All the House GOP and the President - what an unfair advantage!!!

[EriktheRed]

Yup.

There was an rticle recently that said something like, "The Dems will at least not have to worry about maintaining a filibuster-proof majority after the next midterm elections". In reality, they won't lose what they never really had.

Has Joe been put out of the Democrat's caucus, then? What about Sanders? Has he likewise been tossed overboard?

As far as the Healthcare bill was concerned, he made clear was never a vote to be counted on. Hell, he even bashed one measure he touted just months prior. Big mistake for the Senate Dems to take a chance on him, despite his pulling a Zell Miller in '08.

 

[Navy1960]

As a Republican I give the President a lot of credit for coming to the Republican retreat and taking questions about his policies from those who do not agree with him. Perhaps in doing so the President, Republicans, and Democrats alike will begin to actually come to the conclusion that finding common solutions to this nations problems will benefit us all. In fact if the President is ever to understand the true spirit of bi-partisanship then he must understand that there are people that may have something to contribute to the national debate. IMHO there should be more of these types of televised Q&Q's on both sides of ISLE rather than this TEAM mentality that has overtaken Washington and not to our mutual benefit. While there are times sides will disagree on issues and that is the nature of debate, but through that disagreement is where the common solutions should arise. Our nation has many problems that need to be addressed and it serves no useful purpose to fight over what team won the game if none of them are willing to do do the work. If they are not willing to do the work needed to get this nation back on track then WE the bosses should Fire them regardless of what party they happen to belong too.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

For all intents and purposes, the Obama presidency is over. His own party is turning on him, the press is not giving him a pass on EVERYTHING any longer, the people are turning on him... the bloom is off the rose.

I knew he would fall apart, just not this fast... beautiful!!!!

 

[bobbcat]

As a Republican I give the President a lot of credit for coming to the Republican retreat and taking questions about his policies from those who do not agree with him. Perhaps in doing so the President, Republicans, and Democrats alike will begin to actually come to the conclusion that finding common solutions to this nations problems will benefit us all.

Oh how I'd like to believe that but I simply do not. I presume you watched it but may have not noted his typical pattern of not really concealing his disdain whenever he is in the company of people with whom he does not agree (the pattern was similar during the debates with McCain over the course of the presidential campaign season in '08): that sinister grin, chin up in the air, haughty tone of voice. I think the exchange was all about Obama's effort to burnish his image in the wake of the loss of Teddy's seat to the Pubs and his miserable performance at the SOTU. JMO.

For all intents and purposes, the Obama presidency is over. His own party is turning on him, the press is not giving him a pass on EVERYTHING any longer, the people are turning on him... the bloom is off the rose.

Beyond that, the day-to-day stresses and all else that goes with the job are palling on him. I would not be surprised if he really does not want to seek another term. He has not met any of his major objectives. "Having is never the same as wanting..." I bet that he is smarting but good from that little principle. He probably longs for the good ol' days as a community organizer like nobody's business (that was an arena in which he really shined). Again, JMO.

 

[Bfgrn]

'For 15 minutes, explore the possibility that the Republican "attack machine" is not responsible for poisoning people's minds...'
------------------------------------------------------
REALLY???

On Friday, on a "Conservatives for Patients Rights" conference call with conservative activists dealing with health care reform, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said, as Ben Smith at Politico reported, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmFJnmpj3CU]YouTube - Demint: "I did not want [health care] to be the Presidents Waterloo."[/ame]

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., summarized the scare tactic pretty well on the House floor last week, when she said the bill would "put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government,"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hea-4VJZXRE&feature=related]YouTube - Rep. Foxx Says Health Care Reform Will Cause Seniors To Be "Put To Death By Their Government"[/ame]

Grassley: Government shouldn’t ‘decide when to pull the plug on grandma’

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FetJskz9XvM&feature=related]YouTube - Grassley Endorses Death Panel Rumor You Have Every Right To Fear[/ame]



Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency.

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . . .Again, JMO.

Are you for the good of the country, bobbcat, or do you join with fools like Foxx, Sessions and Demint? These idiots are delaying our return to the majority. The majority of Americans are reading and seeing that garbage and thinking, "Turn the sorry butts out the back door into the alley."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who is "openly celebrating it"??

Here's a fairly long list of GOP'ers touting the stimulus they voted against.

Think Progress Blocking The Recovery While Reaping Its Benefits

Unfortunately your article (appearing in a self-styled "progressive" blog) doesnt support what you say.
Sorry. Epic FAIL.

You're a denier. So what?

 

[rightwinger]

As a Republican I give the President a lot of credit for coming to the Republican retreat and taking questions about his policies from those who do not agree with him. Perhaps in doing so the President, Republicans, and Democrats alike will begin to actually come to the conclusion that finding common solutions to this nations problems will benefit us all. In fact if the President is ever to understand the true spirit of bi-partisanship then he must understand that there are people that may have something to contribute to the national debate. IMHO there should be more of these types of televised Q&Q's on both sides of ISLE rather than this TEAM mentality that has overtaken Washington and not to our mutual benefit. While there are times sides will disagree on issues and that is the nature of debate, but through that disagreement is where the common solutions should arise. Our nation has many problems that need to be addressed and it serves no useful purpose to fight over what team won the game if none of them are willing to do do the work. If they are not willing to do the work needed to get this nation back on track then WE the bosses should Fire them regardless of what party they happen to belong too.

It was a unique opportunity. The problem is they never should have let the cameras in. Once they do that, the meeting becomes about sound bites and sticking to the party line. It would have been nice if they could use the event to find some middle ground to work from rather than just another opportunity to yap at each other and show the other side up.
Its not about winning and losing. Its about getting things done and right now, nothing is getting done

 

[bobbcat]

. . . . .Again, JMO.

Are you for the good of the country, bobbcat, or do you join with fools like Foxx, Sessions and Demint? These idiots are delaying our return to the majority. The majority of Americans are reading and seeing that garbage and thinking, "Turn the sorry butts out the back door into the alley."

You really are spoiling for a neg rep, are you not? First off, you don't know me from Adam; I am a noob who has not been around this board long enough for people to be making all sorts of assumptions, particularly ignorant, misguided ones. Perhaps a little elaboration is in order to set you straight: I am a strong believer in the private sector's capacity to solve most problems. I do not advocate gov't involvement into much of anything that isn't covered in the Constitution. I realize that ours is a rather large, quite diversified country that is home to a society that has a strong resolve to take care of its own. I never have and never will object to having my tax dollars go to pay for programs designed to bring access to basic services to those of us who truly need them. The Republican Party would serve itself well by sticking to this, among others, basic principle. It's not supposed to be about gov't taking over so many aspects of our lives. Any similarity of the above with any talking points you hear in the MSM is a coincidence. The above is what I think. If you don't like it, too bad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For all intents and purposes, the Obama presidency is over. His own party is turning on him, the press is not giving him a pass on EVERYTHING any longer, the people are turning on him... the bloom is off the rose.

I knew he would fall apart, just not this fast... beautiful!!!!

For all intents and purposes, Soggy, you have entered the twilight zone.

 

[EriktheRed]

As a Republican I give the President a lot of credit for coming to the Republican retreat and taking questions about his policies from those who do not agree with him. Perhaps in doing so the President, Republicans, and Democrats alike will begin to actually come to the conclusion that finding common solutions to this nations problems will benefit us all. In fact if the President is ever to understand the true spirit of bi-partisanship then he must understand that there are people that may have something to contribute to the national debate. IMHO there should be more of these types of televised Q&Q's on both sides of ISLE rather than this TEAM mentality that has overtaken Washington and not to our mutual benefit. While there are times sides will disagree on issues and that is the nature of debate, but through that disagreement is where the common solutions should arise. Our nation has many problems that need to be addressed and it serves no useful purpose to fight over what team won the game if none of them are willing to do do the work. If they are not willing to do the work needed to get this nation back on track then WE the bosses should Fire them regardless of what party they happen to belong too.

Bipartisanship has its limits, though, which is something else the Prez pointed out both on Wednsday and Friday. The "parti" part of the word suggests that there are still two different factions with different core philosphies that define them and which are, as a result, not open to compromise.

One good example is the issue of allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. This argument has been given on this board before, but I'll post what the Prez had to say on it:

I think one of the proposals that has been focused on by the Republicans as a way to reduce costs is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. We actually include that as part of our approach. But the caveat is we've got to do so with some minimum standards, because otherwise what happens is that you could have insurance companies circumvent a whole bunch of state regulations about, you know, basic benefits or what have you; making sure that a woman is able to get mammograms as part of preventive care, for example.

Part of what could happen is insurance companies could go into states and cherry-pick and just get those who are healthiest and leave behind those who are least healthy, which would raise everybody's premiums who weren't healthy, right?

Putting aside the pros and cons of regulating insurance companies in general, his argument is right. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark, though, and guess that Republicans aren't gonna go for further regulation of the insurance industry on a national level. Seems to me the only other way to deal with the conflict this proposal would create with state governments would be to go the other way and remove all regulations on a national level, thus eliminating the need for states to worry about regulating what they can no longer regulate anyway. That ain't happening with the Dems.

So, either nothing gets on the issue and things stay the same - at least as far as that's concerned - or the side in control passes it anyway (if it can) and the other side has to deal with a major affront to one of its core principles.

 

[Murf76]

As far as the Healthcare bill was concerned, he made clear was never a vote to be counted on. Hell, he even bashed one measure he touted just months prior. Big mistake for the Senate Dems to take a chance on him, despite his pulling a Zell Miller in '08.

No politician likes to admit he's a rubber stamp for his party, whether his is one or not. Lieberman isn't. But, he HAS been a fairly reliable Democratic vote on social and domestic issues. His area of disagreement has been foreign policy.

As it was, they did indeed have his vote, but only on after dropping of the "public option".

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . . If you don't like it, too bad.

Opine, bobbcat, all you want, but remember an opinion is only worth something to you. Don't talk about reps, because I don't care about them. You want some respect, then post something of worth.

 

[Murf76]

As a Republican I give the President a lot of credit for coming to the Republican retreat and taking questions about his policies from those who do not agree with him. Perhaps in doing so the President, Republicans, and Democrats alike will begin to actually come to the conclusion that finding common solutions to this nations problems will benefit us all. In fact if the President is ever to understand the true spirit of bi-partisanship then he must understand that there are people that may have something to contribute to the national debate. IMHO there should be more of these types of televised Q&Q's on both sides of ISLE rather than this TEAM mentality that has overtaken Washington and not to our mutual benefit. While there are times sides will disagree on issues and that is the nature of debate, but through that disagreement is where the common solutions should arise. Our nation has many problems that need to be addressed and it serves no useful purpose to fight over what team won the game if none of them are willing to do do the work. If they are not willing to do the work needed to get this nation back on track then WE the bosses should Fire them regardless of what party they happen to belong too.

Navy, I firmly believe that Obama addressed Republican, not for a new bipartisan effort, but for the sake of political expediency. Just two days prior, at the SOTU address, he was still denying that they even had ideas with his snotty offer of 'If anyone has a plan, I'll take a look at it'.

And two days later, his website was calling it "the lion's den", and begging donations.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...he-lions-den-and-are-now-being-muled-for.html

These are words, not actions. His actions have consistently told us a different story.

 

[Murf76]

'For 15 minutes, explore the possibility that the Republican "attack machine" is not responsible for poisoning people's minds...'
------------------------------------------------------
REALLY???

On Friday, on a "Conservatives for Patients Rights" conference call with conservative activists dealing with health care reform, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said, as Ben Smith at Politico reported, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

<snipped for brevity>

Well, you didn't expect them to roll over and let Obama **** them up the ass with a socialist agenda, did you? Of course, they're opposing. That's why we send them there.

I'm with Rush Limbaugh on hoping he fails... if his policies are socialist and unconstitutional.

The point I was trying to make... is that the plan itself is a bad one, and it's not because the public is being poisoned by the Republican "Attack Machine" that they think so. It's because... it's a crappy plan and they can READ. Your real problem is... Literacy.

Over the past year, the Republican Party has been so disorganized they couldn't manage a girl's field-hockey team. And here you are, giving them credit for brainwashing every American who stands in opposition to Obamacare.

 

[Navy1960]

As a Republican I give the President a lot of credit for coming to the Republican retreat and taking questions about his policies from those who do not agree with him. Perhaps in doing so the President, Republicans, and Democrats alike will begin to actually come to the conclusion that finding common solutions to this nations problems will benefit us all. In fact if the President is ever to understand the true spirit of bi-partisanship then he must understand that there are people that may have something to contribute to the national debate. IMHO there should be more of these types of televised Q&Q's on both sides of ISLE rather than this TEAM mentality that has overtaken Washington and not to our mutual benefit. While there are times sides will disagree on issues and that is the nature of debate, but through that disagreement is where the common solutions should arise. Our nation has many problems that need to be addressed and it serves no useful purpose to fight over what team won the game if none of them are willing to do do the work. If they are not willing to do the work needed to get this nation back on track then WE the bosses should Fire them regardless of what party they happen to belong too.

Bipartisanship has its limits, though, which is something else the Prez pointed out both on Wednsday and Friday. The "parti" part of the word suggests that there are still two different factions with different core philosphies that define them and which are, as a result, not open to compromise.

One good example is the issue of allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. This argument has been given on this board before, but I'll post what the Prez had to say on it:

I think one of the proposals that has been focused on by the Republicans as a way to reduce costs is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. We actually include that as part of our approach. But the caveat is we've got to do so with some minimum standards, because otherwise what happens is that you could have insurance companies circumvent a whole bunch of state regulations about, you know, basic benefits or what have you; making sure that a woman is able to get mammograms as part of preventive care, for example.

Part of what could happen is insurance companies could go into states and cherry-pick and just get those who are healthiest and leave behind those who are least healthy, which would raise everybody's premiums who weren't healthy, right?

Putting aside the pros and cons of regulating insurance companies in general, his argument is right. I'm gonna take a shot in the dark, though, and guess that Republicans aren't gonna go for further regulation of the insurance industry on a national level. Seems to me the only other way to deal with the conflict this proposal would create with state governments would be to go the other way and remove all regulations on a national level, thus eliminating the need for states to worry about regulating what they can no longer regulate anyway. That ain't happening with the Dems.

So, either nothing gets on the issue and things stay the same - at least as far as that's concerned - or the side in control passes it anyway (if it can) and the other side has to deal with a major affront to one of its core principles.

I suppose it is how one wants to see an Insurance company, as for me an Insurance company is in the business of offering a service which if that service is sold across state lines is like any other product is subject to regulation. Having said that there is something that some seem to have forgotten in all this mix and that is the art of compromise. In that you start with a basic premise that everyone regardless of political stripe wants low cost, quality healthcare that does not bankrupt the nation when doing so. Now having come to some sort of agreement on that basic premise build from there. A good example of this would be "pre-existing condition" that is a regulation that both the House and the Senate could have passed in a small bill with WIDE bi-partisan support. I tend to look at those that elected as representing the people that elected them and not the parties that claim them. If for example a Senators constituants do not want him or her to vote for a particular bill because it is not best suited for their state then that Sentor regardless of party should listen to those who voted for them. I sometimes think that in all thie debate it is sometimes lost on people the fact this is the UNITED States and not United America especially those that represent us. I'm often amused when this blame game goes around about who spends the most money, or who is obstructing, when one only need to look at the nearest Defense bill to understand that more often than not those in Washington DC have little of the interest of those that put them ther at heart. The point is as a Republican in this healthcare debate , I would never deny anyone the ability to purchase that which I enjoy myself be it Govt. sponsored or not. I do see however that there are many parctical ways to actually reform healthcare and that starts with assuming that the American people know whats best for them in that decision process, even if that means the decision not to have healthcare.

 

[Rinata]

The Democrats never had 60 votes. Lieberman is an Independent.

Who votes with the Democratics on almost any and all liberal social agenda bills. So, naturally, the liberal Democratics did have 60 votes. They count the Socialist, too.

But you already knew this when you posted your intentionally deceptive blather.

Lieberman is not a Democrat. He defeated a Democrat to get re-elected. He got 70% of the Republican vote in CT to get re-elected. He endorsed John McCain for president.

How many times do you suppose I'll have to knock you on the head with that before it gets through?

I've never understood how anyone could call Lieberman a Democrat!!! During the 2008 campaign he was sitting like an extra nose on McCain's face the entire time. And I also remember that McCain's first choice for VP was Lieberman.

But the far right didn't want Lieberman and threatened to sink the ticket at the convention. I remember reading that McCain wanted Lieberman because they had so much in common on the issues of the day.

So I think Lieberman was about as much a Democrat as Rush Limbaugh is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

McCain would have won hands down with Liebermann, and the Rush era in the party would have whimpered, not died but would have metamorphed into something more responsible than the capitol of Whack Nation that it has become nation.

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually, the only thing your comments reveal is YOU...when someone has the audacity to profess they know another man's intentions and then proceeds to dissect benign words and create malignancy and 'code'... the malignancy and 'code' revealed are clear, in YOU...

Here's a thought for you to ponder... what did our founding fathers create? What entity was their instrument and mechanism to address the general welfare of We, the people? Corporations?

The letter you just trashed could have just as easily been written by President Thomas Jefferson or President James Madison...

Our founding fathers had a pretty keen understanding of human nature, justice and what causes INjustice. But even a simple understanding would allow someone to see that FOR PROFIT health insurance corporations are NOT and never will be in the health CARE business. They are in the PROFIT business. That mechanism immediately creates a built in conflict where people are rewarded, praised and ascend in the company FOR rationing and denial of coverage. There is no need to even look for human foible...

If you understand that the Boston Tea Party was really a revolt against the corporate crimes of the multinational East India Company, President Thomas Jefferson or President James Madison's letter to Senators would have called for direct and swift government intervention.

American Rebellions

Next time just stick out your tongue and give us a rousing "Nuh-uh!". It'll save you some typing and be more to the point.

You've got quite the double-standard going on here, whereby I'm supposed to provide you a detailed analysis, but you're not required to address any of the points raised.

You've got a good bit of nebulous complaint about "corporations" and "insurance cartels", but nothing to say about the fact that they're in up to their ears on Obamacare, nothing to say about the fact that THEY are the beneficiaries of increases to the risk pools. IOW... if you're supporting Obamacare, YOU are the one supporting the very thing you appear to despise, not I. If it was up to me, these bastards would take it out to the free market where bad business practices mean corporate ruin.

Oh... and the "for-profit" rant... is another reason why normal people think you liberals are socialists. The profit motive drives innovation and quality in a competitive market. And while there are some really good non-profit organizations out there, usually religious or charity-based... we don't want theAmerican healthcare system in anyways resembling the usual government-run, not-for-proofit service model ala the U.S post office or state motor vehicle department.

You didn't provide detailed analysis, you provided right wing character assassination of the President of the United States...

There is nothing normal about paranoia...it's an affliction

My 'for profit rant' about the built in conflict created in the insurance model is indisputable to a thinking person. Your 'profit motive drives innovation and quality in a competitive market' just reinforces my 'rant'...in the for profit insurance business ...innovation is coming up with new ways to ration and deny coverage and the quality gained is for the CEO's and employed deniers.

Think about it man...it's a reverse competitive model...

We're not selling refrigerators, this is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In the 'competitive market' you talk about the consumer has the option to walk away and invest his money elsewhere. In health insurance, the consumer is investing more than just his money. He is investing his health, his savings, his house and his life...and the provider has the motive to fire the customer.

The health care bill that came out of the Senate is a direct reflection on the hooks the corporate cartels have into Washington. They spent 1.4 million dollars a day standing with the Republicans and providing them ammo. If you support Republicans, then you support the corporate cartels...there is no difference. Unfortunately enough 'blue dog' Democrats are just Republicans in disguise...

It is a shame what this country has come to...I suggest you look at what the Republican party used to stand for and where they are now...it is NOT mainstream or centrist...it is far right authoritarianism and radical...that is what Goldwater Republicans say, not just me...

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

 

[rdean]

'For 15 minutes, explore the possibility that the Republican "attack machine" is not responsible for poisoning people's minds...'
------------------------------------------------------
REALLY???

On Friday, on a "Conservatives for Patients Rights" conference call with conservative activists dealing with health care reform, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said, as Ben Smith at Politico reported, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

YouTube - Demint: "I did not want [health care] to be the Presidents Waterloo."

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., summarized the scare tactic pretty well on the House floor last week, when she said the bill would "put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government,"

YouTube - Rep. Foxx Says Health Care Reform Will Cause Seniors To Be "Put To Death By Their Government"

Grassley: Government shouldn&#8217;t &#8216;decide when to pull the plug on grandma&#8217;

YouTube - Grassley Endorses Death Panel Rumor You Have Every Right To Fear



Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency.

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

These Republcians can never work with Democrats. If they do, the "base" they cultivated with lies and fear will turn on them for working with "enemies of America and freedom and all things good and Gawdly".

The same thing happened to "Lindsey Graham".