So you only get the budgeted amount of the actual proposed bill?
I’ll tell you one thing, that sure would stop some of the ridiculous CBO estimates they come up with.
There’s a difference between hardball and playing hostages.
What, you mean the standard democratic process? A majority in both houses (in one house, a 60% majority to overcome cloture) and the support of the president?
Okay, I welcome you to tell me what republican concerns you think the Obama administration should have recognized. What did the republicans even propose with regards to the bill, beyond, as previously stated, “shove it up your ass”? Maybe there are some I’m forgetting, but as far as I recall, what the democrats were dealing with was a congress that was already playing hardball, and refusing any cooperation.
Until both houses agree on a change, yes.
I totally disagree with you of course. Obamacare was passed well within the normal scope of Congressional actions, your notion that it has to have a certain amount of Republican votes to be legit is laughable. We have elections for reasons.
However, I will say that OBAMA brought this upon himself by being so eager to bring the Republicans into agreement with the Democrats that he has become an absolutely TERRIBLE negotiator. On several occasions, he STARTED negotiations by giving Republicans 98% of what they want. When Republicans balked at even that and demanded more, he caved. He caved, caved, caved, caved to the Republicans repeatedly for the first five years of his administration. It’s hard to blame the Republicans for thinking they could kill even Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment by being obstreperous enough.
But it is easy, so very, very easy, to blame them for not caring about the effect their behavior has had on the economy and the American people.
The Republicans got over 170 amendments to ACA passed. AND THEN VOTED AGAINST IT ANYWAY!
The GOP can simply no longer be trusted to keep it’s word.
Excellent point, which people often forget. It’s made out like the Democrats met in the Capitol basement under Maxwell Smart’s Cone of Silence and hammered out thousands of pages in ten minutes with no Republican input. Concession after concession was made to their concerns, yet it became apparent that no matter what they agreed to, the Republicans would not provide one vote. So they did what they should have done in the first place, pass it with Democratic votes alone.
The point about Obama being a terrible negotiator was also good. Obama makes Ned Flanders look as tough as nails.
If the people you are negotiating with are insane, how does being tough make it any better, when they are incapable of anticipating consequences? To paraphrase Doyle Brunson, you can’t bluff an idiot.
When Obama was elected, I looked forward to cooperation and compromise in government again, after the Dubya years. That’s what Barack ran on, you know.
Well, we all shoulda known. The Republicans took his willingness to compromise as a sign of weakness, and you’re right, all too often Obama was okay with giving up a lot to get next to nothing. I guess it’s not a surprise that the GOP figured they could roll him again this time.
Funny story, though: I heard a bit of El Rushbo today (not my usual fare, but it was the news station and I was trying to get NEWS). He was wailing about how the REPUBLICANS always cave, how they give away the store every - single - time, and he’s not surprised they’re about to give away everything the Democrats want in this showdown.
Back on the Oxy, are we, Rush?
When Rev. Pat Robertson is the voice of reason, the Republican Party has gone down the rabbit hole:
Of course, it spawns a new campaign slogan for Ted Cruz: “Crazier than Pat Robertson!”
How should one deal with an idiot, then? I mean, in situations, as now, where simply ignoring him is not a practical option.
Trickery?
At a poker table, you wait until you can showdown with a better hand than the idiot.
I am pretty sure that you can work that part of the analogy into the current political landscape without much difficulty.
In this mess, the Dems always had a better hand than the Pubs and that was no secret. The only poker-image that comes to mind is the idiot pounding the table and screaming that fuck the cards, the pot is rightfully his, dammit! And you can’t just eject him, because he has a gun – not he alone, but everyone in the room knows he’s the only one crazy enough to draw first.
So the trick is making other people think you’re the only one crazy enough to draw first?
And somehow I can’t see Obama or Reid pulling that off.
This is a universal principle that should be named. The language and logic of lib/con political blogs are the same, just gotta change the names of the obstinate enemy and those on your side caving to the other side and the friendly faction who the author wants you to support so the people can flock to them because they secretly support them, they just don’t know it. Also, the media is against you and doesn’t play fair, and people are brainwashed.
What do you threaten a crazy person with?
The last rational line of defense was the money Republicans, the same damned fools who made the bargain to back the Tea Party, the guys who supplied the tour buses, the stages, the sound systems. Obama had to hope that the money Republicans, the “leadership” could yank the chain and get results. But there was nobody at the other end of the chain.
Not the first time its happened, moneyed interests back a hot-eyed fanatic under the illusion that they can control him, manipulate him to get what they want but still keep him in check.
The Wiemar Republicans.
I’m confused by news reports today. The news (CBS news radio) seems to say that Boehner was putting together a compromise, but that the right-wing Republicans refused to accept it, and that Boehner fell short in a projected vote count.
How can that be? I thought that only Boehner’s refusal to call a vote was holding back approval of a “clean” budget resolution? I thought that the Democratic votes, plus the moderate Republican votes, were enough for passage.
How many members are there on the right, who won’t vote for a straightforward budget (and debt limit) measure? Are there really that few moderate Republicans?
What are the actual numbers? I don’t understand what I’m hearing tonight.
Sanity.
Sometimes works.
Not on-the-ground, but, in Congress, apparently.