US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

In fact, when Brown talked about scrapping the health reform effort and starting over because "we can do better," the Republican crowd started a chant that had to send a tiny shiver down the spine of even the most confident White House staffer.

"Yes we can!" Brown's supporters shouted. "Yes we can!"

lol

i know -- we have more power than some realize IF WE USE IT. but some folks w/n the party just want to give up w/t a fight. that is what is so frustrating here.

i mean, LET THE GOP filibuster everything. enough w/ this fake-ass bipartisan horseshit.

51-49! so much could get done! now we're at 59-41 with a democratic president and suddenly we can't pass any legislation at all right?

yeah, kinda amazing that they've all swallowed McConnell's line about the supermajority being necessary. I see zero discussion of calling Republicans' bluff on a filibuster, which is pathetic.

"Yes we can!" Brown's supporters shouted. "Yes we can!"

YEEEEESSSSS WWWEEEEEE CCCAAAAANNNNNN !!!!!

There is no leadership. It doesn't matter what the numbers are if none of them hold the party line.

at 59-41 we're exactly at the point we were after election day. it took a while for specter to change his stripes, remember?

jesus, i'd give anything right now to be in front of tonight's caucus meetings. jesus christ, my GRANDMA has more cojones that you lot! what the fuck.

i'd subtract lieberman from that 59 (what exactly is the point of "letting" him caucus w/ the Democrats now that the supermajority is out of the question?) and still the Dems would have 58 ... and still acting like pussies.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/fred-barnes-right

Credit where credit is due:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is the new king of Capitol Hill. His skill in keeping 40 Republicans united against Democratic health care reform was masterful, and it wasn’t easy. A number of Republican senators are drawn to co-sponsoring or at least voting for Democratic bills. Not this time.

By keeping his minority together, McConnell put enormous pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had to keep every Democrat in line to gain the 60 votes need to halt a Republican filibuster. On health care, it meant he had to make unseemly deals with a host of senators, most egregiously in the Medicaid payoff to Nebraska to appease Senator Ben Nelson. Reid got the votes, but the deals were political poison.

Persuading the entire GOP caucus to withdraw from negotiations, many of whom seemed to support the basic goals of the legislation, put incredible pressure on the Democrats. Every last Democratic Senator became a kingmaker, and the result both forced some ugly (though very small bore) compromises, and stretched out the negotiations long enough for lightning to strike.

What's amazing is that some Democrats think their best play now is to go back to the GOP, negotiate a small bore compromise, get it done quickly, and start bashing the Republicans on the bank tax. Don't they realize McConnell will just run the same play on them again?

so depressing. here i go again asking a really naive question, but why is mcconnell serving in elected office? i mean uh, does no one have an interest in governing the country?

xpost

"This time, Charlie Brown, I'll let you hit it!"

i think he has an interest in ruling it. "governance," lol, sounds like SOMEbody went to college!!

but anyway, now that we got ol' scotty brown into the Washington House, medicare is gonna run itself forever and all those uninsured will simply not be a problem! i just checked the cost trendlines and they are already going down. i seriously just checked.

The important verb, goole, is "trending" down.

man don't you get it, we're not even gonna talk about "trending" anymore!

By keeping his minority together, McConnell put enormous pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had to keep every Democrat in line to gain the 60 votes need to halt a Republican filibuster.

if only Dems had been so united during Dubya's tenure... but presenting a united front isn't what Dems are about now is it

http://shellysindland.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/lieberman2.jpg

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D, United Front)

Man, you can't post that portrait often enough.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/scott-brown-is-more-liberal-than.html

Which might explain this.

silver, previous post:

Back in 2008, the smart liberal spin on "post-partisanship" -- one which I frankly bought into -- is that it was in part an effort to put a popular, centrist sheen on a relatively liberal agenda. Instead, as Leonhardt points out, what Obama has wound up with is an unpopular, liberal sheen on a relatively centrist agenda.

*facepalm*
i was wondering last year if the messaging about bringing so much change didn't.. make it easier to attack anything obama did as radical change, even if that was not at all the case

I blame Obama, the most popular man in the country, for leaving stewardship of healthcare legislation in the hands of the least popular folks in the country, the Congress.

"This time, Charlie Brown, I'll let you hit it!"

http://i46.tinypic.com/2drulj6.jpg
(left: Democrats, right: Republicans)

i was wondering last year if the messaging about bringing so much change didn't.. make it easier to attack anything obama did as radical change, even if that was not at all the case

Which is why you ignore "messaging."

I blame Obama, the most popular man in the country, for leaving stewardship of healthcare legislation in the hands of the least popular folks in the country, the Congress.

― mayor jingleberries, Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:13 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

unfortunately that part of our constitution remains intact

Well the fact that he was so piss scared of what happened with Clintons involvement in the 90s that he went the opposite way and kinda stayed out of the whole drafting process.. Thats my beef.

kinda stayed out of the whole drafting process.

this isn't true either! numerous accounts show that in all the meetings to hash out language, WH bods like nancy ann deparle were there. what they gave up control on was the timing, which was left to all the committee chairs.

i think they wanted to give the public the impression they were being hands off and letting congress do its thing, and to do so they really did have to be more hands off than clinton was. but it's not a black and white kind of a thing

but how could it possibly have been otherwise? WH can't set congressional committee agendas

Im sure President Scott Brown will do a better job tho so Im not worried.

most of the millions of people mao killed were committee chairs. something to think about.

Think of the potential millions killed by death panels.

President Brown definitely has the finest cosmo body of any post-Kennedy president except for Obama imo

krugman weighs in

some douchebag at Brown's press conf today actually did ask if he was prez material

that's an odd interpretation of obama's statement tbh

xpost

I don't know. I think the point that Krugman is making, and others have been making, is that in the absence of anyone with a spine in the democratic party, Obama needed to come out and make a STRONG argument for moving forward and passing this damn thing. Obama didn't throw in the towel, no, but he also didn't come close to making the sort of statement that could have rallied the troops.

Obama needed to be George Scott at the beginning of Patton, and instead he was like "let's just do what we can, not all of it so bad lol"

Obama Today: "Why you looka so sad/Itsa not so bad. . ."

massachusetts voters just expressed their will to elect a guy who explicitly said he'd vote against HCR - i think it's wise to let the dust settle before jumping in with "ignore these fucks"

I think it's a perfect interp of the Slickster's spin

seriously the amount of instant fanboi butthurt here is through the roof - what is up with josh marshall's one-line post about obama "throwing in the towel" on HCR?? maybe if he'd admonished me to "think about it" in a putative second sentence i'd know the answer??

I suppose it comes down to how much you think HCR took a hit over the past 24 hours, and how strong of a response was necessary to stabilize the situation. Marshall/Krugman/myself (I am the www's sixth most popular political blogger fyi) see a tailspin and an absence of leadership, so Obama's weak sauce statement was just another indicator that no one's really going to lead.

truth is, if obama has a political talent its letting the right tire itself out w/ self-congratulation for a news cycle, and then stepping forward and 'leading'

see also--jeremiah wright last year, hcr in august/sept

not that im saying thats what hes doing here

just that it would be a familiar strategy

"Obama needed to be George Scott at the beginning of Patton"

everyone needs to be more like that imho

paul krugman was at any point an Obama fanboi?!?

That's his thing, for sure, but I don't see how it works in this case. The best hope was to pass it in the House, but house dems are falling off like flies on the left. Trying to water it down AGAIN in the Senate for Snowe or Collins seems like the worst idea of all time. Would his plan be to wait 3 weeks, and then "lead" by signing a bill that just has the basic stuff that everyone agrees on - no more denying coverage for previous conditions, etc - but none of the (already watered down) more progressive elements that are sorely needed?

xpost

haven't followed this too much (too depressing), but isn't this what happens with obama all the time? he absorbs hit-after-hit, is accused of being too soft, unable to counterpunch or attack and so forth. then, after the other side has "punched itself out," so to speak, he steps forward and delivers a speech that galvanizes support and rallies the troops. he did this in the primaries, the general election, the big speech in favor of the stimulus. i hope and assume he'll follow his pattern and do it again.

but who knows? maybe it will be pres. brown/vice president palin.

Dana Bash is such a muppett

whens all this motherfucker get signed into law

219

when do I get my single-payer card?

2014

Hmm, which two Republicans did not vote?

try not to die before then

Way to go, comrades!

kick ass

no, just ass

finally, a socialist utopia. never thought i'd see the day.

Your own personal sutopia

Resolved: start new thread now "US Politics: YOUR TWEETS ONSCREEN" y/n

congrats america!

yea

Blue Cross did

xxxp

http://www.macgregorishistory.com/english/school/ibclass/ib3hl/Lenin%20speaking.jpg

DO YOU HAVE YOUR MANDATE FORMS FILLED OUT CORRECTLY... YOU THERE IN THE BACK, SERIOUSLY

i vote yea

im glad i stayed up to watch it.

SOCIALISM -- WHOOP DE DOO!

hey foreigners, congrats on what? we still got shit.

move over here then!

Resolved, motion carries:

US POLITICS: YOUR TWEETS ONSCREEN

can ppl try not to say the "move out of the country to the one you like!" thing like ignorant republicans do? thanks.

who is this babbling womb-goon?!?

lol!

lock thread