Actually that is not true. There was enough support without filibustering by the Republican minority.
But it is true that the Democrats blocked efforts of the Republican to address health care reform when they were in control of both houses and the White House right? Er, no. The Republicans didn’t do a fucking thing to address health care.
Did you run out of ways of describing the same thing over and over? I already addressed this.
The Republicans want a tax deduction for businesses removed, and have identified this as the cause of the health care problems? This was a Democratic concession to the Republicans? Would you mind providing a cite?
removed
Right. They didn’t abandon it because it was a politically toxic issue, it was a concession to their Republican friends. Got it.
No, they didn’t do the fucking things you wanted them to do. There’s a difference.
Sorry cut my post out this thread isn’t a health care debate.
I don’t have the cites for this, so grain of salt and all of that, but according to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee report on bipartisanship in the health care reform, the final Senate bill included 161 Republican amendments, which reflected the efforts of six bipartisan working groups that met a combined 72 times in 2009 and held 15 bipartisan hearings.
The Senate Finance Committee added 13 amendments introduced by Republicans.
All Republican senators voted no on the bill. It is disingenuous for Republicans to contend they have been shut out of the health care debate.
Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, said that “if we stop him on health care, then I think we have the opportunity to maybe realign the whole political system in our country.” That statement shows the intent of many if not all the Republican Congress.
You’re missing the point. There seems to be no reasonable compromise possible in setting the objectives or in what is included (the major thrust of the bill), given each party’s starting points. Why should they support something they believe is disastrous?
It’s like trying to find a compromise for staunch pro-choice and pro-life factions. You can get bells and whistles they’d agree on, but nothing of substance. Wait and see the abomination of bill that gets passed (if one does). It will be unrecognizable and do practically nothing, and everyone will applaud and congratulate themselves on the bipartisan effort.
Yes, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate. Therefore it is reasonable to expect that a bill will more represent the Democratic vision of health care rather than the Republican vision. The Republicans OTOH, are taking the unreasonable position, and will not vote for any bill that isn’t primarily the Republican bill. Therefore we have gridlock. The compromise you are looking for isn’t compromise at all. Democrats have already eliminated the primary thing that they wanted, why can’t the Republicans do the same?
Why shouldn’t they, given their starting points? If (like the American people) you do NOT want the current bills passed, why would you tweak it? It’s “untweakable” from their perspective. It’s unreasonable only if you accept the Democrats’ axiomatic beliefs, the pretense that their objectives are the only proper ones and that costs can actually be reduced when adding $900B in expenses. The Republicans flatly reject that pretense; it’s a non-starter. So, how do you find consensus from those starting points?
ETA: And they should use their majority to install whatever laws that majority can influence, either through brute force or negotiation. But there is no rule that says the minority needs to push through an agenda they consider disastrous. They can vote however they’d like. So can the Dems.
It’s not a snipe at Obama, it’s a fact about politicians. what you saw was a bi-partisan commercial for your benefit.
Again I ask-did you watch it?
These things play well to news junkies (like a lot of us), but I think they are largely ignored by most people. The news cycle will turn to something else, and this will be all but forgotten.
Having said that… the Republicans were pretty stupid in allowing this format. Obama gets to stand at a lectern, while they sit in the audience. A better format would be to have a few hand-picked Republicans sitting at a round table with Obama.
Yes and I’d like my life credited for the time spent. It was meant for public dissemination and served no purpose.
Where was the teleprompter?
So let’s be honest here, what you mean by compromise is “Take our plan with none of your plan.” It’s a rather strained definition of compromise. I agree, we should do away with the filibuster, it is no longer serving it’s purpose.
How about the first legislation that would actually do anything about abortion in the thirty years that it’s been a political issue? Last I checked, that was the single issue that decided a fair chunk of the Republican base, and even a bill with that in it can’t get through, due to Republican obstructionism.
I just wanted to quote this for truth…
I notice that the poster of the original drive-by content-free snipe has not been back.
Lightnin’'s point is well taken too - this is a great example of someone ignoring reality in favor of their own fantasy world.
Those of you who want the Democrats to be more conciliatory, or bipartisan and work with the Republicans more… Magiver is emblematic of the type of person who they’d have to work with. Unielding, unbending and totally impervious to facts.
It was a word play on the fish proverb aimed at politicians. You can’t say “teach a man to use a camera” because it doesn’t make sense. I could have used “microphone” instead of “teleprompter” but but teleprompter is linked more to political events.
It’s political commentary on media events put on by politicians meant for public consumption.
Yup-“microphone” and “teleprompter” evoke the same image and are used interchangeably all the time.
There were damn good reasons to put it out for the public:
Are you reading what I wrote? I said there isn’t any real possibility for compromise, not that shifting to the Republican approach amounts to one. It is indeed a strained definition of compromise, and I’m glad I didn’t offer it.