The Associated Press just called the Massachusetts special election for Scott Brown over Martha Coakley and, by doing so, just made the passing of a healthcare reform bill incredibly more difficult.
First, let's sit back and soak in the irony. Not only is Mass. super democratic but it was Mr. Healthcare's seat itself that was just lost to a Republican promising to be the 41st vote against healthcare reform.
For the love of all that is holy, Democrats, what is fucking wrong with you people? You spent years winning back the Senate, House and Presidency and now, having scored the tying touchdown you missed the extra point? Really?
Where to even start handing out blame?
First to Ms. Coakley. Wow, you really suck. This was the gimme of all gimmes. Maybe you shouldn't have taken a month and a half off? Maybe you shouldn't have just assumed you'd win, just because you're dope (which, apparently, you are not)? Maybe you shouldn't have said that Curt Schilling was a Yankee fan? You and you're people are already starting to blame the White House and everyone else. Do us all a favor. Go get a gun, load it, put the barrel in your mouth and pulling the fucking trigger 'til it goes click.
Barack, Barack, Barack - what the fuck, man? Where were you? Where was Rahm? Axelrod? Biden? Anyone, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Where was the national democratic party leadership? Bums, morons.....
Astounding.
By the way, Rachel Maddow, the smug, snarky know it-all pundit on MSNBC is on television right now and she's more flustered than an 8 year old girl that just had her birthday party cancelled. Oh, and Keith Olberman is just an asshole.
Now, the whole healthcare thing isn't over yet, I don't think.
From what I understand, the democrats have a few options:
- Convince the House to pass the Senate Bill as is (in which case it isn't fillibusterable in the Senate and, thus, only 51 votes are needed to pass it).
- Work to get Olympia Snowe back on board. I'm not sure exactly what that would entail or how hard that would be. I'm guessing, pretty hard.
- Rush forward and vote before Brown becomes a Senator - which would look pretty bad.
- Do this whole reconciliation thing which, I think, only requires 51 votes anyway. This, though, makes it just a budgetary measure, which means it's much more limited in scope (no banning the exclusion of pre-existing conditions, etc.)
- Blow up the filibuster. Which may sound OK to some but I have to think about this one. Unintended consequences, anyone?
It's just amazing to me how the democratic party just can't get their shit together.
4 comments:
Or they could *not* just pass the health care bill, a bloated, special-interest piece of legislation, and instead go back to the table, take their time, and find legislation that works for both parties and the American people.
Filibusters are stupid. Nuclear option rules.
"Or they could *not* just pass the health care bill, a bloated, special-interest piece of legislation, and instead go back to the table, take their time, and find legislation that works for both parties and the American people."
Yeah, right.
First off, any health-care bill will inevitably be described by brilliant and anonymous Internet commenters like you as "bloated". Second, "special-interest" isn't an adjective.
And there's no way to put together legislation that "works for both parties," largely because the current elected Republicans have absolutely zero interest in passing anything at all.
Last, there are now 59 Democratic senators and 41 Republicans. 59 is way more than 41. The Democrats need to stop being the largest, smelliest collective pussy on the east coast and pass the fucking bill. Kill the filibuster, fine, do what you gotta do.
If Republicans would like to offer some ideas, fine. Ain't gonna happen, but hey, go ahead. If they'd like to do things their way, they can always win some elections.
"Or they could *not* just pass the health care bill, a bloated, special-interest piece of legislation, and instead go back to the table, take their time, and find legislation that works for both parties and the American people."
I think this is a fine idea. Perhaps this legislatation that "works for both parties and the American people" could mandate that we all get free unicorn rides, that it only rain marshmallows and gumdrops, and that our cars will be powered by wishes, hope, and chocolate.
Come on, anonymous (btw: "who is you, though?" Griffin, Stan). I think it is a cop out to say that the Democrats must achieve compromise and bi-partisan support in order to succeed. Compromise is impossible when the stated goal of your negotiating partner is to see you fail.
If you don't like the health care bill before the Congress, fine. There are good reasons to oppose it. But let's not insist that we drastically improve services and drastically cut costs. Those kinds of demands are a thin pretext for the real goal of achieiving Obama's waterloo (see above - they want him to fail, not compromise). Let's hear some proposals for reasonable revisions to the bill from even five Republican senators, in exchange for which they will support the bill.
Still waiting . . .
They don't like this guy. If he passes any kind of health reform, he will have delivered on a major, major campaign promise. Ergo, they do not like health care reform. Yes, it really is that simple.
As for the nuclear option - man, I am torn on this one. On the one hand, it is very, very appealing to say that when you have a 59-41 majority in the Senate, you should be able to pass a bill up to the President for signature. That is what the Constitution requires. But man, if the GOP had gone nuclear any time between 2000 and 2008, there would be some horrendous legislation on the books. I want health care to pass, and I want Obama to have some successes to talk about on the campaign trail in 2012, but the shoe will be on the other foot soon enough . . . the fillibuster is a friend as often as it is a foe.
Post a Comment