House Dems count down time (“10… 9… 8…”) as vote ends, ObamaCare passes, 220-215. Dems 219-39 for, GOP 176-1 against. Bipartisan! 🙂
House Dems count down time (“10… 9… 8…”) as vote ends, ObamaCare passes, 220-215. Dems 219-39 for, GOP 176-1 against. Bipartisan! 🙂
If only conservatives weren’t distracted by ACORN and Limbaugh’s Rams bid, they could’ve secured that lone dissenting GOP vote!
You know it’s frustrating, Knowing full well that there wouldn’t actually be bipartisan support for this I don’t get why Obama started with a compromise and then compromised it more.
It would have made more sense to start of with the what I really want plan and then compromised some until he had the support needed for passage and them rammed that [expletive deleted] down the Republicans throats. It is, for sure a gamble, but it’s what you do. Assuming the reform (not the bill that passed but a mythical bill that would have been passed if Obama had FDR’s balls) worked you can hang the Republicans on it for 50 years. So that they have to take the [expletive deleted] up the [expletive deleted] too. Instead you pass a compromise bill (upon which you really did not need to compromise as much as you did) That has no teeth to it and does not change the system. Pretty much guaranteeing that a) people will never go for health care reform again because it doesn’t fix anything and b) that the Democrats are going to get [expletive deleted] up the [expletive deleted] over it.
[expletive deleted] stupid.
dcl, you gotta quit channeling Rahm ****ing Emmanuel, you sound like a ****ing ****head from ****ing Chicago, for ****’s sake. ;>
1) Pres. Obama didn’t start with a compromise….he voted “present” yet again, and presented no plan. He allowed the Democrats in Congress to come up with a plan. All Pres. Obama did was cheerlead.
2) Speaker Pelosi was forced to compromise to win enough bluedog votes to pass the bill in the House, and Sen. Reid is going to have to do the same in the Senate.
3) The desire to gain Republican votes is an attempt to provide cover when (if the plan passes) ten years from now health care is a complete disaster and is costing ten times as much as we were told it would.
HR 3962 is sort of the legislative equivalent of Zsa Zsa Gabor: it exists to serve an allegedly important purpose, but what it is, or why it’s good, is surely a mystery to everyone.
There’s no doubt that health care is a huge threat to everyone not holding a good group plan. Those without such plans are the heart and soul of the Democratic constituency. The simplest way to solve this problem is single-payor, but that is politically unpalatable, so instead you get…you get…actually, I understand that HR 3962 is basically just 1900 pages of bad haikus from the old Irish Trojan site.
Criticizing Obama’s lack of distinct leadership on the health care bill is a bit like criticizing Zsa Zsa Gabor’s lack of nuance in her cameo in the Naked Gun. I mean it would have been nice if Zsa Zsa had given an Oscar-worthy performance in that brief role, but surely that’s not the point.
Jazz:
Except Pres. Obama auditioned for the role of, and was cast as, the leading man, not as a brief walk on part.
I never cease to be amazed by the dramatic difference between reality and gahries delusions.
I’m impressed with Jazz’s analogy of the House Bill with Zsa Zsa Gabor.
David K:
1) Has Pres. Obama presented a plan? If so, where and when?
2) Did Speaker Pelosi pass the far left bill she (and apparently you) want? Or was she forced to compromise, including the exclusion of federal money for abortions?
3) If it wasn’t for political cover, why did the left seek Republican votes while at the same time excluding Republican amendments?
It appears that number two and three on your list cannot have happened in the same universe.
In regards to getting Republican votes for “cover” See the section RE: lack of balls.
Seriously, I didn’t know Hillary had castrated the entire party, I thought she just had Bill taken care of…
Gahrie’s argument that Obama was light on the specifics re: health care is a decent talking point, as far as it goes, though unlike dcl I don’t think there’s all that much there there. The health care legislation is an unprecendented effort, explosive for all involved, and outside a veto, Obama has no vote. Doesn’t mean he can’t provide leadership. But that only goes so far.
The “empty suit” meme is not bad in isolation, but highly problematic considering the guy the GOP had in the Oval Office the last 8 years. I guess Bush passes dcl’s “balls” test by starting not one but two hopeless wars of occupation in the Middle East, but given the complexities of nation building, no Democratic Nation Building, nay Democratic-Nation-Among-Previously-Warring-Ethnic-Groups-Nation-Building, it might not have been unreasonable for the polity to expect Bush to exert a little more specific leadership on the million necessary details for getting such an adventure right.
Maybe this is why political parties have such a devil of a time overcoming a disastrous President. You get a guy like David K. poking you in the eye endlessly over Dubya’s under-involvement in the details of nation-building, and you can’t help but revolt, fight back, and claim that Dubya is something he isn’t, i.e. involved. Or that involvement or details don’t really matter, from which one follows a direct line to the candidacy of Palin.
This isn’t meant to pick on Republicans mind you. Same argument could be made about the Democrats 25 years ago, when the moderate, modern Gary Hart was rejected for the Carter-esque, old-style big-union Mondale. Good idea that was. Democrats probably just had a heck of a time coming to terms with the terrible flaws of Carter, much like Republicans today struggle to come to terms with the failings of Bush 43.
The interesting thing about the Democrats is that the guy who broke with the past was someone who hated Carter, who would probably take a swing at Carter if the two were in a honky-tonk bar without their security around. Clinton blamed his loss in the 1980 Arkansas governor’s race to Carter putting a SuperMax prison in Arkansas, over Clinton’s strenuous objection.
Leads to a question: does a party need an enemy of everything the discredited standard bearer stood for to break with the past? Who is that person in the Republican establishment to take on Bush 43’s dismal legacy?
I don’t disagree that it take more than just balls to be a good President.
What frustrates me is that Obama doesn’t really seem to be leading at all. He told congress I want health care reform, now you go figure it out. He made the exact opposite mistake that Clinton made when he went for Health Care reform when he handed Congress a finished bill and said pass this.
Unless Obama has been way more involved behind the scenes than it looks it sure seems like he is just letting the Democrats in congress run a muck bickering with each other. Which is no way to get this done.
You need a message and you need to get the leadership together on the same page because the people that want nothing to happen are sure as shit organized and their message and goals are easy.
You gotta get your but in gear and lead… If you don’t have the stomach for that kind of stuff get the hell out of politics because you don’t belong.
Bush was a shit President. Arguably the most shit President we’ve ever had.
Be that as it may, the fucker went balls to the wall for what he wanted. He did whatever (pigheadly stomping off in the wrong direction) and said come and stop me if you can. Nobody could. He lead and he bet everything on it.
The reality is if you are going to be President you need to be able to do that. You’ve got to have the balls to put it all on what you believe in. You’ve got to have the balls to bet the party that you are right and the other guy is wrong. Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose. But you’ve got to have the stomach for that or, again, get the fuck out of politics.
dcl, I love your post just above, and as a callout of Obama’s dithering, it deserves to be Insta-lanched. Well done. One small quibble re: Obama’s dithering:
Presidencies are only judged by the long view. As terribly as Carter’s presidency is now regarded, he was still leading Reagan on Labor Day 1980. As much as Reagan is now near the top of many best Presidents lists, he left office in 1989 without nearly so much regard. What was it about Reagan that people remember so fondly? Was it the social security legislation he shepherded in 1983? Breaking the ATC union? Tax reform? Huge deficits? His wife’s astrology?
No, we love Reagan for breaking the evil empire, which from a certain POV was creaking anyway, perhaps Gorbachev would have gone Glasnost just because it was in the nation’s interest. If there was intrigue coming from our side to take out Communism, almost certainly “Former CIA director/titan of international intrigue/Vice President” George HW Bush was doing the heavy lifting during the Reagan years.
Long-winded way of saying that dithering in Year One is not necessarily prejudicial against Obama being a great President. Particularly dithering on the specifics of health care, which as you note, is certainly defensible given the Clinton’s fate in trying to go the other route.
(BTW – Mike Marchand – yeah, “Year One”. Gonna be in someone’s stocking, don’t care if its any good. Sesame Street rulz).