Hoyer: If Brown wins, we'll rubber-stamp the Senate bill and have it on Obama's desk within days

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i don't know about you, but i always thought it best to do the job right the first time.

in this case, obama had a vast idea. and now it's turning into a half vast idea.

Not when the obstructionists stand in the way over everything the President tries to implement. A new Senate rule to change the filibuster is the only way the majority party is ever going to push forward the President's agenda...at least when the minority party are the Republicans.

[Pooky 3,874]

So you object to any marginal reforms because it's not perfect? What country are you from originally again?

I'm not against incremental reform. I just believe that the government in this country is incapable of sustaining such a program past the first or second stage. It takes too much effort, too many compromises, to get each stage through the mess that is the Congress and the Senate, that people give up before any realistic progress has been made toward the ultimate goal.

European governments are a world ahead at the incremental change because of the prevailing governmental structure, with proportional representation dictating the need to cooperation to get the task of government done on a national level. And that's not even mentioning the European Union.

And I would not take my home nation as an example. We gave the world Tony Blair and the suffered under the invincible Labour Party majority since 1997. I would not offer up the British form of government as a shining example of anything unless I was on the the toilet.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'm not against incremental reform. I just believe that the government in this country is incapable of sustaining such a program past the first or second stage. It takes too much effort, too many compromises, to get each stage through the mess that is the Congress and the Senate, that people give up before any realistic progress has been made toward the ultimate goal.

European governments are a world ahead at the incremental change because of the prevailing governmental structure, with proportional representation dictating the need to cooperation to get the task of government done on a national level. And that's not even mentioning the European Union.

And I would not take my home nation as an example. We gave the world Tony Blair and the suffered under the invincible Labour Party majority since 1997. I would not offer up the British form of government as a shining example of anything unless I was on the the toilet.

Have you considered moving to Australia?

[Pooky 3,874]

Not when the obstructionists stand in the way over everything the President tries to implement. A new Senate rule to change the filibuster is the only way the majority party is ever going to push forward the President's agenda...at least when the minority party are the Republicans.

But the Dimocrats had the super-majority and still didn't get it done. You can't blame the Republican'ts because they were unable to do a thing about it, if the Dimocrats could have just pulled their sh*t together.

Place blame where it is due, not where you wish it lay.

Have you considered moving to Australia?

No. Too many Australians there.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Not when the obstructionists stand in the way over everything the President tries to implement.

just get outta his way, he'll do what needs doing, right?

nixon woulda loved you!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

But the Dimocrats had the super-majority and still didn't get it done. You can't blame the Republican'ts because they were unable to do a thing about it, if the Dimocrats could have just pulled their sh*t together.

So you think that the Republicans have all the answers? Would you support a single party government?

[Pooky 3,874]

So you think that the Republicans have all the answers? Would you support a single party government?

Did I say that? I just think it is dishonest to blame the Republican'ts as the obstructionists, when they were unable to do a thing to prevent the Dimocrats passing a the measure. The obstructionists were all ** this time around, the ultra-progressives and the blue dogs. This time around, the blame needs to go with the people who had all the power here - the Dimocrats themselves.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Did I say that? I just think it is dishonest to blame the Republican'ts as the obstructionists, when they were unable to do a thing to prevent the Dimocrats passing a the measure. The obstructionists were all ** this time around, the ultra-progressives and the blue dogs. This time around, the blame needs to go with the people who had all the power here - the Dimocrats themselves.

It's dishonest to blame the Republicans, but it's honest to blame the Democrats? Interesting. Are you really VW? I promise I won't tell.

[mawilson 2,133]

But the Dimocrats had the super-majority and still didn't get it done. You can't blame the Republican'ts because they were unable to do a thing about it, if the Dimocrats could have just pulled their sh*t together.

Place blame where it is due, not where you wish it lay.

[Pooky 3,874]

Did I say that? I just think it is dishonest to blame the Republican'ts as the obstructionists, when they were unable to do a thing to prevent the Dimocrats passing a the measure. The obstructionists were all ** this time around, the ultra-progressives and the blue dogs. This time around, the blame needs to go with the people who had all the power here - the Dimocrats themselves.

It's dishonest to blame the Republicans, but it's honest to blame the Democrats?

In this case, absolutely.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted this Bill to fail because it doesn't even get close to being the reform of healthcare that this country needs, as I have stated time and again.

But, if the Ultra-Progressives and the Blue Dogs had found some way to look at the what was needed for the legislation and not cut deals, opt-outs, buy-offs and pay-offs to all and sundry, just to try and cover their own butts, the Dimocrats had the votes to pass this things regardless of the Republican'ts. But they didn't.

So, do you place blame with a group that had no way to affect the outcome of a vote? Or do you blame the only group that could effect the outcome?

It's simple math in the end. The Dimocrats had the 60 votes needed in the Senate, they just couldn't agree amongst themselves to use them.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's dishonest to blame the Republicans, but it's honest to blame the Democrats?

In this case, absolutely.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted this Bill to fail because it doesn't even get close to being the reform of healthcare that this country needs, as I have stated time and again.

But, if the Ultra-Progressives and the Blue Dogs had found some way to look at the what was needed for the legislation and not cut deals, opt-outs, buy-offs and pay-offs to all and sundry, just to try and cover their own butts, the Dimocrats had the votes to pass this things regardless of the Republican'ts. But they didn't.

So, do you place blame with a group that had no way to affect the outcome of a vote? Or do you blame the only group that could effect the outcome?

It's simple math in the end. The Dimocrats had the 60 votes needed in the Senate, they just couldn't agree amongst themselves to use them.

You're spot on. I hope the Dims try single-payer so that they'll have 1 or 2 members in congress after a few years.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Not when the obstructionists stand in the way over everything the President tries to implement. A new Senate rule to change the filibuster is the only way the majority party is ever going to push forward the President's agenda...at least when the minority party are the Republicans.

so which one of the 60 was the obstructionists?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Libs would shoot themselves in the foot and then blame everyone else. Wait.. thats what they've done...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so which one of the 60 was the obstructionists?

Obstructionism is when you voted for a huge Medicare increase in 2004 while Bush (a Republican) was in office, but reject expanding or creating medical insurance for others because "it's not the government's job." Every excuse, "it costs too much money", "it's socialism" evaporates in the context of that Medicare vote back in 2004, or the ongoing support for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Principled my #######. That's obstructionism in it's purest form and the filibuster record is plain as day.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Obstructionism is when you voted for a huge Medicare increase in 2004 while Bush (a Republican) was in office, but reject expanding or creating medical insurance for others because "it's not the government's job." Every excuse, "it costs too much money", "it's socialism" evaporates in the context of that Medicare vote back in 2004, or the ongoing support for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Principled my #######. That's obstructionism in it's purest form and the filibuster record is plain as day.

Irrational blame-game. The dims didn't need any republicans to get this passed. Its their own fault.