Sen. Scott Brown typifies the modern Republican -- little emperors with no clothes.

Obama seems to know the phrase, "Hoisting them on their own petard." I recommend letting the Repugs accomplish the old Repugs phrase and let them twist slowly in the wind....

Remember when we were kids, and we slapped a "KICK ME!" sign on someone?

Methinks the D's have done it to themselves. . .

As for the R's game plan: Stall until November, then point at the "do nothing" Dems.

The D bill compares very favorably to its GOP counterpart.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html

There is another reason Republicans don't want to run with the original Boehner Amendment to HR3962. It has an easily identified poison pill that I called 'Sweatshop insurance'.
http://mydd.com/users/bruce-webb/posts/sweatshop-insurance-oboehner-care-amp-the-northern-marianas

The legislation carefully defines 'state' in a way that includes by name territories including the N. Marianas and then allows any insurance company to select any 'state' as the 'primary state' for regulation. It further goes on to specify that for all purposes related to insurance, including specifically consumer protection laws, that purchasers of that insurance in say California have no recourse except in the courts of the 'primary state'.

Given that Boehner was neck deep in the Abramoff/N. Marianas deal (his former chief of staff actually organizing what became known as Golf-Gate) you have to think this was not an accident.

Companies would have been unlikely to actually pick the Marianas as a 'primary state', but I can see them taking the example of the Cayman Islands and off-shore banking and picking the American Virgin Islands. Not to cast aspersions on the fine people of AVI but how expensive could it be to buy yourself a nice compliant Insurance Commission and Commissioner?

My original post got some play in the blogosphere, and in my more grandiose moments I flatter myself that maybe it had some role in getting the R's to back away from O'Boehner Care.

What will the G No P's response be to White House suggestions that they post their own version of an HCR bill?

1- They won't

2- They will spend the next two months (and probably more by stalling) picking away at the Democratic bill, calling it socialist, claiming the public doesn't want it, and using Frank Luntz" talking points.

It will die.

This has been another simple answer to a simple question.

Not to cast aspersions on the fine people of AVI but how expensive could it be to buy yourself a nice compliant Insurance Commission and Commissioner?

The Insurance Commission and Commissioner is also the Lieutenant Governor. Not to cast aspersions on our current Lieutenant Governor but the answer to your questions is 'not very.'

FWIW the USVI is solidly Dem and not what one would consider very "business friendly"

Methinks the D's have done it to themselves. . .

Could you possibly elaborate on this theory? I happen to agree with Benen and think this is bad for Republicans. But if you've got some explanation for why this is bad for us, please let us know what it is.

But...if it's the standard "Republicans always win and can't be embarrassed" nonsense, please don't bother. It's obvious that Republicans are already embarrassed by their lack of a healthcare alternative, as evidenced by their heavy spin saying that it's not true. And as we all know, the more time you spend defending yourself, the less time you're attacking your opponent; and the worse you look. And if Republicans weren't embarrassed by their lack of any plan, they wouldn't bother saying anything about it at all.

Obama's leading an offensive charge against Republicans and they're having trouble dealing with it. How this possibly works out bad for us is beyond me.

Second, this is the House GOP bill.

Looks more like a dog-eared copy of Karl AHIP's "em>Profitmongerist Manifesto....

It's looking more and more like the Thursday session is going to consist of the president beating McConnell, Cantor and Boehner like rented mules. The optics for this are likely to be very bad for the GOP. I think that to this point they’ve been able to rely on their friends at the AP and Fox and the Wapo to focus only on process issues, outlays rather than benefits, FUD, etc. At a one-time live event where the issue is easily framed as a key moral imperative for the nation, and an enormous fiscal disaster here and now, they’re likely to look like mighty craven tools of evil big insurance. Inevitably the questions of the day are going to be:

Should Wellpoint/Anthem Blue Cross be free to screw the public: Yes or No?

Denial of coverage: are you for or against?

Medical bankruptcy: for or against?

Objectively pro-terrorist, oh excuse me, objectively pro-insurance industry will be a very uncomfortable position to be in.

The lack of an alternative is only a problem for Republicans if the meme gets picked up and reinforced by somebody other than the White House.

It needs to echoed by every Democrat who talks to the press. It needs to be a leading question whenever a Republican is asked about Healthcare.

That has been one of the biggest problems for the White House during the Healthcare 'debate'. The White House comes up with a solid set of talking points, Gibbs spends days talking about it at the podium, it shows up in Obama's speeches but never gets any further.

None of the Democrats in Congress echo White House talking points. In fact the ones who end up on the news seem to take pride in contradicting them. The MSN reflexively repeats Republican talking points.

Real Americans and real American families don't need health insurance, it's counter our rugged individualism and fundamentally un-American.

What will the G No P's response be to White House suggestions that they post their own version of an HCR bill?

You know, this article DID have a response from the GOP to the Whitehouses's suggestion, and it was to lie and pretend they already had a plan. And they'll probably say this a few more times and then they'll be stuck with the House's bill hanging around their necks. So for you to invent a toughguy response in which they refuse to state a plan was entirely unnecessary. What's next? Will you be telling us how the GOP will filibuster our jobs bill forever?

Look, people. We're GOING to get a healthcare bill by reconiliation. It's GOING to happen; Dems have already signaled this as well as they ever will. We're just stringing Republicans along, jumping through the stupid "bipartisan" hoops the media has set for us, and then we're getting our bill.

The only question at this point is whether it'll have a public option or not, and how well Obama can convince the "centrists" that it's in their best interests to get a good bill. But we're GETTING a bill. They've already made that clear. You might not like what we get, but the chances that we won't get a bill by November are close to zero.

To quote from the lovely wife of Saint Ronald Reagan: JUST SAY NO!

Sincerely,

HIS SUPREME EMINENCE,
LORD PROTECTOR OF corporate AMERICA,
DEFENDER OF THE ABUSED wealthy,

Senator Mitchell McConnell

Does the earth revolve around the Sun?

Yes.

Does the GOP have a plan for healthcare?

No.

Only the democrats have a plan that is seeing the light of day.

The others, have a plan to keep us in the dark.

You can legislate or you can obfuscate.

Guess which tact the GOP believe in.

I want a 1,000+ page bill from the GOP posted on whitehouse.gov. And I want it there by thursday 2/25/10!

What ya afraid of guys? Haven't done yer homework yet?

Ya can't say no to a bill without a viable alternative.

OK listen up Rockefeller! THIS IS THE PROBLEM! You can't have bipartisanship if one side won't play. Pass.The.Damn.Bill.

"In an interesting little twist, the administration has even offered to publish a Republican alternative proposal on the White House website, posting them side by side for Americans to review and evaluate."

Well if the House version is what the GOP keeps claiming as their alternative, why doesn't the White House post it side by side...I mean it either is or isn't - I realize the Senate GOP'ers never worked hard enough to try to come to some Republican consensus (i.e. never wanted it to happen anyway) so go with what the House cobbled together. Why not?

TMD -

Here is the response you asked for:

Those are a bunch of regurgitated GOP talking points rather than reality (right down to trying to justify upper income tax cuts).

You FAIL.

the Republicans ought not to accomodate [sic] at all a bill 60% of the people do not want.

Meanwhile, in this place called "Reality," a vast majority of people support the things the bill actually does, rather than the lies the GOP has spread about the bill.

As Democrats struggle to salvage health-care-reform legislation, a new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that while a majority of Americans say they oppose Obama's plan, a majority actually support the key features of the legislation. The findings support the notion that Democrats have not done a good job of selling the package and that opponents have been successful in framing the debate. The more people know about the legislation, the more likely they are to support major components of it.

It must suck to wake up every day and be as clinically clueless as you are ...

TMD - Greetings? WTF?

TMD - I could spend all day countering your fact-free bullshit, but I will focus only on these three statements:

"a bill 60% of the people do not want." - At least half of that number are progressives who don't think the bill goes far enough. You're deluded if you think all these people agree with you.

"the stimulus, 1.5M, at $787B comes to $525,000/job for a bill that was about 3% spent on infrastructure." - Dividing the stimulus cost by jobs saved/created marks you as a fucking retard. Comparing the cost against doing NOTHING (your party's solution) is a better metric. Most planned infrastructure hasn't even commenced yet. Oh, and the "cash and trash" hypocrisy from your party belies their lack of integrity.

"Cutting taxes on the rich, especially, is the best creator of jobs, proven time and again; it is a tax cut on capital which facilitates in efficient collection via private self-interested investment into companies that both serve the needs of the people, often the poorest, and hiring people, often the poorest." - WTF does this even mean?! Show me the capital investment creating jobs that resulted from the MASSIVE tax cuts to the wealthy that Bush and the GOP passed THROUGH RECONCILIATION. Supply-side theory is a religion that has yet to confer a benefit to anyone other than the wealthiest 1%. The only thing the GOP tax cuts (which now comprise the largest portion of our national debt) accomplished was to produce the worst concentration of wealth since before the Great Depression. Congratulations.

My biggest complaint with the Democrats is that they don't take bullshit statements like yours and rhetorically beat the GOP senseless with them every day in Congress and the media.

I look forward to watching your GOP heroes LOOK LIKE FOOLS on Thursday.

What fun.

Methinks the D's have done it to themselves. . .

Dr. B: I was not referring to the current White House actions; but to the Dem's pusillanimous behavior over the past year. When a bully steals your lunch money and you do nothing, you have insured that you will go hungry again.

GW Bush used reconciliation to pass his tax cuts. And any Dems that dared to complain got the Cheney retort: Go fuck yourself.

Absence of an alternative is an alternative.

If I'm wrong why did Benen (or whomever) scrub my very polite and insightful post?

TMD

[your post was removed because it was an off-topic ramble full of unsupported assertions; in other words, trolling -- mod.]

I did not mean to write that twice.

bdop4:

Supply-side theory says that short term tax decreases will raise revenue; that is theoretically possible, but not probable. It cannot be proven conclusively like a lot of economics because an all things being equal comparison is impossible. My point is that cutting taxes spurs growth and jobs even if it causes short term deficits ... better than hiring more people to read magazines in a teacher's monkey room.

You imply spending $787B has no cost? It very well could be doing nothing is better than this $525,000/job fiasco. Or even better how about a progressive 10% across the board tax cut, tax credits and all?

Do you think Scott Brown won votes because the healthcare plan was not liberal enough? Guffaw.

TMD

Mod.

Thanks; I really like this site. In 2005 with Drum we had some great debates and it was I think a good time for people on both sides. I agree in hindsight although I did not intend to act contrary to typical posting.

I'll endeavor to be on-topic and concise.

But unsupported assertions? Is that really a criteria. I have not noticed. Still, I'll endeavor to cite established news sources for data.

TMD