TPMDC
GOP Decries Obama Strategy For Health Care Summit And Calls For Starting Over
President Obama speaks at a bipartisan White House gathering with Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) in the background.
Share
Send to a friend!
The invitations had barely landed in Congressional inboxes before Republican leadership started calling President Obama's upcoming White House health care summit a "backroom deal."
The Obama administration's invitation to the Feb. 25 summit informs members that text of a "proposed health insurance reform package" will be posted online before the meeting. A White House official tells TPMDC that the text will be the product of the discussions that have been ongoing between the House and Senate since each chamber passed their bills last year.
That's the sticking point for the GOP, who say Obama is inviting them to a meeting but doesn't really want their ideas if he already has a draft bill.
"A productive bipartisan discussion should begin with a clean sheet of paper," Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in a statement this weekend.
Boehner said it's clear from the invitation that Obama and Democratic leaders "intend to arrive with a new bill written behind closed doors exclusively by Democrats," a charge the administration says is nonsense.
"They will then engage a largely handpicked audience in a televised 'dialogue' according to a script they have largely pre-determined," Boehner said.
He added: "They will do this as a precursor to embarking on a legislative course that Democratic congressional aides acknowledge has also been pre-determined -- a partisan course that relies on parliamentary tricks to circumvent the will of the American people and engineer a pre-determined outcome. It doesn't sound much like bipartisanship to me."
We asked Boehner's office if this means he'll decline the invitation but we haven't heard back.
The minority leader also pointed Obama to the Republican health care plan, which you can read here.
White House aides referred us back to Obama's comments about continuing to seek bipartisanship at his impromptu press conference last week, and added the letter "lays out pretty clearly that we want both sides to bring ideas."
For his part, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said his party wants to consult with Obama's team on the best format for the meeting.
He took a different message from Obama's invitation.
"While the American people have already rejected the health spending bills pending in Congress, today it appears the President has heard their calls to scrap the 2,700-page, partisan bill and start over," McConnell said in a statement.
He said Republicans are offering a "step-by-step approach that Americans are calling for," and added that the bill Obama is considering is partisan and "devoid of support from the American people" and has "diminished faith in this government's capacity to listen."
"Let us not make the same mistake twice. We will consult with the White House about the proposed format and topics in order to maximize the effectiveness of the meeting," McConnell said.
Comments (93) | 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.
Michael A
February 15, 2010 10:32 AM
This is a waste of time. They have been wasting time on this for almost a year. Move on, one way or the other.
And if I hear tort reform one more time I am going to hurl. That will do nothing concerning costs, nothing. Pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 15, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to Michael A
Have you looked at any of the polls showing that a majority of people are vociferously against the bill until you tell them what's in it? Have you looked at any of the data showing a majority wants more "bipartisanship" until you tell them what the Republicans "ideas" are?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 15, 2010 11:11 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Not arguing with either point. Problem is the message.
By the way, I actually am personally against the bill because of the mandates without a public option. I say chop it up and get rid of certain things, like preexiting conditions and welfare to pharma, and see how it plays out and regulate the sh*t out of the "industry." Simple way to deal with the problem and message at this point.
With the tremendous political fallout generated by the repuke and media lies, they should just have done single payer and got hammered this november. They are going to get hammered anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
February 15, 2010 11:37 AM in reply to Michael A
Doing that is not feasible. The only thing that is feasible is passing the Senate Bill and then regulating the hell out of the health insurance industry.
There is no way they could have done a single payer. There wasn't enough votes for that even within the Democratic caucus.
I do agree that the problem is message. Or rather it is the Republican's lack of a message. Because the Republicans have not advocated for anything, all the focus has been on Democrats and their inability to get anything passed, specifically in the Senate.
If the Republicans come to the summit with a plan, then the Democrats will have something to run against. Right now they only have each other to run against.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 15, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to Darrius
Oh, I think they could get rid of preexisitng condition exclusions and the handout to pharma, easily.
Getting rid of Preexisting condition exclusions would make them change their business model or go out of business. Gee, too bad if they go out of business.
The pharma thing is just not sold right. The american people heavily subsidize world drug prices. Heavily. Pharma makes all their profits out of the US, make them spread the cost around, kind of like a mandate to the world population to pay a little more.
You are right on single payer and it is monday morning quarterbacking at this point. They didn't have the votes at the time, but they are getting hammered as if they were promoting single payer. They should just do it and take their lumps.
Regulating the sh*t out of the industry is the way to go as well, without a mandate. Those two together are killer. The mandate will turn off the people greatly and cost the dems. Regulating the industry riles up the repukes even more. Just rile up the repukes and kill the mandate idea.
The repukes will never come to the summit with a plan, other than a one-liner, like tax cuts or tort reform and that's it. They have no plan and no incentive to have one. They are crushing dems without one, so why give the dems any fodder? They aren't stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
February 15, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to Michael A
The thing is you can't get rid of exclusions for pre-existing condition unless everyone has insurance. It is a mathematical impossibility. You can't fix one part of the system without fixing the other parts; that's why the bill is so large.
The Republicans don't want to come to this summit. Because they know that the only way Obama loses at that summit will be if Obama does not negotiate in good faith.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 15, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to Darrius
People keep saying that. Why is it a mathematical impossibility? The insurance companies go broke or their change their business model. I really don't care if they go broke and can't afford to do it. Then we get single payer. Let the repukes try to explain why it is a mathematical impossibility and use statistics and all that good stuff that gets dems tied up in knots. Just make it simple and f*ck the insurance companies. Short bumper sticker for dems "ban pre-existing conditions" or "No more exclusions" or something like that and repukes need a paragraph or more to explain why they have to protect insurance companies and screw sick people. Come on, it's not rocket science.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 15, 2010 6:38 PM in reply to Michael A
It's called adverse selection. If you allow healthy people to opt out of the pool, then the pool will contain a disproportionate number of unhealthy people. And that means that either insurance companies have to disallow coverage of pre-existing conditions, or jack up the premiums for everyone. At which point even more relatively healthy people opt out, and the downward spiral continues.
If you disallow coverage of pre-existing conditions, then what is to keep someone from opting out of coverage until they are sick and know that they need it?
Anthem Blue Cross in California is claiming this is what is behind the large premium increases they have proposed there: unemployment is causing young and healthy people to drop their insurance coverage to save money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 15, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to slb
Sorry, make the opening of that second paragraph, "If you disallow denying coverage for pre-existing conditions."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 15, 2010 7:24 PM in reply to slb
That is how medicare got started in the 60's. Insurance companies would not write affordable coverage for the elderly, because guess what, they get sick.
Let them spiral into oblivion and then we can get single payer. I get the point and it makes sense in an abstract way concerning the risk pool. Problem is that the f'n insurance carriers are rip off artists and rob people blind. Get rid of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 16, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to Michael A
Beautifully put!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
February 15, 2010 12:39 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
no one wants bipartisanship They want the public option
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 15, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to 3star2nr
I don't know about you, but I wast to see what I nationwide telecast "back room deal" looks like.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
February 15, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to JNagarya
Was kind of wondering about that myself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
February 15, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to JNagarya
Rather than backing down and, Lord forbid, actually giving Boehner and those assholes what they're "demanding", I have a fantastic idea as to what the White House could televise!
I must fess up: it's not even my original idea. It was first conceived and executed by the then-candidate for the U.S. Senate from New York, Robert F. Kennedy.
Incumbent Republican Senator Kenneth Keating made it very clear that he would not stoop to debating this upstart "carpetbagger" (never mind that he had grown up in Bronxville, a couple of miles from the NYC border!). Kennedy insisted on a debate, and the snooty brahmin Keating basically told him publicly to go fuck himself (in the polite way they used to do that in ancient times).
So Kennedy buys the time for a debate anyway on WNBC-TV in New York. He arranges a half-hour show from their 30 Rock studios, in which he speaks about why he should be Senator from New York... but there's a twist...
For the duration of the program, the studio door is propped open at stage left (think of the old set of "Late Night With Conan O'Brien"), with giant Klieg lights flooding the hallway just outside, where Kennedy's entourage and network people and security are all milling around nervously.
Bobby announces as he had in the run-up to the event that if Keating wants to show, after all, he is ready to debate him on the spot. Every few minutes, between talking points, he has the camera shoot the shadowy door, and he notes that nope, no Keating yet. Of course, there will be no Keating. As if RFK didn't know that.
President Obama needs a large, well-lit, center-stage Empty Chair, for Rep. Boehner, with his name on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
February 15, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
That's not his style and you know it.
Each individual in this entire country is more aggressive than our gentle lamb.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
February 15, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to again
Does our little lamb want to get re-elected?
Then I think that voices other than Rahm's had damned well better start speaking truth to power, in the case of President No Drama.
Because why should the Democratic Party passively allow him to trash it? Why does everyone in this country and party, these days, expect Daddy to save them? Democracy means get your hands dirty and when it comes to saving your country from the wolves, DIY.
Obama needs to be read the riot act by members of his own party, who don't want to retire to their own insurance businesses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
February 15, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
I couldn't possibly agree more. The problem is that it may not be in his constitution either to desire a second term, nor to fight for one.
I desperately hope to be proven wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
February 15, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to again
Here's another thought I've been having (as the saying goes, to go with the other one I once had): Is it lost on our President that his "bipartisan" "non-confrontational" m.o... in terms of political numbers... is not working anymore?
I keep hearing that we'd be stupid not to trust a guy whose political instincts beat the odds in the general election of 2008. Call me crazy, but I think that momentum is yesterday's news.
Most of us make the mistake of thinking that something which no longer works, must eventually work again, because it did once.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 15, 2010 6:49 PM in reply to again
The problem is that it may not be in his constitution either to desire a second term, nor to fight for one.
Then why the hell did he run for president in the first place? No, I have to believe that there was something he wanted to do besides make speeches, and that he's willing to put some muscle behind to accomplish.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 17, 2010 1:31 AM in reply to again
You mean his politics aren't the old politcs that are familiar to you. They aren't that you claim to hate when it comes from the other side, but demand be answered in kind.
No imagination: you want change, so long as it doesn't change anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 15, 2010 11:20 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
I think you've got the Keating v Kennedy debate story a little bit wrong. Keating wanted the debate but Kennedy refused. Keating bought the air time and prepared to debate an empty chair. Kennedy showed up at the last minute with camera crew in tow but was locked out. The next days newspapers had a picture of Keating debating an empty chair and Kennedy banging on the door with a sign saying keep out.
The moral of the story is be prepared.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
February 15, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Have you looked at any of the polls showing that a majority of people are vociferously against the bill until you tell them what's in it? Have you looked at any of the data showing a majority wants more "bipartisanship" until you tell them what the Republicans "ideas" are?
I think that is the point of this summit: to bring out the actual plans and not the hype. The Republicans want to scotch that, so my guess is they will pull out at the last minute, like this, claiming the process is "unfair".
When are Americans going to tire of these boring idiots?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
February 15, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Can the just say 'we are Chicken' and go home...Horrid,selfish, ugly, anti- American republicans!
The pools are totally against the repub non ideas when told about them -- They want coverage and cost containment --not corporate giveaways --coming from both sides or no solutions coming from the repubs!
Lets send them all back to their holes !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
February 15, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to Michael A
Because they have no plan....solutions--or ideas..Call them to remind them that it is no longer accepted by the American people to do nothing and be re-elected...No No No this is republican BS---Call them out ..1.800.828.0498 or 1.866.311.3405! Come with your plan or do not show up ! If you do not we will call you out repeatedly!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 15, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to Docb
Of course they have a plan. The same plan they've had all along. Bonehead is lying that it's a new plan --
It's the same blank sheet of paper they got from Joe McCarthy and wave around like it has something on it other than too damned many fingerprints.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
February 16, 2010 12:39 PM in reply to Michael A
I don't know. I like the idea of starting over. Let's start over by providing Medicare for ALL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 15, 2010 10:34 AM
I would like to applaud the Republicans and offer them an idea for their clean sheet of paper. They can use a very large font so FOX can pick it up easily. An idea that is now locked out of the room and cannot be spoken aloud to the American people unless the Republicans pick it up. The country needs you Republicans. Don't let us down! Two words:
EXPAND MEDICARE
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sdf (Stu)
February 15, 2010 10:37 AM in reply to bluebell
Great idea, but I would suggest a slight amendment to three words:
MEDICARE FOR ALL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Turnaround
February 15, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to sdf (Stu)
Good by me. Passes the Franken Bumper Sticker Test (FBST). I say run with it. Add a rhyme and you're golden. (If the glove doesn't fit...)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sdf (Stu)
February 15, 2010 10:35 AM
As always, the GOP definition of bipartisanship = "scrap their ideas entirely and do what we want to do, which is next to nothing."
However, perhaps someone could bring a clean piece of paper for Boehner, and maybe some crayons for him to draw with as well. (Make sure they're the washable ones, though, so he doesn't ruin the nice furniture at the Blair House.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
February 15, 2010 10:57 AM
Bohner says -> "They will then engage a largely handpicked audience in a televised 'dialogue' according to a script they have largely pre-determined,"
Considering Bohner and the GOP leadership was invited how could this be deemed hand-picked? As we see continually, the GOP will Lie about anything and all of us should say so continually using the simply term - Liar, Lie...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
February 15, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to VictorLH
Hand-picked. Like Bush's audiences?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
February 15, 2010 11:10 AM
Who cares what Republicans have to say. Either they put up or shut up on their ideas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davidfarrar
February 15, 2010 11:10 AM
If I was Bohner I wouldn't attend this obvious setup unless or until Obama and his democrat chummies agree not to resort to reconcilition after the fact, period.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
February 15, 2010 11:13 AM in reply to davidfarrar
And the RepubliCANTS agree to up or down vote. Period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EriktheRed
February 15, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to davidfarrar
Heh....
Anything to run out the clock and kill the thing without having to take the fallout, huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
February 15, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to davidfarrar
There is a terrific idea :
"I'll agree to fight you, but only if you agree to lose." Nice idea.
How about, Democrats agree to not use reconcilliation if Republicans agree to allow a vote. Simple up or down vote. What are the Republicans afraid of. Voting. . . Republicans are afraid to allow a vote because that would allow the United States to make progress. And if the US makes progress, then Obama didi good. And no matter how much it hurts America, it's more important to Republicans that they cause Obama to fail.
Repulicans=America Hating Cowards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcrose68
February 15, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to mcrose68
Sorry. I should moderate myself.
I don't think that Republicans hate America.
They simply hate Obama and love "winning" more than they like America.
However, I have to acknowledge, they do have their priorities clear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 15, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to mcrose68
There you go! Because if Republicans will agree to allow a bill to be voted on, then we can send it to conference committee and not be stuck with the current Senate version, since there is little hope of anything that can get 60 votes in the Senate at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KenInTenn
February 15, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to davidfarrar
I think Obama would accept this procedural nicety if Republicans would also agree not to filibuster the results.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotFooledByDistractions
February 15, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to davidfarrar
David - when did the minority start dictiating the rules?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
February 15, 2010 11:11 AM
As long as Obama offers his back to massah Boehner and massa McConnell they are going to crack their whip on him. It's sad to watch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
February 15, 2010 11:15 AM
A clean sheet of paper. So they can wipe their asses with it. Fuck 'em.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ottis
February 15, 2010 11:34 AM
This sure is reminiscent of the negotiations that was done with North Korea back in the nineteen fifties. I hope it doesn't take as long to decide on the configuration of the table. I do believe the North Koreans were more intelligent than the Republicans today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 15, 2010 11:41 PM in reply to ottis
I think you may be referring to the Vietnam era Paris Peace accords where the shape of the table became some huge issue. Unless the same thing happened in the Korean war, if so I've never heard of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
February 15, 2010 11:43 AM
Next Boehner will ask Obama to produce his birth certificate before he attends.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
February 15, 2010 11:45 AM
Perhaps someone can figure out why Obama values getting the approval of a few Republicans over getting the approval of his base of progressive Democrats. I've tried, but I'm giving up on that.
Maybe Obama wants a Republican Senate - you know, one with a 41 to 59 majority, with the ability to get something done?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
February 15, 2010 11:50 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
It's a game. You don't have to be the perfect example of bipartisanship, you just have to outdo the other guy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
February 15, 2010 11:46 AM
A clean sheet of paper is what they know best. Remember the Republican budget proposal, that had no numbers in it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 15, 2010 11:49 AM
Not sure how you can call a televised audience "hand-picked"...Just about the opposite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 15, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
The audience will be made up of Americans, instead of only Republicans. That's obviously a hand-picked set-up conspiracy intended to make the Republicans look stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
February 15, 2010 11:52 AM
The White House response to this bullshit should be simple. We won't agree to any preconditions unless the Senate Republicans agree not to filibuster. If that happens, you could start over, produce a bill with a strong public option and ram it through with just 50 votes (plus Biden).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
georgecolombo
February 15, 2010 11:54 AM
Two thoughts: (1) Televise the meeting with one or more empty chairs adorned with the names of Republicans who chose not to attend; (2) Is there any point at which Obama will be willing to acknowledge that Republicans are not acting in good faith?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
February 15, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to georgecolombo
#2: Apparently not. Reasons?
a] He's naive.
b] He's spineless.
c] He's bought.
d] A combination of all three.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 15, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to theWalrus
If you believe that, Troll, then he's obviously smarter than you. NONE of those apply, except with those who don't know anything about him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
February 15, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to theWalrus
Goob goob kajoob, Gooper.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expatjourno2
February 15, 2010 12:07 PM
Unbelievable: "...to circumvent the will of the American people...."
If he doesn't want to circumvent the will of the American people, he can vote for a strong public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
February 15, 2010 12:09 PM
So Boehner and the Republicans are bringing their ideas, eh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lb0313
February 15, 2010 12:14 PM
Noice we use paragraphs. They yuse sound bites. Clean Sheet, Back Room Deal. Those stick. We need the same.Go me what they are, but shame on us for not having them 12 months ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
February 15, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to lb0313
Don't forget Death Panels and pulling the plug on granny.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madraider6
February 15, 2010 12:23 PM
Obama has the votes to do what ever he pleases. But hes not going to do anything unless he can use somebody ie.Republicans for political cover. If you can't see that have some more koolaid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
February 15, 2010 12:34 PM
61% Say Congress Should Start All Over Again on Health Care
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 15, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Rasmussen is extremist right-wing. Try Gallup, which is centrist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
February 15, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to JNagarya
Ok, my friend, it is 55% look for alternatives in Gallup.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017601334?Poll:%20Congress%20Should%20Start%20Over%20On%20Health%20Care%20Reform
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 15, 2010 6:54 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
And I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of that 55% have no idea what "starting over" would really mean.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
February 15, 2010 12:35 PM
Oh, I so hope the Republicans don't show. And then I hope there are very obvious empty seats for all the world to see. And then I hope Obama gets up and says, we wanted to work with Republicans, but if they won't show up, we'll do the people's business without them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
woundedduck
February 15, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to Phoebe Fay
Does Obama really need another excuse to say that? He's got a million pieces of legislation that GOPers ignored, so why raise the curtain on another act of the play?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 15, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to woundedduck
Because Amerkins love theatrics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pakaal
February 15, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to Phoebe Fay
Considering their past antics, the GOP can stay or go, there will be no substantive difference if the seats are filled or not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
February 15, 2010 12:39 PM
Sounds like someone should start following Boner around wearing a chicken suit. Maybe Mike Stark?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 15, 2010 6:56 PM in reply to expat46
Or maybe just waving a rubber chicken. I like that idea!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marinus van der Lubbe
February 15, 2010 1:05 PM
Anyone else see the resemblance of Boehner and Plankton on SpongeBob?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cheesenstein
February 15, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe
I think you make a compelling point here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
February 15, 2010 2:10 PM
Why is TPM not covering the resignation of PhRMA's Billy Tauzin?
How will that affect the future of HCR?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
February 15, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to again
Bayh will get the job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cheesenstein
February 15, 2010 2:15 PM
If the Republicans were committing to vote on the result of negotiation at the end of the process, however they process goes, they would have more leverage to demand this.
But since they have not yet acted in good faith during this process, there's no reason to believe they might start acting in good faith at this moment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
February 15, 2010 2:16 PM
I have lots of meetings, and not ONCE have I ever been asked to show up with a 'blank sheet of paper'.
If you show up to a meeting with nothing, you didn't prepare, and so you have not done your job.
I'm so utterly sick of the Republican leadership anymore. They need to just come out and say that they won't show up. They keep trying to turn it around on Obama, but with the number of different excuses they're using, none of them must be playing well with their test groups.
If they really had ideas they think Americans would like, they would show up and voice them. If they really think Americans don't want what is already in the existing bills, they would show up and denounce them.
They have nothing, though, and Democrats need to nail their asses to the wall for it.
Oh, and can't they just call a bill a bill? Every time they bring it up they have to ladle on some kind of hyperbole....the 'job killing HIR bill'....the 'health *spending* bill'... why can't people see though this complete horse shit?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pakaal
February 15, 2010 2:32 PM
Yeah, thanks for the "blank sheet of paper" idea GOP, but the Democrats already have proposals in mind, so they're bringing them along. Why don't you do the same? Oh that's right, you don't have any proposals to make, so you're just going to sit there and complain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
February 15, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to pakaal
yes, they have a proposal - that is: leave things as they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuro
February 15, 2010 3:56 PM
This is getting old, the Republicans seem to not care at all what happens to the American people. It's the party of "I got mine Jack, so suck it!" Seriously, I used to be a Republican until this last election. The Republican Party should be ashamed of what it has become. Nothing more than a bunch of tools, brain dead anti-intellectuals: who hate education,science and Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KirkW78
February 15, 2010 4:17 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the party in power get to create and present the mold for all legislation? Then the party not in power gets to submit and try to get thier proposals to change edit and or fix the original. Finally all of the agreed upon proposals are combined into one piece of legislation and a bill is created and put on the floor to be voted on? Like it or not the two bills that were already passed by the House and Senate are the mold to start from. Why would you just forget all of those ideas and even if you do start with a blank slate won't the exact same things be brought to this roundtalbe for discussion? So what would be the point of starting over?
If the Republicans don't show up the Democrats should pound away at the party that doesn't want to work together for any reason even though the majority of the United States public wants the two parties to work together. If the Democrats don't use something like that to thier advantage then they don't deserve to be in charge at all.
However, no one should take any of the current news from the Republican Party as a shock. They haven't wanted to work together since the Democratic Party took over the Senate and then the House in the last 4 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
February 15, 2010 7:06 PM in reply to KirkW78
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the party in power get to create and present the mold for all legislation? Then the party not in power gets to submit and try to get thier proposals to change edit and or fix the original.
Evidently, that only applies when the Republicans are in charge, except that then they also get to apply the rules in such a way that the Democrats have no real opportunity to submit any amendments to Republican proposals.
So what would be the point of starting over?
Delay, of course. That has been the Republican objective all along.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe the Philosopher
February 15, 2010 4:19 PM
"They will then engage a largely handpicked audience in a televised 'dialogue' according to a script they have largely pre-determined," Boehner said.
Eh, I assume he's talking about George W. Bush.
Is Boehner or Lieberman the most corrupt man in Congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdtex
February 15, 2010 4:42 PM
No way should Pres. Obama make any concessions to Boehner before the meeting. Congressional Dems did that at the start of the whole process and that's why we ended up with the version of the HCR bill that passed the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotFooledByDistractions
February 15, 2010 5:22 PM
What's clear is that Boehner doesn't know shit from shinoa about the health care bill - he hasn't paid attention to the serious policy discussion, nor has he read the bill (it's just too long....) He's crapping all over himself, afraid to be called on in class. He's been enmeshed in the talking points, but as far as specifics or details go, he's clearly in the dark.
I wouldn't make any concessions to Boehner, in fact, if he shows, I'd press him on details and watch him crap all over himself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
February 15, 2010 7:13 PM in reply to NotFooledByDistractions
It really makes me wonder what these clowns have been doing for the last year. They're clearly not participating in the legislative process, so what are they being paid for?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SchoolyT
February 15, 2010 7:23 PM in reply to NotFooledByDistractions
They didn't bother reading pg. 27 of the IPCC climate study (or any of the rest of it, for that matter), and that was just background homework.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Got Kids
February 15, 2010 6:35 PM
This strategy has Frank Luntz written ALL over it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SchoolyT
February 15, 2010 7:16 PM
Start over? With the first Dem bill introduced. And work from there. But I wouldn't be nice enough to call it a mulligan. Just that a) they have no real alternative, and b) they wasted everyone's time in the legislative effort up to this point. Last chance, GOPers. Make any reasonable changes, if warranted, and move quickly to a vote or get the hell outta the way!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SchoolyT
February 15, 2010 7:20 PM
If they walk in with a "clean sheet of paper", the GOPs would probably just doodle a bunch of frowny faces (with Hitler 'stashes) and play hangman on it, anyway.
I hope this is just the storytime before the big show - the ram it through part.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
yessicabanne
February 16, 2010 12:29 AM
You can get full medical coverage at the lowest price from http://bit.ly/atGzeD
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
February 16, 2010 8:38 AM
$ 1 2 , 3 6 7 , 2 5 0 , 7 5 8 , 1 4 6 . 2 1
Ticktock. Ticktock.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?