Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose G.O.P. bills. By denying the G.O.P votes from across the aisle, Democrats have forced moderate Republicans to back bills like those cutting Medicaid and other social programs that fiscally conservative Republicans have insisted on, votes for which Democrats have then attacked moderate Republicans in television ads. Pelosi has also ordered Democrats not to work on bills or even hold press conferences with Republicans whom the party is trying to defeat in November.

She opposed ALL bills. Regardless of whether they were good or bad. So that they could run TV ads attacking the Republicans. And she ordered Dems to blacklist Repubs who they were trying to defeat in the next election. In other words, for purely partisan purposes. Which you weakly attempt to defend as a “moral path”.

Whatever Media Matters is paying you, they’re getting overcharged.

Ah, yes. The dreaded “Republican Obstructionism”. “The Party of No”. “The Republicans are against everything Obama is trying to push forward”. Ad nauseum.

Remember when being “The Party of No” was something to be admired? To take pride in? To do so for purely partisan purposes?

Let’s set the wayback machine for August 2006, shall we?

“Like DeLay, who was also known for bruising rivalries within his party, Pelosi has embraced hard-knuckle partisanship, even if it means standing still. When Bush announced his Social Security plan last year, Pelosi told House Democrats they could never beat him in a straight-ahead, policy-against-policy debate because he had the megaphone of the presidency and was just coming off re-election. So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. “Never. Is never good enough for you?” Pelosi defiantly said to one member. When Florida Democrat Robert Wexler publicly suggested raising Social Security taxes as the solution, Pelosi immediately chewed him out over the phone. Only one other Democrat signed on to his plan.”

“Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose G.O.P. bills. By denying the G.O.P votes from across the aisle, Democrats have forced moderate Republicans to back bills like those cutting Medicaid and other social programs that fiscally conservative Republicans have insisted on, votes for which Democrats have then attacked moderate Republicans in television ads. Pelosi has also ordered Democrats not to work on bills or even hold press conferences with Republicans whom the party is trying to defeat in November.”

So make up your minds, hypocrites. Obstructing the majority party is either always wrong and evil or it’s noble and just. It’s an either/or.

And when he did get his bill why did he wait so long to twist arms? If we all agree that Reid is weak-tea it became critical for him to make more trips to the Capital, not fewer.

60 votes in the Senate and we might possibly get nothing re: HCR. We might still get the watery Obama/Lieberman bill at best. Either way presidential historians won’t be in a rush to tell us about Obama’s masterful domestic diplomacy.

And Oliver lamely scratches his head and bellows “Why is Jane Hamsher ruining Obama’s presidency?”

And who was it that put HCR in Harry Reid’s hands?

The Constitution plus the Senate. HCR has to pass the Senate; the Senate set up its rules.

Any more dumb questions?

Obama COULD have been the point man on this, demanding benchmarks up front and unequivocaly. Fighting for *HIS* vision. Instead, he made the concious decision to leave it up to Reid & Pelosi, telling them “I don’t care what you send me, so long it’s called ‘Health Care Reform’”. That allowed the Liebermans, Nelsons, Landreius, Stupaks, et. al. to demand the moon, knowing that Obama didn’t care about the details.

Hillary was right: this guy just doesn’t have a clue how to lead.

This is a disaster and there’s plenty of blame to go around. But don’t blame me, I didn’t start passing out cigars when people thought the craptastic Obama-approved HCR bill was a sure thing oh so many weeks ago.

I really wish it were otherwise.

Ted Kennedy could have retired after getting brain cancer instead of figuring that being physically incapable of going to work for four months was adequately providing representation to the people of Massachusetts.

We would like to think that people would act rationally, but lots of people, not just Senators, fantasize about dying while “at the wheel” of their life’s work and hold out hope that they will be one of the few to beat the odds when it comes to a terminal diagnosis.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/massachusetts-law-certificate-of-election-cant-come-for-at-least-10-days-probably-more.php?ref=fpa

However, of Coakley loses the rest of the Senate Dems will be just as incompetent as ever.

There are competent Dems to be sure. But let’s not fool ourselves that a Coakley loss is going to lead to anything good.

But yeah, no horse in the overall race either… I’m glad to see so many right-wingers working hard to get us Majority Leader Chuck Schumer