TPMDC

Senate Leadership To House: Health Care's On You

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

After an early morning meeting today, members of the Senate Democratic leadership said outright what many suspected after last night's election: The fate of health care rests with the House.

I asked Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Democratic Steering Committee, whether there was any chance Senate Democrats would embark on another round of health care votes if the House sent a modified bill back their way.

"I think at this point, given the new senator from Massachusetts' position, I think that that would be tough to do," she said.

Asked whether the fate of reform rested with the House, Democratic Conference Secretary Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), said, "I think so."

So what's next for the Senate? Leaders and rank and file members say: Jobs, jobs, jobs.

"The country is speaking to us, and we will show we hear them in the agenda we pursue over the next year," reads a statement from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to TPMDC. "Our focus must be on jobs, the economy and delivering for the middle class."

"Well there's no willingness to abandon ship on health care, because health care relates to jobs," Stabenow said. "But at the same time, we've always said that we want to refocus on jobs, so we're going to focus on jobs and the economy."

Does that mean the Senate leaves health care to the House and pivots quickly?

"I would say all of the above," she said.

"They want us to focus on jobs, and the creation of jobs at a faster rate," said Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), who will be introducing a draft of legislation offering tax credits to business owners who increase their payrolls.

"I voted on Christmas Eve for the Senate [health care] bill. It's a very good bill. I would hope the House could, at a minimum, pass that bill," Casey added. "But, I'm not paid to be a head-counter in the House."

His sentiments were echoed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who says there's little alternative but to hand health care to the House. "I think, yeah. (Said hesitantly). I think that would be one alternative. I don't think its a good idea, and I said to the leader, I don't think its a good idea to try to pass another bill in the Senate before Sen. Scott Brown is seated."

Comments (157) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 20, 2010 10:41 AM   

Heh. The House egos are too big to just pass the Senate bill. Healthcare is finished.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:33 PM    in reply to shooter242

Heh. More dead Americans. Heh. More bankrupt Americans. Heh. More people not able to work up to their potential because of illness.

Heh indeed, asshole.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 10:46 AM   

The Senate could not have passed any changes to the Health Care bill had the kept the 60 Senators.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 10:55 AM   

Senate to House: In case you haven't figured it out, we don't know how to govern. Ball is in your court.

p.s. We are still the Greatest Deliberative Body in the World ®, just don't ask us to anything other than deliberate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:00 PM    in reply to agio

Isn't there something in US history about all deliberate speed?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:04 AM   

abolish the senate. it's not like it's good for anything anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:10 AM   

I think what Jerry Nadler and Weiner said yesterday about passing this bill and then going back and fixing it through reconciliation is a no-brainer. They should do it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:14 AM    in reply to ben_nelsons_hair

Of course it's a no-brainer. It's self-evidently, glaringly, obviously the correct course of action. That's why they're having so much trouble with the concept in the House.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:35 AM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

The problem of course is the House does not trust Harry Reid, the President nor nor any Democrat in the Senate to keep their word.

Take for example Senator Dodd suddenly going back on his word to include an independent Consumer Protection Agency in the regulation bill. Or what about Obama promising not to tax health plans and backing the public option? Just a few of the many reasons not to trust any of them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:38 AM    in reply to VictorLH

the funny thing is dodd is only doing that because it thinks it will get him some republican support.

it's charlie brown and the football. these guys never learn. never.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:05 PM    in reply to ben_nelsons_hair

No brainer?

All you can pass through reconciliation are the tax/revenue and subsidy (maybe... despite the assurances from so many know-it-alls, I'm not 100% you could include the subsidies... even if you could, you would probably have to sunset them due to the PAYGO/Byrd rule) provisions.

The meats of this bill are the substantial health insurance oversights... the discrimination protections, rescission protections, baseline plan requirements, reporting and disclosure requirements, much-needed Medicare solvency assistance, Part D donut hole fill-ins, all of the quality care provisions.

In effect, Weiner is essentially saying "Let's pass the worst part of the bill via reconciliation and cross our fingers on the parts that actually make it good legislation".

The bill is dead. You can thank the Jane Hamshers of the world, who threw a fit because they wanted the blue Malibu barbie Corvette, not the red

If the Dems in congress want to show a bit of courage, they could still get the bill through -- but they're now going to be facing massive losses in November. Even a month ago, I thought the chances of losing the House or Senate were zero... they're not any more.

Pass nothing and lose. Pass the current bill and lose.

Yes, yes, it would be nice if the elected officials would show the proper courage and tell everyone to go you-know-what themselves, passing a good piece of legislation that really is a monumental step forward for American health care -- then dutifully take the massive November losses coming to them... but we haven't seen such courage from anyone in nearly 230 years of Legislation, so I won't hold my breath.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:34 PM    in reply to zonk

Anything that affects revenue can be passed through reconciliation if the CBO says it reduces the deficit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:43 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

But subsidies don't reduce the deficit. If they expand it at all, they run afoul of the Byrd provisions and cannot go through reconciliation.

The CBO would have to score a bill that SOLELY included the revenue (in and out) portions of the bill and my bet is that it no longer comes in deficit neutral.

Despite the bleating of the chicken little "Obama is TEH CORPORATIST!!!" types -- the rescission and discrimination protections were part and parcel of the CBO scoring.

The CBO cannot score a reconciliation bill - one that deals solely with the revenue provisions - and also take into account something else that may or may not pass in their scoring.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:41 PM    in reply to zonk

You can thank the Jane Hamshers of the world

Lat night I would have said something different but today I'll just say: Jane Hamsher ain't the president and she ain't in Congress. But you DLC-Dems must always have a liberal villain to attack so you appear tough. I'm not a big fan of Hamsher but she is far from being the problem. At least she's got some guts and that's a place to start.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:52 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Do you not see any irony in the sentence "But you DLC-Dems must always have a liberal villain to attack so you appear tough?" Do you not see how you are participating in the very same demonization you are condemning with that "DLC" epithet? Could you at least consider the possibility that that makes you part of the problem?

I say that because I'm trying very hard to do likewise right now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:58 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

While I am always willing to confess error (ahem) I think there is a dispositive (that one's for you) difference. When DLCers reject core Democratic principles they really aren't Democrats at all. Every Democrat must believe in universal health care and no Dem can subscribe to the anti-government views and rhetoric of the Republicans. But that is exactly what the DLCers did. With impunity, I might add. That is how you destroy a political party, by inviting a Trojan horse into camp. And before we get excited about purity tests, here's the thing: being a Democrat must mean something other than a path to political power. Otherwise, you get empty power that is inevitably corrupted.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:34 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I also saw the he used "DLC-Dems" and "appear tough" in the same sentence. I found it kinda funny.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:07 PM    in reply to wbgonne

She certainly didn't do it alone - she had plenty of help from folks like Markos and company, who magically became legislative experts in just a few short months.

Whatever skills they brought (Black face Joe aside) to campaigns, they're utterly out of their elements when it comes to policy. They had this really stupid idea that one could run a legislative policy advocacy campaign just like an election, and it bit them in the ass.

Don't misunderstand me - I have absolutely ZERO problem with different perspectives (and, in fact, until Jane, Markos and company went completely off the rails and became little more the lefty teabaggers -- I was completely in support of fighting for a public option).

My problem with the Janes and Markos's is that they fostered - and even encouraged a poisonous, absolutist atmosphere. They pushed all sorts of innuendo. They did all sorts of half-ass 'analysis' on the legislation - quite often claiming the bill did or didn't do certain things because they were either too lazy or too dishonest to acknowledge various exclusions and exceptions that happened to be present just a bit further down from the sections they so triumphantly quoted.

I can't count the number of assinine, teabagger-esque nonsense that sprang forth from the pages of FDL or Dailykos... you'll go to jail if you don't buy crappy insurance... there are no protections against junk insurance...

I'll take a reasonable milquetoast person that DOESN't take a stand over an unreasonable absolutist who takes a bad stand any day of the week. It's why I voted Gore over Bush in 2000 and Kerry over Bush in 2004.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:45 PM    in reply to zonk

I don't read FDL or DKos, but I'll be frank, the Senate bill is the opposite of reform.

I don't need FDL to tell me that. I worked in health care. And I know regulatory capture when I see it.

Getting mad at the messengers like Hamsher and Kos? That's why our party is going down.


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:35 PM    in reply to ben_nelsons_hair

The point you seem to have missed over the last year is that there is no leader who can get it done. Obama is a preening prema donna more concerned about looking moderate than getting things done. And he shows no sign of being able to learn from his mistakes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:59 PM    in reply to ben_nelsons_hair

Actually, what's the hurry? It's not as if the Senate can take back its vote

Fix the bill through reconcilliation in the Senate. Then after the Senate passes the reconcilliation bill, the House can pass both bills.

51 votes puts the public option back in a second Senate bill(if only for 10 years).

Who says that everything has to be done in one fell swoop -- in one bill?

Actually the smarter course of action from the get go would have been to have a series of bills, instead of one omnibus bill where all sorts of crap could be hidden.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:12 AM   

Everyone like to complain about Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats but they managed to pass a bill that required them to reach approval between every last one of their 58 person caucaus, plus two independants, Bernie to the left and Joe to the right. That's not an easy thing to do.

The House Democrats only need 218 of their 256 members to pass the same bill. What we need to ask is why they can't hold together enough to do this. I'm in favor of primarying every Represenative who won't vote for this HCR, be it a cowardly Blue Dog or a holier-than-thou Progressive.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:16 AM    in reply to OhioGuy

"The House Democrats only need 218 of their 256 members to pass the same bill. What we need to ask is why they can't hold together enough to do this. I'm in favor of primarying every Represenative who won't vote for this HCR, be it a cowardly Blue Dog or a holier-than-thou Progressive."

Amen! I couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:13 PM    in reply to ChrisNBama

At the very least, put the Senate bill up to a vote and put everybody on record. Then we will know who is willing to kill the only possible health care reform bill we will get during the next eight years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:17 AM    in reply to OhioGuy

holier-than-thou Progressive.

Would you recommend the same sanction for http's who demand that the reconciliation based "fix" passes the senate first as well, so both can go thru together?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:53 AM    in reply to jollyroger

It's a good question, but yes I would. The time to play around with marginal changes is over. Keep fighting to improve things when the budget comes up and afterwards if enough isn't done then. But holding out for more now when it looks likely to kill the entire process is crazy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:38 PM    in reply to OhioGuy

Well, as maybe the only person in sight who actually got to vote against an incumbent in favor of a kamikaze leftwing primary challenger, I might hesitate to do it again, but I agree on the basic necessity of ending this dance asap. Move on, as the man said.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:51 AM    in reply to OhioGuy

What they managed to pass was a BAD bill. It's that rotting, stinking carcass that led to the debacle in Massachusetts. The public at this point is solidly (and I do mean solidly) against it. The only thing worse than not passing it...is passing it. Kill the damn thing and do it over and do it right.

No, we don't need 60 votes. We need the spine it takes to do it with 51. And we have 51.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:20 PM    in reply to Roman Berry

A rotting stinking carcass because....?

Because the Senate bill left out the abysmal House Public Option, which would have had higher premiums than the private alternatives, been forced to have the lowest base coverage to control costs, and would have essentially made for the perfect conservative "toldya so!" counterpoint to Medicare whenever we tried to expand public coverage?

Because compliance was left to existing bureaucracies under the HHS rather than creating another flavor of CMS?

Because the bill (quite properly, IMO) left the HHS, DOL, and Treasury to properly compile and analyze information and use extensive rule-making, rather than what may well have been bad guesses directly in legislation?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:48 PM    in reply to zonk

the abysmal House Public Option

But just how did it become "abysmal"? Because Obama sucked up to the Conservadems and made Pelosi walk the plank.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:11 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Right.

Because Jane and Markos say so, it must be true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:42 PM    in reply to zonk

Because you say it isn't it can't be true. See how easy that is?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:03 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Well, in fact-

I'm in year 12 of working for legal publisher and software provider, specifically, in the division that sells compliance aids and software to Medicare providers (we generally don't deal with solely public providers, as most private plan compliance and processes are homebaked and self-supported by the insurers).

The legislation is/was a big deal for us - we've got a team of 12 analysts, some attorneys, others that formerly worked as legislative aids (i.e., actually used to write legislation itself). I've read all 7 bills -- the 5 that came out of committee as well as the senate and house final bills -- backwards and forwards more times than I can count. We've been meeting twice a week to pre-prepare for reflecting any changes for 3 months.

So, yeah... frankly - when it comes to this bill, you're damn right I know more about it than a snuff film auteur and an internet entrepeneur.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:41 PM    in reply to zonk

I am sorry for your distress. I truly hope you have a Plan B.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:13 PM    in reply to zonk

No, because the bill has an individual mandate. Take out the mandate, and you fix 90% of what is wrong with the bill. But telling people that they have to buy overpriced and crappy health insurance from a monopoly is the type of plan only a Republican could have dreamed of.

Saying that the way to provide insurance from the uninsured is to ORDER them to buy it, and fine them if they don't is a monopolist's dream. It's not change we can believe in.

Yes, I know the arguments for the mandate, but if you think about it, they really don't make any sense at all. A person buying health care from United Health care, really does not subsidize Wellpoint's losses in insuring someone with cancer.

With the public option, the whole problem goes away. Mandates make sense, particularly if people are automatically enrolled in the public option plan when they seek healthcare and lack insurance. (Let's don't fine people for being poor!) Requiring health insurance companies to provide coverage to the old and sick becomes superfluous in the face of a public option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:19 PM    in reply to highplainslawyer

Ahhh.... great.

Now - if only the CBO would accept magic ponies as currency, we would be all set.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:41 PM    in reply to zonk

DING! DING! DING! You get the Magic Pony Award. Today's prize is a life-size Dick Cheney doll. Please don't report back.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:04 PM    in reply to OhioGuy

The problem is that the House only passed their own bill 220-215 (1 being a Republican and Stupak's suppossed 29). If they lose 3 of them it's over.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:09 PM    in reply to SFCWallace

Yes but they had 36 other potential Democrat votes. Some of them were voting tactically in hopes of getting a better final bill. It's time to close ranks.

If the Senate can get 100% plus 100% of independents, the House really ought to be able to get 85% of its Democrats to vote the party line.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:40 PM    in reply to OhioGuy

Ohioguy,
Please copy and paste that comment and send it to every Dem member of Congress, the WH, and any Democrat who will listen. You said it well.

We are hearing that Barney Frank thinks we should just forget HCR. Drop it and face the music because it will be worse for them next November if they don't. I don't care if any one of these idiots are elected again. Just fight to get the job done. They haven't been right about much of anything so far, so why would they think that failure with HCR would be less costly next Nov than if they actually fought for something and got it done? Do they really think the obstructionist GOP will let them forget that they failed?

Some Dems in Congress won't get elected again. That's just reality. But unlike many in this country, at least they know when their paycheck will end. So, why not do something with the time they have left? Accomplish something, instead of this weak defensive strategy we see out of the Dems. How in the world did they turn an 18 vote Senate majority into a negative?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:45 PM    in reply to OhioGuy

be it a cowardly Blue Dog or a holier-than-thou Progressive.

Here's the difference: Dems are supposed to be a progressive party. That would be like a Republican attacking "holier-than-thou" conservatives. Such people are conscience of their respective parties. The DLCers are just opportunists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:34 PM    in reply to wbgonne

No, Democrats are supposed to be a a "big-tent" party. We accept everybody, young - old, black - white, straight - gay, rich - poor, liberal - conservative.

We are supposed to understand everyone. We have fought amongst ourselves long enough. The Senate bill is the result of all our wrangling; its time to pass it and move on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:45 PM    in reply to Darrius

We accept everybody, young - old, black - white, straight - gay, rich - poor, liberal - conservative.

You were doing great until that last one. Anybody who believes that government is not the solution, it is the problem can NOT be a Democrat. Sorry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 4:55 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Oh yes conservatives can be and are Democrats. That is why we have majorities, There are not enough liberals to pass anything. Nor are there enough liberals to stop Republican from passing what they want to pass. Therefore you need liberals, moderates and Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:48 PM    in reply to Darrius

The big tent isn't designed to accommodate the Brobdinagian demands of corporate interests.

So no, this bill isn't Democratic. It's the opposite of reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:29 PM    in reply to OhioGuy

And so it begins Ronald Reagan the Second is almost here.

Folks, Democrats have got to stick together better than this. The undisciplined team always loses. In sports, war, politics, etc.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:04 PM    in reply to OhioGuy

+1, this includes Barney Frank who has now discovered the abortion language in the House bill is terrible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:14 AM   

Here's the Village Voice's headline about last night:

"Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate"

There is angst about abandoning HCR, the fruits of countless hours of hearings and tedious votes over the past year, because the Democrats now only have a 59 seat caucus in the Senate instead of 60.

Does anyone else see something wrong here? Martha Coakley lost because she deserved to. She insulted sports fans and the average voter. She took her eye off the ball after the primary, and Scott Brown hit it out of the park. Hell, if Mike Capuano had won the primary instead of Coakley, there wouldn't be all this handwringing and breastbeating going on about what this special election "means". Capuano would have cleaned Brown's clock.

It's high time for the democrats to grow a set of balls. Put their egos aside, and pass HCR so that 30 million Americans have access to affordable health care. To do anything less is to sacrifice principles at the altar of appeasing an angry, nihilistic opposing party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:30 AM    in reply to ChrisNBama

Does anyone else see something wrong here?

uh, yes! something is fundamentally wrong with a system in a (supposedly) democratic country in which you can't do anything with 60 votes (or even 59) even though in a democracy the majority is supposed to rule. the senate is broken. and unless and until they fix it (ha! good luck with that) NOTHING WILL EVER GET DONE EVER.

Seriously. I'm so done with the democratic party. their inaction and their weak-kneed hand wringing enabled the republican obstructionists to destroy the only chance of meaningful health reform in a generation. way to go reid, baucus and nelson! congrats! you should all be very proud. not only have you destroyed health care reform, but you've also doomed your party to electoral defeat because of your inability to act on anything ever. and of course, your solution for your inability to act: GIVE UP ON ACTING! ITS GENIUS!

as for me, i'm done. not another dime, not another phone call not another iota of support for these careerist hacks who are more concerned about keeping their jobs than doing their jobs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:08 PM    in reply to freaktown

"...even though in a democracy the majority is supposed to rule."
Good thing this is a Representitive Republic then. "Majority rules" would be a disaster (which is the main reason our government was set up the way it was).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:18 PM    in reply to SFCWallace

as opposed to the shining success of government that we currently have. puh-lease.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:26 PM    in reply to SFCWallace

I don't think you understand the point of a representative democracy. Nothing about that system was intended to permit the minority of elected officials (you know, the representative part of the representative democracy) to have final say on issues.

There really needs to be a mandatory civics class for all Americans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:50 PM    in reply to jenesq

Sorry about my petulant comments last night.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:51 PM    in reply to SFCWallace

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't think democracy was born when a bunch of English colonists got together on the East Coast of these United States.

Read Paul Woodruff's "First Democracy" and see how far we've fallen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:31 AM    in reply to ChrisNBama

pass HCR

Nancy P. knows how. (Note to Nancy: I'm sorry I vcted for Cindy S in that primary, Nancy--can we make up? Just do this one thing for me, and I'll be good...yes. I know I said that before, but this time I really mean it...)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:42 AM    in reply to ChrisNBama

""Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate""

Totally insane.

GOP are a minority party. Dems need to govern. WH needs to show leadership.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:48 AM    in reply to AnswerFrog

yes it's totally insane, but it's also true. at least according to harry reid and all the democrats in the senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:07 PM    in reply to ChrisNBama

Right on the money! I'm sick of watching the Democrats, including this President, pussy foot around the loud mouth Republicans, letting themselves be sucker punched into submission on every issue. It's time for Obama to lay it on the line and tell us loud and clear where he's taking us and jump down into the mud and take the lead. I want this President to start throwing punches without backing down and apologizing after. As a great American organization teaches it's troops, "lead, follow, or get out of the way!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:12 PM    in reply to ChrisNBama

Brilliant Chris! Obama's like George Costanza in that episode of Seinfeld where he's obsessed with Jerry's girlfriend who despises him. George dumps his own girlfriend to chase her because "where else am I going to find someone who hates me as much as her?"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:24 PM    in reply to ChrisNBama

It's pretty pathetic when "insulting sports fans" becomes the litmus test for election to the Senate. I am so f-ing tired of people who vote for the person they'd most like to be Facebook friends with, rather than the person who has the correct positions on the issues. The ultimate blame for this whole mess lies with the lame, shallow, uninformed American Idol voter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:03 PM    in reply to jenesq

Absolutely right on the mark. The american electorate are the most pathetic of any other electorate. Mass a state with supposedly the best educational system in the country and it produced these idiots.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:53 PM    in reply to jenesq

If you think this election was about the baseball references, you're profoundly mistaken.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:52 PM    in reply to again

Baseball references had a significant impact - if you believe they were irrelevant you are sorely mistaken.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:29 PM    in reply to ChrisNBama

I've got to disagree with the "Coakley lost because of Coakley" analysis.

Come on, people... let's be real here.

For a Democrat to lose an MA Senate seat - you need scandals, not gaffes. You need a historically awful campaign, not one merely complacent and ineptly tepid.

If Coakley runs a good campaign, maybe she pulls it out -- but she lost this race because the opponents from the left of HCR have managed to add their own special brew of poison to the sauce that the teabaggers started over the summer.

Based on the lionization of (social security changes, immigration amnesty, elimination of tax havens in 86) Reagan, and the fact that it took 7 and 1/2 years for the conservatives to turn on George (enormous Medicare expansion, federalization of education standards, tax cuts - but with sunsets!) Bush -- the problem is that conservatives give their team years before they revolt.

Liberals gave their team about 6 months.

Little wonder that Dems of recent vintage always seem to find their time on top of the inevitable success cycles much shorter than Republicans find theirs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:52 PM    in reply to zonk

she lost this race because the opponents from the left of HCR have managed to add their own special brew of poison to the sauce that the teabaggers started over the summer.

DLC horseshit. Take it back to the Hill with you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:16 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Sure.

It must be wonderful to always be right.

Saves a lot of time that would otherwise be spent on introspection and self-examination, making it more available to fine-tune becoming a bizarro dittohead.

I think there are medals of achievement available for you somewhere, but you'll have to get in line behind all the yahoos that like to call into sportstalk radio and insist so-and-so is an idiot because they trade some 4A scrub for a perennial all-star, like said experts would have.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:17 AM   

So not much has changed then. Swallow this bill or else. Seems to be the same line as yesterday, for the most part.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:45 AM   

"Wheels Coming Off?"

Jesus christ, what is with these fucking stupid headlines? Where's the Drudge-like red alarm?

TPM is just breathlessly reporting every utterance. Let's wait 24 -48 hours before we know what the real climate is for passing the Senate bill in the House.

Oh wait, can't do that. We need to compete with Politico for clicks. Screw good reporting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:33 PM    in reply to felix

Every time Democrats have suffered a setback during the last thirty years, it's been followed by 48-72 hoursof panty-wetting, cowering, recriminatory self-justification, and general foolishness by their members of Congress. That's invariable.

What happens after that is what's variable. Sometimes, they man up and/or put on their big girl panties and forge ahead, sometimes they just come apart like a big flock of chickens that's been hit by a manic four year old. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are the only people who can affect which way that goes, and they're going to all have to be onboard for it to work, but if they're smart, they'll give them a couple of days to get all the emoting and cowering and recrimination out of their systems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:53 PM    in reply to felix

thank you. Thought the same thing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:03 PM    in reply to felix

Exactly! We win NY-23 that we weren't supposed to, Franken pulled out a victory & another in Cali I've forgotten the name of & this one bump in the road supposedly signals the beginning of the end? That's lack of commitment isn't it?
No way! A slap in the face maybe, & well deserved one, but just a year ago we would have all been thrilled to have all the votes that we have now & ecstatic to be finally rid of bush & cheney et al.
We are on a freight train not a high speed bullet train. The afore mentioned dastardly duo dug this hole one disaster after another. Digging our way out will be a tedious process with inevitable bumps, this is one of those bumps.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:50 AM   

These elected kunts are worth less than zero. They see a loss in MA and shit themselves. ZERO INTEGRITY and ZERO PRINCIPLES. What a bunch of hacks the conventional wisdom pushers of both parties are. As a human being and passionate liberal, I would rather be fighting on the streets for what I believed in than compromising on what I didn't from inside a House or Senate chamber.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:51 AM   

You need a decider, not a fence rider!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:56 AM   

Dems have no Balls! The repubs did every dirty trick in the book to slow down this bill and the Dems are too chicken to take a hard stand on waiting to seat Brown. YOU HAVE UNTIL THE 29th to seat him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 11:58 AM   

Look at what Obama did over the last year and ask yourself this question. Did he hoodwink ya?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:21 PM    in reply to Mike J

No.

Next question?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:25 PM    in reply to Mike J

No, but I thought he had some balls. This guy would rather have a Republican call him a socialist instead of a communist than stand up for the people who put his ass in office. He will certainly lose in 2012 because why are people going to vote for the guy a second time when they have been so disappointed. Hell, at least if a Republican is in office we know we are going to be disappointed. With Obama, it is much more disappointing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:33 PM    in reply to Seeryer

Balls? Jesus H. Christ I'm sick of the talk about balls. Especially by guys who spend their days keyboarding comments on blogs.

Bush had balls. Cheney has balls for days. Liked the results of their run, did you?

Give me brains anyday. And a population that has the brains to understand something more than monosyllables.

Balls. Another monosyllable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 3:43 PM    in reply to anna am

Well said! I'm fed up with the female sexist jabber about balls -- not from you -- and the self-denigrating males who jabber about lacks of balls.

It isn't all about balls and "macho". It's about intelligence -- when one can find it.

And, yes: that Coakley called asshole Bush-McCain-Palin supporter Schilling a Yankee fan had an impact on stupid ballsy macho male voters who can't see beyond their jockstrapness to reality. Who gives a fuck who Schilling is? Those who jabber about who has and hasn't balls.

Run a politician named Trivialest of Trivia and they'll elect him rather than think with other than their constantly touted balls -- so long as Trivialest of Trivia is a sports fan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 3:45 PM    in reply to anna am

Does this mean we can all go back to saying "scrotum?"

Thank God.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 3:45 PM    in reply to anna am

Anna,
Balls and brains are not mutually exclusive. Balls does not mean escalating a war by sending 30,000 more troops to a country we know can't be tamed. But Mr Brains did that didn't he? Balls would have been stating he is not sending 30,000 more Americans to a country that bleeds countries to death. Yuo want to know the definition of progressive political GONADS:“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” That is FDR railing against all those who called him a socialist and commie and every other name in the book.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 5:50 PM    in reply to Seeryer

I hate to be the one to tell you but the political landscape isn't what it was in 1932. Roosevelt couldn't get himself elected anymore, much less crack the whip over the dysfunctional congress we've got, who stand for nothing other than posing for the cameras.

And, you know, old Roosevelt, he wasn't the kind of guy you felt like you could just sit down and have a beer with. Chris Matthews would've skewered him for his money and his high-toned way of speaking, maybe call him an upperclass overeducated twit. A latte liberal. Kind of like Kerry -- you remember the War hero who didn't have enough balls for the country either.

Ah yes. What a brave new world this veneration of balls and cowboy shirts has wrought.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 21, 2010 10:14 AM    in reply to anna am

You just don't get it at all. Hell, Hillary has balls. It is a friggin expression and thats it. If you think Obama has shown leadership please explain it to me. FDR's political enemies hated him as much as Obama's. Please let me know the political climate back in '32 Anna. I am sure you remember it like yesterday. If you want to be president you have to get your elbows dirty, people aren't going to just defer to you. Especially not your political opponents.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:01 PM   

This is all a testament to totally incompetent leadership on the part of Reid, Pelosi, Rahm and everybody else who's in charge on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. They diddled and daddled for a year. They failed to sell the country on what should be no-brainer reforms. We, the voters and teh Democratic base, gave them huge majorities in both houses of Congress, yet apart from a half-assed stimulus package, they have done nothing advance the President's agenda, which they have allowed to be defined by Glenn Beck, Michael Steele and a bunch of yahoo Tea Baggers.

And where has Tim Kaine been? Michael Steele is a total buffoon, but every time you turn on the television he's there fighting for his cause and doing his part to define the Democratic agenda as a radical socialist plot, and you know what? His party has won all three of the major statewide elections held this year. And where the hell is Tim Kaine? Nowhere. He should be on television every single day, like Howard Dean before, answering every single one of the Republicans bogus charges, and punching holes in their failed policies.

And where is Rahm? I thought he was the guy who was going to crack heads and keep Congress in line - what a joke.

And speaking of Congress, what has Reid been doing for the past year? Letting Max Baucus get strung along by Grassley and Snowe. Letting Joe Lieberman play with him like a cat with a mouse. Allowing himself to get blatantly extorted by Ben Nelson, a nobody senator from a nowhere state? The first time Lieberman started straying from the reservation, Rahm and Reid should be have made it clear that if he ever wanted to chair so much as another subcommittee hearing, he would go with plan.

And the cabinet - another huge joke. I'm sorry, but Roemer, Sebelius, Geithner, et al.. are totally ineffective at selling the president's agenda. Who is countering Relublican claims that health care reform is a government takeover or making the point that it is the President, not the Republicans, who is trying to reform Wall Street?

Energy is supposed to be a signature issue of this Adminstration, but has anybody ever seen Sec. Chu explaining what the policy is, or answering the GOP's bogus charges about Cap and Trade?

And the President - where is he? He should be out in the country fighting for his agenda. At least once a week, he should be taking questions at a townhall taking questions and/or in a basketball arena doing what he does best - giving speeches and inspiring the American people. He should be taking questions on local radio stations and standing straught up to tea baggers and other critics. Making statements from the East Room or the Rose Garden does nothing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:16 PM    in reply to jbentley4

Rahm was negotiating in private with Olympia Snowe, the health insurance industry, Billy Tauzin and Big Pharma, blah blah blah. Rahm has been running to Politico and the WaPo and whomever to trash the "internet left fringe" and "left of the left" every single time he sells out Democrats to his corporate friends. Rahm was pulling the strings to get a corporatist, lackluster candidate like Martha Coakley as the candidate. That's where Rahm's been. Oh, and making sure his friends at the Too Big To Fail banks are doing very well. Heckuva job!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:35 PM    in reply to Langston_Hughes

Yeah, that was beyond the pale.

The way Rahm had the MA Senate primary canceled and MA residents weren't allowed to vote, I mean.

That was just awful.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 3:51 PM    in reply to Langston_Hughes

I'm with ya "zonk": the anti-Democratic Naderite manure being palmed off as "progressive" stinks as much as the teabaggery with which it is aligned.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 5:55 PM    in reply to JNagarya

AMEN two times.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:27 PM    in reply to jbentley4

AMEN!!!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:04 PM   

Pass the senate bill as is and move on. If the House doesn't pass the Senate bill and decides to kill it, they're be in the minority come November. It's really that simple. They'll have nothing to run on and will have proven the GOP talking point that Democrats can't legislate.

If the house Reps are to dense to see this than they'll get what they deserve and the country will be hurt because of it.

Progressive hero Grayson likes to point to 44000 folks dying a year, well killing the bill means the status quo and the House Dems can do something about it and will choose not to. It will be on them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 23, 2010 4:45 AM    in reply to Walter Mitty

The voters who elected Brown are of essentially two camps: one, teabaggers; two, "progressives" who will fuck over everyone else if they don't get exactly what they want.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:07 PM   

Who cares if the wheels come off a high-speed mag-lev train? Americans have now been treated to decades of Congresses that readily cave to narrow interest groups (the 2005-2007 109th Congress being perhaps the most egregious example). So what? Johnson got the Social Security Act through in 1965. The 13th Amendment, led by led by Seward, was pushed through in 1865. In both cases, the greater good argument won out. What seems to be killing health care yet again is this bad habit of caving. The Democratic position must be that this has to be done for the greater good. Period. No special favors for anybody. Otherwise, post-Obama Congresses will make the 109th look like Sunday School.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:41 PM    in reply to eggroll

Umm, people who can't get insurance at any price because their kids have cancer? Just for starters and by way of example.

If you're a theist, pray to whoever you pray to that you don't find yourself regretting that statement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:14 PM   

The hell with it - I'm through fighting and just looking forward to my tax cut under a Republican Congress

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 6:04 PM    in reply to DKDC

HaHaHa! That's what I call making lemonade out of lemons. Something to look forward to, eh? Of course we'll be invading Iran and have to pay for 3 wars, but what the hey...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:16 PM   

It is hard to believe the Dems are this freakin tone deaf that some of them still believe they should pass the health care bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:17 PM   

Despite my immense dislike of this bill, I think its better for the Democrats to pass it. Trying to run on a record of doing nothing would be disastrous. Think of it this way, Progressives can say, “Look we tried to get a good bill and all the Blue Dogs killed it - primary them.”

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:19 PM   

Pass the Senate bill, but only with a sidecar amendment to fix the worst of it's shortfalls.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/20/fdl-statement-on-health-care-reform/
The house bill was far from perfect, but the senate bill is clearly a capitulation to corporate interests, and voters know it. This isn't the change people voted for. the Senate bill will leave us with the most expensive and least accessible health care in the modern world, with "insured" families still going bankrupt when they get hit with huge medical bills.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:19 PM   

Wendell Potter, the CIGNA apostate, lets us know what many of us already knew: the Senate's insurance-friendly boondoggle is going to allow insurers to jack up rates, push high-deductible poor policies on people, and, surprise, surprise, game the system to keep collecting billions of dollars! Just the corporate-friendly high-cost disaster of a bill we all were hoping for!

Obama, Reid, Baucus, Lieberman, Bayh, and all the rest of you sellouts, you're real winners, you know that? We might as well have a senate full of Scott Browns, because they couldn't have done a worse job than this!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:22 PM   

Pathetic.

You'd think they'd have the guts to at least pass certain provisions of healthcare that ARE popular like banning denial of healthcare due to pre-existing conditions as stand-alone bills.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:26 PM    in reply to jsdc007

I'd like to see that. Can you imagine what would happen to the Republicans if they trie to filibuster banning denial of care :)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:25 PM   

Pass the damn bill.

Assholes like Frank don't understand: You were elected to act, not to worrying about your job. What's the point of winning elections if you don't use those wins to PASS BILLS???

House needs to pass Senate bill, and get changes to it later thru reconcilliation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:31 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

'changes later thru reconciliation" meanwhile unconsitutional laws get passed in... GO AMERICA - PASS LAWS AT ANY COST REGARDLESS OF DETRIMENT TO ANYONE BUT ME - THE LAWMAKER - YAY!!!

Dems are the majority...then I remember how dumb the average person is...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:28 PM   

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists,
Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the
late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me
realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many
years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship
has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will
not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms.
We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own
way. Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each
taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two
sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be
relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide
other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We
don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to
the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take
our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah,
Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for
finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies,
Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys,
hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms,
greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and
Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to
invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and
war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault,
we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam,
Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U. N..
but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can
take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll
keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure
you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to
Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty
your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history,
our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded
liberal and conservative patriots. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

(wish I'd said it)

P. S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:39 PM    in reply to oxonce

Yeah...

Because, you know, the south did quite well for itself when it tried to do the same.

moron.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:27 PM    in reply to zonk

Yeah, because nothing has changed since then - ITS EXACTLY HOW IT USED TO BE. right? wait, no, that's not the case at all.... funny that

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 23, 2010 4:51 AM    in reply to oxonce

Right: thanks to those you hate and demonize, civil rights progress was made. But thanks to those you love and support, civil rights are being decimated.

The US is equality before the law. You hate the US.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 6:46 PM    in reply to JNagarya

pretty sure Lincoln was republican... bueller?

You may love your country - but you suck at history. I therefore submit that you are stupid and your comment bears no further attention.


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 12:46 AM    in reply to oxonce

I suck at history? Refute this, ppunk --

This is the most relevant portion of my most recent statement of the law concerning Militia -- and therefore of the Second Amendment. Read it carefully as concerns the anti-Constitutionalism fed these gun-/nuts by the gun industry via its propaganda arm NRA:

R. B----- says:

"All of the Bill of Rights refer to individual rights. Raving lunatics should read the Federalist Papers for further insight."
_____

Concerning the "Federalist Papers": the CORRECT title of the book to which refer[red] is "The Federalist". As well, "The Federalist," not having been enacted by a legislature, is both NOT LAW and IRRELEVANT for several reasons. First, they were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay -- only one of whom would later be a member of the first Congress, which WROTE the Bill of Rights, under the newly-ratified Constitution.

Second, the authors ADMITTED that their purpose was to SELL the CONSTITUTION -- which OBVIOUSLY means they were not OBJECTIVE: they were BIASED in favor OF ratification. Third, and most relevant, as the Constitution was framed, and then ratified, WITHOUT a "Bill of Rights," the only mentions of "Bill of Rights" in "The Federalist" are REJECTIONS of the "NEED" for one.

Fourth, "The Federalist" was written by THREE delegates to the Constitutional Convention -- out of over FIFTY delegates; which delegates agreed on very little. THREE is an INCONSEQUENTIAL MINORITY of OVER FIFTY delegates. And those three were balanced by THREE delegates on the OPPOSITE end of the political spectrum who OPPOSED ratification of the Constitution because it DIDN'T have a "Bill of Rights". One of those was Elbridge Gerry, about whom more below.

Fifth, with ratification of the Constitution completed, Federalist promotion of that outcome ENDED.

Note the following chronology:

1. Several states that ratified the Constitution, beginning with Massachuetts-Bay, included PROPOSED amendments with their Notices of Ratification.

2. Completion of ratification of the Constitution occurred on June 21, 1788.

3. SUBSEQUENTLY, Congress was established/organized under the newly-ratified Constitution.

4. Congress first "achieved a quorum on 6 April [1789]". "Creating the Bill of Rights" (Johns Hopkins, 1991), Veit, et al., at xiv.

5. Madison, the ONLY author of "The Federalist" to be a member of Congress, codified the several states' PROPOSED amendments into a RESOLUTION which he submitted to Congress for DEBATE on May 4, 1789. Id., at 1.

6. On May 25, 1789, Madison himself moved to POSTPONE consideration of the proposed amendments until June 8, 1789, which was agreed to by the Congress. Id., at 5.

7. Debate of the proposed amendments did not begin until August 13, 1789. Id. at 7. That's how "worried" the Founders/Framers in Congress were about there NOT being a Bill of Rights: they were in no hurry.

8. The debates of Madison's resolution in Congress were conducted by those who WROTE the Bill of Rights: the members of that first Congress.

9. Unlike "The Federalist" -- which as made clear is irrelevant to begin with -- the debates of those who WROTE the Bill of Rights are LEGAL AUTHORITY. It is to THOSE we refer when we want to know the intent of those who WROTE the Bill of Rights.

10. The debate which eventuated in the Second Amendment began with and was EXCLUSIVELY concerned with whether to have a standing army -- which the Founders/Framers considered a "bane of liberty"; a THREAT to CIVILIAN GOV'T -- or the alternative thereto: MILITIA. Elbridge Gerry summarized the issue during the debates of that which became the Second Amendment with this statement:

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Id., at 182.

He makes no mention of "individual". Becasue a MILITIA is OBVIOUSLY no more an individual than is an army. As well, and as obvious, PEOPLE is PLURAL, as in, WE THE PEOPLE. It is NOT "We the individual," or, "I the people".

11. That which became the Second Amendment was drawn from MILITIA clauses in the state constitutions/bills of rights of Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. "Bill of Rights and the States" (Madison House, 1992), Conley and Kaminski, at xviii.

12. Exactly as with the debates of that which became the Second Amendment, those four MILITIA clauses include the phrase "the right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [as MILITIA]"; and that is directly associated with the phrase concerning standing armies being the "bane of liberty"*.
_____

*The US Constitution incorporates four references to MILITIA. The first (US Con. Art. II., s. 2, c. 1) reads:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief . . . of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States."

And when the miltia is not in service to the United States, the commander in chief of it is the states' governor.

The second reference (US Con. Art. I., s. 8., c. 15) reads in relevant part:

"Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS."

Neither the President, nor the states' governors, are going to call out the militia to "defend against" themselves.
_____

These, in full, are the four state constitution/bills of rights MILITIA clauses from which was drawn the Second Amendment:

"Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Article XVII. The people [PLURAL] have a right to keep and bear arms [as MILITIA] FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the Legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the Civil authority, and be governed by it."

"North Carolina Declaration of Rights, Article XVII. That the people [PLURAL] have a right to bear arms [as MILITIA], for the defence OF THE STATE; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power."

"Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, Article XIII. That the people [PLURAL] have a right to bear arms [as MILITIA] for the defense of themselves AND THE STATE; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

"Vermont Declaration of Rights, Chapter I., Article XV. That the people [PLURAL] have a right to bear arms [as MILITIA] for the defence of themselves AND THE STATE; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

13. The first draft of that which became the Second Amendment read as follows, in full, the final clause being the ONLY "individual right" concerning that which became the Second Amendment that was debated by those who WROTE the Second Amendment:

"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [as MILITIA] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated** militia [NOT "individual"] being the best security of a free country [NOT "individual"]: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in the MILITIA] in person."
_____

**The third reference to Militia in the US Constitution (US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 16) reads in full:

"Congress shall have the Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers [this done by the states' governor and legislature] and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

As the Constitution stipulates that Congress shall make the laws, "to regulate" means in the form of LAW,
_____

OBVIOUSLY the final clause of that which became the Second Amendment was VOTED DOWN. AS OBVIOUSLY, as it is the ONLY "individual right" debated concerning that which became the Second Amendment, that it was VOTED DOWN means that the Second Amendment has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH "INDIVIDUAL" ANYTHING.

Asserting . . . NON-law -- "Federalist Papers" -- changes NONE of those facts, BEGINNING with the fact that the authors of "The Federalist," IN "The Federalist," which concerned ONLY the Constitution, REJECTED the "need" for a Bill of Rights; and the fact that the Congressional debates of those who WROTE the Second Amendment are _THE_ LEGAL AUTHORITY we consult to determine what those who WROTE the Second Amendment MEANT with the Second Amendment. And as unequivocally shown, it is SOLELY concerned with ensuring the states -- GOV'TS -- that they can keep their WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

14. The Bill of Rights, consisting of twelve proposed amendments, were submitted to the states' legislatures for consideration on September 25, 1789. The first two of the twelve were rejected.

15. Ratification of the Bill of Rights was completed on December 15, 1791.

16. The fouurth reference to Militia in the US Constitution reads in full:

"A Well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear Arms [as that WELL REGULATED MILITIA], shall not be infringed."

17. SUBSEQUENTLY, on May 8, 1792, Congress enacted the "Militia Act" of 1792, by means of which to regulate the militia in accordance with the references to it in the Constitution -- including the Second Amendment.

One can either accept those clear and unequivocal facts and that they substantiate -- the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" ANYTHING -- or continue to talk anti-Constitutional ragtime.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:41 PM    in reply to oxonce

What is troll astroturf doing on this tread?

http://conservapedia.com/Essay:John_Wall_divorce_agreement

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 21, 2010 5:39 PM    in reply to oxonce

Gee, loser, your side looks a lot like South Carolina or Mississippi. Our Side looks like Massachusetts or Washington State. Guess who sends federal dollars your way?

We do.

Guess who has the MITs, the Caltechs, the Harvards and most of the cutting edge research? We do.

The day Clemson or Ole Miss can compete with MIT or Harvard, your BS will hae a point. Until then keep riding your pickup truck down the yellow brick road of ignorance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:31 PM   

Wouldn't it be great if Browns win actually backfired?

The "60" vote thing wasn't working. We were hostage to Lieberman and Nelson.

If the House passes the Senate bill, and we pass revisions to it thru reconciliation, say, adding back in a public option, it could be a stronger bill than Lieberman's watered down bill.

Dems need to find a way to turn defeat to their advantage. The GOP didn't wither when they were handed losses -- bigger losses than we have. Dems need to fight harder.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:44 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

I was thinking along the same lines myself this morning.

You may be on target. In a weird sort of way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:33 PM   

No surprise to me that the wobbly knees are found in the Lynn Woolsey Caucus


PASS THE DAMN BILL YOU IDIOTS

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:41 PM    in reply to JohnMcCSF

PASS THE DAMN BILL YOU IDIOTS

When even Barney Frank is saying that the votes aren't there to pass the bill (and that he would vote against it), there's no way in hell this will happen. The only possible favorable outcome is having a Senate-House compromise bill that could get Snowe's support. Is there any chance of this happening -no. Is it even worth the effort -no. Health care reform is dead for at least the next three years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:12 PM    in reply to richard f

If it's dead now, then it's dead for more like 15 years. People need to stop pretending that stuff like this can be casually punted down the road for when we feel more like it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:50 PM   

Can anyone imagine the opposite: a Coakley victory sending Democratic senators to the microphone to proclaim "The people have spoken. We must pass healthcare now!"? Didn't think so. Too many years of supporting quit-first Democrats has conditioned us to know better.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:17 PM    in reply to KdNicewanger

Yes. I didn't here this kidn fo triumphalism when, say, Spector defected or Franken won.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:51 PM   

The Democrats lost when:

1. Obama decided to ignore previous Republican crimes and misdemeanors,
2. Obama decided to do a stingy stimulus full of tax breaks and pork,
3. Obama decided to kill the only option that would have slowed the cost of health care & led to universal coverage,
4. Obama decided to accelerate the Bush bailout,
5. Obama decided to escalate a meaningless and fruitless war,
6. Obama decided to gut real financial reform and substitute finger wagging and silly taxes and fees,
7. Obama decided to not help people with bankruptcy and mortgages remediation and
8. Obama decided to fiddle around and not pass a jobs bill.

These decisions all hurt the American people, while many favored the corporations. We did not vote for Republican trickle down and the back lash is going to doom Obama. The voters did not vote for Republican lite; we voted for real change. We got no change. We got wallowing in the status quo.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:21 PM    in reply to bill

Thank you. I'm sick and tired of folks with Obama Derangement Syndrome, and their inability to face the simple facts.

Obama is supposed to lead of the party - not Harry Reid, not Nancy Pelosi, and not Joe Lieberman. Health Care Reform failed because Obama didn't have the guts to lead, and he was afraid of appearing too partisan. He never fought and argued the moral imperative of insuring every American. He set deadlines to pass a bill, and then kept setting new deadlines when it didn't happen. He made secret deals with Drug and Insurance companies that betrayed the goal or reform from the very start, and he betrayed his own word to make it an open process. He demanded a public option be in the bill, and then actively campaigned against it. And I could go on and on. Stop blaming Rham Emanuel when he's only doing the bidding of his boss.

Barack Obama is not a progressive, he's a corporatist. He doesn't have what it takes to lead his party and get things done, and therefore, he doesn't have what it takes to lead the nation in a different direction. The Republicans are still effectively in control of Congress, and Dick Cheney is still pushing Obama around the same way he did Bush. That's what the polls are saying, and that's what the voters of Massachusetts told us yesterday.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 28, 2010 3:28 AM    in reply to rstephen

I'm sick and tired of assholes pretending that the Executive branch/Obama makes the laws, instead of Congress.

Of assholes as law-illiterate as Republican America-haters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 12:56 PM   

So did the White House move up the SOU to pressure the house to pass the bill before the address or did they move it up so Obama can use the occasion to call them out and urge them to pass it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:00 PM   

this is too ridiculous. the democrats have 59 seats in the senate. it is ridiculous that they should feel unable to pass their signature legislation with that kind of huge majority.
there has to be some way to get around this foolish 60 seat rule.

how can 41 people hold 59 people, plus the whole house of reps, plus the majority of the american people who voted for barack obama, to ransom??????

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:02 PM   

Where is Cher? I want her to smack them all and say "Snap out of it!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:13 PM   

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:16 PM    in reply to KC Chef

OR alternative theory:

Voters pick the 'prettier' candidate.

Come on, never underestimate how shallow Yanks can be. Charisma always wins. Bush was a "fun guy to have a beer with" and so on. Lucky for us, GOP went with a lumpen-headed old koot last time. We need more people with lumps in their face running in the GOP. These "ken doll" American Idol types (see: VA, MA) are killing us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:15 PM   

The HCR duck seems cooked. After hearing the Webb quote, Axelrod said on MSNBC, "I totally agree with Senator Webb. The President does too." Don't expect any swift action or leadership on the president's part.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:44 PM    in reply to stupkinator

All Webb is saying is that Plan A is dead. Which is understandable, because it is not fair play. I wish people would parse these statements better.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:25 PM   

"elected representatives" will disregard the voters and continue on like they have.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:42 PM   

Isn't this the stage where Obama should get another prize for passing "historic health care reform", to go along with his Nobel Peace Prize?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 1:52 PM    in reply to rstephen

I heard they're also cancelling the NHL season and awarding him the Stanley Cup. He's also been offered Simon Cowell's job on American Idol when he gets voted out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:28 PM    in reply to oxonce

I also believe the banks should award Obama a hefty bonus for reforming the financial system.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:17 PM   

If this actually happens, if we come this close and then turn away at the last second because we're "too scared", then I hope Barney Frank and every other House Democrat who are not only apparently too cowardly to push ahead in the face of opposition, but also too stupid to understand basic political calculations, are primaried out of this party. What's the point if they can't summon the backbone and wisdom to understand what everyone else is saying is the best course of action?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:33 PM    in reply to Philv

because not EVERYONE is saying it. easy question. what ever happened to a govt. of, for and by the people - if the people don't want it (i.e. - 'the face of opposition') DONT DO IT!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:59 PM    in reply to oxonce

And that includes facing reality, and making any of the difficult, costly, and painful steps of dealing with it.

Brilliant.
The Layne Staley(or Janis Joplin or Karen Carpenter or Curt Cobain) method of self-governance, writ large.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 3:24 PM    in reply to kenga

i fyou recall - this country was founded on self-governance...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 6, 2010 11:09 AM    in reply to oxonce

Indeed it was, and fought for by thousands of people who put themselves under the command of the chosen leader of the Continental Army.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 3:41 PM    in reply to oxonce

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By everyone, I meant everyone in the chattering class giving an opinion and most every Democratic stakeholder. Politically and policy wise, if you are a Democrat and believe in universal health care, this seems to be the most popular route. By far.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 5:02 PM    in reply to Philv

ok - so it's popular to a very defined descript group (of YOUR specifications) ... that does NOT make it the right thing to do. I'm neither dem nor repub - anyone who votes purely on party lines is mentally ill. Neither one has it all right... I'm not opposed to nationalized healthcare, just this current bastardized version of it which was yielded through nothing more than backdoor meetings, chicago politics, gifts and bribes - the stuff of fairy tales! "Let's rush and do something! ANYTHING! We don't care if it's right"... spoken like true fools...

The individual vote obviously counts for crap - republicans coudlnt get anyone in office, dems elected nothing but cowards and whiners... im just gonna sit back, watch and laugh at all of you as the country falls down around you whilst you 'do what's best' ... imbeciles

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 3:05 PM   

PASS THE GODDAM BILL!!!! AHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGH!!!!!!!! I'm never going to vote again if they let this fall. NEVER!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 3:27 PM    in reply to ilovebacon

good.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 3:49 PM    in reply to oxonce

How much of a loser do you have to be to go onto websites that are the opposite of your ideology and to post a conservative e-mail that pretends to be anything other than partisan BS. Does it feel like x-mas for you? Lets look at the scoreboard. Executive Branch has a DEM leader. Legislative Branch has 19 seat majority in the Senate and 56 seat majority in the House. Now go back to Free Republic and masturbate to Scott Brown's centerfold with the rest of the wingnuts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 4:57 PM    in reply to Seeryer

not one word of intelligible rebuttal or conversation... and you're right - you are the FAR less loser, by sitting on a website of people with ONLY your ideology and ranting to ONLY people that agree with. surely, that will get things done.

...I do it, b/c it's fun to watch you (dems) get riled up so easily. ha.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 5:58 PM    in reply to Seeryer

hahaha - and with all those "WINS" on the scoreboard, you guys still can't get your shit together to accomplish ANYTHING together LOL! This is more entertaining than watching conan and jay bicker over the tonight show...hahahahaha this is too good

Seeryer, say something else - I haven't laughed like that in a while

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 21, 2010 9:55 AM    in reply to oxonce

Here is what I don't understand about right wingers: You claim Obama is ruining the country with his socialist communist policies in one breath and then you say he has not accomplished anything. Which is it? His policies are destroying the country or he can't get anything done? It seems that you are just fine with lying. Sorry but we try to be intellectually honest here. Obama has been in office for one year and 3,000 Americans have not died on his watch like they did in Bush's first year so how could a national security hawk conservative like yourself not admit that Obama has kept us 3,000 times more safer from terrorirsts than Bush did in his first year in office?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 22, 2010 9:38 PM    in reply to Seeryer

First of all, simple math shows that 3000:0 has no defined ratio, not 3000%, but good try - keep at it! Not to mention, I didn't know Bush was a terrorist - other than in your nightmares...

Do you really blame him for planes flying into the towers?...now I question your reasoning skills.

You mistook 'anything'. It's okay, you're still working on the reading thing, I'll break it down for you. I said "anything together" - implying that you have done nothing as a unit. Obama's done plenty with his army of Czars, we don't need to go there. But yea, the dems can't stick together for shit. Obama's doing plenty of damage all by himself, while his party is less organized than monkey-shit-flies at the zoo.

Furthermore, you persist on referring to me as a "right-winger" or "national security hawk" - I've already stated I don't align myself with parties, b/c it yields people as bold-headed and proudly stupid as yourself. I draw conclusions based on information and observation from as many sources as possible. I tend to go different ways on different issues, I call it "thinking". Try it!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 22, 2010 11:28 PM    in reply to oxonce

You are so cute, at least I am sure you think you are. Republicans can never get my vote because they are selfish moralizers. Regardless of who the Democrat is he wont do as much damage to the country and its citizens as a Republican would and has.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 23, 2010 5:14 PM    in reply to Seeryer

You think the current democractic majority is evidence of superiority over the other party? *chortle*

At least republicans take action...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 23, 2010 5:16 PM    in reply to Seeryer

AND you just stated possibly the greatest blunder...you made a mass generalization about an entire group, thus swearing yourself off of them.

"anyone who votes strictly on party lines - simply isn't thinking"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 23, 2010 4:54 AM    in reply to oxonce

"Do you really blame him for planes flying into the towers?...now I question your reasoning skills."

Did he, despite detailed warnings, PREVENT that happening? No, he did not.

Do you blame Obama for the "underwear bomber"? Yes, you do.

So, yes: I blame the Bushit criminal enterprise for allowing the 9/11 attacks, and ever after playing the politics of fear on the electorate, exactly as domestic terrorists do.


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 23, 2010 5:12 PM    in reply to JNagarya

Clinton did nothing before Bush did... and now you're willing to accuse people of 'criminal enterprise' through inaction. By those grounds and YOUR beliefs, we should impeach Obama for failing to pass this healthcare bill...right? dipshit.

And no, I don't blame Obama for the 'underwear bomber' (are you retarded - now your trying to put stupid thoughts in other peoples mouths!) I never ONCE blamed Obama for anything criminal, he just sucks as president. As to the 'underwear bomber', I blame the dumb motherfucker who put a bomb in his pants...wouldn't you?

What would you call the dems current actions in regards to healthcare reform....'scare' tactics maybe...'the nation will fall and all will die if we don't pass this bill'...your hypocrisy knows no bounds

ONE LAST TIME - LEARN TO READ AND RESPOND TO THE ISSUE.... NOT JUST RANDOM BLATHER THAT COMES TO YOUR MIND. Your arguments all seem to be irrelevant tangents with pouring outs of nothing more than liberal media regurgitation...lemme guess, you were an average student, but 'tried real hard'? Back to remedial English, buddy!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 1:00 AM    in reply to oxonce

". . . you're willing to accuse people of 'criminal enterprise' through inaction."

Not only but including inaction -- learn to read what is front of your face, jackass:

1. "Justice and the rule of law are to be above the politics." -- John Adams.

2. "A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams.

Torture is defined in and by law -- including international law to which the US is subject -- not by Dick "Dick" Cheney and his America-hating cronies. Waterboarding is defined in law as torture. Torture cannot be made legal under any circumstances.

That is the Bushit crimina enterprise in action.

The foremost, paramount DUTY of a president is NATIONAL SECURITY. Failure in that regard is a violation of the presidential oath. Thus the Bushit criminal enterprise, despite more than sufficient warning, did NOTHING to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

Negligence is not innocence.

MOreover, moralizing bullshitter: the Bushit criminal enterprise voluntarily handed Osama bin Laden a moral victory, and recruiting tool, with Abu Gharib, which yet again undermined national security, and increased the number of enemies of the US. "Levying war" can include omission as much as comission.

Negligence is not innocence.

As for Clinton: he was in office about a month when the first attack on the WTC occurred -- which means, by your theory, Reagan-Bush FAILED to PREVENT it.

IF he had responded in the only way you extremist manly men consider legitimate, then he would have bombed and invaded New Jersey. Instead, he approached that CRIMINAL act as a policing problem, and all the perpetrators were tracked down, arrested, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned.

By comparison with that effectiveness at something more than loug-mouthed expert chest-thumping by self-annointed patriots --

Where's Osama binm Laden?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 4:02 PM   

NADER 2012

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 9:02 PM    in reply to gungadont

vomit

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

June 6, 2010 6:10 AM   

Every time Democrats have suffered a setback during the last thirty years, it's been followed by 48-72 hoursof panty-wetting, cowering, recriminatory self-justification, and general foolishness by their members of Congress. That's invariable.

What happens after that is what's variable. Sometimes, they man up and/or put on their big girl panties and forge ahead, sometimes they just come apart like a big flock of chickens that's been hit by a manic four year old. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are the only people who can affect which way that goes, and they're going to all have to be onboard for it to work, but if they're smart, they'll give them a couple of days to get all the emoting and cowering and recrimination out of their systems.

m65 kamagra

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