Obama Quotes on Senate Rules in 2005 Given New Scrutiny

To quote Joe Biden- “I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
Sort of like – the negotiations will be held on C-Span, or that you can keep your insurance if you want. or there will not be a mandate on individuals to buy insurance. and it goes on and on.
I don’t mind the “politics as usual”, except of course you campaigned on changing Washington.

That’s right Senator Obama was NOT talking about the use of reconciliation but you’re making the comparison without explaining why. Why not compare apples to apples.
========
It’s self-explanatory.
The Democrats want to use Reconciliation to avoid the filibuster, which Obama has been complaining about now that he’s President.

This is why charges of hypocrisy against politicians are so lame. It’s a given.

It’s self-explanatory.
The Democrats want to use Reconciliation to avoid the filibuster, which Obama has been complaining about now that he’s President.
Posted by: MayBee | Feb 24, 2010 1:07:45 PM
Self explanatory? LOL. Using the same sort of logic we could conclude that all the Republicans on board for using reconciliation 18 or 19 of the past 21 times its been used since 1981 fully support majority rule and changing the filibuster rule. Right? Everyone who complained about filibusters when the Dems did it shouldn’t be engaging in it now, right?
What a joke.
Once in awhile it would be nice if these so-called journalists actually did some journalism — if this is a story that has some teeth to it somehow then do a little investigating, not just a google search and a regurgitation with insinuations made from an indirect comparison.

Sen. Joe Biden, 2005, regarding the same “nuclear option” that Obama was speaking about:
“I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
As GWB would say, how ironical.

This just in! Stop the presses! Barack Obama is acting completely opposite the staunch beliefs he claimed before!
Oh, wait. The media has long known about this two-faced punk they carefully mythologized. We will be paying a long time for their abdication of vigorous honest journalism (ABC, to their credit, did have the rare probing moments in the campaign).
It’s already such a long four years.

“And, it should be noted, reconciliation rules have been used for various health care measures, including the creation of COBRA, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicare benefits for hospice care, and so on, as National Public Radio correspondent Julie Rovner detailed this morning.
“In 2005, then-Sen. Obama was not talking about the use of reconciliation rules; but rather about a larger rule change, what came to be known by opponents as the “nuclear option. . .”
___________________________________
Exactly, two different situations. Where is the story here? Where is the hypocrisy?
Answer: there is no story. There is no contradiction. This is just mud raking.

Obama’s hypocrisy on the “nuclear option” in well within his lack of character. He also said he had only “passing” contact with ACORN. That was a big lie, too.
MORE TROUBLING… is the fact that the MEDIA KNEW what kind of character Obama was and CHOSE NOT TO INFORM the American people during the election process.

Thank you, Jake Tapper… you are one of the FEW reporters on the retro-MSM that tells it like it is.

“I find it very peculiar that this paragraph is buried in the middle here:”
Progmama, Jake is usually quite fair but he seems to be fishing for a drudge link with this post.
Either that or he’s being led by the nose by Breitbart because Jake’s framing is quite similar.

“Thank you tierra. This is the sort of story you see on a whackadoodle conservative blog that’s into waving its fist in the air and sleight of hand to spread red meat”
Of course.
It started on breitbart and has now been linked to by Drudge.
Who wants to bet on the likely hood of this story being on FoxNews tonite?

Jake is usually quite fair but he seems to be fishing for a drudge link with this post.
Either that or he’s being led by the nose by Breitbart because Jake’s framing is quite similar.
Posted by: Ryan C | Feb 24, 2010 1:58:39 PM
Interesting. I have read that he’s very ambitious and into being “most heavily used” reporter, whatever that means. LOL. I hate when decent reporters go Drudge or Halperin on us.

“Interesting. I have read that he’s very ambitious and into being “most heavily used” reporter, whatever that means. LOL. I hate when decent reporters go Drudge or Halperin on us.”
Jake is usually very good.
He’s tough, asks good questions and followups.
But sometimes he gets sucked in by the Wurlitzer.

“Okay, could you now at least pretend to care that the Democratic lead Congress and Obama are on pace to once again double the debt and have created runaway entitlement programs through a so-called stimulus”
Which is why Obama needs to raise taxes.
But he and Congress appear to be holding off doing so until the economy is on better footing.
There are hard choices ahead of us.
There are going to be changes to the 2/3 of the budget that is not discretionary; Defense, MediCare/MediCaid and Social Security.
Taxes need to go up.

Here, I’ll start you. George W and the Republican majority created a nasty deficit.
Posted by: Aaron | Feb 24, 2010 2:08:24 PM
___________________________________
The Republican president did more than create a nasty deficit (during ‘good’ economic times). On that shift, we also saw the largest economic collapse since the Great Depression.
Do you not have any idea of the ramifications of this – not only on average Americans – but on federal, state and local budgets?

Here’s the deal: His words are being given new scrutiny. If you look around, you’ll see they are posted in a lot of places.
Jake is providing more detail, shows Obama wasn’t talking about reconciliation.
Posted by: MayBee | Feb 24, 2010 2:13:42 PM
____________________________________
A better bit of writing would have made this point clearer and faster – check the posters on this blog. They appear to have missed the point.

Obama and his liberal cronies say what we want to hear and do as they please. OBAMA SPENT TUESDAY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS — IN PRIVATE MEETINGS!??? HOW MANY DEALS DID HE MAKE WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO GET VOTES? The Obama Administration is putting the screws to Americans. Pelosi and Obama remind me of two small children who want their way no matter what anyone else wants. Americans do not like it when the government acts like a bully — the good news is WE CAN VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE if they push the broken, ineffective, government-run health care bill down our throats.
Posted by: THINK ABOUT IT | Feb 24, 2010 2:36:00 PM
_____________________________________
You seem to be part of the arrogant Republican right who think only they have the divine right to rule America – and that everyone else will destroy it.
Hogwash. We saw what the Republicans did under Bush and Cheney.

And yet you all complain for some reason.”
Because you can see your fellow travelers didn’t pay attention to what Jake posted only grabbing onto what Jake repeated from right wing blogs and launching into charges of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Ryan C | Feb 24, 2010 2:25:31 PM
Exactly. Its a peculiar post unless you frame it exactly as Ryan did earlier, in terms of Drudge and Breitbart.

Woody, you’re a smart guy.
Surely you know the difference between using a reconciliation vote on a piece of legislation and ELIMINATING the filibuster.
Posted by: Ryan C | Feb 24, 2010 1:57:08 PM
————-
Thanks for the compliment. But as I stated in a different post, abusing the reconciliation process (my opinion) and changing the Senate rules are different roads that lead to the same destination: an end to the bi-cameral system of Congress as senator after senator stated in 2005. Once the filibuster in neutered then the Senate simply becomes another house of majority rule. This is very clearly not what the Founders intended. C’mon, you have to admit the whole situation is very ironic.
You’re a smart guy, too. Do you know who determines whether or not a point of order is “extraneous” when debate begins on the reconciliation bill? I ask because points of order that are not deemed extraneous require 60 votes to waive them. So if a Republican raises a point of order on anything in the bill that requires some sort of expenditure, couldn’t that kill the whole process? What am I missing?

A sure fire way to get re-elected is to show you know what you are doing and to do a good job once you are there.
_________________________________
“The Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus bill created up to 2.1 million jobs during the final three months of last year, according to a new report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
“During the fourth quarter of 2009, the stimulus added “between 1.0 million and 2.1 million to the number of workers employed in the United States,” the CBO said.
“The stimulus also boosted the country’s economic growth by 1.5 to 3.5 percent during the time period and lowered the nation’s unemployment rate by between 0.5 and 1.1 percentage points.
“The effects of the stimulus bill are expected to increase as the year goes on . . .”
p.s. – the Republicans and the right wing have been campaigning since the President was elected – with their name calling, insults, smear campaign and fear mongering.

What I find odd are demands to criticize Democrats/liberals in response to criticism of Republicans/right wingers from people who never criticize their own side.
Its not like one gets credit when a right wing critic does criticize Democrats. In fact it more likely the right winger will use those words as a weapon.
You are less partisan than I am but I imagine you still find it odd.
Posted by: Ryan C | Feb 24, 2010 2:58:45 PM
I could be wrong here but my guess is that they think everyone who hates the GOP is a liberal Democrat and since liberal Democrats are tolerant, fair-minded, justice-oriented and compassionate, they try to use it against them. Make the strength a weakness.
The problem when it comes to using it against me is that I just don’t care if they think its awful that I despise the GOP. I think they’re ridiculous for going down the same crazy path again so soon.
I also think they are gullible, and don’t realize how transparent the tactics they use are.
I’m more idea-oriented than party-oriented and I’ve always been a bit of a loner and rebel, but I’m pretty darned partisan when it comes to being anti-GOP (though, there are a couple that I like. )
And before anyone takes it personally, I’m talking party and party line and elected officials, not individual voters when it comes to loathing the GOP.

The Democrats and Obama campaigned on bringing health care reform and the American people voted them in overwhelmingly.
—
Right. And “the people” want health care reform. I encourage everyone who is uninformed (so this isn’t to either tierra or Ryan) to read the Newsweek poll:
“Liberals, independents, and Democrats were much more likely to support reform after being read key components of the bill. Among Democrats support shot up 11 points, from 72 to 83 percent support. Liberals also went up 11 points (68 to 79 percent supportive), and independents 8 points (26 to 34 percent).” (Newsweek’s The Gaggle blog)
Also according to Kaiser:
“The February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds the public still split on health care reform legislation, with 43 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed. However, the poll also finds that majorities of Americans of all political leanings support several provisions in the health reform proposals in Congress and most attribute delays in passing the legislation to political gamesmanship rather than policy disagreements.
The poll finds that at least six of every 10 Republicans, Democrats and independents back at least some of the key provisions in the reform bills that have passed the House and Senate. They include measures that would: reform the way health insurance works, such as preventing insurers from excluding people because of pre-existing conditions; offer tax credits to small businesses to help their workers get coverage; create a new health insurance marketplace; help close the Medicare “doughnut hole” so that seniors would no longer face a period of having to pay the full cost of their medicines; and expand high-risk insurance pools for individuals who cannot get coverage elsewhere.”

I understand the difference, but the intent is the same. Democrats are looking to use reconciliation to bypass the intentions of the Founding Fathers which has stood for 220+ years.
Posted by: tjp612 | Feb 24, 2010 3:32:29 PM
______________________________________
“it should be noted, reconciliation rules have been used for various health care measures, including the creation of COBRA, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicare benefits for hospice care, and so on . . .” – from the articles above.
Oh, so now using reconciliation is against the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
And Obama is the only one guilty of this – hahahaha . … study some history. Republican history.

These funny Democrats must hate the new media not controlled by the state run media. They can run, but they can’t hide from the “internets”…
Double/triple down on stupid! Democrats and the drive-by state run media kept bashing President Bush about how he increased the deficit, only for President Obama to triple down on the deficit.

Progressives are pretty good at name-calling, deflection, and diversion.
———
That’s flattering, but I’ll concede that Republicans are the best at it. Lee Atwater was a master.
And I think Scott Brown learned that conservative CPAC and tea party types are pretty good at it too.

“I’m not sure if your hypocrisy or dishonesty is more troubling.”
Spend some time thinking about it. It will be a great diversion from thinking about how incompetent Obama has proved to be and how the Far Left in Congress has destroyed the Democratic Party (without much to show for their efforts).

The primary problem with Obama’s comments quoted here is that while they are correct in spirit, they are not strictly correct. The founders did not envision a supermajority deciding all legislation and appointments. Although Jake doesn’t explain it, this is why the Republicans tried to call it the constitutional option.
While it may seem beneficial to force controversial legislation to gain a supermajority, as it makes it harder to pass bad legislation, it also makes it harder to remove bad laws, and promotes watering down of important initiatives when decisive action in one direction or the other would be better than milquetoast compromises.
There are plenty of hardball tactics that could be used by the majority, if they had the guts to do so, that would render even the 60 vote rule meaningless. Were Reid less nice to the GOP, and forced them to actually continue debate, they would have to follow a labyrinthine path through very strict and arcane procedures to maintain the floor. There are a hundred ways the Dems could get back the floor, thus being able to pass the legislation with only 50 votes anyway.
One reform that MUST be taken in the Senate is to remove the provision that a supermajority vote can be threatened against the opening of discussion. It is one thing to force a supermajority for closing the debate, but there is no justification whatsoever for not allowing debate in the first place.

The people SUPPORT this health plan when they are asked about the individual specifics. It is only when the right wing uses sweeping generalizations that this bill is opposed.

this is all tempest in a teapot. usually arrogance begets mor earrogance. in the end, the party gets thown out on it’s collective A**.
new crew comes in, changes the rules back to what it used to.
and then they don’t get anything done.
back to changing the rules.
and we go round and round

Flash Override:
“While it may seem beneficial to force controversial legislation to gain a supermajority, as it makes it harder to pass bad legislation, it also makes it harder to remove bad laws, and promotes watering down of important initiatives when decisive action in one direction or the other would be better than milquetoast compromises.”
————————
Oh then why would the Democrats put in that Senate Health Care bill that it would take a Super majority to amend or repeal some portions.
Suppose that was for our good too.
Lets not forget that it is supposed to take a super majority too, even when in a bill. The Senate President just decided it didn’t apply to theme for the Health Care bill.
You might go look what the progressives were saying in 2004, there is an easy search feature on ####.com if

Posted by: danielt
If the REPUBLCIAN’S did it for the Bush tax cuts for ther top 2% Obama is justified in doing it on healthcare.
—————
Bush’s tax cuts were across the board, all tax brackets, not the top 2%. Tax cuts are a budget item, especially considering there was a budget surplus at the time which allowed BUDGET reconciliation to be used.
Some Democrats did vote for those tax cuts, it wasn’t a matter of a few Republicans forcing it through and cutting other Republicans and Democrats out of the process.

“progressive mama, there are just as many polls showing they don’t want it, if not more, then there are showing they want it.”
If there are so many polls showing opposition to the public option, then it should be easy for you to post at least 1.

“During the more than 30 years that the congressional budget process has been in
effect, the Senate Finance Committee has been subject to revenue reconciliation
directives in a budget resolution on 18 occasions. Nine instances involved directives to
reduce revenues, while the remaining nine instructed the committee to increase
revenues. In all but three of the 18 instances, revenue reconciliation directives to the
committee were accompanied by spending reconciliation directives.”

If there are so many polls showing opposition to the public option, then it should be easy for you to post at least 1.
Posted by: Ryan C
—
I don’t think there are any such polls. Before making more hay of it let’s get some public option legislation. Voters DO NOT WANT the proposed health care legislation. So screw that garbage and get someone working on what voters want.
Or is a public option unworkable?

People only approve of specifics in the bill when those specifics are spun by careful wording, and even those are rejected once it is understood they increase the deficit.
The entire approach to reform is wrong anyway. The correct approach is to create a functioning private market, not increase govt control anytime you dont like something. All the problems they are trying now to fix were caused by their interference in the 1st place.
Insurance companies have monopolies? Yes. Why? Because the Dems gave them antitrust exemption in 1945.
Now Pelosi and Obama are trying to undo this – without mentioning how it got this way…
Cobra needed to transfer insurance with job? Why? Do you get your homeowner insurance thru your job? How about your fire insurance? Car insurance? no.
This whole employer-based insurance thing is idiotic, and also designed for an earlier era.
The path forward is to make a functioning private insurance market free from govt mandates and stupidity. Then costs will go down, quality and access will rise, and our nation won’t go down a fiscal rathole.

 progressive mama::
I’m also in that whole self-determination thing that conservatives talk about a lot but spend a lot of time whining about.
—————–
Yet, you aren’t into it when it comes to them making their own choices about health care. Then you and those that agree with you get to decide, and twist the rules to make it happen.

I think people that define other peoples short-sightedness and stupidity by their own desires are overbearing, manipulative, selfish, and greedy.
Posted by: wyn | Feb 24, 2010 8:47:46 PM
Tell it to the Republican party, lol.
Meanwhile, it has less to do with my desires than understanding economics.
And as I said, its not just my desire. Its “the people’s” as demonstrated by the polls I cited and the platform the majority and the President ran and won on.

progressive mama::
I haven’t seen a poll yet that indicates that “the people” don’t support health care reform, that the people want Congress to give up…
——————–
It helps if you look some place else besides where progressive sites tell you to look. There are sites that are more representative of the people in this country then progressive blogs.

There are sites that are more representative of the people in this country then progressive blogs.
Posted by: wyn | Feb 24, 2010 8:58:42 PM
Yeah, those health care and medical journals and blogs I cite are soooo partisan– and yep, heritage and cato are too. And Newsweek? Now, that’s a REALLY progressive blog.
LOL.
My limited reading sources must be why I knew more about Republican plans than many defending them while getting the facts wrong.
Lol, lol, lol.
Keep

Yet, you aren’t into it when it comes to them making their own choices about health care. Then you and those that agree with you get to decide, and twist the rules to make it happen.
Posted by: wyn | Feb 24, 2010 8:49:37 PM
Oh, yes, that’s right, wyn. You got me now. That’s soooo why I like HSAs, and pilot programs that get at cost and Wyden Bennet and Wyden’s free choice amendment. Its also why I’m for reproductive choice.
LOl, lol, lol.

Feb 11/2010
Rasmussen:
President Obama this week called for a televised bipartisan summit to get his health care reform plan back on track, but 61% of U.S. voters say Congress should scrap that plan and start all over again.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds just 28% who think it is better to build on the health care plan that has been working its way through the House and Senate.

It is amazing to me that any sane adult wants universal coverage for pre-existing conditions. In that case, you do not have any insurance at all – ecause no one will buy any insurance til they get sick. It is almost supernaturally stupid to want such a plan – no wonder liberals like it.

progressive mema::
Yeah, those health care and medical journals and blogs I cite are soooo partisan– and yep, heritage and cato are too. And Newsweek? Now, that’s a REALLY progressive blog.
————–
Haven’t noticed you cite a medical journal, and I do read them. I also read health care blogs, including the progressive ones, I tend to research biased information before I believe it though.
Some writers on Newsweek are partisan, and some of polls mentioned in articles on Newsweek are not done by Newsweek.

Posted by: wyn | Feb 24, 2010 9:28:18 PM
wyn, I’ve cited NEJM, and when I cited a poll, I cited Kaiser. That you think that is a progressive blog says more about you than me.
I’ve cited CATO, Heritage, and yes, some progressive blogs and the NYT– but you’re assumptions say more about your intent and closed mind than mine.
Meanwhile, nothing you’ve posted has refuted what I said as they don’t break out not only the public option but any of the other provisions I mentioned. I don’t mind, its up to you to post what you want– but as Skip suggests, you certainly didn’t rise to the challenge.

“Actually Skip, the challenge was to show that people do not support the Health care reform bill in Congress”
—————————-
If there are so many polls showing opposition to the public option, then it should be easy for you to post at least 1.
Posted by: Ryan C | Feb 24, 2010 7:50:57 PM
———————-
Obviously you can read and write, so is this just a comprehension problem?

Skip::
Obviously you can read and write, so is this just a comprehension problem?
———
RyanC::
If there are so many polls showing opposition to the public option, then it should be easy for you to post at least 1.
—————-
Skip, I wasn’t posting them in response to RyanC, I never even saw his post.
If you look in the last comment, I point out in that the majority were against the bill, whether the public option were dropped or not.
Democrats dropped alot with the public option removed, Republicans or non-affiliated not so much, but it wasn’t liked by the majority either way, with or without it.

progressive mama::
“I doubt they’ll find any that say the majority of the American people don’t want some form of health care reform, or that the American people don’t support consumer protection against recision and being denied for pre-existing conditions, or that the majority of the American people don’t support the public option and/or insurance exchanges”
————————–
I ignored yours because you threw in there about not caring about poor people and etc.
As much as you may want to believe it, people against this health care do care about people.
Re recissions and preexisting conditions, first I am for those provisions, not even insurance companies are against them if coverage is mandatory. It would make no sense to take a poll on those, though I think some did it as part of their polling. I would expect those provisions to have wide support.
People do want some kind of health care reform, not now necessarily, as shown by some of the polls I posted.
Public option and insurance exchanges, it depends. Again, thats much how I feel. I could be for them or against them, depends on the details, which a poll really can’t pick up on easily. Further, the public option polls were all over the place depending on how the question was asked and the context setup in the rest of the poll.
If people voted tomorrow, Democrats would not win their majorities, Obama may not even win. Health care is one big reason for that, and it isn’t because it hasn’t been being pushed, it has been pushed plenty. As soon as the House bill was introduced people had doubts.

progressive mama:
“What do you think Congress should do now on health care reform:
32% Move soon to pass the comprehensive legislation that has already been approved by the House and Senate
20% Pull out a few key provisions where there is broad agreement and pass those, even though this won’t be comprehensive reform
22% Put health care on hold, so Congress can work on other priorities, and try to deal with it later in the year
19% Stop working on health care this year”
——————–
So 41% would rather wait, 32% would try to pass this now, and 20% would just pass small parts with agreement.
That is from your Kaiser poll by the way, I am looking at it now, but saw your post too.

Obama’s plan, simply put, is UNAmerican. If you want “free”, government run health care and other agencies, then Move. I know of people who will buy you a one way ticket.. to Cuba. Go and live in peace. But quit trying to mess with a system that made American the great country it is in a super-short time. And not by socialist policies, but by RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM. Quit spreadig your misery and do-goodiness. We are tired of your whining.

progresive mama:
In other words, 52% want something done now, and 41% don’t– yes. I posted it. I’m aware of what it says, lol.
——————————-
Good for you!
Did you catch that 20% of that 52% would like just key provisions there is wide support on pulled out and passed?
Thats kind of important since you have 52% saying pass something while only 43% support the bill in Congress in the same poll.
43% are against the bill in Congress too, but 32% of those are strongly opposed. where only 24% strongly support it.

Posted by: wyn | Feb 24, 2010 10:59:26 PM
I caught that 52% don’t want health care reform dropped– they want something passed– and via PPP I caught that swing voters are predominantly democrat-leaning and want Congress to accomplish something before the midterms.
Hence, the people want Congress to move on this. There are many provisions they want passed.

Posted by: Flash Override | Feb 24, 2010 11:05:04 PM
Awesome. Thanks for bringing it back to that. I was ticked off this morning and the only people who got it were Ryan and tierra.

Posted by: wyn | Feb 24, 2010 10:59:26 PM
I caught that 52% don’t want health care reform dropped– they want something passed– and via PPP I caught that swing voters are predominantly democrat-leaning and want Congress to accomplish something before the midterms.
Hence, the people want Congress to move on this. There are many provisions they want passed.
————————
These PPP poll voters you mean:
Our national poll last week found that 37% of voters were definitely planning to go Republican this year and 34% were definitely planning to support Democrats- that leaves 29% of the electorate up for grabs- who are those swing voters?
…
They’re pretty divided on their feelings about health care with 45% opposed to Obama’s plan and 41% in support.

Pollster.com
health care Plan.
Oppose 51.4%
Favor 41.9%

Flash Override::
[they are accusing]…”Democrats of being hypocrites for planning to use the majority rules votes that govern pretty much every other legislature in the world to pass health care reform in the Senate. This kind of procedural tu quoque is useless even if accurate because it almost always cuts both ways. Which makes it especially pathetic that the charges are simply false even in their own terms; since Democrats aren’t planning to use the “nuclear option,” but rather a banal procedural tool more often used by Republicans, they’ve got nothing. Sad.”
———————
The Budget Reconciliation Act was used in the past to reconcile budget revenue.
That is why it exists in the first place, not to pass contraversial bills. It hasn’t been used to pass bills such as this one without allowing both the minority party and dissenting views from the majority party to have a say in the legislative process.

progressive mama::
The American people want the President to do more to be bipartisan.
The American people want something done on health care.
Last time the President met with Republicans, independents responded well to what they saw and heard.
If people vote for Republicans, many will do so holding their nose– and it won’t take long for them to realize they made the same darned mistake again..
————————
My impression was they didn’t expect the President to do much of anything …
Congress writes the bills.
Presidents don’t normally have summits to try to get the people on board. They did push NAFTA alot at the time though from reading articles of that time, that worked out well NOT. Did it pass by budget reconciliation too? No.
Not this health care.
People pretty much ignored it, the media pushed it some, but the SOTU got a bounce thats normal.
More often then not, we hold our nose when we vote Democrat too.
Didn’t take us long this time to realize we made the same darned mistake again either.
There is nothing special about the Democratic party that makes it right and Republicans wrong. Most of us don’t have some warm fuzzy place for either party in our heart.

Posted by: progressive mama | Feb 24, 2010 11:34:06 PM
.
So, you can’t defend the unconstitutional DEMOCRAT plan to fine us or throw us in jail if we don’t purchase THEIR approved policy. All you can do is trot out the usual Bush did this, Bush did that, WAAAAAHHHH!

There is nothing special about the Democratic party that makes it right and Republicans wrong. Most of us don’t have some warm fuzzy place for either party in our heart.
Posted by: wyn | Feb 24, 2010 11:41:16 PM
You were just perusing polls, wyn, maybe you ought to pay attention. It was all over the media that people want both Republicans in Congress and the President to reach out for bipartisan solutions– to do more.
As for Dems, I don’t think they’re special, but I do think the GOP is outdated, backward, in the pockets of special interests, and worthless. I make no bones about it. I loathe the party. I’d prefer a new party and multiple parties. Vote them all out — or most of them, save a handful– in both parties, and vote in fresh, bright, innovative thinkers with ideas and no ties to special interests.
Otherwise we’ll get the same b.s. which is worsening and hardening.
Since liberals tend to be Dems, and the truth has a liberal bias, I do think Dems get it when they’re true to their ideals. The country was founded on liberal ideals. So, maybe they are a bit special in that regard. But I’m only solidly Democrat when it comes to the presidential election.

.
So, you can’t defend the unconstitutional DEMOCRAT plan to fine us or throw us in jail if we don’t purchase THEIR approved policy.
—
You didn’t ask me to. It is constitutional — and there’s more than one way to skin a cat. It can be considered a tax, or as a regulation forcing private actors to engage in a certain transaction, much like the minimum wage, which is also constitutional.

the usual Bush did this, Bush did that,
—-
Right. the usual. I make no apologies for having a good memory. I will never forget– and I won’t forget those that repeat the mistake if they do, and many seem willing to.

 progressive mama ::
It was all over the media that people want both Republicans in Congress and the President to reach out for bipartisan solutions– to do more.
As for Dems, I don’t think they’re special, but I do think the GOP is outdated, backward, in the pockets of special interests, and worthless. I make no bones about it. I loathe the party. I’d prefer a new party and multiple parties. Vote them all out — or most of them, save a handful– in both parties, and vote in fresh, bright, innovative thinkers with ideas and no ties to special interests.
Otherwise we’ll get the same b.s. which is worsening and hardening.
Since liberals tend to be Dems, and the truth has a liberal bias, I do think Dems get it when they’re true to their ideals. The country was founded on liberal ideals. So, maybe they are a bit special in that regard. But I’m only solidly Democrat when it comes to the presidential election.
——————
The polls didn’t say the President should be more bipartisan, they do want Congress should be. Especially in reaching consensus to pass bills.
The derogatory statements hold true for both parties to the same extent.
The country was founded on classical liberalism, that isn’t progressive liberalism. Libertarians would be closer to classical liberalism, while progressive liberalism aka FDR was socialism labeled as progressive to protect the status quo.
All special interest meetings with government officials or politicians should be recorded and available to the press and the people. Its not so much we have to get special interests out of politics, but we should have a right to have available the information to judge their actions by. Actually getting them out of politics would be impossible.

“Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.”
Right wingers celebrate leaving the sick without insurance.
Its kind of sickening.

The country was founded on classical liberalism…
–
Yes. And I believe in those liberal ideals. Dems represent them better than present-day Republicans which is why I prefer them when it comes to the federal executive office. When I look at Republicans — the convention, the goofy House leaders in press conferences– I don’t see them, or America. I see fake tans and old boys networks and lobby-bought politicians and some weird version of America that isn’t authentic.
As for the rest, I have to laugh. You’re the fourth or fifth person on here that felt the need to go through that with me– there seems to be a desire to neatly label and box everything up. So, here I go again, but I’ll put a different twist on it this time.
Ever heard of progressive rock? It was an attempt to elevate rock’s art cred, it pushed technical boundaries, borrowed from world music, jazz, etc. It was concept-oriented.
Now, I don’t tend to be elevating the art cred of anything — but I do want to push some boundaries, and I am more concept than party-oriented, and I could care less about people’s prefabbed ideas about what my ideology is or where it fits.
I’m a progressive independent who voted for Obama. I believe in progress and liberal ideals. And I loathe the GOP.
As for libertarians, though my husband is one in the American sense– he’s a libertarian-leaning independent for Obama who likes Ron Paul except for that whole racist rantings in newsletters thing– I agree with Chomsky. I don’t know that a lot of the folks who talk about being libertarian actually are libertarian. Good lord, I’m as libertarian as they are and may as well change my screen name to “progressive libertarian.”
So, here’s Chomsky:
“What’s the difference between “libertarian” and “anarchist,” exactly?
Chomsky: There’s no difference, really. I think they’re the same thing. But you see, “libertarian” has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what’s called “libertarianism” here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that’s always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.
If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, “they rent themselves freely, it’s a free contract”—but that’s a joke. If your choice is, “do what I tell you or starve,” that’s not a choice—it’s in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.
The American version of “libertarianism” is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: “No, I’m a libertarian, I’m against that tax”—but of course, I’m still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.” (Understanding power)

Right wingers celebrate leaving the sick without insurance.
Its kind of sickening.
–
I like the repetition of sick there.
wyn, while people may not celebrating, note that if you look at the CNN poll I mentioned, when it comes to Preventing health insurance companies fromdrop ping coverage for people who
become seriously ill, 62% support that, 38% oppose. Also when it comes to Preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, 58% support, 42% oppose. While some “right wingers” probably support those provisions, I think if you poll people roughly 40% are conservative and the rest are liberals and moderates. Its not unreasonable to think the people “opposing” are conservatives– and that is rather sickening.
February 12-15, 2010 62% 38%

Americans want health care reform. The Republicans had years to deliver and didn’t. As Paul Ryan put it, they dropped the ball and it was embarrassing and too bad.
Posted by: progressive mama
—
Americans overwhelmingly do not want this travesty. Stop speaking in tongues just because you do.

And as I said, its not just my desire. Its “the people’s” as demonstrated by the polls I cited and the platform the majority and the President ran and won on.
Posted by: progressive mama
—
You cited polls with the majority of voters in favor of this bill? The rest of us must have missed that, show us one more time.

I wish people would quit reminding us that “specifics” of this bill poll well. Unless you plan on passing the bill piecemeal and getting rid of the parts everyone hates, something that Obama has repeatedly stated he won’t do, that is completely irrelevant. Trying to defend this thing by mentioning polls is absolutely pathetic, because this thing polls worse than Satan.

See also Kaiser’s and Newsweek’s recent polls which clearly show that the majority of Americans want health care reform and support a public option, insurance exchanges, and insurance reforms pertaining to coverage (particularly denial due to pre-existing conditions)
Posted by: progressive mama
—
Without wasting time looking it up, what do Kaiser and Newsweek say about this bill? The bill being voted on, ya know.

Public Option.
Progressive mama provided us with a Plum Line poll that was astoundingly supportive of a public option(60%+). The 35% support for the actual bill was edited out of her post. Go figure.

Right wingers celebrate leaving the sick without insurance.
Its kind of sickening.
progressive mama
—
What percentage of one’s income will we be forced to pay for that policy? 10%? 15%?
What are it’s benefits?
Deductibles?
Copays?

what do Kaiser and Newsweek say about this bill? The bill being voted on, ya know.
Posted by: smartlillena | Feb 25, 2010 7:18:34 AM
As I posted, twice, Kaiser has the public split. Newsweek has a before and after– before the bill is explained, more people support it than oppose it. Once explained, that changes– 48% support, 43% oppose.

before the bill is explained, more people support it than oppose it. Once explained, that changes– 48% support, 43% oppose.
Posted by: progressive mama | Feb 25, 2010 8:52:26 AM
ooops, typo which changes meaning. Sorry.
before the bill is explained, more people oppose it than support it. Once explained, that changes– 48% support, 43% oppose.
So the underlying issue is really that the Dems didn’t do well on the politics and messaging– some of the opposition is clearly more about that than policy. Dems have always been better on domestic policy– always meaning in my lifetime. lol.

It looks like you credited me with someone else’s post. I like the repetition of sick. Its nice.
Do your own work. I’m not your nanny. LOL.
Posted by: progressive mama
—
Pardon me. Weigh in on the post anyway.

Once explained, that changes– 48% support, 43% oppose.
Posted by: progressive mama
—
Evidently, more than a few people don’t believe those numbers.

If you’re a grownup, you can do your own work. The bill is online, and so are Obama’s tweaks.
Posted by: progressive mama
—
This info isn’t online. It’s as nonexistant as those ‘polls’ you keep manufacturing.
What percentage of one’s income will we be forced to pay for that policy? 10%? 15%?
What are it’s benefits?
Deductibles?
Copays?

So the underlying issue is …
Posted by: progressive mama
—
When one’s argument reverts to the ‘underlying issue’ it is because they don’t have a credible arguement remaining.

When one’s argument reverts to the ‘underlying issue’ it is because they don’t have a credible arguement remaining.
Posted by: smartlillena | Feb 25, 2010 9:35:45 AM
When one is scared of underlying issues and ignores them, it means they’re knowledge and understanding is surface-level– no depth. lol.

Posted by: smartlillena | Feb 25, 2010 9:45:57 AM
That was yesterday news. You can read the back and forth on progressive blogs from YESTERDAY.
Carry on with your nonsense, and again, enjoy the summit. lol.