Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Benedict Arlen: Democrats are Getting Mad!
Topic Started: Mar 9 2010, 01:11 AM (389 Views)
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown



Specter: Democrats getting 'angry,' will pass healthcare bill

By Eric Zimmermann - 03/08/10 02:09 PM ET

Democrats in Congress are getting "angry" enough to push through healthcare reform, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) said today.

Speaking to reporters after President Barack Obama's healthcare event outside Philadelphia on Monday, Specter said frustration over Republican "obstruction" is making his caucus determined to move ahead.

"I think there's a lot more determination in the Congress now to get it passed," he said, according to a pool report. "I really think there's sort of reaction on the Democratic side of getting a little angry over the duration and intensity of obstruction and a lot more determination to see it through."

Specter also said that Obama had stepped up his role in the healthcare debate and is motivating Democrats.

"The president's providing for more fiery leadership now," Specter said.

"That's the most fiery I've seen him since the early campaign," he added. "When I was listening to him, I wished that he had given that in the State of the Union. If it's the State of the Union he would have reached a lot more people."

http://tinyurl.com/y9s2rvy


.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
Who is he kidding? They aren't getting angry, they are getting bribed, threatened, and frightened into falling in line.

They don't need Republicans to pass the bill in the House, and it's already passed in the Senate.

.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
What has been passed, can be unpassed...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concerned
Member Avatar

They are determined to pass that bill one way or the other.

Dems turn risky health vote into manhood contest
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Dems-turn-risky-health-vote-into-manhood-contest-86422107.html


Quote:
 
If you think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going to let them off easy, allowing them to kill the party's top policy priority in more than a generation -- well, that's not gonna happen. Democrats who are considering voting against the bill are about to experience arm-twisting, threats, and pressure like they've never experienced.

I called a Democratic strategist with a question: Say I'm a moderate Democrat. I voted for the House bill last November, but I've seen the polls, I know a majority in my district opposes the bill, and I feel certain that voting for final passage will end my time in office. Why should I vote yes?

"Look, you voted for it before," said the strategist, who asked to remain anonymous. "You should have thought about that then. You're stuck with the vote, it's around your neck, you're going to wear it like an albatross. The ad that's going to run against you is going to be the same whether you vote for it now or not.

"The Republicans are going to be able to frame what you did their way, and you're going to need to be able to frame it a different way, to say that you fought to make health insurance more affordable and insurance companies more accountable.

"And if you're a bedwetting crybaby, you should just go home right now."

If you get the idea that, in private at least, Democrats are going to make this vote a serious test of manhood, you're right.

"You big weenie, you know what I'd like to say to you?" the strategist continued. "You sit there and you're willing to go send an 18-year-old to go fight for his country, knowing he might die, and here you are unwilling to take a tough vote on an issue that you promised your constituents and you voted for once before? You don't deserve to be here!"

What about this argument, I asked: Yes, I voted for it once, but why compound the damage by doing it again? Say you've cheated on your spouse. You can tell them you only did it once, that it was a mistake, and that you won't do it again. Or you can assume the damage has been done and carry on like Tiger Woods. Which is more likely to save the relationship?

Sorry, I was told. Real men don't turn back. "If they're bedwetters, they're bedwetters, and a lot of them are bedwetters," the strategist said of his fellow Democrats. "BUT THEY ALREADY VOTED FOR IT."

Well then, what about those Democrats who voted against the bill? To get to the 217 votes required for passage, Pelosi needs some of them to change their votes.

"That's a much harder case," said the strategist. "You say to them, 'Look, we're Democrats. If we fail on this, we all fail together and everybody's going to pay the price. If you think it's important for the party -- the one that you're a member of -- to get something done, then you need to reconsider your vote. We need you. If we didn't need you, we wouldn't be asking.'"

"There are ways we can help you explain it. The Senate bill that you'd be voting for is less progressive than the House one, less costly, less tax-raising. So you can say, 'I was always for health care reform, but I wasn't going to raise taxes on families to do it.'"

But what happens when the lawmaker, however he voted the first time, raises the ultimate objection: If I vote for this, I'll lose my seat.

"Let's assume you do get beat, and you have to live with it for the rest of your life," the strategist explained. "Would you rather get beat because you did something big that changed the country, or would you rather get beat because you're a weenie and sat around saying, 'I was too scared, so I got beat?'"

In the hallways and the hideaways of Capitol Hill, the Democratic message is clear: Real men don't cross the party. Understand?






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

That "...anonymous ...Democratic strategist" is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but lets hope he is the sharpest tool the Democrats have!


The "ONE" is campaigning again, but is anyone (besides Specter) listening?

Those facing re-election will ONLY have the excuse that they were 'promised' changes IF they vote for the bill those they represent did not want ...the Senate bill.

So ...those facing re-election needed to know how that 'reconcilliation' thingy could give them the changes they're promised.

Now that they're seeing it can't be done, the "ONE" wants them to take one for the team!

That should really motivate any that must face the voters they represent!

"...take one for the team" :roflmao:



Edited by kbp, Mar 9 2010, 09:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concerned
Member Avatar

Looks like Dennis Kucinich won't be bullied - he says he's still going to vote against the bill. He's for single-payer so I presume he has a very socialist-minded constituency.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/kucinich-healthcare-olbermann-vote/2010/03/09/id/352127
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Concerned
Mar 9 2010, 09:52 PM
Looks like Dennis Kucinich won't be bullied - he says he's still going to vote against the bill. He's for single-payer so I presume he has a very socialist-minded constituency.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/kucinich-healthcare-olbermann-vote/2010/03/09/id/352127
"...The former presidential candidate voted against the House version of the healthcare bill last November, when it passed by a 220-215 margin."

I'd guess he is not one of the "216" they are counting on.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concerned
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
I'd guess he is not one of the "216" they are counting on.


Maybe not, but he met with Obama behind closed doors last week, so I thought maybe there had been some arm-twisting going on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walt-in-Durham

Concerned
Mar 9 2010, 09:52 PM
Looks like Dennis Kucinich won't be bullied - he says he's still going to vote against the bill. He's for single-payer so I presume he has a very socialist-minded constituency.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/kucinich-healthcare-olbermann-vote/2010/03/09/id/352127
He represents the west side of Cleveland, Ohio. Single payer is not all that socialist. After all, Medicare and Medicaid are examples of single payer in the US. The VA is an example of single provider in the US. Either single payer or single provider will work well and reduce the cost of health care to the nation. Unfortunately the Senate bill is not an example of either. I admire Congressman Kucinich for standing up to big healthcare and the President on this one.

Walt-in-Durham
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Hi Walt!

IMO, the only way for Medicare and Medicaid to be more socialistic would be for them to be the "single provider" also.

If we have a "single" anything or everything, I'd sure like to review the record of Mr. Single first.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
comelately

Walt-in-Durham
Mar 10 2010, 03:11 PM
Concerned
Mar 9 2010, 09:52 PM
Looks like Dennis Kucinich won't be bullied - he says he's still going to vote against the bill. He's for single-payer so I presume he has a very socialist-minded constituency.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/kucinich-healthcare-olbermann-vote/2010/03/09/id/352127
He represents the west side of Cleveland, Ohio. Single payer is not all that socialist. After all, Medicare and Medicaid are examples of single payer in the US. The VA is an example of single provider in the US. Either single payer or single provider will work well and reduce the cost of health care to the nation. Unfortunately the Senate bill is not an example of either. I admire Congressman Kucinich for standing up to big healthcare and the President on this one.

Walt-in-Durham
The ultimate problem with government-run structures is that when they are in trouble, they tend to use force. For example, the US Post Office has been surviving for decades due to the simple fact that they are the only ones PERMITTED to deliver first-class mail. In other words, if you try to compete with them, big men with guns will come and take you away.

When Hillary tried to nationalize the health care in this country, she was a bit too honest: her plan prescribed PRISON for any physician practicing outside an approved program, more specifically, four (!!) years in prison, IIRC. Again, men with guns... Force has been used several times to save Medicare (that is, that I was aware of, and can remember). And Obamacare STARTS with the use of force: REDUCE MEDICARE EXPENSES by a TRILLION dollars over a decade. Clearly, only the government can promise such a thing. Why? Because the GOVERNMENT HAS A MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF FORCE.

As we know, such techniques rarely improve the quality of anything - among other things, because people (especially, competent people) do not like to be threatened with guns. So, competent people "vote with their feet", either by emigrating, or by avoiding certain professions, or by using various forms of "black market". Then men with guns try to find them and take them away...

An obvious solution is to find some of the said men with guns, and pay them a little - so that they would be more inclined to come after other violators, and leave you alone. Another approach is to find the families of some of the men with guns, and reason from that position. So you get an Albania, or a Sicily, or...

The American approach has been (for the most part) to try to keep the government out of most areas of business; this way men with guns can utilize their talents guarding the coast, or patrolling the highways, or (in extreme cases) dropping Napalm and similar substances on those people abroad who need such treatment most (there seems to be a wealth of deserving recipients lately).

Socialized health care will introduce the Government (and, by implication, the threat of force) into the health care for all of us. That alone should be enough to treat it like it were a Lenin carrying an anthrax-infected rat! :plan: :elmer: :beatin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

With all due respect Medicare does not work well.

It will go Bankrupt by 2019. That is not working well. Not my opinion but the trustees.

Obama's Healthcare pulls more money out of Medicare to help "lower" the cost for his health care bill. It doesn't address the looming bankruptcy of Medicare

There is a big difference in Heath-care and Heath care coverage. For the vast majority of us we do get the best heath-care in the USA compared to other countries. We have higher Healthcare standards of treatment which makes it the most expensive in the world. A single payer single will lower health-care standards, but provide coverage for all.

The only real way to have better health-care is to make the country richer. Funny how Obama doesn't talk about that much.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply