Gay Patriot Header Image

Transparency in Health Care Overhaul? Ha!

As House and Senate Democrats work to to reconcile the health care bills passed in each chamber into legislation both can approve and send to the president, they’re not just excluding Republicans from the process, they’re also keeping out anyone who would record the proceedings.

Even if it means breaking faith with the American people:

In response to CSPAN’s request that cameras be allowed to capture the happenings of the House-Senate conference on health care, Speaker Pelosi responded that “there has never been a more open process.” Yet, she won’t let cameras in—in spite of President Obama’s promise that the negotiations would indeed be aired on CSPAN.

Guess Mrs. Pelosi didn’t believe Obama’s campaign promises either.

Meanwhile, Michelle reports,

The most ethical, transparent, open Democrat majority ever is apparently going to short-circuit the House-Senate conference committee process to get the government health care takeover done.

And over in the Senate, it’s more of the same.  Jim Manley, spokesman to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Mt. Crumpit) offers lip service to transparency,  saying “Senator Reid appreciates C-SPAN’s commitment to ensuring transparency and we will continue to work to ensure that the American people have access to the work of their elected representatives,” yet ol’ Harry “wouldn’t assent to the network’s request” to televise the process.

Trying to turn the focus away from is boss’s failure, Manley, in the fashion typical of Democrats in Obama’s Washington, lashed out at Republicans:

But what should truly concern the American people is the Republicans’ shamelessly transparent strategy to stop reform at all costs by relying on misinformation and myths

Well, gee, Jim, you’d go a long way to dispelling those myths if you acceded to the network’s request, televising the negotiations to show they’re being conducted in good faith, with the primary concern for the general welfare without pandering to the special interests (whose influence Obama decried in his successful 2008 bid for the White House).

Guess Jim’s rant means his boss’s plea last month to “set aside the animosity” and focus on the meaning of the Christmas holiday ended with the New Year. Or, maybe Manley took as much stock in that plea as his boss and Mrs. Pelosi took in Obama’s campaign promise.

Share

40 Comments

  1. Support Scott Brown! for Senator of Massachusetts! He is polling within single digits despite having far less money and far less name recognition, and has all the momentum.

    Increasing numbers of poll watchers are saying he has an actual shot to win in MA. If he can pull it off, he could block Obamacare. In fact, that appears to be one of the reasons he is doing so well, as independents are supporting him by nearly 70% to the Democrat candidates 21% support.

    I honestly think Republicans are being overly cautious about this race. Assuming that because Kennedy and Kerry held onto their Senate seats for so long, that they will naturally go to a Democrat again. But they forget that Mitt Romney was the popular governor of that state just a few years ago.

    And what could be more satisfying than to block this tremendously unpopular bill once and for all after Dems have dragged the country kicking and screaming through the gutter for 6th months to get it!

    You can contribute AND volunteer even if you live in another state HERE.

    Even if he loses, if he comes as close as it looks like he is, it will scare the crap out of Dems, and (as Ace pointed out) we might be able to defeat Obamacare that way by scaring the crap out of some vulnerable Dems.

    And he’s hot to boot.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 6, 2010 @ 5:27 am - January 6, 2010

  2. If the Republicans had any backbone, they should threaten to walkout when the bills come to the floor in both houses. Let the Democrats try to inacct this horror by themselves.

    There are two possible outcomes: 1) Either chamber would fail to have a legal quorum to legally conduct business. Or it would be passed without any Republican involvement. 2) If the Master of Arms of the chamber has the authority to compel their attendance as they do in most State bodies,,,they should all abstain. If the “Democratic” leadership on the Hill and the White House suceed in end-running around the open 2-party conference committee process, the maybe it’s worth attempting to create a constitutional crisis.

    Failing this, then boycott the State of the Union address. Leave Obama proclaim his accomplishments to a half-empty chamber. That might shame the Leadership and the White House…but I doubt they are capable of being ashamed.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 6, 2010 @ 8:02 am - January 6, 2010

  3. “they’re not just excluding Republicans from the process,…”

    Republicans have excluded themselves from the process. Aside from Olympia, can you name one single Republican who, at any point in this very long process, has ever shown the slightest hint of a desire to work together with Democrats to fashion a bill? I mean in a serious way – given the obvious fact that the result is going to look more like the Democrats wishes than the Republicans, given who has the mandate from the people.

    Republicans have long ago decided that they have no desire to function as an effective minority party. If they can’t be in the majority, then they will sit on their hands, and the only effort they will exert, aside from raising money, is to sabotage whatever the majority tries to accomplish.

    It is no wonder that all the polls show the GOP less popular than Democrats, and Boehner and McConnell far less popular than Pelosi and Reid (imagine that!).

    As to C-SPAN, unfortunately, neither Pelosi nor any other Dem in leadership (and certainly no Republican) ever campaigned for having them film deliberations, and Obama has no power to force a different branch of government to do what he wishes.

    Comment by Tano — January 6, 2010 @ 9:28 am - January 6, 2010

  4. Tano asks:

    can you name one single Republican who, at any point in this very long process, has ever shown the slightest hint of a desire to work together with Democrats to fashion a bill?

    So, I ask Tano: where is it written that when the majority party decides to enact legislation that is anathema to the minority party, that the minority party must nonetheless join the majority party in committing the heinous act?

    Wouldn’t it be easier for the Japanese whaling fleet if the whales just schooled themselves into a Japanese harbor and lined up for the slaughter? Why don’t American citizens just send their paychecks to the government and live off the allowance the government sends back?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 6, 2010 @ 9:50 am - January 6, 2010

  5. Mandate? What mandate?

    Republicans have long ago decided that they have no desire to function as an effective minority party.

    Smart people, who see a major disaster in the making, tend to move out of the way. Only liberals spend trillions on more deck chairs for the Titanic.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 6, 2010 @ 10:02 am - January 6, 2010

  6. “Obama has no power to force a different branch of government to do what he wishes”?? Granted, Obama’s too busy golfing and partying to actually submit suggested legislation, but might he not at least SUGGEST that the Democrats be more open?

    On the other hand, no sense in letting the already-protesting American public see what they’re going to get. They’ll find out soon enough, AFTER the Democrats, bloodied and broken though a few blue dogs may be, pass this disastrous takeover of (another) large portion of the American economy.

    Are the Dems really sure they want to decry Republican “obstructionism” on this transformative legislation? Sounds like they’re doing campaign ads for a Republican takeover come fall.

    Comment by Polly — January 6, 2010 @ 10:51 am - January 6, 2010

  7. Tano, democratic talking points aside, let’s try something new, using our brains. Lets try a hypothetical. Lets say it’s 2013, Bob McDonnell is President, Republicans have 60 seats in the Senate and 257 in the House. Lets say they want to enact legislation that Democrats are opposed to and are certain would bankrupt this country. Let’s further say that Republicans are content on passing this by themselves, and are acting against the wishes of 60% of Americans. Still with me?

    Now, let’s further say that their only hope of picking up a Democrat is picking up Evan Bayh, and he says that he could not go with it. However, other than that, everything else is negotiated behind closed doors with President McDonnell without input. And to make matters worse, aside from not allowing Democrats any input, Republicans attack Democrats as being obstructionist and “The Party of No.” And moreso, they attack the American people who are organizing against the policies of the McDonnell administration in tea parties, and call them tea-baggers and astroturf.

    How would you, as a democrat, feel? Would you sit here and tell us that it was okay because the Democrats excluded themselves from the process? Would you say that Democrats showed no interest in the process, even if they proposed an alternative that was voted down without consideration, solely because their views were being ignored?

    Would you say the result is okay because Republicans had a mandate from the people?

    Would you say Democrats did not want to be an effective minority party in our little hypothetical?

    Would you say that it would not be okay for Democrats to try to defeat the legislation if they knew it would be a grave mistake?

    I just want you to honestly answer those questions. I dont want democratic talking points since I know them as well as you do. I want your take about the hypothetical.

    Comment by Chris — January 6, 2010 @ 11:01 am - January 6, 2010

  8. Chris,

    You’re requiring Tano to think. That’s the biggest flaw in your arguement.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 6, 2010 @ 11:04 am - January 6, 2010

  9. Chris,

    I’m confused. What about the racism and the fear-mongering. Why did you leave the racism and the fear-mongering out? I need racism and fear-mongering or I get distracted. Please, Chris, could we have some racism and fear-mongering? Pretty please? Oh, now I get it. You are a racist and a fear-mongerist. Shame on you, you dirty birdie.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 6, 2010 @ 11:30 am - January 6, 2010

  10. Why don’t American citizens just send their paychecks to the government and live off the allowance the government sends back?

    LOL :-) heliotrope, I hope you don’t mind if I steal that henceforth.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 6, 2010 @ 11:49 am - January 6, 2010

  11. #8: Chris, your questions would also require Tano to apply the same standards to his own party as he would to a Republican Congress and Presidential Administration (unimaginable) and to be intellectually honest about the conclusions when applying those standards (impossible).

    So, the best he can come up with is that it’s completely out of Obama’s hands and that he’s powerless in this situation. It’s pathetic, as usual, and perfectly consistent with the moral bankruptcy of the Left.

    Comment by Sean A — January 6, 2010 @ 11:55 am - January 6, 2010

  12. I have found, having been surrounded by liberal classmates and professors in high school, college, and now law school, that the best way to make a point is to ask hypotheticals to draw out simple thoughts. Lets try that approach with Tano.

    If it works, it can be a roadmap for winning elections for all Republicans. The key just might be simplifying things.

    Lol helio. Remember that simplicity is the key – we dont want to complicate the hypothetical too much.

    Comment by Chris — January 6, 2010 @ 12:02 pm - January 6, 2010

  13. Chris, unfortunately your hypothetical is so absurd as to be unimaginable. It MIGHT be possible for Republicans to stand up, but there is NO possibility that Democrats will EVER cease to act like they’re the boss.

    The MSM would stand shoulder to shoulder with the Dems in deriding Republicans’ un-American, probably racist, legislation, no matter what it was.

    Comment by Polly — January 6, 2010 @ 12:07 pm - January 6, 2010

  14. Chris -

    I like your approach with liberals too. However, our liberals these days are no different than 9/11 Truthers and “We Didn’t Land On The Moon” conspiracy nuts.

    They look at a red brick wall, turn to you and scream at the top of their lungs that we are both staring at aluminum siding.

    They make up their own facts, and ignore the actual facts.

    I do not know how to communicate with liberals when they live in a world that doesn’t exist. Maybe they are all aliens?

    Comment by GayPatriot — January 6, 2010 @ 12:18 pm - January 6, 2010

  15. Actually, Chris, the most absurd part of the hypothetical is engaging Tano in a Socratic discussion in the first place. You’d have far greater success convincing a vampire to wear a 10-pound crucifix.

    Comment by Sean A — January 6, 2010 @ 12:22 pm - January 6, 2010

  16. I dont disagree with any of your comments. But the socratic method should technically work with liberals. They are just questions. Even a liberal should be able to answer a question. Granted, asking them to connect 2 answers to form a coherent thought is near impossible, but even a liberal should be able to answer a series of questions.

    I am not asking Tano to tell me that he has been wrong his whole life, and that everything written on DailyKos is non-sense. All I am asking is that he answers a series of questions based on a hypothetical. Who knows, maybe answering those questions will lead to more questions, and then maybe Tano will come up with a revleation. I know it’s asking for a lot, but I have seen it happen before.

    Comment by Chris — January 6, 2010 @ 12:36 pm - January 6, 2010

  17. Even a liberal should be able to answer a question.

    You would think. It only took Tardo about three months of constant haranguing to finally admit that it was a Democrat Congress that authored the budgets that produced the record deficits of FY2008 and FY2009. I still don’t know if he has admitted that a Democrat Congress passed the TARP bailout.

    Comment by V the K — January 6, 2010 @ 12:57 pm - January 6, 2010

  18. “I ask Tano: where is it written that when the majority party decides to enact legislation that is anathema to the minority party, that the minority party must nonetheless join the majority party in committing the heinous act?”

    Nowhere is it so written. The Republicans have every right to be obstructionists – it is a free country, and they can do as they please.

    They just can’t then turn around and whine about be ‘excluded’ from the sausage making.
    Although yeah, they CAN do that too – its just that we all get to laugh at them when they try.

    Comment by Tano — January 6, 2010 @ 1:00 pm - January 6, 2010

  19. Chris,

    “Would you say Democrats did not want to be an effective minority party in our little hypothetical? ”

    That would depend on whether or not they made any effort to try to work with the GOP. If they made the effort, then the charge would not be justified. If they didn’t, then it would.

    I don’t understand what you are driving at. Are you claiming that the GOP made an effort to help fashion a reform bill? Because if you are saying that, then you are dead wrong.

    Or are you saying, like most others here, that the GOP was absolutely right in manifesting total opposition? In which case, you agree with me that they have made no positive contribution.

    And in that case, how can you criticize the Dems for not including them in the negotiations? The GOP does not want to be in the negotiations.

    It is overwhelmingly, and abundantly clear, that Obama would have loved to have any Republican join in the effort. We see that with his outreaches to Snowe, and how he tried to encourage the gang of six. He has taken enormous heat from the progressives who feel he has been willing to give away far too much in order to get at least a few Republicans on board.

    Sorry, but the evidence show, without question (and the polls show Americans agree) that the party-line alignment on health reform is the fault of the GOP – and their fundamental decision to be absolutely opposed.
    They have the right to do that – just dont turn around then and blame Dems for shutting you out.

    Comment by Tano — January 6, 2010 @ 1:10 pm - January 6, 2010

  20. Again, I did not ask for liberal talking points. I asked you to answer the questions based on the hypothetical. It doesn’t matter what I think. I want to know how you, putting blatant partisanship aside, would answer the questions.

    The only thing I will say is that if you are going to throw out polls to support your positions, would you please do us all the courtesy of providing the poll you are talking about. You can make any poll show whatever you want it to say. So, if you are going to say “without question (and the polls show Americans agree) that the party-line alignment on health reform is the fault of the GOP,” please provide the poll that you think supports your argument.

    Comment by Chris — January 6, 2010 @ 1:48 pm - January 6, 2010

  21. 47% of Americans believe poll numbers are made up. Don’t ask me to source that, just take me at my word.

    Comment by V the K — January 6, 2010 @ 1:58 pm - January 6, 2010

  22. Well Chris, I am here to discuss the political issues of the day, and in this thread, that means health care reform and the role of the two parties. I am not here to play your games by your rules, or answer silly hypotheticals asked in pursuit of some unknown point on your part.

    THe issue here is really not that complicated. The original post made reference to a charge that Republicans were being excluded from the process. I objected and pointed out that Republicans exclueded themselves from the process.

    Now, whenever people round here address me, they all feel absolutely compelled to preface their remarks with a bunch of insults and put-downs, so you might end up missing the fact that most folks here actually were agreeing with me. The most often expressed sentiment in this thread seems to be that the GOP was damn well correct in refusing to participate in drafting reform.

    So what is the problem here? And specifically, what is YOUR problem?

    I asked you, with nice straightforward questions, not hypotheticals, what your position is. Do you claim the GOP actually made an effort to help write a reform? If so, give some evidence, because that seems very wrong.
    Or do you claim, like most here, the GOP was completely opposed, and that is a good thing? In which case, how can you or anyone of you, object that the Dems were somehow excluding the GOP – from a process they wanted no part of.

    Instead of trying to show off your wit and intellegence by constructing hypotheticals, try to answer a simple question, and please try to communicate clearly what the hell your point is.

    As to the polls regarding blame for lack of bipartisanship – I have seen such results repeatedly, but dont keep a file on such things. He are a couple that quickly pop up though, one from Aug, one from Sept.

    LINK

    LINK

    Comment by Tano — January 6, 2010 @ 2:15 pm - January 6, 2010

  23. “Well Chris, I am here to discuss the political issues of the day, and in this thread, that means health care reform and the role of the two parties. I am not here to play your games by your rules, or answer silly hypotheticals asked in pursuit of some unknown point on your part.”

    *snort*

    [Tano to English filter]
    Well I’m not smart enough to figure out how to answer your hypothetical without looking like an idiot, so I’m going to back away from it slowly, while hoping for fresh talking points. My purpose here is to get those talking points out under ‘topics of the day’ which is why I run when I get confronted by facts and questions I can’t answer.
    [/Tano to English filter]

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 6, 2010 @ 2:38 pm - January 6, 2010

  24. Aside from Olympia, can you name one single Republican who, at any point in this very long process, has ever shown the slightest hint of a desire to work together with Democrats to fashion a bill?

    Way, way too easy.

    Rep. Charles Boustany, (R-La.), delivering the Republican Party’s response to the president’s weekly address today, said, “Let me be clear, Republicans want to work with President Obama and other Democrats to ensure that every American has access to affordable, high-quality health coverage.”

    Talking Points Tano and Barack Obama get caught in another lie — and in the process, treat us to the hilarity of Talking Points Tano demanding that other people answer his questions as he refuses to answer theirs.

    Again, I repeat my suggestion; Talking Points Tano is confronted with all the questions he refuses to answer, and then has every post he makes that isn’t an answer to them deleted.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 6, 2010 @ 3:19 pm - January 6, 2010

  25. It is no wonder that all the polls show the GOP less popular than Democrats, and Boehner and McConnell far less popular than Pelosi and Reid (imagine that!).

    Another lie from Talking Points Tano.

    Fish in a barrel. Sheesh.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 6, 2010 @ 3:26 pm - January 6, 2010

  26. Ok, since you are not smart enough to understand that what I outlined is exactly what has happened over the last year in regards to health reform, and are not smart enough to answer questions without having your liberal talking points to back you up, I will do away with the socratic method.

    My point was that Republicans did offer solutions, but they were all turned down. If the President was sincere, and wanted to include tort reform, and try other alternatives before turning to the public option, there would not be this hostility. The hostility stems from, as you completely missed from my post, this democratic attitude that 280 people who are completely ignoring the wishes of the American people, feel that they know what is best for American’s better than the people do.

    And, as a result, they have completely done away with even a hint of transperancy to be on the verge of passing one of the most corrupt and destructive pieces of legislation in American history.

    Although, I have to say, it’s hilarious how you did not realize that my hypothetical was an exact replica of how the Democrats have gone about getting heathcare reform.

    And for the record, in the political realm, 4 month old polls are completely worthless. And, if you want to link to polls, at least link to legitamate polls.

    Comment by Chris — January 6, 2010 @ 3:51 pm - January 6, 2010

  27. Geez Chris, you too? Are you people around here just emotionally incapable of writing a paragraph without first engaging in this silly chest-beating, name-calling, “I’m so smart and you are so dumb” boasting? What incredible complexes you guys must be suffering from! It does get tiring though…

    “My point was that Republicans did offer solutions, but they were all turned down.”

    First off, laying out a completely different approach is not the same thing as sitting down and contributing constructively to an actual final product. Various Republicans, actually a very few, repeated some standard GOP postions – lets sell policies across state lines, do tort reform, etc – like McCain proposed in the campaign. That is not working together, thats just holding a position.

    Secondly, on the really minor detail level, Democrats did accept 161 amendments from Republicans in committee work. Most of these were of little real consequence, granted. But the Dems certainly tried to be accomodating. And Obama especially.

    “The hostility stems from, as you completely missed from my post, this democratic attitude that 280 people who are completely ignoring the wishes of the American people, feel that they know what is best for American’s better than the people do.”

    First off, this is a representative democracy Chris. We elect representatives to fashion legislation. Democratic representatives ran on the promise of universal health care. As did the President. By pushing this bill, they are doing exactly what they promised to do. As for the support of the people, several polling firms have asked deeper questions than just top level support or oppose, and they have found that the opposition to the bill comes in part (about a quarter of the opposition) from people who feel the bills are not liberal enough. When those people come to accept that the bill is about as liberal as one can get, given the realities of where the country and the Senate are, they will probably be supportive, and that would tip the balance to overall support.

    I understand that the right has been arguing vociferously that the opposition numbers somehow indicate that the majority of Americans are with them – that they all oppose the bill from the right. But that is just not so.

    “it’s hilarious how you did not realize that my hypothetical was an exact replica of how the Democrats have gone about getting heathcare reform.”

    Actually Chris, that was rather obvious. I just had no intention of sitting there playing along with the silly game. THats why I picked out one question and answered that.

    “if you want to link to polls, at least link to legitamate polls.”

    ??? Oh, so Gallup is an illegitimate poll now? What makes a poll legitimate – that you like the result?

    Comment by Tano — January 6, 2010 @ 4:56 pm - January 6, 2010

  28. I do so love it when the shill Tano contradicts himself.

    First Tano tries to claim this:

    Democratic representatives ran on the promise of universal health care. As did the President.

    But then:

    When those people come to accept that the bill is about as liberal as one can get, given the realities of where the country and the Senate are

    In short, Tano first claims that the people want the single-payer, nationalized health care that the Obama Party supports and endorses — but then admits that the country and the Senate do not support the Obama Party and Barack Obama health care agenda.

    The answer is simple. Barack Obama lied. The Obama Party lied. Nancy Pelosi admitted yesterday that Barack Obama lied during the campaign when he talked about health care.

    That is why Tano has to keep going back to the election. Obama and the Obama Party repeatedly lied to voters. They stated they would post all bills for five days, and they have not. They stated they would initiate a net spending cut, and instead quadrupled spending. They stated they would ban all lobbyists, then hired, promoted, and used lobbyists to set the country’s policies and regulations. They demanded tax increases while refusing to pay their own. They denied Iran was working on nuclear weapons and then, once in office, were forced to flip-flop by the facts that were obvious to everyone.

    Now they are trying to use the election results based on the lies they told voters rather than the actual facts of their governing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 6, 2010 @ 5:13 pm - January 6, 2010

  29. The only time that both parties showed any semblance of working together on this ‘health care’ bill is (drum roll please):

    Voting against it in the House of Representatives, their version of the bill.

    Comment by Jax Dancer — January 6, 2010 @ 5:15 pm - January 6, 2010

  30. It is no wonder that all the polls show the GOP less popular than Democrats

    Sorry! Not even remotely true!

    Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 44% Democrats 35%

    Americans LOATHE “progressivism”. They disapprove of EVERY single policy Democrats are pushing.

    And that’s BEFORE Republicans have unveiled any sort of agenda. Which they will wait to do until the election is much closer so as not to distract from the Democrats self-destruction.

    First rule of politics? If your opponents are destroying themselves, get out of the way and let them!

    Comment by American Elephant — January 6, 2010 @ 6:02 pm - January 6, 2010

  31. Oh, so Gallup is an illegitimate poll now? What makes a poll legitimate – that you like the result?

    That their results aren’t near dead last in accuracy, as CNN’s are.

    Comment by American Elephant — January 6, 2010 @ 6:04 pm - January 6, 2010

  32. Tano (#18) floats this:

    Nowhere is it so written. The Republicans have every right to be obstructionists – it is a free country, and they can do as they please.

    They just can’t then turn around and whine about be ‘excluded’ from the sausage making.

    Ooops!

    How could the party that is the butt of being the minority party in a “filibuster-proof” Senate be “obstructionists”? What did they do, roll ball bearings down the aisle hoping Robert Byrd’s wheelchair would wobble and wake him up?

    I remember when the democrat health care reform morphed into an attack on the insurance industry. Do you? Well, then how come the Senate bill comes out loaded with insurance industry goodies that are driving the Kos Kids to apoplexy? Did the “obstructionist filibuster proof Republicans cause that?

    But, never mind that inconvenience of logic. Just tell me where and when the Republicans were invited into the process to discuss insurance portability and capping malpractice awards.

    Of course, knowing that you are a hit and run artist, I won’t stay up late hoping you will produce anything other than the usual methane.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 6, 2010 @ 7:26 pm - January 6, 2010

  33. Obama had Republicans over the WH, and was on the phone to them constantly all summer trying to win some of them over. He personally talked with the gang of six. He publicly undermined the public option – saying he thought it was the best way forward, but it was certainly on the table for negotiation, in an effort to entice some Republicans to be serious. (to say nothing of refusing to allow any discussion of a single-payer system right from the very beginning).

    “How could the …minority party in a “filibuster-proof” Senate be “obstructionists”?”

    ??? Having only 40 votes means that, if push comes to shove and the Dems hold together, the Repubicans cannot be a _successful_ obstructionist party. As seems to be the case as this plays out. But they certainly are obstructionist in terms of their motivation and intent – they are doing everything possible to prevent anything from happening, rather than trying to work together to compromise – getting some of their concerns met, while conceding a greater number of Dem concerns (yeah, being in the majority means the bill, even in a bipartisan lovefest, is going to reflect your views more than the minority’s views).

    Grassley had that famous moment of honesty and clarity at the end of his involvement with the gang of six. Something along the lines of “I will vote against this bill even if the Dems give me everything I want in the negotiations”. There you have it – the Republican idea of how to be a partner for reform.
    Actually it shows a lot of chutzpah. Negotiate for weeks on end, forcing the Dems to weaken the bill so much so that they start to lose the support of their own base, then refuse to vote for the bill nonetheless. Dems, to their shame, actually were conned by this long enough so that it almost succeeded.

    I think they have learned from that episode, that Republicans are not to be trusted. Bipartisanship is a noble goal, but at the end of the day, it really does require at least a minimal committment from both sides. I think the GOP realized that Obama had campaigned on bringing some increased measure of comity and bipartisanship to DC – so that in pursuit of their absolute mission to destroy his presidency, this was a no-brainer. It was impossible for Obama to make any headway on bipartisanship if the GOP was absolutely unwilling – and so that is the position they took.

    But it has come at a great price. Public approval of the GOP is lower than for the Dems, and far far lower than for the president. That probably is the biggest single factor that will prevent ’10 from being like ’94 – the profound unpopularity of the alternative party.

    Comment by Tano — January 6, 2010 @ 9:21 pm - January 6, 2010

  34. Yeah, Tano, he was trying to win them over, but he wasn’t listening to their ideas.

    And when are you going to fault Tom Daschle and Harry Reid for using the same type of “obstructionist” tactics Republicans are using today?

    Um, and um, well, if public approval for the GOP is so low, then how come in the generic ballot, Republicans are at a record high measured against the Democrats. And GOP candidates historically perform above the generic number.

    Oh, yeah, one more thing, public approval of the GOP may still be lacking (and a lot of that has to do with conservatives still dissatisfied with the party), public disapproval of the Democrats is higher than that of the GOP and increasing.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 6, 2010 @ 9:59 pm - January 6, 2010

  35. #26: “Ok, since you are not smart enough to understand that what I outlined is exactly what has happened over the last year in regards to health reform, and are not smart enough to answer questions without having your liberal talking points to back you up, I will do away with the socratic method.”

    We tried to warn you, Chris. Several weeks ago some childish, mean-spirited conservative gave Tano the nickname “Talking Points Tano.” (Oh yeah. That was me.) There’s a reason why it stuck.

    Comment by Sean A — January 6, 2010 @ 10:36 pm - January 6, 2010

  36. #27: “Various Republicans, actually a very few, repeated some standard GOP postions – lets sell policies across state lines, do tort reform, etc – like McCain proposed in the campaign. That is not working together, thats just holding a position.”

    Yes, Tano, a position that would reduce healthcare costs by billions, but you statists aren’t interested in that because your real goal is government control over the healthcare decisions of every American. You could give a fu*k what it costs.

    Comment by Sean A — January 6, 2010 @ 10:39 pm - January 6, 2010

  37. Grassley had that famous moment of honesty and clarity at the end of his involvement with the gang of six. Something along the lines of “I will vote against this bill even if the Dems give me everything I want in the negotiations”. There you have it – the Republican idea of how to be a partner for reform.

    And again, Talking Points Tano simply lies.

    But then again, we’re used to this; Talking Points Tano always lies about conservatives.

    It’s time for a ban on Tano. He simply cannot stop himself from telling lies about conservatives, and he refuses to take accountability for his behavior. A public post should be made pointing out the numerous lies Tano has stated and giving him the opportunity to apologize for and correct his lies. If he fails to do so, he should be banned.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 7, 2010 @ 3:48 am - January 7, 2010

  38. It’s time for a ban on Tano.

    Absolutely not. This pathetic Pelosi panty sniffer is a lying POS, but it would be a lot less fun without him.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 7, 2010 @ 6:51 am - January 7, 2010

  39. It’s time for a ban on Tano.

    Please take that back, NDT. Tano serves a wonderful purpose here. He is like jock itch or a chigger bite or a chipped tooth. You don’t go looking for him, but the reality of his form of blather is an important part of reminding one of how truly hopeless it is to try to teach snakes to tap dance. It also makes one reevaluate the merits of a snake that can tap dance.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 7, 2010 @ 9:06 am - January 7, 2010

  40. Will Tano be the last plant from the DNC to support and parrot Obama? Even Dodd and Dorgan have abandoned ship. But not ole tano. hehe.
    Glad all the pollsters now mirror Rasmussen. The people, you remember them….hate Obamacare, hate cap n tax, hate Obama, hate all his policies. What a quick fall. Take another vacation.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — January 7, 2010 @ 2:00 pm - January 7, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.