TPMDC

Joe Biden Tells Democrats To 'Keep The Faith' And Says 60 Seats Wasn't Really A 'Blessing'

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Vice President Joe Biden

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Vice President Joe Biden told key members of the Democratic National Committee's National Finance Committee and National Advisory Board today to "keep the faith," promising that President Obama still stands for "real change" and saying that 60 Senate seats wasn't all it was cracked up to be, anyway.

"When we had sixty votes there was the expectation left, right, and center that we could do everything we wanted to do, which was never realistic. Never," Biden told the crowd of about 100 people. "Yes it's had a practical impact, but I'm not so sure what a blessing 60 votes was."

Biden said at the event, held at the Mandarin Hotel in Washington, that reports of the Democratic party's demise are "premature." TPMDC was the pool reporter for the event.

"It's time everybody take a deep breath, take a deep breath, let's put this in perspective. Yeah, we took a hit and the frustration was aggravated by the fact that Teddy's seat was lost," Biden said. "That makes it sound more profound than it is."

Biden said that when they had 59 seats in the Senate "no one though that somehow we were destined to fail ... Nobody thought we would not be able to get anything done.

"We were energized by the possibilities that came with a strong majority and we still are," he said.

"Look, we understand that people are frustrated," Biden said. "If the Lord Almighty were president why wouldn't they be frustrated? There's over 10 million people unemployed.

"We didn't need a public opinion poll or a tough loss in Massachusetts to tell us that," Biden said. "There is a message in this loss" that people expect the government to understand their problems.

Biden said thanks in part to "the really good negative campaign run by our friends on the other side there is a sense that the only thing we cared about was health care and bailing out banks."

Biden said the new political calculation also has consequences for the Republicans.

"They are going to have to be accountable as well." He cited the procedural drag Republicans have forced this year, claiming the GOP forced filibusters "over 100 times" on some legislation that didn't merit such action.

"I can never remember a time when virtually every vote even those of not great consequence required a supermajority," he said.

"Republicans are betting that obstruction will trump leadership," Biden said.

"The fact of the matter is we're in a position that if we persist, our efforts are going to bear fruit. Any of you think that given the problems we were left with that we'd be able to turn this ship of state around in 12 months?

"Did anybody think the American people wouldn't be frustrated?"

Biden said, "I actually believe that we're going to be in a position ... our candidates, they are are going to have a story to tell. They are going to be able to tell people exactly what they did and why it worked."

Specifically the candidates would be able to point to "tens of thousands of troops" coming home from Iraq. "Johnny is going to come marching home."

"It's not all bad we only have 59 votes, it's one more we had than when we started this administration," he said.

"We're not backing off a single thing we believe in," Biden said.

"When it's 60 the Republicans can afford to say they need not participate at all," Biden said. "I am still as convinced as I was in the beginning, the leadership and resolve of this man, President Barack Obama, is going to be made absolutely clear by all the American people by next election day," Biden said. "So folks, I ask you only one thing: Keep the faith, keep the faith. There is no reason for us to be down.

"We still have a historic majority in both the House and the Senate," he said.

"People have the right to hold us accountable," he said. "I believe we'll add up to that accounting. I am more certain than I ever have been in my career, we're going to pull it off we're going to get it done."

Comments (100) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (2)

January 26, 2010 2:14 PM   

Sounds nice, Joe. Let's see you pass health care reform and then we will believe it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:24 PM    in reply to Theda Skocpol

We? Speak for yourself. I, for one, have never stopped believing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:45 PM    in reply to FreeRider

FreeRider is just a small town girl. Livin' in a lonely world...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:52 PM    in reply to cazart

LOL. Brilliant.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:46 PM    in reply to FreeRider

And I never will. Never ever ever ever. And you can't make me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:14 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Good for you!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:48 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Hey Free Rider. Good to see you - Unfortunately nothing much has changed here - just another day of whining and complaining.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 9:56 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Just two small town girls, livin' in a lonely world...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 2:00 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Lousgirl, you have my sympathy. It must be so terribly difficult for you here, with all the whining and complaining. May I suggest you hang out in places that are friendlier and only have people who hold Correct Opinions, as opposed to all that nasty whining and complaining you see around here. I recommend IHaveAcceptedBarackIntoMyHeart.com, BarackIsMyPersonalSavior.com, TheInsufficientlyLoyalMustBePurged.com, and AnyoneWhoDoesNotWorshipBarackIsATroll.com, for starters. Let me know if I can be of any f further assistance to you in finding a place to hang out where there isn't so much whining and complaining.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 1:36 AM    in reply to FreeRider

I, for one, have never stopped believing.

Faith-based politics! Love it! Praise the Lord!

Even better than your renowned Palinesque denial.

Your magic pony is ready for pickup and waiting for you on Aisle 5, the unicorn on Aisle 11, and the faith healing on 20. You can pay for it all with the magic pixie dust you received upon entry. Just believe hard enough. Hold on to that fee-e-e-lin'....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:16 PM    in reply to Theda Skocpol

What you said x2.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:17 PM    in reply to Theda Skocpol

It's great to see you on TPM. Hope you'll keep posting - both about Massachusetts and about smart governing in general.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CN

user-pic

January 26, 2010 2:14 PM   

"Republicans are betting that obstruction will trump leadership," Biden said.

That bet has been paying off in spades. Of course, it's not hard to trump leadership when the leadership is as weak as Obama's has been.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:38 PM    in reply to CN

"when the leadership is as weak as Obama's has been."

How specifically has Obama failed at the "leadership" thing, again? You tell me exactly how he gets those 60 votes in the Senate. What actions specifically could he have taken to get health care legislation passed that he did not take?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:45 PM    in reply to brewmn61

OH MY GOD! What's that I hear . . . Yes . . .Yes . . . IT'S A MAGIC PONY!!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:55 PM    in reply to brewmn61

For starters he turned all of his political capital over to the Congress on HCR and then sat idly by as the political narrative was taken over by a unruly mob in townhalls across the nation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:26 PM    in reply to robertecrump

I'm guessing you missed the fact that Congress rejected the last version of healthcare reform to be presented, back in 1993, because it was being "rammed down their throats" or something. A cynical person might think that a very large contingent of Congresspeople are reluctant to take on the various health care industries out of a fear of losing their support to a political challenger, and are looking for convenient excuses to kill any bills that could deliver substantial reform.

"sat idly by as the political narrative was taken over by a unruly mob in townhalls across the nation"

He gave several high-profile speeches in support of the bills being crafted throughout the summer and fall. Do you remember how all of the networks whined in May of June that he was preempting their programming in order to give a nationally televised speech? Not to mention an almost-unprecedented speech to a joint session of Congress? Sounds to me like you're blaming a dysfunctional media's fascination with the Teabaggers on Obama.

This obsession of so many commenters here with blaming Obama for everything wrong with our politics is simpleminded and counterproductive. The problems run much deeper than a misstep in messaging. The Washington establishment is opposed to meaningful health care reform. I think that his getting us to the verge of its passage is a remarkable achievement. He has had to fight a Republican Party in lockstep opposition, a Washington media establishment, and a rump caucus of conservative Democrats to pass this bill. Maybe you should take your blinders off and blame some of them for a change.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:40 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Obama is certainly not to blame for "everything." He was right to let Congress take the lead -- up to a point. That point passed months ago. If you do confidential interviews in Congress, as I have, it turns out that all sides there experienced him and the WH as passive and absent. They fiddled away the opportunities and the popularity and the political capital. When they really want things done, as you see with Bernanke, they intervene.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:01 PM    in reply to Theda Skocpol

So, a bunch of Congresspeople in "confidential interviews" are blaming Obama for their not passing legislation? That's not in the least self-serving. Furthermore, this issue is wrapped around Obama's neck like an albatross. What more could he have done? Specifics, please, because this vague "more leadership" crap just sounds like an excuse for doing nothing. It seems Obama and a small handful of members of Congress the only ones for whom health care reform is a priority.

Your comments only reinforce the idea that a large segment of congressional Democrats supported the health care bill only tepidly or not at all. And, as I noted upthread, the fact that Congressional Democrats, not Republicans, have defeated two sweeping health bills in as many opportunities should make any (relatively) impartial observer skeptical of these attempts to place the blame on the White House.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:23 PM    in reply to Theda Skocpol

I don't think Obama wanted to "play his hand" or "show his cards" until conference committee. He (rightly) recognized that the real work would begin once the House and Senate passed A bill - ANY bill. I think Obama and his WH team believed that a public option would pass the House (it did) and that it wouldn't make it through the Senate (it didn't), but that ultimately the end game would like like it does now - pass the Senate bill's regulatory reform framework and work out some version of the public option through state-based compromises.

Obama's leadership in healthcare has been more about keeping folks at the table than about telling them where to sit or what to do. Frankly, I think that's what the Executive Branch is supposed to do, though we got so used to the unitary executive that Congress freaked out when left to their own devices.

Take it or leave it on the merits... that's the approach Obama used. I'd like to imagine that Congress would have enough grown ups that they don't beg for a heavy-handed paternalistic approach from the White House. Perhaps I was wrong.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:27 PM    in reply to Theda Skocpol

BTW, I just realized you wrote a book about the failure of the Clinton health plan. I read a summary, and it really does seem like deja vu all over again. What has changed, and what has not?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:46 PM    in reply to brewmn61

I've also been dissapointed with the back seat that this administration has taken on crafting HIR legislation. This was supposed to be Obama's signature issue, it was even framed that way in the media and by the right wingers as Obamacare. Yet his contribution to the process has been to encourage bipartisanship and endorse repeated concessions to obstructionists.

Giving good speeches doesn't make you a good leader, it makes you a good speaker. Repeatedly ceding to your adversaries with no trades (he can't even garner their respect much less their votes) is just about the opposite of good leadership.

I still have hope that Obama gets his head out of the sand and starts taking action (rather than a breather), because right now he's in a tough spot. He's alienated his "base" by decided inaction on major progressive initiatives, and he's got almost ZERO chance of winning over any votes even with his apparent Republican policies he's backing. The country is too polarized and he CAN NOT reunite it. Obama needs to realize this, stop trying, and start to pander to the people that got him elected. That means standing up and taking a forceful position on something and then pursuing it to completion, rather then giving another ambiguous feel-good speech.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:47 PM    in reply to brewmn61

I AGREE. I have said it over and over until I am blue in the face. Half of the haters in here are trolls, the others are independents who held their noses when they voted for Obama because of the mess the country was in. These same people sat idly by while Bush fucked over the country and the world in 8 years and now its Obama's fault because he hasn't fixed everything in one year.

It boggles the mind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 4:50 AM    in reply to lousgirl84

I can accept that Obama couldn't fix everything in one year, especially the economy, but in dozens of small ways he's reneged on nearly everything. Closing Guantanamo? Doesn't mean moving it and the hideous, unlawful preventive detention program to Illinois. Restore law and order? By shielding everybody in the Bush administration from even being investigated? The law of the land requires that plausible allegations of torture or war crimes be investigated to see if the laws were actually broken; not only are Obama and Holder not doing that, they are using the DOJ to fight against any effort to bring these cases to court. Bring transparency to government? Then he gets the despicable Lieberman to bring in a special exception to the Freedom of Information Act to hide the torture photos. And, say, whatever happened to that report from the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility that Holder was going to release? No particular effort made to get his personnel appointments considered in the senate? What is it, 245 of them now with "personal holds" from Republicans? Who have had a majority of 40 to 60 until last week and now it's 41 to 59 -- IF the loathsome Lieberman doesn't decide to vote against the caucus.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:48 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Thank you, B.

So-called progressives are always the first to run up the white flag.

Somehow, they think that Obama was supposed to hold a non-existent gun to the Blue Dogs' heads. But, when you ask them, "what could Obama have done better or different," all they say is "fight" or "make more speeches" or "shown leadership" or something.

But they can't say WHAT he should have done differently because they don't know.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:50 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Thank you, B.

So-called progressives are always the first to run up the white flag.

Somehow, they think that Obama was supposed to hold a non-existent gun to the Blue Dogs' heads. But, when you ask them, "what could Obama have done better or different," all they say is "fight" or "make more speeches" or "shown leadership" or something.

But they can't say WHAT he should have done differently because they don't know.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:17 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Obama's WH STARTED HCR by inviting the big Pharma and the Insurance Rackets in and shutting the rest of us out. By the time they came out those meetings it was all decided. they handed it off to the senate, and the house bill and the wishes of overwhelming majorities of voters (to say nothing of democratic voters ) didn't matter. The white house defended that rotten deal in the senate with every ounce of "political capital" it had, twisting harry reids arms to make sure it was transbribed (whoops! transCribed) word for crooked word. Then there's FISA, shielding the telecoms from any consequence OF ILLEGAL domestic spying, the black sites are still up and running, and now THIS nonsense about a spending freeze in the middle of a bad recession. All because they a lost seat in Mass, because liberals stayed home after the HCR fiasco. From where im seeing he "did" everything he was inclined to do.This IS the real Obama

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:27 PM    in reply to solerso68

What a load of crap.

Obama began the healthcare reform debate (in the White House, anyway) with a major forum including labor leaders, business leaders, drug companies, researchers, economists, Congress members, consumer advocates, providers, hospitals, state, local, and national elected officials, and others. The "deals" cut with Phrma, AMA, AARP, and others were more about leadership on cost savings than about backroom deals. And yes, it's ultimately up to Congress to determine what they want to do with those agreements, because Congress (not the White House) writes laws.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 6:09 PM    in reply to benintn

In what alternate reality did that happen? Try evaluating what happened, based on facts and independent sources,not transcribing what they posted at the OFA web site. Obama promised an "open process". The entire process was closed from start to finish. We only know of the train of lobbyists going to and coming from the white house because the released a partial list after the fact. the White house and senate leadership completely ignored labor until they threatened to bolt,after the white house version passed the senate.Then they worked out a special backroom exemption for union members.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 6:20 PM    in reply to benintn

i see what your trying to say. Im not talking about the huge "press availability" that was televised for a few days. im talking about after 80% of those people left, and they turned off the cameras, and cut the actual deals. the ones that are memorialized in the senate bill, which couldn't be passed until the secret negotiations were finished, the one that was delivered bit by bit daily to max baucuss by indutry lobbyists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 3:58 AM    in reply to brewmn61

Well, yeah, and let's not forget he sat down in a secret meeting with representatives from Big Pharma and the insurance companies and worked out deals with them so they wouldn't lobby against the proposals he said were absolutely essential. How'd that work out, again? And they're really going to contribute to the campaigns of people who voted for the public option? And let's not forget that he never campaigned on the public option but when asked indicated in a mild, uninterested sort of way that it would be OK with him if some people wanted to pass that excapt he really didn't want it at all because it messed up the deals he had made.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:56 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Go back a few years to see how the Republicans managed to get their agenda passed, even though they never had 60 votes. And no, they didn't do it by 'moving to the center'...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:06 PM    in reply to shannom

I'm guessing you can't see that enacting legislation designed to benefit average Americans, and that will take profit and power away from corporations is a little more difficult to pass than legislation designed to (and often written by) those very same corporations.

I think the pushing a boulder uphill vs. rolling one down applies here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:09 PM    in reply to brewmn61

The myth that Republicans have somehow passed sweeping bills with their slim majorities is laughable. That's why social security is privatized after all....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:19 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Well, that IS the problem, isn't it? Everything the Dems want to do is a mountain while everything the Repubs do is a grain of sand. Know why? Because Obama and the Dems have let the discredited Republican memes stand unscathed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:30 PM    in reply to wbgonne

There's some truth to that. But I'm not sure critiques of Reaganism would get a fair hearing in today's media anyway, though. I mean, tax cuts spur growth AND tax revenues, right? It's like the sun rising in the east.

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be trying every time they get in front of one of the talking hairdos anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:45 PM    in reply to brewmn61

I agree with both points. It won't be easy and the process must begin a year ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:50 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Here, here, brewmn! It's easy to pass irrelevant legislation; much harder to pass something that really matters.

We're shocked because we haven't seen an administration and Congress undertake serious policy heavylifting for decades.

HCR is difficult because the health insurance industry opposes it. This particular bill won't end for-profit health insurance, but it is the end of completely unregulated profits. The industry is fighting like hell, because the government has never before claimed responsibility for health insurance to the extent it does with this bill, imperfect as it is. It is a giant step forward.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:55 PM    in reply to mrut

Obama Accomplishments since taking office

Featured Legislation
• Signed on January 22, 2010
2009 Tax Breaks for Haiti Donations
• Signed on October 30, 2009
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009
• 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?

January 26, 2010 7:39 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Well, some of the things listing have proved to be abject failures. Others just kind of sucked to begin with. There are a few good 'uns in there though.

Maybe do a bit of content filtering and your point would be better made.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:16 PM    in reply to shannom

Privatizing social security. Drilling in ANWR. Permanent tax cuts. Immigration Reform.

Is that the agenda Bush got through without 60 votes? Oooops!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:26 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Rim shot!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 7:43 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Surely you aren't suggesting the ability to stop 3 bills in 8 years .... while holding a majority in the house since 2004, and a majority in both chambers since 2006 is something to brag about?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 7:46 PM    in reply to kgb999

Oh, my bad, that's four bills. You must be right .... go team democrat!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 12:12 AM    in reply to FreeRider

Privatizing social security.

The Byrd Rule specificially excludes measures affecting Social Security from eligibility for the reconciliation process. 2 USC § 644(b)(1)(F).

So there goes that talking point.

Permanent tax cuts.

The weasel word "permanent" obscures a multitude of 10-year tax cuts Bush rammed through without 60 votes. The 10-year sunset provision sidestepped the Byrd rule (since they increased the deficit).

You can do a lot of damage to a country in 10 years. Those "non-permanent" tax cuts cost the country $2.5 trillion over the 10 years they have been in force.

But FreepRuder wants to pretend (or wants us to believe) that those tax cuts didn't happen, because they're not "permanent". It's typical FreepRuder weaseling, spin, Palinesque denial and serial lying. FreepRuder never lets facts, history or reason get in the way of a good talking point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:22 PM   

Republicans are betting that obstruction will trump leadership," Biden said.

And so far, I'd say they've made a pretty good bet.

As for this: "We're not backing off a single thing we believe in," Biden said.

Except healthcare, that is.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:34 PM   

"When we had sixty votes there was the expectation left, right, and center that we could do everything we wanted to do, which was never realistic. Never"

No, Joe. I think it was very realistic. Unless it seems a perfectly rational proposition that Democratic-sponsored-and-written legislation, championed by a Demcoratic president, couldn't even get to an up-or-down vote in a Congress consisting of a strong majority and a supermajority of, you guessed it, Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:41 PM    in reply to brewmn61

Ugh. But you know what he means, don't you? That with Lincoln and Landrieu, Nelson, Lieberman, etc., it was never an actual "60". And since the Republicans are a united monolithic exasperatingly obstructionist and solid "40", then we needed an actual "60" to get what we wanted done done. Why this is so hard for cynical progressives to grasp is beyond me...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:47 PM    in reply to Jarl van Hoother

The cynicism of progressives is well-earned.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bdh

user-pic

January 26, 2010 3:23 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Congratulations.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:56 PM    in reply to wbgonne

I must respectfully disagree with you on this. Cynicism isn't something "earned"; it's easy. It's laziness--succumbing to a desire not to be accountable or to take part in long, difficult struggles.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:31 PM    in reply to mrut

+10

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 7:56 AM    in reply to dudeguy

neither you nor "dudeguy" have no idea what cynicism actually is.

Try this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01critchley.html?scp=3&sq=diogenes&st=nyt

And please don't tell me your misbegotten definition of "skepticism."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 7:58 AM    in reply to again

Correction:
"Neither you nor "dudeguy" have ANY idea what cynicism is."

Try the article.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 11:35 AM    in reply to again

So, even taking your assumption that all major English dictionaries are wrong (which they can't be, by "definition," hee hee), and this entire thread is misusing the word "cynical," that doesn't change the fact that the idea mrut was attempting to convey, replacing the word "cynical" with "jaded," is spot effin on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:37 PM   

There's no "we" in Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

CN

user-pic

January 26, 2010 2:41 PM   

"When we had sixty votes there was the expectation left, right, and center that we could do everything we wanted to do, which was never realistic. Never," Biden told the crowd of about 100 people.

Thank heavens the administration has been freed from the expectation that it could accomplish things. I'm sure that everyone in the White House is incredibly relieved.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:53 PM    in reply to CN

I've appointed myself queen for the day, and I hereby deem this comment the best in the thread.

By a wide margin.

Sorry, everyone else.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:44 PM   

Shorter Biden...

"Chill out everyone and relax. The pressure is off of us to produce so now we have the perfect cover to go back to being craven and spineless. And that is the way we like it."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:12 PM    in reply to Libertine

Ha. Right over your head.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:21 PM    in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Nawwww...just more lame excuses why they can't anything done. Since when is it ok that the Senate is in permanent filibuster mode. Only in these times when the D's are looking for reasons not to get stuff passed. Just because they 'only' in a 59-41 minority rather than a 60-40 one still doesn't cut it. How does the Koolaide taste?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:24 PM    in reply to Libertine

Uh, they just passed Health Reform in the Senate last month. In fact, it's the progressive caucus (yuck) that is holding it up and obstructing it in the house. Your heroes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:36 PM    in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Yep...it is your lie so feel free to tell it however you'd like to. HCR? You mean our continued adventures in Lemon Socialism for the rich masquerading as actual reform? Yay!!! Go team!!! I see Wall Street and the banks are really appeciative of all the help though. See how they have created all those new jobs after they were bailed out? You centrists have been had...suckers!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:42 PM    in reply to Libertine

Typical left winger. Hating on all the companies and evil "rich people" that bring all the jobs, wealth, everything into this country. The Senate HCR bill would have helped millions and millions of common folk, see Klein, Ezra and Silver, Nate. But congrats: the leftist obstructionists have fought and won one for the status quo!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:47 PM    in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

HAHAHA...hating the rich? No. Just wanting some of our money redistributed back down to us. The money that you, your fellow centrists and the R's helped them steal. So that is it? We had what was called an economic implosion and your plan is to help all those misunderstood billionares while telling us unwashed masses to 'go eat cake'? Nice plan...good luck selling that to the unwashed masses.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 6:26 PM    in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

how is forcing people who cant afford insurance, by law, to buy insurance helping them? and since wages have been stagnant for 20 years, and permanent unemployment keeps growing, while the financial sector continues to grow and create millionaires...i dont understand which "common folk" (your words) are being "helped"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 7:18 PM    in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Ezra Klein? And he is more qualified to provide an analysis than, say, Erick Erickson, why?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:43 PM    in reply to Libertine

Blah blah blah, everyone who disagrees with me is a centrist, blah blah blah.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:48 PM    in reply to dudeguy

No...some are republicans too. Not that you are but just sayin'...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:52 PM   

See, what Joe's sayin is the Democrats had TOO MANY senators. When they get back down to 40 then they'll really start crackin heads.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:09 PM    in reply to wbgonne

yeah, see, they lost Kennedy's seat on purpose. Yeah, That's the ticket.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:10 PM    in reply to wbgonne

With friends like you, they will have 20 AWESOME lefty Senators. Then the party will really kick ass with the 20% of the electorate that considers themselves "liberal."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:16 PM    in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

Really? Then why does the public option still poll around 60%?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:18 PM    in reply to wbgonne

The two are unrelated. I lobbied and supported for a PO, never thinking it was a backdoor to single-payer and smashing insurance companies to pieces (a bizarre anti-corporate revenge fantasy among left bloggers).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:20 PM    in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

What a crock. Tell it to the hand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:58 PM    in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

It's hard to win with these guys (progressives). They want a bill that had no chance of passing. And they don't want the bill that passed. The PO may or may not have 60% support in the polls, but guess what? The people don't vote in Congress. Congresspeople do.

Apparently, not enough of those Congresspeople were hearing from that 60% to scare them into hanging tough with the PO which, in its final form, was a pretty bad option in some ways and would have none of the things progressives claim for it.

We were told that the progressives were going to vote for Coakley...not to worry about THEM. Well, EITHER there aren't all that many progressives in MA...OR they didn't come out...OR they voted in large numbers for Brown.

Progressives constantly say, "we're not the problem," but they are so finicky that unless they get just what they want, they don't come out or they put in a weak effort. Or, like Bluebell, they're cheering on people like Michele Bachmann. This is a LOSING strategy.

Ironically, it's the very people who complain that others, namely Obama, are caving, who are the first to cave themselves!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:07 PM    in reply to Tintin

I don't blame Coakley's loss on progressives. I called a lot of them and they grudgingly got out and voted for her. Turn-out was really high for a special election. The truth is that Scott Brown just seemed like he cared more for his future constituents (and their vote). Sigh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 2:57 PM   

Hey Biden, don't give up hope, I notice you couldn't name one thing dems have accomplished during this administration.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 7:36 PM    in reply to madmatt

Stimulus was OK; a bit small, but certainly in the "good" column. The Lilly Ledbetter Act was also pretty good. That's two. There are a couple others.

This bastard HCR debacle that should die, if the only way it can live is in the form of the Senate bill, doesn't mean they haven't done ANYTHING. It just means they haven't done anything of VALUE since, like, last April.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:25 PM   

Mr VP,

You actually want me to "Keep The Faith" and Chill Out when I hear the White House Chief of Staff calling me "Fu*king Retarded"?

Sorry but this Liberal Democrat can't do that.

Live in a wheelchair all your life and you'll understand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 3:56 PM   

We do not need elections anymore because they have no affect on government.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:00 PM   

The Vice President makes several good points, whether you like them or not and he seems to have a better handle on the political situation than Jarrett, Rahm or the President himself.

He and Sen Dodd were the stars of the pre-primary camapign, as far as I am concerned. I wonder if he and the President could switch places for a few weeks....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:07 PM   

I want to Joe. Tell your boss to give me a reason to believe.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:22 PM   

And, liberals? Fuck you. Keep helping us get elected so we can turn around and spit in your eye.

Suckers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:33 PM    in reply to AlphaLiberal

The winning coalition of Dems is NOT, I REPEAT, NOT, the whiny liberal progressive crunchies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:52 PM    in reply to MSNBCBrainWash

I see. If liberals speak up at all, then we are "whiny." We are supposed to be silent and obedient and applaud any crap the moderates shovel our way. Great plan there.

If you think we can take liberals (our volunteer time and donor money) out of the equation and Dems still win majorities in Congress, then you're no very sharp.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:03 PM    in reply to AlphaLiberal

Or...

You could put your money and time where you mouth is and WIN SOME ELECTIONS.

You're constantly telling us how you represent "the people" and how "the people" overwhelmingly support your positions...but then you lose elections.

This is just not very convincing. Nor is it a moral position in the end.

I'd be happy to listen to you bitch IF you actually produced RESULTS. But you don't.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 6:23 PM    in reply to Tintin

you mean like electing B. Obama? and a 60 seat majority in the senate? and a neearly 2/3 majority in house? oh yeah we'll see some real "change" then i bet. we just need to win one more election, just send another 50 dollars.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:56 PM    in reply to AlphaLiberal

Spoken like a true troll!! You ain't kiddin no one buddy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:50 PM    in reply to AlphaLiberal

WOW!! Very impressive. Being able to type a comment like this, with your head stuck that far up Rush Limbaugh's FAT ASS!!!

Keep squirming asshole. Maybe you can get your whole body in there.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 4:29 PM   

Mixed message is puzzling. Have enough players arrived at a deal?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:08 PM   

i hope you guys are doing more than just whining on the blogs...are you actually contacting the wussy Dems in your district and letting them know that you wont reelect them if they continue to pee in their pants/panties at the whimper of a Republican...moreover, remind them why the nation voted in record numbers for obama's change meme....

side note---did you guys really expect this to be easy? i didn't but i share your frustrations b/c i too feel like Obama needs to change his strategy....nice guy works up to a point....some folks will never respect obama for matters beyond his control...knowing that he needs to know when to take ideological advice from those who will never understand this one fundamental setback and when to listen to his heart and do what he knows is right even if it isnt expedient......i truly believe obama means well, but he is being ill-advised.....some within his circles are used to status quo and quite frankly lack the cajones to make real changes....it doesnt help that obama is playing nice--please tell him he is looking weaker and weaker to the mass.....for once, i want the Dems to cater to those who elected them and stop kissing the bums of the obstructionist who can care less about the mass...unfortunately, obama and all the Dems are afflicted with the same disease---WUSSINESS! they are all afraid of being disagreeable...in their attempt to remain above the fray, they indeed up knee-deep in fecal matter! at the end, the real losers are you and i....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 6:03 PM    in reply to cher

are you familiar with the whip count project? the short answer is yeah, people have been working the electoral politics side since the spring. its been effective. without it the house would have already rubber stamped the senate garbage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 7:09 PM    in reply to solerso68

No, they aren't familiar with it. I suspect it's because most of them don't really give a damn about policy ... doesn't matter if the democrats give America a shit sandwich as long as the republicans can be forced to eat a meal prepared by democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 7:15 PM    in reply to kgb999

apparently so. Unfortunately the real story is that the whole democrat - republican
show has been shown up for what it is: a competition between mercenary, eletist elements in our society for the patronage of the corporate ruling class. As long as most voting age Americans continue to feed into the red team/blue team political football game, and refuse to see the real problem for what is it, class exploitation, then all of this is just super heated air.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:24 PM   

I hope Obama listens to Biden more than those clowns like Rahm.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 5:54 PM   

A lot of the Democrats seem the problem not being with Republicans not getting in the way but rather nothing beign driven down the road to progress because no one has a plan on how to get there. Yogi talked about deja vu all over again, but also stated that if you don't know where you're going, chances are you won't get there. And as mr. Durocher said, we all know where nice guys finish and in this case it looks lie they haven't even learned how to start.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 7:40 PM   

"Republicans are betting that obstruction will trump leadership," Biden said.

Well, at this point, I'd have to put my money on them being correct, there, Joe. They've certainly run circles around the Democrats, who don't seem to be able to find their asses with both hands.

Of course, we haven't seen any real leadership, so perhaps there's been nothing for them to trump.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 26, 2010 8:35 PM   

No matter how you slice it, the oppressives are toast.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 11:08 AM   

Of course 60 votes was a bad deal. People expected something to get done. But, hey, no problem. We elected 60 Democratic Senators, gave the Democrats a 70+ seat majority in the House and put a Democrat in the White House. If that's too much of a burden for the Democrats, we can stay home for a few elections and all of those problems of too many votes and too much expectatation will go away.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on