can get one or two republican votes. If the republicans don't start giving a vote or two on things, the whole "Party of NO" thing is really going to take hold now that the media can't say things like "the democrats have 60 votes" when they really never did.
If the Democrats in the House pass the bill as is they will be committing political suicide.
What makes you say that? If they change the bill and send it back to the Senate, the Senate can filibuster it dead. The House would look like idiots for letting that happen, especially when the Republicans have firmly established themselves as the party of "NO."
I'd be surprised if the D.'s get the bill now, changed or no. With Brown elected, thanks to Coakley's awful campaign, he will in all likelihood fall right in line with the rest of his party, siding with insurance agencies against the people and denying coverage and reform where it's desperately needed.
Looks like I'm going to have to continue living with no coverage again, which will probably get me refused coverage later since the reform is probably going to get filibustered and killed.
Thank you, Republicans. I take heart in knowing you are doing what is best for you and only you, insuring your friends will continue to make obscene amounts of money while the poor and middle class barely scrape by or die trying.
The Dems passed an impotent bill after brazen bribery, secret meetings with big pharma, and secret negotiations. The blame does not lie completely with the Republicans. The Dems handed Brown a victory. Keep in mind, this is MA, and the election was to replace Kennedy's seat. This was not a Republican state. Therefore, the Dems left the party. Whose fault is that? Surely the Dems have to bear some responsibility.
I've been listening to Boston radio for days. Trust me, there was real anger about how the health care reform bill was handled. People were furious that certain Senators were bribed. People were furious that the interests of big industry won out over the people.
Brown stole the Dems message. (It was pretty surreal. Brown took over the populist message.) He did not run as a "Republican." He was able to steal the Dem message because the Dems dropped the ball. That's why the Dems need the bear some accountability for the likely defeat of health care reform.
12% of MA voters are Republicans. He didn't win without plenty of independents. The Democrats forgot populism. Brown packaged himself as the populist choice. It worked.
The other interesting fact is that Obama has shown that he is not able to effectively campaign for a candidate. It appears that VA and NJ were not flukes.
Just a note, Mass. is the one state in the union where they have a health-care system that is stronger then the current health-care bill would give, Anyone who thinks that they voted this way purely because of health-care is a complete moron. That is only half the picture.
There was a 31 point loss of democrat support between the presidential election and now.
Who probably didn't come out and who did.
Democrats and independents unhappy with the fact that we are still in Iraq and we are sending more troops to afghanistan and Gitmo is still open..(stayed home)
Democrats and independents unhappy that jobs weren't magically created in the last year (stayed home or voted for brown)
Brown was a charismatic candidate who had a lot of charm and ran a pretty decent campaign while Martha insulted everyone from Red Sox's fans to saying their were no more terrorists in Afghanistan (????). Not to mention Martha presumed to feel she had a right to the seat and didn't campaign as hard as brown did who apparently had like 66 campaign stops to her 19 before election day.
The National republican party and the teabaggers were supporting Brown with a lot of money a lot earlier then people jumped in to help Martha (which started happening in the last week). The conservative base was energized while the liberal base was caught off guard and already demoralized. The enthusiasm gap was WIDE. Many of the democrats showing up where not voting for Martha as they were voting against the national republican party... You can't win an election that way. If you see some of the polling on the election you'll see a lot of people voting FOR Brown.
The democrats shot themselves in the foot because they used to appoint senators but they had a republican governor at the time of Senator Kerry's campaign, so the democrats of the state of Mass changed the rules to make a special election. Then they attempted to change the rules back afterwards... *shakes head*
Finally, with a health-care system that is better then the one purposed by the senate, why would they want to pay increased federal taxes for less when what they really want is more jobs. Sorta like how the people over 65 do not like the people under 65 getting health care because it means they might not get as much.
Eh, my take home message is never assume you've won the race because the guy who was in the seat before was your party and popular. In a shortened special election, it's more about which candidate is energerizing and has momentum. Brown had an extreme amount of momentum.
Comments
I'm sure everyone had grave doubts about things working out perfectly. However, everyone seemed to HOPE that things would be different this time. Of course, in Kilarney's world, that hopefulness and/or lack of immediate agreement with the Kilarney "predictions" is tantamount to stupidity. Because that's what this was all about, of course - proving who was smarter than anyone else, not better health care policy.
If this form criticizes its members for being smart, and recognizing that they are smart, things have changed GREATLY since I last listened to the podcast. Nobody should be made to feel ashamed for using their intelligence. That's all I did when I analyzed the public option.
Just a note, the public option still exists in the house version of the law and who knows how that will completely work out.
Admittedly, that's a pretty extreme contrast, because Scott is moderately successful with the podcast, con appearances, etc, whereas tucker max recently blew about 6 million on making a movie about how awesome he thinks he is, but still, I think it illustrates my point at least decently.
What it is, really, is trolling. He's just a sad little man who gets a lift when he thinks he's gotten under someone's skin.
Article about the video here.
I'd still be surprised if Brown pulls this off. It's Massachusetts after all. But that's not the point. The bigger issue is that if Brown comes close, this could very well torpedo health care reform. In a 3:1 Democratic state, where Kennedy's seat is being replaced, the Dems should easily win this election. If it's close, that will be a major wakeup call to other Congressmen. They won't have the fortitude to vote for health care reform. In BOTH houses the margins are razor thin. So, yes, this election is tremendously important.
Seriously though, I haven't really been following the Mass race. We'll see. My concern is that republicans show up infinitely more to special eletions then democrats...
Coakley ran perhaps the worst campaign I've ever seen. Pissing off Catholics and Red Sox fans in MA is unbelievable. Saying that there are no more terrorists in Afghanistan was a huge mess.
I'm interested in two things:
1) What happens to the health care bill.
2) How Obama reacts. Bill Clinton was in a similar situation and he adapted perfectly. We shall see if Obama does too.
1) House passes the senate bill without changing anything thus preventing the senate from voting again on the bill (possible)
2) Obama will have to shift towards things that he can get one or two republican votes. If the republicans don't start giving a vote or two on things, the whole "Party of NO" thing is really going to take hold now that the media can't say things like "the democrats have 60 votes" when they really never did.
Looks like I'm going to have to continue living with no coverage again, which will probably get me refused coverage later since the reform is probably going to get filibustered and killed.
Thank you, Republicans. I take heart in knowing you are doing what is best for you and only you, insuring your friends will continue to make obscene amounts of money while the poor and middle class barely scrape by or die trying.
I've been listening to Boston radio for days. Trust me, there was real anger about how the health care reform bill was handled. People were furious that certain Senators were bribed. People were furious that the interests of big industry won out over the people.
Brown stole the Dems message. (It was pretty surreal. Brown took over the populist message.) He did not run as a "Republican." He was able to steal the Dem message because the Dems dropped the ball. That's why the Dems need the bear some accountability for the likely defeat of health care reform.
Nelson was bribed.
And don't forget Landrieu.
And you are paying more so union members could be bought off.
Brown constantly reminded MA voters that they were going to have to pay for these bribes. It was a message that resonated.
As for secret deals with big pharma, see this.
12% of MA voters are Republicans. He didn't win without plenty of independents. The Democrats forgot populism. Brown packaged himself as the populist choice. It worked.
The other interesting fact is that Obama has shown that he is not able to effectively campaign for a candidate. It appears that VA and NJ were not flukes.
Any other questions?
There was a 31 point loss of democrat support between the presidential election and now.
Who probably didn't come out and who did.
Democrats and independents unhappy with the fact that we are still in Iraq and we are sending more troops to afghanistan and Gitmo is still open..(stayed home)
Democrats and independents unhappy that jobs weren't magically created in the last year (stayed home or voted for brown)
Brown was a charismatic candidate who had a lot of charm and ran a pretty decent campaign while Martha insulted everyone from Red Sox's fans to saying their were no more terrorists in Afghanistan (????). Not to mention Martha presumed to feel she had a right to the seat and didn't campaign as hard as brown did who apparently had like 66 campaign stops to her 19 before election day.
The National republican party and the teabaggers were supporting Brown with a lot of money a lot earlier then people jumped in to help Martha (which started happening in the last week). The conservative base was energized while the liberal base was caught off guard and already demoralized. The enthusiasm gap was WIDE. Many of the democrats showing up where not voting for Martha as they were voting against the national republican party... You can't win an election that way. If you see some of the polling on the election you'll see a lot of people voting FOR Brown.
The democrats shot themselves in the foot because they used to appoint senators but they had a republican governor at the time of Senator Kerry's campaign, so the democrats of the state of Mass changed the rules to make a special election. Then they attempted to change the rules back afterwards... *shakes head*
Finally, with a health-care system that is better then the one purposed by the senate, why would they want to pay increased federal taxes for less when what they really want is more jobs. Sorta like how the people over 65 do not like the people under 65 getting health care because it means they might not get as much.
Eh, my take home message is never assume you've won the race because the guy who was in the seat before was your party and popular. In a shortened special election, it's more about which candidate is energerizing and has momentum. Brown had an extreme amount of momentum.