I seriously need a decoder ring. First listen through this NECN clip, I thought Lynch was saying stupid things. Then I couldn't tell … maybe not. What is it??
I think that, as they're selling the public option, that it's gonna be something that keeps costs down, I would support it.
Good, good, great so far.
Oops:
My fear is that we spend a trillion dollars on program and a public option that doesn't do what we want it to do.
Now, here we run into one of the weirdo things about “moderate” Democrats like Lynch. A “strong” public option — Medicare rates, widely available — would indeed help contain costs. A “weak” one, not much.
However, the “strong” public option — a money-saving proposition! — is generally not favored by “moderates.” Because it's liberal. Or something.
So … is Lynch saying he would support a bill with a “strong” public option, but not one with a weak one?
Or — this is the impression I got the first listen — is Lynch saying that the public option itself is going to cost a trillion dollars? Completely ass-backwards. That would indicate he simply has no idea what he's talking about. (Unfortunately, he's not the only one.)
that a strong public option doesn’t play with. If you believe that social government programs cost money, then strong social government programs must cost more money. The mindset is that more is better but more expensive.
<
p>The public option claims to be different — that spending more actually brings costs down; not in a per capita or per enrolled way, but in a total cost way.
Lynch is the type of Democrat I could support if he was running in rural Oklahoma or in a conservative Arkansas district. He’d be a much better vote than a Republican on a number of things.
<
p>However, in Massachusetts there’s really no excuse not to get a strongly liberal, party-line man or woman in Congress. One has to hope that Coakley and the several other (pretty politically similar) congressmen who are sure to enter don’t give Lynch too much of an opening to eke out the primary.
In the light of these posts, any idea of Steve Lynch as a replacement for Ted Kennedy in the Senate should be put to rest. No how, no way.
I have defended Lynch against the unwarranted, baseless, highly personal attacks from Atticus that I felt were completely derogatory and unfair. I think a candidate should be judged on their substance and on the issues.
<
p>I also really found the characterization of Lynch as ‘conservative’, ‘DINO’, ‘not progressive’ similarly unhelpful from a policy standpoint and also unfair since the only issue he is to the right of the state party on is abortion, an issue great liberals from his predecessor Joe Moakley, to Robert and John F. Kennedy, to Sarge and Eunice Shriver, to Ted Kennedy before 1980, have all been pro-life on without shedding their liberal instincts and their concern for social justice.
<
p>That said, next to abortion, there is no greater social justice issue than healthcare and it is simply shameful that Lynch keeps vacillating between supporting and opposing the public option. I think a liberal who cares about social justice could oppose the public option on a few grounds: arguing that it does not provide the greatest quality of care for the greatest number, proposing or supporting alternatives they think are better public policy (Wyden-Bennet or Ezekial Emmanuel’s voucher proposal for instance), or as the Catholic bishops have concern that it would erode or negate the Hyde amendment or force Catholic hospitals to fund abortions (a valid concern theoretically except that in practice none of the current legislation does this). Yet he seems to be concerned that semantically the public option is ‘liberal’ or ‘socialized’ healthcare and that is why it should be opposed. His arguments about cost are not warranted by the facts since most of the plans he could vote for are revenue neutral or are designed intentionally to bring costs down. Rather than voting against the President’s plan outright, Lynch should at least support some of the alternatives I mentioned or use language other than right wing bogeyman language to defend his opposition.
<
p>To do otherwise would be illiberal, betray principles of social justice, and simply be intellectually dishonest. Traits one does not want in a Senator.
<
p>I hope I do not have to choose between stomaching Coakley/Capuano on abortion or stomaching Lynch on healthcare that would really sully my excitement over this election. Here is hoping Lynch either evolves on the public option or starts finding a better alternative real soon.
He’s the last to the table (if he comes at all) on:
* health care
* abortion rights
* environmental issues
* anti-war
<
p>That’d be four pretty big things methinks. In fact, the only issue where he seems to be particularly “Democratic” is labor. Any other issues where he’s in the left 50% of the Democratic congressmen?
Again I disagree with the idea that voting for the war or against abortion on demand makes someone a bad liberal or a bad democrat. Joe Biden voted for the war, but it was a vote I respected at the time because he was concerned about seeing another Bosnia style human rights crisis under Saddam and also wanted to make sure the UN had its resolutions followed. Was it a good vote? No. But while I disagreed with it then and now I respected it, especially because he also knew he was sending his son into harms way.
<
p>Similarly I don’t think anyone would call Joe Moakley, Tip O’Neill, Eunice and Sarge Shriver, Bobby and Jack Kennedy, or Ted Kennedy before 1976 bad democrats simply because they opposed abortion on demand. There was a time when our party was the pro-life party on every issue from healthcare to abortion to war and peace.
<
p>Also on environmental issues he might be voting against restrictive emissions standards that hurt American workers like the Michigan delegation (Levin, Dingell, etc.) consistently do to be in solidarity with labor. Such a vote is short sighted in my view and misguided but is not necessarily inconsistent with the Democratic platform.
<
p>But where I agree with you is that Lynch if he votes down the public option using right-wing talking points and refuses to vote for any number of reasonable alternatives (Wyden-Bennet, Ezekial Emmanuels plan, co-ops) but just says NO to any kind of healthcare reform I cannot see how he is pro-life, pro-labor, or how he could call himself a Democrat anymore. At that point he crosses the Rubicon into being a Republican and he deserves to be called out on it.
Voting for war, against women, and against the environment because it’s good for labor makes him a good Democrat?
<
p>In my world, that makes him a good labor union rep and a terrible Democrat. I don’t have a problem with Democrats straying on particular issues, particularly when the issue aligns closely with his or her constituents. Lynch seems to stray an awful lot, and it isn’t because his constituents are particularly conservative. The fact is, he strays because he is particularly conservative for a Democrat.
What do you expect from Stephen Lynch (D) Brylcreem.
<
p>A ‘ little dab ‘ is too much.
is a corporate media distraction how can anyone be “right”.
Take the hint of an answer from the very recent militarization of “health issues” via martial law over a pandemic that maybe killed five people.
http://cognitivedissonance-kol…