The biggest problem with the healthcare reform

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You may want to refresh your memory as to why there was no conference committee (it had nothing to do with Pelosi). Republican Senators were placing holds on conference committee appointments making it impossible for the committee to ever form. Weren't you saying something about "naked partisanship" earlier?

Not impossible, just difficult. But that's again a distraction ... so they hold "informal" conference committees instead. They still held them in secret, and Pelosi still bears the responsibility of shoehorning her members into place. She didn't, and it's not the Senate's fault.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So you say, again without any evidence.

Patience, grasshopper.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Here's another link proposing what I described for health care, by the way:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...eeks-on-Reform

Wow, that is one hilarious read.

"But that effort fizzled when support for it didn’t materialize, insiders said."

Gee, wonder why. Must be those crazy stupid senators more afraid of the media than the "zero" evidence that the electorate hates this bill!

And this:

The Senate is not only a broken institution, it's threatening to break the whole legislative system by completely poisoning the relationship between the two chambers.

Ha! I remember when the Senate had constantly stymied Bush bills and/or nominees, and it was lauded by these same people. The filibuster was so sacrosanct we had Robert Byrd emerge with his "Gang of 14" declaring that they had "saved the Republic"! And now it's a broken institution? Give me a break.

And then this gem:

Democratic Senators need to hear from their constituents that we expect at least as much out of them as we do our representatives in the House. That means they do the job that we elected them to do. We don't have 100 kings.

Apparently it hasn't occurred to this genius that these Senators have heard from their constituents. And they're saying: "Stop this bill!"

Good stuff, Cali. I really should read Kos more, and you really should read it less.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Not impossible, just difficult. But that's again a distraction ... so they hold "informal" conference committees instead. They still held them in secret, and Pelosi still bears the responsibility of shoehorning her members into place. She didn't, and it's not the Senate's fault.

It isn't my distraction, it is yours. You made the argument about conference committees, not me. Pointing out that your distraction isn't an accurate distraction is, granted, yet a further distraction, but at least it is a clarifying one instead of a make-believe one.

Wow, that is one hilarious read.

"But that effort fizzled when support for it didn’t materialize, insiders said."

Gee, wonder why. Must be those crazy stupid senators more afraid of the media than the "zero" evidence that the electorate hates this bill!

And this:



Ha! I remember when the Senate had constantly stymied Bush bills and/or nominees, and it was lauded by these same people. The filibuster was so sacrosanct we had Robert Byrd emerge with his "Gang of 14" declaring that they had "saved the Republic"! And now it's a broken institution? Give me a break.

And then this gem:



Apparently it hasn't occurred to this genius that these Senators have heard from their constituents. And they're saying: "Stop this bill!"

Good stuff, Cali. I really should read Kos more, and you really should read it less.

The point most certainly isn't to endorse whatever opinion the author has (most posters on Kos are reactionary), but to point you to the development cited in the post re the reconciliation process I informed you about (which is what I was directing your attention to when I gave you the link).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't my distraction, it is yours. You made the argument about conference committees, not me. Pointing out that your distraction isn't an accurate distraction is, granted, yet a further distraction, but at least it is a clarifying one instead of a make-believe one.

All I was saying was that there is a way to work out the differences, whether it's a "real" conference or a make-believe one. You're trying to blame your fellow House Democrat weenies' problems on the Senate. What I'm telling you is the blame lies squarely at Pelosi's feet.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The point most certainly isn't to endorse whatever opinion the author has (most posters on Kos are reactionary), but to point you to the development cited in the post re the reconciliation process I informed you about (which is what I was directing your attention to when I gave you the link).

Yes, I realized that. I just decided to have a little fun on the side.

Reading E. J. Dionne's explanation just makes me think, "Man, these guys are panicking." Certainly doesn't exude confidence.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

All I was saying was that there is a way to work out the differences, whether it's a "real" conference or a make-believe one. You're trying to blame your fellow House Democrat weenies' problems on the Senate. What I'm telling you is the blame lies squarely at Pelosi's feet.

I get the sense we are talking about different types of blame here. It sounds like you want to say she is to blame for health care being totally dead. It isn't totally dead, so there isn't any point in assigning blame for that right now. I am talking about blame for unnecessary panicking, and on that count, it's an incredible stretch to try to pin this on Pelosi. She didn't create the filibuster. She didn't invoke the filibuster. She didn't run an awful campaign in Massachusetts. She didn't do everything in her power to stop any health care progress, as Republicans did. Republicans have played the role of obstructionist, and they have played it well (notwithstanding their rank hypocrisy in the process- you never did respond to the citations of Frist complaining about Dem use of the filibuster on bills). Pelosi deserves an awful lot of credit- she has helped push the process this far. Now with just a few more pushes, it will be in the books. Thank heavens for reconciliation.

Yes, I realized that. I just decided to have a little fun on the side.

Reading E. J. Dionne's explanation just makes me think, "Man, these guys are panicking." Certainly doesn't exude confidence.

Some are. Now the leaders need to snap them out of it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I get the sense we are talking about different types of blame here. It sounds like you want to say she is to blame for health care being totally dead. It isn't totally dead, so there isn't any point in assigning blame for that right now. I am talking about blame for unnecessary panicking, and on that count, it's an incredible stretch to try to pin this on Pelosi. She didn't create the filibuster. She didn't invoke the filibuster. She didn't run an awful campaign in Massachusetts. She didn't do everything in her power to stop any health care progress, as Republicans did. Republicans have played the role of obstructionist, and they have played it well (notwithstanding their rank hypocrisy in the process- you never did respond to the citations of Frist complaining about Dem use of the filibuster on bills). Pelosi deserves an awful lot of credit- she has helped push the process this far. Now with just a few more pushes, it will be in the books. Thank heavens for reconciliation.

Pelosi is a thug, and yes, she gets credit for being a good one. I only disagree with the idea that suddenly the Senate is to blame for her inability to round up enough House votes.

To respond to your earlier requests, here are a few reasons--absent exit polling--that I think the Massachusettes election revolved around more than just local politics:

- Brown repeatedly and loudly campaigned on being the 41st vote to kill health care. It was the single most memorable thing about his campaign, except perhaps his truck. He repeatedly mocked the "back room" deals that were then on-going.
- Brown specifically campaigned against Obama's approach to terrorism, particularly giving them lawyers and Miranda rights
- Brown specifically campaigned against Obama's approach to taxes
- Obama came and personally campaigned for Coakley, and he studiously avoided mentioning his health care bill
- Though Obama remains personally popular, a plurality of MA voters opposed his health care bill (PPP: 40% for, 48% against)
- The Democrats constantly referred to health care as Kennedy's life's work, and appealed to voters to elect Coakley to preserve the chance to "pass it for Ted". Kennedy's widow specifically made this clarion call.
- 56% of voters named health care as the most important issue, though Coakley won more of those voters, 53-46% (Rasmussen)
- 78% of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop health care (Rasmussen)

I think it's crystal clear that Obama's policies--particularly health care--played a significant role in what happened on Tuesday, and Dems ignore that at their peril (fine with me, BTW). Evan Bayh was subsequently quoted as saying, "If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up."

The reasons in VA and NJ are similar, though not as pronounced as MA:

- Obama spent a significant amount of time campaigning for both Democrats, far more than Coakley's one-day visit
- 40% of VA voters said their view of Obama factored into their choice, roughly split between support and opposition
- Both elections took place not long after weeks of media attention on anti-health-care town hall meetings
- During the campaigns, both Republican candidates continually linked their Democratic counterparts to Obama and to Congressional Democrats

Other evidence common to all three: independents, who were crucial to Obama's decisive victory, fled the Democrats in all three elections ... by a 2-1 margin in VA and NJ, and a 3-1 margin in MA. To me, that's an indicator that transcends local politics. In addition, it has become increasingly clear that Obama is unable to transfer his personal popularity to other candidates. He's becoming the Sports Illustrated kiss-of-death of national politics.

You will almost surely interpret this data differently than me, and that's fine. But to say it doesn't exist ("zero evidence") is to put one's head in the sand. I read Robert Gibbs telling Chris Wallace today that in the MA election, "More people voted to express support for Obama than to oppose him." That's just delusional, finger-in-the-ears, "I can't hear you" sort of stuff. Of course, Obama gets that luxury because he has 3 years to go. House Democrats don't.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Pelosi is a thug, and yes, she gets credit for being a good one. I only disagree with the idea that suddenly the Senate is to blame for her inability to round up enough House votes.

To respond to your earlier requests, here are a few reasons--absent exit polling--that I think the Massachusettes election revolved around more than just local politics:

- Brown repeatedly and loudly campaigned on being the 41st vote to kill health care. It was the single most memorable thing about his campaign, except perhaps his truck. He repeatedly mocked the "back room" deals that were then on-going.
- Brown specifically campaigned against Obama's approach to terrorism, particularly giving them lawyers and Miranda rights
- Brown specifically campaigned against Obama's approach to taxes
- Obama came and personally campaigned for Coakley, and he studiously avoided mentioning his health care bill
- Though Obama remains personally popular, a plurality of MA voters opposed his health care bill (PPP: 40% for, 48% against)
- The Democrats constantly referred to health care as Kennedy's life's work, and appealed to voters to elect Coakley to preserve the chance to "pass it for Ted". Kennedy's widow specifically made this clarion call.
- 56% of voters named health care as the most important issue, though Coakley won more of those voters, 53-46% (Rasmussen)
- 78% of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop health care (Rasmussen)

I think it's crystal clear that Obama's policies--particularly health care--played a significant role in what happened on Tuesday, and Dems ignore that at their peril (fine with me, BTW). Evan Bayh was subsequently quoted as saying, "If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up."

The reasons in VA and NJ are similar, though not as pronounced as MA:

- Obama spent a significant amount of time campaigning for both Democrats, far more than Coakley's one-day visit
- 40% of VA voters said their view of Obama factored into their choice, roughly split between support and opposition
- Both elections took place not long after weeks of media attention on anti-health-care town hall meetings
- During the campaigns, both Republican candidates continually linked their Democratic counterparts to Obama and to Congressional Democrats

Other evidence common to all three: independents, who were crucial to Obama's decisive victory, fled the Democrats in all three elections ... by a 2-1 margin in VA and NJ, and a 3-1 margin in MA. To me, that's an indicator that transcends local politics. In addition, it has become increasingly clear that Obama is unable to transfer his personal popularity to other candidates. He's becoming the Sports Illustrated kiss-of-death of national politics.

You will almost surely interpret this data differently than me, and that's fine. But to say it doesn't exist ("zero evidence") is to put one's head in the sand. I read Robert Gibbs telling Chris Wallace today that in the MA election, "More people voted to express support for Obama than to oppose him." That's just delusional, finger-in-the-ears, "I can't hear you" sort of stuff. Of course, Obama gets that luxury because he has 3 years to go. House Democrats don't.

"Zero evidence" is obviously hyperbole. That said, if this is the evidence you were looking at in forming your opinions, I can only conclude you ignored all other available evidence.

As even the evidence you cited suggests, those who cared most about health care voted against Brown and for Coakley. Given that this is obviously the biggest domestic issue on people's radar today, that isn't a small point- particularly if you are trying to make the case that the election was a referendum on Democrats and health care. If it were a referendum on health care as you argue, the people who most care about it voted and spoke- a majority support health care. How does that support your claim?

Most of the rest of your evidence is that Scott Brown campaigned for or against certain things which are associated with the Democratic party. Sure, he did. Am I to believe, then, that most voters thought he would be in favor of the Democratic party platform one month before the election? Because a month before the election, he was down 30 points in the polls. Did people's opinions change to the tune of 35 points in one month on fairly significant issues, even though there was almost no change or news regarding any of those issues at all in that month period? If people didn't like those positions at all, wouldn't they automatically default to supporting the Republican as opposed to the Democrat one month before the election? Even if you know absolutely nothing about either candidate, if the issues you cited were highly important to people, why start with the presumption that you favor the Democrat? Or are you suggesting that his arguments were so persuasive a full 35% of voters changed their mind on those issues in a one month span?

We can at least agree that the data points in Virginia and New Jersey are even less useful in finding a conclusion that voters were rejecting Obama or the Democratic party. Where we disagree is on your statement that "Obama spent a significant amount of time campaigning for both Democrats, far more than Coakley's one-day visit." For Deeds, Obama spent two days campaigning for the candidate- once in August, once in October. I suppose that is a 100% increase over his time with Coakley, but to call 2 days "significant" seems like a huge stretch. As for Corzine, I have found news of 3 visits by Obama over a five month span (it isn't as if Obama was thrilled with Corzine either, as the WH approached the NJ Senate President and asked him to run instead of Corzine in July of 2009).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As even the evidence you cited suggests, those who cared most about health care voted against Brown and for Coakley. Given that this is obviously the biggest domestic issue on people's radar today, that isn't a small point- particularly if you are trying to make the case that the election was a referendum on Democrats and health care. If it were a referendum on health care as you argue, the people who most care about it voted and spoke- a majority support health care. How does that support your claim?
.

This argument point does not support what you wish.

A person opposing Obama on health care may support another issue, i.e., economic issues, as a higher priority. This may be why they oppose Obama, he's picking a horrible time to spend more money on a less important issue. OTOH, the liberals who ignore government expenditure issues think it's a hot button item where they don't care about spending other people's money.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This argument point does not support what you wish.

A person opposing Obama on health care may support another issue, i.e., economic issues, as a higher priority. This may be why they oppose Obama, he's picking a horrible time to spend more money on a less important issue. OTOH, the liberals who ignore government expenditure issues think it's a hot button item where they don't care about spending other people's money.

Sure, they COULD, but I haven't seen anything remotely persuasive that they did. Have you?

[Tex]

Here's what Chris Matthews (that rabid right-winger) thinks of reconciliation. The video is priceless.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ering-netroots

If the R's can find a decent candidate for the 8th district, there's no way Grayson survives 2010.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Here's what Chris Matthews (that rabid right-winger) thinks of reconciliation. The video is priceless.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ering-netroots

If the R's can find a decent candidate for the 8th district, there's no way Grayson survives 2010.

Grayson, what a douche, LOL. He's the Michelle Malkin of the left. And that is not a compliment.