Breaking: Pelosi announces that she can’t pass Senate ObamaCare bill
posted at 11:51 am on January 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The dream of cramming down the Senate version of ObamaCare died as Scott Brown arrived in Washington DC to prepare to enter the Senate as the first Republican from Massachusetts in 38 years, which was both coincidental and providential. Nancy Pelosi announced late this morning that she can’t get the votes necessary to move it to Obama’s desk:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she does not have the votes needed to pass the Senate version of the health care bill.
“I don’t see the votes for it at this time,” Pelosi told reporters in a briefing.
After Democrats lost their 60-vote supermajority in the Senate Tuesday after Republicans won an upset victory in the Massachusetts special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy, House passage of the current Senate health bill appeared to be one of few options available for Democrats hoping to complete their year-long quest to pass health reform.
Brown’s arrival in the capital today carried a message that Democrats finally began to comprehend, after dismissing voter anger at town halls for months as meaningless:
Rank-and-file Democrats vented their frustration at a closed-door meeting Thursday. Emerging from the session, Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-N.Y., said: “The mega bills are dead. If we didn’t see what happened Tuesday night, we have blinkers on.”
And now that the blinkers have begun to come off, Democrats realize that most people didn’t consider this a priority in the first place:
Also fueling the Democratic search for a fresh health care strategy is a conviction by many in the party that it’s time for an election-year focus on jobs and the economy, which polls show are easily the public’s top concerns.
“I don’t think we have to wait for health care to be resolved one way or the other before we move to jobs,” said Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa. “We need to put a jobs bill on the table very soon, certainly in the next few weeks.”
This puts an end to the complicated pass-this-now, do-a-modification-later approach that had been floated over the past week as it became apparent that Democrats would lose Massachusetts. It also probably means an end to the reconciliation approach, which could only be used to pass the least popular elements of ObamaCare — Medicare cuts and tax hikes. We’re probably looking more at a Square One approach, and this time the Obama administration may try to draft key Republicans into the talks in order to get bipartisan cover.
Either way, it’s an ignominious defeat for Obama and Pelosi, whose radical approach and “I won” attitude finally caught up with them. Even with massive majorities and a filibuster-proof caucus, they could not jam down a massive government intrusion into the private sector through Congress. They overreached, and now they have been exposed as radicals in the middle of an election year.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
To pay for the cost of the TARP program. They are going to put a huge new tax on all of the banks that did not take TARP funds.
Only in govt, would such a plan make sense.
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 1:45 PM
The Dems who screwed up my business deserve to have theirs just as screwed. I am praying they all lose their jobs.
elclynn on January 21, 2010 at 1:47 PM
If you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the damn heat.
.
How’s that hopenchange working out for ya?
.
Duck, it’s what’s for dinner!!!
ted c on January 21, 2010 at 1:48 PM
Love the pic….looks like she got caught in the earthquake and just got back today…
PatriotRider on January 21, 2010 at 1:49 PM
–You need to do more than that. Over half the states already limit malpractice awards. There’s no requirement that a policy issued in one state is transferrable to another state (not everyone will buy a policy across state lines initially). And there’s no individual policy in any state that I’m aware of that would cover some people with pre-existing conditions after they’ve lost their employment for an extended period. At a minimum, you need to be sure that (i) people who have an individual policy in one state can transfer that policy to another state at the same equivalent cost and (ii) people who can’t get affordable individual coverage after losing coverage can do so. You’d probably need to do significantly more federal funding of high risk pools under (ii) or allow those people to buy insurance under Medicare. You could also try mandating that insurance companies offer individual coverage at the same full cost rates offered by employers in the event people lose their jobs and insurance.
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 1:49 PM
What’s the effective blast range of silicone laced with botox that gets all worked up in a post-menopausal rage?/
ted c on January 21, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Note to Dems:
Pelosi goes.
.
Now.
.
Git ‘er done, or the trucks are comin!
ted c on January 21, 2010 at 1:51 PM
I hope they push more bills very soon. I hope they follow their instincts and try and do more. Flayling never looked so good.
R Square on January 21, 2010 at 1:51 PM
–From Rasmussen Reports. I would not want to be a GOP-type voting against smaller bills with these provisions, given these approval ratings.
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 1:52 PM
They barely managed to pass the first bill, right after the election when Barry was at the peak of his popularity, and with the entire media screaming that the bill had to be passed now otherwise the entire economy would melt down.
A year later, Barry’s popularity is plummetting, “moderate” Democrats are running for the hills, nobody in the country trusts the Democrats, and the first bill that was supposed to save the country, has failed miserably.
I don’t think they will have much luck passing much in the way of a new stimulus package.
I’m not recommending relaxing our guard, just no need to panic.
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Heh – nice new Shanklin parody.
reaganaut on January 21, 2010 at 1:53 PM
And this too shall pass.
Remember, evil never rests.
Expect more secret deal, expect more corruption, whatever evil the liberals had on tap, it’ll get worse.
Speakup on January 21, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Can we do demagogue, strawman, doublespeak and all that other good stuff from Square One? Cause if we can, count Barry in, his report card is a little thin and he’s looking for extra credit.
B+
ted c on January 21, 2010 at 1:55 PM
“Jobs bills” as such are worse than useless. But they can extend the Bush tax cuts and lower taxes across the board. That would be better than nothing. If they’d done that last year instead of Porkulus followed by cap & trade and HCR, they probably wouldn’t be in this position right now.
Missy on January 21, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Stay tuned. Pelosi apparently is close to announcing the House will go the reconciliation route on health care reform.
BardMan on January 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM
I may…may actually tune into the SOTU address just to hear King Barry weasel his way around the arugula.
Thunderstorm129 on January 21, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Never mind. Old news. Article was time stamped before her presser this morning. Move along. Nothing to see.
BardMan on January 21, 2010 at 2:04 PM
This is a wonderful notion, but it destroys the whole concept of “insurance” and replaces it with “someone else to pay my bills.”
You buy insurance to insure against a potential future event (i.e., a future car accident, a future house fire). When you are able to buy insurance to pay for something that already happened – it is not insurance. Should we force car insurance to insure people who just had an accident and pay for the costs of that accident? How is that risk spread?
I don’t know the answer to this problem, but I think that using the gov’t to require insurers (i.e. spreaders of risk) to cover for an event that already occured is foolish and destructive. I suppose in an effort to “get everybody covered” and spread the risk, we could require insurance companies to accept some ratio of pre-existing conditions. In other words, don’t make insurance companies take every single pre-existing condition that comes down the pike, but come up with a formula of how many they have to take until they have met their quota – and have that formula make sense in terms of spreading costs/risks around.
there should also be a burden/penalty on anyone who never get insurance and then when they hit 30 find out they have cancer / etc. I know plenty of people in their 20s who make the consiouse choice not to pursue jobs that have benefits like health care and instead work as waiters / bartenders / musicians, etc into their 30s.
It seems unfair that I paid my insurance premium all through my 20s and now my premium will have to go up b/c that individual finds out they have cancer at 32 and decides to get insurance for the first time at that point. Why should I have to pay for their choices / decisions?
I know that the counter-argument is that there are people who can’t find jobs that offer health insurance, but I’m pointing out problems that need to be resolved in any “make the insurance companies take pre-existing conditions” plans.
Monkeytoe on January 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM
What happens when the Republicans explain to people that preventing companies from not ensuring people with pre-existing conditions will cause the cost of insurance to quintuple? At least.
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Great decision. McDonnell from VA will give the response to Obama’s State of the Union address.
That’s such a sensible and great choice. Who made it?
AnninCA on January 21, 2010 at 2:12 PM
What happens when the Republicans explain to people that preventing companies from not ensuring people with pre-existing conditions will cause the cost of insurance to quintuple? At least.
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 2:10 PM
–It won’t. They will go up about 20%. That’s the primary reason for the insurance premium increases under the original Obamacare plan and that’s about the difference in costs between states with “guaranteed issue” policies and those without.
I
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 2:14 PM
I don’t understand all of the borrowing going on, etc., but I understand that the TARP payback will be just as promised, it is being paid back.
I can’t track all the rhetorical nonsense on this issue because it’s just not adding up to me, personally. But my “take” on this is that Obama is making the Banks, again, into the “bad guys.” That substitutes for real change in regulatory oversight agency power.
It seems like a bunch of smoke up our whatevers to me.
But, again, it’s a complex issue that I’m frankly not willing to follow on a detailed level.
AnninCA on January 21, 2010 at 2:15 PM
–People may have had insurance previously, but lost insurance coverage because they lost their jobs or the coverage became unaffordable. It’s not just people who decided not to buy insurance on a whim.
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Don’t forget to include Reid in that ignominious defeat. It was his insistence on funding for abortion-on-demand and enough pork to sink a supertanker that scuttled the entire works.
steveegg on January 21, 2010 at 2:17 PM
Wow. Followed the link and read an outpouring of loony-bin socialist misery brought on by the impending death of HCR. Thank you Massachusetts for pouring salt on these slugs!
Gang-of-One on January 21, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Jimbo, you do know there are a number of “GOP-type” individuals, including new-elect Scott Brown, open to reforming certain aspects of our health care system, like tax-credits for Americans to help defray consumer costs, the issue of malpractice, and the issue you brought up about the availability of coverage for people with pre-existing ailments.
The base is not lock-stepping to completely kill the bill into oblivion. We just don’t accept the notion of the government assuming massive (complete?) control of this billion dollar industry and creating a gargantuan infrastructure in place to co-opt its business and services.
It needs some reforming for certain. The way the Liberals proceeded to coup the industry is both alarming and very ill-advised, particularly the patronage involved.
We just want a seat at the table and open debate. We have plenty of good ideas to make it work if we don’t get shut out.
RepubChica on January 21, 2010 at 2:22 PM
And of course everything in Obama’s “projections” will come to pass, exactly as he predicted?
When people find that they don’t have to buy insurance until after they get sick, then nobody will. If you really think that this will cause prices to go up by only 20%, then you really are deep into kool-aid.
I might add that the must issue part of the plan isn’t popular with anybody.
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 2:25 PM
——————————————————————————————————
That must be HuffPo’s newest columnist, SETH POOLE.
ziggyville on January 21, 2010 at 2:25 PM
The feds don’t. All you have to do is sue in federal, rather than state courts.
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Forcing the health insurance reform to be passed in smaller bills means that each aspect can be debated, and the true results explored.
If excluding pre-existing conditions is good for health care, why not allow people to buy car insurance after a crash or earthquake insurance after an earthquake?
pedestrian on January 21, 2010 at 2:34 PM
My governor, Bob McDonnell is giving the response to the SOTU. A simply marvelous choice. Go Bob Go!
ted c on January 21, 2010 at 2:39 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
In this link, Pelosi is quoted as saying:
Really? Wasn’t this supposed to pass before last August? You wouldn’t want to let one new Senator get in your way, would you?
Madam Speaker, you are hereby invited, and implored to pause and reflect until November. Your previous reflexions have give US pause!
Thank you, Scott Brown!
Steve Z on January 21, 2010 at 2:39 PM
1) Struggled to get car out of ice rut
2) Drove car to polling place
3) Darkened oval for Scott Phillip Brown (my town went 55-45 for him)
4) Smiled as I thought of the many others who did the same
Those from other states: “Thank You Massachusetts!”
People like me from Mass.: “Thanks to those from other states who sent money to help Scott or drove up here to campaign for him”
raccoonradio on January 21, 2010 at 2:49 PM
We need to nationalize insurance in order to solve these problems?
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 2:50 PM
You can wait until the flood is at your doorstep before buying federally subsidized flood insurance.
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 2:52 PM
–I think the GOP was given the chance to be at the table but generally decided to do nothing because of political calculations. Obama is clearly open now to GOP discussions/proposals, but I’m not sure anyone from the GOP will be brave enough to seriously discuss anything for fear that many GOP voters will say those people are negotiating with the devil.
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Once you accept the notion that govt can require you to buy health insurance. (ignoring the obvious constitutional issues) You then have to accept that the govt has the right to set minimum standards for health insurance. And from there it’s a fairly short jump to just nationalizing the whole thing.
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Why do you insist on repeating such easily refuted lies.
The Republicans had plans, the Democrats refused to listen. The Republicans tried to negotiate, the Democrats slammed the door on them.
The Democrats were determined, from day one, to pass their plan, with no interference from anyone. And they are paying for that arrogance.
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Patriots.
ted c on January 21, 2010 at 2:56 PM
–You don’t have federal jurisdiction in most personal injury/medical malpractice cases. Most cases in federal court require “diversity” jurisdiction. That usually means that none of the parties can be a resident of the same state as any other party. It’s pretty tough to have that in most medical malpractice cases. And usually federal courts have to apply the laws of the applicable state, in any event.
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 2:56 PM
–The state governments already set minimum standards for most policies issued in their states. And I don’t think it is a lie to say that the Republicans refused to negotiate. Snowe and the guy from Louisiana from the GOP did vote for the bills, right? What evidence do you have that the GOP made a
attempt last spring to negotiate with the WH?
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 2:58 PM
I noticed they didn’t mention these popular mythical programs would likely come with much higher premiums, Medicare cuts and tax increases.
Add in those caveats and see how they poll.
Chuck Schick on January 21, 2010 at 3:01 PM
10.2% unemployment and the Dems actually need a poll to tell them this is a problem?
So much for the edumakation politkal klass.
DSchoen on January 21, 2010 at 3:12 PM
Hummmmm lets see.
Dems have wanted universal health care since Roosevelt, after 60 plus years they haven’t been able to get it done despite their claim that so 80% of the people want it.
96 hours after the “ACORN” video ran, congress de-funded “ACORN” because 80% of the people wanted it de-funded.
Most people might call this a clue as to what happens when 80% of the people want something, ya think?
DSchoen on January 21, 2010 at 3:14 PM
You made the charge that the GOP was invited to negotiate but refused. So, you provide the evidence.
Missy on January 21, 2010 at 3:26 PM
From Rasmussen Reports. I would not want to be a GOP-type voting against smaller bills with these provisions, given these approval ratings.
–Here you go:
A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems has been one of the most popular consumer protections in the health care debate. About 82 percent said they favored the ban, according to a Pew Research Center poll in October.
In the AP poll, when told that such a ban would probably cause most people to pay more for health insurance, 43 percent said they would still support doing away with pre-existing condition denials, but 31 percent said they would oppose it.
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 3:29 PM
–Don’t need to. Several of you said I lied. You prove it.
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Exactly how blind are these idiots? They didn’t understand the anger at the town hall meetings? Perhaps they thought it was the same people at every protest, every town hall, every march? I mean, there really were only 20,000 at the mall in DC on 9/12, right?
Jiminy Christmas, it’s more difficult for me to fathom their stupidity than it is for me to believe Brown won MA. IT’S ONLY NOW ABOUT THE ECONOMY?!?!?!
This is fully on the (D) shoulders. SHAME ON THEM! SHAME ON THEIR HUBRIS! SHAME ON THEIR INEPTITUDE! The economy has been tanking for over a year and they are just NOW realizing this? How long would it have been had Brown not won? Is the real shell game between Oblahblah and his hypnotized sycophants in the House and Senate?
And another thing: Barry was part of the housing crash. He was a CO for A-freakin’-corn. I worked at the largest bank in the world in 1992. When I didn’t approve a mortgage loan I knew ACORN would be calling. They would threaten a protest, throw around words like “racist”, “national news”, etc. and LO AND BEHOLD, the loan would get done. That was before the u/w guidelines were expanded to make housing more affordable to all sectors of society. To me the guideline expansion just meant I didn’t have to be threatened any longer. AND HE NOW IS GOING TO TAX THE BANKS because of their lack of judgement? Jeesh, I’m really glad MY bank won’t pass that fee onto me…yours?
I have had it with these people. Maybe Teh One needs to get information from people OTHER THAN his leeches and the Cloward-Piven lovin’ communist / socialist / fascist / Marxist Czars and Czarinas.
AARRRRGGHHHHH!
Yellowdog12 on January 21, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Sorry, that’s not how it works. You should back up your initial assertion.
Missy on January 21, 2010 at 3:33 PM
Fixing it for her . . .
From the story, posted here:
“We’re [not] no longer in a big rush” on health care, Pelosi said. “Pause, reflect on survival.”
Trochilus on January 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM
The Democrats yelled “crisis” and spent Millions from Stimulus on Pelosi’s little orange marsh mice and scores of other pork projects, which created zero jobs; while MILLIONS of people lost their jobs and homes. You just can’t get more out of touch with reality than a Democrat.
TN Mom on January 21, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Politically — from the leadership perspective — Mrs. Pelosi is now,
“Dead Nan Walking!“
Trochilus on January 21, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Some evidence:
In Finance negotiations, Baucus talks, GOP walks
By David Sarasohn, The Oregonian
September 19, 2009, 4:06PM Does anyone else have the feeling that when Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus goes out to negotiate for a new car, he ends up giving the salesman his own car and walking home?
All year, Baucus has conducted endless meetings of the Gang of Six, three Democrats and three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee, in the effort to produce the unicorn of American politics, a bipartisan health care reform.
As spring blossomed and turned to summer, as the goal of a bill before summer adjournment faded, as August turned into a national diagnostic shouting match, still Baucus held his meetings, insisting that they were just about to hatch a bipartisan bill.
The four other congressional committees involved, three in the House and the Senate health committee, moved forward, and if their legislation was all Democrats-only, at least they produced bills.
Still Baucus held his meetings, listening to Republicans and responding to their objections — even as they made it clear they weren’t ever going to support what he was devising.
Last week, the Finance chairman announced his bill, and it was true you couldn’t really call the event Democrats-only. It was Baucus-only.
Not only did no Republicans stand with the chairman, but none of his fellow Democrats did, either.
As negotiations go, the process was at least as productive as your typical Middle East peace talks.
For months, Baucus had made repeated concessions to Republican positions, and in exchange had gotten the political equivalent of an automated phone message.
As Baucus’s associate, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell about Baucus’s approach to Republicans, “Look, they asked a series of things be excluded. They didn’t want a public option, it’s not in this package. They didn’t want an employer mandate, it’s not in this package.”
What Republicans did want was a start on tort reform, which Baucus did put in the package.
“So I hope that they’ll see as we go through the process,” Conrad said gamely, “that there’s much here that’s worthy of their support .¤.¤..”
What Baucus got was Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, coming out of the Republican caucus and saying, “Let’s face it, we can’t accept the bill the way it is.” He got Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., saying what Congress really should do was start over.
And what Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a member of the Gang of Six, not thinks is that instead of an individual mandate — which is instead of the employer mandate that Republicans didn’t like — what there should really be is a voluntary program.
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Now, that’s a scary thought. It shows they really haven’t understood at all. It’s just in their DNA to meddle.
Let’s make it as plain as possible: Get out of the way!
JDPerren on January 21, 2010 at 4:04 PM
September 19, 2009? A little late for negotiations with Rs at that stage, since the House bill had already been written. Remember they tried to move it through the House in July.
And the Senate bill made it out of Baucus’ committee with Snowe’s vote. So how can you say there was no R cooperation there?
The point is that the bills were created without R input, by design. Rs were not invited to the table. Later, a few concessions were made, but only when Dems had no choice to move the bill out of committee.
Key line from your article, my emphasis:
I don’t think this article makes your case for you.
Missy on January 21, 2010 at 4:13 PM
hey Jimbo3, can you say MOOOOOOOOON-BAT!!!!
It’s best you hang with like minded folks…so head on back over and huff some more.
screwauger on January 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM
–
–I don’t read Huffington. Do any of you have any proof that the GOP seriously offered proposals?
Jimbo3 on January 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM
The end of the left as they know it…
AND I feel FINE!
Roy Rogers on January 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Ding dong the bill is dead, which old bill? the wicked bill…ding dong the wicked old bill is dead….
Terrye on January 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM
No, “you” i.e. “we” (i.e. the Federal Government) should not do any of that.
I asserted the other day that the only way to bring down costs is to let the free market be free. You said you agreed. You clearly did not, or do not understand. The solution is not some Progressive-inspired, technocratic social engineering. The solution is to get the Federal (and State) governments out of the way.
Your need does not create an entitlement and you do not have the right to use the power of government to arrange things to satisfy your needs. You, like everyone else, have only the right to freedom and it’s corollary, voluntary trade.
JDPerren on January 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM
How much more? Twice? Because that’s what WellPoint estimates some markets policies will rise for a family of 4.
70% to 43% is a pretty big drop. And you just mention policy prices. You have to throw in the Medicare cuts, decrease in items covered, new taxes, caps on FSAs/HSAs, etc.
Chuck Schick on January 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM
And the Democrats would not be looking at November in terror if they had listened back then.
pedestrian on January 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
pedestrian on January 21, 2010 at 4:25 PM
Back to the drawing board. You said they refused to negotiate or provide proposals. You prove it.
The article you cited said that four out of the five committees that created the bills in the House and Senate were made up of all Democrats. Baucus’ was the sole committee with R representation.
Anyway, just to be nice, here you are:
HuffPo: Republican Health Care Plan Unveiled (from May 20, 2009)
Missy on January 21, 2010 at 4:25 PM
The Picker of the House, Nan Pelosi, a Lightning Fast Chicken Plucker. I said Plucker. If DC was Hollywood, ol Nan the Plucker would be outside policing up cigarette butts.
Lincoln Cadillac on January 21, 2010 at 4:30 PM
OK, we’re gonna have a one year TP birthday celebration in February + more protests coming up. These are some signs I’m going to make, anyone want to play?
1) It’s the ECONOMY, Stupid!
2) Get out of our way!
3) YOU are NEXT!
4) You REALLY don’t understand?
5) Pack your crap!
6) A jobs bill? Where have you been?
7) Can you hear us now?
8) Run Dem, RUN!
9) CRAM your cramdown
10) You didn’t win – WE LOST!
11) You ARE the bad guys…
12) You just THOUGHT we were angry!
13) I AM STILL JOE WILSON
Yellowdog12 on January 21, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Let’s send these Dem’s back home to their caves folks!
SWChance on January 21, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Also Jimbo-
Recall in the Senate bill that insurance companies can charge no more than 3x the average policy based on pre-existing conditions or age.
Which means they will all cost 3x the average.
Given the average price for a family of 4 is $1000 to $1200 per month. So this still will be well outside affordability for the overwhelming majority of American families.
Throw that into the poll as well and tell me where we are.
Chuck Schick on January 21, 2010 at 4:34 PM
looks like the Dems still don’t get it. It’s reconciliation:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/01/its-reconciliation.html#ixzz0dH1r09ON
rcpjr on January 21, 2010 at 4:37 PM
SNAP!
Roy Rogers on January 21, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Not sure about this – it’s timestamped 9 am, which is before she made her statement about the House not having the votes. Anyone have more info?
Missy on January 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM
Good grief! Would you quit using that picture? That’s disgusting. How long has she been dead anyway?
MikeA on January 21, 2010 at 4:45 PM
/pops the cork off the champagne
Next step: getting Pelosi out of office.
CatsGodot on January 21, 2010 at 4:54 PM
Looks like some nasty old hag ate some rather unpleasant tasting crow or something. Nom-nom-nom!
G-man on January 21, 2010 at 4:57 PM
Remarkable how close this whole damn thing was.
Historians will look back at this and point to it as the perfect example of how a minority party can use parliamentary delay to defeat seemingly insurmountable odds.
Do you guys realize that if the dems had passed this JUST A COUPLE WEEKS EARLIER it would be law __RIGHT NOW__
If Rahm had been right and it had passed the senate at thanksgiving, they wouldve gone through ping-pong by Christmas and it wouldve been on Obama’s desk by New Years.
All those Town Hall protests… All the consternation that the tea-parties gave the blue dogs… All the time that Snowe’s off-and-on flirting bought… All of the feet dragging and legislative caltrops that the GOP used worked to delay it JUST ENOUGH so that the outcome in Massachusetts would serve to change the course of American history.
It’s enough to make an atheist blink.
Khorum on January 21, 2010 at 5:05 PM
I’m not an atheist, but I’ve thought about that, too. It does seem Providential, doesn’t it?
Missy on January 21, 2010 at 5:13 PM
From the looks of your pix of Nan…she’s having a bad hair day.
MainelyRight on January 21, 2010 at 5:16 PM
14 And Don’t Mess With My Truck!
congma on January 21, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Funny you say that. Not to get too personal or bore anyone with details, God and I have always had a rocky relationship, and, largely in part, with just how invested I am in *NOT* having our system under
SocializedObamaCare. If that had passed, I am literally a dead man walking, and only a matter of time before the massive amount of medications I need to survive day to day will be considered to costly for the American taxpayer. (No death panels my sweet patoot–easy to say, from anyone whose major medication is the occasional blue pill and maybe an antacid or two. While your at it, imagine trying to wait in line, ala the DMV, and filling out books of paperwork for your precious pill, *then* come back and tell me just how many Americans are supposedly covered by your idiotic bill.)I was saying to myself most of Tuesday: If Brown wins, I might actually go back to being a Christian. Not joking. For real. It is, as I see it, an honest-to-God miracle.
CatsGodot on January 21, 2010 at 5:24 PM
Looks like those dadburned obstructionist Republicans may have saved her bacon.
unclesmrgol on January 21, 2010 at 5:30 PM
I have skin in the game as well, although in the form of a friend instead of myself. While the ‘Death Panels’ mantra is exaggerated hype, I can guarantee the gov’t to find a million and one ways to ration healthcare if they get uncontested control.
Dark-Star on January 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Love that photo. Either her hair extensions have lost their oomph or she forgot them altogether.
jeanie on January 21, 2010 at 5:39 PM
I have seen on a couple of other sites that Pelosi is telling her caucus and Reid to go the reconciliation route. The wicked witch ain’t dead yet!
Dhuka on January 21, 2010 at 5:45 PM
No. Primarily because of her arrogance, she forced her entire caucus to vote on a bill that will gain each of them exactly nothing. It was simply not ready for prime time — she should have been much more cautious, and at least kept it apace with what the Senate was doing.
Now her caucus will turn on her — maybe not this week, maybe not next . . . but they will turn. It is just a matter of time.
Trochilus on January 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM
I’ve seen that too, but it relies on a single report from a NY Daily News blog that’s timestamped before her announcement today that she didn’t have the votes.
So I wonder if it was something she floated around and then eventually gave up on.
Missy on January 21, 2010 at 5:48 PM
In debate, Specter tells Bachmann to “act like a lady” because she wouldn’t clam up when, following his questions, his interjections to interrupt her answers were ignored by the lady.
So Specter thinks ladies should STFU. Tell it to Nancy Pelosi, Specter.
maverick muse on January 21, 2010 at 5:55 PM
THIS is the moment for the Republican Caucus to get on the floor with their coordinated Bill to Cut Health Care Costs.
Don’t tell me they’ve been twiddling thumbs with their many uncoordinated efforts still not integrated into one bill.
Now the zeitgeist is independently conservative: CUT TAXES!!! Eliminate fraud and corruption. No more clunker bail-out legislation. Open the oil and gas fields and get those jobs for AMERICAN CITIZENS rolling. And send the damned enemies of the state and enemy combatants to military tribunals in GITMO.
maverick muse on January 21, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Uh-oh.
House Democrats are planning to use the budget-reconciliation process in order to pass Obamacare.
Rational Thought on January 21, 2010 at 6:13 PM
NRO and Redstate have confirmed the Dems are meeting this weekend to plan reconciliation tactics.
Wethal on January 21, 2010 at 6:26 PM
American Power tracked-back with, ‘Scott Brown Goes to Washington’.
Donald Douglas on January 21, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »