
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) today said health care reform will pass no matter the outcome of today's special election in Massachusetts.
He told Minnesota Public Radio that reform will pass "one way or the other." (Franken also posted a link to the story on his Senate site.)
If the Republican candidate for Senate wins today, Democrats will lose their 60-seat super-majority. Some say that loss will kill health care reform for good.
But Democrats have other options -- having the House pass the Senate bill verbatim, or forcing a merged bill through via reconciliation -- and some, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have vowed it'll get done somehow.
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 3:10 PM
If the Democrats, instead of moving aggressively to change the ridiculous Senate rules, just passively accept the meme that they can't ever pass anything without 60 Senate votes, they're toast. They would have established themselves as a party that essentially is structurally incapable of governing. Voters punish that sort of fecklessness severely, whether that's "fair" or not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
With all due respect, STFU.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to FreeRider
You're as big an idiot as ever, I see.
OK, genius. YOU explain how the Dems can ever deliver anything meaningful to voters if they can barely get stuff done even with 60 seats and not at all with fewer. Go ahead, knock yourself out. It should be entertaining to read.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
You're a moron. You know nothing. You fall apart and start to piss yourself at the first bit of bad news.
Your posts are nothing but your doomsday theories and insecurities writ large. Boring.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to FreeRider
As I thought, you have no answer. You could have spared yourself the humiliation of trying to cover up for that lack with infantile vituperation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 4:22 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Go somewhere and change your diaper, you molting wuss!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to FreeRider
What reason do you have for believing that the Democrats will actually stand up to public pressure and do the right thing...aside from your really, really wanting them to.
What, other than wishful thinking, makes you think the Democrats have suddenly grown a pair?
Be specific.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 4:30 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
I agree with you. That's why if I were a betting man I'd bet that they ARE toast.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
You think everything is wishful thinking, including Franken's comments so I'm pleased that you think I'm engaging in wishful thinking.
If you actually believe that Democrats will let healthcare die, you are beyond reason.
Democrats are being such defeatists. What a bunch of sad sacks!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to FreeRider
I asked for a reason you were so optimistic...and you gave NONE.
I think your position is wishful thinking because history and the composition of the Democratic membership of the Congress leads me to believe that health care reform is doomed if the MA seat is lost.
I have to ask again: what, specifically, can you point to that would justify your belief that the Democrats will finally do what they haven't done in decades? What, specifically, makes you think that Democrats, who have surrendered at every turn for the last 25 years, will suddenly take a courageous stand?
Keep members like Landrieu, Nelson and Lincoln in mind when formulating your answer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 5:11 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
Why the Democrats won't bail on healthcare: 1994.
They will own the healthcare votes they have already taken, even if the bill dies. So, they have no choice but to go ahead. If they were going to bail on this, they would have done so after the teabaggers went nuts during the summer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 5:16 PM in reply to FreeRider
You have your point of view; I have mine. If Brown wins, we'll see who's right.
If I'm wrong, I'll come back to TPM and publicly admit my mistake in underestimating the Democrats in Congress. Will you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
Absolutely. Look, if the Democrats wanted to bail, they wouldn't be working on three different contingency plans. Pelosi, Hoyer, and the White House wouldn't be saying "we're going to pass healthcare one way or another." They would be saying "we don't have the votes without Coakley."
Healthcare is a done deal. The caucus realizes that they've spent a full year working on healthcare at the expense of the economy. They can't walk away empty-handed. It would be political suicide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
January 19, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to FreeRider
If Democrats are such a bunch of defeatist sad sacks, what makes you think they won't let heath care reform die? Yeah, I know, it's just us down here who are pathetic -- the Dem caucuses in Congress are full of heroes. Right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 5:13 PM in reply to SqueakyRat
The caucus isn't full of heroes but they're not all a bunch of fainting pussies who turn their backs on their own party at the drop of a hat--unlike many posting here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to FreeRider
The point you seem to be missing is that pretty much EVERY member of the caucus has to be courageous for health care to pass without MA's Senate vote.
It doesn't matter if MOST of the caucus has a backbone. It doesn't matter if 90% will follow through. They ALL need to do the right thing for reform to be salvaged.
Do you seriously believe that's a reasonable possibility?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
I wish you would read something before posting stupidity here.
The White House and Pelosi can and will make the senate irrelevant if necessary. If they get weak-kneed, then the bill won't go back to the Senate. The House will pass it as it and the president will sign it. The fixes will be made in the budget through reconciliation and there are definitely 50 votes +Biden to pass it.
The liberals in the House want healthcare badly enough that they'll take this poison pill and pass it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'm not just referring to the Senate. That should have been obvious by the way I posed the scenario (in which the MA seat is lost and the D caucus would only have 59 votes).
The House passed its health care bill 220-215. Even if the Speaker opts for adopting the Senate bill as-is, she needs a minimum of 218 Democrats to vote in favor to get the bill finalized.
That means that pretty much EVERY Democrat has to have courage enough to do the right thing. If one or two peel off because of cold feet, the bill is doomed. And, quite frankly, I doubt enough Democrats in the House could be persuaded to agree to adopting the Senate bill without changes to get this thing to the president's desk.
And I doubt that the Senate would stick together to pass a revised bill in the event of a Brown win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to FreeRider
They already let healthCARE die. This is a bend the cost curve bill. Just ask Senator Amy, Al's fellow MN Senator.
Say Al, have you talked to Amy about how she campaigned on universal healthcare being "unrealistic"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 7:11 PM in reply to bluebell
You're so boring. Go away and slit your wrists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 19, 2010 4:27 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Dems never had "60 votes". Lieberman is an independent asshole caucusing with them. That's the Dems fault?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
It's their fault that they refused to either put reconciliation on the table or nuke the filibuster. Again, nobody can explain how they can actually govern with a permanent, automatic requirement for 60 Senate votes- because indeed, they can't. As I mentioned in another comment, Biden has even started talking about this issue publicly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
So why is he chairing committees?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 19, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to FreeRider
It's pretty clear you think he's wrong. What isn't clear is why. Instead of trying to stiffle debate, why don't you try engaging in it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to Schmed
Debate? Is pissing yourself and doing a Chicken Little impression what passes for debate around these parts?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 19, 2010 4:26 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yelling "shut up" pretty clearly doesn't -- at least, among people who actually think.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to Schmed
Where did I yell "shut up"? Never happened. I didn't yell. I said STFU and I did so with all due respect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 19, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to FreeRider
You used CAPS; that's yelling. Your acronym stands for "shut up" as uttered by a 7th grader trying out newly discovered four letter words.
And of course, you dodged all efforts at getting you to take a position and defend it, thus betraying your intellectual dishonesty.
BTW, playing coy is also intellectually dishonest and you aren't good at that either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to Schmed
Acronyms are always posted in caps, genius. STFU doesn't mean shut up. It means shut the fuck up.
I didn't "engage" with Labonne because, IMO, doing so would be a waste of time.
(See: IMO in all caps. That means in my opinion.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 19, 2010 7:41 PM in reply to FreeRider
What's the difference between "shut up" and "shut the fuck up" except for the gratuitous profanity? (that's a rhetorical question)
If you weren't shouting, how would we know it? Caps are generally interpreted as shouting.
You did engage Mr. Labonne. Your engagement wasn't worth squat intellectually, but telling someone to shut up while offering juvenile (that means childish) insults is engagement. Apparently, your dishonesty extends far beyond your intellect (or what passes for it).
Well, thanks for the window into your forensic capability. I have an excellent example of what to expect from when I see you rudely interpose your mental scat into someone else's conversation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
it is the liberals and preogressives up for reelection in the House that'll feel it the most too. So for all those conservative democrats, this is a good thing, I reckon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Quite the contrary. It's always the people in marginally Dem districts- which mostly means the conservadems- who
are the first to go in wave elections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 19, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I misread your post, I thought you were speaking to what Franken is speaking about in this post, which is simply passing the Senate bill. If the liberals and progressives in the House swallow that bitter pill, they'll be hurt by it more than the conservative dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 19, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I take it that you discount to zero the probability that a house passage of an unamended senate version will be followed immediately by a reconciliation gonna rip you a new asshole coda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 4:24 PM in reply to Indie Pro
This is a stupid post--even for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 19, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I doubt they're going to change the Senate rules. That would be too radical for the Dems we have in the Senate.
Plus, with their ineptitude in responding to Republican tactics, they'd get obliterated in the media. So while they can't deliver meaningful legislation, even with 57 votes, they'll accept the status quo because it probably provides some job security. And that's what politicians care about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to CT Voter
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
You can wish for whatever you want. But, try to face reality: the Democrats are cowards. They have been for years. They will not stand firm in the face of media criticism.
A Scott Brown win, which I consider almost a done deal, is the end of health care reform. Full stop.
And as much as I wanted him to succeed, I think Obama has failed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
It's not a wish- it's a prediction. If they don't break the Senate stranglehold, they're toast. I'm also pessimistic about it happening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I don't think there's much chance of Democrats either 1) passing HCR in the face of a MA loss or 2) ending the filibuster.
I think it's sad that Democrats don't have the courage to do what's right in pushing through the legislation, but I don't want to see them do away with the filibuster.
Imagine how much worse the Bush years would have been without the filibuster. Imagine Supreme Court justices even more reactionary than John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Try to remember that Democrats typically put forth pretty middle-of-the-road proposals and nominees while Republicans put forth dangerous, radical people and policies. And the Republicans have a pretty good knack of convincing the public that their insanity is reasonable.
So, without a filibuster, I think the Republicans would eventually win power and do mortal damage to the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 19, 2010 4:32 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
Another ridiculous post. He failed in a year? He has accomplished more in one year than most presidents. The only way you can attach failure to Obama's first year is because you are a fucking troll.
He took office with a a failed economy teetering on the biggest depressions since the 30s. He inherited two wars, none of which were ever paid for and in a year, presto chango everything is supposed to be better.
Anyone who could expect more from this President is a goddamned fool. At least he's trying to make change help. More than I can say for the other party.
You people are amazing really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to lousgirl84
The wishful thinking of the TPM crowd really amazes me.
What specific accomplishments can Obama present to the public to convince them he's a competent leader?
If the MA seat is lost, so is health care reform. There goes climate change legislation and pretty much all the other reforms the president promised.
The fact that economy was in free-fall when Bush handed off the reins is a losing argument...as the race in Massachusetts should have made you realize. The voters don't care about that the stimulus may have avoided a greater unemployment figure; they care that unemployment is still in the double digits. They don't care that Bush is probably rightfully to blame for the state of the economy; they care that Obama hasn't fixed the problem. And does it matter that it's unrealistic to expect this president to undo all the damage of the last 8 years? NO.
Obama needs some sort of concrete policy wins to convince people he's the right man for the job. He hasn't done it so far. And if the Democrats lose in MA, I don't think he's going to do it...at least not in time to save the Democratic majorities in the Congress.
I don't understand why Democrats continue to stick their fingers in their ears to avoid facing these unfortunate realities. Denial, I guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 19, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
And this list is not complete. But then from what you say, no matter what he did its not enough.
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
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to lousgirl84
If that's all you've got, I think my analysis is spot-on and the Democrats are going to suffer mightily.
I can just see the Democratic ads now: hey, vote for us! We passed the Family Smoking Act!
None of those are signature accomplishments.
Ignoring reality and relying on wishful thinking isn't helping the Democrats.
If Democrats continue to bury their heads in the sand, they will doom the country to more Republican mismanagement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 19, 2010 7:40 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
What signature accomplishment did Clinton have?
What signature accomplishment did Bush have, besides invading the wrong country?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 19, 2010 7:53 PM in reply to FreeRider
Clinton's signature accomplishment? Uh, balancing the budget was sort of a biggie. And it greatly helped that the economy was going great guns through most of his presidency. That was partly luck, but being able to get budget deficits under control was an important part of it, too.
Many would point to the passage of NAFTA and welfare reform as signature accomplishments, too. Neither of them are things I look kindly on the Clinton administration for, but for many, those were also big accomplishments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
January 19, 2010 4:53 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I'm continually amazed at the number of people who simultaneously:
1. Decry Republican tactics
2. Complain that the Democrats don't use the same tactics
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
January 19, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
3. Disregard the implications of new Senate rules for an eventual Republican majority. Every single Democratic president would be impeached on the first day, every Bork gets nominated to the Court, every major legislation such Social Security and Medicare gets rolled back by a simple majority, and they'll find a way to fool the public.
There is a reason the system is designed to make change difficult.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
What you say is absolutely correct, except for one point: conviction for impeachment requires two-thirds of the Senate, as a matter of Constitutional requirement (Article I, Section 3). The Senate can't change that rule on its own.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 4:23 PM in reply to CT Voter
P.S. Even Biden is making noises about the unacceptability of the modern automatic no-fuss no-accountability "filibuster". So they know there's a big problem here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 19, 2010 4:30 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I don't think caring about what the talking heads are saying is the problem, actually. It's the complete inability to respond and change the narrative that kneecaps them every single time. And I'm beginning to believe that they prefer it that way.
Why do you think people were so impressed with Alan Grayson? Because finally there was a Dem calling bullshit on the Republicans. But the Dem leadership seems incapable or unwilling to do that.
It's not the talking heads that create the problems. It's the stupid freaking ineptitude of Democrats to have a message that's understandable and short. Think about it. "Death taxes"? Brilliant. And it took Dems HOW long to rebut that with the "Paris Hilton tax"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 19, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to CT Voter
Lack of narrative isn't the problem. It's the multiplicity of mutually antagonistic narratives that kills us. Just look at this gigantic pissing match on a thread where progressive icon Al Franken says we're going to get it done one way or another.
But if you say that, you're engaging in censorship and trying to stifle dissent and debate and, probably, against apple pie and puppies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Aren't you saying we are not really one political party?
I don't see how you win on any big realigning issue if you can't sell it and frame it in a larger theme. That's what Reagan did. He was the folksy front man for far right extremely ideological think tanks. The Republicans never forget to sell for one minute. They have FOX doing it 24/7/365.
But you aren't selling me Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu's view of the world.
So there you go.
Now, back to Al: AL, LIBERATE your inner LIBERAL!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 19, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to CT Voter
Speaking of ineptitude, Coakley's team is already blaming National Democratic Ineptitude as what really plagued her campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 19, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to Schmed
Sure seems that way. At least from here in CT it does.
Even her interview in the Times made me want to gag--sometime last week, when she was asked why she wasn't out campaigning more, she said something to the effect of "Well, I've met with union bosses" Fabulous. Just fabulous. The belittling of the idea of standing out in the cold and greeting voters, combined with the epicly stupid Curt Schilling gaffe---Thanks for everything, Martha.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 19, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to CT Voter
What really makes me cringe is that she was "the pick of the litter." If this is the best the Dems can do, then I understand why they're outnumbered by the Unenrolled Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 19, 2010 4:51 PM in reply to Schmed
Check out this response to Coakley finger pointing, in Ambinder's BLOG:
Ouch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 19, 2010 5:08 PM in reply to CT Voter
Those guys from Chicago know how to hurt and leave a mark.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texas Aggie
January 19, 2010 10:23 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Unfortunately the recent (since Reagan) history of the Democratic Party supports the hypothesis that they won't do a darn thing worthwhile to get done what needs to be done. There are a few in the party, Franken and Feingold come to mind, that are willing to fight for what is right, but there are too many of the other sort for them to overcome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 19, 2010 3:15 PM
We absolutely know that if the GOP was in this predicament that would just pass the bill regardless. The Republicans are tougher than the Democrats.
Well it is time for Democrats to grow a pair.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fsudirectory
January 19, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to Maritza
Kinda sucks that the Dems run with their pair tucked between their legs, always being bipartisan to help the country with Republicans and never say fuck it when they obstruct
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fsudirectory
January 19, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to fsudirectory
with republicans in office***
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
January 19, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to fsudirectory
Well that's because Democrats are basically real people with real feelings, and care if other people suffer and die. Republicans on the other hand are basically the party of mild to severe sociopaths who will steal your wallet, fuck your girlfriend, and tell you they are your best friend in the world..... which, because they are such good liars, they actually believe themselves!
Al Franken is probably right because what the hell option do the Dems have but to pass something? All this pain and spectacle with nothing to show for it? You got to be kidding!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 19, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to Maritza
I think that is an unfair characterization of Democrats.
Republicans have a winning strategy that everyone likes. Its been popular ever since the Reagan years.
1. Cut Taxes
2. Keep Defense Spending High
3. Spend, spend, spend on Pork (buy your seat; help your friends; set up your retirement plan)
4. Hide the deficit by playing numbers games
This works great for them. Until it all falls apart. Like it did in the late 80s/early 90s and then, of course, now.
Then the nation cries to the Dems to "Fix It".
The Dems do the best they can while they are in. But generally speaking, we are too corrupt to really do anything about it.
The Dems get blamed for not being able to "Fit It" fast enough. Then the Republicans come back in and start it all over again.
One popular financial analyst quipped, "The economy is crashing? Sounds like a good time for the Democrats to take power again."
Republican policies are easy to pass, because they are PRO-CORRUPTION.
Democratic policies are hard to pass, because they have to work within a horribly corrupt system. You can't be corrupt, and be a single payer guy or gal.
But saying "fuck everyone but me" works fantastic within an already horribly corrupt system. And that's the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 19, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to willia451
Good points. The GOP are a wrecking ball. They are irresponsible, and wreak havoc, give handouts to their buddies, and leave a mess for everyone else to clean up. Clinton left us a surplus. What did Bush leave us?
Sure, the Dems should be more aggressive. But we all know the media's IOKIYAAR stance. If Dems use parliamentary tricks, the media will report it from the GOP angle as an 'outrage'.
The GOP gets more done with less votes, but then again, they are given a pass every time.
If Dems act like GOP, the media WILL call them on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
January 19, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
There is one thing Rethuglicans truly excel at: Looting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 19, 2010 7:18 PM in reply to willia451
Well, not only that, but fixing it requires accepting some pain. And Republicans are quick to play on people's antipathy to pain. "Vote for us and you can have cupcakes for breakfast and ice cream for dinner, and you'll never have to eat any yukky old vegetables."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 3:25 PM
As much as I love Al Franken, I think he's engaging in a little wishful thinking. I mean, has he completely missed the cowardice of the Democratic caucus of the last 25 years?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
January 19, 2010 3:30 PM
We already know there are ways to get this done, regardless of the outcome of today's election. So, I'd be inclined to believe Al.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 19, 2010 3:33 PM
Al has not yet caught the Dems defeatism-itis.
Thank goodness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 19, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to Dorn76
Agree!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 19, 2010 3:45 PM
Josh has this right:
"4) once again give Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and who knows Kent Conrad get another opportunity to jack everyone up with new hand-wringing over the bill or Brown's seating or just whatever."
I can't trust those assholes.
We need to bypass Joe and Co. They will use the election in Mass. as an excuse to "slow things down".
I vote Plan B, and fixing it with reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 19, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
I can't agree more. Given the numbers Nelson just saw from back home, the temptation to find some bullshit excuse to oppose the bill will be powerful for him.
Possibly, they've learned the lesson that extortion and hostage taking conduct isn't playing well back home, but giving any of the members of the Coward Caucus a chance to change their minds and kill the bill in the wake of a Coakley defeat is purest folly.
Not that I've given up hope on Coakley, of course. But at this point, I'm not crazy about giving any of them a second bite even if she wins. Just the scare alone could be enough to flip one of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 19, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Tomorrow is going to be a rough day--I can hear Nelson and the other members of the Coward Caucus already---Evan Bayh is in that group, of course--quoted in the Times sounding remarkably like Mitch McConnell--
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 19, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
I can never remember which plan is which. Is plan B the one where the House passes ther senate bill with the agreement to add the agreed upon changes into the house and the senate side via reconciliation later? I wonder if it's posible for the House to add in the medicare expansion if reconciliation is going to have to be opened down the road anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
January 19, 2010 3:57 PM
Here's a out there possibility...
Oly Snowe decides to separate herself from the Teabaggers and casts the 60th vote.
I know cold day in Hell, but in these strangest of times, someones gotta be talking to her(?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
January 19, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to Jackster
It is more likely, the cold day in Hell would arrive if in fact a Dem wins big int he Neighboring MA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
January 20, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to kash79
Just read the blurb about Snowe....What a circus. Gotta wonder if there are any independant minds on the right that realize the importance of HCR. Senator Snowe?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 19, 2010 7:58 PM in reply to Jackster
It could happen; it was reported that getting all 60 Democratic votes in line for passage of the Senate bill gave her an "out" to vote against it, but she'd have been the 60th vote if Lieberman had continued to play dog in the manger.
That said, you still have Ben Nelson to worry about, as someone upthread pointed out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
January 19, 2010 3:59 PM
What I want to know is where has Joe Lieberman been in all of this? Shouldn't he be out stumping for Brown?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
January 19, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to Zell
I'm surprised he isn't stumping for Martha, I mean whatever it takes for him to see Brown win right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to Zell
Why would he do that? I think Lieberman likes being the mythical 60th vote. That way, the Democratic caucus will continue to massage his enormous ego. He wants to be the Godfather of the Democratic agenda. And, until now, Democrats have given him exactly what he wants.
If Brown wins, Lieberman becomes less important. I don't think Lieberman would be too happy with that prospect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 19, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
If Brown wins, Lieberman becomes less important
And this is about the only good thing that could come of a Coakley loss.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 19, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to CT Voter
Well, there would also be one less inept Democrat to stink up the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 5:04 PM in reply to CT Voter
Agreed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 5:08 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
Just so there's no confusion:
I was agreeing with CT Voter's view that the country would be better off with Lieberman emasculated.
I was NOT agreeing with Schmed- ley argument that the Senate is better off with fewer Democrats.
TPM's format sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish who is replying to whom.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 19, 2010 5:16 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
Just so there's no confusion:
My argument is not that the Senate would be better off with fewer Democrats. My argument is that the Senate would be better off with one less inept Democrat. I don't see how one could misconstrue my argument unless one is prone to conflating "Democrat" and "inept." That's a tempting overgeneralization, but I have confined the scope of my definition to Martha Coakley.
For those who have trouble distinguishing to whose post I am replying, please note that TPM's post header says in reply to eratosthenes8. I know the typeface is tiny, but it is there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Equityval
January 19, 2010 5:00 PM
Well it's nice to see that you all have properly diagnosed the situation.
The real problem is that your team in Congress isn't radical enough. You know, they don't have the stones to completely ignore the voice of the people and ram through a bill to reorganize 1/6th of the economy, that clearly lacks the support of a majority of the voting populace, to become the law of the land. Who cares about the long established rules of the Senate and the democratic process? You all know all of you here have the answers, the voters out there are stuuuupid, right? What do they know? (One word of advice, however, you might want to think twice about the poo-poohing procedure, I have a feeling your folks in MA are going to be citing the need to stick to the letter of the law on certification A LOT in the next few days).
Has it crossed anyone's mind that you all might want to take a break from brow beating your favorite liberal officeholder and take in the bigger picture that is now very clearly in focus after the messages of Virginia, New Jersey, Mass., Westchester County, etc, (its a long list, but I'll stop there for the sake of brevity).
There comes a time in every Presidential administration when they have to assess the course they are on after the giddy early days following the election. That time has come for Obama. The country is quite clearly rejecting his agenda as reflected in the polls and the elections. He hasn't even made it to the mid-term elections and he's already in the ditch!
Might I humbly suggest that all the members of the left assemble here step away from the keyboard and reflect on what has happened in the last 3 months and the message that the country is sending you. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but most of the country does not resemble Cambridge, Berkeley or the Upper West Side, and a legislative agenda that warms the hearts of residents from those burgs will never fly in our system of checks and balances - there simply aren't enough people that will support it.
Time for a plan B folks (Yes, I really did hear a comparison of Obama to Carter on TV today - first one that I can recall, but after the votes are toted up tonight, it probably won't be the last.) Start at the center and build a coalition outward from there (that is what Obama promised in the campaign after all). You won't get all you want, but you will actually get something done, and it will have enough support that it won't be overturned in 1 or 3 years time. I realize this is a bitter pill, but you're going to have to wait a while longer to realize the dream of the liberal utopia. The country isn't ready to follow you there. Don't blame us when you turn around and find that no one has joined your parade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 19, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to Equityval
Nobody is going to read this disingenuous tripe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 6:39 PM in reply to Equityval
I don't know why you are talking to the left. The last thing the Democratic Party has any intention of doing is listening to us. This is not our bend the cost curve insurance bill.
We would have campaigned on an expansion of Medicare. We could have had a great debate on that. Maybe Americans wouldn't have bought it this time but we'd come back again and keep selling and selling and selling it until we passed it because Americans understand Medicare and there's a bunch of folks over 40 who sure would like a chance to get into the system early.
But our views are shut out. We're just supposed to shut up and vote like robots for every stupid idea the "center" comes up with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 19, 2010 7:01 PM in reply to bluebell
He's addressing a strawman because he's a troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Equityval
January 19, 2010 5:10 PM
Oops, spoke too soon, here's the second Jimmy Carter reference of the day:
http://www.politico.com/arena/
Larry J. Sabato
Professor of Politics, University of Virginia :
Dear Rahm,
I remember 2006, when you richly earned your reputation as a political tactician and energy machine without peer. Your talents are needed again, for your president is well on his way to becoming another Jimmy Carter. Like Carter (though it happened later in Carter’s term), Barack Obama has been dealt some dreadful cards. But lousy hands can be well played. Bill Clinton got a lousy hand, too, and he shrewdly turned adversity to strength, and won reelection. Which Democratic president will be your role model for Obama--Carter or Clinton? To ask the question is to answer it.
No sense re-hashing the mistakes of the past year. It’s obvious to almost everyone that Obama over-read his mandate, just as most presidents have done. Democrats have restored the once-discredited charge the GOP made against them: “Tax and tax, and spend and spend.” Oh, and now you’ve added a third phrase to the litany: “Debt and debt.” Yes, this is ironic to the max, considering that the Bush administration and a Republican Congress doubled the national debt and spent wildly without paying for its priorities. But political reality is what it is.
The way out is painful but simple. Make economic recovery your exclusive domestic focus. Reduce health care reform to bare-bones items that are supported by large majorities. Stop trying to remake the world in one fell swoop during hard times. The current jerry-built rig probably won’t work as advertised anyway. Drop the other controversial items from your agenda, such as most of climate change and all of card check. They aren’t going to pass, and there’s no sense encouraging mass political suicide in the Democratic congressional caucus by forcing unnecessary votes. As we’ll all see in November, there will be plenty of casualties as a consequence of votes already cast. Focus on incremental changes that matter, such as federal court appointments. Become the Democratic administration that solves the national debt and entitlement crises left by your predecessors of both parties. Aggressively fight for the little guy against the greed of the big boys in the banks and on Wall Street—and mean it.
Symbolic hand-slaps won’t do. Populism is good politics, but only if people believe you
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 19, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to Equityval
Um, I hate to break the news to you, but so-called "experts" were equating Obama with Jimmy Carter as early as 2008. You should try the Google sometime.
And you failed to mention that the comparison to Carter you really did hear on TV today came from FoxNews.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 19, 2010 5:49 PM in reply to Equityval
They already did.
It just goes to show you can't negotiate with disingenuous trolls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matt in so dak
January 19, 2010 5:23 PM
The real solution is just time. Minority population will surpass the old, inbred, racist Republitard population in my lifetime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Equityval
January 19, 2010 5:33 PM
Actually it wasn't on Fox.
Just did a Google news search...looks like the Obama as Jimmy Carter meme is going mainstream pretty quickly today. Turns out this social media stuff that all you netroots love so much really accelerates that kind of thing these days.
They may have been making that analogy in 2008, but of course he wasn't even in office then so it really didn't have much credibility. Now he's been in office for a year and his presidency is already a train wreck, so I think you'll find a lot of people nodding their heads and saying, yeah that sounds right.
You guys are in denial. Time to set a new course.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
January 19, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to Equityval
"Now he's been in office for a year and his presidency is already a train wreck,...
And we have a winner for the most ludicrous post of the day! Congratulations!
Here is a clue sport: The economy was a train wreck when Obama took over. The stimulus has worked. If you knew basic economics you would know job recovery is always the last thing to occur following a recession. Furthermore, we've got stem cell research, environmental laws based on science rather than theocracy, and we are getting out of Iraq. Game, set, match, Obama!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 19, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to dswx
Well, those are facts and this is a troll who thinks overwhelming victories by Democrats are meaningless in terms of ideological leanings and any victory by a Republican is a clear sign that we live in a deeply conservative country. The fact that much of the opposition to this bill is either reflexive (i.e., all Republicans) or based largely in opposition to moderate/conservative ideas in the bill (Medicare cuts) is irrelevant. Don't let fact and troll mix. It could get ugly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 19, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to Equityval
Oh boy, another newly registered troll projecting his ideology on the electorate that, by his own reasoning, overwhelmingly rejected his ideology in 2008.
It's all about jobs and the economy. Those trying to make this about ideological angst are just hacks pushing their own agenda. That goes for both the left and right.
Right now, Obama's in a position most similar to Reagan's. He inherited an awful economy and he's looking forward to a mid-term where the opposing party will making double digit gains in the House. As with Reagan, it's a question of unemployment and unemployment alone. It won't matter if he tacks right or left in the cosmic sense. He just has to create jobs. Anyone who says otherwise is just a hack. Anyone who registers today to say otherwise is just a childish worm coming out of the woodwork to gloat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matt in so dak
January 19, 2010 5:36 PM
New course?
No, just patience. Demographic changes in this country will overwhelm the Republitard base in my lifetime. Just how many kids can they have with their cousins? Not enough to stop the overwhelming rise in minority populations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 19, 2010 5:57 PM in reply to matt in so dak
I hope so - it can't happen fast enough
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
greedo
January 19, 2010 5:49 PM
Beyond health care, tonight's results will also determine whether certain appointments (e.g. Dawn Johnsen) die on the vine. A Coakley loss would also probably mean Obama would need to revise his Supreme Court short-list (Stevens and Ginsberg were rumored to be retiring this term).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Equityval
January 19, 2010 6:31 PM
Enjoy the evening folks. I'm sure you'll all be glued to the screen to get the daily affirmation of your world view (query: are those daily affirmations easier now with Stuart Smalley as an actual senator?)
If you guys are still claiming a mandate from the 2008 election, you are seriously deluded. The public has buyer's remorse. The guy they thought they were voting for is not the guy they got in office. It is obvious to everyone (but those assembled here). Go out and talk to some people who aren't regulars on this site, you might learn something.
I was hoping to generate a conversation and some original thought here. Silly me, only group thinkers need apply. Good luck with the next three years, looks like a bumpy ride given the road you're on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 19, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to Equityval
Nobody cares, troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?