McCain: Reconciliation would be “cataclysmic”

posted at 1:36 pm on February 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

John McCain made a pretty good appearance on Good Morning America while being challenged by George Stephanopoulos on policy. He warned of the “cataclysmic” consequences of pursuing ObamaCare through reconciliation, a very clear signal to Harry Reid that Republicans plan to fight it every step of the way. But even putting aside process, McCain reinforces the points made yesterday by himself and his colleagues about the fantasy mathematics employed by Democrats in pushing their bill, calling it “Bernie Madoff accounting” (via Instapundit):

President Obama’s health care summit was a good opportunity for Americans to consider the contentious issue, but passing a Senate bill with 51 votes in what’s called budget reconciliation would have “cataclysmic effects,” Arizona Sen. John McCain said.

“Here they are with a program that’s another $2.5 trillion cost to the taxpayers,” the former GOP presidential candidate told “Good Morning America’s” George Stephanopoulos today. “We are ready to work on a number of issues with the president but we want to do it step by step.”

“We don’t want the budget gimmickry that gives you six years of benefits for 10 years in taxes. I mean, that’s crazy. That’s Bernie Madoff accounting,” he said.

Obama’s bill, released Monday, is estimated by the White House to cost $1 trillion over 10 years, but Republicans say that number is a lowball and that costs over time will be considerably higher.

As he did in yesterday’s summit, McCain stressed the “unsavory” nature of the deals made by Obama and the Democrats in Congress. He missed the opportunity to hammer Obama on the backroom deal made with unions to exempt their benefit plans from the so-called “Cadillac plan” tax, perhaps because Obama defused that somewhat by exempting everyone from that tax untilk 2018. Otherwise, this is a solid performance by McCain.

The gleeful Senator says he’d love to have a series of these summits at the end of the interview. Somehow, I don’t think Obama is that foolish.

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: 1 2 3

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM

We’re both at HA, and this is a premier Conservative site. What better place, and if HA is willing to host? Why go far from home to want to enjoy being at home?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:32 PM

I won’t lock you into a box, and between us I like to think HA will go along.

I doubt it, honestly.

I want it all fair, open, and honest.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:27 PM

That’s fine.

Why n ot just start a free Blogger account someplace and point people to it? WordPress will host for free. So will Google. It doesn’t have the “Guns at dawn. Bring a good second.” flair but it’s just as functional (and possibly more entertaining).

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM

This is a better idea ^

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Has Mac been smacked around enough by that great American, Obama, yet? The Mac is back!11!!! /s

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Your statement that the Mac is back implies that the Mac was ever here to begin with. This does not compute.

t.ferg on February 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

What leader has ever done something that he didn’t think was “for the best and the good”? That someone believes in the “goodness” of central planning and neo-feudalism doesn’t make their motivation good. Evil often comes wearing a patronizing smile.

spmat on February 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM

errrr… Yes. Nothing I said implied that it actually was for the best and the good. Just that they thought it was. That’s why questioning “Why would they want to do this?!” isn’t a useful question. The answer is usually “because they think it’s best”.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Stephanopulus should join the moron’s staff.

He would be more comfortable advocating for his hero if he joined the team.

notagool on February 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

I really, really like the “Bernie Madoff” line.

Should be repeated over and over and over…

LtE126 on February 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM

I was really hoping for an Aunt Bea thread today. Loved that lilting Mississippi errrr, upstate NY accent.

OmahaConservative on February 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM

+ LOL

d1carter on February 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

What leader has ever done something that he didn’t think was “for the best and the good”? That someone believes in the “goodness” of central planning and neo-feudalism doesn’t make their motivation good. Evil often comes wearing a patronizing smile.

spmat on February 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM

The question is “best and good” for whom. All too often it has nothing to do with the country or the citizens thereof. This healthcare bill HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE. It is to keep the democratic party in power forever. They are thinking strategically, not tactically. They are willing to take a beating short term (November) to win in the long run.

Aviator on February 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:26 PM

A reasonable way to proceed would be to put together an example of the first exchange and an outline of the rest, and some info about the terms of the debate and the qualifications and commitment of the participants. If HA didn’t want to do it on the main page, someone, even I, might be willing to host it in the GR and/or my own blog, but no one’s going to want to host a pig in a poke.

CK MacLeod on February 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

If you really want to debate the Constitution I’m more than open to it. But I don’t see the need to reserve some sort of grand forum for it.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Well, it would be off-topic, unless it had its own thread. I have an idea: Why don’t you guys ask for space in the Green Room? It’s for guest-bloggers, which is kind of what you two would be, and Green Room topics seem to stay up longer than regular HA articles.

Mary in LA on February 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:33 PM

No, here. This is where you and I both post so often, so here is where it should be done. Were we engaged on another site, I could entertain your idea. But here is where we both are, and where I challenge you.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

OT but important, Desiree Rogers, the “social secretary” that let in the party crashers, is stepping down.

txag92 on February 26, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Will she be replacing VanJones in CAP once he moves to Princeton ?

macncheez on February 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM

McCain/Palin 2012!

LibTired on February 26, 2010 at 2:09 PM

With that in mind…This from American Thinker:

Powerless Against Palin

By Gene Schwimmer

The Palestinians have nothing on liberal Democrats. Palestinians, as Abba Eban, Israel’s former ambassador to the United Nations, famously quipped, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” But the Democrats and the jogging canines of mainstream journalism never miss an opportunity to miss the obvious.

Allow me, then, to explain the reason — the real reason — why the aforementioned devote the enormous amounts of time, effort, ink, and pixels to attack one woman, Sarah Palin. Palin is a private citizen, who does nothing but give speeches, sell books, post Facebook messages, and is a “Fox News contributor” whose only substantive “contributions” so far, from what I can see, have been to Fox News’ bottom line and to her own bank account.

After all, we never saw the left direct this level of vitriol — no, let’s call it what it is, hatred — against the likes of Ron Paul, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and others whose names, for good reason, I cannot recall. And, unlike Sarah Palin, these were all declared candidates, actively-campaigning for the presidency in an election year.

What could possibly account for this borderline deranged venting of hellfire, this spewing of enough bile to float a battleship, enough gnashing of teeth to pay the college tuition — all four years — of the children of a whole battalion of cosmetic dentists? After all, it’s not like Sarah Palin could actually be elected President of the United States or anything.

Or could she?

Of course, she could, or at least the people attacking her think so. That is not to say that she will be elected or even nominated, but she could and that’s clearly one reason why the left is so viciously attacking her and her alone. This has to be a sweet irony if you’re Sarah Palin: Your enemies are screaming to the rafters that you can’t be elected precisely because, in their heart of hearts and brain of brains, they know that you can. The New York Times’ editorial board doth protest too much.

But even that is only one factor that explains, the ferocity, the hateful, the sheer derangement of the left’s anti-Palin barrage and it’s not the main factor, which is this: They are powerless to stop her. And they know it.

For Democrats, it is, literally, the Fear That Dare Note Speak Its Name, the fear that Sarah Palin could indeed be elected president and that there is nothing they can do about it.

Follow my impeccable logic here: While anything can happen between now and the first Tuesday of November, 2012, as the situation exists today (absent a swift and substantial rightward shift by Obama, a dramatic drop in the unemployment rate, the emergence of the Tea Parties as a viable third party, a decision by Obama not to run, or the sudden appearance of a deus ex machina) Barack Obama is a one-term president. If present trends continue, the next president will be a Republican. Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, your Aunt Petunia.

Or Sarah Palin. Whoever the Republicans nominate in 2012 becomes president in 2013. And that’s the key word: “Republicans.” Whoever the Republicans nominate.

And that’s got to be frustrating for your average liberal Democrat: knowing that absent some surprising favorable development, the Republican Party will choose the next president. The Democrats role will be limited to simply standing there and letting it happen.

But as the late Billy Mays liked to say, “Wait! There’s more!” Because if you’re a liberal Democrat facing this prospect, you’re probably thinking: “The Messiah’s a goner, but if we’re to have a Republican president, please, God, please, anyone but Sarah Palin. Anyone but an attractive, charismatic, principled, conservative, pro-life woman.”

Now sometimes appeals to the Almighty work, but not always, or the nation would have been spared the Obama administration, and any appeals and arguments to the voters — anything the Democrats do after the GOP chooses their candidate — will be too late. The Plan A dog (to reelect Obama) won’t hunt in 2012, which leaves liberals with Plan B: dissuade the Republicans from nominating Palin in the first place. Throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at her. Blast her with every crack, every criticism, every accusation, no matter how absurd, how hysterical, how rabid and irrational, and hope something sticks. Sully her good name; taint her so badly in the public’s eyes that Republicans won’t dare nominate her.

Either that, or turn on the TV at noon, January 20, 2013 to see Barack Obama, out after one soon-to-be-forgotten term, standing on a platform in front of the White House — and the entire world puts her left hand on the Bible, raises her right, and repeating after Chief Justice Roberts (or reading from her palm) says:

I, Sarah Louise Palin, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States…

Is it any wonder the Dems are going bonkers?

Heh!

gary4205 on February 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM

If they do reconciliation, the American people will march.

Enoxo on February 26, 2010 at 1:52 PM

I do believe this.

NJ Red on February 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM

thank JD Hayworth for McCain acting all ballsy & stuff.

kelley in virginia on February 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Mary in LA on February 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

I asked for an open thread, to ask HA staff to host. I still can’t get to that. No lib really wants to take me on in a debate of the Constitution.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM

The question is “best and good” for whom. All too often it has nothing to do with the country or the citizens thereof. This healthcare bill HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE. It is to keep the democratic party in power forever. They are thinking strategically, not tactically. They are willing to take a beating short term (November) to win in the long run.

Aviator on February 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

I would suggest that you have a seat with some local democrats in your neighborhood. Or even a precinct chair – it’s the lowest level most directly democratic elected position in a party. I’d wager good money that these people will likely think that this will help contain health-care costs and reduce the ranks of the uninsured and under-insured rather than think it’s part of some strategic plan to keep the democratic party in power.

I’m an election judge. I have to sit next to these people for hours at a time and of course we talk party differences.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Bernie Madoff Accounting

The Ponzi/Madoff theme should be used against all democrats this fall.

BottomLine5 on February 26, 2010 at 2:42 PM

One year ago Barack Obama was considered, by all leftists, to be the Christ. Any day now we will be down to the last true believer.

Really Right on February 26, 2010 at 2:29 PM

See Obama’s star sink down in the sky
Every dream he has spun is a lie
Life is cold
And the game is old
Just see how dreaming repays
You turn and he betrays
Betray him first
And the game’s reversed!

Oh, every Judas once loved a Jesus
But oh betrayal will seize us
And only fools follow golden rules
We all are caught in the middle
Of one long dangerous riddle
Of who trusts who
Maybe I’ll trust you
But can you trust me?
Wait and see!

PercyB on February 26, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Considering that the Senate is violating its own rules by using reconciliation for a medical-insurance bill, I wonder if the Senate will violate other rules in their obsession to ram this through. If the Republicans start proposing endless amendments (or even just a handful of showstopper amendments, things the Democrats will almost automatically reject), will Reid and company simply ignore the Republicans and hold the vote anyway, over the enraged howls of the Republicans (and the rest of the country)?

Aitch748 on February 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM

I asked for an open thread, to ask HA staff to host. I still can’t get to that. No lib really wants to take me on in a debate of the Constitution.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM

No, I do wish to “take you on” in a debate. We just aren’t agreeing on what the most practical forum is.

And your triumphalist posts asserting that no one will really wants to debate you, don’t aid your claims that you simply want a debate in good faith.

Anyway, the Green Room idea is a good one as well.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:44 PM

errrr… because it was on the legislative agenda that many of them were elected on? They think it is good legislation? (Nothing prevents elected officials from being deluded.) They think it’s a good way to reform health care? (See above about delusion.)
Questioning motivations doesn’t get us far because many of them probably do believe that they are doing this for the best and the good.
dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Given all we know about how much government continually screws up anything it touches, it is hard to believe the far-left national socialist democrats cannot know that what they are doing won’t improve the system and it is merely a means to control and for a permanent majority.

Not to mention the bankrupting of the country.

Chip on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Mac has his moments…this is the first one in awhile

joepub on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

wow, Liam, how are you so well-versed in Constitutional Law? i found it to be rather convoluted in law school & perverse with some decisions.

kelley in virginia on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

McCain was excellent at the summit, and he has been excellent in the follow up interviews with Sean Hannity and George Stephanopoulos.

The anti-McCain posters here are pathetic.

Phil Byler on February 26, 2010

Yes, it’s “pathetic” to want a Senator who’s excellent more than 25% of the time.

SKYFOX on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

you are right skyfox. but i’m glad McCain brought his 25% yesterday & today.

kelley in virginia on February 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Anyway, the Green Room idea is a good one as well.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Actually, I was wondering about that, those ‘suggestions’. I found them as I did.

In any case, if you like the Green Room, I agree immediately. I’m not familiar with it, but I’ll go with you on it as the base, without equivocation.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM

will Reid and company simply ignore the Republicans and hold the vote anyway, over the enraged howls of the Republicans (and the rest of the country)?

Aitch748 on February 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Wow. That’s a lot more confidence in the rest of the country than I think I have. Filibusters drag on and can provide a good opportunity for drama and anger to build up leading to enraged howls. Reconciliation is a bit arcane and a bit too brief for many people to hold anger in their hearts. American Idol is on!

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:48 PM

wow, Liam, how are you so well-versed in Constitutional Law? i found it to be rather convoluted in law school & perverse with some decisions.

kelley in virginia on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Let’s see what happens. *offers a smile

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Yes, it’s “pathetic” to want a Senator who’s excellent more than 25% of the time.

SKYFOX on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Epic Win!

t.ferg on February 26, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Given all we know about how much government continually screws up anything it touches, it is hard to believe the far-left national socialist democrats cannot know that what they are doing won’t improve the system and it is merely a means to control and for a permanent majority.

Not to mention the bankrupting of the country.

Chip on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

They are probably your neighbors and not hard to find – talk to them. Look up pct. chairs in your area – they are usually listed on a public website. You might be shocked. Most of the ones I know sincerely believe it will improve the system. None of them assume they will have a shot at any sort of perm. majority. Not seriously anyway. Everybody has pipe dreams from time to time though.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

you are right skyfox. but i’m glad McCain brought his 25% yesterday & today.

kelley in virginia on February 26, 2010

As am I, Kelley, but I still want a Republican with a better ratio of “attaboys” to “aw, sh!ts”.

SKYFOX on February 26, 2010 at 2:52 PM

crr6:

So you agree to the Green Room for our thread of discus on the Constitution, point by point? I’, in.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Thanks, J.D., for making Maverick all “Mavericky”.

kingsjester on February 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM

So you agree to the Green Room for our thread of discus on the Constitution, point by point? I’, in.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Yes.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM

You can contact me via my blog (use the name-link) and put up a comment on a thread or The Wall (look to post a comment on the sidebar or go to the About Page if you’d rather just e-mail me), and I’ll have your e-mail address. I would be happy to facilitate the GR debate, contingent on the requirements laid about above (example, outline, qualifications) and in consultation with the Great HotAir Powers That Be, who may prefer to turn one of you (the righty, of course) into GR authors, relieving me of any editing burdens.

For one thing, I wonder what makes you so confident that crr6 is capable and qualified to hold up his end, and why we should be confident that you’ll hold up yours. On the other hand, if the effort fizzles out, no great loss – the GR pixels are free. On the other hand, the Great HotAir Powers may like the proposal or the first installments so much that they decide to Main Page it as in your initial suggestion.

CK MacLeod on February 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Most of the ones I know sincerely believe it will improve the system. None of them assume they will have a shot at any sort of perm. majority. Not seriously anyway. Everybody has pipe dreams from time to time though.
dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

One only has to look at the post office or Medicare to demolish that fallacy.

They are also fools to think that it won’t bankrupt the nation.

We can’t afford their ‘Pipe dream’.

Chip on February 26, 2010 at 2:58 PM

One only has to look at the post office or Medicare to demolish that fallacy.

They are also fools to think that it won’t bankrupt the nation.

We can’t afford their ‘Pipe dream’.

Chip on February 26, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Ok. Fine. That was never the matter I was addressing. I addressed sincerity of motivation and the fact that it’s not a very useful question to ask why people attempt to do things such as this. It’s not a very useful question to ask because the answer usually boils down to “they think it’s a good thing to do.” The fact that it might not ACTUALLY be a good thing to do has no connection to why questioning motivations is usually not useful.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Yes.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Thanks! How about, only to suggest, we both reach HA to allow this. Others can post, freely, but the debate is between you and I.

I accept you have a life outside of here, so I claim no time limit on you. As I ask in return. This is a discussion, most of all. You and I are on opposite sides, but we’re having a talk. Return when you can; it’s all good.

But, too let us not quote others who post. This is just between us. Will you petition HA to host? Soon as you agree, and do the same, I’m going to HA staff to get this done.

This is a discussion, and nothing more. We on the same side at last?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM

You’ve been asleep for the past 8 years, haven’t you? And you’ve never cracked a history book ever either apparently.

If the filibuster is killed off, don’t start crying like a little baby when the GOP is in charge and pushes all sorts of stuff through that way as well.

Asher on February 26, 2010 at 2:14 PM

–And don’t start crying when the circle turns again, and the Dems are back in charge and trying to push stuff through. Remember how the GOP almost got rid of the fillbuster in connection with federal judges and how McCain and the others in the Gang of 12 stepped in to cut a deal. There was a fear then that eliminating it could be used against the GOP. McCain was right.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:05 PM

wow, Liam, how are you so well-versed in Constitutional Law? i found it to be rather convoluted in law school & perverse with some decisions.

kelley in virginia on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Let’s see what happens. *offers a smile

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM

–Liam and crr6, are you two providing the virtual beer and popcorn?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:07 PM

For one thing, I wonder what makes you so confident that crr6 is capable and qualified to hold up his end, and why we should be confident that you’ll hold up yours. On the other hand, if the effort fizzles out, no great loss – the GR pixels are free. On the other hand, the Great HotAir Powers may like the proposal or the first installments so much that they decide to Main Page it as in your initial suggestion.

CK MacLeod on February 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

The only things set in stone, as I believe, were carved into tablets to Moses by the finger of God.

I don’t have final answers. But I can sure make a case to consider. All else, be that as it may. I’m just a regular guy, the kind you’d miss in a crowd.

That’s all there is to me.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:07 PM

–Liam and crr6, are you two providing the virtual beer and popcorn?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Sure. C’mon in!

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Thanks! How about, only to suggest, we both reach HA to allow this. Others can post, freely, but the debate is between you and I.

I accept you have a life outside of here, so I claim no time limit on you. As I ask in return. This is a discussion, most of all. You and I are on opposite sides, but we’re having a talk. Return when you can; it’s all good.

But, too let us not quote others who post. This is just between us. Will you petition HA to host? Soon as you agree, and do the same, I’m going to HA staff to get this done.

This is a discussion, and nothing more. We on the same side at last?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Sounds good. I agree we shouldn’t have time limits on each other. I would also submit that our postings should be ours and ours alone. No passing off other’s work as your own. And no linking to others’ arguments as a substitute for your own.

If HA is willing to create a Green Room thread, I’d be happy to debate you.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Either that, or turn on the TV at noon, January 20, 2013 to see Barack Obama, out after one soon-to-be-forgotten term, standing on a platform in front of the White House — and the entire world puts her left hand on the Bible, raises her right, and repeating after Chief Justice Roberts (or reading from her palm) says:

I, Sarah Louise Palin, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States…

Is it any wonder the Dems are going bonkers?

Heh!

gary4205 on February 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM

I love this. :o)

NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 3:10 PM

If HA is willing to create a Green Room thread, I’d be happy to debate you.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Agreed. I’ll petition HA in a few moments.

Also, if something comes up, which always might, that we didn’t sit to, we stop and get that new mess figured out between us. Fair enough?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

And don’t start crying when the circle turns again, and the Dems are back in charge and trying to push stuff through. Remember how the GOP almost got rid of the fillbuster in connection with federal judges and how McCain and the others in the Gang of 12 stepped in to cut a deal. There was a fear then that eliminating it could be used against the GOP. McCain was right.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Whining and immature is a really unappealing combination. Fact of the matter is that the Dems are in charge now and it has been proven both that having a single party in charge of two branches of government is a bad thing. Especially with unfit radical socialists setting the agenda. The sooner there is some balance, the sooner we can start cleaning up the mess left to our children by the filthy lying coward in the White House and his co-conspirators in Congress.

We have also learned that mere majority is not necessarily enough to bully absolutely everything through. The public has seen how partisan and corrupt Democrats are and you folks will be plastered in November as a result of partisan decisions that has nothing to do with Iraq, GWB, or the GOP.

highhopes on February 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Also, if something comes up, which always might, that we didn’t sit to, we stop and get that new mess figured out between us. Fair enough?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

What do you mean?

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

At the end of the day those 51 senate votes will come from states that account for nearly 70% of the national population. I’m not sure that fallout from pursuing reconciliation will be as sharp or as severe as some people seem to be hoping.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 1:52 PM

1) What 51 votes?
2) You seem to be assuming that the voters in the states represented by the Democrats actually back this bill. I see no evidence to support such a position.

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:16 PM

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 3:10 PM

I also need to know something, for point of reference: are you male or female? And, yeas–it matters for my own reasons.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:16 PM

What do you mean?

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Anything can happen. I wanted to leave room so we can stop if needed, to deal with some oddball thing that might pop up. And they always do.

Just to protect what we might have going on.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM

wow, Liam, how are you so well-versed in Constitutional Law? i found it to be rather convoluted in law school & perverse with some decisions.

kelley in virginia on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

I struggled with it as well, although that was due at least in part to the fact that my prof was a raging leftist ideologue whom I was unafraid to challenge in class. Nevertheless, she grudgingly passed me with a B in the end. Meanwhile, some of my classmates who ranked higher than I did would ask things like, “What does the Supreme Court have to do with me? It’s not like what they do impacts my day to day life or anything.” That comment alone would have earned them an EPIC FAIL from me if I were teaching.

NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Therefore, five years after it is passed by reconciliation, it would vaporize. This is why the Bush tax cuts “for the rich” are expiring soon.

Gotcha on February 26, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Interesting. The taxes in this bill start immediately, but the “benefits” don’t start phasing in until after 4 years.

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM

wow, Liam, how are you so well-versed in Constitutional Law? i found it to be rather convoluted in law school & perverse with some decisions.

kelley in virginia on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

To better answer your question, the one who made me memorize the Bill of Rights when I was 15 was a black man.

Nifty, huh?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Anything can happen. I wanted to leave room so we can stop if needed, to deal with some oddball thing that might pop up. And they always do.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Oh, yeah that’s fine.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Can we petition Ed and Allah to use some of that new corporate money to purchase a better class of troll?

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

I really love the word unsavory!

search4truth on February 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

CK MacLeod on February 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I like the idea of an ongoing GR series in which two HA readers square off with each other over a particular topic. I realize most of us agree for the most part on the issues, but we differ enough to keep something like that going for awhile I think. And where there isn’t enough difference of opinion on a particular topic to make for much of a debate, we have our trolls who can pinch hit.

NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM

So to you, using normal parliamentary rules is “ play(ing) dirty”

Chip on February 26, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Anything that makes it harder for a liberal to spend other people’s money on himself, is playing dirty.

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

1) What 51 votes?

I’m guessing you want to know where the roughly 70% number comes from? I pulled the list of democratic senators and compared with a population chart by state. I didn’t assume a bell curve – I thought some would come from more densely populated states. Democrats usually play stronger in population rich urban areas and where some minimal degree of collective effort is required to keep everything from collapsing into a pile of of rubble and sewage. This has usually meant that they are more willing to tinker with and consider collective effort plans in general.

back this bill. I see no evidence to support such a position.

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:16 PM

A hefty number of those 51 can probably count on it bolstering their lib-cred back home. You doubt they will find ways to spin it to their advantage to a centrist/left-centrist population back home?

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Ok. Fine. That was never the matter I was addressing. I addressed sincerity of motivation and the fact that it’s not a very useful question to ask why people attempt to do things such as this. It’s not a very useful question to ask because the answer usually boils down to “they think it’s a good thing to do.” The fact that it might not ACTUALLY be a good thing to do has no connection to why questioning motivations is usually not useful.
dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

I like a lot of people are really getting fed up with the pass Leftists get for just having good intentions – LBJ had good intentions but did the great society do anything meaningfully positive?
Did FDR do anything meaningfully positive? Look at Social Security – it’s almost bankrupt.

How long do the Leftists expect to skate on the ‘Good intentions’ line – most objective evaluation of their policies will show that they fail each and every time, and the only thing the Left has to explain for that failure is that ‘It would have been worse’ (which is doubtful) and the ‘Good intentions’ BS.

The Left is bankrupting the nation, and all they have to show for it is “Good intentions”.

Sorry, but “Good intentions” aren’t going to feed anyone when the whole system collapses in on itself.

Chip on February 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

If the Democrats use the nuclear option they had better be prepared for the fallout!

This presidency is already radioactive!

Ordinary American on February 26, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Whining and immature is a really unappealing combination. Fact of the matter is that the Dems are in charge now and it has been proven both that having a single party in charge of two branches of government is a bad thing. Especially with unfit radical socialists setting the agenda. The sooner there is some balance, the sooner we can start cleaning up the mess left to our children by the filthy lying coward in the White House and his co-conspirators in Congress.
…..

highhopes on February 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

No sh!t, sherlock. That’s why I voted for McCain this time around and Gore and Kerry the two times before that. It has never been good to give one party the Presidency and both houses of Congress. (My G*d. Do we actually agree on something? Monkeys fly out of my b*tt)

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Nor is the threat of filibuster supposed to be as routinely as it has. Perhaps an end to both practices is in order?

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:10 PM

The Republicans have used it once. You really consider that a large number?
What about all the bills the Democrats fillibustered during Bush’s term?

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Yes.

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Thanks! How about, only to suggest, we both reach HA to allow this. Others can post, freely, but the debate is between you and I.

I accept you have a life outside of here, so I claim no time limit on you. As I ask in return. This is a discussion, most of all. You and I are on opposite sides, but we’re having a talk. Return when you can; it’s all good.

But, too let us not quote others who post. This is just between us. Will you petition HA to host? Soon as you agree, and do the same, I’m going to HA staff to get this done.

This is a discussion, and nothing more. We on the same side at last?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Outstanding… HA SteelCage match.

bloviator on February 26, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Can we petition Ed and Allah to use some of that new corporate money to purchase a better class of troll?

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Can I ask a favor here, Patriot?

I’ve at last gotten a debate. I revile libs, to be sure. But now I’m getting to a true debate with one. I ask you give this chance I managed to come to what might may?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM

wow, Liam, how are you so well-versed in Constitutional Law? i found it to be rather convoluted in law school & perverse with some decisions.

kelley in virginia on February 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM
I struggled with it as well, although that was due at least in part to the fact that my prof was a raging leftist ideologue whom I was unafraid to challenge in class. Nevertheless, she grudgingly passed me with a B in the end. Meanwhile, some of my classmates who ranked higher than I did would ask things like, “What does the Supreme Court have to do with me? It’s not like what they do impacts my day to day life or anything.” That comment alone would have earned them an EPIC FAIL from me if I were teaching.

NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 3:18 PM

–I also found it difficult and non-specific. But I have to agree with your classmates. Frankly, you’re not going to have US Constitutional issues on a regular basis either in the legal profession or in your daily life if you’re like 99.9% of people.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

But you ignore those discussions at the water cooler, at other times in daily life. What libs never grasp is that, left alone, people get along well by themselves.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

–I also found it difficult and non-specific. But I have to agree with your classmates. Frankly, you’re not going to have US Constitutional issues on a regular basis either in the legal profession or in your daily life if you’re like 99.9% of people.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Agreed. I enjoy statute-based classes (contracts and civ pro) a great deal more than common law classes (torts and con law).

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

I’d wager good money that these people will likely think that this will help contain health-care costs and reduce the ranks of the uninsured and under-insured rather than think it’s part of some strategic plan to keep the democratic party in power.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Which would merely prove that these people are either lying, or seriously deluded.

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Chip on February 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

And again – you are addressing a topic and subject that I never even touched. That’s fine if that’s what you want to do. But you keep doing it in response to something I’ve said so I expect it to be … you know .. a response on the same matter.

If you want I can certainly respond to what you have said though …

I like a lot of people are really getting fed up with the pass Leftists get for just having good intentions – LBJ had good intentions but did the great society do anything meaningfully positive?
Did FDR do anything meaningfully positive? Look at Social Security – it’s almost bankrupt.

A LOT of people will tell you that both LBJ and FDR accomplished a lot of positive things and that a lot of good has come from both of them. The fact that you and many many others disagree notwithstanding. They believe there were meaningful accomplishments. Feel free to try to convince people otherwise but you aren’t changing any seats in the choir simply by angrily asserting it to be so.

BTW – the easy response from an opponent is to say “Yeah. SS is almost bankrupt but it worked for most of a century. Something that works for almost a hundred years can probably be fixed without tossing everything away.”

How long do the Leftists expect to skate on the ‘Good intentions’ line – most objective evaluation of their policies will show that they fail each and every time, and the only thing the Left has to explain for that failure is that ‘It would have been worse’ (which is doubtful) and the ‘Good intentions’ BS.

Doubtful is as good as anythying you can’t prove when it comes time to shove a ballot in the box as far as most people are concerned.

And constantly whining about dems skating on good intentions (and a lot of GOP voices do whine about it in a way that makes me cringe a little) doesn’t do a lot because most Americans do value and weight their decisions in light of the intentions of others. Intentions are very important things to most people. It’s one of the differences between murder and manslaughter for one thing.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

But what about reality vs the theoretical?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM
But you ignore those discussions at the water cooler, at other times in daily life. What libs never grasp is that, left alone, people get along well by themselves.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

–I don’t talk about politics at work or other controversial subjects. It’s not a good idea.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Which would merely prove that these people are either lying, or seriously deluded.

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

I already addressed delusion earlier. Sincerity doesn’t preclude delusion. Fair enough. Most of them probably think conservatives are wildly deluded about more than a few things.

But I don’t doubt the sincerity of the people I work those elections with. Or my neighbors. Or other democrats I know in the community my home is in.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM

What leader has ever done something that he didn’t think was “for the best and the good”? That someone believes in the “goodness” of central planning and neo-feudalism doesn’t make their motivation good. Evil often comes wearing a patronizing smile.

spmat on February 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM

The current leadership in DC, actually.

This isn’t about what’s best for the country, or the people. No, I don’t think they even believe that it is.

They are doing what they think is best for themselves and their party. Period.

They are trying to force a healthcare thing on us that they themselves don’t want to participate in. Does that sound like a group of leaders that think or believe that what they’re doing is ‘for the best and the good’?

Their ‘cap and trade’ bill will cause energy shortages and ‘skyrocketing costs’ (their own words, not mine) – how does that square with the ‘for the best and the good’ notion?

Midas on February 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM

But what about reality vs the theoretical?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Ugh. I hope the debate isn’t like this. What on earth are you talking about?

crr6 on February 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM

–I don’t talk about politics at work or other controversial subjects. It’s not a good idea.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Maybe you should; some common sense might rub off on ya! ;)

Midas on February 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM

They are doing what they think is best for themselves and their party. Period.

Midas on February 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM

And of course nobody in the history of politics has EVER believed that what is good for them and their associates is also what is best for their country. Never happened. Not even in Rome.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM

A hefty number of those 51 can probably count on it bolstering their lib-cred back home. You doubt they will find ways to spin it to their advantage to a centrist/left-centrist population back home?

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Poll after poll shows that most people do not want the Democrats to do this. But you keep claiming that the Democrats will benefit. Only a bare majority of Democrats favor such a move. By huge numbers, independants and Republicans are opposed.

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:38 PM

I don’t talk about politics at work or other controversial subjects. It’s not a good idea.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Maybe you should expand a little, hear some new ideas. You’re quite insulated, really. You locked yourself into a microcosm, not really seeing what’s beyond your self-imposed borders.

Just an idea, an offering for you to explore.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM

A LOT of people will tell you that both LBJ and FDR accomplished a lot of positive things and that a lot of good has come from both of them.
dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

A lot of people are easily deluded.
A lot of people enjoy it when other people’s money is showered on them.

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Maybe you should expand a little, hear some new ideas. You’re quite insulated, really. You locked yourself into a microcosm, not really seeing what’s beyond your self-imposed borders.

Just an idea, an offering for you to explore.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:39 P

I’ll vote with Jimbo on this one. (Nobody tell my mother.) It’s an exceptionally poor idea to bring politics into the workplace. It can interfere with accomplishing the work that needs to be done, it can breed discontent, it can cause bad-blood between people that need to work closely together, etc. etc. etc.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:41 PM

A lot of people are easily deluded.
A lot of people enjoy it when other people’s money is showered on them.

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Yeah. Many people are easily deluded. I’m not going to disagree. Yeah. Most people like to be showered with money. I’m not going to disagree. Is there something further you wanted to add?

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:43 PM

crr6:

The debate has yet to happen. Wait for it…

You said you enjoy statute-based classes. But who, rally, reserves that right to say what your place should be?

You and I disagree in many ways. But, I’d love seeing you, personally, being so rich you would have any place to spend your money.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM

They are doing what they think is best for themselves and their party. Period.

Midas on February 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM

And of course nobody in the history of politics has EVER believed that what is good for them and their associates is also what is best for their country. Never happened. Not even in Rome.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Did I suggest that? ;)

Midas on February 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I don’t talk about politics at work or other controversial subjects. It’s not a good idea.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Maybe you should expand a little, hear some new ideas. You’re quite insulated, really. You locked yourself into a microcosm, not really seeing what’s beyond your self-imposed borders.

Just an idea, an offering for you to explore.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM

–That’s why I come here. I’m (as you know) a moderate/liberal/libertarian/satanic/evil babykiller (take your pick) type. Why do I want to hang around with people who think like I do? I won’t learn anything from them.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM

I’ll vote with Jimbo on this one. (Nobody tell my mother.) It’s an exceptionally poor idea to bring politics into the workplace. It can interfere with accomplishing the work that needs to be done, it can breed discontent, it can cause bad-blood between people that need to work closely together, etc. etc. etc.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Politics come into the workplace. That’s inevitable.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Does anyone think McCain would sign a pledge not to be the McCain of GO14, Amnesty, Socialist agreements like the Kennedy and Feingold ones, etc?

CCRWM on February 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Maybe you should expand a little, hear some new ideas. You’re quite insulated, really. You locked yourself into a microcosm, not really seeing what’s beyond your self-imposed borders.

Just an idea, an offering for you to explore.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:39 P

I’ll vote with Jimbo on this one. (Nobody tell my mother.) It’s an exceptionally poor idea to bring politics into the workplace. It can interfere with accomplishing the work that needs to be done, it can breed discontent, it can cause bad-blood between people that need to work closely together, etc. etc. etc.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:41 PM

–We’ve even made a deal not to bring it up in our neighborhood unless we’re really drunk (which does happen on occasion). It’s not real productive and just causes problems. Everyone in the neighborhood otherwise likes to do things together.

If some of my childhood friends were close, I’d talk to them about these things (like I used to do and we would disagree quite vocally), but that’s a different situation. But what it did do was to give the other people an idea that the person with the opposite view wasn’t necessarily a nutcase or a “depersonalized” enemy. And that was a good thing that is now missing.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM

McLame had to be briefed by Paul Ryan to know this.

Cybergeezer on February 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Did I suggest that? ;)

Midas on February 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM

No. Just added emphasis on my part. Questioning motivations doesn’t get you far. It just agitates a lot of people that don’t already agree with you. Not a minority position to take.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:50 PM

So would open borders and cap and trade be cataclysmic John. Nice to see you back -it must be an election year.

Don L on February 26, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Why do I want to hang around with people who think like I do? I won’t learn anything from them.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM

But you spew their lines at so many turns, don’t you?

You rip us Cons all the time, while also claiming some kind of high ground.

I hate libs, and everyone here knows it. I don’t hide, like you do, behind some assumed morality. I’m just me.

How about you own to to yourself, and stop telling Cons we’re vile shits where, really, you’re no better.

I hate libs, and I’m up-front about it. And I can state reasons. All you have is invective, and your denial of your detriment.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:51 PM

I’d wager good money that these people will likely think that this will help contain health-care costs and reduce the ranks of the uninsured and under-insured rather than think it’s part of some strategic plan to keep the democratic party in power.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Which would merely prove that these people are either lying, or seriously deluded.

MarkTheGreat on February 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

–Wait. Let’s break that statement apart.

(1) Help contain health care costs;
(2) Reduce the ranks of the uninsured or under-insured;
(3) Part of a strategic plan for power.

Is there any real doubt that ObamaCare will do (2)?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I’m FAR more likely to bring it up in something involving my neighbourhood than I ever would be at work. Lingering tension in the workplace usually does fine all on its own without needing extra fodder.

Politics come into the workplace. That’s inevitable.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Sure. But why invite it.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Is there any real doubt that ObamaCare will do (2)?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Does Obamacare cover EVERYONE?

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM

I agree, J.D. Hayworth has worked miracles on McCain. I just hope if McCain wins that he does not revert back to his marvericky, liberal, Lindsey Graham ways.

mobydutch on February 26, 2010 at 3:55 PM

I hate libs, and I’m up-front about it. And I can state reasons. All you have is invective, and your denial of your detriment.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:51 PM

One should never act from a position of hatred in a republic. It’s poison. Opposition and hatred should be kept segregated. Opposition requires a cooler head than hatred usually provides if it’s going to be effective. Cold hatred is something most people are culturally attuned to mistrust.

dieudonne on February 26, 2010 at 3:56 PM

It cannot be restated enough that Obama’s definition of being a “good” President is doing something so against the will of the people that he risks losing reelection.

spmat on February 26, 2010 at 2:25 PM

+++

redwhiteblue on February 26, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Why do I want to hang around with people who think like I do? I won’t learn anything from them.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM
But you spew their lines at so many turns, don’t you?

You rip us Cons all the time, while also claiming some kind of high ground.

I hate libs, and everyone here knows it. I don’t hide, like you do, behind some assumed morality. I’m just me.

How about you own to to yourself, and stop telling Cons we’re vile shits where, really, you’re no better.

I hate libs, and I’m up-front about it. And I can state reasons. All you have is invective, and your denial of your detriment.

Liam on February 26, 2010 at 3:51 PM

–Liam, I don’t even read the DailyKos or the other left sites. I don’t get talking points. I do read the WSJ and the Dallas Morning News, though, but those aren’t hot beds of liberalism. And I don’t think I’ve ever said anything bad to someone here unless I was attacked first (maybe not by that person, but by someone else). And I don’t think I’m any better than you or the other Cons here or, as I think you know from our posts, think I’m hiding behind any assumed morality. In my view, I’m also just telling things as I see them.

If I’ve given you or any one here any different impression, I apologize to you and everyone else.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3