TPMDC

Been There, Done That? Why This Year's Health Care Summit Will Be Different From Last Year's

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), President Obama, and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

About a year ago, President Obama kick started the health care debate by hosting a bipartisan summit designed to build momentum for what he hoped would be his signature domestic policy initiative. The March 5, 2009 meeting was marked by pleasantries, and engagement between Republicans and Democrats--and that figured. Republicans were facing a popular President, pushing a popular initiative, in the aftermath of a big victory on the stimulus bill.

Fast forward to February 2010, and a lot of people in Washington--liberals, Democrats, even some pundits--are asking a question: Why is President Obama wasting his time with yet another summit. After all, he tried this a year ago and...well, just look how well that's paid off.

Times have changed, though. And now Democrats see an opportunity not so much for bipartisan co-operation, but for the President to magnify the differences between his own party, and the hell-bent-on-obstruction GOP. Whether they're right or wrong, though, the politics have simply changed. After a year of smears and bad faith, with Republicans locked into opposition, this month's summit simply won't be a redux of the same event.

Take Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)--ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee. Here's what he said to Obama at the time: "I think you served with us in the Senate long enough to know that Max Baucus and I have a pretty good record of working out bipartisan things."

Neither one of us--or neither one of our parties--get everything that they want. But we've had a pretty good record, I think. Only two bills in eight years that haven't been bipartisan. So we have a process in place that has hearings coming up, has a process of getting round-table discussions, getting stakeholders in, getting authorities in. And we expect to have work on this in the committee in June....

There's a lot of us that feel that the public option, that the government is an unfair competitor. And that we're going to get an awful lot of crowd out. And that we have to keep what we have now strong and make it stronger.

As the health care fight dragged on, of course, Grassley became one of the leading critics of reform. He moved on from the public option ("a predator, not a competitor") to adopting "death panel" rhetoric, to questioning the Constitutionality of the individual mandate--a policy he once supported. As the leading Republican on the Gang of Six, he dragged health care discussions way past June, before affirming his opposition, and attacking the bill he'd committed to working on in withering terms all the way until it finally passed the Senate (sans public option) on Christmas eve.

It wasn't just Grassley, though. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) similarly took issue with the public option, and with comparative effectiveness research as well. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he'd like to see congress reform Social Security, too, as part of a grander entitlement reform agenda.

In the months ahead, McConnell would give the Democrats' plan a pet name--"monstrosity"--and now says he's perfectly happy to deal...so long as Democrats throw all their hard work away.

"If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health-spending bill," McConnell said in an official statement. "There are a number of issues with bipartisan support that we can start with when the 2,700-page bill is put on the shelf."

Likewise, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), says Democrats might as well not waste their time unless they're willing to pass a Republican-themed bill alone. According to Cantor, "House Republicans have offered the only plan, that will lower health care costs, which is what the President said was the goal at the start of this debate."

Yes, both last year's event and this years are billed as "health care summits". But beyond that, it's really an apples to oranges comparison.

Comments (61) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (3)

February 8, 2010 6:26 PM   

I think Digby nails it:

I think the health care legislation is so muddy that the Republicans can probably say anything and it won't matter. This is an issue on which the Dems can't make much of an ideological point because the bill itself isn't particularly liberal and it hasn't exactly been a beacon of principle. So, it's kabuki for kabuki's sake. In the end, I would guess that the best case is that this summit will change no one's mind but certain useless villagers who really, really love bipartisanship who will briefly give the administration some love for trying --- and then blame Obama for the failure to get even one Republican vote in the end.

It could only be more satisfying for the GOP if they managed to sabotage the best parts of the bill, like the Medicaid expansion, thus pissing off the base even more before the Dems fail to pass it. Sweet.


http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/good-faith-bipartisanship-by-digby-greg.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 9:27 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

The Repubs do not want anything to pass. They want Obama to fail. They want to destroy the governemtn.

They are winning on so much, because they own the message machine too.

I wish that the American people could really see them for who they are. They do not care one iota about the American people.

Why have they gotten so many folks to believe otherwise?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 5:49 PM    in reply to DownriverDem

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/americans_spread_the_blame_whe.html

Poll: Bipartisanship popular, compromise tricky
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/americans_spread_the_blame_whe.html
Americans spread the blame when it comes to the lack of cooperation in Washington, and, in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, most want the two sides to keep working to pass comprehensive health-care reform.

Nearly six in 10 in the new poll say the Republicans aren't doing enough to forge compromise with President Obama on important issues; more than four in 10 see Obama as doing too little to get GOP support. Among independents, 56 percent see the Republicans in Congress as too unbending and 50 percent say so of the president; 28 percent of independents say both sides are doing too little to find agreement.

As party leaders tussle over the proposed bipartisan health care summit, nearly two-thirds of Americans say they want Congress to keep working to pass comprehensive health-care reform. Democrats overwhelmingly support continued action on this front, as do 56 percent of independents and 42 percent of Republicans.
Poll1.gif

The sticky part of widespread desire for compromise is that it's simple to want it from the other side. About three-quarters of Democrats see the congressional Republicans as intransigent, while a similar proportion of Republicans see Obama that way. But even Republicans are critical of their congressional leadership, with 44 percent seeing them as doing too little to strike deals with Obama; that compares with just 13 percent of Democrats worried about inaction on Obama's part.

At the same time, the president does pick up some criticism from the left here: 18 percent of liberal Democrats say Obama is doing too much to compromise with the GOP on big issues.

More from the poll conducted Thursday through Monday will be released tomorrow in The Washington Post. The margin of sampling error for the results from the full random sample of 1,004 adults is plus or minus three percentage points.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 6:28 PM   

A summit presumes that all of the players act in good faith. So, let's skip it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 8:29 PM    in reply to 714Day

And Obama still hasnt learnt a damn thing....

WTF IS THIS SHIT ABOUT BI PARTISANSHIP

You make the strongest bill possible and you pass it via reconciliation Why can he not get this

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:37 AM    in reply to 3star2nr

I'm sure he's aware of more than you on how to do politics. And I'm beyond tired of his motives -- you cannot read minds -- being questioned.

It's one thing to be frustrated; it's quite another to blame others for making oneself frustrated.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 6:32 PM   

What I know from Reports and if I am correct, these exact US Senators Grassely, Obama and Bacus votes in the US Senate was and where to supress our US Constitution and US Government and hold them Nugatory with there direct actions and votes to approve a seemingly unconstitutional S247 Senate bill to supress Whistleblowers as it was witout the US Constitutional, Bill of rights mandate to allow all circuit review.

These actions from these exact individuals appears consistent as of today and against their many, amny individual verbal and written promises towards Whistleblowers and our US Constitution, Bill Rights and seemingly our Declaration of Independence towards Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all.

Hopefully these Individuals of today, President Barack Obama, Senators Charles Grassely and Max Bacus will immediately, bring to a full florr vote the 'FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ENHANCEMANT RESTORATION ACT'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:39 AM    in reply to tpmreader

Let us know when you've actually read the Constitution for the first time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 9:59 AM    in reply to JNagarya

My guess is that ahould your question have any sense of the expected courtesy, decency or knowledge at all that at best Article #7 is what your seemingly question implies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:57 PM    in reply to tpmreader

The focus of my legal study is the Constitution, and the legal history that eventuated in it.

Now try responing in English.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 10:55 PM    in reply to JNagarya

? As this (US Constitution, Bill of Rights) is a seemingly and expected most highly regarded and respected democratic treasured issue (possibly despite of your seemingly continuing implied nonsense or ad-hominen remark,) what is or is there a reasonable point to your reference of and/or within your US Constitution remark.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 10, 2010 12:04 AM    in reply to JNagarya

Please and again, and as the US Constitution, Bill of Rights is amoung your Advocacy's, please note generally that the enactment of the death penalty and/or threats thereof upon our Represented 'We the People' is not in compliance with any Democracy, Law and Religion.

Thank you for your reply correspondence and within all reasonable concern. Good luck and best wishes in your mentioned US Constitution (legal) studies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 11, 2010 8:17 AM    in reply to tpmreader

Huh?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 10:33 AM    in reply to JNagarya

As you may well know, I usually do not respond to 'nonsenseical rants' as you have reffered to them and accused me and others on this TPM Website from my recollection.

Your other allegations appear incorrect also and as the recent polls seem to indicate that it is more of a combined failed Leadership and seemingly dishonest and the opposite of the Democratic Campaign 'We the People' expected within the hopes and promises for the cultural change 'We Can Believe In'.

Hopefully will not continue your further unnecessary implied disparaging remarks directly upon me in the future and act with some of the expected courtesy and decency that is usual and customery within the blog comment replies on this website.

Thank you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 11, 2010 8:22 AM    in reply to tpmreader

You don't know anything about President Obama. Here are a few FACTS:

1. In a polarized situation at Harvard, in which situation both sides were entrenched, it was Barak Obama who succeeded -- unlike all others who made the effort -- in bringing the two sides together and resolving the issue.

That is leadership -- even though not "Strong Leader" bellicosity and bullying.

2. Barak Obama was elected head of the "Harvard Law Review" -- the first black ever elected to that position -- becasue he was an effective leader. Even though not "Strong Leader" bellicose and bully.

AGAIN: there is more than one form of leadership, more than one way to be a leader, and to lead.

As for Presidnet Obama lying? You present NO evidence for that -- which doesn't surprise becasue you haven't any.

I sufggest you learn to speak the language before fooling yourself that you understand what is said in the language.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 12, 2010 12:48 PM    in reply to JNagarya

Thank you for your reply and for where ever you may be accorded of properly and forthrightly holding up to the proper and forthright interpretations and expectations of our US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Delclaration of Independence.

Generally, I find no basis or reasonable comprehension for your argument and assumptions except your continued dis-respectful allegations and ad-hominen remarks upon me directly from you.

I have only very briefly read your reply and find and assume you are seemingly continuing to portray a deliberate and intentional complete unwillingness to reasonably communicate and/or project any seemingly reasonable views for a seemingly worthwhile reasonable discussion.

Good day and good luck within any reasonable endeavors you may be able to accomplish.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 12, 2010 2:08 PM    in reply to JNagarya

I wrote a lenghty reply that was completely erased. For now the following,

The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28, 2003.

She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 13, 2010 3:41 AM    in reply to tpmreader

"The Federalist Society" is a far-right lunatic fringe "states' rights" attack on the Constitution. Members of it include:

Scalia (founding member), Roberts, Clarence Thomas, crackpot Robert Bork, an Clinton-hater Ted Olson.

Clarence Thomas, in particular, is the first SC justice to interpret the Constitution through the views of the anti-Federalists.

1. The anti-Federalists OPPOSED RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

2. The anti-Federalists LOST THE ARGUMENT.

"The Federalist Society" also includes members who are "Neo-Confederates" -- who want to reestablish the Confederacy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 13, 2010 9:44 AM    in reply to JNagarya

Democracy, arbitrators, Commissions, Boards, Organizations, Associations, States, County's, City's ecetra and proper court of law are expected to resolve issues in a seemingly Democratic process. That would seemingly be a much better and expected credidation Leadership interpretation of Leadership. Your interpretation is seemingly more towards a dictator leadership. Incidently the speech was the point and the only good one from me within your Harvard mention. It has been widely mentioned on this website and on most all other websites that this is a failed, dishonest and/or disengenuous Leadership and especially in our most important issues and are a seemingly continuance of past Administrations, especially the Bush administration or worse. Comments have ranged consistently in similarity to support these concerns.

I agree with your allegations and as many have been well reported and/or implied that there may be serious concerns of and/or within Harvard and many other top rated Schools that have serious concerns and/or allegations allegedly against their Schools, Professors and/or their Graduates and others that have been associated with there programs.

Again, there appears no need for you to reply to me directly within your efforts to provoke, incite, belittle and berate me with your wrongful and nonsenceical allegations and horrible dis-respectful and ad-hominen remarks towards me. Again, there is no need to bring your incorrect views and allegations directly to me. Please in the future direct your your wrongful, nonsensecial, ridiculous, and/or your aeemingly abusive, incorrect and/or mostly otherwise summations, interpretations and comments other than to my direct attention, especially as there is no need to do so.

Good luck in whatever your career within whatever contribution may be of assistance to a proper and forthright great democracy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 6:43 PM   

Actually, what one thing can the two parties agree on about health care reform? (I'm asking seriously)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 6:52 PM    in reply to tpmgary

The pols in both parties can agree that they, personally, ought to have the best medical coverage taxpayers can provide...and that they shall have it for life.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 6:56 PM    in reply to tpmgary

Great question. I have no idea. No preconditions, no rescission? Maybe you can't get there without a mandate, can you? And on and on. My head hurts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 6:56 PM   

I think we have reason to be optimistic, and I base this on last month's Q & A with House Republicans which was available for all to see. I think we put the President in the room with Republicans, Democrats, whoever, turn the cameras on and see what happens. The individual issues, legitimate (public option) and otherwise (tort reform), have been scrutinized over the year and there's pretty good numbers out there to evaluate the contribution of this or that element of the plan. Put it on a big screen and let's let the American people have a go at it. Also, let the President do what he does best, which argue for a logical position armed with the facts and call people out on their distortions.

Put it on camera and let the people watch. They say that light is the best disinfectant. I say that we should let the light shine.

Also, Tom Daschle has written a pretty good book on this subject:

Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis (Thomas Dunn Books, 2008)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 7:37 PM    in reply to erwin

Daschle was denied an (official) position in the Obama Administration because of his massive conflict-of-interest when it comes to health care reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 8:18 PM    in reply to superking

Daschle was denied an official role in the Obama Administration because they didn't have his back and explain that the "free limousine" was a gift and not income and therefore he did NOT need to report it on his tax return.

Fixed that for you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 1:34 AM    in reply to Cal Gal

Daschle is a perfect example of the revolving door between government and private industry. First he endears himself to the health insurance companies by his votes while in Congress, then he creates a VERY lucrative consultancy using his old friends to get access for lobbying, then he ALMOST gets himself appointed to a key position to influence health care reform in favor of the insurance companies. Well, Obama and Rahm ended up doing that for him, so he'll probably still go back in 2013 to making big bucks as a "consultant."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:42 AM    in reply to superking

That doesn't prohibit their reading his book or calling him on the phone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:40 AM    in reply to erwin

Agreed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 7:01 PM   

What kind of beverage with they be drinking? These are important questions people! THE PUBLIC DEMANDS ANSWERS!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 7:05 PM   

Oh fun, TPM has changed title from "Will" to "Why."

The only question for me & mine (both relatives & cherished employees) is WILL OBAMA GET RID OF RAHM E. (& THAT CONFLUENCE/INFLUENCE) TO FINALLY STEP UP INTO HIS OWN PRESIDENCY.

Sorry for the caps, it's been a long, long workday down here far from the DC Village.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 7:22 PM   

I don't see how Prez can go wrong (except through excessive politness). When he goes toe to toe with the thugs, their pettiness, nuttiness and scummyness shines like a beacon.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 7:36 PM    in reply to jollyroger

which leads me to believe many of the republicans he castigated so efficiently will NOT show up for another whoopin'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:44 AM    in reply to JEP07

Then they'll be seen as spineless cowards. Which is the fat.

And as sore losers.

And as acting in strict accordance with their parties intent: Bad Faith.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 7:43 PM    in reply to jollyroger

Exactly.

The questions that Obama is asking that he wants the GOP to answer are: what is your plan to cover 30 million people?
what is your plan to cut costs? what is your plan to cover people with pre-existing conditions?

The answer the Republicans have are: our plan only covers 3 million people. tort reform (which does nothing). cover pre-existing conditions but without universal coverage that it will increase premiums through the roof.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 8:20 PM    in reply to jollyroger

Only if televised, and only if watched by people beyond the Beltway. WE all saw him eat the Republicans' lunch, but those who only watch CBS, ABC or NBC saw coverage that "both sides made their points," etc. ad nauseum.

Those who watch Faux News didn't see much of anything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:34 AM    in reply to Cal Gal

Exactly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 1:23 AM    in reply to jollyroger

"Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight"

Somebody said that, I'm pretty sure. Seems to fit the Rethugs, anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:46 AM    in reply to Serephin

Leve cates out of it. Put RATS in their place.

Or bats -- they're crazy, and they grow fangs after dark.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 7:33 PM   

Why does TPM think "Why This Year's Health Care Summit Will Be Different From Last Year's"???

The post doesn't support that thesis other than a sentence of so of speculations about highlighting differences between the parties.

You think Republicans are willfully or ignorantly going to walk into some trap set by Dems?

If anything this post suggests from past experience that Repugs will walk into this with happy talk and leave with scorn for reform.

It's the strangest bit of logic to conclude that some apples and oranges case has been made here. If previously 1+2+3=bipartisan failure, then biparticanfailure+x=bipartisan success or Dem win. Puzzling thesis construction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 8:16 PM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

Bingo.

I think the danger here is that the Republicans will work to make this summit exactly like last year's. They will sing kumbaya to the high heavens, so long as we dispense with this silly bill that's 99% of the way to the finish line. They will pretend to be the nicest motherfuckers on Earth.

And then, if the plan was to get cover to finish the job through budget reconciliation by exposing GOP nastiness, they'll need a brand-new plan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 7:47 PM   

I hope Obama's playing rope-a-dope here with the party of No, getting them on record opposing what would help their constituents and defending policies that won't help much, like their only answers to the health insurance problem- buying insurance across state lines and tort reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 8:24 PM    in reply to jeffgee

I do, too, but I don't see why the reaction of the ReThuglicans, the MSM and the great-unwashed Americun electorate should be any different than what was said on record all friggin' summer long.

Sigh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 5:52 PM    in reply to Cal Gal

Didn't I read in one of your posts where you said you were a republican or a "former" republican?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 8:26 PM   

The only way this summit will be different is if Obama grows some balls and hits both the Republicans and the useless "Blanche Lincolns" of his own party.

We need him to give Chris Matthews a hard on, then we know he did well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 10:24 PM   

they are all pretending to govern. it's a false drama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 4:26 AM    in reply to kJCUWzUl

No, it's Kabuki theater of the Edo period and this is Act 5. The drama is very real in the acting sense. Frank Zappa liked to point out that politics is the entertainment branch of the military-industrial complex.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 11:21 PM   

Listen up... The dems could not pass Health care with super majorities because even they can't agree. This bill is DEAD! The republicans are not the party of no...they are the party of HELL NO. And it looks like Americans are loving it according to the polls

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 8, 2010 11:46 PM   

The longer it goes on, the worse it gets...the Republicans will press for "competition" via a rush to the least-regulated states (see the credit card industry), and my bet is that the Dems will go for it in some "moderated" form. Cheery, eh?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 12:37 AM   

If anyone attends on Republican side, their intention will be to delay, obfuscate, and eviscerate the bill. They will have an unlimited array of tactics designed to do this, ranging from silly to clever.

Obama can either cave to any one of these countless ruses or not. This is his chance to fail, with a thousand sub-options on how to do it. Or succeed by being very strong.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 7:55 AM   

What does Brando call Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now, "messenger boy for grocery clerks"? Yea, a little rough, but the POTUS is being irresponsible at this point. These opportunities DO NOT come around every election cycle. His psychological makeup is dooming us all. He is a middle manager, not a leader. It is more than just unfortunate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:51 AM    in reply to Cornelius

You want a "Strong" leader like Bushit? Invent a time machine and go back to his failed effort at being a legitimate US citizen.

There is more than one way to be a leader. And President Obama has a consistent record of being a leader without also being an asshole and a bully.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 10:16 AM    in reply to JNagarya

As you may well know, I usually do not respond to 'nonsenseical rants' as you have reffered to them and accused me and others on this TPM Website from my recollection.

Your other allegations appear incorrect also and as the recent polls seem to indicate that it is more of a failed Leadership and seemingly dishonest as he has done the opposite of his Democratic Campaign promises.

Hopefully will not continue your further unnecessary implied dispariging remarks directly upon me in the future and act with some of the expected courtesy and decency that is usual and customery within the blog comment replies on this website.

Thank you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:06 AM   

Calk Girl has it right here

The only folks who will watch the entire thing are the people who have allready made up their minds and want to see points scored on their side.

The balance will turn to the MSM who will not analyze any policy and wont give it too much attention unless there is an unexpected bright shiny object that leads to a beer summet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 8:07 AM    in reply to congoman

Sorry ---- Cal Girl not "Calk"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 9:05 AM   

Democrats have created their own lose/lose. The Republicans do not have to participate and shouldnt participate. The Democrats have beaten themselves.

Item 1:
 “A mere seven months ago (that would be around June 2009), The New York Times/CBS poll found that 72% of Americans ‘supported a government-administered insurance plan—something like Medicare for those under 65—that would compete for customers with private insurers.’”

Item 2: As of February 2010, no single payer health care reform, no 'government option', mandated premium payments to private sector insurers, tax money to private sector insurers, stipulations making it legal for insurers to spend only 80 cents of every 100 cents on actual health care while spending 20 cents of every 100 cents on lobbying, 'sympathetic' candidates, CEO bonuses, 'administration' and fighting your claim for treatment.

Item 3: Other than those who created the sop for themselves, no one (try 72%) wants this bastardized insurance industry bailout to pass.

Question: Why should the Republicans participate in the 'summit'?

Answer: Approval for the Democrats 'reform' is below 30%. The Democratic Party's wounds are all self-inflicted, there is no reason to participate. So, stay away from the death throes and enjoy the demise of your opposition which has turned its back on its own constituency, on thoughtful independents and Republicans who were willing to 'wait and see'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 9:11 AM   

At this point it is just a waste of time.

http://randomthoughtstd.blogspot.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 9:22 AM   

The GOP is negotiating this like they do everything. "We will talk to you as long as you strip yourself of all bargaining chips first". They seem to think it's some kind of treat just to be able to speak to them. "Bipartisanship" means doing it our way...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 9:31 AM   

Why do the Repubs get to call all the shots? They have done more over the last 30 (they controlled 28 or the last 30 years) to destroy our country and yet they do not get the credit. Through their legislation and lack of regulation, we are where we are today. Why don't the American people see them for who they really are?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 10:49 AM   

Obama continues his job as neighborhood organizer, getting the two major gangs together to sing Kumbaya and share bread. Kudos to him for that. Now, about this President job? Maybe next year his desk will be clear enough to start on that one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 12:15 PM   

Dems called me for the money the other day. I told them I would not send a cent until they passed HCR. The guy hung up really fast after a polite 'thank you.' I'm guessing they are hearing that response a lot.

I might change my mind if they started an ad campaign that showed all the lies the Republicans have told since day one. And not just the teevee - billboards, radio. Get some of those ads on talk radio shows, I listen to KPOJ (left wing radio in Portland) and they accept ads against their positions, I'm pretty sure that the station with mostly right wingers will take left wing ads as long as the money is green.

There needs to be a drumbeat of just what Republicans are doing - not by the nasty voice over doom but by their own words contradicting themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

February 9, 2010 5:48 PM   

Poll: Bipartisanship popular, compromise tricky
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/americans_spread_the_blame_whe.html
Americans spread the blame when it comes to the lack of cooperation in Washington, and, in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, most want the two sides to keep working to pass comprehensive health-care reform.

Nearly six in 10 in the new poll say the Republicans aren't doing enough to forge compromise with President Obama on important issues; more than four in 10 see Obama as doing too little to get GOP support. Among independents, 56 percent see the Republicans in Congress as too unbending and 50 percent say so of the president; 28 percent of independents say both sides are doing too little to find agreement.

As party leaders tussle over the proposed bipartisan health care summit, nearly two-thirds of Americans say they want Congress to keep working to pass comprehensive health-care reform. Democrats overwhelmingly support continued action on this front, as do 56 percent of independents and 42 percent of Republicans.
Poll1.gif

The sticky part of widespread desire for compromise is that it's simple to want it from the other side. About three-quarters of Democrats see the congressional Republicans as intransigent, while a similar proportion of Republicans see Obama that way. But even Republicans are critical of their congressional leadership, with 44 percent seeing them as doing too little to strike deals with Obama; that compares with just 13 percent of Democrats worried about inaction on Obama's part.

At the same time, the president does pick up some criticism from the left here: 18 percent of liberal Democrats say Obama is doing too much to compromise with the GOP on big issues.

More from the poll conducted Thursday through Monday will be released tomorrow in The Washington Post. The margin of sampling error for the results from the full random sample of 1,004 adults is plus or minus three percentage points.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on