After talking about how some people were grossly distorting the bill, she said, “**But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
**She wasn’t saying nobody knew what was in it; she was saying that once it’s passed, the public will see that Fox/Rush was lying about death panels, jail time for people who didn’t get insurance, etc.
Of course the moronic right wing blogs, including the one I linked to, were outraged. “I want to know what’s in the bill BEFORE we pass it!!!”
Wrong on at least two levels.
First, the bill was freely available to read, so if they didn’t know what was in it, it was their own fault.
Second, either you follow the Constitution or you don’t. The Constitution says we elect people to Congress to pass laws. It’s their job, not ours. And the fact that those bloggers can’t read a simple sentence without distorting it, or know that the bill they are so outraged about is freely available to read, shows that the Founding Fathers had the right idea.
Democrats had a 60 vote Majority in the Senate at that point, so Filibustering wasn’t an option. He couldn’t even get a medicare buy-in past Joe Lieberman.
The real problem was, Obama had already sold out to big Pharma and big Insurance before negotiations started.
Hell, I thought the irony of the whole ObamaCare debate was the Republicans were able to campaign on “saving medicare”.
brocks, you might have also pointed out that the bill had fewer words in it than Sarah Palin’s "auto"biography, so anyone who didn’t read it in the year and a half it was being debated has no excuse.
Lieberman was a DINO. Apart from that, the fact that one party has 60 members doesn’t mean that filibusters won’t work, unless that party votes as one.
But I do share, with many liberals, the frustration with the fact that the Dems didn’t even try. I simply can’t understand why, time after time, they begin negotiations with pretty much the absolute least that most liberals would accept, and then let their position erode from there, rather than beginning with what liberals actually want, and meeting conservatives somewhere in the middle.
Lieberman isn’t even INO. He’s officially from the Connecticut for Lieberman Party, but his suffix should be (R-Aetna). Doesn’t keep Fox from putting him on camera all the time as an example of a "responsible Democrat’, though.
The other problems with the “They had 60 votes” falsehood are that Franken didn’t get seated until June, when Pawlenty and the MN GOP ran out of stalling tactics, and that Kennedy was out on sick leave the entire time.
The problem is that the Dem leadership (and not all of it) is still operating from a pre-Gingrich view of how politics work - by compromise and negotiation, not by shrill partisan denunciations. They still see compromise as necessary and responsible, not as inconceivable treason.
But you should compromise somewhere between what you want and what they want. The Dems lately have been the equivalent of a guy who is buying a car, and his first offer is the sticker price, and he gets talked up from there.
But the Republicans have yet to see why they ever need to compromise at all. Their experience has been that if they throw a big enough tantrum, they’ll get exactly what they want. It’s useless to tell them to act like grownups when they don’t get treated in turn the way a grownup would treat them - by ignoring the tantrums and letting them get nothing as a result.
Cain is one of the leading GOP candidates who wants it repealed outright. The way politics has evolved so that such a position can be held without near-unanimous derision is pretty relevant to that subject.
Many programs deal with very complicated issues. Medicare has to deal with doctors, insurance companies, those who provide medical appliances, hospitals and a hell of a lot more. to suggest than all bills should be 3 pages shows how little Cain knows. He can not be taken seriously.
He will soon be a trivia question answer.
Because they need believers not smart candidates. They need someone who can repeat the line with out answering questions. They need Bachmann, Palin , or Perry . Cain is a little off message sometimes. he also seems to be a little off.
Explain to me how, under the Constitution, President Herman Cain would be able to restrict the length of bills in Congress?
Or is he implying that, should Congress pass perfectly good, albeit exceedingly complex and lengthy legislation, he would veto same simply on the basis it was too long to be “understood?”
He explianed today that it made perfect sense for Plawenty to end his race after a 3rd place finish, yet Cain did well in 6th place and will continue. I listened to Bachmann and Cain today. So logic is off todays radar.
I didn’t know a lot about Herman Cain but reading his short bio it really surprises me he is so dense. I mean, three page legislation caps? This is a guy who majored in mathematics and got a graduate degree in computer science, worked for years in jobs that require a lot of intelligence and aptitude.
He sort of reminds me of engineers I’ve known that are super smart and capable engineers but barely passed English 101 in school, essentially people who are super capable in certain highly technical and difficult fields but essential idiots on other matters.
Unfortunately the field where Herman Cain is an idiot is public policy and legislative rules, and that is a deal killer if you want to be President.