Health Care: Republicans Oppose Their Own Idea

Just shows how impossible it is for Obama to deal with these folks. Health care is dead as long as Republicans are involved, and that won’t be changing anytime soon.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Thanks for highlighting this, KT. Too few in the media do.
.
It isn’t just Hatch who’s flip-flopped on this, though. Here’s Charles Grassley speaking to Fox News in June 2009:
.
But when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance. Because everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren’t insured, there’s no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it….I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.
.
And then here’s Charles Grassley in September 2009:
.
HEMMER: Now as I understand it, you want stronger language preventing federal funds from going to abortion. You want stronger language to make sure illegal immigrants are not covered. If you got those two big points, would you go for it?
.
GRASSLEY: No, there are other points as well, but let me mention other points that you didn’t mention. And one would be the individual mandate, which for the first time would have a federal penalty against people who don’t have health insurance. I could do that through re-insurance and risk pools, to make sure we get more people insured in a voluntary way and I’m very reluctant to go along with an individual mandate.
.
This is what has made the “bipartisan” approach so impossible. Republicans keep changing their opinions, refusing to take “yes” for an answer.
.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/18/grassley-mandate/

Deficit Panel: Republicans Oppose Their Own Idea
.
Even two Republicans who have sponsored legislation with Democrats for a bipartisan budget commission — Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, and Representative Frank R. Wolf of Virginia — were quick to oppose a presidential commission.

(I)n his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.
.
Any current Senate Dems on record from 1993 declaring just how bad the Republican plan was?

We could do this all day, sadly.
.
Here’s Newt Gingrich promoting cap-and-trade as a “very, very good” idea in 2007:
.
“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”
.
And here’s Newt Gingrich denouncing cap-and-trade in 2009:
.
“If enacted, this energy tax will increase the electricity bill of every American, increase the cost to drive a car, and increase the cost of doing business. This will punish every retired American, every rural American, and every person who drives to work, uses heating oil, or has electricity in their home.”
.
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200904240006

US politics = perpetual election campaign.

KILL THE BILL!!

And . . .?

That’s it! Eff it! America wants jobs!

KT:

Just curious. Has any Democrat ever changed thier stance on anything. Like say taxes on the middle class? Or transparency? Among other things in the past 6 months. You don’t even have to go back to Bill Clinton.

This is excellent work. A reporter doing research, digging into a politician’s historical record to find previous, contradictory statements and highlighting the hypocrisy of their current positions which serve only to score political points.
.
Kind of reminds me of….The Daily Show.

Just more evidence of how many in the GOP are changing their stripes to suit the political mood of the moment. More journos and commentators need to be pointing things like this out to give people context, rather than just having “analysts” go on about the story of the day.

Joanne Bamberger aka PunditMom
http://www.punditmom.com

You brought it up let’s see it. And please remember at has to be a complete 180 flip with a firm landing on a completely opposite position . No everything is on the table and open to discussion. This is not a flip.

The closet shot at Universal HC

“Even as the Watergate scandal was unfolding, Ted Kennedy brokered a compromise between the White House and Democrats. But pressure against the plan came from the left – particularly labor unions – who thought that with a Democrat sure to retake the White House in 1976, they could get a better deal on health care reform then. Ultimately, time ran out when Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.”
==
Hmm were these evil special interests? This was not opposed at the time the Insurance industry

Everything on the table is French for its going to happen. Even Obama can figure out that “tax the rich” runs out of tax revenues long before he runs out of spending

How many times does Lucy have to pull the football away until Charlie actually gets embarrassed enough to try another approach?

Thanks for the non response.

I appreciate the journalism, but am increasingly skeptical that any of it matters. We’ve been here too many times now. “Politician makes easily-discovered 180 based on politics instead of principles”? Man bites dog.

Err. Dog bites man.

It was a response. It was just not the one you wanted. You put specific parameters around one issue and then no not a flip. But managed to ignore the other items.

So maybe it was really you with the non-response. Just a knee-jerk justification

Add lobbyists and C-Span to the list. Maybe you can formulate parameters so he did not flip, as least in your mind..

Here’s a novel idea: why don’t we have health care AND jobs?

Nice try, freeinpa,

But as far as anything as important as health care reform, please give one example where a large majority of Democrats changed a position of anything of substance and not just semanitics.

Oh yes, the Obama has changed its position a number of times, particularly when it comes to terrorist suspects, but most of those changes have been in the direction of the previous Republican administration. However, I doubt you would have any complaints about that.

KT: I don’t know where you find the strength to keep going. I gave up on both Republicans and Democrats doing anything useful on health care. As a whole Congress is chockful of liars and scam artists and the White House has shown itself to be adept at passing the buck – to Congress!!! As for the MSM: very few journalists do the kind of probing necessary to make individual politicians explain there volte face. It is so much easier to be a steno. Thanks for your efforts.

Hey, let’s not let hypocrisy get in the way of wanting to govern.

An aside: When did NPR folks get the edict to NEVER say “National Public Radio”?

Man and dog get gay civil unioned?

Probably around the same time Kentucky Fried Chicken changed its name to KFC.
.
It’s a general trend, except for football announcers, who somehow refuse to say “NFL” and instead spell it out as “the National Football League.” Surprised you haven’t adopted that in your handle, man.

So, they were for the current healthcare legislation before they were against it…

Nah. Nothing that simple ever plays well in the media. Not like the Dems could beat the Repubs about the head with some phrase like that.

The Political Party Cycle:
.
1) Your party’s voted out of power
2) Your party governs for one year, produces next to nothing
3) Your party loses more seats, other party gains seats
5) Other party says “vote for me, I’m not the other guy”
6) Other party gains seats
7) Other party gets voted back into power
8) See #1
9) See #2

So, they were for criminal prosecution of terrorism suspects before they were against it…

first read 4.1. Then track Obama. “His bill would not (fill in favorite lie)”, then “I don’t have a bill. Premiums will fall, and let’s not forget him attacking McCain during the campaign over taxing HC benefits.

The list could go on.

Variation:

So, they were against the allocation of government stimulus funds before they were for them…

I am a Jaguars ticket holder, but it actually stands for North Florida

So, they were for using reconciliation to pass legislation before they were against it…

Ah, gotcha. Must be nice watching Pocket Hercules.

So, they were for a deficit reduction commission before they were against it…

Yep. Mojo’s apparently as good a guy as he is a running back too.

“novel idea”!

Haven’t you heard that sPalin her band of a-winkin’ exotic chaibaggers hate them high-falutin’ intellekchual “ideas”?

Seems like it, yeah. Love his attitude.

Yep.

Then we excoriate the third world for ‘bad governance’ that ‘justifies’ our plunder of their resources.
Oh, and we tell ourselves that our bad governance is still the best (?) on earth.
And we believe it – in fact, we know it.
[Hey, consider this:FOX News is the most popular and trusted news source in the free world, isn't it? And who among you has any quarrel when we say that the democracy of the USA - the land of 'rule of law' and a beacon of freedom, liberty and human rights - does not torture?]

KT:
.
Individual Republicans may be rank hypocrites when it comes to the individual mandate, but they have the good company of the President of the United States, don’t they?
.
Here’s a CNN interview from February, 2008 ( link to Obama CNN interview ):

OBAMA:
.
Let’s break down what she [Hillary Clinton] really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.
.
Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

In case anybody wants to dispute the accuracy of that quote, here’s a video of Obama making the case against mandates: link to Obama making the case against individual mandates.
.
The left has always been against mandating coverage purchases from a free, un-price controlled market, because a bubble in health insurance prices (like the ones we’re seeing now, with 39% premium hikes) means that (un-subsidized) middle class folks will not only be forced to go without health care, but they will be penalized by the state for doing so. That’s not a liberal solution, that’s some sort of draconian scheme dreamed up by Third Way think-tanks. There are huge numbers of Americans who just don’t think that’s right to do to their friends and neighbors, one of whom used to be Barack Obama.
.
How do you think the Administration has managed to avoid such an obvious, glaringly broken promise and 180 degree flip-flop, KT?
.
It’s not like we’re talking about Hatch, who can say “that was 15 years ago, and a completely different plan,” this is Obama only two years ago making the left’s case before he got to the White House.
.
How is the Administration able to manage the message on this one so well?

A few days ago, Rachael Maddow had an interesting laundry list of flip-flops by GOP senators.

Now they support it, now they don’t. There was Mitch McConnell effectively threatening a simple majority vote against the minority party’s threats of a filibuster in Bush’s senate while now he seems to proclaims that such as route in Obama’s senate is alien to the very foundation of our republic.

[Good point: The duplicitous senators are breaking no laws .. nor can they be said to be unfaithful to our constitution.]

Yes it is hard to get around it.
.
Single payer is the answer.

gunny: Didja ever – just once – wish that Charlie Brown would kick Lucy in the @ss? Just to even things up a bit?

You know, free, I’m looking for hypocritical Dems that were against the plan before they were for it. I’m certain that they exist (like the above Rs that were for it before against it).
.
I honestly don’t know what you’re saying.

Did the Democrats learn NOTHING from Massachusetts? The majority of Americans were opposed to this horribly written bill and with GOOD reason. We never had the opportunity to examine, issue by issue, the content of this bill. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, in all of their infinite wisdom, decided the American public did not need to know and as a consequence, we get this mangled piece of legislation they were prepared to shove down our throats! Chicanery, back room dealing, exemptions (including themselves)…the whole package. If this is the best Democrats can do, then shame, shame on them. The Tea Party lurks in the background and will soon set them straight.

My only point is, for all the drama and bile spewing currently from Demos about Repubs being tools of the insurance industry, there would be HC coverage for all if the Demos in the 70s if they were not than and certainly now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the unions.

They stalled the bill rather than getting it passed and ended up with nothing. We would be celebrating(?) over 35 years of national health care if it weren’t for the left. Now the process is out of control and they want to lay all of the blame on Repubs.

You guys have never lurked in the background, which is part of the reason why what you do has worked as well as it has.

They blame it on communication and not the message itself.

“. The majority of Americans were opposed to this horribly written bill ..”

Did a “majority of Americans” vote in Mass.?

And were they voting on “this horribly written bill”?

Why, yes, Ds have been known to change their stance fairly often. Then again, when Ds do change their stance, the Rs immediately begin a smear campaign based on accusations of weakness, flip-flopping, and cowardice.

Obama acknowledges he has changed his mind on this issue. I asked him about it directly last July:
.

But some things have changed. I mean, for instance you were very much against an individual mandate. Could you describe how your thinking has evolved on this issue as you’ve sort of gotten — and also at the time you defined success as universal coverage by the end of your first term.
.

I feel pretty good that I’ve been pretty consistent on this. The individual mandate is probably the one area where I basically changed my mind. The more deeply I got into the issue, the more I felt that the dangers of adverse selection justified us creating a system that shares responsibility, as long as we were actually making health insurance affordable and there was a hardship waiver for those who, even with generous subsidies, couldn’t afford it. And that remains my position.

freeinpa,

In 8.5 I was responding to your “6 months”, you stated you don’t have to go back as far as Clinton, yet you pull up something which happened 35 years ago. Maybe I should reach back as far as the Civil War, to show that Republicans once supported human rights for African Americans, or as recently as 1976 when the Republican party supported Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.

The orginal blog was about current events, not ancient history.

KT:
.
Thanks so very much for this response, Obama’s admission is very, very interesting.

The more deeply I got into the issue…

He’s basically saying that he didn’t know what he was talking about during the campaign, and that the passion he displayed for his previous position was a result of only having shallowly grasped the issue.
.
Just so I’m clear, is your answer to

How is the Administration able to manage the message on this one so well?

that this sort of blase “I changed my mind, let’s move on” somehow worked like a charm to insulate him from charges of dishonesty, hypocrisy or (in the best case scenario) thin understanding of policy?
.
If so, I’m very curious as to analysis of how and why that sort of strategy has worked for the Administration so far.

The point is, all professional Republicans are “rank hypocrites” (and liars) when it comes to just about everything. Why do you always insist upon overlooking the real miscreants in this farce so you can place blame on Democrats? What’s up with that?

We never had the opportunity to examine, issue by issue, the content of this bill.
.
Nah. You had plenty of time, and the bill had plenty of exposure. There’s a lot to like and not like about the bill, but unless you’re incredibly lazy, there’s been more than enough time and opportunity.
.
The Tea Party lurks in the background and will soon set them straight.
.
Kinda like the boogeyman hiding under my kids’ beds’, right?

The vote in Massachusetts was a barometer, reflecting the sentiments of the majority of Americans all over this country. Scott Brown used this deeply flawed health care bill as a catapult to getting elected. It worked quite well, I would say.

“Scott Brown used this deeply flawed health care bill as a catapult to getting elected. It worked quite well, I would say.”
.
Yes, Republican lying and demagoguery have always been quite effective. You must be so proud to have helped make the country a little dumber and more afraid.

grapecrush, you must have had access the rest of us were denied. Why was it pulled from c-span? I could not get information from ANY source while this bill was being formulated. What happened to the transparency we were promised ? All bogus and incredibly stupid. No wonder the American people are getting a bellyful of “career ” politicians feeding at the public trough! And yes, grapecrush, you might call us boogeymen if you must, but be advised that we DO exist and we intend on holding these politicians accountable for their actions. The upcoming elections will prove me right, I can assure you.

shepherdwong:
.
In this case, the case of the year of the Democratic majority, the miscreants haven’t been the minority party Republicans, no matter how dreadful they are or have been.
.
There is a little bloc of Democrats who are f*cking things up for all of us, shepherdwong, and that little bloc are going to continue right down that path of failure until they get to be in the minority party again, so they can return to blissfully compromising with Republicans. That bloc is in bed with the leadership of the party, and they think that the best way to maintain strong campaign funding is to publicly blame you for their failures and misdeeds, shepherdwong.
.
I don’t blame all Democrats –do you think I’m referring to Feingold or Wyden or Frank or Massa or Maloney or the majority of real Democrats who’ve had to watch as their political capital was pissed away by this bloc?
.
Precisely because I’m trying to avoid blame being placed on “Democrats” do I try to distinguish between the party as a whole (and its liberal base) and the “real miscreants.”
.
Bernie Sanders is in a sh*t position, shepherdwong. He’s got to go out on television and defend voting for the Senate bill, even though the bill he’s been railroaded into supporting is a rejection of everything he stands for and knows about how this system works. Pols like John Tester and Ron Wyden are in even a worse position. They and all the others that were just screwed by that little bloc of Lincoln, Lieberman, Baucus, Reid, Bayh, Nelson (both of them), Rahm and –yes, it must be admitted– Obama (the New Democrats) can’t be lumped into the same “Democrats” as the real miscreants, or it’s very unlikely that we’re going to get out of this boat they’re sinking for us.
.
The rightists are already crowing about the public’s “rejection of Obama’s extreme left-wing agenda,” and Bayh’s little bloc are only too happy to join that chorus.
.
What else can you think of to separate ourselves from these frauds and saboteurs, shepherdwong, other than to make it clear that, yes, there is indeed a “divided Democrats” story, and that the ones doing the dividing are the members of that little bloc, shepherdwong?
.
I’m not doing this compulsively, dude, I just don’t think that we’re going to get anywhere this year blaming the minority party instead of the bloc of Democrats that kept threatening to filibuster with them for almost a year (so that they could pass ineffective and unpopular legislation).
.
What’s your strategy? Just keep calling the Republicans on the crazee while the President makes a huge point of validating their rhetoric (and tut-tutting their tactics)?

ohiolib:

And when the Rs change their stance the Ds never run a smear campaign? Like the one going on now over The Deficit Commmssion? Or my guess is you see it as truth speaking only Rs smear. Ok I got it.

==
fhmadvocat

In the 4.1 post I was demonstrating how the same special interests that stopped the Demos from getting HC reform then are still stopping it today for self-interest reason yet today. I then pointed out the flops Obama has made. The mistake was I forgot the natural response from the left is attack the messenger. But feel free to now further denigrate my response without any basis for knowing what it really meant. Nor address the flops Obama now makes.

kbang,
.
That WOULD stop that practice, wouldn’t it?
.
Nothing like a little pain to make you reconsider.

A typical liberal response, shepardwrong, when confronted with fact, resort to name calling. By dumber, are you referring to yourself?

SZ:

“In this case, the case of the year of the Democratic majority, the miscreants haven’t been the minority party Republicans, no matter how dreadful they are or have been.”

You are correct in your assessment. Many here spend the time and energy faulting Rs (who are not entirely blameless) for everything. An easy thoughtless response but quick and convenient. When you pull out the wayward Dems, whether moderates or independents there is no political will or desire to pass much of what you desire. The support is just not there among the constituency of those elected officials.

“I just don’t think that we’re going to get anywhere this year blaming the minority party instead of the bloc of Democrats that kept threatening to filibuster with them for almost a year (so that they could pass ineffective and unpopular legislation).”
.
I agree with you allmost 100%, but I can not ignore the 100% lack of honesty, and lack of for the Public good attitude of the Rep Party.
.
I think we are getting caught up in Party Identity and not policy, unfortunatly the Rep. are acting like a block, that leaves us to fighting a few people we see as the true enemy to progress, when in fact it is the whole Rep Party and a few Democrats. Say 58 Democratic Senators.

freeinpa:
.
If the Evan Bayhs of the party didn’t have a lock on the Democratic leadership, we would have had liberal legislation, and even if it failed –as the current legislation seems to be failing– it wouldn’t have forced liberal Democrats into defending the (relatively) indefensible.
.
No Republicans voted for this. That’s working out pretty well for them.
.
People like Russ Feingold (from read-leaning Wisconsin) aren’t necessarily blessed with the kind of skill that lets Obama get away with saying “I basically changed my mind” about health care.
.
Unless we name the culprits who gave us “the Senate bill or nothing,” liberals and the Democrats as a whole are going to suffer for the failings of the New Democrat bloc and leadership.

Sorry, from “from red-leaning Wisconsin”

earljr1: ” .. Massachusetts was a barometer, reflecting the sentiments of the majority of Americans all over this country. ..”
So, does each election serve as a barometer that reflects the sentiments of the majority of Americans – or does that honour go (after the fact) only to the ones won by the rightist militants and their exotic Chai-baggers?

What’s your point? it’s called playing politics and both parties do it. The difference is that R try to make it character assassination-he’s a coward/flip-flopper/unpatriotic-while most Ds attack it as hypocrisy or policy of convenience. Bit of a difference there.

I can not ignore the 100% lack of honesty, and lack of for the Public good attitude of the Rep Party.
.
Don’t. Don’t ignore it. I’m not saying that it isn’t important to yell the fact of the Republicans voting as a bloc from the rooftops. Pew says that fewer than a third of Americans are even aware that zero Republicans voted for the stimulus or HCR. People don’t understand why the Democrats can’t (or wont’) do anything about their problems.
.
Just don’t ignore the bloc of Democrats –including those in this Administration– who dithered and delayed, watered down and larded up, and ultimately made themselves and the Republican minority into a ruling majority for the past half-a-year. Even now they’re still trying to work the Baucus strategy, aren’t they? Even now they’re still more concerned about (publicly) treating the Republicans like good-faith partners in negotiations. Even now they’re still saying “the Senate way or the highway,” because they’re still trying to acquire Republican votes –both Congressional and electoral.
.
Of course I blame Chuck Grassley for “pulling the plug on grandma”. Of course I blame the Republicans for “death panels”. Of course I blame Republicans for denouncing the “far left agenda,” and “socialism” and all of the other dishonest, fact-free propaganda aimed at convincing Americans of things that aren’t true. Of course I blame Congressional Republicans for cynically voting as a bloc, when they’ve been cynical or stupid, and not principled in their opposition (almost always, given the past eight years).
.
But that’s not what held up good government. The little bloc that got Ben Nelson’s Nebraska free Medicaid forever did, and they need to pay for it, or all Democrats will.

ohiolib:

You say tomato…. There is not a lick worth of difference in what either party does. The only difference is that the left ALWAYS finds some justification to feel morally superior.

You can’t even be honest with yourself.

“What’s your strategy? Just keep calling the Republicans on the crazee while the President makes a huge point of validating their rhetoric (and tut-tutting their tactics)?”
.
My “strategy” is simple, call out bullsh*t when I see it and vote for the lesser of evils.
.
I ask you this: could Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson even exist without movement conservatism? Would Goldman Sachs own our fiscal policy, would Merk own our health care policy, would Ratheon own our war policy, etc., etc., if not for Ronald Reagan and all of the professional corporatist liars that came with him? Maybe but it became a sure thing along with all of the public indoctrination in teh stupid and the disastrous policies “conservatism” is dedicated to, with the political domination of movement “conservatives” and the embargo of liberalism from the Beltway.
.
So, by all means, call out “conservative” Democrats, especially when they act like Republicans. On a thread about Republican hypocrisy, perhaps you could try to stick with the point. They are the root of this evil.

SZ:

I agree in large part with what you say. The only trouble I am having is if the liberal side is so robust, why are they not in the leadership roles?

I think Evan Bayh fairly represents his state. The midwest is largely dare I say conservative, maybe orthodox is a better term, in its thinking without large extreme views in any direction. I can’t say I have much reaction to Bayh himself but I think it is fair to say he reflects his constituency. I am not sure all 99 of the other Senators can say that.

” .. What happened to the transparency we were promised ? .. “

Didn’t you hear the latest – that the rightist militant flipfloppers in the Senate are now not warm to that idea of ‘transparency’?

The rightists bemoaned the televised tete-a-tete of the GOP lawmakers with the president recently – in which they were caught flatfooted by one democrat and were seen as merely obstructionist on the issues. Even their rightist FOX News network cut off the live transmission in a huff!

The rightist militants are not keen on the presence of the media during the upcoming meet on health care that includes selected democrats and republican lawmakers on health care. Yet they fervently courted the media during their summer’s townhall escapades.

And even sPalin and her exotic Chaibags are adamant that they don’t want cameras and media around (to zoom in on her crib notes) when potential 2012 GOP presidential contenders have a get-together soon.

cfukara, the exit polls in Massachusetts clearly defined the reason Scott Brown was elected. Concern over this flawed health care bill was most definitely a contributing factor. Face facts and quit trying to finger point. We are NOT rightest militants, (your definition) we are concerned Americans who are worried about the direction of our country.

Your perception of that tete-a-tete is quite different than mine. I heard a good exchange with many pertinent questions being asked and mostly non answers from the President. His vagueness on the issues came as no surprise. I don’t think he has a clue on how to come up with a workable plan and neither does his party. A case in point, tort reform! That is one question he refused to answer….I wonder why? And why was it necessary to cut those outrageous back room deals? More humming and hawing on this one. Give me a break! No wonder Americans are seriously questioning his (leadership??).

I could not get information from ANY source while this bill was being formulated.
.
Health care reform has be debated for the better part of a year, earl, written about extensively, with details of the legislation posted every step of the way. If you don’t have information, it’s because you’ve been childishly shutting your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, “la-la-la-la, I can’t hear you!”.
.
I heard a good exchange with many pertinent questions being asked and mostly non answers from the President.
.
I guess things sound a lot different with your head lodged that far up…
.
Try the transcript, since your hearing seems a bit off:
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_442423.html
.
but be advised that we DO exist
.
Teabaggyman? There’s not as many of you as you like to think, and you get far more attention than you deserve.

What a patently absurd answer. Your elitist snobbery is all too apparent and your dismissive attitude is much like the “oh, he just some guy who drives a truck” statement Obama made..The President shows an inability to lead and you guys respond with “blame it on right wing militants”! What a sad, angry joke you are and I don’t blame you for being afraid of the Tea Bag Movement. It is you and your ilk that are going to be swept aside…good riddance, I would say.

Karen, Have you ever asked a Repbulican Senator what he/she or the party would be willing to cede to the Democrats or President Obama in exchange for ‘starting over”?

Not once have I heard what a Republican would be willing to give up; only how far the Dems have to go to get votes that just aren’t there.

And BTW are Sens. Snowe and Collins in witness protection to avoid being questioned about Athem-Blue Cross’ 39% rate hike?

shepherdwong:

My “strategy” is simple, call out bullsh*t when I see it and vote for the lesser of evils.

That might make you feel good (or bad, or stoic), but I don’t think that “strategy” works in practice, since it’s been the default for liberals during the last two decades, and we haven’t managed to get anywhere with it. In fact, this predictable default has been used against us more times than we’d like to remember, so that we’re indefinitely held hostage to evil, albeit different evil –not necessarily less.
.
The conservatives are like a heart attack; the centrists are like cancer. Both will kill our Republic, just in different ways, and over different periods. Clinton and Summers joined with the GOP to repeal Glass-Steagall, remember?

could Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson even exist without movement conservatism? Would Goldman Sachs own our fiscal policy, would Merk own our health care policy, would Ratheon own our war policy, etc., etc., if not for Ronald Reagan and all of the professional corporatist liars that came with him?

That’s a great question, seriously.
.
I think that the answer is “no,” that they would exist without movement conservatism. They are their own thing. Their politics are triangulation, sure, but their ideology is sincere. Tony Blair’s New Labour did pretty decently in Britain with their more left-leangin version of it, and they strongly believe in their globalization fetish, so, no, I think that they’d be just as happy still punching hippies, even if the Tea Party melted away, and the Republicans were consigned to perpetual minority.
.
If you look at what Joe Klein is writing in 1982, you get the impression that the cult of Reagan and the ascendancy of the movement conservative backlash don’t cause these f*ckers to come into being, but are an opportunity to be exploited. I could be mistaken about that, though.
.
I think they kicked the liberals when they were down, basically. I don’t think that the Third Way is merely a reaction phenomenon of the American right.

Maybe but it became a sure thing along with all of the public indoctrination in teh stupid and the disastrous policies “conservatism” is dedicated to, with the political domination of movement “conservatives” and the embargo of liberalism from the Beltway.

All of that –every last bit of that– came to be not simply because the conservatives gained power, but because the center, with their fetishization of “Reagan Democrats,” collaborated with the right to aggrandize and entrench.
.
If there were no center, and if liberals hadn’t had such a profound crisis of cultural and political confidence during the 1980′s for the center to take advantage of, then the word “liberal” would not have become the unspeakable taboo that it was forced into being. Make no mistake, the right did not embargo liberalism from mainstream discourse (and political power), the center did.
.
David Broder is many things –limited, obstinate, tragically wrong– but he’s not a rightist. The myths of the radical center and the “independent voter” were t creatures of the right until Nixon’s impeachment, at which point they became standards for the center to successfully bear. Perhaps the greatest myth of all for which the center is responsible is the myth of the terrible, all-powerful popular right –the right-wing nuts from which electable centrists must protect unelectable liberals in exchange for total control of the Democratic party.
.
That’s your “lesser of two evils,” shepherdwong.
.
We can talk about the particular strain of evil (and I use that word deliberately) that are the neo-conservatives, but then we’d have to ask ourselves this: Would Bush II have been able to invade Iraq without the center?
.
In other words, if you ask “could Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson even exist without movement conservatism?” you must also ask “could movement conservatism exist meaningfully and have corrupted the fabric of our country without Even Bayh and Ben Nelson (and their New Democrat bloc)?”

earl:
.
If what you are looking for is information about specific provisions of the various bills that are being discussed, I highly recommend this interactive site put together by the Kaiser Family Foundation.:
.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

Thanks so much for this helpful information, KT.

Thank you, Karen, I took a brief look and this is exactly the information I was looking for. I will go back now and study in detail.

“Their politics are triangulation, sure, but their ideology is sincere.”
.
Oh, come on Stuart. You mean their “fiscally conservative” ideology where they vote for unfunded wars and entitlement programs under Republicans and against cost-saving social programs like the public insurance option and any deficit spending under Democrats? Conservative ideology (dogma) is all: 1) marketing of corporatist policy-making for the brainwashed rubes and/or 2) psychological rationalization that lets’ them keep feeding at the trough while letting the other animals be slaughtered. Their default position is “conservative” and Republican. And that goes for the Kleins and Borders as well. In reality they’re about as non-partisan as the Blue Dogs are fiscally responsible. You think you understand these people but you don’t.

You don’t see a difference between attacking a person and attacking a policy? That explains a lot…

Seriously freeper.. You had to go as far back as 1970′s – Nixon’s era to find an example where Dem’s opposed HCR?

“I heard a good exchange with many pertinent questions being asked and mostly non answers from the President. His vagueness on the issues came as no surprise.”

earl, Are you serious????? Vagueness on what issue?

In any case, why can’t we have more televised Q&A’s where the president can be cornered and forced to provide “non-vague answers”?