home

Obama: No Action On Health Bill Until Brown Is Seated

Via ABC and TPM, President Obama says:

Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated[.] People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process.

The video, courtesy of Daily Kos:

< Dog Bites Man: Lanny Davis Punches Hippies | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:21:23 PM EST

    Obama is now protecting us from a loony left wing out of control Congress!  

    Next thing will be that he really wanted tax cuts all along but those meanies in Congress are blocking him.

    He's the only thing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    standing between the loony left and the pitchforks!

    Parent
    It isn't the loony left wing that crafted the (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:01:51 PM EST
    legislation people are opposed to. Snowe, Baucus, and Nelson are as far from the loony left as possible and their fingerprints are all over the bill. Let's hope Obama's learning curve allows him to recognize this and reconsider how he's been going about "process".

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:11:33 PM EST
    it was sarcasm

    Parent
    A lot of people are opposed, though (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    to the parts of the bill from loony faux Dems -- Stupak and Nelson, for starters.  Perhaps even angrier that alleged Dems would do this.  After all, Repubs aren't expected to uphold the Dem platform.  Hypocrisy can be the most angering of all.

    Parent
    some one wake me up (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    please?
    I am tired of this nightmare.

    I think he should really (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    wait until after the next election.  just to, you know, make REALLLY sure that the republicans are heard.

    f*ck me.


    Well (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    you know after all Obama said Reagan was a transformational president and the GOP is the party of ideas. So...

    Parent
    Dear Mr. President (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    If you aren't going to cram something through just to do it, I think that's smart.  Please define process though.  If you reconcile this, Brown will do nothing but sit in his seat.  Is that the process you speak of or do you desire a more right leaning legislation to be passed and for the voters to SPEAK to you again?  Mr President, you may be willfully overlooking one huge issue as well.  MA fixed its healthcare problems much more satisfactorily than anything you have come up with, and they even claim that your pathetic legislation will weaken their good legislation.  Isn't it time to give the whole country MA style healthcare reform?

    Methinks our Pres. wants us to think (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:35:59 PM EST
    newly-elected Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is his new best friend.  See President's remarks above and also press release last night congratulating Brown on a fabulous campaign and welcoming him to the Senate.  I'm with him--ok?

    Parent
    I don't think he heard what (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    MA said.  Is this his idea of getting even with them and everyone else who put him where he is?

    Parent
    Moving backward (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:01:35 PM EST
    MA fixed its healthcare problems much more satisfactorily than anything you have come up with, and they even claim that your pathetic legislation will weaken their good legislation.  Isn't it time to give the whole country MA style healthcare reform?

    Obama's reaction so far reminds me of Bush in 2006 after the dems took over the house and the senate. He acknowledged a wupping, and then went right ahead doing things the way he always did. And he got the dems to roll over. And they're still rolling over.

    Obama, who let this healthcare bill get watered down to the point where it became corporate welfare, will not see the Massachusetts vote as a protest against the proposed weakening of their healthcare. He will say that Brown needs to be consulted now. The implication to me is that this bill will become even more oriented toward benefiting corporations. This is the way Obama wants it.

    Obama does not want to be a populist.
    He can't even fake it anymore.

    Parent

    I'm not at all sure the House (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:34:56 PM EST
    would have passed the conference committee version of the Senate Bill either. If Brown gives everyone a fig leaf, so to speak, for doing a big RESET on HCR, it may not be all bad news.

    There was no formal conference committee (none / 0) (#33)
    by Buckeye on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    or conference report.  Demint objected to the appointment of conferees.  That is why they were pursuing the ping pong strategy.

    Parent
    Thanks, I forgot about that (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    whole ping-pong thing.

    Parent
    Why do the outnumbered (none / 0) (#122)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:01:23 PM EST
    Repubs get to call all the shots?

    Parent
    BTW Mr. President (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:36:44 PM EST
    Thanks a lot for using McConnell's framing of this whole thing as the Senate "jamming anything through". Nice touch.

    god help us (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:45:19 PM EST
    Dem Talking Points: We're Screwed!

    you are screwed alright.  but is more like self abuse.


    Would they like some cheese (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:00:04 PM EST
    with that whine?

    Parent
    Amazingly bad. Yeh, it's the Repubs (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    who are they hypocrites.  For campaign promises in 2004?  Uh, 'scuse me, Dems -- 'bout the promises in 2008, 2009. . . .

    Parent
    Dems, for once, please do NOT (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:01:48 PM EST
    stay on message.  Not this message.

    Parent
    What they're selling... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by coast on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:26:16 PM EST
    no one is going to buy.  My kids can come up with better excuses than this.  And as I say to them, stop finger pointing, take some responsibility, and move forward and solve the issue.  This does nothing but irritate the middle.

    Is their a leader amongst them?  It doesn't look like it.

    Parent

    Or, as my adult niece enigmatically (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:30:11 PM EST
    poasted on Facebook:  My response is my responsibility.

    Parent
    Who writes this stuff? (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:55:06 PM EST
    waaaa (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    they are mean.  they poked us.  no, really.  they did. waaaa.  they took our mandate and shoved it up our a$$ and now we cant find it.  waaaa.

    god help us.


    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#88)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:32:57 PM EST
    Now soon you say (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    "allright, nobody like this big bill.  We will just make fixes to the budget and abandon it.  It's the only thing left to do to change healthcare since the Republicans won't let us."  And then do (at least) what Ezra describes here:

    Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill. If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. You also admit the limitations of the reconciliation process. So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy.

    And that's it. No cost controls. No delivery-system reforms. Nothing that makes the bill long or complex or unfamiliar. Medicare buy-in had more than 51 votes as recently as a month ago. The Medicaid change is simply a larger version of what's already passed both chambers. This bill would be shorter than a Danielle Steel novel. It could take effect before the 2012 election.



    Won't do it (none / 0) (#82)
    by Emma on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:19:27 PM EST
    since entitlement reform is next up on the Obamagenda.

    Parent
    If that actually takes place (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:22:29 PM EST
    He's one term.  I think we could see a third party candidate elected if he goes that route.

    Parent
    Looks like it is in the works, by a non-elected (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:31:13 PM EST
    commission.  Zero accountabiliy?

    Parent
    It's actually a commission that has about (none / 0) (#90)
    by steviez314 on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    zero chance of providing any bi-partisan recommendations, and less of a chance of actually having anything implemented.

    So, if all it does is provide a fig-leaf cover for any deficit hawk, that's fine by me.

    Parent

    Thanks. That is most encouraging. (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:51:08 PM EST
    Proposed commission recommendations get straight (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:39:26 PM EST
    up or down vote. No filibuster.

    Parent
    Yes, but the committee can only make a (none / 0) (#111)
    by steviez314 on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:58:10 PM EST
    recommendation if 14 members agree.  There are 10 Dems and 8 Repubs on it.

    That's one heck of a super-supermajority needed.

    Parent

    Wadddya (none / 0) (#128)
    by Emma on Tue Jan 26, 2010 at 10:49:26 AM EST
    think now?  As the discretionary spending freeze is being positioned as softening up the voters for entitlement reform.

    "Never happen!"  Yeah, right.

    Parent

    Hey MT (none / 0) (#86)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:30:29 PM EST
    Booman links to something you'd like.  Check it out.

    Parent
    I like it (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:42:38 PM EST
    Sadly Booman has the cojones of a frog though.  He can only link and ask people to do their own deciphering, he can commit to nothing much outside of Obama love and how crazy Rush is :)  It's a start though, a link to sanity.

    Parent
    He did fulfill a dream (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:39:30 PM EST
    He did bring us all together. To wit, Republicans don't like his policies, Dems aren't happy with his policies, and the middle doesn't like his policies.

    Voila!  PPUS has been attained!

    Parent

    If that happens I'll eat my hat (none / 0) (#116)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    And I'll have to BUY A HAT in order to eat one.

    Parent
    God the sphere is a mess (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:37:58 PM EST
    You have your P.O.d's so bad they can't see straight, and on the other hand you have Obama's girlfriends who desire to practice political suicide to prove their love, and then there is this bunch out there simply wailing and pining for Howard Dean.  But Obama hates Howard Dean, cannot abide the smell or the scream.  And before Dean gets any ideas in his Deaniac head I for one want Howard Dean to know that he is no Tim Kaine :)

    "part of the process" -- what kind of (4.85 / 7) (#3)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:52:30 PM EST
    nonsense is that? Everyone knows he's just an addition to the ranks of the obstructionists.

    What a wet noodle this guy (Obama) has turned out to be.

    Obstructionist? (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by coast on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:39:48 PM EST
    Lets see, Democrat in the White House.  Democrat controlled Senate.  Democrate controlled House.  Who is obstructing what exactly?  Seems to me Democrats are obstructing Democrats.  John Stewart explains it pretty well.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/jon-stewart-gets-fed-up-d_n_427917.html

    Parent

    Yes, there are obstructionists (none / 0) (#96)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:56:26 PM EST
    with "D" after their names. But, why do you seem to assume that its only natural for EVERY Republican -- including Republicans representing blue states -- to work against the passage of health care reform? It's a little inconsistent to castigate Democratic Senators from Arkansas or Nebraska for looking out for what they consider to be their political interest, while letting the Republican, or, in one case, "Independent," Senators from states like Maine or Connecticut off the hook for putting their party's best interest over that of their constituents.

    Parent
    We're going to get Missouri back (none / 0) (#103)
    by NealB on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:30:01 PM EST
    (and of course Massachusetts, though that's still "ours" regardless of the centerfold). That's a start. But it's hard to blame Republicans when they've (still) got only 2 out of every 3 seats in the Senate. I mean, how do you blame Republicans for doing whatever they can to play the game when a 16-seat Democratic majority lets them use the rules to their advantage. Democrats hold a nearly 2/3 majority in the Senate yet they fail, and fail, and fail. How do you blame Republicans for this?

    Parent
    Is it? (none / 0) (#108)
    by nyrias on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    "putting their party's best interest over that of their constituents" ...

    Brown is pretty CLEAR that he is going to come out against HCR. Voters in MA apparently agreed with him.

    I am not sure that constituents in MA wants HCR, at least not this version. In some sense, he is elected TO BE an obstructionist.

    Parent

    Voters in MA have a unique situation (none / 0) (#110)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:55:22 PM EST
    They have health care reform in their state similar to what is being proposed at the national level. It doesn't matter whether he is obstructionist or not -- they lose nothing by making their angry, populist gesture.


    Parent
    So my point still stands ..,. (none / 0) (#113)
    by nyrias on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 06:21:31 PM EST
    the MA voters is served by Brown's position.

    Parent
    Perhaps, but my point didn't have anything (none / 0) (#115)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 06:27:55 PM EST
    to do with Brown.

    Parent
    It's Mitch McConnell-Speak (none / 0) (#118)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 07:42:38 PM EST
    Someone sounds like he had a talk with the Minority Leader today. "jam", "be part of the process". May as well have just let McConnell give the little presser.

    Parent
    This is classic. (4.75 / 4) (#1)
    by Tony on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:48:27 PM EST
    Haven't we been told over and over that the President has no control over congress?  Now, today, Josh Marshall says the fate of this bill is up to the president?

    True, he has no control over the Senate votes, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    That's why it's easy for him to say this.  He knows he can't force the Senate to vote and two democratic Senators have already said that they won't vote until Brown is seated.  Obama's trying to look magnanimous, like it was his idea.  hahaha

    Parent
    well, he looks something (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    although magnanimous is not the word that came to mind

    Parent
    He never knows when to lead (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:08:48 PM EST
    on an issue more serious than a beer summit, and he never knows when to shut up about how terrific a friend he is to everyone.

    Parent
    Not true. See Ayers/Obama relationship (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:10:38 PM EST
    as described by candidate Obama.

    Parent
    You got me there (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:15:33 PM EST
    Rev Wright too.  Okay, he doesn't know when to shut up about how terrrific a friend or respectful of Conservatives he is.  And he can lead fearlessly on his make believe AUMF vote and beer summits.

    Parent
    Addendum: see relationship between Rezko (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:12:28 PM EST
    and Obama as described by candidate Obama.

    Parent
    He also stated (none / 0) (#104)
    by Madeline on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    " President Obama on Wednesday signaled that he might be willing to set aside his goal of achieving near-universal health coverage for all Americans in favor of a stripped-down measure with bipartisan support."

    Heh


    Parent

    Ha - didn't he signal that a long time ago? (none / 0) (#117)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 07:40:14 PM EST
    About the time he abdicated to President Snowe?

    Parent
    It's the right thing to do politically (4.75 / 4) (#2)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:51:32 PM EST
    Otherwise, we'd be bogged down in a process story - reliving the Franken conversations, and giving the Republicans yet another platform to say, "See, they don't get it!"

    I think this is also a signal that they are aware of the problems they are going to have if they push this huge steaming pile through.

    So much for reconciliation. (4.66 / 3) (#4)
    by observed on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:53:57 PM EST


    If you listen to Bayh, Webb, etc. the Senate has (4.66 / 3) (#5)
    by steviez314 on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:53:59 PM EST
    no intention of doing pretty much anything new about HCR for a while.  

    If the House ok's their bill, fine (and even then I bet some of them hope the HOuse doesn't),

    Another (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:55:11 PM EST
    poster said that Stupak said there aren't 100 votes for the senate bill in the house.

    Parent
    Stupak (none / 0) (#95)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:53:59 PM EST
    "There is no plan B," Stupak said. "There are so many problems with the Senate bill from the House view that they wouldn't get a 100 votes." The Senate bill's abortion-funding provision is only about fourth on the list of problems with the Senate bill, Stupak said.


    Parent
    I bet some now want to take back their vote (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:17:02 PM EST
    Senators like Webb and Bayh are obviously had the fear of God put into them last night.  If Webb could take back his vote, he would.  So, yes, they are hoping that the House derails this awful bill.

    Parent
    Before that, and more than that ... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 04:03:42 PM EST
    ... the Senate bill attracted several votes on the premise that its defects and deficiencies would be fixed in Conference -- several votes that might have been Nays if it were understood to be a final vote.

    So the Senate bill can't pass the House this week, and might very well have not passed the Senate last week if it were on its way to the White House.

    Parent

    Eeek! A ghost! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Pacific John on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    ;)

    Parent
    I had the same feeling (none / 0) (#105)
    by NealB on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:34:08 PM EST
    Spooky.

    Parent
    Or merely a ghost ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    ... of a ghost?

    Parent
    So Democrats are still listening to Obama? (4.66 / 3) (#10)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    Isn't that what got them into this trouble in the first place?

    I must be getting a little punchy (4.66 / 3) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    where this whole issue is concerned, because after I read the post title, what ran through my head was that Dems are already sitting in so much "brown," what's a little more?

     

    So it's President Snowe, (4.50 / 2) (#13)
    by observed on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    Vice President Brown and CoS Lieberman?
    Liebermans' power will increase now, I would guess.

    Not that (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    he was ever slowed down by Obama.

    Parent
    Don't forget Sec. of the Treasury Ben Nelson. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Buckeye on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:01:01 PM EST
    I like (4.50 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:12:13 PM EST
    Kagro's "self-executing rule" option:

    At the conclusion of the reconciliation process, when the House and Senate have both passed their bills and have agreed on a conference report settling any differences, the House may opt to include in the rule it adopts to govern debate on that conference report a provision deeming the Senate amendment to H.R. 3590 agreed to by the House. That way, when the House adopts the rule to allow the reconciliation bill conference report to come to the floor, it also agrees to the Senate bill it's amending along the way, just moments before beginning debate on the fix, and without ever having a separate, stand-alone vote on the Senate bill they don't like.


    Hey, he is starting to get the frame right (none / 0) (#7)
    by Manuel on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:57:01 PM EST
    "The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," he said. "People are angry, they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."


    Subtle (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:58:11 PM EST
    "Not my fault - it's Bush's"

    Parent
    Not very subtle at all. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    And what a statement to make after a year.  A full year.

    Parent
    He should (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:23:21 PM EST
    have pounded on the previous regime or at least the conservative movement from the start.

    Parent
    Even a chameleon (none / 0) (#99)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:09:36 PM EST
    like Obama can't suck up, and pound, simultaneously.

    Talking out of both sides of his mouth, another story.


    Parent

    To be fair (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    Bush was still taking digs at Clinton in 2007....

    Parent
    to be honest (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:41:47 PM EST
    any republican with a mic in his face will still take a dig at either Clinton at every opportunity to this day for forever.

    Parent
    I see it more as he sees it as repudiation of (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    Congress. Apparently no one has let the President in on a little secret. As President he is supposed to be providing leadership. He's not just supposed to throw random issues for them to work on at them and then just sit back and let them run with it.

    Parent
    heres another "secret" Mr President (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:47:42 PM EST
    Ailes and him minions are going to say and do the same thing no matter how freakin much you coddle them.
    so for gods sake try doing something worth doing.


    Parent
    They have got to be laughing their backsides (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    off at him. Which part of no matter how far right you tack you aren't going to appeal to the right doesn't Obama get? Obama could do cut taxes, decrease government programs and the people on the right would STILL vote for the Republican.

    Parent
    he could exume Reagans corpse (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:02:21 PM EST
    and wear it like a suit.  he could do a Michael Jackson style exfoliation. it wouldnt matter.
    he is not so stupid as to not know this.

    this is an excuse.


    Parent

    Isn't it possible (none / 0) (#123)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:08:09 PM EST
    that Obama is not "tacking" to the right to appease conservatives, but instead, actually finds once conservative now deemed "middle of the road" policies attractive?  Why are we always assuming he is posturing?

    Parent
    Meaningless, if he's not willing to repudiate (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    the ideology that held sway over the last 8 years.

    You can't pay lip service to conservative ideas out of one corner of your mouth and then criticize the results of those ideas out of the other.

    He wants to have it both ways -- as any play it safe politician does.

    If he was leader, on the other hand, he'd be looking for ways to reverse the harm that was done, rather than incessantly seeking the approval of the people who did the harm.

    Parent

    Good grief, (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    When will he realize that he was elected to FIX THE PROBLEMS.  People are growing weary of the Blame Bush meme.  It's getting old.  FIX THE PROBLEMS, dammit, and stop whining about Bush.  It just makes you look weak and petulant.  

    Parent
    over at that other site.. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by daria g on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    I was kind of amused to see people suddenly start yelling the same thing.. Barack Obama is out of touch.  What?

    Parent
    I'd love to register (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:39:23 PM EST
    and go over there just to say "Welcome to the Party!!  It's about time you guys got here!"

    Parent
    They have been confessing (none / 0) (#124)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:09:26 PM EST
    their sudden realization they were snowed for a couple of weeks now.  It's astounding

    Parent
    Obama just can't let go of (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    yesterday I guess because it was so good.  And his girlfriends really need to ditch his disfunctional butt.  Foreigner speaks for me :)

    Parent
    Excuse me, Mr. President (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    What got Brown into office was stated opposition to back room deals in D.C. Remember you ran on that theme too. I'm sure he will abandon that position in the same way you did when you made your back room deals with Pharma and the insurance industry.

    Parent
    Haven't you heard? (none / 0) (#125)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:11:38 PM EST
    The message of the MSM (with tacit Admin approval?) is that the left hijacked health care & that's why MA turned off the Dem candidate.  The left of the party is to blame.

    Parent
    Oh, come on - if people were still (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:13:26 PM EST
    blaming Bush for where we are now, Scott Brown would not be packing up his pickup truck for Washington - he'd have lost, and lost big.

    The old frames are not going to work - Obama can't just say stuff that isn't so and expect people to buy it anymore.  He can't be making backroom deals and playing footsie with Billy Tauzin and making the WH a special branch of Goldman Sachs and expect people to buy his line that Democrats are for the little guy.  He can't be extending and perpetuating Bush policies on privacy rights and state secrets and surveillance and indefinite detention or apparently condoning the coverup of deaths at Gitmo, and expect people to agree that Democrats stand up for the rule of law - not when they can see with their own eyes that he doesn't.

    The president Obama has turned out to be is not the president people voted for, and the mistake Obama makes is in continuing to try to sell Candidate Obama when we've had a whole year to understand that Candidate Obama oversold himself - with help from the media and A-list bloggers and Clinton-haters - but this time, he won't be able to get the hell out of Dodge in another year to run for higher office, so he's going to have to, you know, actually work, and do more than just give pretty speeches that turn out to be mostly devoid of content once they're parsed.

    For sure the Republicans are an awful party, but at this rate, the Democrats may be giving them a run for their money in a race to see which can get to the bottom first.

    Parent

    I for one (5.00 / 9) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:26:30 PM EST
    am long past sick of the whine that it's Bush's fault. did Bush leave a mess? Yes, he did and Brown was smart enough to NOT have any association with him. If Obama thought that the job of cleaning up after Bush was too hard then he should have not run for President. None of this was a secret. It was all there for everybody to see. I wonder did he think he was going to get away with not working like he did in the Senate? You can hide pretty well when you're one of a hundred but not when you're president.

    Parent
    Following predecessor's policies on (none / 0) (#126)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:14:33 PM EST
    the one hand and scape-goating him for difficulty cleaning up the mess on the other.

    As Anne says, no one is buying this any more.

    Parent

    Obama the President matches (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by observed on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 05:00:17 PM EST
    Obama the candidate, for me. Bringing Republicans to the table, looking for private enterprise solutions to national problems (including charter schools)---those are things he said during the campaign.
    What did I miss?
    Then again, I didn't go to the website.

    Parent
    I actually agree with this... (none / 0) (#17)
    by magster on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:18:27 PM EST
    as long as reconciliation comes back into play.

    There will be no reconciliation (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    Too many Senators, like Webb and Bayh wouldn't dare vote for that now.  More than a few, and not just Blue Dogs, are shaking in their Gucci's over what happened last night in MA.  Webb and Bayh know that if it could happen in MA it could definitely happen in Indiana and Virginia and Nebraska and Louisiana and Arkansas and even in Illinois and California.  More than 8 democrat Senators will want to vote against the bill.   I'm not saying it's true, that they would lose their jobs if they did vote for it, but that's how the Hill cowards will be thinking.  I don't imagine either of the Virginia Senators would vote for reconciliation.  They won't be able to get even 51 votes.  

    Lawrence O'Donnell said last night that it won't happen because there are too many procedural issues along the way that require 60 votes.  He said reconciliation will not be possible.  

    Parent

    Leaving aside the fact that O'Donnell is wrong (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:53:35 PM EST
    I think if there's no reconciliation then this whole project is dead. The House will not and should not eat the Senate bill.

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:57:46 PM EST
    It's DOA.  But they will have to come up with something so that it doesn't appear they've wasted an entire year, ignoring unemployment and the economy for a HCR bill that failed.  

    Parent
    If they were not wholly owned by the insurance (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:05:50 PM EST
    companies the could come back and just pass the insurance regulations. Insurance companies will whine about it with no mandates included, and not follow them, and they won't be enforced...but they are the lowest common denominator that everyone agrees on.

    Of course without the rest of the bill to use as cover, it will turn out no one supports these, certainly not Lieberman and Snowe. Never mind.

    Parent

    Might the President be signalling (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    he wishes the whole HCR mess would just go away already?  No longer saying must have HCR bill on his desk by such and such a date.

    Parent
    Could be that he's saying that, or (none / 0) (#121)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 08:58:23 PM EST
    He's just covering his butt because he knows that it's not going to happen.

    Parent
    Clyburn suggesting reconciliation....? (none / 0) (#68)
    by magster on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:51:04 PM EST
    quotes in this Kos diary.

    Parent
    as in andgarden's comment # 15 (none / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    BTD and I disagree about reconciliation (none / 0) (#30)
    by Buckeye on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:35:20 PM EST
    regarding HCR.  I still think if a 2,500+ page bill went through the Senate on recon, Republicans will use Senate rules to require super-majority votes on any parts of the bill weighted toward policy and not the budget and it would come out looking like swiss cheese - which may be worse than the current senate bill.

    But we will see - that appears to be the strategy they are going to use.  The current Senate bill will not pass the house by itself yet the Obama-Reid-Pelosi complex have shown no interest in backing off healthcare reform.

    So...the parallel path (house pass Senate, separate recon to fix) is probably what is going to happen.

    Parent

    Everyone in the House is running, NOW (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    They will be very leery about passing anything, with their elections coming up in less than 10 months.  

    Parent