They did exactly as I claimed. Democrats ignored and rebuffed Republican ideas and propositions from the onset (or winning of the election). And not just in the backroom, negotiating rooms, right out and in the open
[/quote]
So, over a year after Obama's election and months after ACA was drafted, Obama shut down some of McCain's whining. That does nothing to support your erroneous belief that the Democratic leadership told the Republicans to go away from the very beginning. It simply means that when the Republicans continued their obstructionist policies for over a year after the inauguration, Obama finally told them to pull up their big boy pants and stop whining.
If your little video had been shot in february 2009, you would have had a point. It was not and you do not.
Only after months of refusing to work with the Democrats.
No. the other amendments that came out of Dodd’s committee and the other portions of the ACA mentioned in the link provided by Fear Itself. I remembered “more than 150,” but there were 161.
I was using that as an example, a cite, in case you didn’t notice. A reflection of the vibe or esprit of the time.
Good thing that doorknob isn’t around anymore. He doesn’t speak for anyone I know or anything I believe.
You deserve a cookie you were so close.
Which of those are part or incorporated into the law now?
I’m writing things as I remember them. It may not be with crystal clear clarity and unbending facts, looking back that far, but I think I get the gist of it right.
Obamacare is a fucking disaster. It’s amazing how no one seems to remember “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” or how “Obamacare would bend the cost curve downwards and save the average American family $2,500 a year”-- both of which were outright lies and acknowledged as lies. You pay more for less, and many (most?) exchanges are failing if they haven’t already. At this point, you have to be extremely partisan to even bother defending it.
If you are unaware the the act took many moths to craft, then your ignorance of the topic is demonstrable.
So, again, you are simply moving the goalposts.
Look at your comment that initiated this exchange:
Now, you keep dodging and weaving and changing the dates in order to change your claim. From January 2009 through May 2009, the Republicans repeatedly refused to meet with Obama or the Democratic leadership to discuss the topic, (or met with Obama, grudgingly, and came out of the meeting saying they wanted no part of the discussion). Those are the “days after Obama’s inauguration.” It was only after multiple months of determined opposition and a refusal to negotiate anything that Obama began to say, if you refuse to help, we’ll do it ourselves.
Sorry, a WSJ op ed piece (behind a pay wall) is not evidence for what you want to have happened. Boehner’s letter was not sent until May, after he and his associates had stonewalled the initial attempts for four months and his “offer” was not to work with Obama, but to substitute their own. Obama did not reject the discussion, but the demand.
Unfortunately, in your case I don’t know if it’s even ignorance.
You have a penchant, demonstrated here and elsewhere, of simply declaring a set of facts to be true, with no basis whatsoever, and when confronted about it, making little or no attempt to back it up, either just reiterating your initial assertions or just ignoring the responses altogether.
On rare occasions when you bother to back up your assertions with some sort of cite, it’s generally distorted beyond recognition, e.g. your Rush Limbaugh link above, but if it’s on one of your petty tangents (as in that case) it’s not worth bothering with.
Not much that anyone can do about it. But there it is.
You repeatedly ignore the timeline, and it does you no favors.
At the beginning, Democrats asked Republicans for help with the PPACA, as it was founded on consistent conservative principles (initially proposed by Reagan, made law in Massachusetts by Romney).
Republicans responded with “You can go fly a kite,” “one term President,” etc.
Democrats say “Well F U then” and compose the PPACA.
After everything is done and over with, after Republicans have tried every trick in the book to obstruct PPACA, they tried to come back to the table, with “Let’s throw it out and start again,” knowing the Democratic supermajority had just been broken and they could filibuster the PPACA to death.
THEN Obama told McCain to sit down and shut the fuck up.
You’re trying to imply that the mood after years of bullshit from the Republican trashing everything they could as petulant as a 7-year-old that didn’t get his toy at Wal-Mart was the same as when the Democrats came in to power and extended an olive branch. You’ve repeated this bullshit after being shown the error in that representation more than once. Are smaller words required, or do you just refuse to use facts to form your opinion?
It’s Salon, but it raises some good points. It also brings up the Gang of Six, which I had completely forgotten about. What part of “We’ll give you 50% of the committee to develop this” isn’t an olive branch?
It’s true that some of the core parts of ACA were at some point supported by some Republicans. But they never had the support of the majority of the Republicans, and even whatever support it had had faded long before the 2008 election. At the time of the 2008 campaign, the health care reform was a sharp dividing point between the Republicans and Democrats.
But the Democrats’ attitude was along the lines of yours. It was “hey we’re going to do it anyway, and if you support it we’ll give you a crumb or two around the edges”. That was not enough crumbs to get the Republicans to actually support something that they and their constituency were opposed to (despite this opposition having been less uniform and vehement 20 years earlier).
That does not count as bipartisanship. That the persistent claims that the ACA was based on “conservative principles” and only opposed out of political gamesmanship is historical revisionism.
The Gang of Six did not have the full support of the Democratic leadership in Congress. It was just a small group of moderate senators in both parties hoping to come up with a middle way. The Democrats had an iron grip on the presidency and both houses of government at the time, and unless the Democrats as a whole were satisfied with the results, nothing the Gang of Six came up with was going to pass.
The positive about the Gang of Six, from the perspective of the Democrats at that time, was that if you could get support from a few of the most liberal members of the Republican Party, such that you could claim bipartisan support without sacrificing anything of real significance, then it would be worthwhile. But not more than that, and even at that, there was no guarantee that anything the Gang of Six came up with would eventually be supported by the Democratic Leadership once the progressive wing of the party had their say.