NCDP seeking help for Kissell to stand against "John Boehner and his stooges."

AW, the Exec Director for the NCDP sent an email yesterday telling about the big fundraiser going on last night in Washington for Harold Johnson, the GOP candidate for Kissell's seat. He wondered if Robin Hayes would be there to teach Johnson " how to go back on his word...." AW asked if I would stand with "us" and support and volunteer for Kissell.

What came to my mind, without knowing Johnson, is the question: Isn't Larry one of the stooges anyway? Didn't Larry make everyone believe he would be something other than another DINO?

I used to think I understood the importance of a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. Now, having had those majorities and watching them either fail to do diddly-squat, or having to beg them to get a spine and vote for the few measures of importance before them, I'm not so sure.

I'm not in Larry's district. If I were I might just vote to defeat Larry so that he would have to go find a job and pay for his own healthcare like the rest of us...and let him reap what he has sown. I'll get that chance in my own district...and I'm pondering just how sweet or sour it would be to lose McIntyre. Haven't decided.

I guess the old adage about "bad breath is better than no breath" applies...but what's the difference as it applies to Kissell?


A good example of a comment I made earlier

In today's sketchy political environment, it doesn't take a lot to click "delete" on an email, especially when the subject matter involves a person who exploits people for their support, and then leaves them high and dry. It's no wonder the NCDP is having to troll for help for the Kissell campaign, he burned half his bridges. But in my book their appeal is just one more reminder of the vast gulf between them and progressive Democrats.


I don't think he burned half his bridges. He probably burned less than half. But in any case, I respect those who feel they must hew to a hard insistence upon adherence to what may currently be an unrealistic goal -- and please do not mistake this statement for sarcasm, because it isn't. I have no problem respecting most people with whom I disagree. There are always going to be individuals whose internal problems present barriers to reasonable discourse, and there is always going to be a point beyond which some of us can countenance the "agreement to disagree" (ethnic cleansing comes to mind as an easy example). But most of the time, we tend to be more punishing of the "other" person's perspective than we would be if we happened to know him/her before discovering his/her political stripes, and believed on the basis of acquaintance that he/she were a good soul.

Most progressives strive for change, and change comes about because of those who work within the system and those who work outside it. Where the bulk of responsibility for an eventual shift lies is always going to be the subject of disagreement. We each have to be true to our consciences. What I think so many people miss is the recognition that the vast majority of those with whom we disagree are being true to *their* consciences, and that failure to recognize that is a disadvantage to anyone who wants to negotiate meaningfully with our fellow critters in a complicated world.

All of this is only slightly off the point of Kissell himself and his supposed betrayal of the progressives. I've already expressed what others have sometimes kindly and sometimes scornfully referred to as a "pragmatic" philosophical position. I don't reject the label because I know that pragmatism aids progress. As one who cares very deeply about issues and ideals and the future of this country, I want progress and will work for it. Thus, were I in his district, I'd be pleased and proud to vote for Kissell. I hope to celebrate his victory in any case.

It's good to be practical and realistic.

And, if everyone lays their cards on the table and people speak honestly about their differences, there can be a "win-win" outcome.

Larry voted against the energy legislation to curb green house gases and he voted no against the health care reform legislation.

His explanations for those votes defy reality. He knows it and so do the rest of us. How does one deal pragmatically with someone who defies reality?

Stan Bozarth

practical and realistic

In any case, you follow your conscience, no? What I have difficulty with is the assumption that I often see imbedded in comments on this and other blogs that in a given disagreement, the "other" must not be following "conscience" and therefore must deserve to be ridiculed or scorned.

When I articulated my reasons for supporting a conservative democrat rather than withholding support, I saw in responses that some viewed a "pragmatic" perspective as one that impliedly sacrifices conscience. I assure you that I do not abrogate my values or my hopes or ideals on the basis of "practical and realistic" rationalizations.

A "rationalization" is commonly understood to be something one comes up with to justify something one doesn't actually believe in. I base my decisions on what I believe is the best course to achieve my values, hopes and ideals. Yes, I believe that my strong desire to see civil rights ADVANCED in this country is best served by keeping a Democrat in the White House and maintaining as strong an advantage for him or her as possible in Congress. Yes, it is pragmatic, but it is pragmatic precisely because I want what I want very much.

Health Care

Their health care is not free. It's the same insurance that other government employees have. They get such a good deal because there are so many of them.

Somebody told me the other day that they could vote for a moderate republican against Larry and then work to replace that person with a democrat the next time. Neither one of the dudes running against Larry is moderate. We are between a rock and a hard place. I've heard several people say they just aren't going to vote for that office. Doesn't that help the republicans? How do we know what democrat to support next time? We were so wrong when we fell in love with Larry. I was one of his biggest cheerleaders. I have been wrong before. That's why I'm divorced. You do get over it, but you also lose a lot of trust.


Not totally free ... just 72% free

Lovex is right, no member of Congress gets free healthcare. That said:

Like other large employers, the government pays a large share of the cost of coverage. On average, the government pays 72 percent of the premiums for its workers, up to a maximum of 75 percent depending on the policy chosen. For example, the popular Blue Cross and Blue Shield standard fee-for-service family plan carries a total premium of $1,120.47 per month, of which the beneficiary pays $356.59. Washington, D.C.-based employees who prefer an HMO option might choose the Kaiser standard family plan. It carries a total premium of $629.46 per month, of which the employee pays only $157.36.

We may not be paying 100% of Mr. Kissell's health insurance, but given his vote on health reform, I'm not happy at all that we're paying even 70+ percent.

The Navy has several very sophisticated clinics

to serve members of Congress. They get almost unlimited out-patient care for essentially no cost. One clinic had, in the article I read, just been equipped with about $2 Million of the newest imaging equipment.

Anyway...when the NCDP finally decides to use a stick and a carrot rather than blindly promoting DINO's I'll start to pay attention again. I hope Larry loses.

Stan Bozarth