Chait writes: "Like their counterparts from sixteen years before, Republicans took control of the House of Representatives last year filled with revolutionary zeal, assuming that they could leverage their hold over one branch of Congress into sweeping changes in the national agenda. And like their predecessors, they blundered into high-profile confrontations with a Democratic president and suffered prolonged and deep damage in their public standing, with each new defeat slowly leeching the fanatical determination out of them."
Speaker of the House John Boehner speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill, 07/25/11. (photo: Reuters)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Ummmm...the news has been full of the president's fight FOR contraception the last few days, while the repigs are dredging up that tired old "religious freedom" argument to say that catholic hospitals or other religious employers should not have to obey the law of the land. Doesn't this count?
Let's call it a victory. In football terms, it would be a one yard gain. I want a touchdown once in a while.
Following through on the Single-Payer campaign promise would have been a touchdown.
Go ahead. Tell me that that wasn't possible because the repugs wouldn't cooperate...
Go on...
There is NO WAY single payer would have happened.
The Affordable Insurance Act is not a perfect law....far from it. But......it is a beginning, it will be improved upon,... many times. AND it is more than anybody else has been able to achieve before,..... although MANY tried.
Americans are stubborn. They WANT THEIR FREEDOM...even if that freedom means that you can go bankrupt if you get ill.
As you may assume from my name I came from Denmark. NOBODY goes broke if they become ill. When I was 16 I was in a sanatorium with TB, almost a year...twice
...Top notch. It didn't cost a dollar. We paid for it in our taxes.
I don't think many on the left understand the way these things work. You don't negotiate from a starting point of determining what you're most likely to get away with. You negotiate by saying, "I just won an election on a campaign promise to deliver Single-Payer. We can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way. You decide". To which, the repugs answer, "NO, F-ING WAY!". How would that be any different than he got ANYWAY, after unilaterally taking it off the table? The repugs fought him tooth and nail to avoid passing Romney-care, but he pulled it off anyway. You can't win a fight by refusing to admit you're in one.
Think about HOW A REPUGLICAN PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE HANDLED THIS....
Do you honestly, for a minute, think george bush jr. would have presented a weak bill to a Democratic Congress, because he didn't think he could pass a strong one in the face of opposition? YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THAT.
Where was all the Democratic opposition to the Iraq War? Where was all the opposition to the "patriot" Act? Where was the opposition to his policies of torturing people? Where was the opposition to the tax cuts for the wealthy?
THERE WASN'T ANY.
CONT.
THEY'RE ITCHING FOR A FIGHT, AND BEGGING FOR AN EXCUSE TO HAVE ONE, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE NO CHANCE OF WINNING.
That's why they get MORE done for their agenda when they're OUT OF OFFICE than Democrats can get when they have an overwhelming majority.
There are parliamentary tactics that he could have used to force the hand of repugs and yellow-dog "democrats". He didn't bother. He didn't want to raise an ugly scene fighting for something that only 71% of the American public supported.
---------
Now, about your premise that it "isn't perfect" and will be improved: WHO WILL "IMPROVE" IT? What will that entail? What if santorum gets in office next? How will he "improve" it? Why should we wait for a few more decades for something an overwhelming majority of us WANT AND COULD HAVE ALREADY HAD RIGHT NOW?
This bill WILL NOT be strengthened until another Democratic President is in the White House, IF THEN, no matter how long it takes before that happens.
-------
Concerning Americans and their love of freedom: How does a law FORCING US to buy PRIVATE-FOR PROFIT, AND THEREFORE OVER-PRICED AND LESS EFFICIENT insurance helping us maintain our "freedom"?
CONT.
I issued the challenge for someone to say: "but, but, but, but the President didn't have a chance. Repugnicans are too tough. We didn't expect him to actually folllow through on his promises. We vote Democratic because we're weak and too cowardly to fight for anything... Repugs are big bullies and thugs and we can't defend ourselves, even with overwhelming advantages" - complete with wimpering snivelling sounds and a tiny violin to set the mood.
I expected that response, because that's all we've heard for the past 3 years. Obama may be a nice guy and he may seem to care about the same things as the people who elected him OVERWHELMINGLY, but the pathetic excuses for not doing his part to lead are getting old.
I've NEVER seen ANY President squander as much authority, political capital, and overwhelming electoral advantages as the guy WE ELECTED.
His total disregard for the people who elected him is staggering.
WHAT CHANGED?
Was candidate Obama too dumb or naîve to realize that there was such a thing as repugnicans and that they would try to obstruct him? HOW COULD WE HAVE ELECTED ANYONE THAT STUPID? I knew they'd do this and I wasn't even running for President. HOW DID HE NOT KNOW THAT? Did repugnican suddenly get nasty after he took office, for the first time in recorded history? Did the '90s never happen? Did Watergate never happen? Did the McCarthy era never happen? Did their lack of support for the League of Nations never happen? Did all of the personal attacks on Chelsea Clinton, Hillary Clinton, President Carter's mother, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Eleanore Roosevelt never happen? Are we in a parallel universe?
THIS IS WHAT THEY DO. ASK ANYONE WHO WAS PAYING ATTENTION BEFORE OBAMA GOT INTO OFFICE.
HOW DID THIS SURPRISE HIM?
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY:
How can we reconcile his political ignorance about that with THIS VERY ARTICLE? How is it possible that he's able to out-smart them at every turn, unless it really counts? How is it possible for him to be "PLAYING MULTI-DIMENSIONAL CHESS" at their expense, but be TOTALLY BLINDSIDED, by the idea that they'd refuse to cooperate about something????????
or...
Is it possible that he knew ALL of that before he entered office?
If so, why'd he make those campaign promises?
CONT.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."
NOTICE, HE FORGOT TO ADD THE OTHER STEPS NECESSARY. HE FORGOT TO ADD:
-Waiting for repugs to be nice and start cooperating for the good of the people
-Getting his own party to force the hand of yellow-dog Democrats.
-Waiting for the planets to be alligned in a certain way that only he knows and waiting for his horoscope to give him the go-ahead.
BECAUSE, CLEARLY, A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE, AND A 60 SEAT MAJORITY IN THE SENATE WASN'T ENOUGH.
He forgot to mention that when he was just a candidate. OOOPS!!!
What incentive do repugs have to EVER cooperate with the President about ANYTHING? Think about it. If, at the first sign of conflict, they know he'll fold, why should they EVER cooperate?
The single-payer conflict WASN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. Our side was SO scared of a fight, that it backed out of one and just gave repugs a REPUGNICAN IDEA, which the repugs fought ANYWAY.
If he's looking to remain uncontroversial and avoid a fight, he's in the wrong line of work. Maybe he should go into another field - maybe a safer one like, say, lion taming.
If you want to play the politics game you have to be a lot thicker skinned.
An example: When a Republican gripes about the enormous national debt, simply ask: WHO AMASSED IT? WHEN DID IT SOAR?
Answer: The GOP, from 2000-2008, and the massive tax breaks continue to raise it.
Another: The GOP gripes, "So where are the jobs?" Answer: YOU destroyed them, and much of the economy, in 2008. And destroyed the housing market. And the GOP House has INTENTIONALLY STALLED RECOVERY, JOBS, AND HOUSING RECOVERY FROM 2010 TO THE PRESENT.
Every argument they present fails--because of their actions and inactions.
Otherwise, I hope the writer is 100% correct and we win resoundingly in November.
Definition:
"to cling to and feed upon or drain."
Regardless, I recall that Mark Twain said that he admired a man who could spell a word more than one way.
Here is a comparison of the two spellings...leach/leech
"Water leaches chemicals out of soil or color out of cloth, your brother-in-law leeches off the family by constantly borrowing money to pay his gambling debts..." from Google
Somehow, I think the "leeching" spelling is more to the point here! ;D
Seriously, even if some have figured it out, will it really matter to the zealots who came running in with torches and causes? If they didn't care about our nation enough to let it go into the tank by failing to pass 3 budgets, how can they claim party loyalty now? They're too dumb to understand the meaning of party loyalty or as their constituents will soon see patriotic loyalty for that matter.
I imagine Boner bends. Cantor is tooo stiff, more bully type.
No one liked them as children, Both snivelers. They are not dumb they are selfish, revenge types.
The pathetic GOP/TP will meet their water-loo in 2 weeks (and we might go down with them if those who support them prevail)
WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER VOTE GOP/TP?
And I refer to President Obama as just that: President Obama, a term you will not hear from the crazed right as they refuse to address the man properly and with the respect deserved.
I am an unabashed Liberal Leftist because I love my country & do not welcome the destruction that the republican party serves on a daily basis.
I can remember saying to myself, "No way will "W" get re-elected.
Well we all know where that ended up.
"'Frick and Frack' has become an English slang term used in two ways. One is to refer to two people so closely associated as to be indistinguishab le; the other way is as a term of derision for any two people, on par with calling one person a "Bozo" [or two people like Simon Pegg and Nick Frost or Cheech & Chong], or three people like the 'Three Stooges'..."
and for anyone familiar with eye movement interpretation in neurolinguistic s, just check out the directions their eyes are looking; they don't have the faintest idea of what they are doing or what's hit them...
These GOP representatives are contemptible and deserve being voted OUT! Let's start with Boehner, Ryan and Cantor! The McConnell bigot also deserves to be removed!
Both look like they would make a run for the door in a second. They also look like they got caught with their pants down, again you cna play that one out as they have.
Has anyone heard of Llya Sheyman of Illinois? Supposedly is going strong against a Democratic encumbent known for giving money to the Rethugs campaigns and voting with them.
The GOP will similarly do anything to sting Obama, even at their own expenses.
RSS feed for comments to this post.