Let them have their asterisk. If HCR passes without a single GOP vote and becomes as much, if not more popular than Medicare and/or SS, then that asterisk will become yet another problem requiring Rethugs to rewrite history.

How about a Red/Blue map of the US, showing the Sens' and reps' districts who support reform? Just to show the Old Confederacy/backwater roots of GOP antagonism.

The GOP is a bunch of two year-olds, stamping their feet and holding their breath till they get their way, but it is somehow the Democrats fault that they can't come to some agreement with the GOP?

Are we really going to have to surrender the country to irresponsible children's demands again? Wasn't 8 years of destruction enough for Ms McArdle?

Didn't Bill Clinton's first budget pass with zero Republican votes?

And then spur massive economic growth through the rest of the decade?

" it's certainly possible that McArdle and Goldfarb are aware of this."

Immaterial. Because most of the American Public either slept through or cut class when American History/Civics was being taught in high school.

Remember, this is the same group that can't tell you when the War of 1812 was fought. . .

Whenever the subject of bi-partisanship comes up -- and specifically the Republiccan Party's willingess to engage in same -- it is useful to refresh our memories of the angry, sneering thoughts that the GOP's point man had on the subject during his farewell address to Congress. Here is former (and disgraced) Majority Leader Tom DeLay's parting shot on the meaning of compromise and bi-partisanship:

"In preparing for today, I found that it is customary in speeches such as these to reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy. Well, I can't do that because partisanship, Mr. Speaker, properly understood, is not a symptom of democracy's weakness but of its health and its strength, especially from the perspective of a political conservative....

"Indeed, the common lament over the recent rise in political partisanship is often nothing more than a veiled complaint instead about the recent rise of political conservatism. I should add here that I do not begrudge liberals their nostalgia for the days of a timid, docile and permanent Republican minority....

"You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny. For all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders....

"Now, politics demands compromise. And Mr. Speaker, and even the most partisan among us have to understand that, but we must never forget that compromise and bipartisanship are means, not ends, and are properly employed only in the service of higher principles.

"It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle."

I am not sure exactly what DeLay means when he says that compromise is not a legitimate tool of democracy unless it is done in the service of some undefined "higher principles." But I am quite certain that any act of compromise that is asked to meet such a severe standard is no compromise at all.

McArdle is also wrong when she states, "...a single party passed anything of this size..." I don't think that is correct. Weren't the Bush tax cuts & Medicare Part D both larger than the current crop of Health Care Reform proposals and passed via reconciliation on a pretty much party line vote? And while the tax cuts may not be an entitlement they certainly did go to those who felt intitled to them.

The question isn't why there MUST be Republican support, the question is, given the historical precedents and understanding the historical demographics, are we witnessing the end of the Republican party?

If real health care reform with a strong public option or a surprising show of public strength for "Medicare for all" forces Congress to support single payer, then yes,

the Republican party is dead.

McCardle is a hack.

End of story.

I think you should proceed on the assumption that you don't need Republican votes. That way, the slate will be clean in 2011 when we can get to work on real reform. A decisive loss is sometimes a good starting point.

both mcardle and goldfarb can fit right up david broder's rectum with plenty of room to spare...

OT, but I felt compelled to post:

http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=11141949#WNPoll87553

75% of Oklahoma high school students unable to name the 1st POTUS.

Unbelievable. I bet Inhofe is mighty proud of his constituents.

How come no one in the media ever argues the opposite? That maybe, just maybe, Republicans need to get that stick out of their collective ass and realize that there are progressive ideas that have merit, and to continue "wee weeing" over it all, voting against it in a pathetic party unity, does more harm than good, to our political structure AND their constituents? Maybe, JUUUUUUST maybe, OBAMA isn't the one that needs to be more bipartisan?

Sadly, the answer is not rhetorial and we all know the answer. Republicans are always Right and Serious and Just and True. Democrats, AT BEST, are crazy mixed up kids who let their idealism get in the way of understanding just how stupid and wrong they always are, and their attempts to destroy the Obama Administration, calling him fascist and socialist and a secret Muslim who plans to kill Grandma and throw critics in a gulag, well, that's just for our own good.

A decisive loss is sometimes a good starting point.

Like, sayyy, 2008?

It's not even an asterisk. That gives them too much credit for forethought. They're simply throwing anything they can find at Obama because they're partisan Republicans.

People like that argued that Bill Clinton was too inexperienced in 1992, that George W. Bush had plenty of experience in 2000, and that Obama was too inexperienced in 2008; they claimed that Bush had a mandate and the Dems needed to go along with him after '00 and '04, and now claim that Obama must go along with the GOP for the sake of bipartisanship.

They want their team to win, and they'll cast about for any argument to help get there.

Trying to rationalize analyze what people like McArdle and Goldfarb are saying is like a custody hearing where the judge tries to rationally analyze why the kid hasn't been dressed for his weekend with day even once in the last 50 visits. Or why the support payment has been late every month for five years while the guy's pulling down a half mil and spending every third month in the Bahamas with his girlfriend.

This is not about rational thought, it's about resentment, entitlement, grudges, and a dose of smoldering hatred. Every statement and talking point is a weapon, a spitball, a slap. Rational discourse is not even a low priority.

"...it's certainly possible that McArdle and Goldfarb are aware of this."

Well, Goldfarb is a notorious liar, but McArdle is just a fool.

When the Republicans resume electing to Congress modern-day equivalents Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits, of Lowell Weicker and John Anderson, then I'll be all in favor of bipartisanship.

Meanwhile, let's just get the job done ourselves.

I'd say that if reform passes with votes from a Leiberman, or a Finestein, Bayh etc., it has republican votes. These politicians are republicans by thier actions if not by declaration. They're only democrats of convenience, not conviction. Let it pass and the declared republicans will complain about other nonsense while extolling the virtues of better health care to their constituents like Jindal does with the stimulus money.

When Kenneth Keating was defending his Senate seat in New York in 1964 against the upstart Robert Kennedy, he made it a point to respond to charges that he was not a liberal. Yes, he was too a liberal, he replied.

Somewhere in Obama's book, he mentions the fact that in that bygone era, members of Congress of both parties had one thing in common: service in World War II. I don't know if that is the explanation for the difference in eras, but the difference in political alignments is an observable fact.

With respect to bipartisanship, my friends, we progressives are being rolled. Or should I say Roved? It's really quite brilliant and I'm sure conceived by the master himself. Olympia Snowe is now dangling her vote for the Baucus bill in front of Obama ("I will not let my party dictate my vote.") She (and Rove and the Republicans) know Obama will bend over backwards (though in this case, he's bending over forward and grabbing his ankles) to get ANY Republican support, even one vote. So the public option will die because Snowe won't support it, the industry driven Baucus bill will become law, the country will grow to HATE it (though probably not before the 2016 election) and Democrats will be blown off the electoral map that year. I have to hand it to Rove. He knows how to use people's fondest dreams to make them destroy themselves. When you think about it, kind of like, I don't know, Satan.

I stopped reading McArdle after I read, "I'm reliably informed..."

Oh, did McArdle attempt to present any more "hypotheticals" as facts?
Why continue to treat her as a credible or serious person anymore?

It is worthwhile to point out that medicare is in a real sense a subsidy to the private insurance industry. They have the same incentive to exclude elderly people as they do people with pre-existising conditions. It is simply not profitable to insure people who actually need medical services. So, while there was ideological opposition to passing Medicare and some concern that the program might be expanded in the future, the insurance companies could rest assured that there would be real benefits to them. Today's reforms, however, at least in their more ambitiously progressive forms, offer nothing to the insurance companies but the expectation of smaller profits. Hence, you would expect more opposition today than you had 30 years ago.

I like the way she says "it will be the first time in history that I can think of . . ." Like it was too tough for her to actually do a little research! Her arguments are always full of baseless opinions expressed as flat assertions of fact. She's the female Donald Luskin.

These 'writers' need to go to the LIBRARY. If they understood what they were writing we would have more facts. I tend to think they DO know what they are writing and they think we are too dumb to 'get it'...the manipulation of the debate by the media is REALLY getting annoying.

McArdle has a well deserved reputation as a concern troll. She clearly understands how the political dynamics in this country have changed over the previous three decades but does not utter a peep to acknowledge those differences. I also note that McArdle's passion for bipartisanship was strangely muted during the era of Republican dominance. One would almost think her view on this issue was really about politics and not about policy at all.

I'm old enough to remember liberal Republicans (can't say I remember any progressive ones, though). I never was one, but I worked for some.

God, I miss them.

Well, SOMEBODY should actually think this through in public, so I will:

Supposing (as seems likely) Massachusetts appoints a 60th Democrat, and the 'negotiations' over health insurance reform continue to fail to get even on reliable Republican. So the floor fight is ridiculous, but in the end, Democrats get their up or down votes, and something very like the Baucus bill goes to the House.

The House then writes a similar bill, maybe with some acceptable to 60 Senators public option in it. So there's another fight in the Senate, which has already demonstrated that the Democrats will pass a bill without no Republican votes at all: think it stays COMPLETELY partisan?

I don't. Five or six Republicans might well vote for a conference report that is substantially like the Senate version, or even includes a public option, that they'd voted against.

Or instead, let's really polarize it, and say that Reid moves most of the health reforms on reconciliation: HUGE stink, and there will be no Republican cooperation on anything at least through 2010.

So Democrats move a series of bills without any Republican support -- immigration reform, for example.

And all next year, the President (assisted by Congressional Democrats) run on the message: 'Hey, I told Max Baucus they were full of it about illegal immigrants, but he put in unnecessary checks anyway -- yet no Republcans voted for it. I told 'em they were crazy about 'death panels', but they took out even Medicare counseling -- and no Republicans voted for it. We wrote the strictest ban on abortion financing ever drafted -- and no Republicans voted for it. We finally closed the back door to illegal immigration -- and no Republicans voted for it.'

'Now, the thing about this republic of ours, as Ben Franklin said, is that we can keep it -- IF we keep having elections that mean something. In 2008, we got elected to change things, to get things done. We've kept our promise. The other guys haven't.'

Right now, 2010 looks dicey for us BECAUSE we haven't passed a couple key bills, not because they were passed with only Democratic votes. Enact 'em into law, and the story becomes something different.

The key is simple: 48 House Democrats in Republican districts.

'President Obama, however, is stuck trying to find common ground with a right-wing reactionary party that not only opposes common-sense reform measures, but is running a scorched-earth campaign to destroy his presidency.'

Seemingly, everything about liberalism is emotion; nothing is centered on logic.

Everybody wants 'reform' - but the liberal definition of 'reform' is simply to turn a significant portion of health-care to the government with great rapidity, while continuing to show its great ineptitude in all that it does.

The Democrats, of course, don't need a single Republican vote to pass this monstrosity. They're simply interested in getting a few Republican votes on board when this nonsense falls flat on its face.

You really ready to bet your entire political party on that, John C?

Cuz that's what the GOP is doing. How'd it work for Social Security and Medicare?

Cuz the guys you've drummed out of your party are the heirs of the only Republicans who voted FOR those two steps forward -- your party is quite proud to be the heirs of Ronald Reagan, who said about Medicare exactly what you're saying about Obamacare, now.

How'd that work out?

'...your party is quite proud to be the heirs of Ronald Reagan, who said about Medicare exactly what you're saying about Obamacare, now.' (theAmericanist)

In 1973, the national debt was $466 billion - about $2,200 for every man, woman and child.

As of last December, it was approximately $10.7 tillion - a 23-fold increase - with the per capita at $35,000 per person. This year's budget deficit will raise the debt to $12 trillion.

What's even more troubling are the so-called 'unfunded liabilities.” These are the promises that the country has made to future retirees - those you mentioned - like Social Security and Medicare. These total an estimated $52 trillion and the bill will begin to come due in 2011, when the first of the “Baby Boomers” reaches 65.

Sixty-four trillion — about $200,000 per man, woman, and child (!) — and still climbing.

Who's going to pay for this?? It's going to have to be our children, grandchildren and probably our great-grandchildren.

So - finally - the Republicans are showing some principle and not adding to this budgetary health-care nightmare that the Democrats are trying to foist upon all of us.

I applaud them.

I tend to think voters will know better. For the typical American family, reform would be judged on its efficacy, not on its ability to clear legislative procedural hurdles and satisfy the demands of opponents.

I agree. But who exactly are the "typical" American families, how will the new law affect them, and will satisfied voters turn out to vote in larger numbers than dissatisfied voters? People in the upper quartile of the income distribution will mostly vote against Congressfolks who support the health care reform; voters in the lower quartile of the income distribution will mostly vote for those Congressfolks. What will most of the people in the middle 50% of the income distribution do?

It seems from changes in the poll results that the middle 50% are gradually shifting toward opposition to health care reform (but poll results are not broken down by quartiles and deciles of the income distribution, so this is a guess), and that such a shift is what the Democrats are afraid of.

lot about you

This is the welcome page for the dietguidance.us Association web site.

Good Day. The great thing about a computer notebook is that no matter how much you stuff into it, it doesn't get bigger or heavier. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Lady bug baby bedding. I found only this - baby lulu bedding. Bedding, good investors articles have fed over the shocked public results into de facto allergies bored for the stipulation, selection, and land of funny plains. Bedding, unlike the pan-european fourteen, the concrete cable denies blending. :confused: Thanks in advance. Mitchell from Papua.