Republicans Won’t Vote For Bill That Completely Concedes To Republicans
Tweet
Are you hearing this, Mr. President?
In an interview today on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan,’ Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R) said he’d vote against any health-care reform bill coming out of the committee unless it has wide support from Republicans — even if the legislation contains EVERYTHING Grassley wants.
Bipartisanship is not a suicide pact.
65 Responses to “Republicans Won’t Vote For Bill That Completely Concedes To Republicans”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
He’s just following Norquist, who thinks bipartisanship is date rape.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/bivens_outrage/699
Political theater at it’s best.
This is because racism is still trying to rule the day! It’s not just that they don’t want a Democrat to fail, they need to have a African American President fail. It is the need to have everything that Obama proposes not work, so that the world will see (in their eyes) that having anyone other than a white male as President of The United States is fruitless, it won’t work. “See, we tried it, and it failed. Now let’s go back to the way it was.” Their belief is just how Pat B’s statement with Rachael M, regarding Supreme Court Justices, “This country was built by white men, and the majority are white in this country….” you remember the rest! This is what they believe, and this is what they are fighting for. The fact that not one Republican denounced the Texas Law that actually was a Death Panel, is telling! First these people are for it (when they propose it) then they are against it. But we should all keep in mind, that in order to keep someone down in the ditch, you gotta get down in there and hold ‘em!
The new math. One Republican = Republicans.
One Republican = Republicans.
We’re talking about Grassley here, Jay. If Chuck won’t vote for the bill, you think he’ll be all alone?
Grassley is the guy who is negotiating on behalf of Senate Republicans!! Yet even if he gets everything he asks for, he won’t vote for the bill unless there’s plenty of support from other Republicans!!
So yes, in this case one Republican, Grassley, is a reliable stand-in for Senate Republicans.
Oliver,
Your missing the long game here. This is reality:
Let’s work to get the stickler out of the Senate’s Finance committe and then we can work our hardest to Strengthen what they are offering.
A lot of people don’t realize that the Senate Finance Committee’s bill represents the WORSE POSSIBLE THING that could be voted on. Believe me, much of the bill is a crap sandwich but there are a lot of good things as well.
So essentially, let’s consider the Finance Committee’s bill the bottom rung of a ladder to build from, not some final do-or-die bill.
Long game here, people.
Oliver,
Your missing the long game here. This is reality
Sounds to me like OW sees the “long game” exactly as you do.
I don’t see that.
I see Oliver more along the lines of “Why is Obama negotiating?!?! Noooooooo”
Look. Every Senator wants their 15 minutes of power so they’ll say shit for the headlines, peddle, stall, etc.
The real deal comes down to the votes on the committees, the conferences, and the final up/down votes. I 100% agree that we need to keep the pressure on both sides of the aisles.
But we also need to cool our heads and focus on the long game as well.
Ironically, the Republicans scuttling the bipartisan Finance Committee bill is probably the best thing that could happen in terms of promoting the public option. If the GOP will vote no regardless of whether all Grassley’s demanded concessions are given, then screw ‘em. We can always go the reconciliation route with this, and if there’s not 51 Dems in the Senate willing to support a public option, then we can make a list and primary a couple of them, just to make our point.
I continue to wonders what is going on in the Administration. How much authority does Obama really have over his subordinates. Remember, Obama came into office with no executive experience and only 4 years in the Senate. Working for Obama are people with far more experience in doing things and they all know Obama is a light weight. Even George W. Bush had a lot of authority over others being a 6 year governor of the second largest state – something none of his cabinet members had achieved. If Obama’s approval rating falls or Obama loses his magic to persuade independents, will Obama lose the ability to demand loyalty from his subordinates? Will his Administration run off in a thousand different directions. It’s already happening. This is the price we pay for electing a rookie to be President.
Let’s just play this out and see what happens.
Unfortunity, I am not sure we have time for the long game. Each Republican lie seems to gain a few more firm opponents. That is because while the MSM does little fact checking, the general public doesn’t do any fact checking. They think with their emotions not their brains.
Negotiating with sociopathy is always a fools strategy.
The best we can hope for is a complete unraveling of the Obama administration and all it tries to accomplish. The debt alone that he has piled up will be hard enough to get out from under.
So put down Amused for “wants Obama to fail.” Why do you hate America AO? LOL
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26188.html
Backpedaling instills confidence, and sure makes for great political theater.
Ignoring the specifics involved, if he is negotiating for the Republicans, doesn’t that mean that by definition he wouldn’t be voting for anything without Republican support? He addressed this in the interview, quoted at Oliver’s link:
Are you just expecting him to just sell them out?
It’s like Grassley’s a senior senator representing a lot of other Republicans or something.
doesn’t that mean that by definition he wouldn’t be voting for anything without Republican support?
Exactly the point, Mr. Killington. Jay seems to believe OW has erred in thinking Mr. Grassley represents more than just his own vote.
Very well Quaker, I guess I am just unclear on Oliver’s original point. I wasn’t trying to hop on the “One Republican” train in the comments.
Let’s just play this out and see what happens.
Yes, let’s do that.
The debt alone that he has piled up will be hard enough to get out from under.
LOLOLOLOLOL
The debt that HE has piled up. In eight months. Right.
Sounds to me like one of the things Grassley wants is a bill that is acceptable to a sufficient number of Republicans. So whatever else it may have in it that he wants, if it doesn’t have that then it isn’t what he wants.
I don’t see a contradiction here.
Are you just expecting him to just sell them out?
Perhaps he needs a better product.
Sounds to me like one of the things Grassley wants is a bill that is acceptable to a sufficient number of Republicans.
but it seems most of the Republicans want Obama to fail and so won’t vote FOR anything that will help him, or Americans.
The problem is Oliver has (again) posted a bogus blog entry title.
The article is clear that Grassley said if he couldn’t round up 4 people vote, he would vote against despite the bill containing everything HE (you know…HE…SINGULAR..CHARLES GRASSLEY…ONE GUY) wants. It doesn’t say the bill would contain items everybody else wants (or wants removed).
Yet Oliver is making it seem as though all of the Senate Republicans on that committee are going to vote against it simply because they’re going to vote against it despite it containing all of the provisions they wanted added (or removed).
If he’s going to write crap like that, he’s going to be called on it.
The debt that HE has piled up. In eight months. Right.
Right!
Even George W. Bush had a lot of authority over others being a 6 year governor of the second largest state – something none of his cabinet members had achieved.
And quite a list of achievements;
By 2000, Texas led the nation in emission of greenhouse gasses -and passed California as the state with the nations worst ozone pollution.
Texas led in counties listed in top 20 of Emitting Cancer Causing Chemicals
Texas ranked 41st in per capita spending on public education.
Texas families payed 13.8 percent of their income in state and local taxes, middle-income families payed 8.6 percent and the wealthiest payed only 4.4 percent.
-Ranked #1 in percentage of poor working parents without insurance and children without health insurance.
-Just to name a few.
It’s hard out there for a Bush pimp. Nobody’s buying.
SaveFarris: Right!
Still no reading the things you link to, I see.
The US public opinion, of course, being such a reliable indicator of how things actually are. Why, it’s not like
– nearly 1 in 5 believe the sun revolves around the earth,
– 25% can’t name which country America fought for independence
– 20% can’t even find America on a map.
I’ve seen these kind of tactics before… amongst school children.
I have to assume SeanD is reading this on his iPhone or some other text-based browser, because for him to ignore the graph that accompanied that post would just be silly.
Sean has some sad statistics regarding the poor state of of NEA controlled education in this country. An interesting sidenote, If projected on a graph the line showing gpa’s has been trending up while the line showing SAT’s has been trending down. Make what you will of this statistical anamoly. It would be interesting to see Seans numbers teased out into numbers separating different demographic slices of the population. I wonder what we might find?
Perhaps we should take a page from the ongoing healthcare debate and ration more expensive forms of education to those who have the greatest liklihood of making worthwhile contributions to society with that education. Or using the savings inherant with a government monopoly to force teachers to achieve satifactory outcomes for less of a finacial charge. The tide has already swung with students starting to sue over educations that haven’t been able to fulfil the implied promise of success that the degree was supposed to offer. The trial lawyers could probably make a strong case for that.
All seems rather silly doesn’t it. So is the idea we can expand healthcare while lowering costs and let people keep the programs that give us, in general, the best survival rates for serious ailments in the world.
The debt that HE has piled up. In eight months. Right.
Right!
You keep dancing to that tune, but the record’s over.
The article is clear that Grassley said if he couldn’t round up 4 people vote, he would vote against despite the bill containing everything HE (you know…HE…SINGULAR..CHARLES GRASSLEY…ONE GUY) wants. It doesn’t say the bill would contain items everybody else wants (or wants removed).
Yep. Country First, all right. MMmmm-hmm.
So Bush & Co. fuck up this country so royally and leave it in such a shambles that a new president has to come in and make some tough economic decisions or face the greatest financial catastrophe in 80 years, and all you can do is blame him for the debts he’s “racked up” in 8 months?
Do I have that right?
I think Obama et al realize that they are going to have to spend government money in order to staunch the bleeding. All y’all don’t.
SaveFarris: because for him to ignore the graph that accompanied that post would just be silly.
Nope, saw the graph. Just didn’t see anything on it that had anything to do with the 71% figure in the headline.
Amused Observer: Perhaps we should take a page from the ongoing healthcare debate and ration more expensive forms of education to those who have the greatest liklihood of making worthwhile contributions to society with that education.
Please point out the specific section in the healthcare proposal that says treatment is going to be rationed based on determination of someone’s “worth” to society?
I’m sure you’ve read all of it, so you should be able to tell us just where you got this particular tidbit.
I’m interested in hearing the answer of AO, too, Sean. I’m interested in hearing about a rationed health care system that ALREADY exists in the USA. I’ve yet to experience it in Canada, nor any of my friends and family yet I seem to live in a system that apparently rations care because it has a *gasp* ‘socialist’ system.
Read Brother Zeke’s remarks regarding healthcare and the elderly. Might I remind you that “the bill” is not in a final form and there is much room for change. The candid thoughts of the architects are at least as good an indicator of what lies ahead as a bill having failed to being rammed through in great haste will be much modified before they try it again.
Your original post was mocking the intelligence of some of our fellow Americans. It would be natural given your insults to wonder who taught these impaired Americans and who they were.
The whole debate over questioning the amounts of healthcare that old people consume is all about worth to society. Limiting people’s participation in the healthcare system at the very time they can be expected to need it most is a rather callous way of cutting costs. Again see Brother Zeke’s publish thoughts on this. A bit strange coming from a man whose first sworn duty is to do no harm. We could hope for a higher moral code from a man who has taken such an oath but given the company he keeps perhaps that is more than we can expect.
Oh… btw, do you realize that Grassley, like so many other politicians on both sides of the aisle, are funded quite nicely by insurance and medical groups. Not like Grassley has any ulterior motive for his “moral” stand, right?
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=n00001758&type=I
Read Brother Zeke’s remarks regarding healthcare and the elderly.
I’d love to. In an earlier thread, I asked where we might find where he “committed in writing” to draconian measures against the superannuated. Perhaps this time you will be so good as to humor me.
Amused o: Read Brother Zeke’s remarks regarding healthcare and the elderly. Might I remind you that “the bill” is not in a final form and there is much room for change. The candid thoughts of the architects are at least as good an indicator of what lies ahead as a bill having failed to being rammed through in great haste will be much modified before they try it again.
Backpedal much, AO? So the bill isn’t final. So? Presumably your criticism and claims of rationed care are based on something that has been proposed and you’re not just railing against something that isn’t really there. So I ask for you to point out which specific section you find rationed care based on determined worth and you answer by pointing to, not anything in an actual proposal or bill, mind you, but some unspecified comments by a person not even in gov’t.
And “rammed through”? That has about as much truth to it as “death panels”, “rationed care”, and blue fairies.
Your original post was mocking the intelligence of some of our fellow Americans.
No, it mocked SaveFarris.
Quaker in a B: Perhaps this time you will be so good as to humor me.
I dunno. Asking Amused for actual specifics…
a new president has to come in and make some tough economic decisions or face the greatest financial catastrophe in 80 years
“Spend like there’s no tomorrow!!!” is not “making tough economic decisions”.
Insignificant budget cuts is not “making tough economic decisions”.
Passing a stimulus bill we can’t pay for in order to paper over debts incurred by state governments is not “making tough economic decisions”.
I think Obama et al realize that they are going to have to spend government money in order to staunch the bleeding.
Best Joe Biden impersonation ever!!!
LOL Sean,
Blue fairies might be tough. Rammed through refers to Pelosi’s failed attempt to get the bill through before the August recess, largely unread. Perhaps you might remember some prominent Democratic legistlaters mocking even the idea of actually reading the bill. Death panels refurs to the end of life counciling that elders would receive. It’s not hard to think of a meek slightly bewildered grandmotherly type being led down the path towards the light now is it? Obama himself has been quoted as advocating rationed care for elders. Maybe you could just take a pain pill instead of a hip replacement?
Sean you claim to mock Ferris yet your language seems directed at the 70 some percent of Americans who believe that Obama has tremendously increased our future obligations. You then group these Americans along with the functionaly illiterate of our underclass who can’t answer correctly some of the most basic questions. These disfunctional Americans have all been taught by NEA union teachers, proud members of the Democrat coalition. Would you care to hazzard a guess as to what demographic slices of our nation these failed scholors might belong too? Or if they have an overwhelming common political affliation?
SaveFarris: <i.“Spend like there’s no tomorrow!!!” is not “making tough economic decisions”.
Irrelevant, since that isn’t what he said/did.
Care to give an example of what you would consider a “tough economic decision?
Sean,
Are you aware of the size of the future obligations Obama has put us on the hook for? Do you understand what unprecedented levels of debt means in this case. Of how many times bigger a debt load he has put us under than in our entire history up to this point combined?
Ah, you’re answer would be “no” then.
Amused 0: ?Do you understand what unprecedented levels of debt means in this case. Of how many times bigger a debt load he has put us under than in our entire history up to this point combined?
Yeah. It’s really a shame that, when the gangsters have beaten you up, the doctor needs to cause more wounds to fix you up. I mean, drilling holes into your skull, slicing open your limbs and making holes in your bones to bolt down metal plates, spreading your ribs open and poking your heart with a needle.
Shameful!
I guess that is what passes for your grasp of math and the time value of money.
Are you aware of the size of the future obligations Obama has put us on the hook for? Do you understand what unprecedented levels of debt means in this case. Of how many times bigger a debt load he has put us under than in our entire history up to this point combined?
What the fuck was Obama supposed to do then? Nothing? What would McCain have done differently? Did any Republican propose anything remotely workable, or did they just predictable bark ‘tax cuts tax cuts’?
Obama did not create this mess, he’s trying to clean this shit up and yes, it fucking sucks that the next few generations will be saddled with debt.
I knew this shit in the Reagan years, that the debt just got pushed back further and further to another generation. Boo hoo, that day is finally here. The big hangover is what we feel now.
The economy starting collapsing when Bush was still president, and like the fucking imbecile child he is, he just ran and hid and didn’t ever try to offer a semblance of leadership. That was Bush in a nutshell, he just didn’t give a shit and couldn’t be bothered. Heck, heh, someone else will be here soon enough, he thought.
Sure Burn,
That’s how it all went down. You don’t have any idea what Obama has saddled us with do you?
AO, a classic example of pooping in the sink and blaming the janitor.
Besides, you never cared about the debt under Reagan or Bush I, or Bush II, why should we listen to you now?
You don’t have any idea what Obama has saddled us with do you?
And amused observer shows once again that he has no idea about fiscal policy.
You don’t have any idea what Obama has saddled us with do you?
I declare, it seems you’ve stumped us, Mr. Observer. Please tell.
What Obama saddled us with? Dude’s been in office for not even a year.
Bush was in for 8 – and in that time, he weakened corporate regulation, funneled money to wild-eyed apocalypse preachers, allowed the policy of torture to be implemented, increased the debt by making a series of irresponsible tax cuts, weakened our relationships with many allies, alienated a good portion of the scientific community and delivered a bogus causus belli to get into a war/occupation in Iraq. I could mention the data mining project, the outing of CIA assets, the poor handling of domestic and foreign counter-intelligence, the massive graft that we turned a blind eye to in Iraq, and the incredibly poor response to a natural disaster which nearly destroyed a major American city.
Frankly? Unless President Obama actually launches nuclear weapons at major US cities, he’s got a pretty high bar on the ‘Bad President-O-Meter”
“Are you aware of the size of the future obligations Obama has put us on the hook for? Do you understand what unprecedented levels of debt means in this case. Of how many times bigger a debt load he has put us under than in our entire history up to this point combined?”
What did the bogus war cost? Quite the price to pay for a handful freedom fries and a tumbled down statue of a dictator.
Of how many times bigger a debt load he has put us under than in our entire history up to this point combined?
Careful there, Mr. Observer. You’re perilously close to blaspheming against the revered St. Ronnie.
Also, Mr. Observer, how much of the debt incurred by Mr. Obama results from his extension of the Bush tax cuts?
None of you have any idea what FDR has put us on the hook for. The 1950s and 1960s will be decades of pain.
What did the bogus war cost?
Substantially less than the stimulus bill.
Also, Mr. Observer, how much of the debt incurred by Mr. Obama results from his extension of the Bush tax cuts?
According to the CBO, about 11%.
None of you have any idea what FDR has put us on the hook for.
Truer words were never spoken.
According to the CBO, about 11%.
I’d love to explain where you went wrong, but the article you link cites nothing past 2008. It also says nothing at all about the debt Mr. Obama has “saddled” us with.
Did you just pick a wiki at random?
Amused 0: You don’t have any idea what Obama has saddled us with do you?
You clearly don’t have any useful grasp of the situation. Mostly because you insist that it be that way.
SaveFarris: Substantially less than the stimulus bill.
Still not reading your own links, I see. Or did you stop at teh first number mentioned ($500 billion) and think that was it. You got to read and understand the WHOLE thing, Farris.
As for the stimulus bill? From the same source you used:
A total of 1.5 trillion. (I won’t get into the actual differences between “costs” and “deficit” which would make you even more wrong because I don’t want to tax your brain.)
Quaker in a B: Did you just pick a wiki at random?
That, or search for a headline that seems to support his claim without reading any further to notice the article actually does the opposite. It’s getting to the point that if you want to refute Farris you only need to use the same links he chooses.