
The fate of health care reform rests in the hands of House Democrats, and increasingly it appears as if moving ahead with a comprehensive bill is too heavy a lift for them. But the party extends beyond the House of Representatives, and yet it increasingly appears as if the Democrats' brethren in the upper chamber have hung them out to dry. And complicating matters slightly is that it's not clear whether it's dawned on House members--many of whom are still pinning their hopes on the Senate--that the other body has moved on.
The preferred way forward for unions and the reform campaign Health Care for America Now (not to mention the preferred solution of many members) is for the House to pass the Senate bill along with a separate package making what they see as a variety of necessary changes to it. (Given the math in the Senate, many of those changes would have to be passed via the filibuster proof budget-reconciliation process.) But the House isn't willing to take anything for granted. And for the promise of a fix to be worth the paper it's printed on, members will want some assurance from the Senate (among others) that the Senate will be willing to act. With just about every Democrat in the Senate saying they've moved on to other, newer priorities, it's safe to say they're not getting that.
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters that using budget reconciliation to pass a fix bill "is one of the things we need to look at with the change in circumstances," but added that "no decisions have been made."
Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), who would likely take the lead on moving such a package through the Senate offered no promises either.
"If the House passed the Senate bill, could reconciliation, that process, be used to fix things that might be improved upon? Yes," Conrad told reporters yesterday. "Would I support it? I can't know that without knowing what would be included in the package."
Then there's the separate matter of party camaraderie: Are senators invested in nudging the House to finish the job? Yesterday, I asked Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) whether there was any concerted effort on the part of leading Senate Democrats to help House members get a hold of their nerve. In so many words, he said "no."
"We haven't done that," Durbin said. "We haven't been assigned House members. I happen to live with a couple of them so we talk about it late at night [and] we're trying to find out how they feel about it."
Leadership has also foreclosed on the idea of taking up a full reform bill again--so for now, at least, the House is on its own on Capitol Hill.
alkali
January 21, 2010 6:11 PM
I've been considering what I can do to get Obama re-elected in 2012. It's a very complicated subject and I have a full plate, so I've decided to let the dust settle and take up that issue in 2013.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jim H
January 21, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to alkali
If Obama doesn't kick some Senate ass soon, I'll be hoping Howard Dean takes a page from Ted Kennedy circa 1980.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to Jim H
Because you want to Mitt Romney to take a page from Reagan circa 1980?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 21, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to FreeRider
I have a lot of political experience. I began with helping to carry our county for George McGovern. The other 98 went for Nixon. Then there was the election where we Minnesotans got together to carry the state for Mondale. I'm sure you know what happened in the other 49.
Since you need to be on the winning side, you might want to move to Hawaii in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:34 PM in reply to bluebell
You have a lot of experience whining and complaining and threatening to leave the Democratic party.
How's that "Draft Sully" campaign going for you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 21, 2010 8:15 PM in reply to FreeRider
Uh, seems to me that he is saying he has a lot of experience backing the Democratic Party even when the candidates were obvious losers. But for someone like you, a sycohpant offended by even the slightest criticism of what Obama is doing, not saying "rah, rah rah, Obama is great" is beyond the pale.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to FreeRider
Doesn't matter who the Repugs run: if Obama doesn't get something significant done, a stuffed elephant has a good shot against him in '12 (after Palin, of course).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to Schmed
If the firebaggers get Dean or anyone else to run against him, even Palin could beat him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to FreeRider
Please be specific: him is Dean or Obama? I thought we were talking about who could be Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:41 PM in reply to Schmed
I responded to the post that we should get Dean to primary Obama like Kennedy did Carter. Fine. But expect the same results--i.e., electing a right-wing Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 6:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
So, you're saying that Obama is vulnerable to the likes of Dean? Or is it that Dean's challenge would soften Obama up for Romney or Palin neither of whom could take on Obama without Dean's challenge?
Either way, Obama is vulnerable. So, the suggestion for him to kick some Senate ass seems on target.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to Schmed
I'm saying that if Obama is challenged by a member of his own party, he is finished. Period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to FreeRider
Guess he better get on the ball, then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:07 PM in reply to Schmed
You mean like how Clinton got on the ball and wasn't challenged?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 7:19 PM in reply to FreeRider
I have no interest in what happened to Clinton. I'm only interested in what Obama does now so that I know what I'm going to do in '12. Obama is the one who decides what that will be, not Clinton.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:26 PM in reply to Schmed
The rules have been rewritten for Obama. It was OK for other Democrats to just muddle through but Obama has to change the world in order to earn your support again. Gotcha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to FreeRider
I don't know what rules you're talking about, but I kinda favor;
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Cue the Who.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:31 PM in reply to Schmed
Except for Clinton.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to FreeRider
Clinton didn't fool me once.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sagae
January 21, 2010 9:40 PM in reply to Schmed
I agree with you there. So far, all I've gotten for the money I sent Obama throughout 2007 and 2008 is a $780 billion/year budget for the Pentagon and wars I think should have never been started. I get irked that Obama and his people seem to think they are very clever reminding us that Obama said he was for attacking Pakistan in the campaign. No doubt, there were some things in John McCain's platform that I liked, too, but I didn't vote for him. I didn't sign on to everything in Obama's platform and so far, all I've gotten is the stuff I was against. Its ironic, I guess. But I won't be fooled twice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 10:46 PM in reply to Sagae
It's almost impossible to respond to your post because it is so pathetically naive. Did you expect Obama to undue in one year the chaos Bush caused to this country and world for that matter, in the past 8 years? Did you really? Change takes time. It doesn't happen overnight. Why is that so difficult to understand? He has hit brick walls at every turn by the Party of No and the conservadems. He is trying and has accomplished a lot. I posted those accomplishments earlier. It ain't hay my friend.
Grow up otherwise you are going to be one disappointed person if you think the old ways of Washington will change overnight. Be glad we have a President who even cared and dared to change it.
I gave a lot of money to Obama and other candidates last year because I was able to, and I felt it was an investment in our future. I have absolutely no regrets because as bad as both parties are the dems are a far better choice when it comes to the average working person.
Today's Supreme Court decision has just about guaranteed that our vote will never count again and any time we try to put a progressive or liberal candidate to run, they will squash them with their power of the purse.
This is what you should be worried about. One sure way is to re-elect Obama so that hopefully he will get a chance to appoint the next liberal justice who is retiring and hopefully maybe another which could help balance the court. This is most right wing activist court ever (thanks again to Bush and the republicans) and it is the end of our freedom if we don't do something about it.
Get out and protest and scream and let your congressperson know how strongly you want them to do something about ths.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Homefries
January 21, 2010 11:26 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Nice post.
You win some, you lose some.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to Schmed
By the way, please remind me what Clinton accomplished during his first term that prevented him from being primaried, besides losing both houses of Congress, that is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
Let's talk about today and how depending on tradition or the CW is no comfort to the Dems these days (see 19JAN10 for example).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to Schmed
No. Let's talk about the double standard. Clinton was a complete fuck up for two years. He governed much more like a Republican than Obama ever has. He didn't keep any of his promises in letter or spirit. He lost both houses of Congress.
Yet, there was no talk of primarying him from the left. Obama's been tarred and feathered for the past 10 months.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to FreeRider
It would be a double standard if the same people were holding to or veering from it at their convenience. 1994 is a far cry from 2010 and the political factors were strikingly different, particularly the economic ones. Analogies to the past seldom consider both the similarities and the differences. I think it would be more sensible to hold Obama accountable to his actions or inaction, regardless of what happened over 15 years ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:12 PM in reply to Schmed
Yes. The economic situation is different. Obama inherited a meltdown and two wars!! Clinton did not.
There's also another difference: Obama is black. The black applicant has to perform miracles in the first six months. The white guy gets years to fuck up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 7:23 PM in reply to FreeRider
Pointing out the differences doesn't make your fallacious argument any stronger; it only proves the fallacy. Regardless of what did or didn't happen to Clinton, Obama has the onus here. If he gets primaried because of what he does or doesn't do, whinging on about Clinton's unfair good fortune won't save him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to Schmed
Just calling bullshit where I see it. Obama has to save the world in a year and serve coffee, too.
Clinton had to . . . not snag some old lady's french fries, not fuck an intern, not get impeached? Such a high bar. No wonder he couldn't clear it. Didn't matter. He still kept his party's support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to FreeRider
He that smelt it, dealt it.
Show me where I gave Clinton a pass, then feel free to be sanctimoniously self-righteous. Don't try to pin your insecurities on me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 8:23 PM in reply to FreeRider
Bingo!! I have been following this thread and FreeRider is exactly right on all counts here schmedley. I suspect you weren't around during the 90s or were not involved. Obama is getting no slack not from the media, not from the thugs and not even from his own party.
For most of the campaign he did promise a lot but all campaigns promise a lot. The big difference is that two months before the election, the economy went into a free fall unless you have forgotten. He not only had to deal with a 350 billion stimulus that was given to the banks no questions asked, but had to deal with an economy in total ruins by the time he took office. He saved this country from the brink of disaster. I'd say he did a pretty damned good job for a young senator who was supposed to be clueless.
If he were a bragard he would be touting his accomplishments but he's not that kind of guy especially when so many people are hurting. I wish he were more of a bragard but then that's not him.
It took Bush 8 years to fuck up this country and the world for that matter and now Obama has to fix it in a year or everyone bails.
It is beyond comprehension
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:30 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Yes it is beyond comprehension.
For me Obama was always a campaign about the long run, about making a sustainable change in this country. Which of course meant bringing the two halves (somewhat) together. That is why he gained my favor over Clinton.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 8:55 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I suspect you weren't around during the 90s or were not involved.
I was indeed around back then and it was because of Clinton and the disgrace that he brought to the office that I left the Democratic party in disgust and shame. As I said above, he never fooled me once and I never gave him a pass for what he did to the liberal agenda.
You can join your buddy in whinging about Obama's abuse by the MSM, but it cuts no ice with me. That man is squandering a once-in-a-generation advantage and is dithering away the goodwill of people like me who were willing to give him his shot. If I feel in '12 the way I do now, I will be hoping to see Mr. Obama will join Mr. Carter and Mr. Bush in the ranks of single termers. He's got time to pull this presidency out of the fire, but he has to act NOW.
He. Has. To. LEAD. Now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 10:06 PM in reply to Schmed
Now you just exposed yourself as a troll and a thug..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 22, 2010 11:21 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Define troll.
Here's my definition of thug: any pseudo-intellectual who defaults to the juvenine defensive reflex of fallacious name-calling due to having an instantaneous forensic crisis that has its roots in the name-caller's intellectual bankruptcy.
ES&D, little thug.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 21, 2010 6:56 PM in reply to FreeRider
What has Obama really done? Continue a lot of George Bush's policies? Woo-hoo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:14 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
I would list them but that post proves you're nothing but an idiot firebagger and not worth it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 21, 2010 7:19 PM in reply to FreeRider
What a charming way you have.
Gives me great confidence that you'll stick to your word and publicly admit you were wrong when the health care bill is finally dead and buried.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
Fat girl. Blind date.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jim H
January 21, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
Did Clinton have as large majorities in Congress as Obama does now? The Dems will not have the leverage they do now for God-knows-how-long. If Obama can't whip his own party into shape when they have this level of power, I'm going to be looking for someone who can.
btw, I only brought up Dean because I was thinking how Hillary probably wouldn't have been any better. And Dean got a lot of Dems elected in 06 and 08.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 8:10 PM in reply to Jim H
Clinton had a larger majority in the House than Obama and a dozen Republicans in the Senate that regularly voted with Democrats.
NEXT stupid question.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 21, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
Clinton had some modest successes in his first years: the Family and Medical Leave Act, NAFTA, OBRA93, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, etc.
The political plus Clinton had in 1996 was an overly ambitious Republican Congressional majority that clearly overplayed its hand. Clinton was able to look strong by standing up to reckless GOP proposals. If Republicans take Congress in 2010, I don't think they'll make the same mistake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
The Family Leave Act was done when Clinton took office all he did was sign it. And I don't believe you're touting NAFTA as a "success." LMAO!
Those Clinton "successes" pale in comparison to what Obama has already achieved, like saving us from another Great Depression. Yet, there's always talk of throwing him out.
Obama's coattails brought 21 more Reps and 8 more Senators to Congress.
Clinton brought ZERO senate seats and lost 9 House seats with him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 21, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to FreeRider
Only if you rely on White House press releases did Obama save us from another Great Depression. As evidenced by the vote in Massachusetts, the American people don't feel like we've been saved from economic hardship.
Maybe if Obama had shown better leadership, the stimulus would have been more stimulating to the economy and less weighted with tax cuts.
First, that might be impressive if Obama had managed to do anything with all those new votes.
Second, let's see how many Reps and Senators Obama's coattails bring in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 21, 2010 7:17 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
The Sierra Club posted a press release calling Obama's first year the best ever, from any President, for the environment.
But, I suppose it doesn't fit with your narrative:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 21, 2010 7:22 PM in reply to zonk
Well, a Sierra Club compliment is sure to win House and Senate races and get the president a second term. I don't know what I was worried about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 21, 2010 7:25 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
Make up your mind.
Because you seem to be staggering between "winning elections" and "doing good things".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 21, 2010 7:31 PM in reply to zonk
My talk of successes re: Clinton was actually an aside. My larger point was that the argument that since Clinton wasn't primaried that Obama won't or shouldn't be has no merit.
My secondary point is that I don't consider the appraisal of a single advocacy group particularly impressive. When I'm considering whether Obama has done as effective a job as he should have done, I'm not going to say, "well, gee, the Sierra Club likes him, so I guess that's that."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:33 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
You asked what has Obama done, only to dismiss it as irrelevant when it's pointed out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 21, 2010 10:04 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
Unless they happen to be the progressive house caucus, apparently.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
January 21, 2010 7:33 PM in reply to zonk
Stop wasting time with any commentator that says Obama hasn't accomplished anything. There are plenty of articles and sites that show exactly what he has done and these guys can sure as hell find it if they wanted to. Anyone who tells such a lie has zero credibility and is just repeating talking points they've seen all over the blogs.
Just forget it. Don't provide links or lists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to Viva!America!
People who say "Obama is just like Bush" are also a waste of time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:35 PM in reply to FreeRider
These are people who will say - he promised me a revolution, damnit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 22, 2010 7:55 AM in reply to acamus
Obama promised a lot. People didn't imagine that. He certainly didn't run as a triangulating incrementalist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:36 PM in reply to zonk
You should blog this in the Cafe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:18 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
The people didn't realize we were in a recession for two years either.
Obama will have to lose 84 house seats in 2010 to equal Clinton's 92 & 94 losses. I think Clinton's record is safe, don't you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
January 21, 2010 7:50 PM in reply to FreeRider
Thank you. You are spot on. Not only did the stimulus prevent us from going over the proverbial economic cliff but:
1. people's 401k's are recovering
2. we now have a president that actually bases decisions on *science* as opposed to theocracy.
3. the president has restored much of the world respect we lost under Shrub's "cowboy diplomacy"
4. stem cell research support is back
5. the economy has begun to turn around on various fronts (Manufacturing activity has expanded for five straight months, according to the Institute for Supply Management, a trade group.)
6. we are getting out of Iraq
7. as of 9/11/09, President Obama officially became more successful at defending America from terrorists than his predecessor.
And those are just for starters!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to dswx
Nice post. It's good to see some have perspective and a finger on reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:32 PM in reply to FreeRider
And Clinton "successes" were all centrist. Like the communications legislation that Murdoch has prospered on. Go figure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
January 21, 2010 7:40 PM in reply to FreeRider
Apparently you haven't seen this:
* And Fox News poll finds that Obama would beat Sarah Palin by 15 points, 55-31, and Mitt Romney by 18 points, 51-33.
I'll bet fox won't be talking about this poll!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
January 21, 2010 7:47 PM in reply to FreeRider
Apparently you haven't seen this:
* And Fox News poll finds that Obama would beat Sarah Palin by 15 points, 55-31, and Mitt Romney by 18 points, 51-33.
I'll bet fox won't be talking about this poll!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 8:12 PM in reply to roxsteady
But, apparently not if Dean challenges Obama.
BTW, Coakley outscored Brown by 30 points at the beginning of December. Three years is somewhat longer than that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shortstop
January 21, 2010 11:58 PM in reply to Schmed
Dean isn't going to challenge Obama. Stop living in a fantasy world where you think ongoing instant gratification was a perk of winning an election. The price of getting so many Obama votes has been having to deal with all these political freaking neophytes. You have the analytical skills of a seventh grader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 22, 2010 11:26 AM in reply to shortstop
It wasn't my suggestion that Dean primary Obama. I merely noted that I wouldn't necessarily oppose it if he doesn't get his butt into gear soon. It would probably be helpful if you read the whole thread with some diligence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 21, 2010 10:29 PM in reply to FreeRider
I told you that ghost of Ronald Reagan is beginning to materialize. Progressives are determined to create him with their attacking the party from the left.
Democrats have enough attacks and obstruction from the right to deal with. They/we can't afford to fight against attacks from the left as well.
P.S.
Howard Dean did the most damage to this bill. Ever since he came out with that "kill the bill" and "use reconciliation" nonsense all the progressive talking heads and people on blogs have been repeating the reconciliation line.
Every Senator I see and every person I see who works for a Senator says that reconciliation is not possible in this case. Keith Olberman says we should use reconciliation. Lawerence Odonnel (spelling?), who actually worked in the Senate, says that reconciliation would not work here. Yet, progressives don't want to listen to the people who actually are in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 21, 2010 6:29 PM in reply to Jim H
Sign me up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to bluebell
You left the Democratic party a year ago--remember? At least you claimed you were leaving a year ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
January 21, 2010 6:39 PM in reply to FreeRider
bluebell
January 19, 2010 9:57 PM
Webb is another reason I've turned green [...]
Looks like she has so many reasons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to geofu54
And so many lies! She's always around here pissing and moaning about the Democrats. If she left, why does she care? I wish she'd take her skank ass to the Nader convention and stay!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 21, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to FreeRider
In other words, I anticipated this fiasco.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:21 PM in reply to bluebell
Since you always bet on failure, that's not hard to do. But you are always conspicuously silent when the Dems gets a win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
January 21, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
Well actually, this gotta be success for her, since this is exactly what she wanted. Funny, why are you calling this thing "fiasco" now, bluebell? You are supposed to be celebrating now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 10:34 PM in reply to FreeRider
She and Indie Pro need to hook up!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 21, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to geofu54
I love a good insurgency. Could be even more fun than a third party. But heck, no reason it can't turn into a third party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 9:01 PM in reply to bluebell
Sounds like a tea party in the making.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Schwartz
January 21, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to Jim H
Oh, the president has already moved on to the 2012 campaign. You didn’t notice that in the days preceding the expected defeat he moved on to badmouthing Wall Street? He’s showing Congress by example what they have to do: pass the Senate bill and take your lumps. But mostly he’s looking out for 2012, and I suspect he’ll be in good position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 21, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to alkali
Pitch perfect!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dnegri
January 21, 2010 7:57 PM in reply to alkali
Easy to find the motivation to help get Obama re-elected. Just look at who'll be running against him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
January 21, 2010 9:51 PM in reply to alkali
The Dems have been given a chance to write the best bill possible and let the GnOP filibuster. Ignore the blue dogs and just get a bill complete with all the trimmings. Thats what the people in MA who voted for Brown wanted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jim H
January 21, 2010 6:23 PM
Gee, I wonder why Harry Reid is gonna get his ass handed to him on a plate in November? Good riddance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 21, 2010 6:25 PM
Told you so. Now can we bag the ignorant horseshit about those meanie progressives in the House? The Senate never had any intention of going ahead with "Plan B".
Time to start serious work on a modest Medicare buyin bill so that something can be salvaged. Of course, some leadership from Obama would be nice (yeah, right.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
You say the senate never intended to make the very modest already-agreed upon conference committee changes through reconciliation. But you think they'll push through a Medicare buy-in through reconciliation.
Gosh, you're an idiot!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Philv
January 21, 2010 7:01 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Give me the roll call of the 50 senate dems that are going to support your (or the progressive plan). Maybe easier to count backward with the no's: Lieberman, Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Conrad are definite nos. Down to 54. I don't like the odds on McCaskill, Pryor, Johnson, and Webb. Down to 50. Now we have the process people, who won't do it because they don't like doing things this way: Feingold and Byrd come to mind. There may be others. Maybe your read of the roll call is different.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 21, 2010 7:13 PM in reply to Philv
Assuming you can't do something before even trying isn't conducive to success. At least 58 senators, (Let's not count Nelson) were fine with the medicare buy-in as a part of the reform before as part of the price of passing any reform.
Maybe some would want to double-cross the house on part B after an agreement or maybe the process orientated aren't against only part of the bill going through reconciliation, (Or really don't care as much as they've let on) but this is certainly plausible to try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Philv
January 21, 2010 7:22 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Yes, but read the comments from this fine folks the last few days. I don't think they'd even vote for the bill that they did a few weeks ago now. Successful legislating is all about counting votes, I don't see them. Maybe you do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 21, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to Philv
Well... if you don't know how many chips are left in the bag, take a look.
Legislating isn't about guessing how many votes you have, and certainly not in the senate. The House should make the offer, and leadership can figure out if they have the votes. If they don't, negotiations continue or conclude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 21, 2010 7:13 PM in reply to Philv
Feingold and Byrd would both balk at using reconciliation.
In fact, I believe they'd be more sure to vote no than Nelson or Lieberman, who could at least be bought.... Technically, maybe Byrd could be bought, too (though I doubt it).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 21, 2010 6:44 PM
Actually, I almost wonder if you COULD pass the "fixes" bill in the Senate through the 60-vote process rather than reconciliation, depending on what is in it. The differences from the Senate to the reported compromise bill from last week are not all that controversial compared to the bill as a whole.
I mean, we could just name it the "Strip Out Ben Nelson's Nebraska Bribe Act" and it could get 99 votes.
(I am kidding. I think.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 21, 2010 7:22 PM in reply to mcc
Before Brown, we could have.
Ping pong the revenue provisions back to the Senate with the agreed to compromise.
Now, you need to find another vote... and it's obviously got to be a Snowe or Collins... and I don't see that happening.
Maybe if one of them had voted Yes on the initial Senate bill, but then, had that been the case, we'd have signed legislation by now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 21, 2010 8:18 PM in reply to zonk
What I mean is:
If the House passed the Senate bill, I bet that you could pass a separate bill through the Senate, with 60 votes, that did nothing but, say, strip the Nebraska medicare thing.
What if the House passed the Senate bill, and then we tried to pass a separate bill through the Senate with 60 votes which not only stripped the Nebraska medicare thing, but also appended fixes such as the union excise tax deferment? That's much less likely. But I wonder.
(And if the House told the Senate, "pass this bill full of fixes to things like Nebraska medicare and the excise tax first, and then we'll vote for the original Senate bill"? Yeah, no chance of 60 votes.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:24 PM in reply to mcc
NO. Republicans are not opposed to what's in the bill. They are opposed to giving Dems/Obama a win.
They. will. never. vote. for. healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
January 21, 2010 9:03 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'll cosign that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 9:07 PM in reply to FreeRider
Hey FreeRider.
If you get a chance, check out planetpov.com. It is fairly new but its very cool and a couple of the old posters at Huffpo who are as disgusted as you and I set it up. There are a lot of great blogs and great people.
check it out if you are so inclined.
Goodnight. Great posting as usual. I enjoyed it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 9:26 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Thanks, Lousgirl! I'll check it out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ohm on the Range
January 21, 2010 8:20 PM in reply to mcc
I'm seeing the result of a lack of decisiveness
and conviction by Senate leadership in bringing HCR
to fruition. Reid just refuses to get ugly with those
that stray. Pulling DSCC funding, primary challenges,
pulling chairmanships, etc.
Instead...vital degutting (Liebermann), outright and
unsavory bribery in full public spotlight(Nelson).
Can you imagine the reaction of Republican
leadership if one of their Senators (ala Nelson) had
played his extortion game? Ten minutes in the room with
Rove and Cheney and a pair of channel lock pliers and he'd
come out extolling the virtues of Single Payer.
Not saying we should go there, but just making nice
gets us to where we are now. Reid and Dem leadership need
to sack up. Make them filibuster the insurance monopoly exemption,
pre-existing condition exclusions, benefit caps, etc. The film
clips will be worth their weight in gold come Sept.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
January 21, 2010 6:55 PM
Again, I'm seeing the same message: we're not moving on anything yet, but we're open to options, except starting over or moving a new bill in the Senate.
The scariest part is that I think Josh is right: we're running out of time. That doesn't mean the Senate is saying f*** off to the House or Pelosi is giving up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 21, 2010 7:08 PM
The problem seems to be that no one is talking to each other about what their fix is going to be. Everyone seems to be open to that method but is anyone negotiating?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 21, 2010 7:15 PM
The House Democrats are a bunch of ideological fools who are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:22 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Apologies if I'm mistaken but weren't you part of the "kill the bill" crowd just a couple of weeks ago?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 21, 2010 7:45 PM in reply to FreeRider
No, I wanted the Senate to pass the bill. I was angry and disappointed that the Medicare buy in was removed, but I still supported the final passage of the bill.
I was in favor of daring the "moderate" Democrats to join a filibuster of the bill because I thought it might ultimately lead to improved legislation (a topic we discussed).
In the interests of full disclosure, along the course of the summer, there were times when I thought that no bill was superior to a bad bill, but: 1) the final version of the Senate bill is better than I thought it would be a few months ago; and 2) as I mentioned to you yesterday, I think blogs enable frustrated (and largely powerless) citizens to vent, something I am guilty of.
But I have been staunchly behind the Senate bill for some time.
btw, Whistle blower Wendell Potter told "Ed" tonight on MSNBC that the bill should be passed. If that isn't enough for House Democrats, they should be voted out of office no matter how good they might be on some issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 8:13 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Thanks for explaining. I haven't watched MSNBC in a week. But it's surprising and upsetting to hear that they're all now saying "pass the bill" after months of trying to get it killed off.
Schultz, Olbermann, Huffington, Kos, etal have done a lot to drive down support for healthcare reform. I hope they're happy now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 9:14 PM in reply to FreeRider
Huffington was on fire with her hatred for the president. Off the charts. It was sickening. The highlight was when she said Biden should step down.
What a fucking idiot. A tiresome rich boar who thinks she's brilliant.
I hope assholes like her are happy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 9:28 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
True dat! Huffington always has to be opposed to everything. She went from being a right-wing purist nutjob to being a left-wing purist nutjob. The only thing she knows how to do is oppose.
I hate that bitch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 10:12 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'm back for more. I just drove through thunder and lightning and floods.
I agree about Arianna Huffington who although she acts like she is a progressive purist, she's still got her hands in the pot with big business. Just look at that website. She is racking in the dough. She a fricking lying hippocrit bitch with a shrill of a voice that should be outlawed
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 7:28 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
And a Democrat can't possibly lose Ted Kennedy's seat.
Is that how you play this game of sophistry?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 21, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to Schmed
I don't understand your point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Sorry to be obtuse. Sophistry is a false argument. Your repetition of the "perfection = enemy of the good" is a sophistic piece of propaganda being pushed to cover the stink of a very bad bill.
I'll put it another way that will make my meaning all the more clear:
I'm tired of hearing that when I'm being offered a shit sandwich, my asking for mustard will just spoil the flavor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 21, 2010 8:14 PM in reply to Schmed
Then we substantively disagree. I think it's a good bill.
It expands coverage. It provides subsidies for those making less than $90,000 a year. It bans discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. It adds a health care exchange that will increase choice.
More importantly, if it's passed, it can be improved upon. If it isn't passed, there likely won't be any reform for years.
Nothing is worse than the status quo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 8:34 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Without a public option, it's a mandate for the poor to pay the rich. It's a tax (where else will those subsidies come from?) that puts money into corporate hands with no commensurate public benefit offered in return. It does nothing to lower or even contain costs. It forces no competition on the insurance companies and leaves regulation of them a joke. Who gets to manage the exchanges? Why, the industry experts, of course.
May I have some ketchup to go along with my sandwich? I'll eat it because I have to, not because there are no better options.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 21, 2010 8:46 PM in reply to Schmed
Are you in favor of the House bill? Because the public option contained therein, according to most experts, would have offered little or no cost containment. To the contrary, it likely would have become a repository for a higher risk/higher premium pool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 9:06 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Are you in favor of the House bill?
Would I like trepanation with my root canal procedure or would a simple blow to the base of the skull suffice for anesthesia?
Why do I have to choose between worse and worst? Why not offer me a decent product from the get-go? I want universal health care. I know I'm not going to get it. But neither of these two excrementally egregious bills offers substatial improvement over the status quo.
So, yes, I'll take what's available. But don't expect me to fall out in adoration of a process that produced shit when far better was possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 21, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to Schmed
You cited the lack of public option as the basis of your objection. The House bill contains one. So I think it's a fair question.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 9:26 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
It was sharp shooting. I also cited the taxation, the lack of cost controls, no regulation, corporate expansionism, and the lack of competition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 21, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to Schmed
You're clueless too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
January 22, 2010 2:00 AM in reply to Rich in NJ
you, and the banal ideology you represent, is the reason that this country is going into the shitter.
Thanks pud.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 22, 2010 2:58 AM in reply to rbeats
That banal philosophy is called governing, genius.
And it's not just me, it's Josh Marshall, Nate Silver, Paul Krugman, Wendell Potter, and many others who think the House should pass the Senate bill.
But somehow, in your infinite wisdom, you're right and they are wrong...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 22, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to Rich in NJ
Wow, a snappy retort. Nice for style points. Not so hot for logic and intelligence points.
You aren't worth the effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 8:37 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
And BTW....it didn't have to be such a bad bill, but compromising your position with a toothless minority because you've bought into the fairy tale of "no bill without 60 votes" gives you very little else to work with, I guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 21, 2010 8:47 PM in reply to Schmed
That's a process argument. If the Senate bill isn't passed, the process is over. It it is passed, the process can begin anew.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
It's a product quality argument and it clearly delineates why the quality is so poor. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Don't sell me a shit sandwich by telling me that shit was all there was in the larder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 21, 2010 9:20 PM in reply to Schmed
No sandwich for you. No health care reform either. Ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 9:27 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Not HCR. It's HIR.
No sophistry from you. Anymore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 21, 2010 11:02 PM in reply to Schmed
You're an idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 22, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to Rich in NJ
Brain's really cranking, isn't it? Careful, you might set some of those seldom-used gears on fire, my little thug.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McMia
January 21, 2010 7:22 PM
Get a hold of their nerve?
Funny I thought it was the Senate Dems who couldn't get a hold of their nerve and stand up to their corporate masters, but then again they really are just a bunch of corporate sellout whores themselves anyway.
Get hold of their nerve indeed.
Fuck, the effect of the excise tax on labor, all by itself, is enough to let this fucker burn.
Burn, baby, burn.
Thank the Corporate Whore Sellout Democratic Senators America...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 21, 2010 7:28 PM
Spineless, chicken-shit bastards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
January 21, 2010 7:30 PM
Good God the House got the shaft on this one. The only reason we're in this mess was because of the terrible job the Senate did getting a bill through their own chamber. Now that they have dragged their feet for months, they plop their bill in the House's lap and then has the nerve to say "just pass it, what's your problem?"
There's always been animosity between the two houses, but if I was in the House right now I'd be f*cking livid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
January 21, 2010 8:43 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
Yes, they did get the shaft. They did not deserve to be put in this situation, where the only two options with any semblance to reality are (1) they pass a bill that is worse than what they wanted, or (2) health care reform dies for yet another generation.
The fact that they do not deserve to be put in this situation, however, does not change the fact that they are in this situation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Isepick
January 21, 2010 7:32 PM
I wonder if the health insurance lobby was in overdrive this afternoon...calling up all the Dems in the House and telling them "If you vote for this bill, we will make sure that your opposition has a lot more media time later this year...."
The sad part is that they can legally level that threat. The sadder part is that it will work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:36 PM in reply to Isepick
But I thought the insurance companies wanted this bill since it's a huge corporate giveaway! Why would they be lobbying against it since it's bad for the people and a boondoggle for insurance companies?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to FreeRider
Simple, they gain more power if they can quash progress. Power = money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 7:41 PM in reply to billpaustin
And what does 30 million new customers equal--dead frogs?
You've been screaming that this bill is the insurance company's wet dream and is going to make them richer. Now you're saying, the insurance companies are trying to kill this bill.
Pick a line and stick with it. No. Don't bother. Everybody knows you're stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to FreeRider
I have not been screaming at all, and calling me stupid just gets you the troll flag. You must have me confused with someone else.
The R's made it their official policy to thwart everything Obama does. They are doing it, successfully, with help from some Democrats. The more they can weaken reform efforts, the more power they will get. On any reform issue; think Obama can prevail on bank reforms? No, he is weakening by the minute now. The insurance companies, the banks, etc, all benefit from this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to FreeRider
Goodnight FreeRider. You are DA BOMB!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Isepick
January 21, 2010 7:51 PM in reply to FreeRider
Interesting note, that. All the health insurance stocks fell between 2.5 and 4% today (market average was 2%). So Wall Street apparently agrees with you about it being a corporate giveaway...My point is that with the SCOTUS ruling today, it changes the calculus of all politics in this country. Big Pharma (was running backdoor anti-reform ads, I think) could have made those same calls, or the Chamber of Commerce (who now has a personal grudge with the President).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 7:33 PM
So everyone, who is LEADING this effort? Anyone?
Was there a plan? any plan at all?
Hello, anyone home? Anyone?
Figures, it was the Democrats after all. Sigh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 8:02 PM in reply to billpaustin
"I happen to live with a couple of them so we talk about it late at night [and] we're trying to find out how they feel about it."
So THAT is our leadership?!? Sen Durbin lives with a couple of House members, so he sometimes tries to find out how they FEEL?!? You've got to be kidding me!
I mean, we are all on a bus careening off the cliff, and somebody is sometimes trying to find out how they FEEL?!?! Hello? anybody driving? Anybody?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brainpicnic
January 21, 2010 7:43 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not fucked anymore than we were a couple of days/weeks/months/years ago. We are just slightly more aware of it today. Change could happen eventually, but look around at your fellow citizens out there and ask yourself how. I come up with accident.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 7:51 PM in reply to Brainpicnic
Yes, we are greatly more f'd up than before. Once you have tried your best at something, and failed, you are behind where you started from. People now have less confidence than before.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 8:01 PM
In response to erastonese or whatever.Obama accomplishments
Signed on October 28, 2009
Hate Crimes Bill
Signed on October 28, 2009
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
Signed on October 22, 2009
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
#
Signed on August 06, 2009
Cash For Clunkers Extension
#
Signed on June 22, 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
#
Signed on May 22, 2009
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009
#
Signed on May 22, 2009
Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
#
Signed on May 20, 2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
#
Signed on May 20, 2009
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
#
Signed on April 21, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
#
Signed on March 30, 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
Signed on March 20, 2009
Small Business Act Temporary Extension
Signed on February 17, 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
*
Signed on February 11, 2009
DTV Delay Act
Signed on February 04, 2009
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
*
Signed on January 29, 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
AND THE LIST IS NOT COMPLETED AND UPDATED YET!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 8:06 PM in reply to lousgirl84
These are great, thanks for posting them!
Is President Obama in charge of the Health Care reform effort?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 8:19 PM in reply to billpaustin
It would help if he were. Abdicating your initiatives to the Congress in hoping to accomplish your political agenda is not leadership. Hope isn't leadership.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to Schmed
He's expecting the legislative branch to do the legislating. Unless one wants an all-powerful executive branch that dictates to the legislative branch. Which is bit unconstitutional. We didn't like it when it was Bush, but when it favors our position, what the hey, f the constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to acamus
Are you crazy? President Obama could go on TV and demand the bill get passed! He WANTS the bill to pass! He puts pressure on the Congress by using the bully pulpit. Instead, he disappears?!?!???
He also makes all kinds of backroom deals, etc, as normal.
How is that bad for the Constitution?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:45 PM in reply to billpaustin
Ah the "bully pulpit" response. I was waiting for that. Is that what this country is...waiting for daddy to tell us to stand up for what we truly desire. Pathetic. Of course, they didn't need Obama to stand up and send an anti-abortionist to the Senate in protest. In fact they did the exact opposite of what he asked them to do from the freakin' BULLY PULPIT.
You want to direct your rage somewhere? Direct it at the unengaged, anti-intellectual masses of this country who can't be leaders amongst leaders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
January 21, 2010 9:09 PM in reply to billpaustin
you mean like Bill Clinton did in 1994?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 10:08 PM in reply to billpaustin
Your posts have exposed your ignorance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 21, 2010 8:43 PM in reply to acamus
In this case he should be getting the Dems together to talk. I'm actually surprised at the admin's reaction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 9:05 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
If he does get them together it is only to get them to place that they agree upon without Obama. I would hope that they aren't children who need daddy to do what needs to be done. Of course they will act in their own interests, which is in a large part about getting re-elected. As long as their internal polls and "phone calls" tell otherwise, they won't change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 8:46 PM in reply to acamus
Wow, got me on a technicality. Guess that means no president ever has a political agenda that he accomplishes with the cooperation of legislators that he gains with the artful application of political favors and punishments (carrots and sticks sounds like a nice analogy), thereby scoring legislative victories which he can share with his congressional allies (the coattail effect?) and use to burnish his own presidential reputation.
Nope, guess Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson were all executive bullies who ran roughshod over the fragile Constitution in pursuit of saving the people from economic disaster as well as creating a civil rights agenda that put the U.S. closer to its founding ideals after 200 years of shameful hypocrisy. Shame on them for not following the Obama method of getting liberal shit done.
Shame, shame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:56 PM in reply to Schmed
HCR from a progressive point of view is a fundamental change in the very philosophy of how the public and private sector. No legislative act PASSED in the modern era has the rippling effect that this HCR would have. Clinton failed because he tried to ignore Congress who had "alternatives." Obama allowed those alternatives a voice. And we have the result. Which do you want? An executive branch determining what will be and forcing it on legislative branch or the legislative branch buying into it (just as one does in any successful community organizing initiative).
But if you want a dictator say so. At least we'll be talking honestly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 9:22 PM in reply to acamus
I would have expected you to offer more than a bifuration as an argument. My choices: what we have now (so carefully undefined by you) or the dictator.
My answer: neither.
I want an effective executive who can actively work with the legislature to both create and modify legislation that meets the goals of the people who elected all of them to office. Coersion is just one available means to achieve that end. I also suggested cooperation and reward as well as mutual support.
Given Obama's many gifts, I would expect that he's capable of being....hang on....wait for it....
....an effective politician.
I was hoping to elect a leader, not a disengaged constitutional hair-splitter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 11:18 PM in reply to Schmed
An effective politician in the EXECUTIVE branch that represents all Americans, including the moderate republicans and independents that made his election possible. So how do act as a president when both progressives and moderate republicans made your election a reality?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 22, 2010 7:50 AM in reply to acamus
You act as if political parties don't exist. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do. That is reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 22, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to acamus
The same way you would under any other circumstances: fulfill the campaign promises you made under the aegis of your party's platform. Executives get elected in democracys (or republics) for one reason only: the majority of the electorate (regardless of its political composition) have approved your agenda and want you to execute it. If you can't do that, then go home and let someone else more competent get the job done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:22 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Thanks.
Of course he hasn't signed the Utopia Now Act yet so he must be failing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to acamus
I know. How dare he.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 9:00 PM in reply to lousgirl84
But seriously...You should blog your post in the Cafe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
January 21, 2010 8:25 PM
I think the Senate should punt to the House. It did its job and passed a bill. Members put themselves in a position to be severely criticized for passing the bill. Now, it is up to the House to look carefully at the Senate bill and ask whether it should drop health care reform entirely.
Pelosi, from my perspective, has not done her job if she does not firmly get her people to sign on to the bill. Seriously, folks, it's not perfect by any stretch. It's messy. But, we're not going to have a 20-vote majority in the senate in a very long time. This is particularly the case given today's Supreme Court decision. The House members should pass it and then look to improve it as soon as practicable. Otherwise, HCR will not happen.
This whole debate reminds me of the prescription drug bill that some GOP members ran on back in 2002, as some Democrats just refused to offer a benefit unless it was the full benefit even though it was clear that the votes for the full benefit weren't there.
We can't keep running on the same issues. We have to take our gains and move ahead to another issue. The bill has many, many positive attributes. Vote for it and move on to something else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fritz
January 21, 2010 8:36 PM
What a mess! What a freakin! mess
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to Fritz
Welcome to democracy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 21, 2010 8:43 PM in reply to acamus
Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:48 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Excellent quote. People love democracy when it suits them. That is why it is so amazing that we haven't had our Mussolini moment. But by the way some of these people write, we might be close. The trains run on time, i have my health care, and f the constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 21, 2010 8:41 PM
So let me get this straight. A twenty something blog employee called up some Senators and asked them what they were doing behind the scenes. They didn't tell him. Therefore, they aren't doing anything.
Mmm hmm, yeah. Okay. Guess that's definitive, then. 'Cause if it's not reported in the blogs, it isn't happening. There is no reality other than those shadows on the wall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kJCUWzUl
January 21, 2010 8:41 PM
After spending a full year working on 1 bill they can not pass, the Democrats are suddenly surprised by a vote in MA and a supreme court decision today.
Generally normal humans have an awareness on what is generally happening around them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
January 21, 2010 8:49 PM
I can't help but feel that a large part of this clusterf*ck is because we allowed the ridiculous teabagger movement to take hold in this country. We sat back and snickered while they bulldozed the facts and reality in general. Their lies infected the legislative process and began to weaken spines. I don't want to give these freaks with their "keep you guberment hands off my medicare" signs any credit at all, but you can't deny they stole the message. And I feel we all deserve blame for that. HCR supporters should have stayed on message that this is about saving American lives. The main theme should be that if nothing is done thousands of our fellow citizens die. Why should it more appalling that someone with an underwear bomb attempts to kill Americans than allowing our citizens to die from an ineffectual health care system? We protest the wars and march in the streets over outrage of the deaths, when was the march to save the lives of the uninsured. When was the die-in on Capitol Hill to provide a mental image of the uninsured American dead? The real, factual dead not the phony Palin-land death panel, pulling the plug on granny hypothetical dead. Yes, there was a smattering of kitchen round tables but nothing that matched the scale of the teabaggers. I come from the school of fight fire with fire, I would have just loved to seen it brought back on them. Not only is this current turn of events a gut check to Washington, it is a gut check on us. Are we going to throw our hands up, or are we going to get out there and push our party like the teabaggers? We're not getting any respect because we aren't demanding it. We need to unite under one goal to save the lives of the uninsured. United we stand, divided we fall and we have some serious divisions in our party. Sorry so long, guess I'm just venting like everyone else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 8:58 PM in reply to patmcgrowen
That is question: where are the people in streets demanding the public opttion?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
January 21, 2010 9:08 PM in reply to acamus
AMEN. I was part of numerous protests in front of the officers of members of Congress in favor of public option. The largest crwod we had was seven.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 9:15 PM in reply to dtOZONE
First off, thank you for being in the street.
And secondly, thank you for being honest. As someone who has spent many of a hour trying getting people to show up for meeting to organize a rally let alone to show up the day-of, I can say there are too many people that are not willing to sacrifice one iota for what they will tell a pollster they are all for.
It reminds of me of a co-coordinator who said to me one night when we had noone show up one evening (pardon the sexism): What do we have to have tassles on our nipples?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 22, 2010 7:45 AM in reply to acamus
If the President has called for it or even supported it, it would have happened. Everyone was just waiting for the go-sign from the White House. Which never came. Because the PO was still-born and all the DC pols knew it. It was just the regular saps who thought the effort was on the level.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
January 21, 2010 10:31 PM in reply to patmcgrowen
Absolutely brilliantly said, but when you ask the Left (many,not all)what was their role in all this or why haven't they done more it always leads back to Obama. Obama needs to lead them or do something for them before they budge. That kind of talk just floored me because I thought these guys were about helping the people. Why do you need Obama to tell you to go march? What have you been doing all these years before he came along? And why does he need to do something for you first? What about the 300+ million people in this country you claim to be fighting for? The more the Left spoke like this, the more I lost faith in them. They just came off as completely selfish.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 9:00 PM
FreeRider is DA BOMB. He is totally spot on. I have a feeling Schmedley wasn't engaged in politics in the 90s else he would have known what happened in 1994 and 1996 during the Clinton years. He is also spot on that Obama because he is black is being held to a different standard and make no mistake it is not just the thugs who want him to fail, so does the media, wall street and you name it. They are totally threatened by a brilliant liberal senator (who has the nerve to be black and run for President and win).
If this President ever needed his base to be with him, its now.
I can't imagine how anyone could expect to clean up a mess that was 8 years in the making in one year. It is incomprehensible.
Grow the fuck up
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 9:08 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Obama has always approached things in the long run view (kind of like MLK and the civil rights movement). I think he is a bit surprised, esp given the current economic environment, that his supportors have such a here-and-now approach.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 9:26 PM in reply to acamus
You are sugar-coating this. The truth is that he has squandered a huge opportunity by pursuing foolish strategies -- give Baucus ages to get Grasshole on board to give "bipartisan" flavor to the bill for instance.
Nobody can figure out why Obama won't quiot this idiotic notion that we can still get the Republicans to work with us, despite the fact that they have made a conscious effort to vote "no" on absolutely everything.
It's mindboggling. Who is advising him? Whoever it is, they should go. It is simply a disaster for us. Obama failed, and is failing, because he didn't seize the moment and take bold action.
I like Obama and did quite a lot of phonebanking for him -- even was calling Massachusetts. I'm no hater. But we elected him to get this done, not look out for his own skin, just so he can sit in the big chair.
And that goes for all of them in the Congress too. If this is too hard to do, they should leave. The only reason we sent them there is to make progress on our agenda. There does in fact need to be accountability. We must hold them to account.
If they need time to figure this out, fine. Long run view is great. As long as we do in fact get there, and it is not a ruse. But if they are just lying and hope we'll forget, well we won't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 11:14 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
If the PEOPLE are behind it, not in thought but in action, then we will see change. WE are the change we are waiting for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 11:25 PM in reply to acamus
But they represent us. We did our part. They refuse to do theirs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 11:27 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
We did ours: elect anti-abortionist Brown to the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
January 21, 2010 11:46 PM in reply to acamus
AMEN, why do people think because they went on Nov 4 2008 and pushed a button, now the work is done. That was only the beginning. Politicians have to be constantly herded, if not by their supporters who put them there, then they will be pushed by any special interest that comes their way. Either big money or big mouths(yep, those damn teabaggers)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 9:15 PM in reply to lousgirl84
See above.
Since you like FreeRider so much, tell me; do you find his automatic ad hominem reflex to be as admirable as his speciousness?
Buy, rent, or borrow a fucking clue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 9:20 PM in reply to Schmed
If "people like you are giving Obama a chance", why aren't the republicans fearing the backlash in the 2010 election?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 9:29 PM in reply to acamus
I think you glommed onto the wrong thread. Republicans aren't fearing anything because they're counting on the Democrats to fuck things up royally, as usual. All they have to do is show up.
Obama can change this.
Will he?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 9:31 PM in reply to Schmed
Matt has a point.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/the-objective-political-pressure-game.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 10:07 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Which would be what? -- that the Republicans are feeling at ease because Obama and the Democrats haven't put the fear of non-election in them?
So many ways to fuck things up royally, so little time. Tick tock, baby.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 11:21 PM in reply to Schmed
They fear nothing because their intenal polling tells them that the PEOPLE are not that outraged over the lacl of the public option, etc. Yet all the outrage of the left is that the PEOPLE want the public option, etc. You explain the disconnect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 22, 2010 7:49 AM in reply to acamus
You severely overestimate the American people. That's why your analysis is off-kilter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 22, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to acamus
Yet all the outrage of the left is that the PEOPLE want the public option, etc. You explain the disconnect.
The disconnect is your hyperbolic overgeneralization. Much of the outrage on the left is the timorous Democratic response to the loss of one Senate seat, the nausea-inducing tactic of laying low and retreating from the battle and abandoning the mission due to a singular self-inflicted casualty. Much of the outrage comes in the face of Obama watching the HIR debacle unfold from the grandstands, showing no appetite for a fight and offering very little solace beyond platitudinous lip service. He sounds reassuring; he just doesn't act it.
The public option garnered far more attention than it deserved because the Dems played right into the GOP media plan by not getting out in front of the false specter of government insurance and letting the fear mongerers run with it all summer and fall. The hype was too delicious for the MSM to ignore and the bloggers found something else to insult each other about. Nonetheless, the smoke generaged by this fake conflagration is not the sum-total of the liberals' despondency and anger. Most people I know aren't worried about the parts -- they want something up and running and they want it now. Otherwise, Obama and the Dems will find themselves in the same position as the GOP: getting smaller and smaller and finding that the diminishing base is becoming radicalized as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
January 21, 2010 9:34 PM
Reading the talking points gave out by the Democratic party on the loss in Mass, is the perfect exhibit of why the Democrats are failing miserably. They are too busy thinking of excuses of why nothing was done and not busy enough thinking about how to get things done. Bi-partisanship is a myth that only exists when Republicans are out of power but yet like moths to a flame, Democrats believe that it can be achieved and ultimately get burned for it. Hence the pendulum of power switches back to the fear mongering, liars and thus we sit in another 30 years of conservative hegemony until they bring the nation once again to the brink of financial destruction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
January 21, 2010 10:00 PM
The Dems have been given a chance to write the best bill possible and let the GnOP filibuster. Ignore the blue dogs and just get a bill complete with all the trimmings. Thats what the people in MA who voted for Brown wanted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
January 21, 2010 10:20 PM in reply to FebM
Right, right. The people in Massachusetts who voted for Brown voted for him because they wanted the Democrats to craft a health care bill with a strong public option. So, they decided that they would show those DC Democrats by voting for a far-right state senator over a middle of the road liberal who supported the public option.
Christ, do you have any common sense? Any at all? It's like saying people voted for George W Bush in 2004 because Al Gore didn't fight hard enough in the 2000 recount.
Come on. The people of Massachusetts didn't want health care reform. IF they did, they would have elected Coakley. So, if the Democrats want HCR, the House should pass the senate bill and work to improve it by introducing separate bills designed to do so. But, the House feels that it has to dictate the outcome because it is sick of Joe LIEberman. What it doesn't realize is that any bill that requires that slow-witted, mean-spirited moron's vote is going to be less than ideal. It doesn't mean you throw out the idea, though. And that is the House's approach.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 10:52 PM in reply to Mateo123
Wrong wrong. All wrong wrong. They all said it wasn't about health reform at all. They were just mad at their own state legislators and their governor and they took their frustration out on a less than exciting candidate for a ex male model who all but auctioned his daughters off on the stage.
If Obama did that, he would have crucified by the thugs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 22, 2010 12:08 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Right, right, right.
The link is to the internals of a post election poll done by Research 2000 on the voters of Massachusetts. Amazingly, it shows independent voters who voted for Obama in '08 feel the Democratic party has not delivered on the promises they made during the 2008 election.
Also, it shows the Dems that stayed home and did not vote said they felt the same exact way, Dems are not delivering, and totally fubaring what they were elected to do.
You can deny, or spin, or call people names all you want. It doesn't make the facts go away, and it doesn't pursued them to agree with you just because you called them a mean name. Continue to deny those facts and the Democrats will be in for a major beating come Nov.
Now, I am not saying this is all Obama's fault, but a large part of the blame lies on him because he is the leader of the party. I personally put most of the blame on the incompetence of the Congressional Dems. Then again, I pay more attention to politics than the average voter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 22, 2010 7:51 AM in reply to mophan
Bulls-eye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ESK
January 21, 2010 10:40 PM
From a post today on Huffpo by Robert Creamer.."On the other hand, Progressive leaders across America need to direct their own frustration at the forces that are defending the status quo and standing in the way of the Obama agenda..... not encouraging cynicism and disaffection of base voters." Many of you here should take a long hard look at it, particularly if you have any interest in moving the process along, because it's constructive and it makes sense. Here's the link to the article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/lessons-from-the-massachu_b_429465.html?view=screen
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moses2317
January 21, 2010 10:50 PM
What the heck is wrong with the Democrats in Washington??? I am a proud liberal who has never voted for a Republican in my life. I have volunteered for, worked for, and donated to countless Democratic candidates in every election since 1992. But if they can't get their act together quickly, I am done with them.
I met President Obama in March 2003 when he was running in the U.S. Senate primary in Illinois and volunteered my butt off to support his candidacy. I wrote policy papers, organized volunteers on the northside of Chicago, and canvassed virtually every weekend in the bitter cold winter of 2003 (and the warmer spring and summer of 2004). When then-Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President, I was estatic. The day Obama was elected President was a day of great pride for me - not only had I met Mr. Obama, but I thought we finally had a brave leader who could strongly and eloquently communicate the progressive message to the American public. When the Democrats also got a 60-seat majority in the Senate and a large majority in the House, I was even more elated, as I expected real action to address the critical economic, health care, national security, civil liberties, and environmental issues facing our nation.
I am not naive - I did not expect change to be easy in light of the mindless right-wing control of our media and the intransigence of the do-nothing Republicans. And I realize that most elected officials are less liberal than I am, so I did not expect my wish list of liberal policies (such as single payer health insurance) to be passed. But I did expect the Democrats to use the overwhelming mandate the public had given them to actively fight for real reform and improvement for every day Americans, and to challenge the Republicans who have proven themselves to be an illegitimate political party whose candidates do not deserve to be elected as dog catchers, much less as Senators and Congresspeople.
Instead, we have gotten the same spineless, afraid-to-take-a-stand approach to governing and campaigning that has stricken the Democratic Party for the past 30 years. Instead of fighting for the real health care reform and other progressive changes that President Obama was elected on, the Democrats have spent the last year negotiating away every progressive policy proposal in an absurd effort to try to placate folks who do not hold progressive values but instead seek to continue the same conservative policies that got our country into the mess it is in. Instead of loudly and proudly fighting for the progressive policies and values that have made this country great, Democrats continue to cower in fear of criticism from Tea Baggers and Fox News. And the person in charge of our party - President Obama - has done virtually nothing to push back against the conservatives or to bring his own party into line in favor of progressive principles and policies, and is now basically raising the white flag on real health reform because the Democrats now have only 59 Senators instead of 60.
Enough is enough. I have been told for the past two decades that I need to concede my liberal values so that Democrats could win elections and achieve incremental change. Over those two decades, I have seen income inequality escalate, our health care system continue to collapse, our military budgets skyrocket, our social safety net be dismantled, our infrastructure crumble, our civil liberties corrode, and barriers to unionization continue to increase. Yet now that Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate, and have the Presidency, they are not fighting for progressive values or even attempting to fundamentally alter the conservative political frame that has gotten our country into this mess.
In short, the Democrats are once again proving that they are too spineless and scared to fight for, much less achieve, the real change this country needs. Continued spinelessness is both horrible for our country and will lead the Democrats back to the political wilderness as the American public wants leadership, not cowardice. If the Democrats do not start fighting soon, they certainly will have lost my support, as I will be left with no other choice but to conclude that working for Democrats is not the way to achieve the progressive change this country needs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 11:26 PM in reply to Moses2317
All Democrats politicians in this majority are liberal is main problem in your equation. From Nelson to Bayh, the tent that allowed us to get the majority means that the party is not entirely liberal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moses2317
January 22, 2010 12:19 AM in reply to acamus
Acamus, I am not assuming that all of the Democrats in Congress are liberal. A governing majority in the Senate and House (i.e. more than 50 Senators and a majority of the House members), however, are fairly progressive. I am also assuming that the President would fight for progressive values rather than reducing every proposal to something that Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson would vote for, and then negotiating down from there.
The President and party leadership could also take numerous steps to enforce some party unity and push progressive change. For example:
Tell the Senators that any Democrat that votes to support Republican filibusters on core issues like health care reform will lose their chairmanships. They can vote against legislation, but do not filibuster;
Use the reconciliation process to the fullest extent;
Work to eliminate the anti-democratic and dysfunctional filibuster;
Recruit progressive candidates to primary Democrats who are working against progressive interests;
Don't appoint the folks who were complicit in causing the economic crisis to be in charge of economic policy;
Tell the House to pass the Senate health care reform bill instead of "letting the dust settle" on health care reform's grave.
As I noted, I understand that it is hard to achieve progressive change. That is why the President and party leadership need to fight hard to do so. Instead, they seem either too incompetent or uninterested in doing so. That is their choice, but if that is the decision they are going to make, they cannot expect liberals like myself to continue spending their limited money and time supporting them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 22, 2010 7:53 AM in reply to Moses2317
Well said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bree
January 21, 2010 10:56 PM
What's truly amazing isn't that Brown won, but that the democrats had no "Plan B" ready.
It's not like voters woke up on Tuesday and just suddenly decided to act on a whim. Brown had been steadily gaining in the polls all month.
If you know Republicans are desperate to derail your key legislation, and there's only one option- however slight- left for them to try, how do you NOT take measures to prevent it? Worse, how do you not plan for if it does happen?
The current disorder is something I would've expected last week, when a Brown victory began to seem more and more likely. Not two days after the fact. I mean, at least PRETEND it's not as bad as it looks. The Republicans are the ones who should be milking this loss for all its worth, making the public think they've just gained the entire Senate. Not the other way around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 11:43 PM in reply to bree
This is the point I have been making lately too: it's like there is no one in charge, no one actually thinking things through. The Democrats are just stumbling along in a seeming haze, expecting the R's to cooperate and that Mass would OF COURSE re-elect a Democrat.
That Sen Kennedy's seat could be lost, and that it means the loss of the health care bill, is just too ironic. Idiot Dems. Sheesh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
January 21, 2010 11:36 PM
Shocking that the democrats are going to up on the healthcare debacle they created that should have never gotten to this point. You still have a huge majority, pass it. The republicans would find a way. Can you say utterly pathetic
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
January 21, 2010 11:41 PM
The Senate should act first and pass something the House wants through reconciliation.
House Progressives shouldn't trust the Senate to fix the bill AFTER the House has already voted for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
January 22, 2010 12:07 AM
I have been wondering, it HCR doesn't pass, would it be possible for individual (blue) states to create a Medicaid buy-in. It would offer premiums on a sliding scale based on your income that could be taken out of your check similar to employer-based insurance. Even have comparable co-payments to add to providers reimbursement rates. Would it be possible for these newly insured to be a self sustaining component similar to the public option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pants
January 22, 2010 1:15 AM
step 1 - Get rid of the filibuster.
step 2 - Rewrite HCR so it makes any sense.
step 3 - Pass everything else like a walk in the park.
Screw Lieberdouche, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, et al. All we need is 50 + Biden. Put on your pants Reid and get to work, youve only got 10 months left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
January 22, 2010 1:58 AM
Obama is a one term President! This country has been punked! My new slogan is "Obama should resign!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 22, 2010 5:14 AM in reply to celldumceen
They said the same thing about Clinton in 95, and Bush in 03.
If the economy improves, Obama win in a landslide in 2012.
If fact, check this out:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/01/21/obama_still_ahead_of_the_republicans.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Taegan+Goddard%27s+Political+Wire%29
Obama destroys all potential rivals for POTUS. Even with the economy very much down right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 22, 2010 9:36 AM in reply to willia451
I think you're attempting to communicate to someone whose thinking process is limited to nothing but slogans. Another victim of our mass media.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
January 22, 2010 2:00 AM
Written in Jan 2010: “A mere seven months ago, The New York Times/CBS poll found that 72% of Americans ‘supported a government-administered insurance plan—something like Medicare for those under 65—that would compete for customers with private insurers.’” Do you think the Democrats wanted to help the American people, the health insurance companies or big pharma? Pick two out of three. They did not want to help the American people and they have succeeded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matt in so dak
January 22, 2010 2:03 AM in reply to bill
Amen. They reap what they sow.
Easy way to go forward:
Remove Medicare age restrictions. Pass it under reconciliation. Hide from Big PhRMA hit squads.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
David Dunham
January 22, 2010 2:03 AM
It takes 67 Senators to change the filibuster rule. It ain't happening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matt in so dak
January 22, 2010 2:05 AM in reply to David Dunham
Endless gridlock + Facist SCOTUS = oh poop.
Could I at least ask that they not use sand for lube when I get bent over?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pants
January 22, 2010 2:18 AM in reply to David Dunham
David-
The Senate can make its own rules. These rules governing the filibuster have been changed multiple times in the last century.
It most definetly can be done.
60 votes is a ridiculous majority to pass anything, especially in the Senate, where uber-small states have a massively outsized napoleon complex.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 8:29 AM in reply to David Dunham
Not true.
Dick Cheney was threatening the nuclear option a few years ago.
And it didn't entail getting Dems to support him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
January 22, 2010 2:04 AM
Obama has shown he is not working for the middle class.
Anyone who says different is either mentally challenged or making money from us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matt in so dak
January 22, 2010 2:07 AM in reply to rbeats
Obama is merely working for his corporate backers, just as Bush worked for his.
I'm a tool of the machine and proud of it!! Say it loud, say it proud!!
Anyone who won't pound me in the pooper 2012
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
January 22, 2010 2:17 AM
Black Jimmy Carter should resign!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 8:35 AM
OBama's stubborn refusal to give up on "uniting" the country is killing us. He refuses to even attack the Republicans for their sleazy lies and obstruction. Why would they stop if he doesn't hurt them for it? He has to go before the American people and say:
"You want jobs? We can't give you jobs, because the Republicans won't let us vote on a jobs bill!! Every dollar they slashed of our stimulus means more Americans out of work today."
To repeat myself, nobody can figure out why Obama won't quit his idiotic notion that we can still get the Republicans to work with us, despite the fact that they have made a conscious effort to vote "no" on absolutely everything. For the love of god, it is not working, and we will be decimated at the polls, because you refuse to FIGHT!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 22, 2010 8:50 AM
Nancy Pelosi is doing the right thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 22, 2010 9:04 AM
Harry Reid is the superstar who they've been desperately waiting for. It's been years since a super hero of this nature came along. Wow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?