Remember when the Democrats were turning blue about the possibility that the Republican majority Senate was going to go to the "nuclear option" because of all the Democratic obstructionism over President Bush's appointments to positions and judgeships? You have to remember the gang of 14? Well now we have a President who wants to ram a humongous entitlement program through with no bi-partisan support whatsoever. This is so opposite everything Obamamessiah had to say before about his healthcare proposal that is hypocratic in the extreme.
During a CBS-TV election night interview on Nov. 2, 2004, for example, Barry said, "My understanding of the Senate is, is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?"
At the Change to Win convention on Sept. 25, 2007, he declared, "The bottom line is that our health-care plans are similar. The question, once again, is: Who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're going to have to have a majority, to get the bill to my desk, that is not just a 50-plus-1 majority."
He didn't stop there. On Oct. 9, 2007, in an interview with the Concord (NH) Monitor, Barry pontificated, "You've got to break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus 1, but you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One -- I mean, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can't deliver on health care. We're not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy."
At the Center for American Progress on July 12, 2006, he confided, "You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives -- and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion -- is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we identify our core base, we throw them red meat, we get a 50-plus-1 victory. But see, Karl Rove doesn't need a broad consensus, because he doesn't believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority."
This is by far the most arrogant, stubborn and elitist President the nation has ever had. He makes Teddy Roosevelt look like a shy man. How can someone be so arrogant that they will stop at nothing, like buying votes again, to ram something through Congress that a sizable majority of Americans are against?
Thus far it appears that everything Jim and I were predicting would happen has since Barry won. If the Obamamessiah rams this home my prediction is that you will see a Dunkirk like defeat for the Democrats this November except that there won't be an armada of boats to keep them from going under.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Mark -
Both sides are extremely hypocritical on this topic - no question about it. The GOP has used reconciliation many times and now acts as though it is unprecedented. The Democrats treated the Filibuster as sacred when they were in the wilderness.
One thing we can all agree on - it is being abused, it has been abused for at least a decade with ever growing frequency. It is time to ditch the rule, effective with the next Congress.
We also need to lose the special privileges that Senators hold dear - the holds and other available institutional speed bumps. This has all made our country less governable.
Welcome back, Mark!
It is worse Mark. Honestly, the stuff you wrote about, how he was unprepared, used thug tactics, honestly I thought you were overstating. You were not!
Rich(ie), then why have 2 chambers? Your twisting of logic as usual defies logic. The Senate is intended, by design, to cool the broth. How can you read his words from 2007 and still support his actions.
What he is doing is against the wishes of the country and just wrong. The silly polls you cite, as always, do not ask...do you want the government to start the process of Socializing health care. The country clearly does not!
Why can't we trust each other Eric? Because of this kind of crap.
The Filibuster was never intended to be used this way. It was used for the first time in the Senate in 1837 - 48 years into our constitution.
The House had the Filibuster and scrapped it in the 19th century, as it made the House ungovernable.
What? The Filibuster is the reason for two bodies? The Good Doc needs to read a little history. There are several reasons for two bodies and that ain't one of them.
The American people overwhelmingly elected the Democrats to the White House, the House and the Senate. The people spoke loud and clear. The governing party needs to govern without being constrained by anachronistic protocol.
Post a Comment