Why are you ignoring the fact that Lieberman votes with the Republicans?
60 is enough to prevent a filibuster. Exactly enough, in fact. That is, by definition, a thin majority, given the Republican threat to filibuster everything.
In theory, sure. But did you read what I wrote? In practice, actually getting 60 votes is very difficult for the democrats and relatively easy for the republicans to block.
Case in point: how many even reasonably contentious pieces of legislation have the democrats been able to pass with this margin? Exactly one, and it was incredibly costly.
It’s just as hard for the Republicans to peel that 1 vote from the Democrats as it is for the Democrats to peal 1 vote from the Republicans.
There are quite a few moderate Republicans in the Senate. They aren’t a whole lot different than Blue Dog Democrats. Why not make even a token effort to appeal to them?
Yep. When the Dems can’t even get Olympia Snowe to vote with them on health care chances are that the bill coming out of the senate is a real stinker. 
That’s exactly what we are talking about - Democrats are finding it difficult to enact their agenda even with a majority that is large enough that they could.
The Democrats can’t hold their own party together. But this is all the Republicans’ fault. That’s goofy - Republicans don’t have any duty of obedience to Obama. They were elected because the people of their state or district believed they would vote the right way. If the voters thought a Democrat was better, they would have elected a Democrat.
It reminds me of what Lincoln said about Gen. McClellan - 'if he had a million men, he would sit down in the mud and yell for three million".
The Democrats had what they claimed would be enough - the best opportunity for them in a generation. I doubt they are going to gain seats in 2010 - better pull their finger out, sooner rather than later.
Regards,
Shodan
It would be nice if the Republicans at least had a sense of duty and moral obligation to their country. They do have a responsibility to engage in some kind of discussion or honest attempt at compromise with the other party and with their President.
You mean like rewriting entire pieces of legislation to try to gain one vote? Oh, look, they’re already doing that.
Well, at least in Olympia Snowe’s case, that’s pretty counter productive. She’s been pretty vocal in her concerns about the lack of deliberation for a bill of this impact, and presenting a completely rewritten or amended bill just days before a vote seems to validate those concerns.
[quote=“Sinaijon, post:144, topic:523922”]
It’s just as hard for the Republicans to peel that 1 vote from the Democrats as it is for the Democrats to peal 1 vote from the Republicans.
[quote]
This is obviously empirically false. Have you looked at roll calls from the past year?
This isn’t true theoretically, either, but I’ll spare you.
Even supposing this were true, what do you think the democratic party can credibly offer, say, Olympia Snowe?
Large enough that they could, say, in a vacuum. I am quite pleased that we had sufficient legislative rules to slow down the republican “revolution” and I am not too unhappy that the same rules and strategies are impeding the possibility of another “revolution”.
I have not actually been saying that, but go ahead, address the modal made-up democratic interloper, anyway.
Thankfully they were wrong. Just like the republicans in 1994. It is better to be the majority party than to be the greens, but it is far more difficult than people tend to think.
I had a Republican running for the senate asking for my opinion of the way things are going and I asked him what his plans were, and how he intended to change things. He said he didn’t have a plan yet! I said," when you get one call me back then I will decide if yours is better.
In his presidential campaighn, Obama promised openess-he said that the health care debates would be put on TV (C-Span). i don’t recall seeing this.
Pelosi, Obama and the rest of them are doing a lot of deasling in secret-reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s healtcare “reforms”.
I don’t think obama is being honest in this matter.
As I think I said earlier in this thread, there are some things I’m not happy with. This is one of them – a campaign promise was made and will (seemingly) not be kept. Clearly, as far as secretive deliberations go, there’s a tu quoque to be made relative to the previous administration…but that doesn’t excuse it.
OTOH, as a practical matter, it’s a really stupid thing to bitch about. Broadcast debate would certainly be nothing more than a dog & pony show. If you want to make a substantive criticism and not just Obama-snipe, you’d do much better to complain about posting bills for 72 hours prior to votes on them. A much weightier and important aspect of open government, IMO.
The Republicans are playing this like it’s some huge “gotcha”, but in truth nobody would be watching the debates even if they were being broadcast. Colbert did an insightful piece a few days ago where earlier debates on the bill were rebroadcast on c-span.com, and the numbers of views were in the tens.
For the most part – or the most vocal part, anyway – it often seems like it’s all they’ve got. The more I think about it, the more I like the term Obama-sniping, defined as:
Obama-sniping: directing non-substantive (and often false) talking points at President Obama whose sole purpose is character assassination.
Does he have the authority to make it open? It is a House and Senate compromise after all
Probably because it resonates with when Hilary did the same thing, and on the same topic. As well as because Obama talked about openness in government and so forth.
Regards,
Shodan
No similarity. She was put in charge of fixing health care by herself. Hillary was not even an elected official. She had panels and experts called in to describe their problems to her. This time we went through the house and senate. But you know that don’t you?
Well, as part of the same openness pledge he promised to not sign a bill for 5 days. He came into office and reneged on that—and THAT was completely at his discretion.
Face it, he’s full of shit. And in one regard worse than most, because he specifically stated that he’d so many things. And if he wanted the debate to be aired, he could make it happen. He could call them on it and embarrass them into it. The Bully Pulpit and all that.