Obama Goes All In
by Big Dog on Mar 16, 2010 at 05:36 Opinion, Political
The health care takeover the Democrats have been working on for over a year is coming down to the final hours and the majority party is pulling out all the stops. They are working on unconstitutional methods to pass the bill, circumventing the normal process and lying about the bill being bipartisan in that they incorporated some Republican ideas.
They have a shell bill which is what they will pass and then when it goes to committee they will remove the items and replace them with the things they really want.
Barack Obama discusses the idea of courage and says that the time for politics is over and Congress should do what is right and put politics aside. Obama does this while playing politics because he is a product of the Chicago thug machine and he does not know what courage is and he is unaware of how to do something without involving politics. Additionally, Obama has allowed politics to get in the way because his desire NOT to fail on this issue has led to his political power play to get it passed. As for courage, if Obama had that trait he would have scrapped the bill and started over in a bipartisan fashion.
Obama delayed his working vacation for a few days to go around the country and …wait for it…engage in a political campaign for the bill. He is out there pushing hard for the bill. In essence, he is now “all in”, a term that describes a card player who throws all his money in the pot.
Obama is now all in on this like he was with the Chicago Olympic bid, the governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey and the Senate race in Massachusetts. His spin doctors worked hard to make each of these look as if they were not Obama failures but they were.
Now that he is all in on health care he has no place to hide. His spin masters will not be able to spin this in any way, shape, or form should the bill not pass.
If this bill does not pass then Obama will be seen as having failed, especially by his own party. It will look, and rightly so, as if he gave it all he had and could not get it done even with super majorities.
He will be a failure and he knows it.
Right now the votes are not there but that does not mean it will fail to pass. There are plenty of backroom deals being made and offers are flying about the halls of the Capitol to give members anything they want for a yes vote. Pelosi is twisting arms two at a time and doing everything to force people to fall in line and vote yes.
And yet she does not have the votes.
If they happen to pass this then America will be outraged with those who sold their votes, and that is the only way they change, just as they were with Ben Nelson. That anger will show on election day and despite what the pseudo intellectual pundits say, Democrats will lose big. The Democrats know this and it is a major reason that many are hesitant to vote yes.
This is a lose lose situation for the Democrats because they will lose if this fails and lose bigger if it passes.
Obama has put them between Barack and a hard place and now he too, is all in.
But he does not have to worry about being reelected this year.
He has three years to recover. His Democrats in the House do not have that luxury and they know they are being hung out to dry.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Congress, election, health care, lies, takeover
“They are working on unconstitutional methods to pass the bill, circumventing the normal process…”
Which methods are unconstitutional and why?
“This is a lose lose situation for the Democrats because they will lose if this fails and lose bigger if it passes.”
This is the narrative you keep running with but you don’t back it up with any evidence. I think you’re projecting your distaste for the Democrats and their agenda onto a public that is not quite as opposed to them as you think. The poll numbers on health care aren’t moving in the direction you say they are and the evidence to suggest this is lose lose just isn’t there.
Right, the public is cozy with this whole thing.
I would not expect you to see anything unconstitutional but it is unconstitutional to pass bills that differ. The two chambers are working on different bills. Excerpt:
As House leaders looked for a path that could get the Senate legislation through the chamber and onto Obama’s desk, conservatives warned that Pelosi’s use of deem-and-pass in this way would run afoul of the Constitution. They pointed to a 1998 Supreme Court ruling that said each house of Congress must approve the exact same text of a bill before it can become law. A self-executing rule sidesteps that requirement, former federal appellate judge Michael McConnell argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Bigd: “they will lose if this fails and lose bigger if it passes.”>>
ADM responds: “This is the narrative you keep running with but you don’t back it up with any evidence.”>>
DAR
Back it up? He doesn’t believe it for a minute.
Obama will “lose” if he carries through on what he ran on? No, he and his party would lose if they didn’t. These are things republicans have been obstructing for decades, things that should have been done 50 years ago.
Looks like Christmas is coming early.
D.
—————-
Another whopper is that no benefits happen right away. Here are ten immediate benefits:
* Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage
* Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans
* Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool
* Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans
* End lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans
* Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs
* Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions
* Require plans to cover an enrollee’s dependent children until age 26
* Require new plans to cover preventative services and immunizations without cost-sharing
* Relief on the Donut Hole
What’s in the Bill for you this year
Oh but he is not passing what he campaigned on. He was against mandates and now is for them. Let’s see how the young crowd likes it when they find out it is not “free” and they have to buy insurance. He was in favor of the public option and anti pharma but he dropped the public option and cut deals with pharma. It might have something to do with the fact that he received about 20 million dollars from health care interests during the campaign. He is bought and paid for.
You forgot to talk about all the taxes that will go into place before this takes place and the half trillion dollar cut to Medicare. Not sure what you wrote is true.
But they have to get the votes first and Dems in the House are not happy about it. I think it would be great for them to pass it and then have it ruled unconstitutional because of the way they did it.
And yes, they will lose even more seats if they vote for it. I did back it up with the polls from the two Dem pollsters and their assessment. Adam refuses to believe anything that does not fit his indoctrination. And yes, I do believe it and for more than a moment.
Owebama said not to play politics but he said he will not campaign for any Dem who votes no. That is politics. I know that happens so don’t give me the “oh a politician played politics” because he is the one who said that it is time to stop playing politics.
Kind of funny. Given his track record maybe those for whom he does not campaign will be better off.
“I did back it up with the polls from the two Dem pollsters and their assessment.”
You cited the opinion of those two, yes. They cited Rasmussen which is by far the worst numbers for support at 43% to 53%. That’s hardly evidence that Americans are “overwhelmingly against this bill” as the article states. Yet support is still on the rise despite what you keep insisting.
“Adam refuses to believe anything that does not fit his indoctrination.”
Sorry, but I’m not the one ignoring the poll numbers for support over the last few weeks in order to cite the opinion of two Democrats that don’t know what they’re talking about. But go ahead and say the public hates it and the lack of support is rising. Meanwhile the support is actually rising and the bill is going to pass.
Which method do you want to start with? I would say the one where the Democrats enact a rule that sidesteps a constitutional requirement would be a good start.
It will be bad for Obama and the Democrats if the bill fails…but far worse if it passes.
If Pelosi and company somehow muster the votes for their “deem and reconcile” tactic, there won’t be a Democrat in Congress after January 2011. If Obama signs the abortion, he could be the first sitting president to get zero electoral votes in November 2012. The public is on to these types now — and our memory is longer than the Democrats care to imagine.
I think Francis is right here. If the democrats pass their own bill, every single democrat in congress will be voted out. Not a single one will remain. And that bit about Obama and zero electoral votes. That’s right too.
Makes sense really.
I think Porretto was sensing that Bigd might be even a little crazier than he, and he thought he should show him who can really pound their head the hardest against that rubber wall. Children.
Obama’s got a big victory cooking up. And nothing makes the wingers more wacky than a big ole spanking from brother Obama.
Watch for it.
D.
——————–
Or perhaps the republicans are just turned off by the size of Obama’s package?.
I think Francis was being sarcastic sort of like you were when you used the word children to describe us. Though I know you feel superior to everyone I am in no way a child to you in any imaginable way so it was either and insult or a sarcasm. At least that is how I took it.
Obama is not about to win anything. When he gets spanked in November he will not get another thing passed.
Even if he does not he will get nothing passed because Republicans will filibuster everything. He will be dead in the water.
And the only package he has of any size is that big asses wife he has. She should have a wide load sign on that ass.
Bigd: “I think Francis was being sarcastic…”>>
DAR
That’s not sarcasm.
Bigd: “when you used the word children… it was either and insult or a sarcasm.”
DAR
It wasn’t sarcasm.
Bigd: “Obama is not about to win anything.”>>
DAR
Yes he is.
Bigd: “…spanked in November he will not get another thing passed.”>>
DAR
You don’t believe that. Let’s see how long you stand behind that claim… next sentence:
Bigd: Even if he does…”>>
DAR
Thought so.
Bigd: “[Obama] will get nothing passed because Republicans will filibuster everything.”>>
DAR
They’ve already tried that game. And how’s that strategy working out for the leaderless party of no ideas? See below.
D.
——————
Congress approval, Democrats:
1/12-17/10 40%
3/3-8/10 36%
Same poll, Congress approval, Republicans:
1/12-17/10 32%
3/3-8/10 30%
AP-GfK Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media..
What’s that definition of insanity again?
Once again Darrel, you cut and paste to give a different impression of what I said. Mike is right, you use things out of context. You used parts of two sentences to display a different thought than conveyed.
So you were insultimg me when you used the word children. You are in no position to make such an assessment.
Do you treat other hosts this way?
Bigd: you cut and paste to give a different impression of what I said.”>>
DAR
No I didn’t.
Bigd: You used parts of two sentences to display a different thought than conveyed.”>>
DAR
I did not. I edited your first two sentences down to:
“when you used the word children… it was either and[sic] insult or a sarcasm.”
Show this is IN ANY WAY not exactly 100% consistent with your first two sentences or a “different thought” than what you meant to “convey.” You can’t.
Bigd: “So you were insultimg me when you used the word children.”>>
DAR
It was directed more at Porretto actually but I guess it grazed you too. Was that too rough? Are you getting sensitive like Mike? That is, sensitive about receiving, not about dishing out.
Bigd: “Do you treat other hosts this way?”>>
DAR
I treat everyone with the respect they deserve. I’ll try to be nicer.
D.
Here are the two cut lines, not the ones you pointed to:
Bigd: “…spanked in November he will not get another thing passed.”>>
DAR
You don’t believe that. Let’s see how long you stand behind that claim… next sentence:
Bigd: Even if he does…”>>
They were two different things. Yes, I can show it and did.
As for calling me a child, you can’t possibly say anything too rough for me to handle. I am more of a man than you could ever hope to be. I merely make note of your past discussions about name calling.
Thanks for making it clear and keep this in mind.