home

Welcome President Snowe: Obama Administration Showing Its Wimpy Colors?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 03:35:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via FDL, Bloomberg's interview with Obama OMB head Peter Orzag:

Congress will likely complete a health-care bill within six weeks, and a measure being drafted by the Senate Finance Committee may provide the basis for final legislation, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said. . . . Orszag signaled the administration doesn’t consider a government-run insurance program essential to the legislation. He suggested it would be sufficient to either create nonprofit insurance-purchasing cooperatives or set “triggers” to activate a public option if needed to cut costs.

(Emphasis supplied.) Three points. One, 6 weeks is AFTER the deadline for including a public option in a reconciliation bill. Second, it has been established that co-ops are usless. Third, it has been established that President Snowe's trigger proposal is a joke.

If Orzag is right, on the issue of health care reform President Obama has turned over the reins to "President" Olympia Snowe. What a wimpy Administration. Jimmy Carter comes to mind.

Speaking for me only

< How To Regain Trust In Government: By Governing | "F--king Stupid": Obama Controlled Organization Goes After Dem Senators Supporting PO >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Welcome President Snowe: Obama Administration Showing Its Wimpy Colors? | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Note: While it is true that (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 03:40:58 PM EST
    the Budget Committee is not bound by the October 15 deadline, as Chris Bowers wrote, the notion that the Budget Committee will produce such a bill is absurd.

    the Chairman of the Budget Committee goes by the name Kent "Co-Op" Conrad.

    I have a signal for Orzag. (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 03:53:32 PM EST
    It has universal meaning.

    It's getting to the point where the only response these people are generating in me whenever I read or hear the latest message of the moment is, "Oh, f**k you!"

    These people do not have a clue what they are doing and I am sick to death of being jerked around, with every day bringing a new message that contradicts the last message that went out.

    This has been going on for over eight months - enough already.

    Ha! Yeah, I can barely listen anymore (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    beyond reading about it here.

    I've responded to most every call for letter writing and phone call campaigns. They know my opinion.  Pretty sure they don't care.

    I hope nothing passes rather than anything resembling the Baucus bill.


    Parent

    FYI, Rahm is on (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:01:58 PM EST
    Charlie Rose tonight.

    Parent
    Now, what did I just say? ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:30:35 PM EST


    Parent
    On Oct 15 (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 03:58:39 PM EST
    I will be in Paris, clearing my arteries with red wine and thereby saving the federal government beaucoup bucks.  

    This health care debate is as close to a surrealist French drama as I have ever seen, but I think I prefer the real thing.

    No kidding. Think I'll start (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:57:12 PM EST
    clearing my arteries right now.

    Parent
    Put up or shut up (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:01:44 PM EST
    It's time for Obama to come out of hiding and lay out exactly what he wants in the bill. I'm tired
    of this roller coaster of emotions regarding HCR.

    As disgusting as GWB was, he was never shy about his expectations of a bill coming out of Congress.

    Someone needs to sit Obama down and remind him that he's the party leader. And it's high time he led.

    If he's incapable of leading then at very least, he should muzzle his people until the dust has settled and the bill is finalized.

    During the primaries when Pelosi, (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:04:26 PM EST
    Kennedy, and superdelegates were swarming to Obama, we speculated the Congressional leadership and party leaders wanted a candidate who would answer to them, not vice versa.  

    Parent
    And, exactly (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:57:31 PM EST
    the reason they shunned Hillary. Knowing she was a determined & driven fighter, policy wonk, and motivated to get things done, they scrambled away like rats from a burning ship.

    The thought of having to follow a strong, no nonsense Leader, and having to actually get things done, evoked such panic in our senior "leaders," the scramble to cuddly-bear Obama was a no-brainer.  So, in the absence of a having a leader, we have leadership by committee.

    And you know the old saying: "A camel is a thoroughbred race-horse, designed by a committee."

    Explains what's taking place perfectly, IMHO.


    Parent

    White House Budget Director Peter Orszag (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    is part of Obama's administration, right? I interpret this as Obama leading behind the scenes. IMO this legislation is going in the direction he has chosen.

    Parent
    Yeah, when the message comes from (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    someone in the administration, on the record, it's hard not to conclude that it's been vetted by the WH.

    So, what is the message, really?

    I think it's "Okay, let's throw this out there and see if, finally, enough people go for it that we can wrap this up and I can claim victory as the one, the only, the best-ever-president-who-finally-solved-the-health-care-crisis.  I need the love, people - find me the love!  I have a speech!  If this doesn't work, try something else - how many times have we said 'bipartisan?'  Jesus, someone get out Roget's Thesaurus and find some other words that mean the same thing as mandates and public option!  If all else fails, someone say 'Ted Kennedy' and see if that helps!"

    But, hey - if we don't like what Obama's saying, at least we only have to wait a day or so for it to change, right?

    If I had known it was going to be like this, I could have made a killing with "Obama's Policy of the Day" calendars...

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 09:44:45 PM EST
    What it says is that Obama and crew want the insurance contributions flowing into the coffers of the Dems and out of the coffers of the Republicans.

    Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act will be what we will get. Everything that the insurance industry and the Republicans have tried to pass for years will be passed in one piece of legislation under the guise of health care reform.

    Parent

    Sellout Time (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by norris morris on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 11:28:26 PM EST
    I agree that this sellout allows the $$$$$$ to go to democrats.  We the people have been shafted.

    Obama is more than disappointing.  The HC fiasco is a disgrace that democrats will be held accountable for. No sane person expected the republicans to fight for real reform. But to be sold out by  "Change" Obama and Co, is more disheartening than I can say.

    Parent

    Per TL sidebar, Dems now trying to (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:59:08 PM EST
    sell HCR reform to seniors.  Wonder what the sales pitch is?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by cawaltz on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 06:10:31 PM EST
    they need to walk back talks about achieving health care through Medicare savings IMO. It definitely riled up the seniors and had their hackles up regarding reform that would be made at their expense.

    Parent
    So true. Espec. since Pres. says (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 06:14:22 PM EST
    can't incur a dime's worth of deficit.

    Parent
    The political world is upside down, (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 06:55:11 PM EST
    now,  the insouciant Republican Jon Kyl is now championing Medicare.  He claims that the cuts to physicians will result in cuts in benefits; Mr. Obama says no, the CBO says yes, and Mr. Biden says "no one will mess with Medicare", in a rather defensive statement.   You know something is amiss when Republicans are advocates for a government program, even an effective one

    Parent
    You gotta give the GOP (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by cawaltz on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:10:01 PM EST
    credit, unlike the Dems they are always looking for ways to score political points. This is right up their "muddy the waters" alley.

    It was/is a lose lose proposition for us because if you admit there are "inefficiencies" then you basically are making the argument against the biggest argument for government being able to "fix" health care. Otherwise, you are left with option B where basically you are telling older Americans that they are going to experience a decrease in benefits to cover costs.

    It was a strategically awful decision either way. Particularly when the older constituency is the most likely to show up at the ballot box.

    Parent

    I asked my brother if Obama admins. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 06:59:37 PM EST
    would, as threatened, mess w/Medicare and/or SS for current recipients.  He sd. no--no one would dare.  Hope he is correct.

    Parent
    Can you imagine the uproar from (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    "progressives" if this were a Republican President proposing to fund health insurance reform through cuts to Medicare. For the life of me, I can't fully fathom why the majority of the Democratic base is so thoroughly mute about Obama throwing seniors under the bus in this way.

    As it is, seniors are the only demographic that's raising a ruckus. And the really egregious thing is that they are all being purposefully stigmatized and discredited as brain-addled right-wing town-hallers.

    It was especially sickening to see all the perverse merriment the MSM made about the placards and signs saying: "Government keep your hands off my Medicare". I always thought that was a statement of protest against the proposed cuts to Medicare. Yet it got spun as a hardy-har-har story about stupid old people not knowing that Medicare is a government program. When all is said and done, those folks will, no doubt, continue to be ridiculed for 'obstructing' a public option - never mind that the President never wanted any such thing in the first place.

    What a wicked web.

    Parent

    Several, right here on TL, (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:54:29 PM EST
    have been asking the question of how the Medicare "savings" can resolve the finances of Medicare itself (supposedly in trouble in eight years), fund new advances in medical and surgical care, and, and, and, finance almost half of the needed extension of health insurance/care reform for those under the age of 65.  In addition to these financing issues, the question also exists as to the political wisdom of coupling Medicare changes with new coverage for those under 65.  So much flak could have been avoided including the summer's death panels. Any changes needed to Medicare could have been accomplished by regulation, or even, minor legislative alterations at a later point.  Indeed, many innovations are already underway such changes from DRGs, penalties for hospital acquired infections or readmits within 5 or 7 days not part of original diagnosis. But, the progressive response was that old times were selfish, and that human condition was to be dismissed.

    Parent
    I'm hearing you KD, but I think (none / 0) (#56)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:53:02 AM EST
    most of the "flack" about "death panels" happened not by accident, but by design, from an Administration that wants to confuse the issues and blame others for killing a public option they had no intention of enacting in the first place. I'm sure I've said this before, so pardon the repetition.

    Parent
    Seniors and Healthcare (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by norris morris on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 11:23:56 PM EST
    Seniors are riled up because Obama has screwed up the message. Nor has the HC message been clearly articulated which has created confusion and fear
    and loaded with misinformation.

    The HCR debates have been amateurish and Obama WH appears to have already caved  to  blue dogs and one republican.   Since when is Snowe as a small state republican, pivotal in this?

    The spectacle of a weak President and even weaker democrats who seemingly don't know how to fight to win is disheartening. Obama so far has allowed the disgraced and out of power republicans to frame and control the healthcare reform debate.
    He has permitted misinformation to transcend the  debate and controlled by the party nobody wanted.

    I am watching Obama's political weakness with a strong dose of disbelief. Obama,the great orator and speechifier has been dodgy,fuzzy,unclear, and worse...confusing and silent. Where was the campaign rhetoric that would have been pivotal in clarifying HC in a clear and commanding manner?

    Parent

    After watching the health insurance (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:23:30 AM EST
    debacle, why should seniors trust Obama and the Dems with reforming Medicare?

    Anyone who has read the crap Baucus has put together under the name of reform, should be very concerned that Medicare would be severely damaged by a Baucus reform.

    Parent

    You can count on Obama to "put up" (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:58:14 PM EST
    with governing on behalf of the GOP.

    But don't ever count on him to "shut up". Talk is all he ever had and it's all he ever will have.

    "Speaking for me only", I cannot bear to hear him say one more worm.

    Parent

    DING! (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:26:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Accounting for the possibility that we really (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:05:25 PM EST
    will need 60 votes for cloture, the House must pass as strong a bill as possible as soon as possible.

    News Flash to Obama (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    Snowe and all of her supporters won't keep the Dem's the majority party.

    Wimpy colors doesn't even begin to describe how pathetic Obama looks throughout this entire fiasco. You assume the Republican's will do everything they can to make him look a fool. But when he allows his own party members to trample on him too, that goes beyond whimp.

    He's so wrapped up in appeasing a group of 8 to 10 senators that he's totally neglecting the other 50 or so. They're also going to have to answer for this bill. Then you throw in a couple of hundred house members in the mix and you have a disaster on your hands.

    2013 issue (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    Considering that so many of the insurance regulations do not get triggered till 2013,(per Baucus proposal), like  the "insurance companies having to take people with preexisting conditions" and the full scope of the employer mandates--in the meantime the govt will be covering these people.  Why do we need to put them in the game in 2013?    How is govt role not necessary?  If these guys could do it on their own, they should do it from day one.  

    On the other hand... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:35:48 PM EST
    the seemingly written-in-stone target date gives me three full years to plan my emigration to Canada, which is only 119 miles up the road from me.

    Eh?

    Parent

    What a tool. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:14:05 PM EST
    As you and Mr. Walker point out, Orzag knows quite well that co-ops were shown to be useless by the CBO.

    So what he is doing here is simply dishonest propaganda.

    I guess the "Pelosi takes marching orders from Obama on this issue" theory has taken a hit.  Unfortunately.

    When you said "what a tool", (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 04:02:55 AM EST
    I mistakenly thought you meant Obama.

    So, if I may presume, on behalf of a betrayed electorate, I'll say it: "what a useless tool", by which I mean Obama.

    Parent

    Obama's been bought from the outset (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by pluege on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 06:05:51 PM EST
    If Orzag is right, on the issue of health care reform President Obama has turned over the reins to "President" Olympia Snowe.

    this is just not true. Reform in name only, WITHOUT a public option has been Obama's plan from the beginning. His challenge has not been to get a public option. His challenge has been to make his easily duped progressive base think he wanted a public option. And for most part he succeeded in all his objectives:

    • duping the progressive base
    • passes health reform in name only (this will come)
    • providing incredible wealth giveaway to insurance companies. This rivals bush's attempt to give the nations retire fund to Wall Street.  


    Unless we get Public option they've lost me... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by chinaz on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:00:56 PM EST
    Really, this is what we worked so hard for last year? Obama said the goal was to make available a plan like his from congress or even open that up to people. And then he takes office and suddenly  public option is not important  while all the backroom deals get made. Just like the autos and banks and stimulus, everything a give away to the very crooks responsible. This summer has been the most disgusting display of obtuse wimpy Democratic politics I've ever seen. Everything is leading up to a FAKE health reform bill which will be a huge gift to the insurance companies so they can bleed us dry some more. This country is hopelessly corrupt, in corporations and government. Just best to find a way to profit off our crooked little corner o' the world or you'll get sucked into the abyss with the rest.

    I share your dismay and disgust with (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:30:22 PM EST
    the apparent inevitability of ending up with a bogus bill.

    In your comment you asked:

    Really, this is what we worked so hard for last year?

    I take this to mean that you worked hard for Obama. If so, this mess must be doubly hard to swallow. I, for one, did not lift a finger for Obama - but this is still going down like cut glass.

    Parent

    Disgusted Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by norris morris on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 11:40:06 PM EST
    I join you in your disgust for the democratic wimps who've been acting like fools and snake oil salesmen.

    The blue dogs are nothing but republicans. The republicans stand for nothing.

    And the democrats we elected along with Obama have wimped out and slid into the cesspool called politics. They've taken our money, our hope, our dreams, and our work, and they've produced nothing.

    In fact they will have delivered a huge number of new victims to the insurance and drug monopoly. Goody.

    I also find it curious and sad that progressives have not made a million march on Washington for the Public Option and real reform?  This was left to the GOP who managed to control the conversation because this was very convenient for the White House's sellout plans.

    What has happened that allowed  people's brains to freeze to this extent?

    I simply see Obama and Co readying for filling their coffers for the next election.


    Parent

    But, logic says (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:13:33 AM EST
    a full coffer will not make the voters forgive the party that gives them a lousy healthcare bill. And, a great healthcare bill will give the party that earns the credit for it a huge win even if their campaign coffers are empty.

    I wonder if anyone figured out how many dollars it took to get each of those winning votes. There were primary races where he spent 3 times as much and lost to his opponent.

    Parent

    I asked the innkeeper in SE Iowa (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:27:17 AM EST
    about the allegation young people came to Iowa from IL to vote in the caucuses.  She sd. that is what happened.  

    Parent
    Could they have been (none / 0) (#54)
    by Spamlet on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:40:12 AM EST
    college students in Illinois but legal residents of Iowa?

    Parent
    Wouldn't they stay with family? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 07:41:27 AM EST


    Parent
    Could have been, but she didn't (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:41:14 AM EST
    think so.  

    Parent
    Be that as it may, (none / 0) (#63)
    by Spamlet on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    when caucus irregularities are reported, I like it to be on better authority than "an innkeeper in southeast Iowa said so." Give me evidence and/or eyewitness reports from the caucuses themselves, like this report.

    Parent
    Ha. Plus she couldn't actually go (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:07:10 PM EST
    to Dem. caucus because she is registered Ind.  

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#59)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 06:15:32 AM EST
    there were primary races where she got more votes and he got more delegates.  There were caucus races where there were more voters than belonged to the party and none of them looked familiar to the locals.  There were primary races where his name wasn't on the ballot and he still got delegates and in fact there were primary races where he got some of HRC's delegates.
    The DNC and the old fat ass white boys club of the party chose our candidate and this is what happens.
    It is all about 2012 now.....screw health-care reform.
    After all if Obama really took charge of this he might lose the battle and that would make him look bad next election.

    Parent
    Public Option (none / 0) (#48)
    by norris morris on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 11:57:07 PM EST
    It's obvious we'vebeen sold out.  Just listen to the "messsengers" from the White House.  "The Public Option isn't really necessary. We can still deliver a good HC bill".  Each idiot puts out another version of this garbage.

    Hillary's plan was on target and was always far stronger than Obama's. But Obama still sold himself to the public as their healthcare "protector" and Changer in Chief.

    The White House has met with the insurance and drug monopolies and have made their deal to deliver millions of new victims to them without the PO.  The debacle we're seeing is a total charade.

    This is a really terrible situation. And what's even more terrible is that we haven't mobilized ourselves to fight and march en masse in Washington with a clear directive for the Public Option.  Or else.

    We've been had.

    Parent

    How about Obama as the Changeling in Chief, (none / 0) (#58)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 04:19:22 AM EST
    versus the "Changer in Chief".

    But, surely, such a bluntly negative characterization is going too far - even from those of us who've been called low-information, bitter knitters, and in-bred sweeties clinging to our waffles, and guns and gods, right?

    Parent

    O'Donnell and Robinson on Olberman tonight (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by NealB on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:28:45 PM EST
    The delaying tactic was the lead topic on Olberman tonight. O'Donnell (anchoring for Olberman again) spent the first ten minutes of the program talking about how Baucus's Finance Committee spent 2 hours on one (of five-hundred sixty-four) amendment.

    As I listened to them (both big Washington insiders) talk I learned nothing. They lamented the ways of the Senate. They babbled incoherently about stuff I can't remember because it was so incoherent. The showed a clip of some Senator reading from a bill that was legalistic crap. Robinson babbled on as if he were annoyed (he always seems annoyed); and O'Donnell couldn't thing of a good question to ask. It was a waste of time. They knew it. They wasted my time and everyone else watching it on purpose. They suck at their jobs; they should both be fired.

    They're only interested (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:34:36 PM EST
    in the politics, not the substance, which is just, you know, so icky and "wonky" and boring.  They've all got their Cadillac health care.

    Parent
    No surprise that one (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:42:50 PM EST
    comes away from watching Gene Robinson, for whatever length of time, no more enlightened on the subject at hand than before.  He's completely out of his element in commenting on teevee.

    Must be some Msnbc rule that he has to appear so many times/wk on their various liberal shows.   Sad to say the guy just doesn't have much original to say.

    But at least O'D mentioned how the Baucus comm'ee seems to be slow-walking the bill with the 100s of amendments and debate about same, possibly to ruin chances of making the reconciliation deadline in mid-Oct.

    I doubt if Wolf and the gang at CNN will give it that much attention.

    Parent

    Robinson & O'Donnell (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by norris morris on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 11:47:57 PM EST
    I listened, too, and they made no sense. Just prattle that filled dead air.

    O'Donnell clearly did not say one clear, important thing. They both bogged down in ridiculous details that are irrelevant to the real struggle going on.

    Why?  Robinson is covering Obama's sad ass, and O'Donnell doesn't want to antagonize anyone unless it's Hillary Clinton.  He's a has been with no guts, no position, and no nothing.

    These two are clearly a waste of air time when we need to hear, and expect to hear informed and gutsy commentary.

    Parent

    Eugene Robinson will ALWAYS (2.00 / 1) (#51)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:01:35 AM EST
    Cover Obama's ass.  He just wants the first Black President to look good, no matter how many Americans, of all colors, get screwed in the process.  

    In the meantime, Robinson makes himself look like a fool when he's anything but.  What a shame he's sold himself out like this, just to make Obama look good.  

    Parent

    Robinson was on (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 06:22:18 AM EST
    msnbc with in five minutes of Obama's loss to HRC in NH to tell us how the people of NH are just racist.

    Parent
    Our own little troll, Sher (none / 0) (#66)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 12:57:53 AM EST
    Bless your heart, you just can't quite screw up your courage and post but you can hit those 2 ratings daily.  

    Hope you can get over that shyness and share your feelings with us in a more readable manner.  


    Parent

    O'Donnell's always useless (none / 0) (#50)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:59:12 AM EST
    He treats it all like a big game with obscure rules that only he, with his Ivy League education, could possibly understand.  He cares about ''winning'' the game, but not one iota about winning the war for the people of the country.

    Parent
    McJoan is upset Snowe is siding with (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 03:55:54 PM EST
    GOP senators who want to delay any bill until OCB reports on cost of same.  If Sen. Snowe's sole reason for delay was this, seems like a good idea to me.  

    A smart tactic by Snowe you mean (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    right? It is absolutely bad by any negotiating measure to have a bill come AFTER the reconciliation deadline.

    Parent
    Yup. And the politically (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:55:13 PM EST
    clumsy alternative is to vote on a bill that hasn't been scored yet.

    The Rs have the Ds boxed in on this...as usual.

    Did everybody skip governing class...or did the Ds forget to hold those seminars for old and new members?

    Gawd, these people are depressing.

    Parent

    When is the reconciliation deadline (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    and is it immovable?

    Parent
    In the post (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:03:14 PM EST
    October 15.

    Parent
    Yes, in McJoan's post, to which (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:07:39 PM EST
    your post links.  Follow the links!  No chance to extend that deadline?

    Parent
    Not likely (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 04:10:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Riddle me this... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Exeter on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:54:47 PM EST
    What would you like Obamacare to accomplish?

    Health Care (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 06:05:52 PM EST
    I think it is imperative that every person have access to affordable health care. I think it goes without saying that the system we have which can boast driving over 50 percent of people into bankruptcy(and over 75% OF that over 50% had private insurance)isn't affordable. I would like a system that paralells longetivity and infant mortality rates that are the equivalent of other developed nations. That would be a starting point for me.

    Parent
    what Obamacare? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 06:25:08 AM EST
    there is no such thing.  He said he had a plan during the primaries.  Where the hell is it?

    Parent
    Welcome President Snowe: Obama Administration Showing Its Wimpy Colors? | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment