Who You Gonna Call? Village Dems Go Wild In Support Of Senate Bill

UPDATE: Pelosi says not enough votes for Stand alone Senate bill (meaning she needs a companion reconciliation fix, as her aides stated to the WaPo.) Josh Marshall's head explodes.See Greg Sargent for a measured response.

Village Dems and bloggers are going wild urging the passage of the Senate Stand Alone bill. Matt Yglesias called Raul Grijalva a "monster." Kevin Drum has his pitchfork out. Josh Marshall is melting down. Ezra Klein is suggesting "going Nader". But then Ezra Klein stumbled upon the sweet spot:

Will the more conservative Senate bill win over more conservative House members? [. . .] I'd just note that Nancy Pelosi has 40 extra votes in the House. That's no small number to play with. If you go back to the passage of the House health-care bill, a lot of the defectors were conservative Democrats. The Senate bill [. . .] is more conservative than the House bill. It spends less[,] abandons the public option, and so forth.

(Emphasis supplied.) Village Dems, if they want to be effective, have found their target - Blue Dog Dems. This Senate bill is a conservative, Blue Dog bill. They are the folks who might listen to the Village Dem appeal.

< Nightmare Continues in Haiti: Untreated Injuries, 1.5 Million Homeless | Pelosi: Companion Reconciliation Fix Necessary For Passage Of Senate Health Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Villagers want a one-term president (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    So who do they want to win the White House in 2012?

    And so does Krugman? (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:51:08 AM EST
    He is ticked at Obama for not ramming through the bill before Brown is seated.  Or something:

    I have to say, I'm pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

    Who kidnapped Krugman?  Which Krugman?  The one who always had such doubts or the one writing recently?

    A panicked economist is not a pretty sight.


    which Krugman? (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by noholib on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:03:53 AM EST
    I find it easy to understand Krugman.  Those of us who had doubts about whether Obama was ready to fight for anything substantive nonetheless voted for him as the means to end Republican rule.  Last January we were relieved and we hoped for the best.

    Unfortunately our earlier doubts are being confirmed, as well as the our worst fears about the perils of aiming for false, illusory, impossible bipartisanship. The times demand a stinging critique of Republican policies, Bush, Cheney, Reagan-- all of them-- but Pres. Obama has never uttered that critique!  Some Democratic Congress members do, while many don't.  

    Some of us wanted a fighting Dem, but that's not who this President was or is. And maybe the elected Dems aren't that anymore, either.  

    In any case, I find no comfort in having my worst fears of the primary now resuscitated in 3-D living technicolor!


    Nope, not all who had those doubts (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    voted for Obama, anyway.  And as the rest of your/Krugman's argument flows from that, it needs reworking.  

    speaking for myself (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by noholib on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:18:38 AM EST
    Of course, not ALL who had doubts voted for Obama anyway.  But there's no denying that many did.  I was speaking for myself, but I was hardly alone.

    When Krugman writes on accounting control fraud... (none / 0) (#99)
    by lambert on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    ... and its role in the financial crisis, he'll deserve to be taken seriously again as a liberal, and not until then. See Bill Black on Moyers (transcript).

    Krugman applauded Nelson as 'refreshingly honest' (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    ... for his truculent stance that would force over half the population to pay extra to access legal, medical procedures (ntm retaining basic Constitutional rights.)

    And I have to say that much as I disagree with Ben Nelson about many things, he has seemed refreshingly honest, at least in the final stages, about what he will and won't accept. (Krugman, NYT, Barack Obama: The WYSIWYG president, Dec12/2009

    Yes, yes that's the takeaway here. And we all know how cooperative fanatics like Nelson will be to voluntarily improve health care down the line.

    Noting bitterly that women wouldn't be allowed to pick pizza toppings for the dipsh!t demanding to threaten and shape our lives.

    (Jump's to an on-site TL post from me about Ben Nelson being heckled out of an Omaha pizzeria, for anyone that missed the fun.)


    I don't know (none / 0) (#101)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:29:28 PM EST
    I did kind of appreciate Nelson's brazenness- I wish all Senators lacked subtlety in their various bribes- imagine if say Farm Subsidies were viewed through the same lens as Welfare.

    Yet not honest enough to admit he's asking others (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ellie on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 06:06:25 PM EST
    ... to sacrifice THEIR lives, bodies and souls for his choice.

    No sale on equating farm subsidies to the immediate threat that Nelson would inflict on women's, girls' and children's lives.

    Let's see how men -- and media -- would react were health care and insurance reform held up by, say, a "moral" anti-surgery prayers-first Sen who insisted on denying treatment of the male reproductive system.

    My guess is they wouldn't be appreciating that proponent's brazenness.


    Look, it's simple, IMO (none / 0) (#11)
    by observed on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:04:52 AM EST
    You take his policy and economic judgments at high value; his political judgments you can ignore.

    I don't take him at high value anymore (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:06:24 AM EST
    as he has flipflopped on policy issues without fully acknowledging it.  

    I understand; however, I believe (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:13:46 AM EST
    him when he says the excise tax will lower medical costs. Why shouldn't I?

    Once credibility is compromised (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:24:06 AM EST
    I tend to be less trusting.  You certainly can opt otherwise and continue to be an optimist about it.

    It certainly would have the effect of (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Radix on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:39:11 AM EST
    people going with a plan which stays below the magic number. Now, does said plan offer the same benefits? If the lower cost plan offers less, then one hasn't really lowered the cost of medical care, have they?

    IIRC, Krugman came out in opposition to (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:47:41 AM EST
    this idea when it was part of McCain's campaign. Personally, I find it hard to believe that the Obama name behind the proposal changes the actual effect of a policy. IMO either Krugman was wrong when he evaluated the policy when it was McCain's or he is wrong now. Haven't read any explanation from Krugman for the change in opinion.  

    That is not correct (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    This is what Krugman wrote at the time.

    Mr. McCain, on the other hand, wants to blow up the current system, by eliminating the tax break for employer-provided insurance. And he doesn't offer a workable alternative.

    Without the tax break, many employers would drop their current health plans. Several recent nonpartisan studies estimate that ... around 20 million Americans ... would lose their health insurance.

    The McCain plan and the Senate Bill are not the same.


    Why you're right? (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:06:10 PM EST
    I don't ever recall McCain suggesting that instead we tax health insurance plans 40%. Instead of taking the tax breaks away Krugman is advocating that its better to tax plans of many middle class workers 40%. That's a waaaaaaay superior position(tongue firmly in cheek).

    You can disagree with Krugman (none / 0) (#120)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:52:27 PM EST
    but he is not being inconsisent and saying that McCain's plan is the same as the Senate Bill is factually incorrect.

    Furthermore (none / 0) (#118)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:35:01 PM EST
    ... advocating the excise tax as part of a larger reform effort is not the same as McCain's proposal to do similar in a stand-alone fashion as a panacea for all that ails us health care-wise.

    That said, I think Krugger is wrong about this one.  I just don't see a change in position.


    I wouldn't have responded (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by observed on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:47:07 PM EST
     at all, since you were so careless to respond to the wrong comment; however, the preemptive mention of Luskin is juvenile.

    It will lower costs b/c the tax will (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Andy08 on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:48:44 PM EST
    effectively make plans cover less; if Krugman would acknowledge this then you can believe him otherwise...

    Where does (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:53:58 AM EST
    young Ezra get his math from?  Stupak said the other day there aren't 100 Dem votes for the Senate bill, and today Greg Sargent reports that House liberals told Nancy Pelodi that they were not going to vote for the Senate bill.

    Where's Pelosi's "extra 40 votes"?

    Pelosi now has said no way. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    Yup, she's announced it, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:24:57 AM EST
    As we suspected, she doesn't have the votes.  I can't do the links on this browser, but she's said, ""I don't see the votes for it at this time," Pelosi told reporters in a briefing."  I am shocked that she announced it so quickly after proclaiming just yesterday that she was going to have the votes.  

    Sounds like Stupak knew more than the Speaker!  That's not good.  Maybe she wanted to wait until she had told Obama that HCR had died.  

    One election sure made a heck of a difference.  


    This is not on Pelosi; this is Obama (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:34:05 AM EST
    speaking through her, really.  She has always done his bidding -- even during the campaign when she said she was staying out of the fray.  I just read a revealing chronology of her behind-the-scenes manipulations all the while that she was claiming otherwise.

    Pelosi wields quite a two-by-four, too, in the other backstabber Schumer's terms.  Now, it's fine to be so powerful.  But for how long will others in the House trust her?  I would think that would matter, too, in effecting bills.


    256 Dems (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    38 extra for 218.

    Again (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    If all the House liberals are saying "NO", and independently, if Stupak is close, and there aren't 100 Dems to vote for it, then that is not more than 218.

    Yes, she has more than enough Dems in the House.  But she could have 435 Dems and if they don't vote for the bill, it really doesn't matter.


    I answered your question (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    Now you want to make a different point.

    I do not disagree with you.

    I just was answering your 'what 40 vote cushion' question.

    Next time I won't.


    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    Since my question was about Ezra once again flailing in logic - that was my original point - Pelosi does not have the "40 extra votes".

    I will try to be more clear in my rhetorical questions in the future because I can see where there might have been confusion. You were answering on actual nunmbers of bodies - I was asking on actual numbers of  votes.


    At this point, I would think that (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    the conservative Democrats would prefer the whole issue just go away. IMO they would be the least likely to save the health insurance bill.

    As I said on Tuesday night, (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    It's over.  Done. Burned to the ground.  Obama has totally blown it.  What a horrible waste, of everything.  We had it all, Senate, House, and White House, and what did we get for it?  Next to nothing, except higher unemployment.  

    We will get anything between now and November?  I seriously doubt it.  

    This is way worse than I expected, and I was never over optimistic.  I am so bummed.  

    I predict (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    That in the next couple of months, we'll see lots of chest thumping by the Dems - as evidenced by the finger-wagging by the WH at banksters (now!) and scolding tax cheats.  Like these are new problems Obama just discovered.  The WH and Dems on Congress will have talking points to show how much "they care about the little people".  

    Then comes Memorial Day, where they will once again forget about all that, and will return to their corporate masters because, guess what? It's campaign season!  We'll hear some more "tough words" against Republicans and big business and the same "where else are you gonna go?" nonsense.  TV airwaves will be flooded with even more commericals (thanks to Citizens United), more robocalls will be made, more pop-ups on the internets, more trees detroyed sending flyers that are just going to end up in the garbage, and more climate change occuring at a faster rate from all the hot air the cable news networks will spew. Maybe, Chris Matthews will get more tingling and Rachel Maddow can find some other junior high joke to constantly say in the act of pretending to be a "very serious person" of much higher intelligence than us mere peons.  Glenn Beck will talk about chastity belts and Sarah Palin will weight in on all the races, you betcha.

    Please - can't it be December 2010 already???


    What do you mean (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:42:23 AM EST
    "next to nothing"? We got a bright shiny new war, hilariously happy bankers, Guatanomo's still open and now with increased usage for desperate haitians, fisa is still on the books, cover up for Bush's atrocities, increased support for state's secrets doctrine, bail out for auto industry, insufficient funding for main street, avoidance for taxing the rich, support for taxing the middle class, delay of a jobs program, non- focusing on rebuilding infrastructure, more spying on Americans, support for big Pharma's high drug prices, poor theatre in supporting war at a Nobel peace award ceremony, support for women's continued non-accessibility to needed health care procedures. . . What's not to like (if you're on a certain side). Krapo, if I were a republican, I'd continue my non-support. Seems to get me everything I want.

    Bankers are not so happy (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:56:05 PM EST

    Piffle (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:17:46 PM EST
    Obama is all talk, no action. We'll see if he cuts his financial throat in an election year. Meanwhile, even if he does impose some type of restriction, the bankers still have their trillions and multimillion dollar bonus awards for being oh so prudent, and doing such a smash up job. . .What's not to like. They can always get the Republicans to change banking rules again. a few trillion should keep them warm for several years, no?

    we'll see whether he acts or not (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    but I don't see the usefullness of this attitude:

    "the bankers still have their trillions and multimillion dollar bonus awards for being oh so prudent, and doing such a smash up job"

    That will be true not matter what financial regulation is passed.  That doesn't mean it's not a good thing to pass financial regulation.

    And the fact that he does it in an election year is irrelevant, so long as it gets done.  We WANT politicians to pay attention to the electorate, right?


    It really shows his priorities (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    doesn't it? Who's gotten served, now, now, now, without any oversight or effective regulation of the money? But where's the rush for a jobs bill to reduce ue? Yes, workers you get to wait. That priority speaks loads, even if now belatedly he squeaks something out. The bitter clingers aren't happy and it shows. And it hasn't helped with the foreclosures either, which are still at record number iirc. Doing something now surely won't help those unfortunate homeowners.
       Secondly, the statement about an election year means it's unlikely he passes anything with real teeth. Why cut off access to campaign funds? His priorities have been all about the money up to this point. Sure he'll squeak, and moan, with such a populist appeal. But it drips with hypocrisy.
       Sorry, the die is likely cast for this election cycle. And no amount of band aids, or pretty speeches will cover for the damage he's done.

    there was a rush (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    in the Stimulus package - which while many, including myself, didn't think was nearly enough, it was a jobs bill.

    I would know, I would most likely be unemployed today without it.

    As for whether or not this bill has real teeth -as it is currently being proposed, it has some pretty big teeth.  Obviously we don't know what we will end up with.  But dismissing what is being proposed because of other problems you may have with Obama seems counter productive to achieving real reform.

    If people have a knee-jerk reaction to anything proposed by Obama - he has no reason to ever address the very real concerns they might have.

    I'll say this, without public support, it probably has zero chance of being implemented.  Which is why I keep talking about it today.  But it's already big international news today and has prompted cooperative action by other countries as well.  And the bankers seem to believe it will happen, considering the reaction of the markets.

    Link to info about proposal, from across the pond.


    When you say this: (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:12:06 PM EST
    If people have a knee-jerk reaction to anything proposed by Obama - he has no reason to ever address the very real concerns they might have.

    I understand in the theoretical sense what you are saying but then why does he constantly chase the GOP and grovel before them when the above statement shows exactly their reaction to every thing Obama proposes.


    Well said (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    I agree on every point.

    Problem is (none / 0) (#91)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    he's going to work hand in glove with house and senate. Couple that with his wonderful performance on "healthcare reform" and it does not give confidence.
      It is not a knee jerk response to react on the basis of his record. His pretty words have been so unfulfilling when compared with his performance and clear priorities, that his statements should have the same chance of being swallowed as a turd in the toilet.

    Maybe this will answer some questions (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 04:04:00 PM EST
    Obama is speaking at the House Republican retreat in Baltimore next week. The theme of their retreat?  "Taking Back America"

    Yes, you read that correctly.

    [I'll be fair - he's going to speak at the House Dem retreat too]


    Who's he taking it back from? (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 04:17:15 PM EST
     The common people?

    You're sh*tting me (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by lambert on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:32:38 PM EST
    Eeew! It's true!

    Forget restrictions, government needs cash (none / 0) (#111)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:27:03 PM EST
    In Britain, bankers' bonuses were taxed 50%.  Public coffers are straining to pay for the cost of bailing out the banks and leaving the responsible execs in place. So taxing the bonuses at least does something toward requiring the banks to pay for the costs to the public and alleviating the burden of financing government on the rest of us.

    Got to love that laundry list (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:04:01 PM EST
    seriously- the Hatians might use Gitmo- that's a valid complaint now- as opposed to what letting them die in Haiti or on the open sea?

    No (none / 0) (#85)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    False dichotomy. How about actually helping them, rather than abandoning them to tent cities, and insuring actual aid gets through to people in need rather than serving foreign nationals and the rich as first priority? Why not ensure medical aid gets through for the severely injured as first priority? But that doesn't seem to be happening.

    question (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    do you really think we would be better off today with no auto industry?

    do you think "Main Street" would be better off?

    Of all the things on your list, this one is really confusing to me.


    It sure looks to me the priority (none / 0) (#87)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:21:27 PM EST
    was to bust the Union in the chops. And use the opportunity to guess what, serve management. Obama is no friend to labor in general. Is it any wonder that the working class towns didn't show up in the latest referendum on Obama?

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    the unions would have loved to see GM completely disappear.

    The unions agreed to those concessions because they believed it was in their own self interest to make them.  They were not imposed by the federal government.

    Of all the battles to pick, this one just seems completely wrong-headed to me.

    I can't see how anyone would be better off with no auto bailout, and I can certainly see how a lot of people, working class people especially, would be a whole lot worse off without it.


    The Unions (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    were forced into those concessions to receive funding. Thanks obama. Way to support the hard earned benefits of the working man, not. Obama didn't save the union he wrecked their benefits, like he almost got away with in the latest debacle until Trumpka called his hand. Heck, Reagan couldn't have done a better job.

    and the irony was (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:13:54 PM EST
    that the average unions contract didn't protect him from tholse concessions but somehow or another for the banking industry keeping bonuses intact was "they have contracts which must be honored."

    So wait (none / 0) (#104)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:31:39 PM EST
    Obama should have just bailed out the Automanufacturers and got nothing in return?

    He would have gotten plenty in return (none / 0) (#109)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 06:39:04 PM EST
    If nothing else, heightened support from labor, and breaking the meme he has no concern for the little guy. By not struggling for the unions he reinforced that meme, and results like politically costly visits from Trumpka, and losses in Mass. in part from lack of turn out from working class voters became more likely.
      If he didn't want to hang the meme around his neck that he supports profit over people, he should have been more supportive of the union.

    Strange argument (none / 0) (#105)
    by Raskolnikov on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:31:50 PM EST
    Regardless of what the benefits earned had been, it would be impossible for GM to still exist and return to any semblance of profitability without renegotiating contract terms.  Legacy costs from retirement benefits and current benefit packages at , when compared to the import automakers, operating primarily in right-to-work states, were significantly higher at GM, and the shift to smaller cars cuts into the profit margin.  The profit margin on SUVs was enormous, and I would agree that the management failed by not allowing the engineers to produce the concept vehicles with great potential, or even share cars from Opal/Vauxhall, but with the switch to smaller vehicles, which have a tiny profit margin, the benefits as they were would be unsustainable.  CST is right that the only other option was bankruptcy and the end of GM or the complete nationalization of the company, which as shown with MG Rover in England, is utterly disastrous.  

    Doesn't seem to be (none / 0) (#108)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 06:29:51 PM EST
    any problem  to provide for the continued well being of bankers, though their situation looked unsustainable (and still may be). Why did no one propose continued support for labor until the company was back on its feet? Why the meat ax approach to labor but never to management? Heck if it was like the bankers Union workers should have gotten raises. I doubt it would cost trillions like other more favored constituents.
       Naw, sorry, it shows obama's pro management bias.

    Its pretty clear now (none / 0) (#28)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    That Health Care Reform is to Democrats what Social Security reform is to the GOP- something that the base wants, that if attempted destroys the parties ability to govern- 1950, 1966, 1980, 1994, and now possibly 2010- all times where Democrats had attempted Health Care Reform in the preceding election and all (with the exception of 1966) times where it was followed by a massive rebuke from the voters.

    The GOP may well receive their goal (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:49:29 AM EST
    on Social Security. Obama plans to reform it next.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:58:25 AM EST
    and perhaps during an election year! Brilliant, eh Watson?

    One only hopes (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    he breaks from the Clinton model- because right now he seems to be following Bill Clinton like a freaking role model- Fail on Healthcare, Reform an entitlement program for the poor- heck given his approval numbers he's actually doing better than Clinton at this point.

    No (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:02:07 PM EST
    he's not following Clinton. Clinton was a leader. Obama is a mediator who is incapable of leading. Clinton accomplihsed some major things on his agenda the first year. Obama has accomplished nothing but partying, speeches and whining.

    A leader my ass (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:12:43 PM EST
    the Clinton revisionism is bordering on the Cult of Reagan- Bill Clinton was a moderate centrist who like Obama was blessed with political skills and easily exploitable adversaries, if he was a leader he would have forced a veto override on something like DOMA, instead he signed with a smile, then after he left office talked about regretting it.

    No (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    the list of things he accomplished is out there. BTD has written posts on it. No, I'm not a cultist. I believe that Clinton was merely a transitional President and he was fine in being that. The problem I have is people like you who continually make up stuff about him. He was not perfect and I certainly don't think so but the Obama apologists like you who want to make Clinton bad so Obama's failures will look good are just plain silly.

    leader- A leader wouldn't have massively expanded the scope of the federal death penalty, signed DOMA, or done every single thing Wallstreet asked of him- for all your criticisms of Obama, I can match virtually every complaint with something Bill Clinton did that was at best similar and oftentimes worse, but somehow I know you'll excuse the Big Dog for that, because quite frankly a lot of people do.  

    yes (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:38:53 PM EST
    but you can be a transitional president and also be a leader. Bill Clinton did not do everything that Wall Street asked of him. That is Obama. I didnt see him giving out the cash that both Obama and Bush have handed them. They at least had to cheat on their balance sheets to give themselves the huge bonuses in the 90's.

    You see? Bill Clinton said that he was pro death penalty. It's not like he caved when eh did that. He's not like Obama who pretends to be what you want him to be. You are confusing with not liking his stance on issues with not being a leader which is wrong.

    Well, like I've said he wasn't perfect but Obama so far has been abysmal. Even the leaders of other countries don't trust him at all. They think he's not strong enough to stand up to his enemies and not strong enough to protect his freinds. Who needs continual excuses for that kidn of behavior?


    Really (none / 0) (#80)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    where did Clinton stand up to Wall Street- his economic policy was Bush sans Tax Cuts.

    Did (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    you read what I said? I said that he didn't hand out millions of dollars of tax payer cash to them. Yes, Bush used tax cuts to hand them things and Obama is larding their coffers with direct cash infusions. I agree with you that he is was to the left of both Obama and Bush on Wall Street. Now, I know that's not perfect but if you didn't like what he did w/r/t Wall Street then you really should be giving Obama a big ole kick in the seat of the pants for what he's been doing!!

    Er, no (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by lambert on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    A leader could very well do all those things.

    What you mean, I think, is that a leader you disagree with did those things.


    Revisionism (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:26:17 PM EST
    Pres. Obama has had a much better first year in office than Presidents Clinton, Reagan and GWB (though not as good as Pres. GHWB). In his first year in office, President Clinton's health care initiative had gone down in flames, dead US servicemen were dragged through the streets in Somalia, a car bomb was detonated below the North tower of the WTC killing 6 people and injuring 1042 more and the Waco seige of the Branch Davidian ranch had ended horribly.
    President Clinton also used to seek political advice from Dick Morris (now, what kind of leadership is that?). Here is a magazine cover that should make one throw up in disgust.

    Revisionism indeed (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 07:58:12 PM EST
    Obama's had a much better year than Clinton, Reagan and GWB?  First of all, Clinton's plan didn't "go down in flames" during his first year - it wasn't until just before the mid-term elections in '94.  But I guess you're right ... maybe he could have taken Obama's approach - make backroom deals with the pharma and insurance companies while waiting for Congress to hand him a bill, all the while cheering quietly from the sidelines and ducking for cover.

    Somalia, the WTC '93 and Waco were all Clinton's fault?  Guess they occured during his first year in office, so it's good to know.  Of course, I guess Obama gets credit for double-digit unemployment, skyrocketing deficit that our great-grandchildren will be paying off, dead American soldiers (and CIA officers) in Afghanistan, and increasing the use of Predator drones (beyond GWB's use), killing over 700 Pakistanis - 90% civilians.  Of course, this isn't even delving into the plethora of campaign pledges he's already backed away from.

    Doesn't sound like a great year to me.

    BTW - Dick Morris?!?!  LOL!  Nice try at guilt by association ... maybe we should talk about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, ... or Rev. Donnie McClurkin ....


    I dont see anyone defending Obama (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 08:59:29 PM EST
    like a Scientologist circling the wagons around L Ron Hubbard and childishly accusing people of "Obama hate" every time his administration is held up to close scrutiny. At least not here, anyway.

    Bill and Hillary aren't mommy and daddy, Yman. They can take care of themselves.


    I don't see anyone defending the Clintons ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 23, 2010 at 09:33:06 AM EST
    ... "like a Scientologist circling the wagons around L Ron Hubbard", either.  But there are those childish Clinton-haters and their funny, little fairy tales ...

    Major things (none / 0) (#42)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:13:54 PM EST
    please- his "major things" were largely piecemeal legislation, but hey no biggie Clinton was gifted by history a much easier job than Obama's.

    The Formula (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:16:09 PM EST
    Obama can do no wrong.
    Clinton can do no right.
    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Or the inverse (3.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:24:36 PM EST
    remember when Bill Clinton signed DOMA- it was just him doing what he had to do, when Obama does anything- its a massive betrayal-- at this point BTD's right Pols are pols with the exception of FDR, and even he was a scumbag when it came to civil liberties (or civil rights- Social Security was passed in large part due to its intentional discrimination against African-Americans).

    DOMA (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    It absolutely astounds me that there are people (like you) who appear to have no memory and/or no understanding of how DOMA came into being.

    The Congressional Democrats didn't stab... (none / 0) (#102)
    by lambert on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:30:47 PM EST
    ... Clinton in the back on DOMA. They stabbed him right in the chest.

    Typo (none / 0) (#103)
    by lambert on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:31:16 PM EST
    Wrong acronym. DADT, not DOMA.

    The difference being ... (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:41:32 PM EST
    ... that Clinton never claimed to oppose DOMA.  Clinton tried to repeal the military ban on homosexuals, paying a heavy political price for doing so at a time when the DOD, Congress and the public were all against a repeal.  Obama promised to repeal DADT at a time when he has all of those in his favor, and yet has done nothing (unless you count a brief comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality).  Obama pledged to filibuster the FISA compromise and voted for it.  Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA when he needed the Ohio primary votes, then said it wasn't necessary.  Obama promised to televise the HCR debates on C-SPAN, then made backroom deals with the insurance and pharma lobbyists.  Obama promised to hold the Bush administration accountable, then defended and even expanded many of the same unitary executive powers, while saying it's time to "look forward".

    See the difference?


    I remember quite well (none / 0) (#54)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    when Clinton signed DOMA. I remember NAFTA. I remember all kinds of things about the Clinton years, some of them laudable, some not, IMO.

    The ODS in these threads can be tiresome. But so is your CDS, dude.


    The formula (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:03:34 PM EST
    they're more similar than you think.

    Lather, rinse, repeat and find some way to deal with it.


    Oh (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    poor poor Obama. yes, he has it soooo hard. You are bascially conceding that he's not up to the job. Well, if it's soooo hard (as he whines incesantly about) and he was left with such a mess from Bush (which was all known) he should have never run for president. If you cant' stand the heat get out of the kitchen whiner.

    I think he's up to it (none / 0) (#52)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:27:36 PM EST
    heck as I've said before, I think he's done a pretty decent job this past year- some disappointments no doubt but all presidents have them, he's on track to be a Clinton- a highly competent eloquent leader who helps America's standing in the world, and doesn't do much to fundamentally change the economy, I was hoping for an FDR- a visionary leader who changes America forever, but that was probably too much, and he still has a shot at it.

    Well (4.40 / 5) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    you're a rarity. Even his most avid supporters like Zuckerman are talking about what a disaster he's been.

    The problem is that he has shown himself to be abjectly incompetent in the last year or is it laziness? He has handed every piece of legislation off to somebody else to do the work because of either fear of actually working or his inability to acutally lead on anything.

    He has zero shot at being FDR because you have to have core values of which Obama has none. He is a hollow shell of a man incapable of understanding or empathy towards his fellow citizens.


    Really (none / 0) (#66)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    huh kind of funny that a guy with 50% or so job approval would be so rarely approved of, its almost like your taking ancedotes for data, instead of actually looking at the numbers.

    Under 50 (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:56:35 PM EST
    in many polls

    Are those (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:13:05 PM EST
    the same polls that were on Kos showing that Coakley was tied in MA with Brown? He over polls for some reason just like Bush did.

    Yes, taking us out of recession and huge deficits (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:44:55 PM EST
    and turning that into the biggest surpluses in our lifetime:


    Talk about rewriting history.


    Yes; and let's put Clinton into proper historical (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    perspective.  When he was president, he lacked the huge majorities that the Dems have in Congress, served in a far more conservative time, and did not come to office after an 8-year period in which his opponents had been held in public disgrace.  I only wish we could have had Clinton with super majorities in Congress, a public that had come to be more tolerant on social issues, etc.  

    I have a very hard time (none / 0) (#81)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    of seeing how Clinton created the economic boom in the 1990s- other than the deregulation mania that has been a standard since Reagan- Are we now considering Reagan a great economic leader who brought about "morning in America" or are we as we should with Clinton (and frankly Obama if the economy continues to slowly turn around) basically crediting them with not getting in the way. (I mean seriously, the Tech Boom was awesome but saying Clinton did it is like crediting Taft with the Industrial Revolution or Harding with the boom in the 1920s).

    Strange (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by standingup on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:19:58 PM EST
    but I don't recall Clinton having the same majority in Congress that Obama had last year?  Do you think all things being equal, in terms of the number of Democrats in the House and Senate, if Clinton had the same numbers Obama had Clinton would have been able to do even more?

    Don't you guys ever get tired (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:47:19 AM EST
    imagining what Pres. Clinton could have done if he had the same number of Democrats in Congress as President Obama does, of what Senator Clinton could have done if she just got the democratic nomination, of what Pres. Clinton could have done if the Republicans were not so mean to him, etc?

    Only when the Clinton-haters ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    ... get tired of their fairy tales.

    Not in reality (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:19:33 PM EST
    Clinton's numbers were between 54 and 58 at this time in his first term, while Obama's at 49%.  Even so, it's comparing apples to oranges, since Clinton was elected with a plurality and didn't enjoy the highest approval ratings since JFK when he entered office, as Obama did.  Beyond that, Clinton was paying a high price in approval for pushing a repeal on the ban of homosexuals and his budget plan, which increased taxes on the wealthy.  Obama has been hiding on the sidelines on HCR, waving periodically and trying his best to avoid any damage while letting Congress take the heat.  

    Like I said, ...

    ... apples to oranges.


    Very Funny (none / 0) (#121)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:38:05 AM EST
    You say that Pres. Clinton paid a high price in approval ratings for increasing taxes on the wealthy. Are you saying that increasing taxes on the wealthy is not a populist measure (there is no evidence to show that only the wealthy were getting polled)? What % of people in America were "wealthy" among the people that were polled?

    Not funny at all, ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 07:15:30 PM EST
    ... although I could have been clearer.  I wasn't claiming Clinton paid a high price for raising taxes on the wealthy, but that he paid a high price for leading on the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, which included tax increases.  He pushed hard for this bill, which I would argue is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation since the 60's, and it only got through the Senate with Gore's tie-breaking vote.

    I mentioned the increase on the upper marginal rates because it was a critical part of the legislation and he was attacked relentlessly for the next 8 years as a "tax and spend liberal" because of it.

    As far as the % of wealthy respondents in the approval poll, I have no idea, but I assume that Gallup uses sample that's large enough to include a representative sample of respondents.


    So how do you explain (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:03:14 PM EST
    all the polls this year that have consistently demonstrated high support among the general public for health care reform that includes a public option? That's more than the Democratic base.

    The public has been way ahead of the "leaders" on this issue, and Obama in particular blew it, big time, by not leading. (Let me anticipate your response: "Obama got bad advice from all those horrible CLINTON people!")

    We are a long way from 1950, 1966, 1980, and 1994, thanks to the economic meltdown that swept Obama into office. What a sickening waste of political capital.


    In 1948-1949 (none / 0) (#49)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:22:25 PM EST
    Truman had a massive group of soldiers returning from home many saved by Government Healthcare- guess what the AMA- by coining the term "socialized medicine" flips public opinion in less than 12 months, 1965 I shouldn't have listed domestically LBJ was the 2nd best president of the 20th century and its not really all that close- he willingly sacrificed a congressional and electoral college coalition to pass Medicare/Medicaid and the Civil Rights act, in 1979- Carter attempted to get a healthcare bill through but it could have been doomed from the start (much like the Ted Kennedy and Richard Nixon attempts in the early 1970s were- Nixon's because of Watergate, Kennedy's because he broke with Unions' plan to a small degree), in 1993 Clinton tried to force a fully formed plan through congress- the plan largely the byproduct of a comission as veiled as Cheney's energy taskforce, never even gets a vote and is viewed as a massive boondoggle even by the Senate's liberal members (see the famous Daniel Patrick Moynihan assessment), now Obama attempts to do the opposite of Clinton and let Congress formulate the plan- if it fails again as seems likely, it would be political malpractice for any Democrat to attempt to reform healthcare for the next 15-20 years.  

    I wonder if, this time, you are confusing (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    the public with the talking heads in the media. The latter evidently do not want health care reform unless it's the kind of pseudo-reform encapsulated in the Senate bill. The majority of ordinary Americans support health care reform, even with mandates, as long as a public option is available. I think you misread the public mood this time.

    The majority of American's (none / 0) (#55)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    have wanted Healthcare reform at various times for nearly as long as pollsters have been polling-- the problem is that they invariably reject the nitty-gritty details once the entrenched interests have a chance to get to work on them.

    Well, speaking only about this year (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:43:46 PM EST
    and the present instance of attempted health care reform, who gave the entrenched interests the chance this time to "get to work" on the "nitty-gritty details"? Who cut peremptory back-room deals with the pharmaceutical companies and then tied Congress's hands with them? Who pushed the notion of mandates with no public option? Who spent months weakening the proposed legislation in deference to Republicans who were never going to vote for it anyway? I could go on, but why bother?

    The question I have is, why? (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    Why are these Village Idiots so, so invested in this awful Senate bill?  It's not because it's a good bill - the best that seems to be said about it is that it's "better than nothing."  So, why are they - or anyone else, for that matter - so anxious for Congress to settle for it?  

    I am appalled that so many of these people have opted to expend their energy and put all doubt to rest about their intelligence, fighting for this craptastic bill, when they could just as easily have worked to push both Obama and the Democrats to do better.  A lot better, because "better than nothing" really isn't better at all.  But maybe it's hard to think straight when they have those cheerleading routines to memorize and those pom-poms to wave.

    So, it's gotta be about Obama, then; it's always about him.  And he doesn't have a clue why things are going south - he still thinks it's because he and the Dems in Congress have not worked hard enough to placate Republicans.  

    Obama thinks talking - again, with all the talking - a little tough on banks - AFTER the bankers have already gotten everything they wanted, and will doubtless find new and better ways to get more - will really show these guys who's boss and that they can't take advantage of us little folk.  Too bad they already did that, huh?  

    Big-freakin'-whoop: it's too little, too late, but maybe with the Beltway Pom-Pom and Dance Squad performing their new routine (I hear Ezra wants to be captain, but he might have to arm-wrestle Booman for it), no one will notice that the extra-special Obama-goodness is just warmed-over, meaningless blah-blah-blah.


    I wish I knew why (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    Why are they trying so hard to save an awful bill, just so that Obama looks good?  I don't get it.  It's not like he's done much for them.  He must have threatened all kinds of horrible things if they didn't deliver.  After MA they see that he is 0 for 3 and can't help deliver anything to help them.  So they are jumping off his sinking ship.  That's my best guess.  I never understood why so many of them were risking their futures for him.

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:30:35 AM EST
    He controls the purse strings.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:08:39 PM EST
    Obama knows very well who's boss, and this backtalk at his bosses is just a sideshow meant to placate us little folk.

    Obama thinks talking - again, with all the talking - a little tough on banks - AFTER the bankers have already gotten everything they wanted, and will doubtless find new and better ways to get more - will really show these guys who's boss and that they can't take advantage of us little folk.

    Admin thinks this is still the campaign (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:45:32 PM EST
    and they can make pronouncements that echo popular sentiment while pursuing policies through complex means that benefit their funders. We'll, the public does not seem to be falling for the slight of hand any more.

    At least for Klein (none / 0) (#29)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:45:01 AM EST
    its because its probably the only chance at meaningful reform for the next decade or so. Look at what happened in 1994 in the aftermath of the Healthcare Debacle.

    this is not meaningful reform (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:50:18 AM EST
    Yes, yes it is (none / 0) (#35)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:58:17 AM EST
    its not ideal but it would massively reduce the number of the uninsured as well as fundamentally changing Medicaid- by expanding the FPL coverage cutoff floor (currently set by the states with very lax requirements).

    that is not reform (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:07:51 PM EST
    and frankly, is easily doable by reconciliation in a smaller bill.

    The "reform" parts of the Senate bill are nothing.


    nothing? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    Ban on recision.  Must cover pre-existing conditions without an increase in cost to the insured.

    That's not nothing.

    Personally, I think they should try to pass those things alone, after a medicare expansion, assistance to the uninsured, and tax on the wealthy (via reconcilliation), as opposed to tied to the entire package.

    Let republicans vote against that as a stand alone bill and see how it plays.


    See I'm not sure (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:34:15 PM EST
    how a ban on pre-existing conditions would work without a mandate- I mean why wouldn't a lot of people simply go insurance less (maybe do the Whole Foods CEO's crappy idea and go HSA and High-deductible plans) and then buy good insurance once they get sick?

    From what I've been reading (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    At least one conservative pundit is advising his party this way:

    A few suggestions:

    1. Do not gloat. Commend the people of Massachusetts on the wise choice they made and on their good judgment. Hail Scott Brown's win as the first step on a long road to building a 50-state Republican party.

    2. Call upon the president to start again on health care, and offer your help.

    3. Offer to support a scaled-back version of pending legislation while demanding the following provisions as the price of GOP support:

    -- a provision mandating that insurance not be denied to people with pre-existing conditions.

    -- language allowing portability of coverage from job to job.

    -- elimination of lifetime "caps" on coverage for diseases like cancer.

    -- assurance of nationwide competition by providers to lower costs.

    -- ceilings on malpractice claims.

    For the first time in many years, the GOP may find itself in a "win/win" position. If it takes the "make them say no" approach, the Republican party can force Obama to choose between knee-jerk allegiance to his leftist base and actually doing something that will work to the benefit of the American people. If the president and his team reject the GOP's extended hand, they will come across to voters as exceedingly partisan and divisive. If Democrats move in their direction, the voters will regard the Republicans as both reasonable and right. They will enter the 2010 election perfectly poised to add significantly to their numbers both in Congress and in state houses across the nation.

    Charlie Brown meets football yet again (none / 0) (#96)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 04:53:25 PM EST
    I thik they are nothing (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    when left to be enforced by state agencies with the community ratings set by the Senate. With the loopholes in caps in spending.

    Look, I have written tons about the subject.

    If you are unfamiliar with my thinking, check the archives.


    20 million Americans (none / 0) (#62)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:41:49 PM EST
    that's approxiamately how may people would get coverage from the Medicare expansion alone- please explain to me how that isn't major- that's a good 6-7% of the entire US population, nearly 2/3rds of all Americans currently without Healthcare, and its minor?

    I think you are confusing (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CST on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:46:05 PM EST
    health insurance assistance with health insurance reform.

    And that part that you mention can be done with reconciliation.  As opposed to other parts of the bill.


    It's the math (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    Senate bill, cost per family at 55,000 annual income:  5,800
    House bill:  1,500 hundred.  (numbers vary by who you read)

    Why, why would any house member vote for that?  

    Uh Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    I'm totally going to trust the pundits who adore the Senate bill and simply have no idea why Scott Brown won.  Not.

    Also what "entitlement health program" is Ezra referring to for people under 65?  I know he's just referring to the Senate bill.  They are so shameless in their labelling of this it's absurd.  And I think the mislabelling of it is part of the problem in selling it at all.

    What surprises me (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    is that the White House was not astute enough to foresee the loss in MA and at least have some kind of game plan to deal with it. They knew about 2 weeks out that a Brown victory was possible.

    Someone was asleep on the job.

    They really appear to be a bunch of amateurs.

    Yes. Beyond this bill, the larger concern (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    has to be whether Obama will get anything else done that is needed -- a jobs bill, for example.  

    When Obama's mouthpiece was asked whether Obama was going to MA to help Coakley, and the answer was no, the very asking of the question in a WH presser -- because the polls in MA already were widely known -- ought to have set off alarm bells.  That refusal certainly was a signal to MA voters that a vote for Coakley really wasn't crucial to the Dem agenda.  The flipflop a few days later, with word that Obama would go to MA at the last minute -- too late -- just looked like a sign of desperation, confusion, or . . . well, if I were a Dem voter in MA, I would be able to read into it all sorts of things.  

    But I certainly would not read into it that the White House knows what it is doing.


    Game plan? (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    Game plane to "deal with it"?  Meaning what?  And like what, for instance?



    And the Republicans are just watching (none / 0) (#31)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:47:43 AM EST
    We are hearing all Dem infighting. Not across the aisle. The Republicans are just sitting eating their popcorn. Very sad indeed.

    BTD (none / 0) (#61)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    I think you're strongly understating how much the medicare expansion would help- 65% of the uninsured fall in the 0-150% of FPL group, expanding public coverage to then would give coverage to nearly 20 million Americans who currently lack it- how is that not major?

    I'm sure you do know that the Senate bill does not (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    expand Medicare. It plans to expand Medicaid. No reason they cannot expand Medicaid if the Senate bill is not passed.

    Senate bill is 133% (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    the House Bill is 150%.

    you may want to look at the bills again.

    you may not be aware that the House bill is the generous one on subsidies, etc.