Tweet
Planning for a loss in the Massachusetts Senatorial race, the Obama administration intends to impose the Senate version of health care on the House with no changes being allowed. Isn’t that pretty much what Obama has wanted all along?
From Charles Babbington of the AP:
A panicky White House and Democratic allies scrambled Sunday for a plan to salvage their hard-fought health care package in case a Republican wins Tuesday’s Senate race in Massachusetts, which would enable the GOP to block further Senate action.
The likeliest scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts.
The Senate version, after all, squares more closely with what Obama really wants than the more liberal House version. The Senate version, for instance, covers fewer people (94% of Americans vs. 96%) and the Senate version includes the tax on "Cadillac health plans" that Obama really pushed all along. This path would also allow Obama to push through the far less progressive Senate version WITHOUT ANY CHANGES WHATSOEVER made by the members of the House:
The newly discussed fallback would require House Democrats to swallow hard and approve the Senate-passed bill without changes. President Barack Obama could sign it into law without another Senate vote needed.
…"The simplest way is the House route," a White House aide said Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity because Democrats have not conceded the race to Brown.
Is there any question that the House of Representatives is really dead, killed off by our supposed democratic party and by its leader, Barack Obama who would rather deal with just the House of Lords?
Repulsive DLCer Lanny Davis, meanwhile, makes it apparent that the Rahm Obama faction of the Democratic party is really putting a gun to the head of all Democrats. Vote for Coakley or you get this:
If Democrats lose in Massachusetts, it will simply mean Democrats and President Obama need find a new center to enact health care and other progressive legislation – meaning, they must sit down with Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Orrin Hatch, John McCain and other GOP Senators with long records of bipartisan legislating — and moderate Democrats Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu and others –and create a new health care bill that can command broad bipartisan support.
That’s right, the DLCers still believe they can deal with Olympia Snowe and Orrin Hatch, even John McCain, and indeed maybe they can because their mindsets are closer to those GOP’ers than they are to democrats from the democratic side of the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, spinmeisters from the White House keep blaming Coakley for "running a bad campaign" while the fault really lies with Obama and all of his broken promises. Get this, she was criticized recently for not having campaigned (or run campaign ads) in the five days surrounding Christmas Day! I mean, who would have watched them? Who would have attended a rally on Christmas? Today, a New York Times article written from the perspective of seeing Obama as Superman coming to her rescue, talks of Coakley’s "flailing candidacy". The article makes little or no mention of the underlying reasons why any Democrat running today would have trouble: high unemployment, government bailouts of banks and Wall St., and a health "insurance" bill designed with mandates to bailout insurance companies.
Robert Kuttner, a progressive who has pretty much given Obama a pass until now, seems to be waking up to Obama’s faults now. In a hard hitting article over at Huffington Post he says:
As a resident of Massachusetts, in the last two days I’ve gotten robo calls from Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Martha Coakley, and Angela Menino, the wife of Boston’s mayor — everyone but the sainted Ted Kennedy. In Obama’s call, he advised me that he needed Martha Coakley in the Senate, "because I’m fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry that routinely denies care." Let’s see, would that be the same insurance industry that Rahm was cutting inside deals with all spring and summer? The same insurance industry that spent tens of millions on TV spots backing Obama’s bill as sensible reform? If voters are wondering which side this guy is on, he has given them good reason.
…
Either way, the Massachusetts surprise should be a wake-up call of the most fundamental kind. Obama needs to stop playing inside games with bankers and insurance lobbyists, and start being a fighter for regular Americans. Otherwise, he can kiss it all goodbye.
R.I.P.: The United States House of Representatives, born on April 1, 1789, deceased 2010.
R.I.P. The Democratic Party born a long time ago, died under Rahm Obama in 2009-2010.
97 Comments
That’s right. Coakley loses and we get the Senate bill, no changes. Awesome.
Jason,
Rahm and Obama are KILLING OFF the Democratic party too!
You know, I sometimes get giddy when I think of the marvelous potential for a Coakley defeat to improve the HCR bill. But, then, like you, I realize the Admin will slip out of the knot with some stroke of legislative trickery, perhaps even the scenario you suggest. But then I steel myself to the delight I will have with just seeing a stake driven into a small spot of their “Agenda.” I hope we can all tip one Tuesday night in celebration of a small victory for the Ghost of the real Democratic Party, the one that finally died sometime in the 60s.
As if malfeasance by Democrats is not responsible for their current predicament. It’s all the fault of voters.
You really are full of it, Jason.
The level of epic fail of this Democratic Party leadership is, as The One would put it, “a sight to see”.
Couldn’t agree with you more, cbsunglass. Lots of our old and cherished institutions have died recently,including the House and the Democratic party that we once knew and trusted. The Senate, of course, was never meant to be a democratic institution.
The Dems are going to screw us into the ground regardless of whether Coakley wins or loses.
We wouldn’t be in this situation if we’d settled on more left-wing policy that the American people actually supported AND SAID THAT THEY SUPPORTED. Like, I dunno. Robust public option, etc…
Because of their own stubbornness and ineptitude, the sky is now falling for Democrats. And while I was one of the people on the side of ‘hey, careful, if you do this, then down the road you’ll…’ back when this all started, I can only say it’s still sad to see. But the fact doesn’t change that the administration and the Democrats CHOSE this strategy, and they EARNED this outcome.
It’ll be pretty sad if the failure of the health care effort is blamed on progressives, which it most likely will be. Democrats haven’t learned that this is not the 1990s anymore, middle of the road DLC style governing is not going to work in the modern era.
Although I hope you won’t still be on the side of the ‘let’s blame everyone but ourselves for our actions’ crowd when it all does fall apart, Mr. Rosenbaum. But I’m not expecting much.
Ratfood,
It’s interesting that the election in Mass. occurs almost exactly at the end of the first year of Obama’s presidency. It has all unraveled this quickly due to an inexperienced and incompetent leader, due to Obama’s abandonment of the progressive agenda he campaigned and won on, and due to the Democratic party’s abandonment of its base.
It’s not going to be pretty for Obama after November 2010 when a Republican House starts investigating people like Geithner and Summers and Rattner and starts writing articles of impeachment.
I would make one minor correction to the following statement.
I would replace “stubbornness and ineptitude” with “rampant corruption.”
Nobody in the administration can claim that there wasn’t warning and clamors to, to take a phrase used quite often these days, ‘turn the wheel before the car drives off the cliff.’
But, like it or not, the administration and the party chose this outcome. They had every opportunity to do differently, to do better, but they chose to go the route they’ve taken.
It’s ugly and it’s miserable but I guess real progressives are just going to have to stick our noses back to the grindstone and keep working until we get to a place where we can ACTUALLY get some real change accomplished.
Rather a moot point at this stage but I do not believe Obama ever had a progressive agenda. I suspect it was a bait and switch tactic. Campaign as progressive, funnel enormous resources to your corporate masters, then spin, spin, spin your party as the greatest gift to populism since Jesus.
Corrupt people are usually both stubborn and inept, but I’ll definitely agree with you there.
The amazing thing is, that the current health care opportunity COULD have been something that would have created long term Democratic majorities. It COULD have been something that would have deflated Republican opposition and put another nail into the ‘permanent minority’ status they were flirting with months ago.
And yet, the choices of the party have placed it where it is today. And all because the Democrats and their corporate donors WON’T see past the end of their noses.
Remember Jason that the Senate vote in Mass. is also a referendum on the Obama presidency. He’s doing poorly even in the bluest of blue states. I think if the Democratic party is smart (which they are not) some of their senior leaders meet with Obama in the next 10 days and say: 1) Rahm has to go 2) Timothy Geithner and Summers have to go 3) get off your ass and start creating jobs.
Otherwise, the party gets killed in November, the Dems lose the House and the House starts investigating the Obama administration while drawing up impeachment measures.
Some people find a way to blame others even when Obama gets exactly what he wants.
If you put all your energy from the last 48 hours into criticizing a president who wants a bill that will set back the D party for 20 years, you’d be … prematurely laid off from HCAN?
If Obama does this, health care will be his Waterloo.
Jim DeMint, the Nostradamus of C Street. Who knew?
It’s amazing. It’s sad. I’d be so much happier right now if the Democrats had given me a reason to support them.
IIRC politicians taking this civics test usually score 4-5 points lower than the already low average. We are talking about a group who excel at nothing except shameless self promotion, people who somehow manage to fail upward.
That’d be a good way of looking like you’re paying attention by doing some damage control, but it’s far too late to be effective. Voters simply are not going to come out and vote for the Democrats like they did in 2008, and it’s because of the choices the party has made. They STILL don’t really understand why the health care effort has such little popular support. They STILL don’t see that they’re being and continuing to be the problem.
Failing upward. Man, I remember all the things they said about Bush to that effect. Who would have known it’d be true of Obama, too?
There was also a quote early on in the debate, not sure by which Republican, about needing to fight health care reform because if the Dems passed it they’d have permanent majority status for a long time. He was right, too, but he was actually assuming Democrats were going to push for single-payer.
It’s amazing how good Democrats are at shooting themselves in the foot by not realizing they’re the ones holding the gun.
If the Democrats declared open war on the will of the people, that would be incredibly stupid and could lead to the destruction of the Democratic Party…which wouldn’t be a bad thing. The DNC and RNC both need to be either cleaned up or destroyed. If the Democrats go on the offensive against the public when the public tries to clean them up, the Democrats will then see that the Democrats hate them and that Coakley’s remark about shaking hands with voters out in the cold represents Democrats in general.
In the end, the Democrats will lose by passing this bill. It will bankrupt millions more Americans, and it will kill tens of thousands more. They will not have fixed a damn thing. Even if people don’t realize it now, they will realize it by 2012.
If the Democrats think that threatening to pass the Senate bill is some form of threat, they are congenital idiots. The bill that’s going to pass is almost the Senate bill now. The few differences aren’t going to amount to a hill of beans to most people. These shitheads are arguing about stuff that doesn’t matter, and have already decided to screw up the things that do.
If I were a Massachusetts resident, any doubts I had that not voting for Coakley was the right idea would have been dispelled by these pronouncements. They show how truly repulsive the people who run the Democratic Party have become, and how isolated from the reality that most of us live in.
Agree Cujo especially with your last paragraph. And thanks for using the work “repulsive”; I put it next to Lanny Davis where it truly belongs.
Jason we got the Senate bill because that’s what the President wanted. Last time I checked there were no voters inside the Senate, the House or the Whitehouse writing legislation, it was the politicians.
The Democrats produced that bill and they are hanging collectively because of it. Everyone knew right wingers would hate anything that came out so the best strategy should have been that you support your own political base and then fight on a single front, which is to get independents.
Obama listen to Rahm and now everyone is pissed and the Dems find themselves fighting on all 3 front – Simple political incompetence, all the more shocking when compared to the political astuteness shown in the campaign for the presidency.
Trying to lay the blame for that blunder at the feet of disenfranchised voters is just ridiculous. Politics 101, support your political power base, politics 102, never blame the victim becuase you fucked up.
If politicians want power then they need to make sure their powerbase is secure, that’s just basic military and political strategy. Go preach to the politicians and leave the individual voters alone to make their or decisions.
Jason’s comment was evidently a hit and run.
Jason’s likely off campaigning for Coakley and Obama. I don’t think he’d like to admit that Obama’s presidency is failing not even a year into it and that this election really is a referendum on Obama.
Trying to lay the blame for that blunder at the feet of disenfranchised voters is just ridiculous. Politics 101, support your political power base, politics 102, never blame the victim becuase you fucked up.
It’s the same old, same old. Democrats want to blame everyone else for their own shortcomings. And unfortunately enough people blamed Nader in 2000 that they figure they can coast on this strategy forever.
Well, it really must be our fault for our unwillingness to pledge deaf, dumb, and blind fealty to Dear Leader and his minions.
if anyone in MA here is considering voting for someone other than coakley (as i am – considering it that is), we have a very serious responsibility to call our reps, news outlets, and write letters to the editor explaining the reason for our vote.
because we all know, whatever is true, it will be spun to move the dems right (the direction, after all, the apparently want to move) and imo we should do our best to provide another interpretation. to vote against and then be slient while the spin meisters spin, would at least imo, be wrong.
Selise, although that’s a good idea, the White House already has begun its spin on the election in Mass.: Martha is an incompetent, and is running a bad campaign. I’ve even seen some writers (over at Politico) bashing her for being a woman. They do not want to recognize the fact that it is Obama’s shortcomings, not Martha’s, that are behind the Brown phenomenon.
I am wondering if Jason is a stalking horse for Jane who’s missing in action. She seem awfully quiet, guess she wants to have clean hands on the murder of Coakley’s political career, since all Jason is succeeding in doing is hardening resistances against voting for Croakley (pun intended).
counter spin.
can’t hurt. might help.
of course, ymmv.
Follow your inclinations, they seem right on.
I don’t think so. Jason still seems to be drinking the Obama cool aid. Jane gave up on that long ago.
The Atlantic notes Obama’s lackluster Boston performance:
That is also my take. Jane believes in seeking and applying leverage to move the party in the appropriate direction but does not spend time as Jason has blaming voters for feeling disenfranchised.
“Obama listen to Rahm and now everyone is pissed and the Dems find themselves fighting on all 3 front – Simple political incompetence, all the more shocking when compared to the political astuteness shown in the campaign for the presidency.”
A general rule of thumb (not always true, but tends to be a good indicator) is that those running for President tend to do a better job if they have Executive experience (like having been a Governor, which is like being President in many ways) versus Legislative experience (coming from Congress). Not only does Obama not have Executive experience, but gobs of his senior staff are the same way – loads of congresspeople from the House and the Senate. Obama adds to his weaknesses by surrounding himself with others that have the same weakness as him. Obama, Biden, Rahm and Hilary are straight out of Congress, so it isn’t surprising that the Obama administration comes across as incompetent when you’ve filled up many of your most important executive positions with rookie executives. I must say that I am continually surprised at the level of incompetence coming out of the administration even given the last administration as Bush at least hired a few more competent people than Obama did…and the Obama admin isn’t exactly coming off well ethically either. I think Rahm et al think that what worked for them in Congress would work in the WH, but things just don’t work that way and the dynamics are completely different.
From what I read he didn’t exactly do much to inspire the all-important independents either.
That’s actually an interesting argument to me.
People in Congress are used to being shielded from accountability for their actions simply for the fact that they’re not the only people casting votes and the pain can be ‘spread’, so to speak. They get to say ‘well, it’s not just me, those guys voted, too…’ and think that this teflon-coats them so nothing can stick.
It’s INCREDIBLY stupid, however. I mean, these are supposed to be brilliant people, and… I dunno. Maybe everyone in politics is simply a lot dumber than I ever assumed before.
If Rahm hadn’t been so busy telling the Progressives, who were saying “don’t drive off the cliff,” to shut up, and accusing them of being “backseat drivers” and “people we don’t have to listen to,” there might have been a different outcome.
You really ought to listen to even that youngest kid in the backseat when he/she squeaks, “hey Dad, look out for the tree.”
Here’s Lawrence O’Donnell, on the GOP actually wanting Coakley to win:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/will-scott-brown-ruin-rep_b_426604.html
“McConnell accepted an agreement brilliantly designed by Reid that required 60 votes to pass an amendment. McConnell did that without anyone noticing anything odd after a year of saturation coverage of the importance of 60 votes in the Senate. Everyone outside the Senate now thinks it takes 60 votes to do anything. Not amendments. Amendments pass by a simple majority, 51 votes.”
“A Democratic amendment on re-importation of prescription drugs got more than 50 votes but did not pass. It would have shot a hole through Harry Reid’s bill, as would other Democratic amendments that got more than 50 votes and failed. McConnell’s unanimous consent agreement with Reid made Reid’s bill impenetrable on the floor.”
Soooo dirty.
Slightly OT, but I’d appreciate an explanation, if anyone out there has one:
if we assume Coakley loses, and there are only 59 “Dem votes” in the Senate, why is the alternative to ram the Senate bill down the House’s throat?
Wouldn’t this be the perfect opportunity to say to Nelson, Landreau, Bayh, Lieberman et al. “we don’t need you. We don’t need the crap provisions you forced us to put in this crap bill. We’re writing a GOOD health care bill, and we’re going to pass it by reconciliation. We only need 51 votes, and that doesn’t include you.”
I never understand why — and the stimulus bill was a good example — after Obama et al. have bargained away everything good in a foolish hope either that they’ll attract Republican votes or they’ll keep ConservaDems, and these folks have shown they WON’T support the Frankenstein plan — why Obama et al. don’t just throw out the compromised piece of shit they’ve constructed and instead put forward something GOOD.
Anyway, can someone please explain to me why the choices are limited to “elect Coakley” vs. “piece of crap insurance bill gets shoved down your throat”?
Could it be Mauimom that they really don’t want to pass a really good health care reform bill and instead want this mandated “health insurance” bill?
Obama always wanted a piece of crap bill shoved down our throats.
Rahm made secret deals with big pharma and the insurance companies (and the Wall St banks that own them) to go with the flow of his “reform,” to spend over $100 million in TV ads supporting the “reform,” and to support the Democratic Party in the 2010 elections.
In exchange for this substantial support, Obama and Rahm promised that the “reform” would be almost entirely symbolic, and would guarantee millions of new customers.
Passing real reform by reconciliation is the last thing Obama and Rahm want to do, even though it is what the country and the Democratic Party need.
Because if they did that, they’d make enemies of their corporate donors. And they don’t want that. They’re not willing to cut off the money flow in order to accomplish a good health care bill.
Or at least, it doesn’t seem like they are.
LOL. Thanks for the chuckle, goodness knows I have little enough to laugh about with the state of affairs this Democratic leadership has made of things. The alternatives that can come out of the MA Senate race are roughly analagous to a choice of whether to be catch the flu, or break an arm. And I think the Democrat winning is, in the larger context of things, the worse outcome. You have to really make a hash of things for THAT to happen.
Anyways, thanks for the levity. Well and concisely put.
Actually the choices are elect Coakley and get it rammed down your throat because they have 60 votes or don’t elect Coakley and have it rammed down your throats because they don’t have 60 votes. Call me a cynic but I’m thinking that the whole goal all along has been to ram crap down our throats. Every single person in the entire country could agree to a single payer program and volunteer to pay for it and there would still be some compelling reason we had to eat this shit sandwich of a bill instead. Who cares if we gag on it as long as it brings campaign funds in?
I’m not even sure if campaign funding the ultimate issue.
For that to be the case it would require Rahm and Obama to hold winning elections to be their highest goal. What good are campaign funds if focus groups show you that atrocious health care will cost you elections?
I think something even more cynical and sinister is at work.
It doesn’t really matter because if you get booted out, you’ll be taken care of by the industries you have done well for. I have been wondering how solvent the insurance companies really are given how everyone got drunk on crazy investments over the last few years instead of keeping things boring and sane. Another bailout of a too big to fail but this time without having to go through embarrassing hearings? I’ve also been thinking about some of the retirements and the capitulations. It sounds like there are some pretty powerful threats being laid down. Those who know this is a disaster seem to be going along anyway or even if they figure they can’t go along, they’ll retire instead of bucking it. You’d think the polling would cause them to vote no, be a hero and ride to victory or vote yes if convinced that is the road to victory. But instead they are announcing retirements.
It’s clear that whatever party ends up in power, the mandates are likely to stay because insurance and pharma want them. The only way out will be to have a populist revolution. That’s the thing I like about Brown. He may be a crazy teabagger, but if he isn’t from either machine, I’ll take it. We’ll need a Senate and House full of them, hopefully more from the left than the right, to fix the messes we already have and the ones being created. It’s really weird to me that I find myself hoping for obstruction. I never would have thought a year ago that my fervent wish would be that Obama would not be able to get his agenda through.
That should have been a cluestick that the Democrats were walking into a trap, but the Democrats don’t want to listen to anyone – they just want to pass this regardless of what anyone says or does.
And you can be sure that somewhere in this convoluted equation is a CIA psyop, like during the meltdown that gave us TARP.
For all I know, they are trying to trigger a popular uprising.
Obama has done nothing to roll back executive power. The next president could just declare himself dictator like Bush did by Executive Order.
Bush never did anything with it, but the precedent was set, and Obama is leaving it in place.
Sarah Palin or some other AIPAC/Wall Street wet dream can be trotted out in 2016, and get elected based on disgust with the HCR bill unleashed in 2014.
I do not put it passed Obama, and I definitely don’t put it passed Rahm, who wants to take away the 2nd Ammendment rights of anybody put on a watch list for any real or political reason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRHNy30UlE4
Lieberman would be on board for a Palin/Palin type AIPAC/Wall St puppet as well, and he’s helping to shape the future police state as we speak. Same with Chertoff and an assortment of others.
It’s because they want this bad legislation in order to please the corporate lobbyists. Obama just uses the Republicans and select Democrats as political cover, rather than out of necessity.
NOOO.
Thinking they are just stupid might make you feel good, but it doesn’t get you closer to the truth.
The partisan rivalry is largely for show at this point. It is one shadow elite calling all the shots.
Obama and Rahm are stage players who can be replaced, and compensated with billion dollar Swiss bank accounts.
Like this:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/34112
Let me be clear, the incompetence of which I speak in not in execution – since I believe they got what they wanted – but is rather one of political insight.
I absolutely disagree with your analysis, plus it totally ignores George Bush and Cheney who operated one of the most experience yet incompetent whitehouse in modern history.
Experience can be earned from many endeavors and what this administration lacks in the competence is not of the execution variety, but a failure of imagination and keeping its political powerbase on its side.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments and responses.
I guess this makes it quite clear Obama’s true character. Too bad [for him] that he couldn’t continue to hide.
Don’t buy it. McConnell is not that bright and has the ability to play multi-dimensional chess – he’s loser one move checkers player. O’Donnell is giving him too much credit. The losy bill was simply a happy coincidence that they can cherry pick apart.
well, i think paulat @49 is probably correct, but i suppose their argument would go something like;
since we no longer have the required 60 votes to pass the bill in the senate the house will just have to pass the senate bill as is (the senate’s bill went back to the house — not to conference as far as i can tell, i don’t know what their doing now, but i don’t think it’s a normal procedure). and from there it could go directly to the president’s desk to be signed. no conference committee needed. no reconciliation.
here’s what i wrote last night (links in the original):
hope that’s some help.
McCain said we were all Georgians, but it looks like we are all Iranians. At least the rest of the world will be rooting for us since they hate Bush and his ilk and have noticed more what our corporations are doing to all of us than we ever have. I find myself wishing they had just let greedy be good enough instead of pushing for ultra greedy. I was screwed, but happier to still be able to muddle along enough not to know it. Kind of like Iranians being able to feel they had a democracy with a theocratic flair instead of a total theocracy, I look with longing at being able to feel I was in a democracy and the corporate flavor was a spice and not the meat.
Amen, sister.
In a couple years, we might all be Gazans.
At least there might be a bright side to all the troop stretching deployments we’re paying for. I’m not sure they’ll be able to count on the police in this one if it goes down because they’re pretty upset about being screwed over in their pensions and job security, too.
I didn’t take it that way at all, Bill. But maybe I was looking at it from too cynical a pov. What did I miss?
Actually, it made more sense to me because what the democrats have been doing (to us & to themselves) has made no sense at all beyond the corporate pay offs & needing money from somewhere, ANYwhere, ASAP. I still don’t understand the motive, though (beyond those 2 things)
I read somewhere a few years ago that the biggest threat to a would be dictatorship is Special Forces troops.
They are considered “force multipliers” and are highly trained in sabotaging infrastructure, asymmetric warfare, explosives, etc.
Recruiting these guys into Blackwater and similar entities keeps them close and under control.
There is hope, though:
http://antiwar.com/radio/page/2/
http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/01/16/dahr-jamail-14/
The problem with that is that they are not loyal, even if they are close. And special ops guys don’t like to feel like they are being played. I’m actually seeing some military teabaggers in my area and that’s a common theme. They’ve been lied to and played. They love their jobs and their country, but they’re not real fond of the government.
Yeah, it will be interesting, our attempts to form coalitions beyond traditional boundaries, and the establishment effort to keep us divided and conquered.
False flag violence would be a key tool they will pull out.
I get the feeling we could learn a ton by examining the nitty gritty details of the CIA coups and secret occupations of other countries. The same tactics apply here, or will apply here as well.
How many CIA operatives would put their foot down when asked to carry out the same operations here?
How many who do put their foot down would be disposed of?
“I was screwed, but happier to still be able to muddle along enough not to know it.”
Those were the days, lol.
Who knows about CIA guys? I think the CIA has more independent actors than the military does. The nature of the job requires more independent thinking and executive decision making. I think some would go along and others would revolt. No doubt they’d try to dispose of problem people. I have no doubt the CIA has already disposed of many of its own that it felt became problems for whatever reason. That’s one of the perks of operating with so little transparency. When you can take care of problems that way, there’s no doubt in my mind that at least some people have. Just like I think that as long as politicians think they can take the money but still fool the people into voting for them, they will. I really hope Obama figures out quickly that his charm is not doing it for him any more. It’s kind of scary to hear some of his statements on what he did and did not campaign on like he can just declare it so and people will believe him instead of their own lying eyes and ears. That’s got to be nipped in the bud.
I would actually be relieved to know for certainty that Obama and Rahm are just dumb and arrogant, and think that HCR can just be spun away with the big marketing campaign being planned for after passage.
Because to me, going against popular opinion so brazenly stinks worse than the Detroit airplane bomber situation, in which Chertoff is positioned to make a killing off his body scanner investment. Chertoff’s mother helped found the Mossad, and the Israeli security company in charge of the Amsterdam airport has deep Mossad ties.
We’ll see.
This is Rhamobama’s most insane move yet. The White House should read Barbara Tuchman’s great book “The March of Folly.”
It begins with the line:
She then proceeds to catalogue a history of blunders of the highest order, from the Trojans, to the Renaissance Popes, to King George III relying on coercion rather than persuasion in attempting to retain his American colonies, to the fatal obsession military emporers have had with invading Russia, from Charles II, to Napolean, to Hitler despite the disastrous failures of each of their predescessors.
The one characteristic that all of these cases share in common is a leader so surrounded by power crazed sycophants, so mired in the corruption that comes with the perception of absolute power, so sure of their invincibility, that they manage to convince themselves that their ambition can triumph over reality. In this case, the principle that will destroy the Democratic leadership is justice. Attempting to push through this horrendously unpopular Bill by attempting to force House Democrats to effectively cede power the Senate would, I think, justify Barbara Tuchman’s writing a new edition of her book, with a Chapter devoted to the Obama adminstration’s mind boggling fall from grace in little more than a year. I’ve never thought of Obama as being “despicable” in the Nixon sense, and I still think the man is capable of redemption, but he and his blindly loyal followers are approaching the abyss.
As they say, dance with the devil, the devil doesn’t change, the devil changes you. Progressive haven’t called the tune, nor did they fill up Obama’s dance card at the start of his administration. They did get him elected however. But with whom have Rhamobama mainly been dancing with up until now?
LOL! If the Democrats declared open war on the will of the people, that would mean a bunch of nice private-sector jobs for the Democratic Party political class, Obama administration variant. What do you think he’s doing with Bush Junior and Clinton vis-a-vis Haiti anyway? All Obama really wanted was to be part of the Club.
You people expect change — I see continuity.
Which is what makes this “we gotta elect Coakley” thing seem so irrelevant. The suggestion that the special election is “about policy” is pretty transparent at this point. Does anyone here really think that “progressives” are going to get nice jobs for their efforts in supporting Martha Coakley?
funny! … Concern trolling jason..
twist it in HARDER PLEASE!!
Or, rather, this is like blaming one of the passengers in the car for mistakes made by the driver.
Yes, we are back to Mao’s dictum that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun…”
Here’s a couple links to the Boston globe on the election in Massachusetts. May I suggest registering your disapproval and explaining your positions there . As far as Rahms Chicago style politics go , let the chips fall where they may ! Caving in to the threats of a bully never results in a stronger position later .
Boston Globe link
[link shortened by moderator]
Boston Globe link
[link shortened by mod]
This is exactly what I have been saying all along !
Allowing Coakley to lose a seat which was considered democratic property without putting a progressive seal on the loss just allows the pundits to spin it anyway they like .
We should have co opted this loss and issued a clear proclamation that we worked for it enthusiastically but timidity prevented that !
They show how truly repulsive the people who run the Democratic Party have become, and how isolated from the reality that THEY ARE CREATING FOR most of THE REST us to live in….
THE SAME REST OF US THAT BAILED OUT WALL STREET AND ARE GETTING THE SHAFT ,AGAIN, VIA HCR.
Foil Alert!
There is nothing this Administration likes more than a foil. Whether it’s Snowe, Lieberman or Coakley/Brown, they don’t care. As long as Obama can claim someone else forced him to sell-out to his Insurance Company and Big Pharma Masters, he’s happy!
“Tear it a part to rebuild it.” That’s short and sweet. Link to Donna Brazile saying that back in the primaries. Don’t think moving the Dem party to the right was her intent. But who knows? Maybe she was the one playing 11th dimensional chess all along /snark.
We’re not talking tin foil alert,now are we?*G*
I suspect Jason was being sarcastic, not jumping for joy.
It would be a huge political mistake if they do it. Maybe the House can still save this bill, but doubt it. Lawrence O’Donnel has a piece in the Huffington Post about why he thinks the Republicans will allow the Bill to pass so they can run against it in 2012 and most likely win. I tend to believe his premise.
Clearly, what of it?
Jason has been going around bashing disillusioned former Obama supporters for not supporting the current HCR bill and any pol with a D after their name.
Perhaps he is merely young and naive but some of us have been backing Dems by casting lesser of evils votes for decades and we are sick of it. I will not support Dems who sell out the American people to corporate interests.
Period.
I don’t disagree, but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.
Perhaps he is under 26 and will still be able to have his health insurance covered under his parents’ plan.
If there is ever a threat that this hideous bill will not pass, I guarantee that you will see “instant bipartisanship”. There are too many good things in the bill that the Republican’s old corporate buddies want, and the Republicans will not prevent their pals from claiming this prize.
Yes, that’s it – wanting to be “part of the club”. A social-climber president of a social-climber party.
Man, Obama is bound and determined to not only take down the Dems in the Senate over this, he’s determined to take down the Dems in the House, too. I remember when he said he was willing to be a one-term president for HCR. I didn’t realize he was also willing to make sure other members of Congress were one-termers, too. There aren’t enough lobbyist positions for all those ousted Democrats to fill.
Nicely phrased!
Jason,
Do you come here because Jane has signaled you to do so?
Simple yes or no.
The dems are scared shitless, I think big Eddy Schultz is going to have a breakdown. He is begging dems to come out and vote in order to save Obama.
You’ve hit a nerve there – Obama could have been FDR and solidified a Dem majority for decades. Instead, he chose to be Bill Clinton, the best GOP president the country ever had. But at least Clinton had a legitimate excuse – a GOP congress and a conservative propaganda machine in perpetual attack mode. Obama has no excuse except his own political miscalculation. He had everything a Dem president could ask for and is flushing it all down the drain.
Sorry Topcat but Obama could NEVER have been a FDR type. FDR had fight in him; he relished the hate of his opponents. Obama is a wimp, really has shown no fight at all. FDR was already a member of The Club; Obama, as others pointed out here, is a climber and seems satisfied to have made it into the Club. FDR appointed people with brains and compassion; look at who Obama has appointed. FDR had Eleanor, a true lady who was committed to uplift the lives of others in need; Barack has what’s her name, someone willing to take a $300,000 job with the U. of Chicago hospital in an area she knew nothing about; someone who for her “volunteer” work at the WH chose the families of people in the military (and her husband’s escalations surely have kept her busy at that). FDR had superb political instincts; Obama has Rahm as his brain and look how that has worked. FDR not only gave better speeches than Obama, he actually did something about the situation around him. Obama is no FDR.
The only way they can “impose it” is if 218 House members agree, which they haven’t yet. IF they did give up, it would be equally their fault.
I’d love to see the war between, on one side, Pelosi, Harkin, Brown, trying to corral 50 votes for a Medicare expansion in reconciliation, and on the other side, a cabal devised in Lanny Davis’ mind consisting of Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, and the stench of Olympia Snowe’s flatulence as they chase her around in circles in pursuit of a bipartisan fantasy. I like the mathematics on that battle.
My at-length opinion on tomorrow’s Coakley nonsense is up at Docudharma.