TPMDC
White House: Let's Let 'Dust Settle' On Health Care
President Obama
Share
Send to a friend!
The White House will move health care reform to the back burner, in order to "let the dust settle" after Democrats lost their Senate super-majority.
Asked today if health care was on the back burner, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "The president believes it is the exact right thing to do by giving this some time, by letting the dust settle, if you will, and looking for the best path forward."
He said the administration wants to give Congress time to figure out their next move.
"The President thinks the speaker and the majority leader are doing the right thing in giving this some time and figuring out the best way forward," he said.
He also noted that President Obama "has a very full plate" with financial reform, the economy, the wars and other matters.
"As the majority leader and speaker continue to look to the best way forward, the president has a very full plate," Gibbs said. "There's plenty of work for the president to do in the meantime."
"The president obviously knew from the beginning of this that finding a solution to a very complex problem would be a challenge," he said.
Additional reporting by Christina Bellantoni
Late update: Watch the video:
Comments (339) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 2:15 PM
Smart move. The first since they picked the music for the inauguration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 21, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to wbgonne
Bingo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
January 21, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to wbgonne
My god. Obama is totally MIA and the result is this sick, sick, sick power vacuum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 21, 2010 6:17 PM in reply to Chisholm
It's pretty remarkable. I never thought I'd see a president so pathetic. The reason we are in this mess is because he offered no concrete guidance. So, his answer to that is to...offer no concrete guidance. His idea of leadership is to hide under a rock and wait for the all clear signal.
Can I have my vote back? I'd like to choose Hillary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MissT
January 21, 2010 7:44 PM in reply to wbgonne
How so? what am I missing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
January 22, 2010 8:27 AM in reply to wbgonne
LMAO - POTUS "O" throws HC under the bus... lol, you didn't see this coming? That is his MO. He either votes present or if it to hot he dis-associates.
This man has been and always been an empty suit. Just another American Idol. I swear on election day a saw instructions on the screen on how to text in my vote.
This guy can't even speak for 5 min without a teleprompter - didn't that even bother anyone. Never accomplished anything before and won't now.
His Ego was ready but, he doesn't know what the f he is doing... kinda like a little kid thinking he can drive daddy's car with all his friends cheering him on he then gets behind the wheel and wrecks the car almost taking out little Johnny... all his friends have the "Oh shit" moment when they see how he fucked up and all run away calling him a moron for even stupidly trying it. In this case the car is US.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
January 22, 2010 8:54 AM in reply to Odel Roo
This is too funny - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY and no i'm not making a comparison - it is funny though kinda Onionish.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 2:16 PM
that's it then. health care reform is officially dead.
dems are gonna get wiped out in november because of this and they deserve to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
January 21, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to freaktown
I will vote for third party candidates as long as as they are not racist and bigoted. The Democtrats are toast!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 21, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to AhTrini1
If the health care reform is dead, then the Democratic Party is dead to me. Starting over on health care reform means starting over in creating a political party that works for Americans and not for the monopolistic insurance companies and the defense contractors.
The Republicans, Libertarian idiots, and religious bigots need not apply. They should all be placed on the same security list on which is found the KKK, the Communist Party and the militia groups.
If the House Democrats let health care die then it is time to see them follow the bill into political oblivion.
We also get the news reports today that the Supreme Court has declared the 1907 law against corporate political contributions unconstitutional.
Anyone besides me think that the government in America no longer works for Americans?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 21, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to Richardxx
We also get the news reports today that the Supreme Court has declared the 1907 law against corporate political contributions unconstitutional.
Anyone besides me think that the government in America no longer works for Americans?
if that is true, it is a dark day indeed
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to Indie Pro
It IS true, Indie. The country is REALLY fucked now. President Palin, here we come (sponsored by Monsanto).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 21, 2010 8:58 PM in reply to wbgonne
As incredible as it seems to say, the Supreme Court decision dwarfs even teh HCR debate; it is the death knell of American Democracy. Corporations with no restrictions on their ability to buy elections. If Congress was not owned by corporate interests already - I know, debatable "if" - they most certainly are now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ChrisB
January 21, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to Richardxx
the decision applies to a portion of the 1990 McCain-Feingold law, not the earlier laws.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
January 21, 2010 5:10 PM in reply to Richardxx
Remember, the Dem party is very heterogeneous. The Reps are uniformly stubborn, mean and selfish, so they have no problem voting as a bloc. Democrats have a variety of sympathies and are naturally more argumentative amongst themselves. Don't flush the whole party because of this, it's a weakness in the face of Republican Unity Against A Level Playing Field, but it's also an admirable, democratic quality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 21, 2010 5:19 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
This was the time for Dems to be united and they failed hopelessly, including many on this site. The very idea that they should do something about the coming train wreck was an abomination -- *what about how Obama had abandoned them?!* Abandoned the left totally, abandoned the center totally?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 21, 2010 2:22 PM
Full plate? Is that like Bush's "work is hard"?
Very disappointed....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
January 21, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to cube3u
It IS hard!!! Haven't you ever tried it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
felix
January 21, 2010 2:23 PM
Presidentin' is hard.
What a useless fucker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
January 21, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to felix
you're a tool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 21, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to nova voter
Ooops, did he upset your inner sycophant?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
January 21, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to masanf
What is with you people? Calling other progressives sycophants because they recognize that when the base turns on the president, it guarantees a victory for Republicans. You think Obama's bad? Do you like Palin? Who do you want on the Supreme Court, another Sotomayor or another Alito? Did you enjoy seeing the Civil Rights Division of DOJ gutted? It's finally being rebuilt. That can end quick.
You can say that Obama deserves it. I don't give a shit what he deserves; I care about progress. I care about keeping this country off the train to crazyville, and that is all that will happen with Republican victories. And none of that is helped by infighting. You tell Obama what you want him to do differently. But you call him a "fucker," you call him "useless," you call him a "joke," well, you're just marginalizing yourself and we'll never achieve anything.
Failure of passing progressive legislation is the goddamn Garden of Eden compared to the success of passing conservative legislation. So please, just stop the name calling and try to help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to dudeguy
I do believe you are hollering at a Republican troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
January 21, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to wbgonne
My apologies. Tempers are short. Massachusetts is wicked lame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 4:22 PM in reply to dudeguy
As a NY ex-pat who bleeds Yankee pinstripes, I would ordinarily agree with you. However, what's truly lame is the Democratic Party. Totally inept and corrupt, unable to govern, and total fools to pin all of their hopes on a solitary vote. If this is the best the Dems can do, then they should just lay down and die now so that we can get their stinkin' corpse out of the way of people who can get things done.
Cue the Who.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
January 21, 2010 5:12 PM in reply to dudeguy
Well, said, in any case.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
January 21, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to dudeguy
Pay no attention to masanf. He's a troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Constantinople
January 21, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to dudeguy
For some reason Republicans are able to pass legislation with a majority. Democrats always need a larger majority, or a super-majority. If Coakley had beaten Brown, I suppose there would be some reason why the Democrats needed a unanimous vote.
McClellan, of course, was a Democrat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to Constantinople
Yup. We need Grant, not McClellan. Right, White House? . . . hello out there . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
January 21, 2010 11:08 PM in reply to Constantinople
The Republicans get majority rule because Harry Reid thinks it's uncollegial to filibuster anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 21, 2010 2:26 PM
Jobs and the economy at the fore front would be a good thing.
Get the recon legislation rolling to fix the big problems with the Senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 21, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to Indie Pro
If Congress screws around with health care reform for two-thirds of a year and then lets it die, tell me. Do you really think that jobs and the economy are going to get any better treatment? This is the same bunch of wanna-be rich people who passed the banks' desired restrictions on bankruptcy, then eliminated the laws against usury and the Glass-Stegall Act.
We aren't getting anything good out of either Congress or the President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 21, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to Richardxx
That's not entirely true. Not because congress has any scruples, but because the mood of the public is very angry, precisely about jobs and corporate welfare, so going against that kind of legislation is risky.
On the other hand, it's always easy for Republicans to scare the working class into voting against their best interests by telling them their taxes are going to go up. It works just bout every time and they could do it on any kind of public works initiative no less than they did it on HCR.
But let's just hope the Democrats don't come up with something as stupid as taxing Union healthcare plans next round. I'd really love to know which of the Einsteins on the Hill came up with that proposal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
January 21, 2010 5:23 PM in reply to Richardxx
What did you get out of the GOP?
9/11, 2 unfinished wars, one based on lies (note:the Use of Force Iraq resolution was voted down on the Democrat side of the aisle)
taxcuts for the rich, Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and the SCOTUS that gave the decision today, Brownie, Saddams gun, an attempt to turn social security over to Goldman Sachs, political posturing on stem cells, gays, abortion and a brain dead woman while cuts were made to health care for poor kids.
Complain and move on. Big health care reform is dead.
Obama is not an LBJ but the quality of those in Congress is much lower than it was in LBJ's day as Seymour Hersh has related (he said in the 60's the politicians had brains). Obama will learn and in doing so will be more effective, it is not his fault the Senate is what it is today, its the voters fault for putting so many guys like these in office.
The uninsured population percentage wise mainly resides in the red states anyway where they always vote Republican. Frankly I don't care if the only medical care that bunch gets is from Stan Brock's free health clinics. For the rest you are on you own health care wise, as always.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 21, 2010 4:31 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Is that optimism I hear? where is the real Indie Pro, and what did you do with him/her?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 2:27 PM
Yes, and let the Congressional caucus get it's act together. New Rule #1: If you don't vote with that party on procedural votes you're finished.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to wbgonne
a little late for that. would have been helpful to have that rule when they had 60 but now that they don't, even if every member votes with them they're still 1 short...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to freaktown
That brings me to New Rule #2: Change the Senate filibuster rules. Can someone explain how that is done?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to wbgonne
you need 67 votes to do it! good luck with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to freaktown
Are you sure about that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to wbgonne
yep. it takes 2/3rds of the senate to change the senate's rules.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to freaktown
They'd have to give half the country away to buy 67 Senate votes. There must be another way. Our government is essentially non-functional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to wbgonne
it is nonfunctional. and the most depressing thing is, there's really nothing that can be done about it.
all the options require republican cooperation and why would they cooperate when obstructionism is working so well for them?
i suggest we amend the constitution to abolish the senate altogether. it's not like it's good for anything anyway. but the problem with that is, you need the senate to pass any amendments! it's catch-22 after catch-22.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 21, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to freaktown
I'm pretty sure the 2/3rd requirement only applies to changing rules mid-session. Not that that helps us much, here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
January 21, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to freaktown
...and now we're at my nickname. Maximinus Thrax abolished the Roman Senate. This country is finished.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to Max Thrax
if the country is finished it's because the senate refuses to or is completely unable to solve the problems we're facing today. at least the house can pass legislation. as things stand, you can't get ANYTHING of the senate...
i just think we need to seriously re-examine our democracy. the system is broken. it needs fixed. the senate, in my opinion, is the problem. so we need to fix the problem one way or another. but we can't because the senators themselves don't see the senate as a problem.
we're paralyzed as a country because one branch of our government can't function effectively. that's a problem. a pretty big one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to freaktown
There is one option the "leadership" has completely lost sight of. Let the bastards filibuster. Let them stand up there, day after endless day, jabbering on, blah-blah-blah....
Ain't gonna happen. That'd take balls, and it is the Democratic leadership we're talking about here, after all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 21, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to EastWest
There is no such thing as the talking filibuster. The talking is optional. All they have to do is keep one guy on the floor to "suggest the absence of a quorum" and force a roll call every time they get ready to vote. Over and over again. Not but what that wouldn't look even worse for them on CSPAN. But the talking is an optional add-on for those with a theatrical flair.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 21, 2010 10:55 PM in reply to freaktown
Can't be right. Otherwise the Republicans could never have invoked the Nuclear Option. To me the answer is to make them actually filibuster instead of just "calling" it.
If that doesn't work, then maybe think about doing away with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
January 21, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to wbgonne
they could kill the filibuster at the beginning of the session with 51 votes, but it would only be for that session.
So the next time they can do it with 51 votes is AFTER the next election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to dtOZONE
What election? Does the MA special election count?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Candide
January 21, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to wbgonne
Actually I believe on any vote a point of order challenging the rule can then be overturned by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, Democrats like the 60 vote cloture as much as Republicans. It gives each of them individually a lot more power. They don't EVER want to give that up. It also gives them cover so they can whine about Republican obstructionism. Remember not a single Senator gives a damn about any individual piece if legislation; it's the power they want and need and crave.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DanF
January 21, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to freaktown
Wrong. A simple majority is all that's required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to DanF
You have to have real balls to trigger anything nuclear. Democrats are pretty much eunuchs these days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Schmed
Well the Dems aren't well-positioned to do it at the moment since most of their wounds are self-inflcited But they can rapidly build a persuasive case on GOP obstructionism. Then do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 21, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to DanF
This. The 60 vote "requirement" has never been anything but an excuse Senators hide behind so that 1) each one has a chance of being a little king or queen, and 2) they can get away with serving their paymasters rather than the voters. The 60 vote requirement can be eliminated literally within an hour or so, the minute 50 Dems + Biden decide to do it. But of course they won't (see points 1 and 2 above.) Point of order (not subject to debate) -> upheld by Biden -> sustained on a simple majority vote. That's all.
Do not buy that they "can't" do it. They don't WANT to. They don't WANT to govern.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 21, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The basic problem behind all of this is that no Senator is in jeopardy for accepting bribes. In fact that is the accepted procedure in the Senate. People run for the Senate to accumulate personal wealth, and when elected, that is what they do, by selling their votes to corporations. If the Justice Department were to mount prosecutions of a few of the worst offenders that state of affairs might be changed. Incidentally, besides Biden, Wisconsin's liberal senator, and Kennedy, can anyone name a Senator who didn't accumulate wealth by becoming a senator?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 21, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Bingo. It's all about money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to DanF
the problem with the nuclear option is that if used, the republicans can and will do what the dems threatened to do when frist first threatened to use: shut down the senate via procedural tactics which really could be worse than the filibuster rule.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to freaktown
Good. Maybe that'll cause enough of the people to get mad enough to do something. Having feckless, corrupt Congress in gridlock while Mr. Wait&See diddles at the helm of the Titanic, plus the SC giving the rest of the store away to the corporations, perhaps the revolution will finally begin, although it definitely will NOT be televised.
Cue the Who.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 21, 2010 5:42 PM in reply to Schmed
Amen! What purpose does the Senate serve anyway? For that matter what would change if the Senate was shut down?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to freaktown
What could be worse than a rule that renders the Senate unable to function? That's as bad as it gets for the country. Maybe individual senators will get mad but I really don't give a damn about that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to wbgonne
right, but the nuclear option wouldn't make the senate function any better because republicans would shut the place down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to freaktown
I really don't see the problem. If the Republicans want to go home let them. I don't care as long as Dems can enact legislation. I can't think of single GOP senator who would be missed if they all got abducted by Martians.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to wbgonne
okay but what i'm saying is, the nuclear option wouldn't make enacting legislation any easier because there are a myriad of parliamentary procedures republicans could enact that would make the senate grind to a halt.
you'd just be trading one obstructionist tactic for another.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to freaktown
Just how will the Republicans obstruct without a filibuster?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to wbgonne
they could with hold unanimous consent for one and force votes on every little trivial thing.
a senator wants an extra 30 seconds to speak? the senate would have to vote on that without unanimous consent...that's just one example. i'm sure there are plenty of others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to freaktown
So what? I really don't see the problem. It may be messy but ultimately the Repubs can't do anything the Senate rules won't let them do. That's why we're talking about changing the rules.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 21, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to wbgonne
You are being fooled. The 60 vote thing is nothing but an excuse by weak, corrupt leaders who don't really want to pass the legislation their constituents want and desperately need. Why? Because their real masters---the corporate special interests---won't like it. The 60 vote thing is nothing but a distraction and a diversion to keep the public's attention focused on a lie about procedure instead of closely scrutinizing the actions of our elected officials who clearly are in it for themselves and themselves alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to oleeb
I'm not fooled. I'm optimistic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 21, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to oleeb
Ummm, no, I'm pretty sure it's actually in the Senate rules.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 21, 2010 9:22 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Hooey!
How is it that this magic 60 vote rule just suddenly became the guiding and sole rule of the US Senate? It didn't. It's not at all the obstacle they are claiming. Reid and the rest of the Democrats are just a bunch of pussies who don't really want to pass anything that will upset their corporate sponsors so they are hiding behind the 60 vote ruse. The Republicans sure didn't need 60 votes to get anything done did they? Why? Because the 60 vote thing is nothing but pure bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 21, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to wbgonne
You are being fooled. The 60 vote thing is nothing but an excuse by weak, corrupt leaders who don't really want to pass the legislation their constituents want and desperately need. Why? Because their real masters---the corporate special interests---won't like it. The 60 vote thing is nothing but a distraction and a diversion to keep the public's attention focused on a lie about procedure instead of closely scrutinizing the actions of our elected officials who clearly are in it for themselves and themselves alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 21, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to freaktown
I thought that the majority party caucus established the rules. What can't they change them on a majority vote of the majority party?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 21, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to wbgonne
Yeah, that would really be politically successful. Can you imagine the political repercussions of changing Senate rules in order to pass a bill that the American public doesn't want? Hell, the Democrats in the Senate wouldn't be able to mount a filibuster after 2010 because they would be lucky to have enough senators to fill a Mini Cooper, much less filibuster legislation.
And given the Democrats liberal use of the filibuster during the Bush years, including the unprecedented usage of the filibuster on multiple judicial nominees (and the cheering on of that development by the left) it is impossible to take anything the hypocrites on the left have to say on this issue seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to masanf
the filibuster is bad. it's bad when democrats are in power and it's bad when republicans are in power. there's no hypocrisy here, at least not when it comes to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
January 21, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to masanf
The democrats did NOT make full use of the fillerbuster like the hypocrites have; not even close.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to masanf
Well, clearly if the Dems do it they will have to live with it if the Repubs take back power. That's life. But the GOP Senate caucus has en masse decided to obstruct everything Obama wants to do all to make him fail. That has never been done before and it is unacceptable. Worse, it is not only un-American, it is anti-America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freaktown
January 21, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to wbgonne
that's why i favor the option of voting to kill the filibuster but not having it take effect for five or six years. that way, nobody knows who will be in power.
i'd rather have a functional democracy where sometimes policies i disagree with pass than a completely non-functional democracy where nothing can pass ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to freaktown
If we wait five or six years it won't matter. There is the fierce urgency of now to consider.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weeferdog
January 21, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to masanf
You are a stone liar. Your party has abused the filibuster more times than any minority in history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 21, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to masanf
I seem to remember that the filibuster used to require a two-thirds majority to end it. That was changed to a vote of three-fifths. It can be changed and it should be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
January 21, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to masanf
What was stopping them from writing a bill that "the American people" (you know, everyone's favorite whip-it-out personal credit card) wanted... and THEN, changing the rules to pass it by a simple majority?
You're not seeing the forest, here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitenoise100
January 21, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to masanf
Your math's a bit off there sport. 59 seats minus the 19 seats the Dems are defending still leaves enough for a filibuster. I'm sure Glen Beck would howl with laughter at your Mini Cooper comment though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
January 21, 2010 7:20 PM in reply to wbgonne
i am with that 100,000,000%.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
For Want of a Nail
January 21, 2010 2:30 PM
Yeah, we're really going to enjoy having this debate all over again. Good job, idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
January 21, 2010 2:31 PM
And what will Obama do on "financial reform, the economy, the wars and other matters"? Make speeches and let legislation die in Congress (now controlled by 41 Republicans, as the Founding Fathers intended)?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
January 21, 2010 2:31 PM
Let Congress decide? That's been the problem the entire time. You can the Congress essentially begging for leadership and for whatever reason the WH refuses to provide it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 21, 2010 2:32 PM
Rahm said that he wants a decision on how the Senate and House will move forward by Saturday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to Maritza
That reminds me. Why hasn't Rahm been fired yet?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ben_nelsons_hair
January 21, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to wbgonne
Bingo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 21, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to wbgonne
absolutely. Rahm must go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
felix
January 21, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to Maritza
Hoo-wee, that's bold leadership!!
If he stays on the sideline, as is apparent, the House will come back with a carve-it-up approach, which would be a mess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 21, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to Maritza
Thank you, Maritza. I appreciate your even-handed comments, especially now. Strangely, I haven't given up hope yet either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 21, 2010 2:33 PM
Um, good luck with that.
What's going to settle, though, isn't dust. It's the fear among Democrats that it's going to be too hard.
It was your #1 priority, Obama, and now you're backing away from it. That SOTU speech should be pretty short, given the accomplishments of the past year.
Oh, and since you're going to mention Tuesday's election, be sure to invite Vicki Kennedy to the speech, so you can rub salt in everyone's wounds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Constantinople
January 21, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to CT Voter
That SOTU speech should be pretty short, given the accomplishments of the past year.
Well, there is that Peace Prize the President received for...uh..sending more troops to Afghanistan or something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Corpiscator
January 21, 2010 2:33 PM
Wrong answer Gibbles. If this issue goes down so will the current party in office. This is America if your plates full then get a freaking larger plate. No is not an option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frank555
January 21, 2010 2:34 PM
You have to wonder how committed the Dems were to health care reform in the first place. They campaigned on it and won the presidency and the congress. Now they seem reluctant to use their power to force Republican senators to stand on the floor and filibuster--afraid they'll be criticized for abusing their power. But politics is about power, and if you win you should use it for something you regard as important. A lot of people worked for the Dems and gave money in 2008 because the party seemed committed to health care reform. They owe it to these people to at least go down fighting and not merely conceding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 21, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to Frank555
FYI, the Republicans never made the Dems stand up and actually filibuster either. Nobody does that anymore. It's a waste of time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
For Want of a Nail
January 21, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to Frank555
Easy answer: They (Democratic leadership) never intended to deliver. Even if they lose their majority status they'll have gotten it back within 6-10 years as our country never seems to learn any lessons and ping-pongs power between these two parties of the status quo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 21, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to Frank555
"You have to wonder how committed the Dems were to health care reform in the first place. ". I think the dems were/are committed to health reform but not the thugs and let us not forget the progressives who doomed this bill. I would think a lof of the progressive here would be jumping for joy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Jumping for joy? Because the guy we all voted for just wasted the first year of his presidency? No. Nobody is happy this but it is what it is. The question is what to do now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to wbgonne
I can't understand the tendency to simultaneously:
1) dismiss "progressives" (read: REAL Democrats) as totally powerless, and thereby not to be heeded, AND
2) to claim they're the reason this bill won't pass.
One... or the other. Not both.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to again
I think many people are heavily invested in Pres Obama and everyone is just very upset at things have gone so far. Remember what John McCain used to say before he became a senile and nasty old man: It's always darkest before it gets totally black.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 4:27 PM in reply to wbgonne
I'm wearing just black only until they come up with something darker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 21, 2010 5:45 PM in reply to wbgonne
Wasted the first year of presidency? That's only true if you voted for him as a one-trick pony. Obama won 96.7 of the legislation he wanted, and that's a record. It's more than Lyndon Johnson won in 1965, when he set the previous record.
Follow the link: http://www.congress.org/news/2010/01/10/congress_backed_obama_in_09
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
January 21, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to lousgirl84
The pointing of fingers at progressives is really just plain idiotic. I've followed your postings and I give you more credit than that. I know tensions are high right now so we all should take a deep breath, and take a step back.
Progressives really wanted single payer, but that was taken off the table before it even had a chance. Fine.
Progressives settled for a robust public option and were told NO. Fine.
Progressives were willing to accept an expansion of Medicare. That had a brief life of maybe 2-3 days before it was turned down. Fine.
A weak public option, maybe? Passed the House but not the Senate. Fine.
All were rejected by no other than a handful of prema-donna Senators who were willing to kill the bill altogether of THEY did not get EVERYTHING they wanted. What were they willing to compromise on?
There are even a few progressives left that just want this freakin' bill to pass already, as much as they HATE IT! Let's get it done and over with already. But no, not gonna happen. Why? DLC is running for the hills because conservatives are too scary.
If my recollection of what has happened over these past few months is not correct, than fine. I would really like to know how is it that progressives are to blame for this disaster.
One last thing. Gang of six? No progressives there. Progressives wanted HCR as quickly as possible for two reasons; 1. 44,000 people die each year because a lack of insurance. 1200 a day. Morally wrong, 2. Progressives warned the longer it took, the more likely it was going to blow up in the Democrats' face. The gang of six wanted to take as long as possible to get the "best bill possible." Well, we see where we are now. Hate to tell you we told you so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Corpiscator
January 21, 2010 2:35 PM
Wrong answer Gibbles. If this issue goes down so will the current party in office. This is America if your plates full then get a freaking larger plate. No is not an option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
January 21, 2010 2:36 PM
RIP Health Care Reform. 2009 - 2010
It's over. Once again (corporate power, the forces of greed, Republican a$$hattery, Democratic incompetence - fill in the blank) has decided that their own power and financial well being outweighs what is good for the country and for the future.
All I'm hearing is 'we can't despair, we must go on.' Sorry - I can't go on - I feel like the battered wife who has finally decided it's time to leave. 45 years of fighting and a new generation who isn't even willing to make the effort to vote have left me empty. What's the weather like in Montreal?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alkali
January 21, 2010 2:36 PM
It's completely insane. Rightly or wrongly, no one gives a sh*t about financial reform. The teabaggers have just won.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to alkali
Oh, I think you are mistaken. Wall Street and Mega-Corps are the appropriate villains here. People are very very angry. One mistake the White House made is not realizing that without another target Obama would BECOME the target. Like I said, why hasn't Rahm been fired yet?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
January 21, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to wbgonne
Rightly or wrongly no one gives a shit about Rahm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Then he should DEFINITELY be fired. Today. Obama has to make some heads roll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to wbgonne
Why on earth is a former Goldman Sachs "consultant" the Chief of Staff to the POTUS?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
January 21, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to alkali
No one gives a shit about financial reform? really? 'cause that's the other issue people have been clobbering him with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to alkali
Jane, you ignorant slut.
The entire economy hinges on bank reform.
Ask Bill Black or Simon Johnson or Paul Volcker.
Duh!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sparrowskate
January 21, 2010 2:37 PM
Wow, Obama is really doing a horrible job! I am embarrassed that I donated to his campaign and made phone calls before election day. The democrats have better rhetoric than the Republicans, but they are not capable of governing. What a sham! What a joke! We are screwed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 21, 2010 2:37 PM
I guess it really is over, with this statement. The dust isn't ever going to settle. And the administration is backing away from its number 1 priority this year.
This day sucks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to CT Voter
I am quite cheerful because I see the first signs that the White House is waking up. Green shoots, you know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 21, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to wbgonne
Well, that is definitely a glass half full analysis.
I wish I shared your optimism, but this full plate dust-settling bullshit just squashed any hope I had.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to wbgonne
Waking up?!? So they can pull the covers back over their heads and hope the scary monster goes away if they promise to give it half of their Halloween candy?
Yeah, things are going to go really great from here on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 21, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to Schmed
No shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to Schmed
No, I'm not saying that Schmed. I don't know what's going to happen. Neither do you. I'm just saying that everybody screws up even first-year presidents and, if Obama gets it together and the Senate Dems toughen up, things could be very much better very quickly. Am I betting the house on it? . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to wbgonne
Brother, I am with you.
I am hopeful in the midst of all this dust.
If he cleans up his act, this could be the beginning of something great.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to again
In the words of Gram Parsons: Everybody's so wrong that I know it's gonna work out right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 4:31 PM in reply to wbgonne
Tick tock. Rome's on fire. No time for fiddlin'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dubza15
January 21, 2010 2:38 PM
I can't believe there using the "plate is too full" analogy. That's something the repubs made up to slow everything down. utter ridiculousness. good bye congressional majorities.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dubza15
January 21, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to dubza15
sorry. *they're not "there. stoopid me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
landow
January 21, 2010 2:41 PM
I've retained respect for Obama despite a lot of individual decisions I've disagreed with. This is more than a little disappointing however. I suspect that some of his public reticence vis a vis Congress comes from a sincere belief in the separation of powers; that the President should only minimally interfere with the legislative process. He needs to realize though that when something as big as health care reform is at stake this makes him look complacent and out of touch, something he can ill afford politically. If the prospect of health care reform dying right at his feet is not enough to ruffle his feathers what is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wilsonjm2003
January 21, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to landow
Ditto
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TBender
January 21, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to landow
Thirded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to TBender
Squared.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to wbgonne
Quinted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 21, 2010 11:09 PM in reply to landow
OH PUH-LEESE!!!!
Separation of powers has nothing to do with it. No one is asking him to pass a bill himself and then sign it into law. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a president from encouraging or pressuring law makers to enact his agenda.
Its funny how he's not so hands off when it comes to the left. He and Rahm have no problem making their wishes known when they don't like what liberals are doing. His "respect for the separation of powers" only manifests itself when its the conservative democrats that need to be pushed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DanF
January 21, 2010 2:44 PM
Umm... Hasn't it occurred to them that health care reform is a huge part of putting this country back on sound fiscal ground?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to DanF
It most certainly is. Which is yet another thing they should have mentioned somewhere along the line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
January 21, 2010 2:45 PM
what a victory for the repukes....they won and KILLED OFF OBAMA'S AGENDA! Barack, pls give thanks to Rahm, Tim Kaine and your senate buddies becuase you gave up!
The blame game will eat up the dems and progressives will be nailed as the bad guys! long live the corporate state of america!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 21, 2010 2:46 PM
I think that people are reading too much into what Gibbs is saying. The White House has been engaged in this process even now. Gibbs also said that the White House has met with Pelosi and Reid and they will work on the best way forward.
Rahm called Schumer just as Schumer was speaking. So the White House and Obama are very much engaged but they will most likely be behind the scene.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
January 21, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Maritza
Yeah, I'd like to see the video. My first reaction was that this is a poor formulation, if in fact, they are working the process and want some answers in the next few days.
They may want to avoid inflaming the situation, but this was a deflating way to do it. We have a lot on our plate right now? Really?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to fbacon2
exactly
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
January 21, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to fbacon2
Not credible on its face, of course. I am guessing (hoping?) that the talking is fast and furious but not certain and that he just doesn't want to tip his hand in any direction or stoke the chicken little atmosphere, well, I guess the latter is an impossible goal.
But really, the House is now acting like a lot of nambie pambies. Just kind of pathetic. I did write an obligatory angry e-mail to the WH this morning, and will be calling senators and reps daily. No harm in applying pressure!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
January 21, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to rb6
That seems to be what's happening behind the scenes, according to Greg Sargent.
My beef at the moment is that we need some kind of message to the ranks to STFU and hold tight. If we could just get the lemmings in the House to give, "We're examining our options," responses instead of "I can't support this bill" answers to reporters questions, everyone would breathe easier. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/happy-hour-roundup-148/S
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 21, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Maritza
I would call you a sychophant, but the fact you have a picture of Obama in your avatar kind of makes that obvious already.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 21, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to Maritza
I appreciate the update, Maritza. You're about the only one who hasn't given up yet. I'm atill hanging on by a thread.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
January 21, 2010 2:47 PM
Obama would be very foolish (and he's not) to jump in and try herding the cats right at this moment. They are already in full, frenzied flight, with static electricity making their hair stand on end! AND frankly those of us watching and reacting (over-reacting?) to every word and gesture aren't too calm either. Say what you will about what he's done to date, it's nothing but an intelligent move to stay away from the spotlight on this issue right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 21, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to Elizabeth2
A different answer other than "full plate" was needed. Something along the lines of Prez Obama is working directly with Congressional leaders on this issue. Nothing further to add.
Apparently, though, Obama is just too darned busy to get his hands dirty. When is going to a Reid fund-raiser, BTW?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to Elizabeth2
Yeah, it is best for the leader to disappear and not get engaged. Yup, that's a winning stateregy all right!
Sigh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 21, 2010 2:50 PM
That is some high quality leadership.
This kind of refutes the claim that we need health care reform RIGHT now, doesn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 21, 2010 2:51 PM
One friggin vote away and the President still can't lead on the issue.
Obama calls himself a fighter in his financial reforms speech today - He's delusional if he A]thinks he's a fighter and B]thinks any special interest takes his threats seriously.
He's quickly becoming a toothless joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 21, 2010 2:54 PM
I am beginning to think maybe we misunderstood what Obama's team meant when they said they had studied and learned the lesson of Clinton's foray into health care reform.
We thought it meant that they needed to take a hands-off approach to letting Congress decide.
But what it really meant was: promising to reform health care gets you elected, but actually doing it requires spending a lot of political capital. It's better, therefore, to let Congress take the heat, and pretend "your plate is full" with other pressing matters.
After all, Clinton's first term led to massive losses for the Party, but Clinton himself got re-elected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
January 21, 2010 2:54 PM
It is pretty much over now for the Congressional dems. I hate to say it but they have failed miserably in the midst of great opportunity. Now they'll go into bunker mode with conservative Dems seeing no point in tacking left. Moderate Repub's now have ZERO incentive for bipartisanism (not that most had much to begin with). TOTAL STALEMATE. And the country heads further down the drain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 21, 2010 2:54 PM
What complete and utter bullshit! All through the past year I've been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt whenever he did something I didn't agree with. No more.
He betrayed me. He betrayed millions of Americans who volunteered on his campaign and donated money. He betrayed tens of millions of Americans who voted for him. And he betrayed every American who goes bankrupt from medical expenses or who gets needlessly sick or dies because they don't have health insurance.
This shows he is not a leader, nor is he a transformative president. And not only does he reveal himself to be lacking in courage but also politically incompetent.
Just compare: In 2001, Bush took office having really lost the election, an illegitimate president, with a narrow House majority and a tied Senate, and he governed as if he had a mandate. In 2009, Obama took office having won a mandate with huge majorities in Congress and he has governed as if he was an accidental president in the minority.
Absofuckinglutely pathetic. I have never felt more disillusioned with a politician.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
January 21, 2010 9:51 PM in reply to Moose49
I thank you for the compliment. I will consult with OBama about being a decider if he asks me nice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 21, 2010 2:56 PM
I am waiting to hear one thing that the President can actually do at this point to force the democratic legislators to grow the fuck up.
The House and Senate could have resolved their differences weeks ago. How is that the president's fault.
The House could act tomorrow and resolve this, but far too many democratic members care more about their own prerogatives than the public welfare.
If not for the fucked up rules of the Senate this would have been resolved to everyone's liking months ago. But that's on the President, too, I guess.
Democratic voters of Massachusetts could have made this question moot if they were not as self-absorbed, or petty, or distracted, or fractious as they apparently are. But that's also the President's fault I guess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 21, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Economides
The only dust that Obama wants to settle is that being raised by his supporters--and by the supporters of the Party. Meanwhile, he's really too busy for the bully pulpit of the Presidency which he talked about endlessly in his campaign.
But not to worry; he has plenty of work to do while waiting for his supporters to settle down. How very reassuring....not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 21, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to Economides
Sorry -- I understand what you're saying and the House and Senate do deserve a greater share of the blame, but there is a lot the president could be doing. It's called leadership. It's called using the bully pulpit. It's called bringing people together in a room and knocking heads. It's called forcing the issue and fighting for it and risking defeat, rather than folding the moment things get tough. It's called putting the interests of the American people ahead of all other considerations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 21, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to Moose49
Second.
The WH has been interested in Olympia Snowe. How about working with Dems instead of fruitlessly pursuing "bipartisanship"? How about knocking heads together, as you said?
As I said earlier, this day sucks. Yesterday was painful. This is significantly worse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 21, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to CT Voter
Agreed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 21, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to CT Voter
Far far worse. Not only because hope's vanishing as fast as the air from a balloon that's just been popped, but because of the Supreme Court's ruling -- this one probably even worse than Bush v. Gore -- that might well prevent Democrats from ever winning another major election again. Or, just as bad, make congressional Dems more beholden than ever to corporate interests out of fear that they'll throw $10 million into an independent expenditure campaign to defeat them.
And shame on them for even thinking about Snowe. Are they the only people on the planet who can't see that she's Lucy and the president is Charlie Brown?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
January 21, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to Moose49
@Moose and Cat: Knocking heads together is not a solution or a strategy. It's the same generic advice from last year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Tell it to FDR or Truman or LBJ.
Your lies... they're so repetitive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 21, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to Moose49
Why can't he demonstrate the same sort of leadership on healthcare that he did on bringing the Olympics to Chicago?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to barbara63
ZING!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 21, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to barbara63
Bingo! At least he tried.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SleepinJeezus
January 21, 2010 2:57 PM
I thought I was voting for the lesser of two evils when I cast my vote for Obama in 2008. I guess I was wrong for all the damage he is ready to inflict on progressive politics for the sake of - what? - his corporate owners? His "post-partisanship?" his fear of conflict?.
I'm guessing there's only so far your corporate donors will allow you to go on alleged HCR. Looks like Obama is still taking his cues from pHarma and the rest of the health care lobby - even if it means selling out the Dems wholesale.
There simply can be no other excuse for such feckless cowardice. I've never seen anything this extreme in my life, which is filled these last 40 plus years with disappointments of Dems failing to seize the initiative when it's been handed to them on a silver platter, but choosing instead to maintain good communications between their campaign committees and the lobbyists who fund them.
Change you can believe in? Not exactly what I had in mind.
Absolutely disgusting!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 21, 2010 9:27 PM in reply to SleepinJeezus
Hey Sleepin! Where ya been? Haven't seen much of ya lately.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SleepinJeezus
January 21, 2010 9:56 PM in reply to oleeb
65 hour weeks at work, oleeb. Kinda' limits the time I can spend on TPM, unfortunately. Given the way things are going, I'm about ready to give up on politics anyway. Elected officials are merely a commodity anymore, and I can't compete in that marketplace.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hntrr31
January 21, 2010 2:57 PM
Personally, I'd like to see how this plays out before I rake him over the coals.
But I understand that pissing and moaning like impotent jerks is more in vogue 'round these parts. So it goes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to hntrr31
I don't want to overreact. They need time to figure this out, fine. But then why don't they STFU and say nothing until they do??
It's like Barney Frank's "change of heart". Why say anything, and then walk it back. I'm sick of reading the tealeaves.Fuck that.
A simple "we're in discussions, so we can't talk" would be better than lots of vague hints, winks and nods. A "no comment" works wonders.
This is worse than the Brown victory. This is simply self-inflicted meltdown.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
January 21, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
They make a statement because people and the media are demanding they make a statement. When he wasn't saying much he got slammed, when he does say something, he gets slammed and mocked. "Oh look at that, the President of the United States has a full plate" - as if any president would be lying if they said they had a full plate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdtex
January 21, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to hntrr31
We'll soon know how it plays out. The August recess and '08 election campaign aren't that far away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdtex
January 21, 2010 2:57 PM
I think what we're seeing is that suddenly nobody in the Dem leadership now has the stomach for HCR. It's questionable whether some ever did. HCR is dead and no POTUS is ever gonna touch it again. Insurance companies,pharmaceutical companies and for-profit healthcare providers have won and the pols in their back pocket have won.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
January 21, 2010 3:03 PM
The Senate, House & White House, and STILL unable to pass healthcare -- what was supposed to be a "core" Democratic aim?
They deserve the disillusionment and wrath of voters that will ensue in this upcoming election.
They've placed their electoral prospects ahead of working for the people, and it's unfortunate that they don't realize that that's exactly what's going to doom those electoral prospects in 2010.
The irony would be laughable if real lives weren't actually hanging the balance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
January 21, 2010 3:03 PM
The president can't just move on from this and act like the entire past year of work circling the drain is no big deal. He will wear that failure like a second skin no matter what he does afterwards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 21, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to human
Well, what he needs to do is have an affair with an intern and get caught.
For whatever odd reason, that seems to be the only thing that causes the holier-than-thous to circle the wagons and step back into reality.
Maybe someone should have leaked photos of the Senate bill getting it on with an intern...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hubcap
January 21, 2010 3:03 PM
Super. If Obama lets this die, he's Jimmy F******g Carter. Nice guy, good intentions, but can't actually, you know, "do" his agenda. Kind of thought we elected him to do things that are hard. My bad. I guess I misunderstood.
I've been a Dem for 30 years and am as disgusted with my party as I have ever been. It's one thing to be scared, fine. Health care reform is big and scary. But to fight for something for a year and then bail when it gets tough? That's just stupid. Not a good combination. I don't see why I should spend a dime or a minute more helping these people get elected.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
January 21, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to hubcap
ditto
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WiliamWalace
January 21, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to hubcap
Learn you lesson, Nice guys finish last. Vote for the A-hole and things get done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
January 21, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to hubcap
ditto
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 21, 2010 3:12 PM
Again, no one individual killed HIR.
Corruption killed HIR. Its as simple as that.
We are probably never going to be able to pass the kind of legislation the country needs, such as Cap and Trade or HIR, until we deal with the corruption.
The only things that ever really seem to pass, are more spending or more tax cuts. Everybody loves all of that.
Especially the corporations that own Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fafner1
January 21, 2010 3:12 PM
Nice punt by Obama. Unfortunately when you punt you end up on defense.
After 40 years of voting a straight Democratic ticket, I am planning on staying home this November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Khyber900
January 21, 2010 3:12 PM
President Obama is showing a lack of political courage. Why would you have the ball on the 1 yard line and then stop playing just because it got a little tough at the end? Why is Scott Brown being treated like the President-elect? Al Franken's election didn't provoke this reaction from the GOP.
I do not understand why the President cannot call the House Dem Caucus to the White House and demand an up or down vote on the Senate bill, and that it better be 'up' if they want any support for reelection from him, the base or the national party organizations and interest groups? Do we as a party not believe in anything anymore?
It's hard at this point not to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton would've been a better choice for President, at least from a domestic policy standpoint. Bill Clinton went down swinging. He worked his heart out for health care reform before the Dems walked away upon seeing sagging poll numbers. He left it all on the field. Obama isn't willing to fight. It is unbelievable, if not surreal, that last week they were hammering out a conference bill and now the bill is just dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to Khyber900
Nope, the blame lies at the feet of the leftie House Dems and their breathless MSNBC loving supporters who called the bill a corporate blah blah blah. With friends like those what chance does Obama have, with these moronic champagne socialist jackasses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 21, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to Khyber900
Why? Because they are a pack of cowards that why.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 3:13 PM
Abridged Obama: Buck-buck-buck-buck-buck-KAW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 21, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to EastWest
You got that right!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Isepick
January 21, 2010 3:15 PM
Add to all this that for all future elections UHG, Aetna, etc. can directly throw their profits into the ad buys...I dont see anyone picking this up again. Ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
January 21, 2010 3:16 PM
""The President thinks the speaker and the majority leader are doing the right thing in giving this some time and figuring out the best way forward," he said."
Isn't the PRESIDENT supposed to help provide a way forward in situations like this?
What's the point of even having a President if he only defers everything to Congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 3:16 PM
So the "full plate" bullshit means that McCain was right and Gibbs was wrong: I think he will decide that a president is capable of doing more than one thing at a time is no longer operative (as Nixon would say).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JZ
January 21, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to Schmed
Read what Gibbs said. It wasn't that Obama has a full plate and can't work on HCR, it's that he's got plenty to do while Reid and Pelosi figure out how they want to proceed. Yes, it's awkward phrasing, but Gibbs ain't saying Obama is too busy to do this. "There's plenty of work for the president to do in the meantime."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to JZ
It would be far more reassuring if he said something like, "his plate's pretty full, but he's going to shove some things back so that the most important part of this agenda gets his full attention." But I guess telling us how busy he is is the smarter approach -- no doubt, the MSM won't misconstrue it either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 3:17 PM
Even Krugman thinks the Hosue Progressivess are being stupid:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Krugman may be an excellent economist but he is one lousy political analyst. Makes Tweetie Matthews look good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to wbgonne
I'm often infuriated by Krugman and his political instincts are not as good as his economic one. But he's right. The REJECTIONISTS have no idea of how to get to step 3.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Even someone as respectable as Krugman gets to be dead wrong now and then. This proves it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to EastWest
Yeah, you're right -- House Progressive REJECTIONISTS have a great big plan to get this done now. It's brilliant, and no one will see it coming.
Yeah right.
These asshole traitors stand for nothing. They are killing HCR because of their fucking monumental egos. They all need to go, even the faux progressiver fakes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
These "asshole traitors" are what got Obama into the White House. If these "asshole traitors" had stayed home we'd be laughing about the latest gaffe from Vice President Palin right now. These "asshole traitors" are the only ones who have consistently, throughout this entire process, stuck to their guns. The people you love so much - the spineless, empty-nutsack ConservaDems and their leader Joe Lieberman - have, time after time, sold America down the river.
Maybe it's time for you to paddle on back to your swamp, Frog.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hntrr31
January 21, 2010 3:18 PM
Pelosi: "We have to get a bill passed -- we know that. That's a predicate that we all subscribe to."
Obama: "I'm going to let them get it done, and work on some other stuff in the interim."
Seriously, if they fail to get this passed, I'll be as pissed as everyone else. But a lot of people here need to grow a pair and exercise some patience.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 21, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to hntrr31
I am in my seventh month of patience. The polls on this loss in Mass showed that wench in consistent fall for three weeks. That was plenty of time to realize "oops".
What happened during that time? Did Congressional leaders get the lead out of their pants and get a reconciled bill to the floors PRONTO? Nope, it did not happen.
Obama's remark that the Senate won't do squat on healthcare for a couple of weeks was extraordinarly BAD.
He said he would fight for healthcare. He used his mom as an example of the worry patients can go through--even with healthcare. Her insurance company said her cancer was a pre-existing condition. There are people going through this right now.
I expected a fight. I convinced friends and neighbors to vote for him because I told them he would fight. He told me that endlessly.
I gave time, money, effort and even tears. The first time Obama directly asked for my help was GOTV for Coakley that I paid for myself. That's how he spent his political capital with me--moving the loss from 14% to less than that.
I am enraged, furious, seeing red....and not willing to be patient any longer and "wait for better days" while Obama doesn't fight but just waits for the dust to settle.
It. Is. Not. Enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
grover cleveland
January 21, 2010 3:19 PM
1. Any of us could get sick.
2. Any of us could lose our jobs.
3. If this happens, our families could go bankrupt and we could die.
4. Congress must fix this.
Why has Obama not been making this simple argument EVERY F******G DAY since his inaugaration? Why has he not hammered the case for HCR into the minds of voters at every opportunity? In words that people can both understand and remember?
Bush did it for his stupid tax cuts. It worked.
Bush/Cheney did it for their phony Iraq war. It worked.
Obama is way way more intelligent than Bush. But Bush understood something about being President that Obama apparently does not.
Voters are not University of Chicago law students. Voters are not generally engaged in the details of the political process. Voters are not, in general, policy wonks. Voters are, on average, of average intelligence. Voters have a lot to worry about in their daily lives and have only a small space in their minds to be filled with politics.
While the House Democrats are displaying the worst form of cowardice, the overall fault is Obama's. Obama has not displayed leadership on health care. He could have done so by making the general case for health care reform above as outlined above without tying himself to particular policy details.
I say this as someone who supported Obama to the utmost against both Hillary and McCain, and who truly believed in him. Heck, I still do.
I am just truly gutted by what has happened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to grover cleveland
Yeah, the strategy is so simple in your little head but real live governing is a lot more complicated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
grover cleveland
January 21, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
If Bush could do it, it can't be that hard.
In fact it's easy. It's TOO easy for Obama. Just repeat the same thing on TV over and over again. in sentences of less than ten words.
"We need tax cuts because the government runs a surplus".
"We need tax cuts because the economy is bad."
"We need tax cuts because the economy is good."
etc.
etc.
Obama's problem is that he is too intellectually honest to do this. According to recent revelations he objected "Change you can believe in" and "Yes we can" during the campaign, and had to be pushed into it by Axelrod.
Depressing, I know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 21, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to grover cleveland
I heard this exact same thing today from a "voting Democrat but otherwise paying no attention" person. Obama is too analytical which satisfies some people but sometimes ya just have to come down into the weeds and speak in simple sentences--over and over and over again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
Yep. Work is hard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to EastWest
But whining on your keyboard is easy as pie.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
It is, and it's kind of sad watching the ConservaDems doing it. It's probably even harder for them to find the outrage needed to blame the progressives. (You remember the progressives, don't you? The people who didn't get us into this mess?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to EastWest
Uh, as far as I can tell, they are the ones *refusing* to vote for health care in the house. This is on them, bro. Sorry. ;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
The logic of such insults escapes me. You, typing on a keyboard, mock the other guy for . . . typing on a keyboard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
January 21, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to grover cleveland
I was the man! You miss me, you know...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 3:22 PM
Greg Sargent:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/reasons-not-to-panic-yet-about-pelosis-claim-that-senate-bill-cant-pass-house/
Ezra Klein and Josh Marshall say Pelosi means its dead. Others are questioning that assumption.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Everyone's at a different stage of grieving: denial, anger, or acceptance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 21, 2010 3:28 PM
What does he really care about all that? Goldman Sachs will take care of him when he's out of office.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 3:28 PM
There was a lot of excitement when Obama was elected. he was elected to bring about major change, and instead:
- nobody has paid for breaking the law w.r.t. torture
- Gitmo is still open
- banks are still making billions
- nothing has really changed
I am a lifelong Democrat, but not any more. We gave them both Houses and the Presidency, and 60 votes in the Senate, and they can't even seem to tie their own shoes.
To let a Republican win Sen. Kennedy's seat, and that kills health care? Priceless irony, and all of it is bad.
To get my respect and my vote:
- immediately strip Lieberman of any seniority and any chairmanships
- immediately prosecute those who illegally wiretapped us, who tortured, who lied and broke the law
- immediately pass legislation to control the banks
- immediately pass health care, in some form
They won't, and they can't, they have no real leaders, Obama included. Sad really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to billpaustin
Good riddance. Another whining baby progressive bitching about civil liberties. Have fun at the Amnesty International rallies while the grown ups try to deal with this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
That is fine. I have voted for a Democrat ever since Nixon days. But not any more, even with power they are powerless.
The more the Democratic Party tries to go to the middle, the less it is leading us anywhere.
So good riddance, yourself. The "grownups" are apparently incompetent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to billpaustin
They are better off without whining cry-baby progressive purists, that's for damned sure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
Riiight. They don't need my vote, my donations, or my good will. Fine. How's that working out so far?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to billpaustin
Feels better already. Talk about dead. weight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
Oh. c'mon now you went and blew your cover. You are a GOP plant. You were going pretty good there, too. But thanks for playing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to wbgonne
Nope. Is it that implausible for a real Democrat to feel this level of bitterness as purity progressives sit on their f*cking hands in the house and refuse to pass the bill? But call me a R if it makes you feel better. Shows how out of touch you are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jthdane
January 21, 2010 3:30 PM
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and be patient. Yes. Obama made a lot of mistakes, such as continuing to believe in the bipartisan fairy tale much too long. Presumably he now realizes that the Republican strategy is and has been to oppose everything substantial he wants to accomplish, tie the Congress up in knots so the country cannot be governed, and then blame the Democrats, who, after all, have big majorities in both houses. It is a strategy that has worked a) because Obama has not been willing to "give 'em hell" as HST did and b) because Harry Reid is a wuss and lets the Republican have their effortless, shadow filibusters, which the public does not even realize are going on. Bring some popular issues to the floor and force the Republican to tie up the Senate reading phone books. The media would love it and for once the Republicans would have to be explaining why they are filibustering against a jobs creation bill, or the apppointment of a Chinese American to the federal bench, etc., etc. The Senate aide quoted in David Kurtz's blog today, says the Republicans will do that, but I wonder how many times they will actually do it if Obama calls them out and the country beguins to relaize how obstructionist they are. In short the Republicans strategy worked, because Obama and Reid let them carry it off without any downside. I think (hope?) Massachusetts has awakened Obama and he will now do a 180 degree turn to being the president he was as a candidate. There are some signs of a re-awaklening in the recent actions regarding the banbking industry, and let's hope that is only the beginning of a new fighting mad Obama. I hope I am right and that being an accomnmodater is not so ingrained in Obama's soul that he cannot change. I am willing to wait and see how things play out before saying absurdly negative things about Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to jthdane
Any naivete you perceive on Obama's part re: bipartisanship is just a tactical calculation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 21, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
What tactic is that? Retreat backwards?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to jthdane
Outstanding! Bring it on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
January 21, 2010 3:30 PM
While I agree the situation sucks I think most of the outrage is misguided. Ask yourselves, how did we get to this point? It was through many (some would say to many) compromise which is how the system is supposed to work. Direct your outrage at the party of NO. Move on to financial reform and let those bastards align themselves with the bankers. Then we'll see what happens in November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 21, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to expat46
Obama going after the bankers just doesn't seem very genuine to me. He's the one who gave them all that money with no strings attached in the first place. I know Bush did the same thing, but wasn't Obama supposed to be different?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to expat46
If they think they can win in Nov. by screwing over their base, they are simply wrong. It's a huge miscalculation if they lose progressives and Democrats to appeal to flaky independent assholes like in Mass. Those jackasses are not your supporters. They are not loyal. they won't volunteer. The Republicans know that. They always appease their base. It's "base + independents" not "independents - base".
Progressives are patient -- insanely patient actually -- and if Obama and Pelosi said we will get something passed one way or another in a month or two that would be acceptable.
But doing NOTHING is not. IF letting the dust settle means giving up, it is a huge error. Personally I won't vote for GOP and I won't let them get elected ever. But so many progressives will stay home whether we like it or not if we get no results whatsoever. Nobody will volunteer. There will be no enthusiasm. They will have lost their base, or most of it. And they frankly deserve to if they give up. They need to be held accountable. Personally, I would rather target the turncoats and traitors one by one, not hurt the pols who are loyal to the cause.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 21, 2010 4:59 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
It's a huge miscalculation if they lose progressives and Democrats to appeal to flaky independent assholes like in Mass. Those jackasses are not your supporters. They are not loyal. they won't volunteer.
Part of your problem is you think you know everything. Let me clear up some holes in your data:
1) Dems did NOT appeal to independents in MA -- that's precisely why they lost;
2) Some of us independents are loyal and do volunteer. We also contribute far more money to people who betray us than we should;
3) Getting mad at independents is as smart as smashing the mirror when you don't like your face -- you're in complete denial and refuse to own up to a very simple fact: the Dems let us down and gave us no reason to vote for them. We gave you our $$$, our votes, our faith, and we bet on you to make things better. After this past year, no, after the past 24 hours, your leadership shits its pants after losing a seat you thought you owned and abandons any effort to finish what you started. Why the fuck should we join up with the Democratic Party again? Reconciliation begins when you take responsibility for your own complicity.
Cue the Who (see Tommy, act 1: Go To The Mirror, Boy
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 21, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to expat46
Compromises made were with the Democrats. Things were delayed, delayed, and delayed some more. Snowe whined we need more time and, by golly, we gave them time and time and time.
The Republicans have boxed in the Democrats exactly like that boxed in Lieberman and the Homeland Security Bill. Exactly the same damned play. The Republicans withdrew completely from negotiations on the bill. The Democrats were hammered in the midterm campaigns with their failure to act on needed security issues because they were trying to reach compromises with the unions. Result? Bush GAINED Congressional seats in a midterm.
This is the exact same thing. And those of you wanting to move on from the issue need to realize (1) the Repbulicans will delay and wheeze about this issue too; (2) the delays will be in the Senate on "procedural guff" in the committees and on the floor; (3) nothing will be done; (4) repeat and rinse on the next issue.
This is reality. And the crap needs to stop right now. Don't move off healthcare. Pass the best package possible under the circumstances.....RIGHT NOW. Move on to the next issue and move it forward right past procedural claptrap. Rinse and repeat.
This just might save their damned jobs in November...maybe with a bit of luck increase their numbers.
The Republican bluff has to be called. Now. Not when the dust settles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to cube3u
I completely agree, the dust is not going to settle. The R's will continue to obstruct everything, and Obama is letting them do it, for some odd reason.
If HCR is left to die, then any hope that Obama can be decisive and influential on anything else will evaporate.
Do any Democrats know how to play hardball? or is it all nerf-balls for them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 4:44 PM in reply to cube3u
Well said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 21, 2010 3:30 PM
Obama: Change we have to wait for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
January 21, 2010 3:32 PM
The progressive base of the Democratic party needs to become has hardlined as the conservative pawns are becoming on the right. For the past generation and a half, Democrats have ignored their base with such disregard that there is no fear of electoral repercussions. This is evidence by the behavior of the administration prior to the health care reform debates. The "public option" was never even on the table much less "single payer'. "Don't ask don't tell" could easily be repealed with an executive order. Escalating the fake "war on terror" by sending more troops to Afghanistan. Still putting wall street before main street.
The effect of all this is the glacial pace of any real change in our government. 30 years of conservative hegemony with a few years of limited reversal of that course. What is there to show for it? In the ranking of nations, other than tv's and guns per capita the US is not at the top of any list that is a positive benefit for its population;education, health, manufacturing, nothing.
Yet here we are as a nation, like a dog chasing its' tail, concerned about 'terrorism'. I said that because it is the far-right wing of this nation that is so concerned with catching and defeating the far-right wing of some foreign nation.
The shrinking middle class is happening because we the people have allowed ourselves to become part of this corporate serfdom. We watch our 24 hour news filled with advertisements to keep us drugged and buying. The 'news' is just a sideshow for the commercials. When a news anchor challenges a politician for lying it becomes "newsworthy" why? Because the norm is to allow it to happen.
Need further proof of the blurring of lines between news media, politics and commercialism? Look at not only the signing of Sarah Palin to Fox news but also how Ed Shultz was courted to run as a Democrat.
Is it really any wonder, the greatest American export of our times are blockbuster movies and video games. We sell fantasy to the world and do it well, so well, that we believe our own fantasies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to Ironcomments
The progressive base needs to get lost. Sick of these arrogant hipsters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
The progressive base DID get lost, and Coakley lost. Health care is dead. Happy now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to billpaustin
"Progressive" and "base" have nothing to do with each other. And noone with any credibility credits Choakley's loss to the lack of whining amnesty international card carriers. There's just not enough of those grating fools to swing any election anyway, period!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
I think Dirty Fucking Hippies is the preferred terminology. Man, you really ain't a hip cat, are ya?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to wbgonne
Everytime I see some lefty blogger/whiner online I get an image of a Williamsburg emaciated twentysomething with rimmed glasses and a strokes t-shirt gawking at his wifi over what that evil obama sold him out this time. Then he calls mommy and daddy to get another $2000 for a month's supply of IPAs. So, no, this is a very different sub-humanoid than the "dirty hippy."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 3:45 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
BWAHAHA! I smell a troll! or worse.
Small minds have small thoughts. To you all the "whiny leftists" are 20 something losers. That about says it all, at least enough for me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to billpaustin
No there are plenty of other varieties of progressive whiners but they are all as worthless. Good riddance. The only President any of them would approve of is Kucinich or Nader and want to abolish all companies that actually produce wealth in this country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to billpaustin
Ha, and you're the guy who is never going to vote Democrat again. Who's the troll? What are you even doing here? Shouldn't you be living your happy retirement from partisan politics, commiserating with your other bitter cry-babies?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
Automated response: does not respond to trolls. Please try again later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to billpaustin
Hey! I busted him first! Or maybe not. Either way, the jig is up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to wbgonne
Not a troll. You're just a jackass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
Shorter version:
See where that thinking gets you when Barack Jimmy Carter Obama comes up for reelection. Just because progressives won't vote for Palin doesn't mean they'll vote. Keep on pissing....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:45 PM in reply to EastWest
The "progressive base" isn't a coveted voting bloc or needed for anybody. It's a handful of whiners with macbook pros sitting in a starbucks. Which is why Obama doesn't give a f*ck what they think, and rightly so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
Two words: President McCain.
If it weren't for progressives, you DLC types would still be sitting around wondering how Rove achieved his Permanent Republican Majority. How many Independents voted for Brown in Massachusetts? How many voted for Brown, who voted for Obama?
Go ahead. Be stupid and loud-mouthed. Shout from the rooftops how much you, Reid, Pelosi, and Obama despise progressives. Come November 2012, those folks will be sitting in Starbuck's watching history made as Obama becomes the first one-term African-American President.
Good thinking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to EastWest
Honestly, at this point, I'd rather lose every election forever than be associated with these progressive twits. They disgust me just as much as any Fox republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to EastWest
I think your adversary is operating in bad faith.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to wbgonne
I think he's a tea-bagger troll. :-(
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to EastWest
You idiots just don't get that I'm a Democrat who is PISSED at you progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
Definitely a Repug troll. Mind you, it's not unusual for a Dem - particularly one of those DLC wussies - to blame others for his own mistakes, but on a day when we need to be coming together, no actual thinking person would try so hard to pull us apart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
January 21, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to MSNBCBrainWash
Do you have any convictions that you share with them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allen bukoff
January 21, 2010 3:34 PM
Democratic Fight Club! Everyone invited! It's going on right now here in the comments sections of TPMDC and TPMCafe. The Dirty F***ing Hippie/Progressive/Left Democrats are beating up on the JoshMarshall/centrist-moderate/Village Democrats and trying to toughen them up. It's clear from the fake Senate Health Care Reform bill --and its demise--that the Village Dems need to learn how to fight. Come and help us teach them how!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to allen bukoff
No, the lefties need to get lost and scurry back to Nader like the rats they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 21, 2010 3:40 PM
What they're doing, or not doing, now, patently isn't working.
So why not try something different?
Maybe the WH thinks this is a temporary setback. I'd dearly love to be wrong, but I see it as a permament retreat. It just boggles my mind. I haven't been particularly critical of Obama up to now, but this just knocks me for a loop. And to read in the Times this AM that he's seeking bifuckingpartisanship, STILL--I practically threw up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
January 21, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to CT Voter
I'm right there with you. I've been incredibly supportive of this President. I've been trying to hold out hope that Obama would actually push forward with what he was elected to do.
But, after that interview he did with ABC yesterday, I concluded that he just doesn't get it. He was still talking about how the American people needed to understand what's in the healthcare bill and not be swayed by fearmongering.
I mean, YOU are the President of the United States. You shouldn't be speaking so passively about what's in the bill. YOU should be SELLING the country on the bill and helping them understand how healthcare reform will better their lives -- if you believe in it. And, after that interview, I'm really not so sure that he does. He seems to be more concerned with keeping his personal popularity than really, truly going to the mat for anything. It's like he only wants whatever can be obtained easily. If it can't be obtained easily, it's dropped. [Fully expect financial regulation to go the same way over the next few months.]
Needless to say, I never thought that I would be writing a comment like this. But, here I am.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 21, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
I had the same reaction to the ABC interview. "If only people knew how this would help them", um, well, the reason people don't know is because there's no final bill. And you haven't sold what's being proposed. "Bending the cost curve" might be the most important thing in terms of reform. As a selling point? Ewwww.
I wish David Plouffe were back with Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 21, 2010 5:54 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname
Not only that but HE needs to speak to US. If you read FDR's speeches over 70 years later straight from the page it jumps out at you how he was always engaged with people. He made it about US. Obama doesn't have the capacity to do that and I don't if it's because he doesn't really care about us, if he's tone deaf, or if it's just a weakness in his political personality, but as long as it's about HIM it works for HIM but he just can't make it about US. Clinton could do it. Reagan could do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 21, 2010 3:43 PM
It's funny, really. The left got itself into the position of feeling "betrayed" by Obama by reading secret coded messages into his actual utterances and then got mad when it turned out he actually meant the stuff he actually said. Now, they use the same technique to fan the flames of their own rage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Funny sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I was betrayed by the Republicans, they broke a LOT of laws:
- politicization of the Justice Dept. -- blatant crime, nothing done
- illegal wiretapping -- nothing done'
- illegal torture -- nothing done
- Gitmo -- nothing done
- Health care -- nothing done
- banksters -- nothing done
- Iraq war -- nothing done
- Afghanistan -- escalation with more contractors
- bailout -- banks made a killing, everyone else, no
- Sen Kennedy's seat lost -- just weird
I don't see a lot to vote for here ....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 21, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Not sure what you're referring to, NCSteve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 21, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to CT Voter
Referring to the way they're reading this as a declaration of abandonment of the effort rather than just a statement that they're going to give the panic and hysteria and denial a chance to abate.
That's their expectation, so they read this is a coded message validating their expectation rather than accepting it at face value.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 21, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
NCSteve, that seems to be an okay strategy for the Congressional Democrats. But the audience for these interviews and remarks are not Congress but voters, citizens and his supporters.
None of it went over well with me--and I have supported this guy since the fall of 2006 before anyone even believed he could win a primary. I gave serious money to his campaign. I am beyond disappointed--I actually feel betrayed.
Even so, a very tiny flicker of hope lingers and I'm giving him two weeks to get this crap right. I don't even want to watch his State of the Union speech. Just cannot do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allen bukoff
January 21, 2010 3:58 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
No. We "talked ourselves" into feeling betrayed when we realized you didn't actually mean "health care reform"--and still don't--when you talk about health care reform. If you and Obama had used the language "incredibly small, convoluted, and tortured increments in the health care system that is still generations away from real health care reform but let's call it that anyway" then we wouldn't have "fooled ourselves."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 21, 2010 6:49 PM in reply to allen bukoff
I agree - it was a ghastly, wasteful bill that guaranteed regulatory capture. But NCSteve has a point: if we'd listened carefully to the candidate Obama, he always sounded a cautious, triangulating note, and I was concerned by his emphasis on national unity. Anyway...
I'd be very happy if the President ditched the mandate - by far the most unpopular aspect of the bill (among freedom lovin' teabagging conservatives and anti-capture progressives) and passed health insurance reform (overturning McCarran-Ferguson, banning rescission and mandating guaranteed issue).
He could pass drug reimportation (very popular with the elderly, who vote) and a public option open to anyone who wanted in (also popular...or, alternately, open a Medicare buy in) as separate amendments using reconciliation (although I don't know if drug reimportation could be considered a budget-related item).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 21, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
And I admit all of the above are pretty unlikely: the President is constitutionally averse to conflict, unless it involves blowing up brown people; even that is a form of conflict avoidance: he isn't willing to go up against the foreign policy establishment or the military.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
January 21, 2010 3:44 PM
We deserve better than this...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 21, 2010 3:48 PM
It's true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
January 21, 2010 3:52 PM
"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." -Will Rogers.
Throughout the history of the Democratic party(Progressives) in the 20th century it has fallen to you to be the enactors of real societal change. From the introduction of the 19th amendment to the creation of social security, G.I. Bill, civil rights act, voting rights act, and medicare, these are all pieces of legislation that the American citizenry living today cannot truly fathom of the time of not having them. These items reinforce the reciprocity of government and its people, creating a “more perfect union”.
Today, citizens may fight for their nation and come home knowing that they can afford to continue their education. Today, citizens after spending their entire adult working lives paying into the government system that if their retirement funds suddenly evaporate in some Wall street Ponzi scheme there will still be some form of income provided by social security. Today, because of medicare, an elderly citizen can at least get the health care they need. Today, we as a nation can finally say that opportunity is truly available to all and every citizen has the right to effectuate their government regardless of sex or race.
The time has come again for Democrats (Progressives) to be the steadying hand to the invisible hand. It is neither mere accident nor divine providence that the legislative items mentioned above; all came about after a long uninterrupted term of conservative hegemony. It is the realignment of democratic principles with economic and social realities. History has taught us that those who heed the cry “socialism” in these times of change in our nation are regarded as persons with limited foresight by the generations to come. Those that were against the voting rights of 1965 could not imagine a day like November 4th 2008.
So the time has fallen unto us to establish once and for all, a citizen’s right to health care- a human right; if it were not a human right, than man should be considered no more than a pack of rapacious narcissistic jackals motivated by the hunger for profit. Capitalism does not stipulate that government can not be an equal player in the market place. Is it not competition that drives capitalism and innovation? Citizens have more choice in shipping companies to include the United States Post Office, than they have in how to pay for health care. How is that big insurance will not be able to stay competitive if they are truly providing a better service to the people than government?
Democrats(Progessives) be moved by your conscience and ideals, not by your ego and benefactors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 21, 2010 3:57 PM
Oh, remember? The TEA party is a bunch of stupid, inferior, uneducated, hillbillies.
Vanity..........definitely my favorite sin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
georgecs
January 21, 2010 3:57 PM
Burn the whole fucking house down and start over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 21, 2010 3:58 PM
I wonder how many Obama bumperstickers are going to be peeled off this weekend?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJ1
January 21, 2010 3:59 PM
The final insult:
Obama: "I don't have time to lead on this; let Congress clean up the mess!"
Congress: " ____________ !"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 21, 2010 4:01 PM
Since I say it on every thread, I'll say it here, too.
Congratulations, purists!
You got your wish. You succeeded in killing the bill. Well done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to zonk
Congratulations, nutless wonders. You got the bill you wanted: One that is such a piece of crap nobody wants it. And when it's finally rejected you lack the courage of your own convictions and loudly blame somebody else. Un-FUCKING-believable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
January 21, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to EastWest
There's a bill on the table.
There's one group of people that refuse to pass it and it ain't who you seem to think it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 4:01 PM
MSNBCBrainWash:
"The "progressive base" isn't a coveted voting bloc or needed for anybody. It's a handful of whiners with macbook pros sitting in a starbucks. Which is why Obama doesn't give a f*ck what they think, and rightly so."
Right, like all those doctors and nurses, lawyers and IT guys, and small business owners who put in so much cash and time and energy to promote the public option, which our President had asked us to do.
Who on earth do you think you're kidding? Why do you think the base will ask the President to follow through on the things he ASKED US to follow through on?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 4:07 PM in reply to again
We all tried for the best bill we could get. We almost got it until the progressive babies like Weiner sat on his hands and said no thanks, i'd rather pontificate with KO and RM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 4:15 PM in reply to again
Here's the thing about the internet: nobody knows who anyone is or why they are there. For example, let's imagine that a Republican operative -- let's call him Sneaky Karl -- reads these boards and sees the enormous tension inside the Democratic party right now. So what does Sneaky Karl do? Well, Sneaky Karl pretends to be an outraged Democrat and spews venom online like nobody's business all in an attempt to sow dissension and division in his adversary's ranks. See, Sneaky Karl is highly-educated and studied all the great sneaks in history at a very prestigious Christian Community College in American Samoa. Anyhow, Sneaky Karl . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to wbgonne
So you're suggesting that MSNBCB is a GOP operative?
I didn't get the "Karl" and the "American Samoa" reference, sorry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to again
Yes on the first. Sneaky Karl ROVE on the second. Fiction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to wbgonne
Yep. Try replacing "Sneaky Karl" with "MSNBCBrainWash" and you can sorta see where this is heading.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to EastWest
ok, thanks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allen bukoff
January 21, 2010 4:03 PM
I wonder how the "dust" is going to settle on Obama's poll numbers among Democrats now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 4:09 PM in reply to allen bukoff
He is too busy on other issues now, I guess he is waiting for the bullies to bring the ball back to play. Meanwhile, he will wait on the sidelines and let the dust settle.
Cheney had an 18% poll rating, and was arguably the most powerful person in the last administration, anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 21, 2010 4:13 PM
Healthcare reform is the only legislation I've cared passionately about over the last 20 years because I've always thought that if people could be freed from the worry of going bankrupt or being denied coverage if they got sick, they could lead better lives. Even right now when we are so close to achieving real reform, the Democrats just want to give up. That's what really makes me angry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allen bukoff
January 21, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to barbara63
Barbara63, who is really giving up here? You're throwing in the towel and declaring "health care reform" dead and abandoned by the progressive Democrats who won't vote for the fake Senate bill. Yes, we ARE close to real progress in health care reform, but it's not the Senate Bill. The Senate bill is NOT "the last chance." But now YOU are going to give up, throw in the towel, and claim that the progressives gave up and threw in the towel. Why don't we all redouble our efforts to create and pass real health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 21, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to allen bukoff
I haven't given up. Unlike you, I support passing the Senate Bill, but I'm willing to give my support to another bill if and when it comes along.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 21, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to allen bukoff
You're one of the few on here dividing Democrats into little niches. I don't give a single solitary damn about that. I want this country one inch, one step, one yard closer to universal healthcare. Period.
Every Congressional Democrat is being accused by me of failure. The President is being accused by me of failure.
That's where it stands right now, this instant. Not some niche accusation and division as you suggest.
It seems to me that our elected Democratic leaders are united on accepted the defeat of healthcare reform. If that's not true, then we'll see reform in a couple of weeks, won't we? After all, they've been dallying around with it for months....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allen bukoff
January 21, 2010 4:13 PM
The only real losers here are the Village Democrats--the ones willing to settle for the fake Senate Health Care bill. I've been jumping around the blogs and the comment sections today and it really looks like they are FINALLY getting the internal blame they deserve and have always managed to avoid. And boy are they uncomfortable about being pinned with the blame. Wide spread hysterics among the Village Democrats at getting the blame. NOW finally, they are ready to FIGHT for something...not getting the blame. And what did we progressives lose today? We lost the albatross of that fake Senate health care bill, the chance to actually craft some real health care reform (if we can get our Village Democrat brothers to quit pouting now and start fighting for real), and deliver something that might really help millions of Americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 4:15 PM in reply to allen bukoff
I don't know if I think you're entirely wrong, there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to allen bukoff
But what does Village Democrat mean?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 21, 2010 4:22 PM in reply to again
Derogatory term used often on sites like FDL and TalkLeft, to indicate Democratic pundits who are viewed as too close to the Washington establishment to be objective.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 4:23 PM in reply to again
That would be the parochial, "establishment" Dems who have been living in their own insular little community for lo, these many years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 4:27 PM in reply to EastWest
Does that include Tweetie Matthews? If he the founder?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 4:31 PM in reply to wbgonne
When he broadcasting live from BAHSTAN the other night I nearly drove out to Doyle's in Jamaica Plain to punch him in the nose. But I stayed home and was mean to people online instead. Shoulda gone for Tweetie's nose, I think.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to wbgonne
LOL! Yeah, my wife didn't get it when I called him "Tweetie". Seeing him get punched in the nose on camera would've made a nice little gift.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 21, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to allen bukoff
Hear, hear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 21, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to allen bukoff
I sure enjoy your presence around here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CK
January 21, 2010 4:28 PM
What a difference a year in DC makes for a Democratic super-majority. "Yes we can" has become "well, maybe we can someday, but don't expect real health or financial reforms anytime soon". Makes you feel like a fool for having dared to believe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 21, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to CK
Sadly, some of us didn't. I supported Clinton. Obama was the default choice when he blew her out in the primaries. I was pretty damn vehement about supporting her, too - particularly when it came to Obama followers calling her a racist or a c**t or the like. Said a few things, pissed some people off, that sort of thing....
If it's any consolation, I voted for Obama and hoped I could hope. I'm embarassed to admit that I'm disappointed and a bit surprised at his lack of leadership skills. I mean, politics is not a parlor game - it's a full-contact, knee-in-the-groin knife fight. Teddy Roosevelt could've been talking about politics with his "carry a big stick" observation. Being conflict-averse really doesn't work out all that well for a POTUS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to EastWest
I never supported Hillary, but I agree with your last line heartily.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 21, 2010 4:50 PM in reply to CK
Absolutely. That is why failure to deliver in this case will reverberate well beyond just the midterms. I mean, what is O going to campaign on in '12?
"This time I swear we really can"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Khyber900
January 21, 2010 4:36 PM
Obama has shown a lack of leadership and the liberals in Congress have an inflated sense of their own power. MSNBC air time may add inches to their dicks, but it doesn't add votes in the Senate or House.
Obama needs to reshuffle is cabinet and advisors and get some real liberals with credibility in his government who have the ability to make the sale to House Dems when the time comes for cutting a deal. There is a real disconnect between the WH and the House Liberals and the absence of true liberals in the government is a big reason why.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwp
January 21, 2010 4:37 PM
Obama has played right into the Republicans hand...He should have learned some lessons early on when they rebuffed him repeatedly. Get tougher which has never been the Democrats strong point. They are fractured and as I read on here earlier they deserve what they are getting. As much as I hated Cheney he made sure to get their agenda done and with far less votes..Obama needs to adhere to a similar playbook without going overboard..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readerOfTeaLeaves
January 21, 2010 4:40 PM
Smart move, Obama.
And that's not snark.
Let the Congress and it's outdated, oligarch structure get a little more sunlight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kenneth Thomas
January 21, 2010 4:45 PM
This is political suicide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 21, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to Kenneth Thomas
I don't think so. The endless haggling and delays, the arguments, the finger pointing, the whole damned circus over the healthcare bill has grown to a point where if it goes on any longer it will totally delegitimize Obama's presidency, and there really is other stuff to do. Moving on to green initiatives and jobs, and regulating Wall Street, these are the best things possible for Obama to do.
There is nothing you can do with a collossal and, in all probability, irrevocable failure like this except move on. And hopefully as time goes by it will stop seeming like they're just in damage control, defensive mode. Hopefully. We'll see.
But continuing the healthcare "debate" is suicide for sure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acamus
January 21, 2010 5:08 PM in reply to anna am
About sums it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 5:23 PM in reply to anna am
ditto
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 21, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to anna am
I can't see how abandoning it now will help Obama's political prospects, or the Democratic party's. Not to mention the human price of having to wait another 15-20 years to fix it.
Maybe we don't get the whole thing, the affordable universal healthcare that every other industrialized society in the country takes as a matter of course. But they've got to come up with something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
January 21, 2010 4:48 PM
FYI, the House can take the Senate HC bill and pass it as-is UNTIL the end of this Congress - i.e., until the first week of January 2011. In other words, the Dems can pass an HC bill at any time when they think they can get the maximum political benefit. If this strategy is combined with Obama going medieval on the asses of some Dem senators, this can produce a winner for some other legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
allen bukoff
January 21, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to tytester
More creative thinking like this, please. Less throwing in the towel and declaring it dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
S Green
January 21, 2010 4:50 PM
Go Capuano ! Go Dean !
Bring down the Wall Street and Pharma !
Long live the base !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chrisl
January 21, 2010 4:51 PM
We will be hearing more of the same from our president:
I will let the Arab states and Israeli sort out their differences. My plate is already full.
I will let the generals in Afghanistan figure out how we should move forward regarding fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. My plate is already full.
I will let Congress figure out what to do regarding regulation of the financial sector. My plate is already full.
I will definitely let the private sector take the lead regarding clean energy. My plate is too full for that.
And more of the same.
So, Mr. President, why haven't you picked your priorities in the first place?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 21, 2010 5:23 PM in reply to chrisl
You elected a community organizer with absolutely no executive experience, whatsoever. Now, you're complaining that he doesn't know how to get things done?
You guys are just too smart for the rest of us!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 21, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to Silence
I have to admit, you scored a point there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
S Green
January 21, 2010 4:54 PM
Is this Barry's admission, "I failed you, people. I am a center right Democrat. The base is too small to heed to, ideologically"?
Barry, you should have said this during the primary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Campesino
January 21, 2010 4:55 PM
Hasta la vista, baby!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bw
January 21, 2010 4:59 PM
There he goes again, taking a back seat once more on Health Care. This guy just doesn't want to be the driver. This is the reason he has been a failure so far. His administration is now in the lame duck mode.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hillbilly Savant
January 21, 2010 5:01 PM
Ugh. This strikes me as a disastrous strategy. Obama seems unwilling to actually use his political capital for anything, so the Republicans are gradually (and not so gradually, of late) siphoning it away through message domination and a lack of clear action and leadership on the President's part.
All that sound and fury, all that dithering, for NOTHING? They're going to get the progress bar 99% full and just walk away? Extremely dispiriting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Boidster
January 21, 2010 5:18 PM in reply to Hillbilly Savant
They're going to get the progress bar 99% full and just walk away?
Please close all windows of opportunity and retry the installation of HealthCareReform 1.0 in a decade or two.
Sad...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stan of the Sawgrass
January 21, 2010 5:18 PM
Full plate? Plate full of Goper shit, you mean. Maybe you should just push that plate away... or at least stop eating.
I'm not sure why our brave and resolute Democrat (hey, might as well) Reps think they can dump HCR and move onto "Jobs, jobs, jobs" without the Republicans doing exactly the same demonizing they were so successful with. How long til Lieberdude proposes a complete cessation of taxes on the rich and all large cap businesses? And Mitch Mc jumps up and cheers, making it "bipartisan", making Broder cream his pants.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll get over it and get back to work trying to make the Dims stop taking us for granted. It sucks, but there's really no place else to go. I dunno-- herbal tea bag parties maybe?
Still, I'd really like Harry and his pals to explain to me why when the Massholes throw a tantrum, it's the Voice of Democracy and must be obeyed, while when the rest of us vote in a President and his party in a landslide, our voices don't mean dog poop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MSNBCBrainWash
January 21, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to Stan of the Sawgrass
It's clear that progressives in the House like MSNBC's own Weiner will not pass the Senate bill, and that's the only feasible option. Oh well, it didn't sink Clinton's presidency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
January 21, 2010 5:25 PM
My biggest issue is with the lack of accountability in the government. I think that if you let crime go unpunished, and unmentioned, you are tacitly condoning it. This is highly corrosive to our rule of law.
I voted for Obama mainly because I thought he could try to bring accountability back, prosecute the criminals, and bring back honor to the government. Hah!
Instead, nothing has been done to correct the past crimes. Obama seems timid and passive, even indecisive. The major changes that we voted for have not happened. And Obama and the rest of the weak Democrats in "power" seem helpless.
When Lieberman says he may run as a GOP candidate, and he supported the GOP Presidential candidate, and nothing happens to him .... that means there is no accountability and no consequence to your actions. That breeds contempt and indifference.
That is where we are now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 21, 2010 5:41 PM
I plan to let the dust settle till at least 2014.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 21, 2010 5:57 PM
It's time to move back into the shadows my progressive foes.
Tomorrow night, Beck will expose you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 21, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to Silence
I LOVE this guy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
January 21, 2010 6:33 PM
How long before folks realize that the Prez is incompetent.
He suks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 21, 2010 6:35 PM
Greenwald nailed it, citing Sullivan.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/20/left
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RPNH
January 21, 2010 6:37 PM
I just don't get the political calculus of the WH. If they think they can distance themselves from a failure to enact HCR at this point, they are delusional. Obama owns HCR, like it or not. And it would seem that projecting weakness and inconsistency by simply walking away from HCR now would be worse for the administration in purely politically terms than fighting for it even if it ultimately can't be passed.
I'm stunned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 21, 2010 7:14 PM
They do realize, don't they, that if they walk away from this, so will their supporters?
Nobody is going to phone bank, or knock on doors, or donate money.
How the fuck do they think they got elected?
We actually should boycott. I'm not saying quit the party or anything. I'm saying withhold all funds, all time, everything, until HCR is passed. When and if they pass it, everyone starts back up. If they need more time to let the dust settle, fine. But we wait them out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
January 21, 2010 7:25 PM
Well, next election, ill go in and leave my ballot empty. Ill look for someone to exit poll me and make it clear that I came and refused to vote for idiots that dropped the public option. I will make it clear why I do not support cowards that didnt support me and not let the message get hijacked by retarded FOX news. It will be CLEAR that I was a Democratic supporter that got fed up with my elected officials and came to fire them
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ecclesiastes
January 21, 2010 8:45 PM
I didn't vote for Obama so that he could wait for the dust to settle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moses2317
January 21, 2010 10:34 PM
This is pitiful. I am a proud liberal who has never voted for a Republican in my life. I have volunteered for, worked for, and donated to countless Democratic candidates in every election since 1992. But if these folks cannot get health care and the other progressive changes we elected them for done, I've had enough.
I met President Obama in March 2003 when he was running in the U.S. Senate primary in Illinois and volunteered my butt off to support his candidacy. I wrote policy papers, organized volunteers on the northside of Chicago, and canvassed virtually every weekend in the bitter cold winter of 2003 (and the warmer spring and summer of 2004). When then-Senator Obama announced his candidacy for President, I was estatic. The day Obama was elected President was a day of great pride for me - not only had I met Mr. Obama, but I thought we finally had a brave leader who could strongly and eloquently communicate the progressive message to the American public. When the Democrats also got a 60-seat majority in the Senate and a large majority in the House, I was even more elated, as I expected real action to address the critical economic, health care, national security, civil liberties, and environmental issues facing our nation.
I am not naive - I did not expect change to be easy in light of the mindless right-wing control of our media and the intransigence of the do-nothing Republicans. And I realize that most elected officials are less liberal than I am, so I did not expect my wish list of liberal policies (such as single payer health insurance) to be passed. But I did expect the Democrats to use the overwhelming mandate the public had given them to actively fight for real reform and improvement for every day Americans, and to challenge the Republicans who have proven themselves to be an illegitimate political party whose candidates do not deserve to be elected as dog catchers, much less as Senators and Congresspeople.
Instead, we have gotten the same spineless, afraid-to-take-a-stand approach to governing and campaigning that has stricken the Democratic Party for the past 30 years. Instead of fighting for the real health care reform and other progressive changes that President Obama was elected on, the Democrats have spent the last year negotiating away every progressive policy proposal in an absurd effort to try to placate folks who do not hold progressive values but instead seek to continue the same conservative policies that got our country into the mess it is in. Instead of loudly and proudly fighting for the progressive policies and values that have made this country great, Democrats continue to cower in fear of criticism from Tea Baggers and Fox News. And the person in charge of our party - President Obama - has done virtually nothing to push back against the conservatives or to bring his own party into line in favor of progressive principles and policies, and is now basically raising the white flag on real health reform because the Democrats now have only 59 Senators instead of 60.
Enough is enough. I have been told for the past two decades that I need to concede my liberal values so that Democrats could win elections and achieve incremental change. Over those two decades, I have seen income inequality escalate, our health care system continue to collapse, our military budgets skyrocket, our social safety net be dismantled, our infrastructure crumble, our civil liberties corrode, and barriers to unionization continue to increase. Yet now that Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate, and have the Presidency, they are not fighting for progressive values or even attempting to fundamentally alter the conservative political frame that has gotten our country into this mess.
In short, the Democrats are once again proving that they are too spineless and scared to fight for, much less achieve, the real change this country needs. Continued spinelessness is both horrible for our country and will lead the Democrats back to the political wilderness as the American public wants leadership, not cowardice. If the Democrats do not start fighting soon, they certainly will have lost my support, as I will be left with no other choice but to conclude that working for Democrats is not the way to achieve the progressive change this country needs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Douglas Watts
January 22, 2010 9:44 AM
Barack is bored and wants to play with bombs.
He's conceding that he only wants to serve one term.
What a total fuckstick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 7, 2010 11:59 AM
Not credible on its face, of course. I am guessing (hoping?) that the talking is fast and furious but not certain and that he just doesn't want to tip his hand in any direction or stoke the chicken little atmosphere, well, I guess the latter is an impossible goal.
But really, the House is now acting like a lot of nambie pambies. Just kind of pathetic. I did write an obligatory angry e-mail to the WH this morning, and will be calling senators and reps daily. No harm in applying pressure!
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?