Could someone tell me when Chris Matthews grew a spine? He's actually been tough with Republicans lately.

Forgot Lieberman.

actually, unless there are 80 votes in the senate, they really shouldn't try to attempt health care reform.

Oh, actually, unless there are 90 votes in the senate, they really shouldn't try to attempt health care reform.

Oh, actually, unless there are 105 votes in the senate, they really shouldn't try to attempt health care reform.

Just movin them goalposts until they're off the playin field.

,"At that point, Hatch offered a nonsensical answer ..."

Well, how could Orrin Hatch offer an answer that would make sense when for the Senate GOP caucus it's all about 'Obama's Waterloo'. Policy considerations and compromise do not come into play. But Orrin Hatch can hardly say that in a TV interview, can he?

The GOP leadership thinks Olympia Snowe is a left-wing zealot, for Chrissakes.

They are all completely corrupt. And I was hopeful about 'change you can believe in' just a few months ago.

Shame on them, shame on us for taking it. I'm changing my registration - won't put a D beside my name anymore.

Does Chris sense the winds of change up his backside? He'd better have another job lined up if he continues to put 'Pubs in an awkward position. Oh wait, they are used to contortions beyond imagination. My bad.

-and then Michael Moore was on, touting his movie. At the end of the interview they talked a bit about Moore's earlier film, and healthcare today.

Parting shot, Michael said to Chris, "I'm even more liberal than you. . ."

And Matthew's reply (paraphrasing) "Watch it; you'll get me in trouble. . "

Maybe he's caught Olbermann-Maddow Disease. . .

'''First, if Dems had gone "very far to the left," they'd be pushing single-payer, instead of a public-private competition. '''

Perhaps they should find a way of doing this. See

http://vannevar.blogspot.com/2009/07/rhetoric-golden-mean-overton-window.html

The advantage of Glen Beck to The Right is that he makes ordinary crazies seem kind of reasonable -- with luck, even acceptable.

Forgot Lieberman.

Forgot Specter

Hatch said health care reform is wrong for the country unless it gets "at least 70 votes,"
----------------------

and if it was clear today that there were 70 votes for some form of improving health care for "the country" (that is, the 70+% of us who consistently support it in the polls) Hatch would be equally clear that it would need at least 80 votes to be even halfway legitimate, and it would still be wrong for the country.

So, who's "the country," for Hatch?

...[Hatch's] perspective is more than a little twisted.

You might remember that this is the same Hatch that, back in 1994, went on national TV to declare that the Democrats are "the party of Satan worshippers" who love evil.

This "70 votes" crap could be shut down in a hurry if every time it surfaced, the response was, "ok, so you claim that "legitimacy" requires a 70% majority. Were you elected with a 70% majority? How many of your Republican collegues were? Your argument is that anything less than 70% is illegitimate, so why should we allow Senators who are illegitimate to make that determination?"

You can't have it both ways. If a super-majority is required for the legitimacy of a policy action, then it's required for the legitimacy of a an elected official as well.

"First, if Dems had gone "very far to the left," they'd be pushing single-payer, instead of a public-private competition. "

Can we please speak in terms of reality?

If the Dems were Leftists, they would be pushing nationalization.

If they were Centrists they would be pushing for single-payer. This is where the rest of the free and/or developed world is at and therefore the Center.

With a public option, the bill would be Center-Right.

With no public option, it is a Conservative bill.

The current system and Repugnant-can choice is failed Feudalism with insurance company robber barons.

Has single-payer been covered, considered, debated anywhere in the MSM? I'm genuinely curious...

And how many votes did pig shit Hatch claim it would take for the tax breaks for the rich to be 'legitimate' ?

I don't know many moderate Democrats."

He has a point; too many Democrats seem to be right-wing enough to be old-style Republicans. Either that or just bought and paid for, which amounts to the same thing.

There we all go, mistaking a Republican fart for an intelligent conversation. Don't you notice that when they talk, their lips never move? That's because the noise isn't coming out of that end.

Parting Hatch comment: "Government is the problem . . ."

If that's the case, then WTF are you doing in the Senate?

FUCKING LEAVE, YOU DECREPIT ASSHOLE!!

Agree with OKDem, @10:03; "radical left" idea would have been "VA for All" (hospitals owned by the govt, doctors on contracts to those hospitals, etc). "Medicare for All" (single payer) is a centrist, moderate approach. In comparison, the "Public Option", however "robust", is the "third rinse water of the juice glass".

Am I the only one who thinks Hatch looks like warmed-over death? Good thing he's a Mormon, 'cause they don't need no stinking health insurance. The church will take care of 'em. Mormons look after their own; fuck everyone else.

No, it's simpler than that. Hatch is a doofus.

When Hatch was talking about "state laboratories" he may have seemed "nonsensical," but you could also note that he was advocating for using reconciliation to pass health reform. When speaking of block grants to states he said that what we ought to do "exactly what we did with the original [S]CHIP bill."

The original SCHIP legislation was included in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act passed by Republicans through reconciliation, something Hatch seemed to forget.

Hatch may have also forgotten that the BBA cut Medicare spending by 12.7% over 10 years (current proposals call for only 5% cuts).