Actually I don't think Republicans fear passage of HCR that much. It will open new vistas of looniness and grievance for them in the form of Tentherism.

I assume Obama pointed out that the mandate is a matter of personal responsibility, which the Republicans of old were big on.

I assume someone pointed out that these "unpopular" bills are quite popular when the elements of them are pointed out to them.

Republicans hypocritically flip-flop for partisan advantage. Film at 11.

Or, rather, not, because the so-called "liberal media" will just take the GOP's statements and leave it there.

Could it be that a) these ideas are too complex for a lot of Republicans (who for years have been bad-mouthing and mocking "intellectuals" and people who think?) and 2) that Grassley -- like McCain and number of older Republican senators and congressmen, really and truly just can't remember what they said/ I mean, it's either early onset, or simplistic political maneuvering of the moment, or both.

It's:

c.) All of the above

Grassley's been reading too much FDL.

Your mistake, Steve, is that you think the folks in Blair House are discussing healthcare.

They're not. They are using the air time to campaign for re-election.

It all boils down to the same thing: Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

But Obama insists on continuing to treat them as equal partners, rather than calling them out as liars.

Pathetic.

And did Obama have at his fingertips, and use, Grassley's completely contradictory statement from just a few months ago?

Of course not. Too confrontational. We can disagree without being disagreeable. We're above that sort of thing.

The reason the Republicans are so easily getting away with contradicting themselves is the voters are buying the Republican product no matter what it is. It looks like the Republicans will retake the House and may reclaim the Senate. Then what? If you think now is weird, wait till "serious" candidate Palin gets cranked up for some MSM love.

you know, Grassley, while always conservative and often pompous despite his thin veil of occasional populism, used to seem sane. then all of a sudden he didn't.

my theory is that it coincides with the higher visibility of Steve King. i'm thinking the crazee is contagious.

It's all in the word choice. Grassley didn't say the mandate was 'unconstituional', he said it was 'non-constituional'. Un- meaning against the constitution, non- meaning not in the constitution.

This way, he looks like he's on the side of the tea-baggers and tin-hatters AND he can have an escape hatch when/if anyone tries to pin him down on it.

Watching this reminds me of reading "Through the Looking Glass." What's up is down, what's true is false. The biggest problem is that the media can't/won't see this, so the public hears not just the upsidedown version from the Repubs but also validation of their version by the media, who treat the Repub view as honest and equally worth considering. For example, how could the media have covered this for a year and NOT know why a piecemeal approach (suggested by the Repubs) will not solve our problems?! Entertaining viewing in some ways, but very hard to watch at times. And the coverage is like the Olympics. If only they would let us hear what our representatives have to say rather than constantly cutting to the CNN talking (but empty) heads!

I want to start a campaign on this site. I want all commenters who object to the unseemly site of Ann Coulter's giant visage to comment on the absolute inappropriateness of this add. I have no object to running Ann Coulter adds. I do object to my favorite blog showing her hideous face every time I come here. Come on folks, speak up. Complain. Why should I have to look at her every time I go to this blog. It's just wrong.

But Obama insists on continuing to treat them as equal partners, rather than calling them out as liars.

This is just not true. Maybe my ears were deceiving me, but I surely heard Obama say in response to some of the many falsehood the tan man (Boehner) brought to the table: "That's just not true John."

What impresses me with Obama is the fact that I would have wanted to throw a shoe at all of these clowns, McCain, Bohener, Cantor, you name them, who came in with a bunch of talking points or props such as a bunch of paper but could not make one substantive argument in about 2 minutes.

Maybe it would make good show if Obama yelled "You Lie" Joe Wilson style - it might make us all feel a little better.

So, Obama and the Senate Democrats have excluded advocates of single-payer, a public option, or Medicare expansion from the summit, and have declared all of those progressive options to be "off the table", and are pushing the same ideas that the Republicans have been offering for years.

And Steve Benen thinks the big story here is Republican "hypocrisy".

Michael,

I made mention of the horse-faced one's ad the other day. I will second your motion and go further, stating that Washington Monthly/Political Animal should not take ANY ad that includes the visage of Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, et al.

Is the money really worth putting off your readers? Especially those who read this blog during their lunch hour!

If only they would let us hear what our representatives have to say rather than constantly cutting to the CNN talking (but empty) heads!

One question and I am not being snarky: Why are you watching CNN in the first place? There are many unflitered feeds available and CNN, with their "let's sit in the middle between Fox and MSNBC, so we must be moderate" stance is only as unbiased as you believe MSNBC to be "liberal". The same MSNBC who has Joe Scarborough on every morning saying in regard to health care "The American People want to start over again" hmmmmm where have I heard that before, pray tell?

To DBaker's point, I'm beginning to wonder if this is all just a game by the GOP to get the Dems to pass the exact bill the GOP would've passed 15 years ago as a right-wing alternative to Clinton's plan, but now they can let the Dems pass it, give all their insurance company cronies the gift that keeps on giving, and STILL be able to tell their Birther/10th wackos "I voted against it!"

If they weren't such obvious intransient idiots, I'd say it was a smart play.

@Michael Eschenbrenner on February 25, 2010 at 4:48 PM
The fact that there are ads on blogs that go counter to the views of most of the posters and hosts of the site indicates the absolute power of the corporations to spin facts. Why can't the host of the site, Washington Monthly, dictate what ads appear? Are they helpless and just have to accept the ads/money from the ads? Are there no progressive/liberal companies posting ads on the web? I don't visit any right wing blogs, but are there similar liberal ads on their sites?

I do object to my favorite blog showing her hideous face every time I come here. Come on folks, speak up. Complain. Why should I have to look at her every time I go to this blog. It's just wrong.

I have no way of knowing if you contributed to the funding of this site during or after the "pledge drive" week, but I will say that I would hope anyone - and I suspect there are many, myself included - who wants such ads rejected has contributed. The site has to cover its costs somehow, and if my choices are (1) Political Animal at a cost to me and "good" ads but no Coulter ads; (2) Political Animal with Ann Coulter ads; or (3) no Political Animal at all, my order of preference would certainly be (1), (2) and (3).

Re: the healthcare summit. Can I hear an "Amen" for how overwhelming the difference is between Bush and Obama is regarding their respective abilities to understand the issues at hand and articulation? "AMEN!"

Holy cow, I wince every time I think about how pathetic 2000-2008 was.

Yes, there are inconsistencies from Rs and they should be quoted over and over. But that doesn't prove that the idea inconsistent with other ideas, is itself incorrect. I think there is a valid legal case (not meaning I'd *like* to see it ruled that way) that such requirements to buy a service from a private provider are indeed questionable. That could be from A10, or other things. Many State AGs are poised to object etc, and it could be a mess. These troubles must not be laughed off or thought trifling.

And BTW it's facetious and pretentious to refer to enthusiasts of a given Amendment that way as e.g. "Tenthers" - should enthusiast of other Amendments be called e.g. "Firsters" etc?

The key to this mess and to focusing blame on Rebaglicans is to pound on this idea: We already have Medicare, that is precedent and hasn't been challenged before. It is popular. There is nothing intrinsic to rights, that it has to be reserved for people of certain ages (at least, given not about minors.) Hence some kind of public option that would be available or even if required, of those who won't buy private insurance, could hardly be challenged in that way. This was blocked by conservatives, and now we pay the price of having something left over that can't be done right either remaining way. IOW, it stinks to leave the system as is, and it may be wrong to "reform" it by making people buy private insurance.

We need to quit thinking that mess and gift to insurers (since when is it proper "progressive" policy to have such a scheme) is the right way to go. It is better to push hard for a PO, using the argument and political jujitsu that the PO actually makes things easier on the Constitution.

kiweagle - me too, I am so impressed by Obama's knowledge of the subject, Boehner sure had a sour face, I really think he feels intimidated because he knows how smart the president is.

Coulter and other "righty" ads don't bother me at all. Quite the opposite; every time I think of how they're wasting their money by placing those ads on liberal blogs, I smile with pleasure. More, please; leaves them with less to spend elsewhere (and, possibly, to better effect in conning the non-cognoscenti), while helping to power us up.

To be sure, my 'puter has a small screen, so her horsey face and the cross inching its way down her cleavage aren't overpowering, visually...

I agree with Neil B. It appears to me that there may be a constitutionally significant difference between compelling payment of taxes to the state, and compelling premium payments to non-governmental, for-profit entities. The closest analogy is compulsory payment of liability insurance premiums if you own a car. But you have the choice of driving or walking or riding public transit.

Tell me you wouldn't applaud a Dem who previously was against the public option but changed his mind to support it. Tell me he should stick to his original position even when his supporters disagree with it.

The biggest current political movement in the country is anti-Washington, anti-big gov't (you probably didn't catch that on this site). Republican voters have been criticizing inside Wash types who aren't true to conservative principles, the most significant of which currently is limited gov't. (I know you people think that anybody who thinks that way, like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, is a rightwing nutjob.) These senators have all changed their minds to more closely align themselves with their constituents. This is exactly what elected officials are supposed to do.

If only the Dems had let Republicans like these guys write their bills to begin with, they could have gotten 90% of what they want - which even the current bills don't accomplish. But no, they had to pull the trigger all by themselves - apparently so they could could commit unassisted suicide.