Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Most Important Number in Politics Today

6

That's the number of Senators -- three Democrats, three Republicans -- who are still negotiating to find compromise on a health care reform bill. That group will huddle with President Barack Obama at the White House tomorrow.

The six -- Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and ranking minority member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) as well as Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) -- hold the fate of health care reform in their hands.

Since Obama has made clear that passing health care reform is his top priority for his first year in office, the power of the "Gang of Six" is hard to overestimate.

Both parties seem to be nervously watching and wondering what legislation (if any) comes out of this group, and everyone seems to acknowledge the delicate balance that is keeping the six together.

Interestingly, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) praised Baucus this morning as a "breath of fresh air" for his willingness to work with Republicans on the health care issue, adding that he knew the Montana Democrat was "under incredible pressure to throw Republicans under the bus."

The meeting between the Gang of Six and the president comes amid poll numbers that suggest the Administration is losing some of its altitude on health care. A new national survey conducted by Quinnipiac University showed that just 39 percent approved of the way the President was handling health care, and almost three-quarters of voters don't believe Obama will keep his much-stated promise to reform the health care system without adding to the national debt.

We continue to believe that these poll numbers don't mean much if, ultimately, the Administration can find a way to get a bill passed that allows them to declare victory on health care.

Passing a bill lies in the hands of the five men and one woman above.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 5, 2009; 4:12 PM ET
Categories:  Most Important Number  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Word on Mouthpiece Theater
Next: Morning Fix: As California Goes. . .

Comments

"Interestingly, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) praised Baucus this morning as a 'breath of fresh air' for his willingness to work with Republicans on the health care issue, adding that he knew the Montana Democrat was "under incredible pressure to throw Republicans under the bus.'"
_____

As you well know, Max Baucus is someone who takes very large campaign contributions from the insurance industry. Just the kind of fellow Sen. Cornyn would admire, eh?

Posted by: Kelly14 | August 7, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I am forwarding this entire thread to flag@whitehouse.gov

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Cornyn has it wrong - Republicans have been diving under the bus without any help from Democrats.

Posted by: can8tiv | August 6, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 writes
"Anyone with common sense knows filibusters should only be allowed when Republicans are in the majority."

I think filibuster rules should go old-school: if you want to filibuster, you have to stand at the lectern and talk. None of this mamby-pamby filibustering from your office or vacation home nonsense.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 6, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"I actually voted an African-American (Alan Keyes) last time around."

And some of your best friends are black, too.

Stanford Law -- catch the fever!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 6, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:
"I think health care is way way too important to play by the distorted filibuster rules. The Democrats should drop the neutron bomb and end the filibuster thing. "

Anyone with common sense knows filibusters should only be allowed when Republicans are in the majority. Otherwise the filibuster rule should be suspended whenever there is a Democrat majority. There needs to be an amendment or something: "The filibuster rule shall be suspended when liberals can't get their way."

I have news for you, chrisfox8. I know from previous posts that "math" and "facts" are not your strong suit, but the filibuster doesn't even come into play here. Democrats have all the votes they need. It's only Democrats fighting against Democrats that is holding things up.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 6, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I think health care is way way too important to play by the distorted filibuster rules. The Democrats should drop the neutron bomb and end the filibuster thing. Let the future of American health be determined by a straight vote and none of this procedural BS about filibusters, which I think are infantile.

America ranks something like number 38 in the quality of medical life. Other countries live longer than we do, enjoy better health, have less cancer, diabetes, and heart disease than we do, have more children survive infancy .. and they get all this for a lot less money than we pay now. Our health care is a disgrace and that's even before one considers the 50-plus million who have no health insurance.

It's too important to allow obstrutionists with no alternatives to scuttle it. Go nuclear.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 1:48 AM | Report abuse

For Chris or anyone else to annoint a mere six Senators as having the decisive influence in deciding a health care bill is akin to a Politburo ruling this country. This strongly implies the other ninety-four Senators and four hundred thirty-five Representatives, along with one president, have little or no influence in determining a health care bill.
This is ridiculous and about as undemocratic as anything occuring in domestic policies in the history of this country.

If these six Senators get to decide the form of a health care bill, that is not health care reform, then the other members of Congress should resign, allowing these Senators to govern the country. Obama, Pelosi, progressives and moderates in the Democratic party need to ensure this conservative health care bill, a sell-out to insurance companies and controlling future rising health care costs on the backs of those over sixty-five, is not enacted. Obama and the Democrats have, probably a once in a generation opportunity to pass true health care reform, if they fail to do so, they, along with reactionary Republicans, do not deserve to be reelected.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | August 6, 2009 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Jacked's directions to declare extra deductions on your W-4 has been making the rounds at the Tea Bagging parties. They seem to think that 22 old people declaring 9 (not 10, not 8, only 9) deductions will bring the gubmint to its knees.

==

OOOOOOOOOOoooooh, how *thrillingly* illicit!!

Like ... like .. running with scissors!

I don't think anyone thought that EchoChamberD thought it up himself.

Are they still holding those tea parties? I thought the last one on the Fourth got like zero turnout. A couple of smokers with signs talking each other up. Woo woo. I bet Obama is peering through the venetian blinds.

Nice to think that some teabaggers are going to get their "jackbooted thug" fantasies fulfilled, and maybe their forced-sex ones into the bargain. You really don't wanna mess with the IRS.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 1:26 AM | Report abuse

LOL! As I said, there's nothing illegal about reducing one's tax refund.

Posted by: JakeD | August 6, 2009 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Jacked's directions to declare extra deductions on your W-4 has been making the rounds at the Tea Bagging parties. They seem to think that 22 old people declaring 9 (not 10, not 8, only 9) deductions will bring the gubmint to its knees.

Next they'll be telling each other to use number one pencils and "put an X in the oval, don't fill it in -- it'll make the bureaucrats CRAZY. And they'll know it was us doing it!"

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 6, 2009 12:22 AM | Report abuse

SPOILER ALERT!

(some of us live on the Left Coast)

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Did you see my post on the previous thread proving that Jon Stewart is no Tim Russert?

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 11:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if anyone watched Colbert tonight. He had on Joe Sestak. Seems like he is going to be running as an unabashed Obama ally.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 5, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Cool, thanks.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/pawlenty-vs-romney-on-health-c.html

12:30 PM

Folks,

On topic please -- "kingofzouk" this means you.

Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | August 4, 2009 12:30 PM

Posted by: DDAWD | August 5, 2009 11:11 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Do you have a link to Mr. Cillizza's post on KoZ?

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 10:55 PM | Report abuse

"Chris C has called out zook by name. Let's see what happens."

I've been waiting, and I see nothing but the same.

Posted by: nodebris | August 5, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

"Ddawd - Obimno should consider incorporating his own fringe group - the Democrats, if he wants to pass any of his socialist legislation. right now they aren't biting."

Democrats are a large majority of the Senate. The reason Republicans have any power at all is because the tiny Republican states have the exact same representation as the large Democratic states. If a person in Wyoming didn't get 70 times the representation as a person in California, you'd have McConnell and Cornyn sitting in a corner by themselves being drowned out by the sounds of effective legislation being passed.

But the Democrats represent a large coalition, so its hard to get legislation passed. A Washington pundit will look at the ledgers and bemoan the lack of Rs, but any observant person will see that getting consensus between the Democrats in Arkansas, Vermont, Louisiana, and New York will take quite a bit of compromise and bipartisanship.

So enjoy your "scorecard bipartisanship" Most Americans would settle for authentic bipartisanship.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 5, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

"Dingbat Dawg:
Umm, no Repups voted for the one piece of legislation that actually passed - the porkulus."

Three voted to break the filibuster. You're pretty stupid if you don't know this.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 5, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

"Cillizza's plaints about topicality and civility on the board are empty as long as he allows zouk to use the blog comments as his personal barf bag.

Posted by: nodebris"

Chris C has called out zook by name. Let's see what happens.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 5, 2009 9:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a racist

==

hahahahahaha

yeah sure

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

@broadwayjoe: yeah I get it, but Parker isn't like Ann Coulter or someone .. and even Coulter, who leaned on Obama's middle name more than anyone, is saying that this birther stuff is BS.

And it won't matter. The GOP will just reject the message, and toss another former member under the bus. They won't listen.

And no matter how many times they're told that Obama's credentials have been established, the birthers won't stop.

On the other hand ...

It wasn't a murder charge that finally took Capone out of circulation, nor was is a racketeering charge, it was income tax evasion. Maybe his encouraging readers to break the law will finally get JakeD booted out of here once and for all. One hopes. Discussions are so much better when he's visiting his caseworker.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

I've never met a racist who thought of himself as one. Every one of them claims to have some "principled" other than race. It's all BS.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 9:20 PM | Report abuse

@cf8: Agreed. But it's Kathleen (Miss Scarlett) Parker sayin' it. It's like Nixon going to China. If SHE is saying it, they are truly lost. The GOP has gone beyond that tipping point you talked about. :)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 5, 2009 9:19 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I don't "hate" pResident Obama -- I'm sure there are still some racists out there who do, but I'm not a racist and I don't -- I actually voted an African-American (Alan Keyes) last time around.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 9:17 PM | Report abuse

@margaretmeyers: You're right. It's better when these films are aired on TCM. TCM is still the only place (I think) you can see the "road-show" uncut version of John Wayne's "The Alamo" with overture, intermission, and exit music (by Tiomkin).
____________

Forgot to give Harold Meyerson a shout-out for his great column in the Post today. Excerpt:

"When future historians look back at this passage in our nation's history, I suspect they'll conclude that this Obama-isn't-American nuttiness refracted the insecurities and, in some cases, the hatred that a portion of conservative white America felt about having a black president and about the transformation of what many thought of as their white nation into a genuinely multiracial republic. But whatever the reasons, a mobilized minority is making a very plausible play to thwart a demobilized majority."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 5, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

In fact, you’re in the lucky group this applies to if you're one of the 75% of Americans who get a tax refund year after year -- for example, in 2008, the IRS issued nearly 107 million refunds averaging $2,400 each -- so far this year, the average refund is even more: $2,700.

If you're just "average," then, you deserve an extra $225 a month in your paychecks -- far more than is being delivered by pResident Obama's "stimulus" plan. Habitual refund receivers have every right -- and some might say a patriotic duty to actually stimulate the economy -- to order the IRS to take less out of their paychecks.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Uh-huh.

Posted by: nodebris | August 5, 2009 9:03 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Free legal (and tax) advice is worth exactly what you pay for it -- I no longer practice either -- this is not a "tax protest" as much as my encouragement to review your W-4 and not pay the government more than you owe.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 9:00 PM | Report abuse

You are recommending that people increase their allowances regardless of their reasonable basis for doing so -- just to protest government policy. This can be considered incitement to violate the tax laws, which is itself a crime.

Posted by: nodebris | August 5, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

Allowances mean dependents plus other things that can lower your tax liability for the year -- as you probably already know, there's not even any penalty / interest for W-4 filers if they pay 90% of the anticipated tax right before January 1. 2010 -- people take more "allowances" all the time, for instance, home mortgage payments, qualifying for head of household filing status, child tax credits, day care credits, etc.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Penalties for False Information
You may have to pay a penalty of $500 if both of the following apply.
1. You make statements or claim withholding allowances on your Form W-4 that reduce the amount of tax withheld.
2. You have no reasonable basis for those statements or allowances at the time you prepare your Form W-4.

There is also a criminal penalty for willfully supplying false or fraudulent information on your Form W-4 or for willfully failing to supply information that would increase the amount withheld. The penalty upon conviction can be either a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to 1 year, or both.

These penalties will apply if you deliberately and knowingly falsify your Form W-4 in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the proper withholding of taxes. A simple error, an honest mistake, will not result in one of these penalties. For example, a person who has tried to figure the number of withholding allowances correctly, but claims seven when the proper number is six, will not be charged a W-4 penalty.
More info : http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=139412,00.html

Posted by: nodebris | August 5, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Dirty Dozen on AMC?

All those commercials ruin every movie they show -- so many of them you can't even use them up going to the bathroom or to the fridge.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 5, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

@nodebris: he's just doing what he always does here, trolling for attention. Sneer-quoting "penalty" won't do a lot of good for keeping tax cheats out of jail.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

What I posted is perfectly legal.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

@broadwayjoe: thanks for the link, but I don't think Parker said anything new, nor anything that hasn't been presented rat cheer in River City many times.

The GOP is going backwards. Even in the urban south the racism of the 60s is deprecated, it's only a shrinking minority for whom it still resonates.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

jaked, you wouldn't be conspiring to perform a tax fraud here, would you?

Posted by: nodebris | August 5, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Anyone out there earning a paycheck can get a quick raise immediately just by turning in a new W-4 Form to your employer claiming 9 allowances on Line 5 (I know that more than 10 allowances used to trigger an IRS inquiry -- not sure if that's still the case -- the last thing you need is a "lock down" letter). As for any "penalty" next April, that would be worth it to send a message to Obama to stop spending now. Or, you can simply send in one check to cover the difference right before January 1st and avoid the penalty:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf

Print it now, and turn it in to your employer tomorrow!

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I am no Kathleen Parker fan but Parker has written the best column I have read this year on the GOP's dilemma and the need to cut it out.

She is a hardcore Dixie-ite but today she totally calls out the GOP on their incessant race-baiting and bigoted attacks on BHO. It has already drawn more than 1000 comments and earned her a seat today on "Hardball." She'll get major blowback from the Von Brunn wing of the GOP after this.

Parker article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/04/AR2009080402424_Comments.html

Gotta give credit where credit's due.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 5, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who wants health care reform to fail is someone who would rather have their fellow citizens suffering and dying from preventable illnesses rather than see private insurance companies rake in a little less cash.

Same solid citizens who voted for torture in 2004. You guys disgust me.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

What a cast.

Telly Savalas, Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, John Cassavettes .. great flick.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

More important number: 12.
"The Dirty Dozen" on AMC at 8pm.
Incredible performances from Jim Brown as "Jefferson" (the NFL never did credit him the 100 yards he ran at the film's end) and Telly Savalas as the psychopathic "A.J. Maggot."

Out.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 5, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Sen. Rockefeller.

How in the world did Reid let the bill get held hostage the "gang of six"? This is clearly an unforced error by the Dems. Why is Reid not taking about the "nuclear option" that the GOP was pushing not too long ago? Change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster, and go back to good ol' pre-1950s-Dixiecrat majority rule. The GOP plays this insider ball much much better than the Dems. If you have 60 votes, this nonsense should be unnecessary.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 5, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

holding them hostage? Isnt that a little bit extreme? The other 94 Senators dont have to vote for the legislation, do they?

Posted by: timmerq | August 5, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm not ignoring anything. Of course, I am hoping that a few Blue Dog Democrats join with the GOP to filibuster.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 7:37 PM | Report abuse

"Isn't that because the remaining Senators representing 97% of the country are evenly split on the issue? How else would you propose breaking the stalemale?"

Don't skip from population to Senate seats. The two measures are not at all equivalent. Nor should you ignore the filibuster. dschauer's point, that a tiny minority of the nation's population is holding the vast majority hostage, is quite valid.

Posted by: nodebris | August 5, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

One vs. 100 on your side is hardly a valid comparison.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza's plaints about topicality and civility on the board are empty as long as he allows zouk to use the blog comments as his personal barf bag.

Posted by: nodebris | August 5, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

dschauer:

Isn't that because the remaining Senators representing 97% of the country are evenly split on the issue? How else would you propose breaking the stalemale?

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I find it amazing that the gang of 6 Senators that are attempting to control the future of health care in America represent states totaling 3% of the population of this country. So much for a representative form of government.

Posted by: dschauer | August 5, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Or, not.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk:

I'm just saying that you could do that all without the name-calling and insults (as per Mr. Cillizza's request ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I like the cut of your jib, sir

Posted by: chrisuxcox

More scintillating analysis from the resident poltroon.

and to think, he does this while chasing down errant semicolons. Imp ressive.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse


Ddawd - Obimno should consider incorporating his own fringe group - the Democrats, if he wants to pass any of his socialist legislation. right now they aren't biting.

How embarrasing. a 60 vote lock on the Senate and can't pass a thing. an overwhelming majority in the house and peloony in charge. the quagmire is us. did anyone understand that Lib leadership implied marching in circles to the beat of a socialist drum, going nowhere?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

And bipartisanship doesn't mean you've got to include fringe groups such as Republicans.

==

I like the cut of your jib, sir

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

et tu brute?

Taker a gander at the relative substance of my posts and the utter vacuity of the haters. Report back.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Dingbat Dawg:
Umm, no Repups voted for the one piece of legislation that actually passed - the porkulus.

and the Senate is 60 Dems, not 50. Looks like another instance of Lib math. but you get partial credit so you can graduate anyway. that is the Lib way.

I guess if you define bipartisan as "even Democrats aren't stupid enough to vote for it" then yeah, messiah has ushered in a new age.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk:

To be fair, you resort to name calling and insults quite a bit too.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama never promised an end to hate. He said he would bring bipartisanship to Washington. He's done that. Yeah, he's not getting 75 votes, but he's getting well above 50 on everything. True, not a lot of Republicans are on board, but Republicans are overrepresented in the Senate anyways (Wyoming has the same representation as New York) And bipartisanship doesn't mean you've got to include fringe groups such as Republicans. Obama has been getting the support of all the Democrats as well as a few Republicans. That's plenty bipartisan.

If Republicans want to be involved, they will have to move to the middle rather than try to move the rest of the world towards them.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 5, 2009 7:01 PM | Report abuse

So we see the Lib game plan. because their policies are indefensible, they resort to name calling and insults. As usual. anyone that dares disagree is crazy or evil and should be reported to the WH website for tax investigation. this is the new CCCP.

I challange anyone to find a reasonable post from a guache wing fool that is accurate, intelligent and potrays their opinion fairly. good luck.

Like global warming "It's settled".

Except it's not. only a zealot from the green religion thinks any science or policy is ever settled. this is the hiding place of the tedious fools of the brain free Libs.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

When executives of health insurance companies are getting paid billions of dollars while their companies and cancelling coverage for people fighting cancer then yeah, they are evil. If they're not "evil" then the word has no application.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Looks like zouk is starting to come apart.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

It will be fascinating to see how Grassley and Snowe play this out. Though an Obama partisan, I'm fond of them both - I won't be, though, if they just stonewall reform.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | August 5, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

I see the mindless plebes of the gauche are busy singing the latest talking points of the failure Libs.

Insurance companies are evil. Just like cops. Just like Pediatricians. Just like soldiers. Just like citizens who disagree. Just like anyone who makes a profit. just like the CIA. Just like fox news. When is it that the leftist hate, hate, hate will end as promised by the new Messiah?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Jefferson found guilty.

another day, another small truth about Libs emerges.

as the truth gets out, the polls sink for messiah. all those empty promises, all those lies.

the chickens have come home to roost - Indeed!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I'd say the most important number should be zero: the chance that reform will be bipartisan in any significant manner.

Posted by: nodebris | August 5, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

" "The six ... hold the fate of health care reform in their hands." Soon enough we will see if they place higher value on pleasing voters or donors. Posted by: bsimon1 "

More correctly those six hold one path to health care in their hands. Provided they actually produce a plan, and not the negation of a plan, it will certainly get full attention from Congress, or at least from the Democrats and whatever of the republican party can get out from under the thumb of the nominal, and the defacto, Republican Leadership, which is still trying to repeat its "win" in 1994.

There is probably every reason to believe that these six, and whatever allies they pick up on the way, might actually cobble up a basic health care system that covers everyone except the flat rejectors. Because it will have some Republican parentage, it will probably be a passable bill, and therefore get passed and signed.

Should these six fail, the grombling on the left will produce a bill, passable because it can't be filibusterred, signed, however reluctantly, by the Prez, and as unipolar as you can get in the District, but Obama will get credit, perhaps even more than deserved, because when the republicans decided that their job was to be a roadblock and tank barrier, Obama got health care anyway.

One way or the other it is coming.

Posted by: ceflynline | August 5, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The son sounds like as much of a moron as the father.

End the income tax? That may sell magazines in Topeka, but it's a stupid idea. It's not 1860 anymore.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris!

"Rand Paul, the son of 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul, ended months of speculation Wednesday by saying he will run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated next year by fellow Republican Jim Bunning."

Rand, as in Ayn.

"Paul is a critic of the Federal Reserve,[7] the Patriot Act,[28] the federal government's bailout of Wall Street, and the erosion of civil liberties. Like his father, he supports significantly smaller government and balanced budgets, and opposes the Department of Education, the war in Iraq,[27] and the federal income tax.[29] He encourages legislators to pledge not to raise taxes,[20] and fought the failed plan to raise hotel taxes in Kentucky in 2000.[22][25]. On abortion, Paul has said that he would "introduce and support legislation to send Roe v. Wade back to the states," and he is also supportive of term limits for politicians.["

Also a big fan of Goldwater. Hey, CC-- does he have a chance?

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"Mike G Mullen owned a steam shovel, a bright red steam shovel..."

Oh, wait, that was Mike Mulligan. Never mind.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 5, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

It sure is.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris, (and JakeD) I know this is not the right thread to be doing this in, but I wanted to stick up for my hometown of London, Ontario. I love The Fix, as do many other Londoners. Mike Mullin is entitled to his own opinion, I just dont want you to think he speaks for all of us. Seriously, no offence though Mike. SMALL world, aint it?

Posted by: timmerq | August 5, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"The six ... hold the fate of health care reform in their hands."


Soon enough we will see if they place higher value on pleasing voters or donors.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 5, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

CC -- why don't you mention how much cash each of these Senators received from insurance companies recently? The info is easy to find -- why not post it?

==

That would be real reporting.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

mikegmullin:

Welcome to our country -- it's so good to get a foreign perspective on our internal political discussions -- I believe you are looking for a different thread:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/fix-notes/a-word-on-mouthpiece-theater.html

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

CC -- why don't you mention how much cash each of these Senators received from insurance companies recently? The info is easy to find -- why not post it?

It will give everyone perspective on why health care will fail -- the insurance companies own our representatives.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I was overjoyed when I read on politico that mouthpiece theater was cancelled. I have particular disregard for Milbank. He was fired as a pundit on msnbc(thankfully)showed up on cnn for a while and then disappeared from there,presumably because he is an idiot. I enjoy Hardball but you,I find to be one of my least favorite pundits. I saw the episode in question and it is a good thing that management at the Post displayed good sense. Kurtz is also one of my least favorite media personalities. I hope shows like Hardball see this as cause to keep you off their show. Mike Mullin London,Ontario,Canada.

Posted by: mikegmullin | August 5, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for letting us know which Senators we need to target : )

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company