The dems own the WH, the Senate, and the Congress; even owned a filibuster proof Senate until Scott Brown, and yet the dems continue to claim the pubbies obstructed health care reform. They could have passed whatever they wanted to during Obama’s first year; they didn’t and the fault is theirs and theirs alone.

Well, that certainly makes the fact that the US has a prohibitively expensive healthcare system much more palatable, TfT. Always looking out for your nation and your fellow citizens, I see.

Podesta is correct. The political system is as broken as the healthcare delivery system, and it is the fault of everyone, Republicans, Democrats, Independents and No Opinionists.

TfT it was never a fiibuster proof Senate because of the Blue Dog Democrats. One good things is Dems do not walk in step like the Repugs always seem to do. In some ways that is a good thing. The media is the one that kept pushing the idea of Senate being filibuster proof.

I’ll disagree blulblogger, the Senate mustered the 60 votes for healthcare “reform” beating the filibuster. Although they did it through corruption, selling votes, etc. No blue dog dem in the senate had the guts to stand up against the bill; indeed they folded for bucks. It happened on Christmas Eve when the dems walked lock step over the cliff.

TfT you don’t get to make your own facts. The fatally flawed bill which made it through the Senate was the result of constant compromise. That, in itself, is not a sin, you know. Some like goose-stepping, I realize. I have always found it troubling, however.

blueblogger says:
February 16, 2010 at 10:48 am
TfT it was never a fiibuster proof Senate because of the Blue Dog Democrats.
Key word in that sentence is “Democrats”……

Tim Z. Ank: Only to a rightist Republican is that the key word. Democrats are accustomed to being a coalition party. Ideological purity has little appeal to most Democrats.

The current state of politics does suck – but it’s getting better and it’s for one specific reason: Obama has recognized the Republicans never had any intent to participate but only to obstruct. He held out the hand of bipartisanship and they proceeded to chew it off. Now, just after the State of the Union Address, he’s taken the fight to them. First he appeared at their concave and bitch slapped them into dizziness. Now he’s invited them to a Summit and they’re too chickenshit to show up but too chickenshit to not show up, they’re afraid a meeting with the president is a ‘trap.’ Well, if it’s a trap they set it over the last year with their behavior. Obama has the lay of the land and he’s gained his legs. Let’s see what happens now.

I hope you are correct, Bill.

I can remember getting terribly upset with Candidate Obama for never seeming to close the deal. Let’s hope as President Obama he pleasantly surprises me, again.

The Hcare bills were fatally flawed. Senate bill even more flawed in my mind. What struck me of current state of politics was the bills did not become flawed overnight. Bills became more and more flawed through months of compromise. Not a sin, but not sainthood ethics either.

Meaning, months of months of Congress and WH allowing and accepting compromise in pursuit of ultimately a fatally flawed bill. Through months of negotiations and compromise (LA purchase, union cadillac tax defer, FL medicare adv intact, NE kickback) became more and more flawed as time went on, that Congress and WH allowed the flaws to grow until it just blew up. It seems to have collapsed on its own ‘flawness’.

Politicians for the most part create/invent flaws and in this case the flaws in turn exposed politicians.

The most aggressive thinkg Obama can do now is ask the Republicans to perform — for it is their performance Republicans display their great shortcomings.

Let’s try that again: The most aggressive thing Obama can do now is ask the Republicans to perform — for it is in their performance that Republicans shortcomings are on display.

TfT you don’t get to make your own facts.

—-

You mean like you do? What a sicko.

What we should do is keep a running list of logical points you blue boys have made that TfT, Tim Z Ank and others choose to ignore rather than address because it’s more convenient than answering and invariably conceding the ground they pretend to have in their groundless arguments.

1) “Democrats are accustomed to being a coalition party. Ideological purity has little appeal to most Democrats.” The Republicans have consistently been less willing to break party lines.

2) “Obama has recognized the Republicans never had any intent to participate but only to obstruct. He held out the hand of bipartisanship and they proceeded to chew it off. Now, just after the State of the Union Address, he’s taken the fight to them. First he appeared at their concave and bitch slapped them into dizziness.” WIthout countering with attacks on democrats, please address this issue, because, really, the Republicans have been obstructionists, and Obama is drawing the public’s attention to it, so you’ll have to confront it sooner than later.

3) Calling the summit a trap is a defensive, misleading, political tactic that better serves as an attempt to undermine the president’s credibility than truly address what is going on.

I’m sure we’ll come up with many, many more as the conversation continues.

I will not stand for irrelevant, tangential, deflective comments attacking like, MSNBC, or however you want to try to wiggle out of this.

Olby Sucks says:
February 16, 2010 at 12:14 pm

TfT you don’t get to make your own facts.

—-

You mean like you do? What a sicko.

—

We’re always pleased to have visitors from the Fox Fan Klub, however inane and irrelevant their comments may be. Just remember that Mediaite does have certain standards and that not everything bloviate here will go unchallenged. To that end, you must give us examples to support your unsubstantiated conclusion. Be specific. Remember that spelling an grammar count.

By the way, how is Dr. Wiener’s suit against CAIR going?

My, so many errors:

“you bloviate”
an = and

Excuse me.

Oh come on, it’s a forum after all. Let’s elevate reason and empirical evidence over grammar. I spend too much time copying and pasting and quick typing of impeccably rational arguments in this tiny box and not enough editing to have to pretend like every time someone points out I didn’t dot an “i”. Let’s just try our best grammar wise, and try our very very best to not spew misinformation and blatant half-truths as whole-truths.

Haha, see what I mean? That sentence totally trailed off! Case in point. Let it sliiiiiide.

How bout we start with namejacking, sicko?

Olby Sucks says:
February 16, 2010 at 1:34 pm

How bout we start with namejacking, sicko?

—

Yes, I see you have nothing to add. I suppose it’s nice some things remain constant.

blueblogger says:
February 16, 2010 at 10:48 am

Remember… when talking about Republicans… they always walk in lock step. When one calls out another, laugh and comment that they’re “eating their own.” It’s a contradiction… but and adequate left-wing talking point, right?

Also, remember… that when saying why things failed for Obama, blame the Republicans. Sure, the Democrats had control, and sure it was members of their own party they couldn’t convince… but blaming the Republicans is easier than saying, “We couldn’t even get our own guys on board.” Again, it’s misleading… but eh, talking points.

hatehavingtodothis says:
February 16, 2010 at 12:19 pm

1) “Democrats are accustomed to being a coalition party. Ideological purity has little appeal to most Democrats.”

Joe Lieberman agrees… no, wait…

2) He held out the hand of bipartisanship and they proceeded to chew it off.

Except last week, when a bi-partisan bill was reached… and Harry Reid decided to change it, making it very partisan… and then Evan Byah left, calling out the Democrats for such bad behavior.

3) Calling the summit a trap is a defensive, misleading, political tactic that better serves as an attempt to undermine the president’s credibility than truly address what is going on.

And most likely… 100% correct.

I will not stand for irrelevant, tangential, deflective comments attacking like, MSNBC, or however you want to try to wiggle out of this.

Nope… you will stand for, however, “irrelevant, tangential, deflective comments” attacking FNC, Conservatives, Palin, Republicans, and so on. It makes you an ideological hack… but again, nothing new.

The Real Royal King says:
February 16, 2010 at 12:49 pm

Where?

Remember that spelling an grammar count.

followed by…

The Real Royal King says:
February 16, 2010 at 12:51 pm

Excuse me.

HA!

Blue you are correct when you say the Obama couldn’t get those DARN Dems to walk in lock step. I for the life of me can’t figure out what Obama is up to these days.