Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama, congressional Republicans in a staring contest over health care

1. House Republicans' threat to boycott President Obama's proposed health care meeting on Feb. 25 creates the political equivalent of a staring contest with each side waiting for the other to blink. "A refusal to show up to a discussion of health care would show that Republicans would rather play politics than solve problems," one senior Democratic party official told the Fix. "The question is whether the White House sincerely wants bipartisan reform," retorted a House Republican leadership aide. "We've asked for some gestures of good faith, because Republican leaders have zero interest in being used as props." Context matters when analyzing how we got to this standoff. The televised face-off between Obama and House Republican late last month was regarded as a wild success by the White House (Obama has taken questions at nearly every event since then) and something short of that by House Republicans who were stung by Obama's blunt criticism of their approach and ideas. Both sides see political gain in their current positions, further cementing their current standoff. The White House believes that a Republican no-show -- coupled with the ongoing filibuster threats in the Senate -- can be turned into a compelling narrative that the GOP is blocking change solely to score political points. Republicans, on the other hand, look at polling -- like the new Gallup survey that shows just 36 percent approve of how Obama is handling health care -- and are reassured that the American public doesn't want the current legislation and that their call to scrap it and begin again is the right path to take. Given that, it seems more likely that the two opposing camps retrench in their respective positions over the next few days rather than negotiate a peace.

2. In the wake of the first national tea party convention in Nashville, there remains considerable uncertainty about who is rightly considered part of the tea party movement and how influential (or not) the effort is. A new poll out of Iowa, conducted by J. Ann Selzer, provides some fascinating insight into the tea partiers in one of the most politically critical states in the country. Roughly one in three Iowans described themselves as supportive of the tea party movement while 45 percent said they did not support the movement. Of those calling themselves supporters of the tea party cause, nearly half (49 percent) described themselves as political independents while 34 percent said they were Republicans and 17 percent identified as Democrats. They were predominantly male (59 percent), have a college degree or higher (44 percent) and consider themselves "born again" (46 percent). "Neither party has a lock on these restless advocates of limited government and fiscal control, according to the poll," writes the Des Moines Register's chief political correspondent Tom Beaumont. "However, their conservative leanings appear to give Republicans a greater opportunity than Democrats to make gains at the dawn of a volatile election year." The numbers in the Selzer poll are particularly eye-opening given the strong Democratic shift that has taken place in the state over the last few elections -- culminating with President Obama's 10 point win in 2008. Heading into November, the Hawkeye State looks likely to play host to a number of competitive races; Republicans are targeting Gov. Chet Culver and Rep. Leonard Boswell for defeat and Democrats are hoping longshot Roxanne Conlin can make a run at Sen. Chuck Grassley (R).

3. Indiana Rep. Mike Pence threw his endorsement behind former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio's Senate bid Monday, becoming the latest national conservative to back Rubio in his primary race against Gov. Charlie Crist. "Marco Rubio's faith in free markets, limited government and traditional moral values make him the right choice for Republicans in this race," said Pence in a release announcing the endorsement. Pence joins the likes of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint and the Club for Growth in choosing Rubio over Crist. A source familiar with Pence's thinking said the Rubio endorsement is not part of any grand plan and that the Hoosier Republicans will spend most of his time working to elect Republicans in general elections rather than primaries. (The only other candidate in a contested primary that Pence has endorsed is former senator Dan Coats in his home state of Indiana.) Still, Pence's decision to wade into a primary that is widely being cast as a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican party is (yet more) evidence that he has an eye on a national platform in 2012. Pence has staked out turf as one of the rising stars among fiscal conservatives, territory that is somewhat bereft following the implosion of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford last year.

4. Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero entered the Michigan gubernatorial race Monday, the first serious Democratic to make his intentions known since Lt. Gov. John Cherry (D) suddenly dropped out of the contest late last year. Bernero, who won reelection to the mayor's office in November, will almost certainly occupy the ideological left in the primary race -- no matter who else gets in -- and will clearly try to distinguish himself as the lone populist in the field. "People across Michigan are fed up and frustrated, anxious and angry -- and am I," Bernero says in a video posted Monday on his campaign website. "I'm running for governor so that I can fight for you." Bernero joins state Sen. Alma Wheeler Smith, who is not given a real chance at winning, in the race for Democrats. National Democrats continue to hold out hope that Denise Ilitch, a regent at the University of Michigan and the daughter of the owner of the Detroit Tigers and Detroit Red Wings, will run but she has given no indication either way. State House Speaker Andy Dillon has formed an exploratory committee and is expected to get into the Democratic race. Republicans have a crowded and quality field of their own, led by Rep. Pete Hoekstra and state Attorney General Mike Cox. ALSO CLICK: Businessman Rick Snyder's offbeat but appealing "one tough nerd" ad -- an interesting approach for a political neophyte trying to break out of the pack in the Republican race.

5. Twenty four hours after Scott Lee Cohen's departure from the race created a vacancy for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor in Illinois, the field is beginning to take shape. State Comptroller Dan Hynes is not interested in the job after his near-miss primary challenge to Gov. Pat Quinn but state Rep. Julie Hamos, who lost a primary race in the 10th district a week ago, has begun making calls to drum up support for the position. One other intriguing name to emerge is Tammy Duckworth, a former congressional candidate and currently serving at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Duckworth, who lost both of her legs during fighting in the war in Iraq, was highly touted by, among others, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel during her 2006 bid for Illinois' 6th district. After losing that race, she went on to head up the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs before being named to the post in the Obama Administration. The pick will be made by the Illinois Democratic state central committee, an organization controlled by state House Speaker Mike Madigan. On Monday Quinn refused to speculate about who the pick might be, saying only that those interested in the slot should come forward quickly. The conventional wisdom about the pick is that it will likely be someone from outside Chicago -- preferably downstate -- given the Democratic ticket's strong ties to the Windy City.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 9, 2010; 6:13 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: John Murtha dies, special election looms
Next: Sarah Palin's soundbite strategy

Comments

37th, I posted those from home.

Look at the

TIME STAMPS

for


PETE'S


SAKE!

.


Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 10, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers


Are you doing this when you are working at federal government - are you doing this on the taxpayer's dime ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama is attempting to blame the Republicans - but he should be blaming the democrats


The democrats are the ones who couldn't get it together last year.


The democrats are the ones who did the backroom deals with

the pharmaceutical companies,

the doctors,

the unions -

Mary Landreau, and

Ben Nelson -


AND THAT IS WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT.


The voters in Massachusetts are the ones who ended this chapter - not the Republicans.


If Obama can not accept the central reality - I really do not know what to say.


Let me be clear: it was the democrats who killed the health care bill.


The other central reality here is that the American people DO NOT want the health care plan.


If Obama thinks the democrats in Congress still want to vote for it in an election year, then he is sadly mistaken.


BUT Obama appears to be under an even different DELUSION.


Obama appears to now be DEMANDING that the Republicans support an unpopular health care plan - a plan that the American people do not want.


AND Obama is insisting that the "compromise" plan include universal coverage which means a massive government program.


If Obama can't get his own democrats to vote for an unpopular plan (which appears to be the case) then why does Obama think the Republicans are going to vote for that same unpopular program.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 10, 2010 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 2:52 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 3:05 PM

> time for group therapy <

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 9, 2010 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:58 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 12:04 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 12:09 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 12:19 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 12:47 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 12:55 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:03 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:03 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:06 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:30 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:34 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:39 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:42 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:42 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:48 PM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:50 PM

> one hour for lunch of grilled cheese and juice <

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 9, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 9:58 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:11 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:17 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:30 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:34 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:49 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:54 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:59 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:09 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:11 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:16 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:16 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:24 AM
Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:27 AM

> Half hour beak for apple sauce <


Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 9, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

If that process is more payoffs, threats and reconciliation with bare-minimum votes, the Democrats can kiss independents and moderates good bye for November and likely for many election cycles after.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 6:17 PM


____________________________________

CPRFERRY


You are 100% correct - only Obama can not be trusted - he has shown how he operates.

Time to send Obama back to Hyde Park

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse


Obama committed himself in the campaign to bipartisanship - that means compromise.

All of a sudden, Obama is in a news conference saying that he wants to meet the Republicans halfway ????

ALL OF A SUDDEN OBAMA IS SAYING THIS ???


Obama has some nerve. He really does.

AND Obama appears really really ANGRY that he has to be bipartisan now.

How ridiculous is this???

Obama went out there almost every day during the campaign - stating clearly that he was going to be the "uniter" and bring about compromise.

NOW OBAMA IS ANGRY HE HAS TO JUST THAT???


OBAMA HAS SOME NERVE.

WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS.

THIS ATTITUDE IS A DISGRACE TO THE COUNTRY.

THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE ASHAMED.

REALLY SHAMED.

TODAY WAS SHAMEFUL BEHAVIOR.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

The situation between the 2 parties gets worse & worse. The Republicans are acting like spoiled rotten children. Next, they'll be lying on the floor, beating their fists on the floor, kicking their feet & screaming! The Dems ignore them, no matter what they do.
We need the Republicans to come up with a better health plan than the Dems have been able to do. We need their input! 100 heads are better than 59!
If the Republicans still want to be the naysayers, let's fire them all in the next election. Who wants to pay them all that salary + pensions & get zippo in return, not me! If the Dems can't come up with a better plan, one that is not laden with lobbyist participation, one that does not cater to the insurance & drug industries, one that is equal for all, one without bribery & one without burdening taxation, then let's fire all of them, too!

Posted by: afed27 | February 9, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

The situation between the 2 parties gets worse & worse. The Republicans are acting like spoiled rotten children. Next, they'll be lying on the floor, beating their fists on the floor, kicking their feet & screaming! The Dems ignore them, no matter what they do.
We need the Republicans to come up with a better health plan than the Dems have been able to do. We need their input! 100 heads are better than 59!
If the Republicans still want to be the naysayers, let's fire them all in the next election. Who wants to pay them all that salary + pensions & get zippo in return, not me! If the Dems can't come up with a better plan, one that is not laden with lobbyist participation, one that does not cater to the insurance & drug industries, one that is equal for all, one without bribery & one without burdening taxation, then let's fire all of them, too!

Posted by: afed27 | February 9, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

If that process is more payoffs, threats and reconciliation with bare-minimum votes, the Democrats can kiss independents and moderates good bye for November and likely for many election cycles after.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Still the focus on Process rather than Results? If President Obama doesn't get meaningful health insurance reform done in the next 2-4 months, he'll have given the GOP a big, fat gift for the mid-term elections - the do-nothing President theme. Just get it done. Even passing the Senate bill is better than a goose egg. Even (cough, cough) GWB had some big wins in his first two years.

Posted by: tebrom50 | February 9, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Interesting survey in Iowa on the Tea Partiers. I wonder if similar trends hold nationwide. I'd expect the group to lean slightly male, as the poll shows, and that it has a strong evangelical Christian component is not surprising either. What does surprise me is that 44 percent of the Tea Party crowd (at least in Iowa) has a college degree, which is impressive given that only about a quarter of the adults nationwide do.

This would suggest that, contrary to the left's attempt to discredit Tea Partiers as uneducated redneck hicks, the group is actually populated with extremely educated, reasoned people. Go figure.

Thanks for calling attention to this.

Posted by: blert | February 9, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Wow, he doesnt even know what to say so he just keeps repeating the same, already-refuted points over and over again.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I think the word you were looking for was "boy", which of course you couldn't say, because then you would not have deniability when i call you out as a racist.


Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 1:11 PM |

_______________________________


These kinds of comments have NO PLACE in a post-racial world.


YOU ARE RACE BAITING.


I HAVE TO CALL YOU OUT.


IS THIS ANY WAY TO BE POST-RACIAL OR BIPARTISAN.


YOU are a fraud to Obama's campaign themes.


There should be a law against people like you - and throw you in jail.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

So now you like censorship too?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I think the word you were looking for was "boy", which of course you couldn't say, because then you would not have deniability when i call you out as a racist.


Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 1:11 PM |

_______________________________


These kinds of comments have NO PLACE in a post-racial world.


YOU ARE RACE BAITING.


I HAVE TO CALL YOU OUT.


IS THIS ANY WAY TO BE POST-RACIAL OR BIPARTISAN.


YOU are a fraud to Obama's campaign themes.


There should be a law against people like you - and throw you in jail.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

37th, grow up. Look around you. It isn't a post-racial world. If it were, the tea party people wouldn't portray the President as a witch doctor, or deny his citizenship in the face of overwhelming proof.
If you don't want me to call you a racist, don't say things that are racist. There are a million policy, or even character issues on which you could disagree with the president, without implying that he is a boy compared to Harry Trueman.
I just call it as i see it.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs to realize that the overall affect of his poor judgments on other issues is now having an affect on anything he says or offers (trails in NYC for 9-11 architects being the latest.)

If Obama is serious on reform, then do the following:
As a minimum, the following elements should be included:
* TORT reform – a real driver of costs!
* Health Savings Accounts to allow individuals to at least be partially responsible for their OWN health care.
* Inter-border health insurance sales
* Targeted language for fraud, waste and abuse of MEDICARE and MEDICAID.
* New initiatives to provide scholarships for doctors and nurses to pursue medicine to preclude a further shortage of doctors and nurses. Folks, there is no need to develop a ‘Health Care System’ if you do not have a viable delivery system.
* Language that will permit government funds for health care be only expended for US CITIZENS.
If he is not serious, then update his resume for 2013, for he will be looking for new employment!!
This has been suggested by members of congress previously, but disregarded by Pelosi, Reid and the White House. How did that work for them?? Where are they now?? It was Obama that wanted to deal strictly with the democrats!!

For Pete’s sake! The population has turned against Obama’s policies!! If he is not willing to change, then why would ANY POLITICIAN side with a LOSER??

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/02/obama_hits_lowe.php

Posted by: wheeljc | February 9, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

OK, elijah24, I'm not going to waste my time making judgments on who is racist or who is race-baiting or any of that hogwash, but...

'37th, its been a long time since I've gone fishing, but bait seems unnecessary when the fish jump into the boat.'

... this made me laugh. Zing!

Posted by: GJonahJameson | February 9, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse


I think the word you were looking for was "boy", which of course you couldn't say, because then you would not have deniability when i call you out as a racist.


Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 1:11 PM |

_______________________________


These kinds of comments have NO PLACE in a post-racial world.


YOU ARE RACE BAITING.


I HAVE TO CALL YOU OUT.


IS THIS ANY WAY TO BE BIPARTISAN.


YOU are a fraud to Obama's campaign themes.


There should be a law against people like you - and throw you in jail.

You are sick - and an ugly human being.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

cprferry, the questions in the poll to which you linked gauge opinions regarding the current proposed health care reform plan. The status quo is thus framed only as opposed to the plan as it exists today. My curiosity was more as to how many people would support the status quo as opposed to any change at all -- I suspect that number, like the number for support for the current plan, would be decidedly less than 50 percent. Really, the only question I'm getting at is how much support any one approach would garner, given the strong feelings people have on the issue; I suspect there's no solution, even keeping the status quo, that could surpass 50 percent across-the-board approval.

I did see your prior posts noting that polled opposition to health care reform now is comparable to polled opposition before liberals starting turning against the current plan for not being liberal enough. I'm not convinced, though, that said liberal opposition hasn't had any effect on the polls. Those early polls were taken at a point when those polled really had no idea what reform would entail, and a lot of people were gripped by fear of the unknown. Once the picture started coming into focus, I'm sure some people throttled back on their worst-case-scenario fears about health care reform and decided that what was being proposed wasn't so bad an idea after all. I know people who've turned against health care reform after being initially for it, and I know people who've warmed to the idea after being initially against it, so I'm not just guessing here.

On a side note, did I miss the memo that we are now to compare President Obama to the authority figures in "1984" rather than to Adolf Hitler? Did someone finally realize that if the Hitler references didn't bring down President Bush, they probably won't bring down Obama either?

Posted by: GJonahJameson | February 9, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse


I think the word you were looking for was "boy", which of course you couldn't say, because then you would not have deniability when i call you out as a racist.


Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 1:11 PM |

_______________________________


These kinds of comments have NO PLACE in a post-racial world.


YOU ARE RACE BAITING.


I HAVE TO CALL YOU OUT.


IS THIS ANY WAY TO BE BIPARTISAN.


YOU are a fraud to Obama's campaign themes.


There should be a law against people like you - and throw you in jail.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


You are an ugly human being -


You have lost every discussion today

So you start trying to call people racists -

It is extremely sick of you.

Please go see a doctor.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


You are an ugly human being -


You have lost every discussion today

So you start trying to call people racists -

It is extremely sick of you.

Please go see a doctor.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I think the word you were looking for was "boy", which of course you couldn't say, because then you would not have deniability when i call you out as a racist.


_______________________________

These kinds of comments have NO PLACE in a post-racial world.

YOU ARE RACE BAITING.

I HAVE TO CALL YOU OUT.

IS THIS ANY WAY TO BE BIPARTISAN.

YOU are a fraud to Obama's campaign themes.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

37th, its been a long time since I've gone fishing, but bait seems unnecessary when the fish jump into the boat.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I think you underestimate the number of Tea Party supporters. Nashville couldn't fit of all of them

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 1:15 PM
--------------------------------
There were tickets available.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 9, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 is race baiting again.

That is soooooo post-partisan.


You prove my point.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

flooded the board with ... sewage. too bad about yer blog, CC.

Posted by: dribbl

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:08 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:47 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:54 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:57 AM |
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:01 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:05 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:12 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:17 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:24 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:29 AM |
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:32 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:35 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:49 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:51 AM

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"Ha ha. He said he didn't explain it enough. (for us idiots to understand).
"
-Drivl
==
Your words. Not mine.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama is lecturing again.........


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein noted last night on MSNBC that the reality is that the GOP’s position means that a bipartisan compromise will be next to impossible to achieve:

KLEIN: There are two sides with different sets of ideas and they disagree about the ideas and if they can compromise on them, then we get a bill. In fact, you have two sides where one side wants a bill and the other does not want the bill, and it’s actually very hard to compromise between those two positions.

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

well the usual nooners have arrived and flooded the board with rightwing sewage. too bad about yer blog, CC.

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

He has taken responsibility for mishandling the health-care debate

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ha ha. He said he didn't explain it enough. (for us idiots to understand).

Even with those enormous ears........

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"BTW, I notice that the most ardent Tea Party supporters on this blog did not attend the convention. What's up with that?
Posted by: 12BarBlues"

I think you underestimate the number of Tea Party supporters. Nashville couldn't fit of all of them

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

but elijah, we all already know that bush was a bumbling fool with no edubacation.

It seems the same is true for barry Soetero. No wonder he never released his transcripts. almost surely flunked econ.

I guess the point is that mr empty head is worthless without his prompter.

No question this is what lead to no press conferences since July. Nobody wants to see the instant reaction berry has to simple questions:
police are racists
terrorists are isolated extremists
etc.

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

"TRUMAN WAS A REAL MAN.

Obama is - I don't know what to say - but Obama is soft on terror and that is pretty wimpy."
==
I think the word you were looking for was "boy", which of course you couldn't say, because then you would not have deniability when i call you out as a racist.
Obama has said time and again "the buck stops here". He has taken responsibility for mishandling the health-care debate. Your problem is that he hasn't said that he should have given in to the GOP, but instead, that he should have been more involved.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

How it's done in Obamaland:

Elizabeth — U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) tried to persuade the Federal Reserve to approve the acquisition of a New Jersey bank where the chairman and vice chairman were both major contributors. (Snip) The Wall Street Journal reports it's unusual for individual members of Congress to make such requests. The chairman of the bank at the time Menendez requested help was Joseph Ginarte. He had contributed $30,000

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

You are right about Orwellian doublespeak, 37thand0street. In his Orwellian doublespeak, Obama promised "transparency," but all we have witnessed is lies, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, and bribes at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.

When Obama and his comrades say "bipartisan reform," they are referring to the partisan SCAM that they want to force us to swallow one way or another.

Orwell, a critic of Joseph Stalin and Moscow-directed Stalinism, knew about the language used by socialists/Marxists to fool people into poverty and slavery. It's the language used by the Obama-like "socialists of the XXI century" (Marxists) who are destroying Latin America.

Most Americans understood the dangers of Marxists like Obama and Marxist SCAMS like Obamacare before our enemies managed to dumb down many Americans through a substandard and politicized education as per the warnings of Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwl Bt1

Here's a 1948 cartoon about a Marxist like Obama and Marxist scams like Obamacare: http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/t his-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html

Fortunately, most Americans have waken up! Most Americans are NOT sheeple! Most Americans are ready to defend their FREEDOM and the freedom of their children and grandchildren from the abomination of Obama's criminal scams and socialism/Marxism.

Posted by: AntonioSosa | February 9, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Here is a bipartisan solution to the terrorist questions:


Read him his rights, and then shoot him.

That makes everyone happy.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

really drivl? you really want to hit Obama on mispronunciation of a word? I assume you were just as hard on the President's predecessor every time he said (noo' kyu lar) instead of (nook' lee ar), right?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


NO - Im saying that you have a Japanese corporation here which apparently had serious problems with their cars and dragged their feet fixing the cars.


Which means they should probably be indicted on manslaughter charges.

Truman did the right thing by attempting to end the war quickly and eliminate the need for an invasion of Japan, which may have cost a million American lives.

That invasion would have cost Japanese civilians too - so it isn't a strict military-civilian trade-off as you would like to deceive the readers into believing.


The main point is HARRY TRUMAN TOOK RESPONSIBILITY - HE STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE.

You wouldn't see Truman blaming everyone else for something.


AND you wouldn't see Truman blaming the Republicans for something that probably the fault of the democrats.

TRUMAN WAS A REAL MAN.


Obama is - I don't know what to say - but Obama is soft on terror and that is pretty wimpy.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


NO - Im saying that you have a Japanese corporation here which apparently had serious problems with their cars and dragged their feet fixing the cars.


Which means they should probably be indicted on manslaughter charges.

Truman did the right thing by attempting to end the war quickly and eliminate the need for an invasion of Japan, which may have cost a million American lives.

That invasion would have cost Japanese civilians too - so it isn't a strict military-civilian trade-off as you would like to deceive the readers into believing.


The main point is HARRY TRUMAN TOOK RESPONSIBILITY - HE STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE.

You wouldn't see Truman blaming everyone else for something.


AND you wouldn't see Truman blaming the Republicans for something that probably the fault of the democrats.

TRUMAN WAS A REAL MAN.


Obama is - I don't know what to say - but Obama is soft on terror and that is pretty wimpy.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

About every major national conservative is endorsing Marco Rubio in Florida. Rubio is a favorite of the Bush's, as he was Florida House Speaker when Jeb Bush was governor. However, Governor Charlie Crist is an extremely well funded candidate and John McCain will likely be stumping for him as he stumped for McCain in 2008. This race really will be for the heart and soul of the Republican party. If Crist wins, he will roll in the GE to become the new US Senator of Florida and an immediate front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012. If Rubio wins, it eliminates Crist from Presidential contention and gives a huge boost to conservatives and conservative causes. Rubio also becomes an instant celebrity as a leading conservative voice from the Hispanic community and on almost every Republican with Presidential dreams in 2012 VP list. Alot is at stake in this Florida Senate race, and ultimately, the Republican primary.

CC, I'm glad to see you mention the Michigan governor's race. I'm telling ya, the Republican nomination should be on the line. Hoekstra and Cox are really battling for it now, but Rick Snyder is a wild card with an unlimited check book, backing of the business community including the Ford family and a political outsider's edge in a political outsider's year. This is going to make a heck of a primary, and the winner will be the front runner in the GE, as long as it's Cox or Snyder.

Posted by: reason5 | February 9, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Mark Steyn
At the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama singled out for praise Navy
Corpsman Christian Bouchard. Or, as the president called him, "Corpseman
Bouchard." Twice.
Hey, not a big deal. Throughout his life, the commander in chief has had little
contact with the military, and less interest. And when you give as many speeches
as this guy does, there's no time to rehearse or read through: You just gotta fire
up the prompter and wing it. But it's revealing that nobody around him in the
so-called smartest administration of all time thought to spell it out phonetically
for him when the speech got typed up and loaded into the machine. That
suggests that either his minders don't know that he doesn't know that kinda stuff
or they don't know it, either. To put it in Rumsfeldian terms, they don't know
what they don't know.
That's embarrassingly true. Hence the awful flop speeches, from the Copenhagen
Olympics to the Berlin Wall anniversary video to the Martha Coakley rally. The
palpable whiff given off by the White House inner circle is that they're the last
people on the planet still besotted by Barack Obama and they're having such a
cool time starring in their own reality-show remake of "The West Wing" that they
can only conceive of the public - and, indeed, the world - as crowd-scene extras
in "The Barack Obama Show." They expect you to cheer and wave flags when the
floor manager tells you to, but the notion that in return, he should be able to
persuade you of the merits of his policies seems entirely to have eluded them.

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama really hurt himself on the health care bill too - by not including the Stupak Amendment in the Senate bill -


All those negotiations - and it wasn't in the Senate bill ???

It makes you wonder what was going on with ALL of the health care negotiations which started in the spring.

It was almost as if Obama and a few democrats on Capitol Hill were just pretending to negotiate - AND all along they intended to substitute there own bill at the end.

It makes you think they were not negotiating in good faith all along - I have never seen anything like that in my life -

The bottom line is that it is a really good thing for the country that the bill died.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

37th:"The war ended - that should be enough - we saved a million American lives.


You think Toyoda cares about the lives of civilians?"
==
I don't know what you are trying to say. Is it that because the rich CEO of Toyota doesn't give a d@mn about ordinary citizens, we should feel free to nuke them? Do all conservatives feel that way?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

and just by the way, unusually cold weather in certain places is exactly what global warming causes.

Posted by: JoeT1


Just like adding milliions to the health care roles and ramping UP coverage leads to lower prices.

surrendering and apologizing to our enemies makes us look strong.

spending out of our minds will lead to prosperity.

Losing elections is a sign of fondness and success.

It seems Dems have no common sense anymore.

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse


OBAMA'S NEW AGENDA

"Junk Food Is Bad For You"


Obama wants to see the Republicans say no to that.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Independents don't just disapprove of the job Obama is doing, they're tiring of him personally. His favorability rating among them is down to 39 percent, with a 59 percent unfavorable rating.

Last December, Obama's favorability rating among independents was just under 50 percent.

The dimming of Obama's halo has been reflected in the directness of the personal attacks against him, even as Obama makes new gestures to reach out to opponents on health care and other issues.

Sarah Palin mocked Obama at last week's Tea Party convention, asking, "How's that hopey, changey stuff working out for ya?"

Independents aren't buying into Obama's brand of "change," either: 45 percent say he is changing the country for the worse, while 26 percent believe it's for the better.

In December, the numbers were equal at 36 percent.

Fifty-three percent of independents, who make up about a third of the electorate, now believe Obama has fallen below expectations. In December, the figure was 43 percent.

"The independents have jumped ship," concluded Miringoff.

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

short1,
I agree that Republicans should be wary of a meeting and seek to make it as fair and unpartisan as possible. They want this outside appearance of bipartisanship to rebuild trust with the American people that hated the Democrats' obstruction of democracy (payoffs, threats, closed doors). That's fine, but you read in liberal blogs and editorials (including Obama's campaign manager) that their tactic needs to be "remind the public how much they don't like Republicans" and the incessant claims of the "party of no". And listen to the recent speeches by Obama. Democrats don't want to rebuild trust with the Republicans they turned away months ago, they want to use them as props for ridicule and abuse.

However, I think you need to be careful to say that conservatives only want tort reform. One, few can agree what tort reform strategies work. Two, the bill includes funding for studying some strategies. Three, not everyone agrees that tort reform will fix the ballooning costs.
Also, conservatives should not be citing out one political feasible concession for their votes. Fighting for tort reform may be viewed as helping doctors rather than requesting other concessions that might help all of America. Not that doctors don't need help, but most Americans don't like any one industry being cited out when we're all hurting.
In addition, it's much more likely that a series of reforms on state regulations, coverage minimums and portability would help bring down premiums, cost of care, cost of administration and the headaches many have with the private insurance market. While at the same time ending the monopolies in most markets that insurers have over individual and business subscribers, doctors, hospitals, and other providers.
Again, not that one issue should be focused. But a number of issues. That logically make sense and would be effective cost controls and provide for better quality of care. Special interest deals (unions - employer tax breaks, tort reform - trial lawyers, SEIU - state regulations) sacrificed a number of reasonable ideas way too early and for no benefit except for the special interests.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I think the Republicans are wise to avoid a televised discussion with Obama.

Remember the old cliche: don't bring a knife to gun fight?

Obama is light years ahead of the Repubs intellectually. He will chew them up and spit them out. He has a total command of all the relevant facts and he will express them very eloquently. And they know this. They won't show. They can't show.

The American People would see that the Republicans have no intention of reforming our health care system. The only strategy that the Republicans have is to be obstructionist. To try to block any reform.

The Repubs don't care about the millions and millions of uninsured Americans. The Repubs just want their large profits.

In a nationally televised discussion the repubs would be exposed. They cannot show up for this...

Posted by: SamanthaAdams | February 9, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

If the televised meetings make sense...why then did Nobama not do it from the on-set as he promised during his campaign? It would have then been a truly bi-partisan effort. Instead - he opted Abott & Costello (Reid/Pelosi) to craft the bill behind closed doors with all bribes and alike. If it were that good - no need for the bribes within their own party.
Sorry - Nobama has no credibility here....its a feeble attempt at him trying to correct a multitude of broken campaign promises. The American people have spoken - yet he still refuses to listen. The arrogance displayed that he is just not explaining it correctly - meaning - it must be dumbed-down?.....This guy just does not get it...Its the HC BILL - stupid. Is it Nov 2010 yet....where once a for all the message will be sent??

Posted by: short1 | February 9, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

the argument that today's snow storm proves that there is no global warming is posted by "drivl" how appropriate.

and just by the way, unusually cold weather in certain places is exactly what global warming causes.

Posted by: JoeT1 | February 9, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

the public does want universal coverage. the dems screw up getting there, get their hats handed to them in MA, and so they say OK, let's hear your ideas now that you can't pretend we aren't listening to you any more (because with 41 votes we obviously have to). (cue the crickets)

so Republicans have to refuse to show up unless the table is shaped the way they want, and all their points are agreed to as preconditions. Unless bills passed by the House and Senate are burned, don't expect us to show up. That's not good faith. Of course they are on the table to be discussed.

Posted by: JoeT1 | February 9, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Getting battier by the day. all these failures are painting libs into a corner. Like a rabid dog, a trapped animal, watch out!!

With Washington, D.C. buried beneath at least 20 inches of snow, and with more in the forecast, common sense would suggest global warming alarmists look elsewhere to make the argument to raise awareness for their concerns. But no, Dylan Ratigan thinks it's ridiculous to suggest all the snowfall totals could cast doubt on the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

this site is pointless now... i and most of the rest of the people with lives have better things to do.

Posted by: drindl | February 8, 2010 5:50 PM


I guess upon further reflection you have no life after all ehh?

No job, no sense, no brains, no originality, no idea, no clue and no way forward and no decisions. Same as berry it seems.

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

GJonahJameson,

Opposition to how Obama or Congress have handed HCR has outpaced positive opinions since August though. Recent progressive disappointments account for little to no change in the polls.

As for status quo, question 5 asks that in the December WP/ABC News poll. Also see the perceived effect on Medicare. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_121509.html
By 13-20%, people felt the current system would cost them less, cost the country less and provide better quality of care.


Now, I support some effort on HCR. In fact some version of universal basic HC. I don't want unions, abortionists, insurers, pharma involved in the negotiations. Not sure how I feel about preexisting conditions. Although some mechanism should be available to provide affordable care for them. I want the removal of work-insurance tax breaks.
In fact, I feel very strongly for providing basic HC by public and/or private means. However, I won't support special interests and unethical government to control it. I'm a supporter of democracy and basic human rights, not socialism and the power of bureaucrats.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

37th's use of the word Orwellian is, umm, rather Orwellian.

Posted by: JakeD3 | February 9, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

The 2000+ page bill was a ridiculous, complicated power grab of 1/6th of our economy. If you want a fix of our health care system, you would be talking about repeal of the existing regulations which have inflated health care costs to an extreme. Allopathic medicine's procedures are written by Pharmaceutical organizations or affiliates which is a huge conflict. The regulations enforced by the Drug Trust (financed by the tax payer) bring pressure to increase the sale of drugs. The fact that most of the 12,000 separate drug items on the market are harmful is of no concern to them. I won't even get into who owns the largest drug manufacturing combines or their exorbitant profits. (These meetings are held behind closed doors)

Every sanitarian who attempts to restore the sick to a state of health by natural means without resort to the knife or poisonous drugs, disease imparting serums, deadly toxins or vaccines, is at once pounced upon by these medical tyrants and fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified and persecuted to the fullest extent.”

We need competing medicines. Big Pharma is the cause of high medical costs, but our lawmakers are too timid to confront this cartel. Stop the corruption are you can't fix health care with 10,000 pages of legislation.

Posted by: igillum54gmailcom | February 9, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse


YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ORWELLIAN ???

It wasn't the Republicans who killed the health care bill.

It was the the democrats in the Senate and the House who couldn't get their act together - and even by January did NOT AGREE ON A BILL.


It was the democrats who

- did the give-away to the pharmaceutical industry


- did the doctors' fix which was not paid for to the tune of $225 Billion


- gave a massive tax give-away to the unions on health benefits


- gave a massive give-away to Ben Nelson for Nebraska


- gave the massive give-away to Lousiana for Mary Landrieu (Congrats to her brother who has been elected Mayor of New Orleans)


SO WHO KILLED HEALTH CARE ???

and it was the DEMOCRATS IN MASSACHUSETTS who voted for Scott Brown


THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO KILLED OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE BILL.


Don't blame the Republicans - they really didn't do it.

Obama has a really horrible view of how government is supposed to work.

Checks and Balances are good, compromise is good.

Obama bad.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Like them or loathe them, one must acknowledge that the Tea Partiers who went to their convention are the elites of the Tea Party. Attendees either had the money to spend, or were able to raise the money from others, and all attendees are the true believers in the movement. The television coverage shows the behaviour of the party elites - this is as sophisticated and intelligent as it gets in the Tea Party world. (I suspect that an unstated value of the Tea Party is they MUST be angry, rude and confrontive in the extreme.)

BTW, I notice that the most ardent Tea Party supporters on this blog did not attend the convention. What's up with that?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 9, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

orwellian language is THE ONLY language used by rightwingers.

In it, 'bipartisan' means 'partisan.'

Posted by: drindl


Sample of an original "thought" from dribbl. this from the person who yesterday claimed to have a life and didn't need this blog. Yet:

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:08 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:47 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:54 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:57 AM |
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:01 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:05 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:12 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:17 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:24 AM Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:29 AM |
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:32 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:35 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:49 AM
Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:51 AM

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

elijah24


The war ended - that should be enough - we saved a million American lives.

You think Toyoda cares about the lives of civilians?


They should be indicted on charges of manslaughter.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Well short, you seem to think government is a mess to. Maybe we should scrap the constitution and start over. It's really easy for the party who doesn't like the bill to say "scrap it and start over". Leadership is accepting that something is going to pass and trying to make it better, based on your point of view. Of course I wouldn't expect that out of any of the buffoons running the GOP right now. I hope Ike and Abe can't see whats become of their party.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse
========================
Elijah...keep the dem talking points going as your party walks off the cliff following this piped piper versus listening to the American People. The bill is an albatross. When you remove the bribes, remove the NE & LA deals...when you remove the Union exemptions from the cadillac tax......then maybe one has a starting point ..thne lets sprinkle a little tort reform..as that is the most expensive item in HC. And as far as leadership getting something to PASS..You make my point.....Between the 3 stooges Nobama, Reid and Pelosi..(even Pelosi stated as much) ..they are at the point they do not care what they pass....or what it does to the country...As long as it's labeled "Healthcare"...Sorry dude....the 3 stooges during this process demonstrated if anything lack of leadership in this process....then the american people spoke..ala NJ-VA & MA......and now Nobama wants to meet for a dog and pong show. Sorry dude....his credibility is toast and you know it.

Posted by: short1 | February 9, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

There you go, explain to me how any of that applies to health care.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

thanks 12bar

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Kathleen Sebelius has got to be kidding - she gets in front of the microphone and says - WE ARE GOING TO START WITH UNIVERSAL COVERAGE - AND THEN LET THE REPUBLICANS TELL US HOW TO GET THERE.


Obama just doesn't get it - he is so out of touch it is amazing.

Obama is out of his mind to demand that the Republicans tell him how to get to the democrats' goals - and then Obama wants to to run around the country like a hero.

THAT IS JUST THE POINT.

The American people DO NOT want a massive government program, especially during this recession.


It's like this: Obama wants a utopia - he can't deliver, so now he is demanding that the Republicans create the utopia for him.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I don't think I'm wrong, but I admit i shouldn't have said it.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 11:31 AM
------------------------------------
Your acknowledgment is rare, if not unknown, on this blog. Congratulations for honesty and integrity. I put your posts on my "must read" posts.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 9, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

DDawd,

As for getting things done vs. an ethical government.

Democrats may be able to win over the progressives by obstructing democracy for a socialist agenda.
But progressives are a minority. In fact, Obama and Democrats had to hide the progressive agenda behind moderate positions and going anti-Bush to win the election.

The moderates and independents will not be won over with progressive legislation crafted in closed rooms with unions and other special interests promising loyalty and then passed along party line votes, blocking opposition and imposing threats and payoffs on less-radical members of the party.

Moderates and independents will vote for ethical government over progressive policies every time. There's not enough liberals to win without significant numbers of moderates and independents. In fact, a fair number of liberals, moderates and independents may already be lost to the Republicans for at least 2010.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

“Um, people. I actually talked with someone who is walking the halls of Congress. That's more reliable than David Brooks or Rush Limbaugh or whoever.”

Wow, what a great argument point, I talked with someone so my reality is clearer than David Brooks who evidently makes-up stories to fit his biases. Then the Rush addition nice touch you are quite suave in making your retort. Please your history with research is lacking. Last time we disagree you claimed that McDonnell web site was a complete clone of Obama’s thus he was running like a D. There was one slight problem the content was completely different and believe it or not McDonnell did mention his party on his web site in a positive light (amazing). While he may have been running a light R emphasis, he did not abandon his party. Now you claim that Brooks makes up his observation since your research is so comprehensive (I talked with someone). I think history is repeating itself.

Posted by: sliowa1 | February 9, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

now dance on his grave, ddawd!

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

re #1: The minority party continues to whine and spit and kick the dirt.

The fact is many of their ideas have already been incorporated into the Senate's HCR bill.
The fact is the GOP has no interest in moving any legislation under this administration.
The fact is the GOP doesn't care how much they hurt this country so long as they think they are 'scoring' for their party.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 9, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse
=======================================
Will someone please tell me where the demmies get their data other then the 3 stooges of Olberman, Maddow and Mathews? Margaret - even many of the democrats complained they were excluded fom the process - nevermind the repubs. All the backroom deals of Pelosi and Reid..and yes - even Nobama. You remember that nice little token he gave the unions...thats ok you can say it - being exempt from the cadillac tax...And NO - there ideas have not been incorporated..Can you say TORT Reform?.....The BIGGEST factor behind escalating HC costs..But hey - lets over look that one....God Help Us..Is it 2012 yet..so this nightmare can end? BO makes even Carter look competent.

Posted by: short1 | February 9, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

you can simply cut out the middleman and wire directly to dribbl's "brain"

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/palin-advocates-war-with-iran-after-apparently/

Posted by: drivl | February 9, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

laugh of the day:

If there's one thing that unites the Republican Party it's that the stimulus bill was a job-killing piece of legislation that was the worst thing in the whole entire world for the economy, right? Or maybe that's just what unites them in public, because in private the Washington Times reports they've been working overtime to get their hands on job-creating stimulus cash.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond regularly railed against President Obama's economic stimulus plan as irresponsible spending that would drive up the national debt. But behind the scenes, the Missouri Republican quietly sought more than $50 million from a federal agency for two projects in his state.

...

In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Mr. Bond noted that one project applying to the USDA for stimulus money would "create jobs and ultimately spur economic opportunities."

Bond isn't alone. Remember Joe "You Lie" Wilson?

Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican who became famous after yelling, "You lie," during Mr. Obama's addresses to Congress in September, voted against the stimulus. Nonetheless, Mr. Wilson elbowed his way into the rush for federal stimulus cash in a letter he sent to Mr. Vilsack on behalf of a foundation seeking funding.

"We know their endeavor will provide jobs and investment in one of the poorer sections of the Congressional District," he wrote to Mr. Vilsack in the Aug. 26, 2009, letter.

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"They really aren't though. One is just colored in Orwellian "for the people" speak. They're both about consolidation of power to attack and persecute enemies of the state. The difference comes in how one defines who or what the enemies of the state are.

Posted by: cprferry"

See what I mean? Socialism and fascism are two completely different things. This idiot wants to make them the same thing, so he throws in the word "Orwellian" and voila! Socialism=fascism.

And what about the fact that the bill involves absolutely no expansion of government distribution of healthcare. (government distributes HC to the old, the poor, and to itself - the bill doesn't change that) Well, we can still call it socialism because the language in the bill is so "Orwellian"

And since the Orwellian language in the bill makes it socialism and since Orwellian language allows us to equate socialism and fascism, we can safely say that we are well on our way to burning Jews.

Um...

Orwellian.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

.' You think 37th has ever even smelled a copy of 1984? Of course not. "ZOMG, PUBBLEC OPSION IS SOOOO ORWILLAN"

indeed.

here's an example -- The Clear Skies Initiative -- designed by Rs to weaken environmental regulations.

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

DDawd,

Stupak-Pitts was not for Republicans. It was Democrats to shore up support of Stupak and pro-life Democrats.
Just because a concession was made by progressives doesn't mean it was for Republican support.
The bill was still too flawed and went too far from Republican principles to win any support.
Like or not, progressives may have party leadership, but they don't have the votes. They thought they could threaten and pay off moderates and ram the bills through. They made a power play and lost. In the process, they lost the trust of Republicans and the American people.

11. Obama has been president for about one year. Would you say he has accomplished a great deal during that time, a good amount, not very much or little or nothing?

-Grt deal/Good amt- -- Not much/nothing --
Great Good Not Little or No
NET deal amt NET much nothing opinion
1/15/10 47 12 35 52 30 22 1
10/18/09* 49 14 35 50 27 23 1
4/24/09** 63 24 39 36 21 15 1
* "about nine months"
** "about three months or nearly 100 days"

12. (IF NOT MUCH/NOTHING) Who's mainly responsible for that - (Obama) or the Republicans in Congress)?

Neither Both No
Obama Republicans (vol.) (vol.) opinion
1/15/10 52 20 6 20 3
4/24/09 49 24 8 16 3

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Republicans say they haven't been given a chance to weigh in on the health care discussions, and then they say they'll boycott a discussion on health care with the Democrats. Someone's going to have to explain that one to me.

I wonder if this proposed meeting might be a ploy by the Democrats to wear down the effectiveness of Republicans' argument that they haven't been given enough information. It seems like that argument has been employed a lot lately by Republicans and the pundits who support them -- where they're not picking out any specific issue as offensive to them, they're just saying the Democrats haven't shown their work enough. That's a naturally effective technique, because many voters are categorically conditioned to distrust anything an elected or appointed government official says, so the easiest way to get around that is to say the other guys haven't given you enough information to take a position. But it's easy to be deceptive about it, and continue claiming you haven't been given the information you want even after you have, or ask for information that doesn't exist, and voters will still buy it. So the Dems need to come up with a way to make that winning technique a loser for the GOP; offering them a public opportunity to give the input they say they haven't had a chance to give will put them on the spot.

On a side note, I've seen a number of posters today criticize the Gallup statistic on health care that Chris gave because all it does is differentiate between approval and disapproval. The logic there is that people on opposite sides of the political spectrum disapprove of President Obama's handling of health care because it doesn't go far enough in their direction, and that makes sense to me. I wonder how high an overall approval rating any proposal -- even if that proposal were to maintain the status quo -- could get.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | February 9, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I changed

MY MIND.

Moving to

FLORIDA to

VOTE for Marco.

Palin/Rubio 2012

Posted by: JakeD3 | February 9, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Rather they're both colored in Orwellian speak.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Well short, you seem to think government is a mess to. Maybe we should scrap the constitution and start over. It's really easy for the party who doesn't like the bill to say "scrap it and start over". Leadership is accepting that something is going to pass and trying to make it better, based on your point of view. Of course I wouldn't expect that out of any of the buffoons running the GOP right now. I hope Ike and Abe can't see whats become of their party.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

As for "Orwellian" It's become one of those idiotic cliches like "Hitleresque" People just throw it around to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean. You think 37th has ever even smelled a copy of 1984? Of course not. "ZOMG, PUBBLEC OPSION IS SOOOO ORWILLAN"

People, define the term, give me an example from his writings, and then tell me how it relates to whatever asinine point you're trying to make. And barring that, get off this damn board and read a damn book for once in your lives.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"They are two separate belief systems."

They really aren't though. One is just colored in Orwellian "for the people" speak. They're both about consolidation of power to attack and persecute enemies of the state. The difference comes in how one defines who or what the enemies of the state are.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

A day without a Sarah dumb gaffe is like a day without sunshine--

'Citing a column by Pat Buchanan that clearly argues against conflict with Iran, Sarah Palin on Sunday suggested that a war with Iran would be good policy and a boon for President Obama's 2012 reelection hopes.

Buchanan's column, "Will Obama Play The War Card?" was a rebuttal of Daniel Pipes call last week for Obama to bomb Iran to ;save his presidency;. "Will Obama cynically yield to temptation, play the war card and make 'conservatives swoon,' in Pipes' phrase, to save himself and his party?" Buchanan writes.

Buchanan, a longtime anti-interventionist, comes out against more sanctions, arguing that "the families of the sick, the old, the weak, the women and the children who die are unlikely to feel gratitude toward those who killed them." He says the prospects of Iran developing a nuclear bomb are much overstated.

But during an interview with Fox's Chris Wallace in which she cited the Buchanan column, Palin spoke approvingly of the "bomb Iran" idea.'

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Um, people. I actually talked with someone who is walking the halls of Congress. That's more reliable than David Brooks or Rush Limbaugh or whoever. Republicans are listened to. To say that they aren't is just a talking point and just a lie. Of course a lot of their stuff isn't going to make it into the final bill. Of course the bill isn't going to be reduced to tort reform and nothing else. And Stupak was most definitely a concession to Republicans. It's just that like every other concession made in every other bill, it didn't move a single R vote except for that of my Congressman. Very similar to the stimulus. No matter how much of it turned into tax cuts rather than spending, Republicans didn't budge. It's all about obstruction. That's why McConnell wants to scrap the bill. Really? The election of one Senator means that the process starts over. Bull f*cking sh*t. It's just an obstruction tactic.

Republicans know damn f*cking well that they have no intention on voting on anything remotely effective. You saw that list of demands they sent to Obama before they would even agree to sit down in the same room. It's just obstruction.

Personally, I think the Dems need to use reconciliation. It's pretty clear that the political cost for doing nothing is far worse than the cost of getting this passed. Republicans know this as well. Use procedural tactics if necessary.

You think people care about bipartisanship? I've got news. They don't. The American people have constantly been told that partisanship is the reason that stuff doesn't get done. And yeah, there's truth to that. But what Americans care about is stuff getting done, not whether Ds and Rs can sit in a goddammed drum circle. And if reconciliation is the way to do it, then so be it. Americans won't give a crap since they'll be too busy enjoying their new protections.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Dog and pony show...it's a day late and a dollar short. This should have been the offer one year ago....versus wasting tax payer time and dollars drafting backroom legislation with backroom bribes.
You want and open and honest debate - scrap the whole piece of garbage and start over......To start with the current bill is a charade.. Government is TOO TOO big.

Posted by: short1 | February 9, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

orwellian language is THE ONLY language used by rightwingers.

In it, 'bipartisan' means 'partisan.'

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"Republicans don't want a bill -- any bill-- because their industry backers don't want one.
Posted by: drindl"

That's not true. The industry has been behind Democrats, the individual mandate and no cost controls. Democrats are pulling in double as much in contributions as Republicans from the health insurance lobby. The biggest recipients have been the biggest supporters of Obama/Reid/Pelosi-care.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2010&ind=H03

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

37th, I am a liberal. You seem to find my existance offensive.
Yes, it was a cheap dig, and I realize that it was an impossible decision for President Trueman to make. Knowing only what he knew at the time, I don't know what decision I would have made at the time. I'm a veteran myself. I would never advocate a plan that leads to unnecessary death (be it of soldiers, or civilians) but in war, the life of the civilian must outweigh the life of the combatent. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacks on civilian population. Today we call that terrorism. Not to mention that it introduced the world to the atom bomb, the power of which is now posessed by a few nations we don't trust and a few who hate us.
I don't think I'm wrong, but I admit i shouldn't have said it.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"What are socialists if not but fascists?"

You really are confused. They are two separate belief systems. You don't seem to even understand the concept of' language.'

"However, the funny thing about language is that real actions show through. And the shenanigans to pass a HCR bill have shown through and are universally hated by Americans. And they hold Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the Democrats to blame.'

Only in your wee little mind.

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Orwellian language was equally utilized by the left - the communists

An example of Orwellian language is Obama claiming he wants a "bipartisan" meeting when in fact he just wants to smack-down the Republicans and make them look bad.

Orwellian language - take a look at Obama's campaign themes - and compare them to Obama's actions over the past year.


Bipartisanship


Post-Racial -

Transparency

All Orwellian concepts.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

This what is so silly about Obama's new approach -

Obama is saying to the Republicans - "I want your ideas on how to reach the goals of the democrats - and IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, I'M GOING TO CALL YOU OUT."

Obama is demanding that the Republicans help him reach the democrats's goals.

Those are not the goals of the Republicans.


THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE OF OBAMA - OBAMA HAS TO COMPROMISE - AND SEEK COMMON GROUND


Obama is probably hopeless - he is the affirmative action president who has never actually done anything in his life.

All Obama has ever done in his whole life is move onto the next affirmative action program, until he turned the democratic delegate selection process into an affirmative action program - convincing delegates that they could not "let down" the black community after their hopes were raised.

It is so unbelievable - if this were a book, it would never get published because the editors would insist that it would never happen this way.

THEN HIS SUPPORTERS SAY "What is Orwellian language"


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Republicans don't want a bill -- any bill-- because their industry backers don't want one. Why should they, when they can continue to sodomize the public without one? They can raise your rates at will, they can deny you coverage, they can drop you if you get sick. Why change that, it works for them!

"On Fox News, conservative consultant Andrea Tantaros — who works for a PR firm that represents insurance industry clients — declared that “the only way Republicans should meet with” Obama is if he “is committed to starting over, scrapping that stinker of a bill.”

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"Orwellian language? You've got to be kidding. Rightwingers/ fascists invented it.
Posted by: drindl"

What are socialists if not but fascists?

The Party of Manipulation mastered Orwellian language in this last campaign.
However, the funny thing about language is that real actions show through. And the shenanigans to pass a HCR bill have shown through and are universally hated by Americans. And they hold Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the Democrats to blame.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Republicans don't want a bill -- any bill-- because their industry backers don't want one. Why should they, when they can continue to sodomize the public without one? They can raise your rates at will, they can deny you coverage, they can drop you if you get sick. Why change that, it works for them!

"On Fox News, conservative consultant Andrea Tantaros — who works for a PR firm that represents insurance industry clients — declared that “the only way Republicans should meet with” Obama is if he “is committed to starting over, scrapping that stinker of a bill.”

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


I find your comment at 11:01 truly offensive.

Have you ever heard of Pearl Harbor ???

Also, the American government was faced with the estimates that it would cost the lives of up to ONE MILLION AMERICAN TROOPS to invade Japan and end the war.

YOUR STUPID REMARK implies that we should have lost the lives of one million American soldiers instead of the course of action you don't like.

YOU ARE WRONG -

You apparently claim that you care about human lives, but the alternative would have lost far more.


How stupid can you be?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


I find your comment at 11:01 truly offensive.

Have you ever heard of Pearl Harbor ???

Also, the American government was faced with the estimates that it would cost the lives of up to ONE MILLION AMERICAN TROOPS to invade Japan and end the war.

YOUR STUPID REMARK implies that we should have lost the lives of one million American soldiers instead of the course of action you don't like.

YOU ARE WRONG -

You apparently claim that you care about human lives, but the alternative would have lost far more.


How stupid can you be?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

wow that was witty

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Republicans don't want a bill -- any bill-- because their industry backers don't want one. Why should they, when they can continue to sodomize the public without one? They can raise your rates at will, they can deny you coverage, they can drop you if you get sick. Why change that, it works for them!

"On Fox News, conservative consultant Andrea Tantaros — who works for a PR firm that represents insurance industry clients — declared that “the only way Republicans should meet with” Obama is if he “is committed to starting over, scrapping that stinker of a bill.”

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

elijah24


You can tell yourself that - you are wrong. Obama has no idea what he is doing.


Obama's job performance is P for pathetic.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD


If you don't know, read the book.


But since you don't know, apparently you have been suckered by Obama the whole way through.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

37th, my 6 year old knows better than Bush. It wasn't conciet, it was self-awareness. Washington is a machine. you can't change everything about it over-night. Dem's are playing the game the way it has to be played while they try to change it from the inside.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

It's too bad that 37 can't be kicked off this board for jamming. I never read what he posts because it's idiotic and infantile, but just the amount of time and space he wastes on this board [and this planet] is annoying to have to scroll past.

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD,
The Stupak-Pitts amendment to bring the House HCR in accordance with the Hyde Amendment on abortion coverage was not a Republican idea. It was not a concession to Republicans. It was a concession to Stupak and pro-life Democrats. House Democratic leadership, living richly on Planned Parenthood political contributions, fought to win Stupak and other Democrats over with other concessions but had to relent to a vote. Pro-choice Democrats that have always hated Hyde were said to be in tears over the decision to let Stupak introduce the amendment. The amendment passed, and with more support the overall bill. It was necessary to win over Stupak. There was absolutely no consideration of Republicans in the House.
The only claim of bipartisanship one could make was in the Baucus committee in the Senate, which progressives hated and vilified him and other less-radical Democrats for.
The chant of the Left has been "We don't need Republicans, Pass the bill." Endless efforts were made to shore up support of enough Democrats.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Saddly, Obama will not agree to an "start Over" ploy. The 3000 pages of sealed portion of "Obama's Contract On America" is still there. Maybe if that was gotten rid of and never brought back it would be better, but this 3000 pages means Obama's jogb to whom ever he works for in Chicago.

Posted by: jackolantyrn356 | February 9, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

ddavid,

“100% lie. Anyone who tells you that Republicans have been shut out is misinformed or is lying.”

I wish you would write David Brooks and Mark Shields about your findings since they would disagree. Brooks point is that neither side is talking with the other and D have marginalized the R. You are correct to point out that R were not completely shut out; however, the majority is not listening nor have they created an environment that would foster someone speaking to them. I would say the D learned this from the R. You might call it pay back… but again is that the way to govern.

Posted by: sliowa1 | February 9, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

ddawd --orwell didn't invent a language -- he extrapolated from WW2 propaganda a way of thinking and broadened it. what i am referring to as the use of a wordwhen you really mean the opposite. For instance in the mind of the rightwinger, War is Peace. And 'Bipartisanship' is imposing your will on another by use of force.

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats just need to get off their rear ends and do something themselves. The GOP doesn't care about the hurting middle class. All they care about are the rich bankers and big corporations.

Pass health care reform as it is and then amend it. People are hurting. They need something more than the incompetence of congress, especially the senate.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | February 9, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Apparently, in order to live up to 37th's standards of what makes a "real man" you have to obliterate 2 major cities.
I don't know where you get the idea that the only explanation for the President's behavior is inexperience. It could be that he has a different (better) way of doing them, and you just don't get it. It could be that status quo doesn't work anymore (if it ever really did) and we need new ideas, which he brings. Just because you, with your limited inteligence and information access; don't understand, doesnt make it wrong.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Ultimately, Obama's job performance is going to be judged on how well he does on the ISSUES.


Obama has been fooling himself, because the numbers on his personality are higher than the numbers on his issues.

THAT is OK for a while, but not in the long run. AND when Obama gets into a campaign, he starts to get compared with another candidate. Right now, people just compare him with himself, which tends to increase the approval numbers.


WHAT A DISASTER - that is all I can say.

Obama was supposed to be SO SMART - HARVARD LAW REVIEW -


The guy is an idiot.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"The top Republicans in both the House and Senate responded by saying that while they “look forward” to the discussion and”appreciate the opportunity to share ideas with the President,” they believe that the “best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap” the health care reform bills that have passed both the House and Senate. The office of another GOP leader, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), suggested that Republicans would not attend the White House meeting unless the Democrats abandoned their proposals"

in other words, to Rs, 'bipartisanship' means 'bend over.'

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

What the hell is Orwellian language? Is it what the rest of us refer to as English? George Orwell didn't invent a new language or anything.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

elijah24

I am just pointing out -


The democrats over the past years have come with the attitude that "they know better than Bush."


AND "because they have a better way than Bush, the democrats are actually better people than Bush and the Republicans."


HOWEVER - when the democrats come to town, they start acting like Bush.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Most of the polling orgs -- as well as the news wire services -- are run by highly partisan rightwing groups-- a deliberate strategy overtaken in the last dozen years or so. Before you cna trust a poll, you have to see how the questions are structured, and most of them are highly loaded and slanted. In any case, I can quote you a number of them which were and are highly favorable to health care reform. So your argument is based on cherry-picking.

""That's why Pres. Obama and the Democrats had to run against Bush and hide their progressive ideas behind Orwellian language"

Orwellian language? You've got to be kidding. Rightwingers/ fascists invented it.

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"This represents a FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE on the part of Obama about the nature of his job - his job is to serve the American People, not to jam an agenda through they do not want.
Posted by: 37thand0street"

Actually, that's been a big problem for Obama.

From the Wash. Post/ABC News poll:
Please tell me whether the following statement applies to Obama, or not?
a. He understands the problems of people like you
Yes No No opinion
1/15/10 57 42 2
1/16/09 72 24 4
b. He is a strong leader
Yes No No opinion
1/15/10 63 35 1
1/16/09 72 18 10
c. He has brought needed change to Washington
Yes No No opinion
1/15/10 50 49 1
1/16/09* 76 22 3
d. He shares your values
Yes No No opinion
1/15/10 55 43 1
1/16/09 67 30 3


Democrats have looked just at B. But they're losing the American people if they continue to ignore the real problems and choose to fight for values Americans don't agree in in ways that are very Washingtonian.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Every pundit in the country is trying to figure out what Obama is doing - what his strategy is - the truth is that Obama is INEXPERIENCED - and he has NO IDEA what he is doing.

It is pretty simple.

There is no other way around it - and the situation is going to get worse.

Obama has become the PARTY OF BLAME - never taking responsibility.


PUT THAT IN SHARP CONTRAST TO HARRY S. TRUMAN - who said "The Buck Stops Here" and took responsibility for everything.

That was a real man.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

even if thats true, 37th, doesn't the same hypocricy also apply to the right, who actually coined the "with us or against us" mantra? Now all of the sudden it doesn't apply when it is a Democrat in charge? Justify that.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

mbc -- there is a also a jobs bill that republicans are blocking as well. know about that?

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, Frazil, Jaxas70, katopotato123 and jim11 have all suggested that polls are not reflecting progressive opposition to the current bills and ram one them through.

Yet opposition to the health care reform has been strong since August. The Washington Post/ABC News polls show negative opinions on how Obama or Congress have handled the health care reform effort have outpaced positive opinions.

So even before progressives lost the public option and other reforms, more American people hated the bills.

Over that same period, self-defined "liberals" have remained the same (24 to 23%) while "moderates" dropped by 4 points (39 to 35) and "conservatives" jumped by 5 points (36 to 41).

And let's look at the current approval numbers of the Progressive Queen Rep. Pelosi. Since June her approval numbers went from nearly split (38% approved, 45% disapprove, 16% no opinion) to be as much hated as tolerated (40% either strongly or somewhat approved, 37% strongly disapprove).

It's pretty clear that progressives do not make a significant amount of the American public, let alone enough to swing a poll. That's why Pres. Obama and the Democrats had to run against Bush and hide their progressive ideas behind Orwellian language and moderate ideas in their campaigns to win over moderates (and a fair number of Republicans and conservatives) in 2008.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

On balance, this is a good move by Obama. If, after claiming to support more balanced healthcare reform, and complaining (rightly) about the non-transparent corrupt deals that bought enough votes for it stay alive, Republicans now walk away from public discussion about healthcare, they forfeit their high ground on both fronts. Obama's got 'em. They need to meet with him, and be prepared to publicly argue their case while continuing to question the Dem vision of robbing Peter to pay Paul, without actually robbing Peter or paying Paul.

On the other hand, this may not be a slam dunk for Obama and the Dems. Frustrated voters may well look at this latest attempt to galvanize the government to pass healthcare as just the latest inexcusable distraction away from focusing on jobs. I can conceivably see a scenario that another month of the federal govt focused more on healthcare than the economy is one more month of Dems losing independents and conservative Dems and imperiling Dem members of Congress who represent them. Voters who are fed up and want a full court press on jobs and economic recovery may be wondering how big a message they have to send in order for Washington to get its priorities straight.

Posted by: mbcnewspaper | February 9, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Republicans are so transparent....they never had any intention of contributing to healthcare reform. They came up with a lot of self serving rules under which they would participate. They are worthless as representatives of the people of this country and should (especially in the Senate) be voted out of office in the next election they have.

At this point, Democrats should pass healthcare reform with a strong public option and leave the whining Republicans behind where they belong.

Posted by: gilbertpb40 | February 9, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

John Brennen, Obama's terrorism chief said "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."


__________________________________


Wasn't that EXACTLY what the democrats used to accuse the Bush administration of - if you aren't with us, you are not being patriotic ????

AMAZING JOKE IF IT WERE NOT TRUE.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama really made a MAJOR MISTAKE when he went to Baltimore - instead of being bipartisan - he went on a smack-fest - so why in the world would the Republicans want to do that again???

Obama is really stupid to take on the attitude he has.

Obama's attitude over the past few weeks does NOTHING FOR BIPARTISANSHIP.

Everyone can see that.

So this pretend-meeting idea that Obama has is not going to work.

Obama's attitude seems to be "I'm going to call you out."

Well, Obama has already been called out.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

The idea that Republicans have been shut out of the process is 100% lie. My own Congressman is a Republican and I have spoken to him about it. He's said that there are Republican crafted bills floating around and obviously they won't get looked at. The bill will have to be written by a Democrat. That's how it works, but the President as well as Congressional leaders have been willing to listen to Republicans. My Congressman was instrumental in restricting abortion rights in the House version of the bill. But he's also noted that Boehner has done his best to prevent participation in the debate.

100% lie. Anyone who tells you that Republicans have been shut out is misinformed or is lying.

And congressmen won't be misinformed about their own involvement. Yeah, Boehner is a straight up liar.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers,

“I think that Obama has made efforts to get the Hill to work together.”

We will have to agree and disagree on this point as well. I think Obama truly wants bipartisanship and he has a history of bipartisanship from his days in the Illinois state house. I would say his record of bipartisanship in the Senate was not that great, but then again he had a very short tenure in the Senate (I am sure it would have been different if he served longer). The major problem with Obama’s bipartisanship is that he has out sourced much of the negotiations to Pelosi and Reid. Obama could have reigned in Pelosi, but then again he wanted to get HCR passed (learn from Clinton in what not to do) so he was in stuck between a rock and a hard place. It hard to say how bipartisan Obama wanted this bill to be since the mechanism he opted for in getting this bill passed was extremely partisan.

Posted by: sliowa1 | February 9, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse


Broadwayjoe


I see you've been racist baiting all night - did you find any ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse


Broadwayjoe


I see you've been racist baiting all night - did you find any ???

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

What is the virtue of bipartisanship in a bill that is so impotent that it improves nothing, and possibly makes things worse?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

"like the new Gallup survey that shows just 36 percent approve of how Obama is handling health care -- and are reassured that the American public doesn't want the current legislation and that their call to scrap it and begin again is the right path to take."


___________________________________

I thought Obama was supposed to be a "uniter" - Obama is not bringing people together - he is dividing them.

Clearly, Obama has decided to "go it alone"


First Obama decided to pass the bill without the Republicans - NOW OBAMA HAS DECIDED TO PASS THE BILL WITHOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


This represents a FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE on the part of Obama about the nature of his job - his job is to serve the American People, not to jam an agenda through they do not want.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

"Their base are conspiracy mongers who ... believe Obama ... is the second coming of Lenin
Posted by: broadwayjoe"

I wonder why they might think that?
Could it be the obstruction of democracy to grant the state control over significant industries supposedly "for the people" supported with Orwellian speak?
Socialist policies crafted in closed rooms with unions and other special interests promising loyalty? Then passing legislation along party line votes, blocking opposition and imposing threats and payoffs on less-radical members of the party?

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

cprferry


You are 100% correct - and a bipartisan bill means WIDESPREAD support in both parties -


NOT picking off one or two members of the opposing party from a relatively liberal state.

Obama has to come to terms with HIS OWN LACK OF BIPARTISANSHIP before he can start to blame anyone else.

Obama really blew his opportunity during the State of the Union - he really had a bad attitude that night - BECOMING THE PARTY OF BLAME.


That was a serious mistake - because that was the night Obama could have been concilatory.

Obama's attitude over the past few weeks has been HORRIBLE.

Obama has a telephone - he can find out what the Republicans' ideas are without it.

All Obama has been doing is running around making speeches.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

"like the new Gallup survey that shows just 36 percent approve of how Obama is handling health care -- and are reassured that the American public doesn't want the current legislation and that their call to scrap it and begin again is the right path to take."

This is a completely skewed and partisan and simplistic take on it. Only 7% of republicans approve --predictably, as partisan as they are -- and democratic approval is low because we feel he hasn't fought hard enough for the bill.

So your analysis is totally wrong. This behaviour on the part of Rs just demonstrates what we already knew. They are quite happy with the status quo -- they've got theirs -- and their backers in the insurance industry are getting exactly what they want -- complete control over people's lives and medical decisions.

Posted by: drindl | February 9, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

MANY OF YOU DO NOT KNOW ME - but I still think good government is important - and I would rather see the various players in Washington make the right moves - than anything else.

But this latest round from Obama has been horrible - pathetic and silly.

First of all, this is NOT an episode of the West Wing - which is FICTION - in which one side or the other gets a victory within the confines of a one-hour episode.


Obama is not going to be able to create a dramatic moment and stare down the Republicans and somehow change all his fortunes in the space of a few minutes.

This whole thing is silly and ridiculous.

Obama has NOT been bipartisan all year -


The American People are not going to be fooled by seeing one day on tv when Obama is pretending to be bipartisan - and have that substitute for all the "uniting" that Obama promised during his campaign.

Americans are not going to be fooled by a CHEAP STUNT which is designed to make one side look bad.

What is wrong with Obama ???

No one is buying this crap.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 9, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Margaret Meyers,

The bills went through the committees. And Republican amendments were blocked and the bill made it out of the committees on party-line votes very fast. The only exception was the Baucus committee, to which progressives took him and others to task.
Since then, additional negotiations have taken place and the bill re-written to gain the support of special interests and individual Congress members.

To claim that Republicans were involved in this effort is a lie.

Progressives saw an opportunity to ram through the bill. They had the numbers. They threatened, ridiculed and bought off those Democrats that refused. At no point did the progressives want or seek the help of Republicans. In fact, Democrats that proposed bipartisanship was skewered by the HP, EK and DK crowd.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I will pit my education and intellect against yours anytime AntonioSosa. The truth is that it is people like you who are dumbed down. You throw about words like socialist and communist knowing little or nothing about what those words actually mean.

Let me give that motley little collection of snot inside your head you call a brain an example. You say Obama is a socialist. Yet, any self respecting socialist would slit his own throat before he took billions and billions of the public's money and gave it to--not the poor, the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised--but to the icons of the private market, the bankers, CEOs, Wall Street hustlers and gigantic financial institutions who we are told make this economy hum. That is socialism?

And why was the federal government put into this position of having to bail out these criminals? Because of you and your fanatic devotion to deregulation and pampering business interests in all of those years you were putting conservatives into office who promised a smaller more efficient government and lower taxes.

No Antonio. I am insulting you because you invite the abuse. Your hands are filthy with the rust and mud and filth of what Reagan and the bush family saddled us with all with the prodding of the CLUB FOR GROWTH! Socialism! No socialism hasn't been the problem we have had for the past 30 years. It has been right wing republicans who have created a system where billions and billions of the middle class's wealth was transferred to the most wealth and powerful in the country all in the name of Milton Friedman's supply side economics.

We are here because of you you fraud!

Posted by: jaxas70 | February 9, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I think what the republicans are missing in their celebration of the large number of people who disapprove of the President's handling of health care reform is that a significant percentage of those folks don't believe that he has been hard enough on the republican position of No and Fear.

Posted by: jim11 | February 9, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

jaxas70 posted: "...Look, I am not buying this attempt to legitimize the Tea Party. There are just some things that cannot be sanitized with all of this oversimplified pap about the Constitution, freedom, the flag and Mom's apple pie. Tom Tancredo's transparently bigoted speech for one in which he called for bringing back the literacy tests, Yikes!"
____________

It IS frightening stuff. On MSNBC, both Keith and Matthews recently called out the so called "Tea Party" out on their coded endorsement of racism and fascism, but the rest of the MSM seems determined to legitimize this racist proxy movement.
Political analyst Janeane Garofalo's take on the Party:

"JANEANE GAROFALO [on Keith's show]: Thank you. You know, there's nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite certain what he's saying. It sounds right and then it doesn't make sense. Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 9, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Chris - wish the HCR poll data was more nuanced and that journalists such as yourself would delve into this. Numbers are low on Obama's handling of healthcare because he hasn't been as forceful, as explanatory as he should be. Repubs control the relentless extremist negative drumbeat on both talk radio and their own Fox News so that loud opinion substitutes for news and then MSM reports it.

Posted by: katopotato123 | February 9, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I was thinking Obama as Augustus, and i dont really have a good metaphore from that time pelosi. How about we move down the time line a little and make Obama, Vespasian, and Pelosi as Titus?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

But yes, I do agree, Sliowa1, that this is a very stupid way to govern. where we part is I think that Obama has made efforts to get the Hill to work together.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 9, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Jaxas70,

The public option died mid-December with Lieberman. Yet more people opposed how Obama handled health care reform well before that. According to the Washington Post/ABC News polls, opposition has outpaced support since August. That's well before the public option and many other progressive ideas were removed.

Let's review another marker of progressive support:
Pelosi's approval numbers went from nearly split (38% approved, 45% disapprove, 16% no opinion) to be hated as much as tolerated (40% either strongly or somewhat approved, 37% strongly disapprove)

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

I believe it was because of the participation of Grassley, Enzi, and Snowe on Baucus' working group that all the major points of the GOP agenda actually are central to the SB.

I agree that the House is operating under the DeLay Rules now imposed by the Ds, marginalizing the Rs.

I do not agree that was true in the Senate and the R input in the S bill, which I think the House should pass, is apparent.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

1. In any discussion of the Tea Party, shouldn't it be noted that, according to the Tea Party's own web site, teaparty.org, its founder and president is Mr. Dale Robertson. Yes, the same Mr. Robertson whose n-word sign has come to define his so-called political movement.

http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader
__________

2. If BHO follows through with his bipartisan meeting and TV cameras show scores of empty seats with placards saying "GOP," it is hard to see how that helps GOPers except with the baggers and Palinites. Those images would confirm the Party of No/I hope he fails narrative.

________________

3. No mention of the recent Research 2000 poll of GOPers about their views of Obama? This poll results were widely reported by MSM media outlets...but oddly, not here.

Excerpt from Kos himself:

"As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world. But I found myself making certain claims about Republicans that I didn't know if they could be backed up. So I thought, "why don't we ask them directly?" And so, this massive poll, by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans, was born.

The results are nothing short of startling.

It's a long poll, so the results are summarized below the fold. For a direct link to the poll's crosstabs, click here.

Ultimately, these results explain why it is impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. Their base are conspiracy mongers who don't believe Obama was born in the United States, that he is the second coming of Lenin, and that he is racist against white people. They already want to impeach him despite the glaringly obvious lack of high crimes or misdemeanors. If any Republican strays and decides to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Even the Maine twins have quit cooperating out of fear of their homegrown teabaggers."

This poll is arguably one of the most important in recent memory and puts the lie to the narrative that opposition to BHO is based on "policy differences," rather than old fashioned hate and intolerance.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/2/832988/-The-2010-Comprehensive-Daily-Kos-Research-2000-Poll-of-Self-Identified-Republicans

Thank you, Mr. Moulitsas.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 9, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Look, I am not buying this attempt to legitimize the Tea Party. There are just some things that cannot be sanitized with all of this oversimplified pap about the Constitution, freedom, the flag and Mom's apple pie. Tom Tancredo's transparently bigoted speech for one in which he called for bringing back the literacy tests, Yikes!

Literacy tests, loyalty oaths (disguised as purity oaths), tacitly racist sentiments wildly applauded, insulting parodies of the President, elevating unintelligent, inarticulate buffoons to serious Presidential candidates, labeling entire classes of Americans as socialists, communists, Marxists, hinting that America needs to expand its military into new and dangerous interventions, proposals to literally do away with America's social safety net--what do these remind you of if not the failed efforts of past demagogic efforts to install an authoritarian, right wing, white supremacist, theocracy in America.

The Tea Party is nothing more than the most recent expression of America's own peculiar brand of fascism. When you boil down what the Tea Party is really about, when you get down to its fundamentals, it is nothing less than the establishment of a Fourth Reich, right down to the loyalty oaths, the intimidation of citizens, the thuggery at town hall meetings with their brown shirt mentalities, and the elevation of ignorant demagogues who lace their political dialogues with the worst sort of hate and prejudice.

Posted by: jaxas70 | February 9, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

sliowa1, there is nothing new in the Republican party's lack of privileges in the movement of this bill. They were limited in the same way the minority party has been limited for 200 years.

If the GOP feels they were cut out of the process it is because they are against this bill from the get-go. They do not want reform to come from the government... and maybe they feel there is no reform needed.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 9, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

margaretmeyers,

“the Democrats moved HCR through congress the way bills have been moved for 200 years.”

Both David Brooks and Mark Shields would disagree on your assessment. Yes, technically the bill went through the same way it has been for 200 hundred years, but there are distinct differences. R basically have no voice and this is because D on the committees have given them no voice and they are locked out of most negotiations. Is this all the D fault, no, when R controlled both houses of congress they did not give the D a voice either. Instead of learning what a bad system the R created in their day, the D have replicated this bad idea.

Brooks has said that neither D nor R really know what the other is thinking and typically thinks the worst in the other. He said he offend feels he is doing shuttle diplomacy since he has to correct either the D or R on their misperceptions of the other. The system is broken and both are at fault, but I would say the D are more responsible currently since they are the majority party; however, historically the R have major culpability as well.

Posted by: sliowa1 | February 9, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for your insults, jaxas70! Did you select that name, jaxas70, to insult yourself?!

Coming from Obama’s ACORN operatives or lemmings, any insults are welcome and further demonstrate that Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov was right when he warned us that our enemies were working hard at brainwashing us (dumbing us down): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1

The dumbed down are obviously unable to understand how they are contributing to “the American descent into Marxism,” which “is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple…” http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0

Fortunately, most Americans have not been dumbed down and they will do whatever necessary to defend themselves, their children and grandchildren from the abomination of Obamacare and Obama’s plans to transform the U.S. into another failed socialist country like Cuba or Venezuela.

Posted by: AntonioSosa | February 9, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Wrong, margaretmeyers! Proposals by Republicans for REAL reforms to IMPROVE health care were never considered. Obama and his comrades wanted a pure SCAM to nationalize health care.

The scam was being "cooked" since 2007 by "progressives" (Marxists) like Obama and Obama's ACORN associate Robert Creamer.

Robert Creamer, a CONVICTED FELON, outlined the guidelines for the Obamacare SCAM in his 2007 book, “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win.”

As per Creamer’s book, the main objective of Obamacare is only to increase the power of "progressives" (Marxists) through the “democratization of wealth” (socialism/Marxim) as per the teachings of Saul Alinsky. They created the health care crisis to enslave us!

Creamer wrote in his 2007 book:

* “We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.”
* “We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.”
* “Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry….”
* “We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus.”

As per those guidelines, Obama and his comrades will agree to ANYTHING to get their scam approved. They don't care about the "components of the plan." All they want is CONTROL over our health care and our lives.

They want complete power as that of the Marxist thugs who are destroying Latin America. They plan to increase their power through the “democratization of wealth” (socialism/Marxism).
http://the-classic-liberal.com/progressive-agenda-for-structural-change-stand-up-straight/

Posted by: AntonioSosa | February 9, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

AntonioSosa, the only stench I smell is the green cloud of halitosis floating out that piehole of yours. It is no secret to those of us who are well educated that punks like you who bandy about the word Marxist, socialist, communist and the like are merely substitution those words--words you clearly have no idea of what their meaning is--for the one word you achingly would like to use but can't because it would expose you for the thyg you really are. You know the word I am referring to. It begins with an N.

Posted by: jaxas70 | February 9, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Elijah24,
I was thinking Obama as Cimber and Pelosi as Casca.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Margaret Meyers, you have brought up every issue that makes this an impossible task for the WH. The leadership of the Republican Party is betting that they can take back seats in both chambers without any work. They have committed themselves to an untenable position. If they go, it shows the President has strength and if they don't go they will say that the WH would not listen. This is very dangerous for the nation because this could set the table for the next ten months. We, the people, always get shafted when there are politics involved.

Posted by: Thinking4 | February 9, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

mmyers, I've really been getting into Ezra Klein's blog recently. It's very good stuff. Kind of like the opposite of this blog, actually. But I guess it's due to the fact that the conservative politics espoused in this blog really make for lousy policy.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

The Tea Party strength lies in its simplicity and grass roots presentation, but let us not dismiss it for lack of principle foundations that are basically American.

How closely they match the short but definitive Analysis of what is Wrong With America Today will tell us that.
The piece, “Democrat’s Economic "Assumption-of-Death”, says,....

short clip....“The fatal flaw that produced stagflation in Europe in the 20th C is taking hold of America, mistakenly promoted by the erroneous and perverted economic policy – or non-economic policy - of the Obama administration.”

and more....“All good comes from economic success, and all success comes from the creation of profits. There is no stronger disincentive to profits than taxation.”...

They are saying,………no need to punish “profits”, if you don't, jobs will follow.

This thesis is at;
http://www.robbingamerica.blogspot.com

If they are right, the Democrats will pay in November.

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | February 9, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Americans need Republicans to continue to say NO to Obama’s criminal scams.

Republican Senators can be proud that, in contrast with Democratic Senators, ALL Republicans Senators said NO to the lies, manipulations and BRIBES of Obama and his comrades to force the Obamacare scam on us.

Republicans have had the courage and integrity to say NO:
NO to Marxist scams like Obamacare and cap and trade
NO to higher deficits that are destroying the future of our children and grandchildren
NO to government takeovers
NO to siding with terrorists and helping them at the expense of American people
NO to having the corrupt United Nations deciding what the U.S. should and should not do
NO to Saul Alinsky's culture of lies, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, bribery, fraud, corruption and death
NO to trampling on the U.S. Constitution
NO to imitating the strategies of the Marxist thugs who are destroying Latin America
NO to all of Obama's scams that are destroying America
YES to REAL reform to improve health care
YES to fiscal and personal responsibility
YES to governments of laws rather than of men
YES to defending Americans from terrorists and other U.S. enemies
YES to respecting the U.S. Constitution
YES to energy independence
YES to freedom, including freedom OF religion (not FROM religion)
YES to patriotism
YES to prosperity

Posted by: AntonioSosa | February 9, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

cprferry, the Democrats moved HCR through congress the way bills have been moved for 200 years. The bills went through committees and were hashed-out for months. They went to votes the way bills always do. The GOP had seats on every committee and participated as much or as little as they wished. They delayed whenever possible and obstructed whenever possible.

There was nothing new in the way democrats handled this bill in either house. it is the GOP demands that are late in appearing and are out of the ordinary. If Obama met these objections, Tanning Bed Boehner and McConnell would come up with more objections. That's the game they are playing.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 9, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

You are right, SUBLIMEWOODY. "All things on balance it makes no sense for Republicans to attend an Obama love fest."

Republicans should just say NO! Why should any honest American be willing to discuss a criminal SCAM like Obamacare?

There's no RIGHT way to do the WRONG thing!

Posted by: AntonioSosa | February 9, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Moonbat, what are you--8? Childish insults like Obumba are just what one would expect from squabbling children on the playground. And that is precisely how the GOP is acting--like spoiled rotten little brats who have had their favorite toys taken away from them.

Look. If you cannot argue the issues like an adult, why don't you just stick to more childish pursuits like watching the cartoon channel. Come to think of it, the Tea Party convention reminded me of the cartoon channel.

Posted by: jaxas70 | February 9, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Although I will concede that it may be extremely difficult for Democrats to drop the existing special interest-laden bills. Special interests lobbied Democrats hard for those concessions. Many of the checks have been cashed. Most of the benefits have been reaped. It just wouldn't be fair to those special interests if the bills were scrapped.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2010&ind=H03

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

No Republican -- and no thinking American -- should help Obama and his comrades advance a criminal scam like Obamacare.

The stench of the lies, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, bribery, and backroom deals to force us to swallow the Obamacare SCAM -- which will destroy our health care, our economy, our freedoms and our country -- has forever tainted the Democratic party.

Thinking Americans understand there's no longer a Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has been replaced by the Marxist party, bent on destroying America.

Thinking Americans expect Republicns to say NO to additional lies, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, bribery, and backroom deals to force us to swallow the Obamacare SCAM.

Posted by: AntonioSosa | February 9, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Like you Frazil, I am extremely distrustful of Gallup's surveys. They are very good at framing questions in a way that assures they will get a result that "seems" to favor the GOP. But, the truth is that Gallup intentionally does not go into depth on these polls for a reason. Because if they did, they would find that most Americans turned off on this health care reform at precisely the same time they dropped the public option.

Gallup is devoted to the mainstream narrative on Obama and the democrats which requires them to talk down democrats and present a narrative that suggests big GOP wins this November. Why? Not because they are right wing partisans. But, keeping America divided between left and right is what keeps their paychecks coming in. The very last thing Gallup wants is a united America.

Posted by: jaxas70 | February 9, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

CPR, would that make Bohener Marcus Brutus (A traitor), or Marcus Antonius (a self-indulgent fool who was more interested in personal pleasure than the good of his people)? I would guess the latter. I think Lieberman is Brutus, in your Roman Metaphore.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Margaret, I would give a kideney to see that happen. After all, If it did, I might be able to get the health-care I need due to my lack of a kideney.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Margaret Meyers,

Those seem to be reasonable demands. In fact most of them (televised negotiations, 72 hours, consult with states, Medicare analysis) should have been done by Democratic leadership in their preceding effort to jam through a bill.

Democrats, with control of the House and Presidency and 60 in the Senate, made a power play and lost. It's going to take more than ridiculing and forced smiles to rebuild the trust with Republicans and the overwhelming amount of the American public that have been turned off by Obama, Pelosi and Reid's unethical efforts.

It seems fairly reasonable for Republicans to demand a fair, respectable meeting less they be Julius Caesar-ed by the Party of Manipulation.

Posted by: cprferry | February 9, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

"All things on balance it makes no sense for Republicans to attend an Obama love fest."
==
I don't see how the GOP can not meet with the President, and expect to take back control of the House or Senate. If REFUSING to talk on camera gives them their BEST chance, Republicans are in far deeper trouble than we've realized.
Assuming that the Republicans actually do think they have good ideas, which can stand up next to the ideas comming from the Democratic Party; why would they NOT want to stand on a stage with the leader of the Democratic Party and make him look small, or at least make themselves look even with him?
The only logical answer is that they know that they can't. That their ideas are a fraud and they know that they cant possibly make their case for a fraud next to the President making a logical case for a serious idea.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 9, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

John Boehner and Eric Cantor have responded to Barack Obama's invitation to sit down and talk health-care reform. They answered in the form of a ransom note. Here are their demands:

1) "Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over?"

2) "Does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation?"

3) "If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand?"

4) "Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills?"

5) "Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?"

6) "The President has also mentioned his commitment to have 'experts' participate in health care discussions....Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs?"

7) "Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?"

8) "Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, [be televised]?"

Just screams "we would like to cooperate with you to reform the American health-care system," doesn't it? But don't take my word for it: You'll really want to read the whole thing. These are not folks who concern themselves with the appearance of good faith. The only thing missing is an obscure riddle that Obama must answer before he can speak to Mitch McConnell.

But I think the administration should release a counter-proposal. They will agree to literally every one of the GOP's demands -- including the ones that don't make any sense -- in return for one, simple promise: The final legislation is guaranteed an up-or-down vote in the House and the Senate. No filibusters. No delays. No procedural tricks. If the GOP wants a clean process, I bet a deal can be struck here.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/lets_make_a_deal_1.html

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 9, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

It's no a staring contest. The Repubs are a bunch of obstructionist cowards, who don't want their so-called health care "plan" to be publicly exposed because it does close to nothing to make insurance more affordable while handing out potentially vast amounts of money to the health insurance industry.

Moreover, they fear that Obama will, once again, hand them their collective behind, as he did during the televised Q & A session with the House Reps ten days ago.

Posted by: Gatsby10 | February 9, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

re #1: The minority party continues to whine and spit and kick the dirt.

The fact is many of their ideas have already been incorporated into the Senate's HCR bill.
The fact is the GOP has no interest in moving any legislation under this administration.
The fact is the GOP doesn't care how much they hurt this country so long as they think they are 'scoring' for their party.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | February 9, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

"Republicans, on the other hand, look at polling -- like the new Gallup survey that shows just 36 percent approve of how Obama is handling health care -- and are reassured that the American public doesn't want the current legislation and that their call to scrap it and begin again is the right path to take."
=======
Its possible that a good proportion of those who disapprove of Obama's handling of health care, disapprove not because the health care bill goes too far, but because it doesn't go far enough. The Gallup Poll website doesn't allow you to make that assessment. I'm curious.

Posted by: Frazil | February 9, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Now only 39 percent of indies like berry with over 50 percent dissapproving of his work.

Sinking fast after a long uninterrupted string of failures.

Maybe he could help a little old lady across the street or something.

Know your limitations.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 9, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I'm UNC alum, so it's especially painful for me. It was kind of a similar situation after the Heels won the NCAA Championship in 2005. The entire team left for the pros. And the 2006 team wasn't nearly as hyped as it was now. But no one expected that then freshman Tyler Hansbrough would turn out to be one of the best players ever. They were ranked 10th at the end of the season. Then comes Lawson and Ellington and we're at the top of the charts for the next three years before winning it all. I think a lot of people looked back to 2006 and figured Williams could turn the new team into contenders just as easily.

But yeah, I think this team has a lot of individual components who are very talented, but don't work together well, so there are a lot of turnovers. I figured the team would struggle at the start, but didn't think it would last into February. And the Duke game is tomorrow.

I'm not really sure how UNC or UT (and throw in UConn) can turn it around. Unfortunately, I haven't been having too many opportunities to watch bball this season. For the Heels, I think it's just a matter of experience. I think it's akin to what happened in Florida after their back-to-backs.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

URGENT TO TEAM OBAMA: "First, Do No Harm."

What good is health care reform when the federal government commits silent microwave torture and impairment on unconstitutionally "targeted" citizens -- and top Obama officials know about it and either can't or won't stop it?

HOMELAND-RUN CELL TOWER MICROWAVE WEAPON SYSTEM SILENTLY ASSAULTS, IMPAIRS THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS NATIONWIDE, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Precision-targeted microwave frequencies torture, injure, induce fatigue, mood changes, debilitating physiological and neurological effects -- electromagnetic enslavement of citizens deemed to be "dissidents" or undesirables.

• Obama security team aware of secretive Bush-legacy "multi-agency coordinated action" involving microwave assaults, local community watch persecution and financial sabotage -- what are Bush-Cheney leave-behinds telling Obama?

• System capable of disabling sophisticated electronics as well as assaulting human beings.

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves OR
www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2 (see articles list)

NOW IT'S OBAMA'S GESTAPO USA. WHEN WILL TEAM OBAMA ACT?

• Bucks County, PA MAGLOCLEN/RissNet Mid-Atlantic "fusion center" -- "Ground Zero for Mid-Atlantic Homeland Domestic Torture and Community Watch Domestic Terrorism"

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list)

Posted by: scrivener50 | February 9, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Hey obumble. Why no press conferences since July? Is it because the last time you went off prompter, without the feed from speechwriters, you demonstrated your racist anti American views that resulted in the joke beer summit?

Is it true that without exhaustive research, poll testing and a staff of speech writers that you can't form a cogent thought.

The result is a very tightly controlled present ident obimbo who is not capable of responding transparently to the wh press corpses.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 9, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Americans despise partisanship in Washington more than they dislike Obama's health plan. This is a risky proposition by the GOP, and one that they surely will not carry out.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | February 9, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

ddawd - the meltdown since 17-0 has been epic. Can they put it back together? I have my ideas how they can.
I suspect they will regain some of their confidence, but not the swagger they had.

The #1 in America is now #4 in the Big 12 and with 45% foul shooting could not get out of the second round of the NCAA tourney. So much of college bb is played by 19 year olds that coaching them is a delicate job. Even the best coach around, Roy W., is having trouble organizing all that young 5 star talent. When he had 22 year olds last year it was easier. If Barnes could replicate Damion James' 22 year old mindset in the 19 y.o. freshmen guards - oh, well, Brown emerged, finally.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

All things on balance it makes no sense for Republicans to attend an Obama love fest. The President needs to publicize a precise agenda, otherwise his record shows that he'll just throw that turkey of a health care bill on the table for "discussion." It's already been discussed enough and Obama knows full well what the Republicans' position is. Don't bother.

Posted by: SUBLIMEWOODY | February 9, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

I suppose the Prez could conduct the proposed conference in a room with the empty seats of the R invitees named with placards. Then he could project the R health care talking points from the GOP.gov web site

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

and point out that they are all included in the SB - they are its heart and soul. Then he could ask the Ds in the room to support the SB in a show of post partisanship.

The Ds in the room could argue with him about why they should support the R agenda when Rs would not even show up. And the Prez could say b/c he promised to use good ideas no matter where they came from. Tit-for-tat politics are not what he is about, etc.

Theater, of course: but why not?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 9, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

#6 - Kansas defeats Texas What's going on, Mark????

Posted by: DDAWD | February 9, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Obumbo must work on a healthcare plan in the light of day from the beginning. It is foolish to try and fix a bill hashed out behind closed doors with bribes, and intimidation. Get off your political oneupmanship attempt and begin at the beginning fully televised.

Posted by: guymartinjackson | February 9, 2010 6:44 AM | Report abuse

Obumbo must work on a healthcare plan in the light of day from the beginning. It is foolish to try and fix a bill hashed out behind closed doors with bribes, and intimidation. Get off your political oneupmanship attempt and begin at the beginning fully televised.

Posted by: guymartinjackson | February 9, 2010 6:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company