Support NeoGAF

[Mercury Fred]

Wasn't her husband the president? What makes you think Hillary would have been better at getting healthcare passed if she was president over Bill Clinton?

Her ass couldn't even win the DEM nomination for christ's sake. People only call me a cheerleader because they don't have anything intelligent to say. So they do what you just did. Say something stupid.

You are fucking hilarious. So being someone's wife is the same as being in that position oneself. Gotcha. By your logic, we could just swap out actors' spouses for roles in films too. No one would notice the difference.

First Lady Hillary ≠ Theoretical President Hillary

Hillary 1.0 was still kind of idealistic and hampered by trying to do things "properly." Hillary 2.0 turned out to be a ruthless street fighter. I really think she would have been a warpath president in terms of getting shit done.

Anyway, you're never going to remove your blinders so I'm not even sure why I'm responding, but there you go.

 

[Tamanon]

She was such a ruthless street fighter, she couldn't even beat a "weak" young senator.

Also, in a rather important diplomatic position for a street fighter.:lol

 

[reilo]

She was such a ruthless street fighter, she couldn't even beat a "weak" young senator.

Theoretically, she should have!

 

[GhaleonEB]

Why do you say this

Because while Clinton would have fought harder for her bill, I don't think she would have fought smarter. Obama has shown that he can (largely) navigate Congressional hurdles and egos. Clinton would have tried to bulldoze the Blue Dogs and Conrads, and they would have revolted. Their egos are so fragile.

 

[Mercury Fred]

She was such a ruthless street fighter, she couldn't even beat a "weak" young senator.

Because the Obama campaign's Nike-style aspirational emptiness (Yes We Can = Just Do It, what does either really mean anyway? ((Thank you Naomi Klein)) ) appealed to disillusioned voters. And with good reason. What we're seeing now is that with Obama, there is no there there. He's a non-entity and not what was needed to clean up the Bush debacle.

 

[PantherLotus]

Matthews just murdered Dr. Dean on live television.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I still don't know wtf sebelius is doing throughout all this

 

[Tamanon]

Because the Obama campaign's Nike-style aspirational emptiness (Yes We Can = Just Do It, what does either really mean anyway? ((Thank you Naomi Klein)) ) appealed to disillusioned voters. And with good reason. What we're seeing now is that with Obama, there is no there there. He's a non-entity and not what was needed to clean up the Bush debacle.

Also Hillary would've supported gay marriage!

 

[besada]

Because while Clinton would have fought harder for her bill, I don't think she would have fought smarter. Obama has shown that he can (largely) navigate Congressional hurdles and egos. Clinton would have tried to bulldoze the Blue Dogs and Conrads, and they would have revolted. Their egos are so fragile.

Not to mention that she's likely the only candidate on the planet the Republicans would hate more than Obama. It's not as if the people who accused her and her husband of killing their own political allies are gone from the Congress.

 

[The Librarian]

From the din of panic a potential plan is emerging. We'll see how it shakes out soon.

Tomorrow is going to be interesting. They can do it. Come on!

 

[reggieandTFE]

isnt that redundant? Nazi is short for National Socialist you just said socialists national socialist

It's fitting that someone with an Ayn Rand avatar would be confused about something like this. Go read a history book.

 

[Diablos]

My problem with the Dems revolves around whoever thought it was a brilliant idea to create a party whose entire philosophy can be summed up with the following phrase:

"If you aren't a fringe right winger, come on down, we'll accept you in our party."

Actually, Emmanuel was one of the people who really advocated this idea. If a state/district is pretty red, run Democrats with a conservative tilt, how much of a tilt it is be damned, so long as they keep a (D) next to their name. Afterwards, hope you can convince them to go along with you at least part of the time, especially when it counts most. I was always a bit weary of this strategy they rolled out for the 2006 elections. They should have gone for more liberal/legitimately centrist candidates and slowly built upon that; the momentum was there regardless, and given Obama's epic win in 2008, they would have had a much more loyal group of Democrats in charge and not a bunch of "blue dogs" who could pass as Republicans over half the time.

 

[Tamanon]

Actually, Emmanuel was one of the people who really advocated this idea. If a state/district is pretty red, run Democrats with a conservative tilt, how much of a tilt it is be damned, so long as they keep a (D) next to their name. Afterwards, hope you can convince them to go along with you at least part of the time, especially when it counts most. I was always a bit weary of this strategy they rolled out for the 2006 elections. They should have gone for more liberal/legitimately centrist candidates and slowly built upon that; the momentum was there regardless, and given Obama's epic win in 2008, they would have had a much more loyal group of Democrats in charge and not a bunch of "blue dogs" who could pass as Republicans over half the time.

Technically, if they had gone with more liberal candidates, they would've just ended up with Republicans instead of Blue Dogs.

 

[avatar299]

avatar

Your avatar:lol :lol :lol

Technically, if they had gone with more liberal candidates, they would've just ended up with Republicans instead of Blue Dogs.

Would there have been a difference?

 

[Veritas_]

Snowe is just pathetic. There's no point in talking with the republican members at all.

What's the deal with Sen. Snowe anyways? As in, why is everyone so desperate for her vote? I understand the slim majority that's of concern, but why her specifically? As far as I've seen she doesn't want to play ball, so why keep trying to compromise?

 

[GhaleonEB]

On the subject of what could be done, but won't, from Ezra Klein:

Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill. If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. You also admit the limitations of the reconciliation process. So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy.

And that's it. No cost controls. No delivery-system reforms. Nothing that makes the bill long or complex or unfamiliar. Medicare buy-in had more than 51 votes as recently as a month ago. The Medicaid change is simply a larger version of what's already passed both chambers. This bill would be shorter than a Danielle Steel novel. It could take effect before the 2012 election.

If health-care reform that preserves the private market is too complex and requires too many dirty deals with the existing industries, then cut both out. But get it done. Democrats have a couple of different options for passing health-care reform this year. But not passing health-care reform should not be seen as one of them.

Not ideal. But it would be one hell of a start.

 

[140.85]

It's fitting that someone with an Ayn Rand avatar would be confused about something like this. Go read a history book.

Um...

 

[Aaron Strife]

Theoretically, she should have!

Just like Martha Coakley!

 

[Tamanon]

Your avatar:lol :lol :lol


Would there have been a difference?

Only when it comes to committee seatings, that's about it. Oh and they wouldn't be as powerful because they would no longer be a swing vote for the majority party, or at least not an automatic one.

 

[avatar299]

It's fitting that someone with an Ayn Rand avatar would be confused about something like this. Go read a history book.

Whenever I wake up
-clap-
And I put on my makeup
I do a little prayer for you

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Just like Martha Coakley!

:lol

 

[Averon]

Technically, if they had gone with more liberal candidates, they would've just ended up with Republicans instead of Blue Dogs.

Yup. The simple reason is that there are still many areas in the country where conservatism is very strong. You can't win in those areas if you're not a Rep or a "Blue Dog" Dem. And it's those very areas that "Blue Dog" Dems won in 2006 and 2008 that give the Dems their majority. No Blue dogs, no Dem majority in the House and a narrow majority in the Senate.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Just like Martha Coakley!

Ouch!

 

[Particle Physicist]

Would there have been a difference?

Actually. Yes. If you notice, they eventually got votes from the Blue Dogs. If there were Republicans in their stead, there is no way we would have gotten this far with Healthcare reform.

 

[PantherLotus]

Whenever we as PoliGAF get in this collective kermitfreakout.gif mode of freaking out, I like to remind everybody of the alternative:

We wouldn't have passed the stimulus, wouldn't have even tried with health care, wouldn't have realigned in Afghanistan, and probably would have invaded Yemen after the Christmas Underpants bomber, and invaded haiti after the earthquake. McCain would still have a greater than 66% chance of dying in office (actuary tables, people!), and this twit with her fuckin' wolf rifle and fundamentalist approach to pretty much everything would be looking for more ways to cut taxes off the top 2%, removing all environmental protections (of everything), banning abortions, banning gays, and while we're at it, banning black people.

The fact that the teabaggers have somehow white-washed the entire Bush administration of any responsibility and Democrats sucking at the golden teat of Wall Street should keep you up at night, but really, we can sob into our liberal hankies for another week or several, but remind yourself of what could have been.

PoliGAF 2010: Republigeddon, meet Dempocalypse.

 

[PhoenixDark]

In a private meeting in the Capitol just now, a dozen or more House liberals bluntly told Nancy Pelosi that there was no chance that they would vote to pass the Senate bill in its current form — making it all but certain that House Dems won’t opt for this approach, a top House liberal tells me.

“We cannot support the Senate bill — period,” is the message that liberals delivered to the Speaker, Dem Rep Raul Grijalva told me in an interview just now.

Some had hoped Pelosi would push liberals to get in line behind this approach, in hopes of expediting reform, but that didn’t appear to happen in this meeting. Pelosi mostly listened, Grijalva said, adding: “We didn’t get any declarative statement from her.”

The meeting, which was polite but blunt in tone, underscores the degree to which Dems are scrambling to figure out a way forward on health care in the wake of last night’s loss. The unwillingness of liberals, and some in labor, to support passing the Senate bill means House Dem leaders need to find another way forward — fast — and leadership aides are scouring procedural rules as we speak.

Tellingly, House liberals also urged Pelosi to consider passing individual pieces of reform through the House as individual bills, and sending them to the Senate to challenge the upper chamber to reject them, Grijalva tells me. Liberals said this approach would be preferable to passing the Senate bill.

For instance, Grijalva said, why not send the Senate individual bills that would, among other things, nix the “Cadillac” tax or close the donut hole, pressuring the Senate to deal with each provision separately?

“If the Senate chooses not to close the donut hole, that’s their damn problem,” Grijalva said. “They’ve had it too easy. One vote controls everything. Collectively, we’re tired of that.”

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...osi-we-cannot-support-the-senate-bill-period/

 

[reggieandTFE]

Um...

Here's a short historical capsule for the infinitely ignorant.

In the early 20th century working class movements and parties were on the rise across the world, most notably in Europe (witness the Bolsheviks in Russia). Most working class movements had been suppressed and gone underground since the aborted 1848 revolutions, but the German (SPD) established in the 1860s quickly became the largest European socialist party.

Similar to attempts by today's far right British National Party and France's National Front, the Nazi attempted to absorb the economic dislocation of the working classes through racist appeals to nationalism.

Upon being granted emergency powers, Hitler's first acts were to ban all independent trade unions and all other political parties. Thousands of socialists and communists were jailed, killed and silenced years before the Holocaust even started.

So yes, he needs to go read a history book and stop believing in the revisionist history of the Limbaughs and their ilk.

 

[Tamanon]

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...osi-we-cannot-support-the-senate-bill-period/

Seems rather moronic to me.

"Bill has 90% of what we want, and it's either this or nothing for a long time if ever this term. Let's kill it. Not our fault!"

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...osi-we-cannot-support-the-senate-bill-period/

Eh. Just like when they said Medicare +5% or nothing. Or public option or nothing. Or no excise tax or nothing. Or....the list goes on.

If they get a commitment from leadership of both houses to 1) pass the Senate bill and 2) pass a reconciliation bill that includes the agreed to compromises, adds a public option, adds Medicare buy-in, etc, they'd bite. They're just throwing down the gauntlet, as they have many times before.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Eh. Just like when they said Medicare +5% or nothing. Or public option or nothing. Or no excise tax or nothing. Or....the list goes on.

If they get a commitment from leadership of both houses to 1) pass the Senate bill and 2) pass a reconciliation bill that includes the agreed to compromises, adds a public option, adds Medicare buy-in, etc, they'd bite. They're just throwing down the gauntlet, as they have many times before.

I agree. But will they demand medicare buy in/medicaid expansion as Klein mentioned, or go for the entire cake and demand a public option?

It's kinda funny that after all the compromises they've made, it sounds like they could finally get something substantial that they want. On the 1 yard line.

 

[140.85]

Here's a short historical capsule for the infinitely ignorant.

In the early 20th century working class movements and parties were on the rise across the world, most notably in Europe (witness the Bolsheviks in Russia). Most working class movements had been suppressed and gone underground since the aborted 1848 revolutions, but the German (SPD) established in the 1860s quickly became the largest European socialist party.

Similar to attempts by today's far right British National Party and France's National Front, the Nazi attempted to absorb the economic dislocation of the working classes through racist appeals to nationalism.

Upon being granted emergency powers, Hitler's first acts were to ban all independent trade unions and all other political parties. Thousands of socialists and communists were jailed, killed and silenced years before the Holocaust even started.

So yes, he needs to go read a history book and stop believing in the revisionist history of the Limbaughs and their ilk.

Er...but he was right. It's the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

 

[platypotamus]

Seems rather moronic to me.

"Bill has 90% of what we want, and it's either this or nothing for a long time if ever this term. Let's kill it. Not our fault!"

I hope in some ways it's bluster, like Ghal is saying. OTOH, I kind of hope that the leadership takes that bluster seriously and go nuclear.

No, they won't

 

[RustyNails]

What's the deal with Sen. Snowe anyways? As in, why is everyone so desperate for her vote? I understand the slim majority that's of concern, but why her specifically? As far as I've seen she doesn't want to play ball, so why keep trying to compromise?

Its because she's probably the most moderate republican in the senate right now when it comes to social issues. She supports abortions and gay marriage. She's from Maine after all. But she has lot of conservative leaning ideas on economic issues. What I'm hoping whats going on with Snowe is that she struck a deal with democrats. She will vote no on the cloture but yes on the final bill, much like how Dennis Kucinish voted against the cloture (surprisingly) but its pretty certain that he will vote for the final bill. Olympia Snowe voted no on the senate bill, but it was a procedural vote against the cloture which she knew democrats will have the 60 votes with or without her. Yeah, Lieberman threw baby tantrums but it was clear that he didn't had a fallout. Same with Nelson. But now that her vote really matters, she can break from the republican voting bloc. Not just because her vote will matter but because she can appeal to her state's voters too who are largely independent.

 

[platypotamus]

Er...but he was right. It's the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

You're asking for a tag quote, aren't you?

 

[GhaleonEB]

It's kinda funny that after all the compromises they've made, it sounds like they could finally get something substantial that they want. On the 1 yard line.

That might be why they're striking like this. And they're offering an alternative: pass chunks of reforms that are easy to understand and are effective. With the current proposal, the exchanges, madate, regulations, subsidies and financing are all joined at the hip. You can't break those apart, because they depend on each other.

You can, however, pass:

Medicare buy-in
Medicaid expansion
Prescription drug price negotiations (close donut hole, per one of their specific requests)
A public option

All as stand-alone items via budget reconciliation.

It wouldn't get to the delivery system reforms or regulations that need to happen, but it would be a good start, and it would cut right into the private market. Though, adverse selection would be a tough nut to crack without some regulations.

 

[The Librarian]

PoliGAF 2010: Republigeddon, meet Dempocalypse.

Please, not this.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

HOORAY FOR BOWING TO UNIONS!

 

[GhaleonEB]

U-Turn: Frank Says, With Assurances, He'll Vote For The Senate Health Care Bill

Signs initial panic is easing, part 7 today.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Actually. Yes. If you notice, they eventually got votes from the Blue Dogs. If there were Republicans in their stead, there is no way we would have gotten this far with Healthcare reform.

In many cases, this would be true.

However, would this have been true across the board?

I'm not so certain on that.

(Referring to the courting the Blue Dogs strategy as a whole.)

 

[The Librarian]

U-Turn: Frank Says, With Assurances, He'll Vote For The Senate Health Care Bill

Signs initial panic is easing, part 7 today.

Good. See, people? No need to overreact. Wait for things to play out first.

 

[RiskyChris]

Good. See, people? No need to overreact. Wait for things to play out first.

Gonna repeat this every day the next 7 years.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

PEOPLE WAIT FOR TOMMORROW'S POLLS KTHNX

 

[mckmas8808]

Because the Obama campaign's Nike-style aspirational emptiness (Yes We Can = Just Do It, what does either really mean anyway? ((Thank you Naomi Klein)) ) appealed to disillusioned voters. And with good reason. What we're seeing now is that with Obama, there is no there there. He's a non-entity and not what was needed to clean up the Bush debacle.

You act like Obama hasn't done anything while in office. And you act like he doesn't take a position on things. Wasn't it clear that he took the position to try and pass health care within his first year in office?

 

[Byakuya769]

You act like Obama hasn't done anything while in office. And you act like he doesn't take a position on things. Wasn't it clear that he took the position to try and pass health care within his first year in office?

I haven't even read this post. I'm just going to tell you a simple rule.

You cannot cheerlead for people actually in office: It is offensive. However, feel free to cheerlead for those who lost elections, cause it's an axiom that they could have done better.

 

[RiskyChris]

You act like Obama hasn't done anything while in office. And you act like he doesn't take a position on things. Wasn't it clear that he took the position to try and pass health care within his first year in office?

"Try and pass health care my first year in office" is pretty much the weakest position in the world.

 

[mckmas8808]

I haven't even read this post. I'm just going to tell you a simple rule.

You cannot cheerlead for people actually in office: It is offensive. However, feel free to cheerlead for those who lost elections, cause it's an axiom that they could have done better.

:lol

I'm tripping out because the guy is acting as if someone that lost (like you said) would have done better.

This is the same person (Hillary) that couldn't get enough Senators and House members to give her enough super delegate votes. But for some odd reason they would have given her a controversial vote on health care.

 

[mckmas8808]

"Try and pass health care my first year in office" is pretty much the weakest position in the world.

Obviously I condensed what he said 20 times over. But again he did take many positions on health care. Maybe you need to look some of them up?

 

[empty vessel]

It largely doesn't matter at all who is in Congress or who the president is, including which party they belong to. It matters what is happening outside D.C. The right is currently organized and active, and the left is currently dead. This is why the currently proposed health care bill is (1) conservative and (2) on the verge of entirely failing. There isn't much more you need to know. There is a lot more you need to do. Organize.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Ezra Klein summarizes the state of healthcare, with confirmation of the single most important thing: Kent Conrad, who oversees the budget reconciliation process, is open to using it for healthcare.

Conrad opens door to reconciliation for healthcare

The Senate Budget Committee Chairman said Wednesday he’s willing to use special rules to force changes to the healthcare legislation through the Senate with a simple majority vote.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) made clear his openness to applying budget reconciliation to healthcare, a position he opposed prior to this week’s special election in Massachusetts, is contingent on the content of the bill.

His comments lend weight to speculation that congressional Democratic leaders plan to have the House pass the Senate healthcare reform without changes, then pass a second bill with changes hashed out between the two chambers' leaders and the White House.

"If the House passed the Senate bill, could reconciliation, that process, be used to fix things that might be improved upon? Yes," Conrad said. "Would I support it? I can’t know that without knowing what would be included in the package."

Let the negotiations begin (again).

 

[Tamanon]

I'm actually a bit shocked at Conrad being open to it.