Obamacare

[SnakeBoy]

Stick a fork in it. Brown's victory has the Dems knees shaking. Even Barney Frank is rattled...


Barney Frank Deals Potential Death Blow to Obamacare
By Philip Klein on 1.19.10 @ 11:39PM

Rep. Barney Frank is not a wobbly moderate in a marginal district, but a liberal Democrat who has been supportive of the health care push. And that's why this statement below, which essentially rules out all of the options being discussed for pushing through Obamacare, deals a potentially fatal blow to the legislation.

The following was read on MSNBC by Rachel Maddow, and I transcribed it off the screen:


“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”
UPDATE: Frank's comments rule out delaying the seating of Brown and ramming a bill through in the meantime, rule out simply passing the Senate bill as is, and rule out passing it through the Senate using the reconciliation process. The only "hope" Frank holds is a compromise in the Senate with Republicans, but I'm not sure how much appetite there would be for dragging on the process for what could be months, even if there were some magical accord that could be reached between the two parties. And if President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid try to ignore Frank and push ahead anyway, the comments he made are a political goldmine to Republicans. Plus, the fact that Frank felt emboldened to jump out with this statement so soon after the results suggets he's probably expressing the private views of other members. Simply put, it will be difficult for Democrats to revive Obamacare after tonight.

StumbleUpon| Digg| Reddit| Twitter| Facebook

[Spawn]

Meh, some watered down version of the bill that is not much better than this one will just come down the pike. We lose!!! I don't get all the excitment over this guy's victory in Mass. The way some of you guys are acting one would think that he is some great reformer or something.

[SnakeBoy]

The way some of you guys are acting one would think that he is some great reformer or something.

I don't know a damn thing about him other than he's a republican who just won in Massachusets. You don't know a damn thing about American politics.

[Spawn]

I don't know a damn thing about him other than he's a republican who just won in Massachusets. You don't know a damn thing about American politics.

Ugh this is why I don't post here very often. Peace out.

[Winehole23]

Suit yourself. You posting here seldom suits me just fine.

[Winehole23]

Meh, some watered down version of the bill that is not much better than this one will just come down the pike. We lose!!! I don't get all the excitment over this guy's victory in Mass. The way some of you guys are acting one would think that he is some great reformer or something.He's a very liberal Republican who voted for universal health care in MA. According to University of Chicago professor Boris Shor (http://bshor.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/scott-brown-is-a-more-liberal-republican-than-dede-scozzafava/), Scott Brown is more liberal than 2/3 of the Republicans in his own state, and distinctly more liberal than Dede Scozzafava in NY-23.

In any other context board conservatives would probably denounce him as a RINO, but since it's Ted Kennedy's Senate seat and gives the GOP 41 seats in the Senate, the mood is celebratory. For the time being Scott Brown's pro-choice, pro-environment (even briefly pro-cap and trade), pro-union record will not dampen the party pom-poms.

Hopefully, conservatives will realize that to win in liberal and very liberal states like MA, and to have any realistic chance of thwarting the Dems Congressional majorities -- or even of taking those majorities away -- they can't really do without very liberal Republicans like Scott Brown. The GOP purges the likes of him at their own peril.

[George Gervin's Afro]

He's a very liberal Republican who voted for universal health care in MA. According to University of Chicago professor Boris Shor (http://bshor.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/scott-brown-is-a-more-liberal-republican-than-dede-scozzafava/), Scott Brown is more liberal than 2/3 of the Republicans in his own state, and distinctly more liberal than Dede Scozzafava in NY-23.

In any other context board conservatives would probably denounce him as a RINO, but since it's Ted Kennedy's Senate seat and gives the GOP 41 seats in the Senate, the mood is celebratory. For the time being Scott Brown's pro-choice, pro-environment (even briefly pro-cap and trade), pro-union record will not dampen the party pom-poms.

Hopefully, conservatives will realize that to win in liberal and very liberal states like MA, and to have any realistic chance of thwarting the Dems Congressional majorities -- or even of taking those majorities away -- they can't really do without very liberal Republicans like Scott Brown. The GOP purges the likes of him at their own peril.

He won't pass the right wing litmus test so he's doomed to a single term...

[TeyshaBlue]

He won't pass the right wing litmus test so he's doomed to a single term...

The right wing isn't voting. The folks of Massachusettes are....unless you're suggestimg they are the nefarious "right wing". That'll probably get you a smack on da nose in Mass.:lmao

[George Gervin's Afro]

The right wing isn't voting. The folks of Massachusettes are....unless you're suggestimg they are the nefarious "right wing". That'll probably get you a smack on da nose in Mass.:lmao

I'm speaking of when he shows that he is a liberal republican ,ala Snowe, and the right wingers take notice. You have heard that they are trying purge anyone who is not far right enough haven't you? I think in this case the convictions that certain posters claim to have will fall by the wayside as long as he votes against anything Obama..and when they do they will just reinforce that they really don't have any convictions after all..

[Supergirl]

LOL that people think Scott Brown is a liberal.

However, his marriage is a walking disaster and he tried to auction off his daughters in the middle of his acceptance speech - that's what's gonna doom him in 2 years. He's a few months away from being the next big Republican sex scandal.

[clambake]

He's a few months away from being the next big Republican sex scandal.

cool. that will give jack another place to cruise.

[DarrinS]

is dead.

The last starfighter is dead.

[DarrinS]

LOL that people think Scott Brown is a liberal.

However, his marriage is a walking disaster and he tried to auction off his daughters in the middle of his acceptance speech - that's what's gonna doom him in 2 years. He's a few months away from being the next big Republican sex scandal.


Wow. All that dirt on him and he still won Teddy's seat -- even after the messiah came to help out.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wow. All that dirt on him and he still won Teddy's seat -- even after the messiah came to help out.

what are you going to do when he agrees with the dems more than not?

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm speaking of when he shows that he is a liberal republican ,ala Snowe, and the right wingers take notice. You have heard that they are trying purge anyone who is not far right enough haven't you? I think in this case the convictions that certain posters claim to have will fall by the wayside as long as he votes against anything Obama..and when they do they will just reinforce that they really don't have any convictions after all..

Yeah, I hear ya. I think the purge is good...it's a way of driving the nutbars to the far right and hopefully setting the stage for a meaningful conservative party. I aint holding my breath tho.

[TeyshaBlue]

what are you going to do when he agrees with the dems more than not?

Who cares as long as whatever the dems are proposing is sensible?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Who cares as long as whatever the dems are proposing is sensible?

Darrins cares.

[Spursmania]

LOL that people think Scott Brown is a liberal.

However, his marriage is a walking disaster and he tried to auction off his daughters in the middle of his acceptance speech - that's what's gonna doom him in 2 years. He's a few months away from being the next big Republican sex scandal.

Are you always this pleasant and intelligent?:rolleyes

[Marcus Bryant]

He's a very liberal Republican who voted for universal health care in MA. According to University of Chicago professor Boris Shor (http://bshor.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/scott-brown-is-a-more-liberal-republican-than-dede-scozzafava/), Scott Brown is more liberal than 2/3 of the Republicans in his own state, and distinctly more liberal than Dede Scozzafava in NY-23.

In any other context board conservatives would probably denounce him as a RINO, but since it's Ted Kennedy's Senate seat and gives the GOP 41 seats in the Senate, the mood is celebratory. For the time being Scott Brown's pro-choice, pro-environment (even briefly pro-cap and trade), pro-union record will not dampen the party pom-poms.

Hopefully, conservatives will realize that to win in liberal and very liberal states like MA, and to have any realistic chance of thwarting the Dems Congressional majorities -- or even of taking those majorities away -- they can't really do without very liberal Republicans like Scott Brown. The GOP purges the likes of him at their own peril.

True. Of course, the results of the 2006 & 2008 federal elections should demonstrate sufficiently to the GOP base the value of a broad party and being able to field competitive candidates for federal office in all regions of the country. The problem is that the social "conservatives" have gotten their way such that the party has purged itself of competitiveness in the Northeast, save for the Maine Twins & Judd Gregg...and now Brown. Maybe also a stray GOP House member or two.

Notice the general lack of 'social issues' in the Brown win. Instead the focus was on big government, bailouts, taxes, and national security. Core GOP philosophy. The GOP has become the minority party as it has made it hard for fiscal conservatives who otherwise share the party's view on the proper role of government in economic affairs & would prefer that the government be limited in personal affairs to vote GOP. The 2006 & 2008 election results should diminish the clout of the social cons in the party. Perhaps seeing the Great Society II attempted will awake the party to its senses.

[baseline bum]

Obama's already said he's going to now bow to the Republicans like he did the blue dogs. What a worthless president and sellout.

[Marcus Bryant]

And another thing that should be clear is that the "Tea Party" is not exactly a social con movement. If the GOP can maintain party discipline in the federal elections this year and keep the focus on economic and fiscal matters, it should make substantial gains in the House and Senate. I think that message has been received as the GOP doesn't score a blowout win in the governor's race in Virginia and solid statewide wins in New Jersey and Massachusetts without that strategy. Maybe the Dems can try to push some hot button social issues (ie immigration) to stave off an outright debacle.

[George Gervin's Afro]

In other words Holy Rollers..keep your moths shut until after November of 2010..:stfu

[Marcus Bryant]

Then again, having the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy switch to the GOP is a fairly significant debacle.

[coyotes_geek]

And another thing that should be clear is that the "Tea Party" is not exactly a social con movement. If the GOP can maintain party discipline in the federal elections this year and keep the focus on economic and fiscal matters, it should make substantial gains in the House and Senate. I think that message has been received as the GOP doesn't score a blowout win in the governor's race in Virginia and solid statewide wins in New Jersey and Massachusetts without that strategy. Maybe the Dems can try to push some hot button social issues (ie immigration) to stave off an outright debacle.

You're right, that's exactly what the gop needs to do. But I'm very, very skeptical about whether the republicans can spend the next 9+ months resiting the urge to poison the economy/fiscal policy message by playing the "family values" and the "he's a muslim" cards. Obama and the dems, with a lot of help from a slow economic recovery, have given the republicans a huge opportunity here. But the republicans are entirely capable of fucking it up.

[Winehole23]

He won't pass the right wing litmus test so he's doomed to a single term...He has to please MA voters, not the RNC. You could easily be wrong about this.

[Marcus Bryant]

He has to please MA voters, not the RNC. You could easily be wrong about this.

Very true. Of course, he will be running for re-election in a presidential year.

[Winehole23]

Very true. Of course, he will be running for re-election in a presidential year.Obama's coattails will be considerably shorter if he should win in 2012, but you make a good point.

[Marcus Bryant]

Then again, the GOP seems to do much better out of power party, or the party opposing a Dem president, than as a party in control of both branches. Right now the entire base is in love with a pro-choice RINO from Massachusetts(!). Essentially Mitt Romney II.

Of course, McCain garnered the nomination in '08 despite pissing off both Limbaugh and Focus on the Family. I think 2006 and 2008 exposed the social cons as a spent political force. And Limbaugh for that matter.

[Marcus Bryant]

The weird thing is, as much nostalgia as there remained in the party for Reagan in '08, Reagan could unite the party regionally and win in the Northeast, as well as tolerate those who might disagree on some issues. Naturally over time that nostalgia morphed into an exclusionary regional movement.

[Winehole23]

We’ve Got Ours, You Can’t Have Yours (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/01/20/weve-got-ours-you-cant-have-yours/)


Posted on January 20th, 2010 by Daniel Larison

As I suggested (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/01/19/change-for-changes-sake/) yesterday, Brown’s opposition to the current Senate health care bill is a product of “I’ve got mine” sentiment: Massachusetts has its own health care plan, so there’s no need to tamper with it at the federal level. Chait poses (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-massachusetts-mandate) a reasonable question when he asks, “So why should the rest of the country feel bound to heed this decision?” The answer many Republicans prefer to give is that the voters have spoken and it has been “proven” that health care legislation is unpopular and politically toxic, but this claim doesn’t actually hold up very well. If Massachusetts voters’ disapproval of federal health care legislation is driven in large part by satisfaction with MassCare, which is what Brown’s win would suggest, this is obviously an argument in favor of passing a health care bill in order to win the kind of popularity that MassCare already has. The very “parochial” defense Brown has mounted drives home that most Massachusetts voters apparently like universal or near-universal health insurance coverage mandated by government, which is not really a “wake-up call” telling Democrats that the public will destroy them if they pass a health care bill. The experience of at least the last forty-five years tells us that the public tends to like specific government programs and never wants to reduce or eliminate them, and it doesn’t make much difference if the programs create huge, unaffordable liabilities.
Whether this federal health care legislation or MassCare is good public policy is a different question. Obviously, I think they aren’t because they are unsustainable and unaffordable, but that isn’t my point here. The core of the Republican argument right now is that most people don’t like the health care bill, Brown’s election shows this, and therefore Democrats should give up. This is pretty close to a pure appeal to the crowd.

It is understandable why they would say this, because we all know that the measures instituted by federal health care legislation will rapidly become popular and politically untouchable.



Once the legislation passes, it will probably become the Democrats’ ace in the hole in every domestic policy debate hereafter. Democrats routinely have an edge on almost every domestic issue anyway, and this is likely to increase that edge. Brown can make opposition to federal health care the centerpiece of his campaign because he is operating in a state liberal enough to already have near-universal coverage. That means that the problem the federal bill is attempting to address has become something of an abstraction for Massachusetts voters, and the bill itself appears to threaten the system they already have. This is true in very few other states.



After all, how has Brown been able to rally opposition to the health care bill? By complaining that it would lead to Medicare cuts and interfere with Massachusetts’ system. In other words, he has based his candidacy around defending old entitlements against new ones. This is effective as a short-term tactic, as Brown has shown, but it should also tell the Democrats that establishing a new entitlement will be to their benefit as a matter of winning elections and popularity. In other words, Brown’s win actually proves that voters reward a candidate who voted for (statewide) universal health care and who is willing to defend it, which means that the electoral consequences of passing the federal bill should also be positive for the supporters of the bill.



Once the legislation has passed and the GOP makes repeal their slogan, the party advocating repeal will lose ground and will perform worse at the polls than they otherwise would. I don’t think this is a good or salutary outcome, and I see it as a disaster for the country’s long-term fiscal health, but it is what has happened every time one party has successfully expanded the size and scope of government and the other party proposes to overturn or repeal the programs in question. Republicans will not and perhaps cannot admit this, as they have become so wedded to the falsehood that the public rejected them because of spending, when this had little or nothing to do with their losses in ‘06 and ‘08.

[mogrovejo]

LOL that people think Scott Brown is a liberal.

However, his marriage is a walking disaster and he tried to auction off his daughters in the middle of his acceptance speech - that's what's gonna doom him in 2 years. He's a few months away from being the next big Republican sex scandal.

So, your true name is Glenn Beck?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Beck_on_Brown_Could_end_with_a_dead_intern.html?sh owall

[mogrovejo]

The extensive welfare benefits that the Swedish social-democracy implemented in the 70s were hugely popular circa 1990. Then the burden became so gigantic that the economy imploded, unemployment skyrocketed and they git rid of them.

It's just a matter of time till the same happens with Romneycare. Legislation can't bend reality.