Health care isn't like civil rights

[Danno 1,228]

Health care isn't like civil rights

In his remarks yesterday, President Obama compared tomorrow's health-care vote to the 1964 vote on civil rights legislation: "In just a few days, a century-long struggle will culminate in a historic vote. We’ve had historic votes before.... We had a historic vote in civil rights to make sure that everybody was equal under the law.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 originally passed in the House by 290-130. Cloture was achieved in the Senate by a vote of 71-29, and the Senate then passed its version of the legislation 73-27. The House took up the Senate bill and passed it 289-126. Substantial majorities of both parties supported the legislation at every stage.

This is what allows historic legislation to become historic -- it achieves broad support, is passed without parliamentary tricks, and becomes the broadly accepted law of the land. Tomorrow's vote -- even if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi squeezes out 216 Democrats to pass the legislation -- will not be historic. It will not "end" a century-long struggle over health care. The issue will be revisited in November 2010 and in the next Congress and in November 2012.

And I predict the great majority of what passes tomorrow -- if it does, and that's by no means a given -- will never become settled law or public policy. Instead, its passage will intensify a great debate over the size and scope of government that could well result in public policy, in health care and other areas, moving, in the coming years, in the opposite direction.

By William Kristol | March 20, 2010; 11:03 AM ET

[peejay 327]

Yes, the Left has a tendency to overstate and make inaccurate comparisons to elevate their pet projects into grand moral crusades that come nowhere close to what they are comparing them to.

A couple of days ago I watched that little twit, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D - IL) on FOX news comparing his proposed illegal alien amnesty legislation (aka: comprehensive immigration reform) and the illegal alien march on Washington today to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. These people are ridiculous. Maybe they can get the ignorant, stupid, and the gullible to buy into these lame comparisons, but it really shows what ridiculous lengths these clowns will go to in order to bamboozle the American public while trying to sell this #######.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bill Kristol is a fool. Do you really take him seriously?

[peejay 327]

Bill Kristol is a fool. Do you really take him seriously?

They are all fools...that's why I'm an Independent. That way I don't get any sh*t on me while these clowns hurl turds at each other and over the airwaves.

And I wish I didn't have to take any of this nonsense seriously...but guess who ultimately pays for this ####### and has to live with it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They are all fools...

Not all but yes, there are a lot of fools out there - on either side of the political spectrum. Anyone that takes Bill Kristol seriously should also take Michael Moore seriously - they are, after all, two sides of the same coin.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Yes, the Left has a tendency to overstate and make inaccurate comparisons to elevate their pet projects into grand moral crusades that come nowhere close to what they are comparing them to.

As does the Right....

[scandal 951]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 originally passed in the House by 290-130. Cloture was achieved in the Senate by a vote of 71-29, and the Senate then passed its version of the legislation 73-27. The House took up the Senate bill and passed it 289-126. Substantial majorities of both parties supported the legislation at every stage.

This is what allows historic legislation to become historic -- it achieves broad support, is passed without parliamentary tricks, and becomes the broadly accepted law of the land. Tomorrow's vote -- even if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi squeezes out 216 Democrats to pass the legislation -- will not be historic. It will not "end" a century-long struggle over health care. The issue will be revisited in November 2010 and in the next Congress and in November 2012.

How do you think you get to vote totals like 290-130, or 73-27? Through bipartisanship. Through having members of both parties being willing to support important legislation that Americans demand.

Do you want to know the real unspoken difference between 1964 and 2010? It's the South. It always has been.

As Krystol says, in 1964 the House vote was 290-130. Here's how the House vote broke down by North/South:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)

* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)

* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

Only 7 out of 97 Southerners of both parties supported it. 283 out of 316 Northerners did.

A very similar result ensued in the Senate:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)

* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)

* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

At the time, the Southerner oppositionists said much the same about Civil Rights as the naysayers say today about Healthcare: That it's un-American, communist, and will spell the end of the politicians trying to pass it.

In fact, it did leave permanent damage to the Democratic party in that it once and for all began the end of Democratic strength in the south, a Democratic bastion since the Civil war and Reconstruction.

Today, all those Southern Democrats who just said 'NO' to civil rights have become Republicans. They are the very same Republicans (in spirit and philosophy) who are saying NO to progressive legislation today, including healthcare.

We had bipartisanship in 1964 because the GOP was a more moderate and centrist party, and because the Democrats were effectively two parties under one roof: a moderate centrist Northern wing and a reactionary absolutist Southern wing which had to be pushed out of the way to get something accomplished.

That southern wing attached itself tot he Republican party and its philosophy of rejectionist conservativism has taken over that party such that there are few if any moderate Republicans left. Some get literally kicked out of the party (Arlen Specter), some are derided as RINOs (Olympia Snowe). The GOP has become that ugly hard boiled cyst of Southernism, and it refuses to act in bipartisan fashion on any issue.

No wonder the only way we can pass important legislation in 2010 is by narrow majorities that the House Leader and Whip are able to cobble together. That achievement makes the event even more historic, certainly not less so.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How do you think you get to vote totals like 290-130, or 73-27? Through bipartisanship. Through having members of both parties being willing to support important legislation that Americans demand.

Do you want to know the real unspoken difference between 1964 and 2010? It's the South. It always has been.

As Krystol says, in 1964 the House vote was 290-130. Here's how the House vote broke down by North/South:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)

* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)

* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

Only 7 out of 97 Southerners of both parties supported it. 283 out of 316 Northerners did.

A very similar result ensued in the Senate:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)

* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)

* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

At the time, the Southerner oppositionists said much the same about Civil Rights as the naysayers say today about Healthcare: That it's un-American, communist, and will spell the end of the politicians trying to pass it.

In fact, it did leave permanent damage to the Democratic party in that it once and for all began the end of Democratic strength in the south, a Democratic bastion since the Civil war and Reconstruction.

Today, all those Southern Democrats who just said 'NO' to civil rights have become Republicans. They are the very same Republicans (in spirit and philosophy) who are saying NO to progressive legislation today, including healthcare.

We had bipartisanship in 1964 because the GOP was a more moderate and centrist party, and because the Democrats were effectively two parties under one roof: a moderate centrist Northern wing and a reactionary absolutist Southern wing which had to be pushed out of the way to get something accomplished.

That southern wing attached itself tot he Republican party and its philosophy of rejectionist conservativism has taken over that party such that there are few if any moderate Republicans left. Some get literally kicked out of the party (Arlen Specter), some are derided as RINOs (Olympia Snowe). The GOP has become that ugly hard boiled cyst of Southernism, and it refuses to act in bipartisan fashion on any issue.

No wonder the only way we can pass important legislation in 2010 is by narrow majorities that the House Leader and Whip are able to cobble together. That achievement makes the event even more historic, certainly not less so.

Interesting breakdown.

[peejay 327]

So...if you are not for this healthcare legislation...you are a racist? That's a bit of a stretch.

[scandal 951]

So...if you are not for this healthcare legislation...you are a racist? That's a bit of a stretch.

Ah, yes. I must have used the word "racist" at least, oh, 7 or 8 times in that post.

Anything else you'd like to incorrectly imply that I said or intended? How about that all conservatives have tiny peckers?

Edited March 21, 2010 by scandal

[peejay 327]

Ah, yes. I must have used the word "racist" at least, oh, 7 or 8 times in that post.

Anything else you'd like to incorrectly imply that I said or intended? How about that all conservatives have tiny peckers?

I'm not into penises...so I can't answer your question on that topic.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So...if you are not for this healthcare legislation...you are a racist? That's a bit of a stretch.

And only you is making that stretch...

[Danno 1,228]

How do you think you get to vote totals like 290-130, or 73-27? Through bipartisanship. Through having members of both parties being willing to support important legislation that Americans demand.

Do you want to know the real unspoken difference between 1964 and 2010? It's the South. It always has been.

As Krystol says, in 1964 the House vote was 290-130. Here's how the House vote broke down by North/South:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)

* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)

* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

Only 7 out of 97 Southerners of both parties supported it. 283 out of 316 Northerners did.

A very similar result ensued in the Senate:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)

* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)

* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

At the time, the Southerner oppositionists said much the same about Civil Rights as the naysayers say today about Healthcare: That it's un-American, communist, and will spell the end of the politicians trying to pass it.

In fact, it did leave permanent damage to the Democratic party in that it once and for all began the end of Democratic strength in the south, a Democratic bastion since the Civil war and Reconstruction.

Today, all those Southern Democrats who just said 'NO' to civil rights have become Republicans. They are the very same Republicans (in spirit and philosophy) who are saying NO to progressive legislation today, including healthcare.

We had bipartisanship in 1964 because the GOP was a more moderate and centrist party, and because the Democrats were effectively two parties under one roof: a moderate centrist Northern wing and a reactionary absolutist Southern wing which had to be pushed out of the way to get something accomplished.

That southern wing attached itself tot he Republican party and its philosophy of rejectionist conservativism has taken over that party such that there are few if any moderate Republicans left. Some get literally kicked out of the party (Arlen Specter), some are derided as RINOs (Olympia Snowe). The GOP has become that ugly hard boiled cyst of Southernism, and it refuses to act in bipartisan fashion on any issue.

No wonder the only way we can pass important legislation in 2010 is by narrow majorities that the House Leader and Whip are able to cobble together. That achievement makes the event even more historic, certainly not less so.

Let me make a few points on your post.

- Isn't Kristol pointing out that in 1964 there was a bipartisan support..... which is non existent here today, your comments seem to only double his contention.

-I think you are way over playing the idea that the South went RIGHT because the democrats gave up a few votes for Civil Rights. The greater persuader (I think) was the other growing social issues which

alienated the South from the Leftward-moving Democrat party.

-It should also be noted many people objected to Civiil Rights legislation, not because they didn't agree with many parts of it but.... as a consistent principle, they felt Federal acts like this, once enacted could easily go astray. Such as most recently, the efforts of Obama to include Transgender people as well under this umbrella.

[Danno 1,228]

Bill Kristol is a fool. Do you really take him seriously?

Because I don't agree with Kristol on some things does not mean his facts on this point can't be correct..... that this is not an"epic civil Rights Vote".... the vote demographics plainly demonstrate that.

[slim 1,530]

The picture in that post made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

This vote could quite possibly be the beginning of the end. God I pray it's not.