Dems Never Negotiated in Good Faith

March 24th, 2010 at 1:17 am | 34 Comments |

| Print

The premise that there was a compromise that Republicans could make that would improve this bill and provide hope for future more free market changes is unfounded.  Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi would take Republican votes and give nothing of substance to Republicans.  The opposition to the healthcare bill was bipartisan; its passage, partisan.  Look at the Stupak Amendment.  It got more bipartisan votes than any other part of this bill and yet it is out.  What did Stupak, a Democrat get instead?  A revocable executive order that no court will say beats the language of the law itself.  That is the only compromise possible with this man.  He gets the substance and those to his right are left with contingent, meaningless tinsel.

Is there anyway Obama/Pelosi would negotiate on tort reform?  They simply will not work in any way to defund the left.  Surely the proponent of a view that they would needs evidence?  Even the compromises Frum proposes are useless.  One of the great jibes at Bob Dole, was Newt Gingrich’s immortal line that he wanted to be “the tax collector for the welfare state.”  An argument that is focused around what taxes should fund things the government should not be doing ab initio is a loser for Republicans.  That is the fate of “right” parties of Europe.  They exist only to clean up Labor messes and then go out to watch and acquiesce meekly to ever more aggrandizement of the state.

As long as Pelosi had a 74 seat majority and Reid had 60 votes in the Senate there could be no compromise to bring in Republicans that would benefit the country, the Republican party or redound to either’s benefit.  Who is Obama?  That is the crux of the matter.  He is not the first George Bush.  He does not believe nor come from a background where conservatives or Republicans are part of a governing coalition.  He wants to destroy rugged individualism and any source of freedom independent of government control.  Frum does not believe that.  But there is no evidence in Obama’s past or his governing strategy that supports that view.  This health reform bill, a stimulus program that mainly funds state governments and unions, the killing of the D.C. voucher program, the fact that every solution he offers subordinates the individual to the state and diminishes the ability of Americans to keep what they earn belies a view that he can be dealt with other than with strength.  A president who wants to compromise meaningfully with Republicans does not appoint Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff.

Frum did not predict the election of Scott Brown (neither did I!).   Senator Brown was not propelled to victory by the base Republican vote, or by talk radio supporters.  He was propelled to victory by voters who have voted for Democrats before but are appalled by what that party is doing on healthcare and spending. The same is true to a lesser extent for the governors of Virginia and New Jersey.  Senator Jim DeMint said that if it fails it will be President Obama’s Waterloo and that offended many.  That does not mean that its passage is a Republican Waterloo.  It is a bad legislative loss, yes.  But opposition to it has united Republicans, more than ten percent of elected congressional Democrats and independents and formed a new movement to control spending.  The fact that President Obama did not compromise when Scott Brown was elected shows no compromise was possible.  This was a message not from Republicans but from a liberal state that elected him.  Obama did nothing to meet that challenge.  There was no speech like President Bush made about the “thump’n.” in 2006 which was followed by him terminating Rumsfeld.

Where do the Democrats stand after this famous victory?  They own every healthcare problem anybody in the country suffers.  Barack Obama is revealed as a nakedly partisan figure.  Democrats in conservative states, like Ben Nelson can no longer fly under a false flag.  There is nothing on the legislative calendar that can regain them votes and is popular with their base.  Will it be entirely repealed?  Probably not, but will it be gutted?  Will its worst features be neutered?  Will Barack Obama spend the next three years getting no more noxious bills through the Senate and House?

In the seventies, a milquetoast Republican Party compromised with a statist Democratic Party and lost again and again while the state grew and we suffered blow after blow abroad.  We are living in the 70s again.  Job prospects are down, federal agencies are fattened, our enemies grow emboldened abroad, but the Republican Party needs no Reagan.  It has rallied.

Recent Posts by John Vecchione



34 Comments so far ↓

  • greg_barton

    And Republicans are going to lose again.

    Get used to it.

  • rbottoms

    It is a bad legislative loss, yes.

    It’s a stunning, embarrassing, humiliating, crushing, utter defeat. But it could be worse.

    I can’t figure quite how, but I am sure there’s some formula by which it could be worse.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go take advantage of being able to look for health insurance that costs than what I am currently being soaked for and not worry about my pre-existing conditions.

    Damn Obama. Next thing you know he’ll be fixing immigration or getting most of our troops out of Iraq and dropping a ton of stimulus money on the states right before an election.

  • mlloyd

    There is zero substantiation in this post for any of its assertions.

    As it happens, its premise is a lie.

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1895706,00.html

    So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by the Republicans and certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party. What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return? Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/02/why-bipartisanship-cant-work-the-expert-view/35101/
    “GOP member: ‘I’d like this in the bill.’
    “Dem member response: ‘If we put it in, will you vote for the bill?’
    “GOP member: ‘You know I can’t vote for the bill.’
    “Dem member: ‘Then why should we put it in the bill?’

    The GOP made the strategic decision to go in for wholehearted opposition. Despite that, the Democrats negotiated towards the center– there’s no public option in the bill, single payer was never on the table, and the bill itself is what Bob Dole suggested.

    Consider the behavior of GOP leaders such as Orrin Hatch, who claimed that he agreed with more than 80 percent of the bill, but then said “most of it is a piece of junk” when that became the GOP party line. Or Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi, the GOP’s designated negotiators, who claimed that even if every single one of their concerns were addressed, they’d only be able to vote for the bill if it were going to receive 80 votes… which isn’t possible when the GOP is dedicated to opposition. (There were reports that Grassley was getting pressured by fellow Republicans to cease all negotiation and cooperation on the issue, as you’ll see if you use Google for the phrase, “The more plausible argument is that Grassley fears his fellow Republican senators. I’m hearing that Grassley is getting reamed out in meetings with his colleagues. The yelling is loud enough that staffers in adjacent offices have heard snippets.”)

    As David Frum put it, “the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.” Now, the GOP has every right to oppose everything, even common-sense, moderate proposals like this health care bill. But then when they lose, they can’t whine about how they didn’t receive enough condescension from the majority party.

  • SFTor1

    Just amazing.

    Stop lying Mr. Vecchione, you’ll feel better.

  • knowtheory

    Dude, the bill that got passed WAS the compromise. Liberals are fuming at what stands for health care/insurance reform in this nation.

    It’s also bizarre to characterize Democratic negotiating as being done in bad faith. Where do you see the public option? Do you genuinely believe that Dems wouldn’t have taken on tort reform, or reducing interstate barriers to insurance if Republicans had put together a credible proposal?

    Obama outlined the specific problems that he wanted to avoid in implementing tort reform and interstate insurance, which sounds like a considered *policy* discussion, and what was the Republican response? A deafening silence.

    So, come on John, you tell me what the Republicans actually wanted to do to fix health care, and where and when they discussed it with the Democrats, and when the Democrats left them hanging, and i’ll reconsider whether the negotiations were done in good faith.

    But until then, seriously dude, get real. It’s hard to negotiate, even in bad faith, when there’s nobody to negotiate with. (and remember Republicans in Baucus’s gang of six were freaking out at town halls decrying democratic efforts as socialism designed to kill grandma WHILE being simultaneously involved in negotiations. Can we have a dose of reality here please?)

  • rjcrawford33

    So is Vecchione arguing the flipside corollary, that the GOP was negotiating in good faith? As Michael Corleone said, “that makes me very angry because it insults my intelligence.”

    Many of the elements of the basic approach of the bill are FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION!! The truth is, the GOP wanted it to fail, not for complex ideological reasons, but as pure partisan politics. The GOP refused to negotiate or even cooperate, rather than attempt to call Obama’s bluff by advancing constructive ideas. Frum is essentially correct in his assessment: the GOP would have gotten more by negotiating. Instead, with virtually no exceptions, the GOP relied on fear mongering, distortion, and lies.

    What this means is that the GOP has left me behind, a moderate conservative. I cannot support the party and lament its fall into naked demagoguery.

  • ottovbvs

    ……I’ve got one word for Mr Vecchione……WATERLOO…..It’s a pity he can’t exhibit the same intellectual honesty as David Frum……the Republicans never had any intention of cooperating on this bill and most of the country knows it…….if they were not willing to support efforts to stabilize the economy when it was teetering on the edge of economic collapse there was no way they were going to support HCR……and until their entire strategy collapsed they didn’t really make much secret of it……now it has collapsed we’ve got this rather laughable spin from Vecchione……I’d give it up if I were him because the president gave the Republicans plenty of rope to hang themselves……and they used it!

  • jefeweiss

    The Democrats have negotiated health care with the Republicans of 15 years ago. There are so many things in the bill that passed that were first proposed by Republicans. It seems like the Democrats have become a bipartisan party all by themselves and have all of the reasonable people on their side. A blue dog Democrat of today is a Republican of the past.

    The Democrats as a party have so much more credibility on reducing the budget deficit that’s it’s embarrassing. Republicans are all talk when it comes to cutting spending. When they do agree on cutting something, it’s some rinky dink program that only saves a couple of million. They just want to cut taxes and do things that are popular with the voters.

    If it weren’t for Fox News moving the country as a whole to the right, I don’t think there would be a viable Republican party today.

  • sinz54

    The fact that President Obama did not compromise when Scott Brown was elected shows no compromise was possible.
    Don’t blame him for that.

    Politico.com had an interesting story on that topic a few days ago:

    After the Scott Brown win, both Obama and Rahm Emanuel wanted to descope the health care bill and maybe pick up some moderate GOP votes in the Senate and House.

    It was Nancy Pelosi who said no.
    She met with Obama and Emanuel, and told them that she would not accept an incremental bill in the style of Clintonian triangulation.

    Her role in all this should not be glossed over. Pelosi is at least as far to the Left as Obama is. But unlike Obama, she is iron-willed, a Margaret Thatcher of the Left. She is just not interested in working with Republicans on anything, period.

    In the Senate too, moderates like Baucus found themselves slapped down by Harry Reid.

  • sinz54

    rjcrawford33: Many of the elements of the basic approach of the bill are FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION!!
    Name some.

  • rjcrawford33

    @ sinz54. As jefeweiss stated above, many of the ideas are from 1994, including the basic idea of using not a government-run system but the existing private sector institutions. Check out:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-final-health-care-vot_b_507596.html

    That the GOP fails to acknowledge this and negotiate on it is yet another indicator that it completely lacks intellectual honesty and hence was NOT negotiating in good faith.

  • ottovbvs

    “Politico.com had an interesting story on that topic a few days ago:

    …….That’s if you believe Politico’s stories which are usually hip shooting and sometimes result in embarrasment as for example them having to take down that Hoax memo story they jumped the gun on last week…….Sinz apparently hangs on their every word

    “Many of the elements of the basic approach of the bill are FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION!!

    Name some.”

    …..However on this one you’re right Sinz…..this is a myth although it’s fair to say the bill has some similarities to your beloved Romneycare

  • balconesfault

    “GOP member: ‘I’d like this in the bill.’
    “Dem member response: ‘If we put it in, will you vote for the bill?’
    “GOP member: ‘You know I can’t vote for the bill.’
    “Dem member: ‘Then why should we put it in the bill?’

    This is the crux of it. Even Ms. Snowe ended up voting against a bill on the Senate Floor that was functionally what she had voted out of conference.

    Pelosi is at least as far to the Left as Obama is.

    No, Pelosi is more liberal than Obama. Obama’s natural inclination is to try to work with the other side to achieve a compromise … had that not been his inclination he’d have lit a fire under Baucus and gotten a bill out of Finance last July when 5 other Senate Committees passed their healthcare bills to the floor … he wouldn’t have spent any time and effort on Republicans who announced at the beginning of the debate was to defeat healthcare and thus cripple any further legislative agenda by Obama, and focused his energies from the beginning on armtwisting about 5 Democratic Senators.

    Obama really really wanted a bill that would get a substantial number of Republican votes, and not at the best one or two. But he wasn’t going to not have a subsidy in the final bill to make insurance more affordable for 30 million uninsured Americans. And the Republicans were never going to vote for a bill with the latter.

    Never. Period.

  • Independent

    B’fault tries to repeat the liem but fails:

    “Obama really really wanted a bill that would get a substantial number of Republican votes, and not at the best one or two.”

    Obama: Elections has consequences. We won. We get to decide.”

    Period.

    We’ll let the other lie: “Pelosi is more liberal than Obama” stand for the sheer benefit of the unrestrained laughter it generates.

  • Independent

    JohnV, while it’s true that the Obami never intended to include or advance real GOP proposals in the Obama sCare bill, the most underreported story in the health care debate –and all the Morning After revisionism we’re seeing today (even on this webzine and elsehwhere)– is that it is really a triumph of farLeft Democrats over other Democrats.

    The final straw came as Bart Stupak, a normally honorable man, chose to abort his pro-Life legacy in pursuit of pleasing his President and nabbing a few million dollars for his district.

    At least it was more than a cup of coffee to buy off the CBO director and pressure the CBO to provide a tentative, temporary assessment based on faulty and irreconcilable predicates.

  • balconesfault

    We’ll let the other lie: “Pelosi is more liberal than Obama” stand for the sheer benefit of the unrestrained laughter it generates.

    Do you think that Tom Coburn would ever co-sponsor legislation with Nancy Pelosi?

    Thanks.

    As for Obama’s “I won” (you can’t even get quotes right – Obama hasn’t been going around saying “Elections have consequences” – Pelosi has) …

    As the president, he had told Kyl after the Arizonan raised objections to the notion of a tax credit for people who don’t pay income taxes, Obama told Cantor this morning that “on some of these issues we’re just going to have ideological differences.”

    The president added, “I won. So I think on that one, I trump you.”

    Obama never said he wouldn’t compromise. He has said that there are some things that he would not compromise away – because he ran on them, and because he won on them.

    As I pointed out above – Obama was resolved that we were going to have a healthcare bill that would include Federal subsidies for working poor who didn’t qualify for Medicaid, but couldn’t afford a 13K healthcare premium on a salary 2x or even 3x the poverty level.

    The Republicans made it clear that no matter what else Obama did with the bill, they would never vote for a bill with such a subsidy.

    It ended up not being a point where there could be compromise. As befits a Democracy, when there is such an irresolvable “ideological difference”, where the winner has won a contest saying he would do A, and the opposition which lost says they will not accept A … the winners should decide … don’t you think?

  • balconesfault

    the Obami

    Dork.

  • TerryF98

    the Obami= the mind of a 2 year old.

  • LFC

    “It’s not where I get them to compromise, it’s what I get them to leave out.” –Mike Enzi

    “If I hadn’t been involved in this process as long as I have and to the depth as I have, you would already have national health care.” –Mike Enzi

    Compare those quotes (and the others supplied above) to this headline:

    Dems Never Negotiated in Good Faith –John Vecchione

    At this point in a baseball game, I believe the announcer would shout “a swing and a miss!”

  • LFC

    I almost forget that in their attempt to do anything to derail any type of healthcare reform, Republicans vote to delay funding for our troops! At least that’s the conclusion you must come to if you use GOP “logic” on prior war funding bills.

    So the question is, why do Republicans hate America?

  • LFC

    Independent unknowledgeably sputtered … JohnV, while it’s true that the Obami never intended to include or advance real GOP proposals in the Obama sCare bill, the most underreported story in the health care debate –

    I know it doesn’t come from your echo chamber, but here’s an article that discusses how your above statement is simply untrue. Of course as the resident right-wing parrot, nobody who has read your posts is surprised by that.

    Have a nice day.

  • Independent

    LFC at #21, not at all, my faint-hearted farLeft troll. The article you cite was already discussed in a prior thread -by me. I was sharing with one of your FrumBot pals that his “claim” that Obama sCare had over 200 GOP amendments in it was flat out, str8 up false.

    The bill as it emerged from the Senate Labor, Health Committee did include some 161 technical amendments to that version –which later got left on the editing room floor of Sen Maj Leader gReid when he muscled 4 separate Senate versions from competing jurisdictions into one massive, bloated, expansive Welfare State plan… that the Senate voted on and sent to the House Democrats for easy dispatch.

    There’s no rightwing parroting going on here –there’s only the echo-chambered bounceback from guys like you who either don’t know what they’re talking about or are lying for political advantage.

    My guess is the former, for you. You really do need to get a better game on here if you want to win at least one discussion. Otherwise, you’re proving to be as lame as TeaBagged, LeftistNYer or B’faoult/agent’P on their best days.

  • Independent

    B’fault sneers with yellowed, gnarled teeth glaringly on display: “the Obami. Dork.”

    Not at all, B’fault. It fits for a shorthand to capture the true essence of the farLeft trolls and democrat ditch diggers like you who worship at the false temple of Obama Messiah and struggle mightily to help build a new temple of the farLeft.

    The Obami has a cult-like flavor that’s perfectly apt to apply to the non-thinking, all-believing, worshipful fanatics we oft’ see chanting Obama songs in youth groups that were last in vogue when Hitler-Jugend was the toast of your town… or serving in the Obama Administration while catching up on their Karl Marx readings… or spreading out across the land to Thug & Mug the latest non-believer to question the Messiah.

    Obami.

    It fits. That you don’t like it is immaterial.

    Now, as for calling me a dork –which is a perjorative used outside the normal confines of your union hall goon squad cell block– I’d like to suggest you review and refresh your acquaintance with FF’s Comment Policy… to wit: “… comments that are abusive, engage in personal attacks, contain racist, sexist, homophobic or other slurs, express hatred, are off-topic, use excessive foul language, or include any other type of ad hominem attacks… will be subject to removal.”

    Keep it up and you’ll be likely banned –and then you’ll need TeaBagged’s notes on how to avoid detection as you try to reboot an identity here.

  • jjv

    I will respond briefly to some of the points made here, others I will ignore. First, the Republicans in January of 2009 were ready to deal. The idea that the bulk of them wanted to be crosswise with a popuplar President on an isssue where, in the abstract, the Democrats had had the advantage for some time is risible. Obamacare drew Republican opposition precisely from the dismissive attitude of Democrats to Republicans. The stimulous was done first, burning up capital and showing Obama may be popular but Obamaism has broad resistance in America.

    As it became clear the healthcare bill would be both runious, dismissive or Repubican concerns and unpopular opposition grew. As the people of the Country rejected Obama’s candidates in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts it became clear a party had to represent their voice. The Repubican Party took up that duty.

    I note that the Senate is now working on the first repeal of the bill that passed. This “reconcilliation” is specificaly designed to amend what both houses actually passed (but see “deeming”) and the President signed. There will be another amendment to help the AMA in a few months. Why on earth should the GOP not stand firm to do what the Democrats reserve the right to do-campaign on changing this bill?

  • agentprovocateur

    “…and then you’ll need TeaBagged’s notes on how to avoid detection as you try to reboot an identity here.”

    Or you could share with him how you did it, MI-GOPer, er, GOPround, er, Independent.

  • Matthew Yglesias » GOP Never Took Yes for an Answer

    [...] even keep his own team all on message. John Veccione has a point-missing Frum Forum post up all about how mean ol’ Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were never interested in compromise. I think it’s quite true that Pelosi was never interested in compromise. As I alluded to [...]

  • balconesfault

    B’fault sneers with yellowed, gnarled teeth glaringly on display: “the Obami. Dork.”

    Umm – when I’m sneering and baring my teeth, I come up with much harsher epithets than “Dork”.

    That’s the kind of thing I say when I’m mocking someone who is really beneath being sneered at.

  • Carney

    robottoms said “Damn Obama. Next thing you know he’ll be fixing immigration [...]”

    Really? He’ll put up a real border fence along every inch of the border within months or weeks, instead of the fake, useless “virtual fence”? He’ll drastically beef up the Border Patrol and unshackle interior enforcement? He’ll begin neighborhood sweeps, mass roundups, and fast, large scale deportations, including with large chartered transport aircraft depositing the illegals deep in their country of origin rather than keep up the “see you tomorrow night, Migra!” game at the border? He’ll allow or require common sense profiling to stop and focus on possible or likely illegals? He’ll require secure biometric IDs to get a job, open a bank account, get health care, and especially to vote? He’ll destroy the informal trust networks necessary for all ongoing criminal enterprises by offering green cards for any illegal who fingers at least ten other illegals or a violent criminal that has not already been turned in, or one coyote or employer, or amnesty for any employer or coyote who turns in a large number of illegals? He’ll end birth tourism and the anchor baby phenomenon by ending birthright citizenship? He’ll aggressively and relentlessly squeeze every aspect of illegal life and permanently end their smug confidence that nobody cares and they can get away with it indefinitely?

    He’ll overhaul legal immigration to end the “diversity lottery” because it insults the core / majority population and the native born by implying they and the groups they belong to are somehow lacking? He’ll focus on ease of assimilation first and foremost (such as English language fluency, proof of acceptance of US and Western cultural norms, etc.), along with likely productivity (being disease-free, able-bodied, and young) and high education? He’ll reduce the overall number admitted substantially in a time of economic downturn so as to help with the unemployment situation?

    He’ll mitigate the negative effects of past policies by requiring official English, banning subversive Aztlan-style movements at federally supported schools and other institutions, and aggressively promoting unapologetically pro-American education policies (especially on the Mexican War issue) and assimilation and Americanization at every level?

  • balconesfault

    He’ll require secure biometric IDs to get a job, open a bank account, get health care, and especially to vote?

    Wow. If Obama suddenly called for biometric IDs to do all those things … we would have every Federal Building in Idaho blown up next month. The “black helicopter” crowd, already on edge, would come back with a vengence.

    Why not just require everyone to have an RFID chip implanted at birth?

  • LFC

    Independent #22: Gong! Gong!

    Thank you for playing our game.

  • Nona

    I felt there were several instances when Obama and his administration reached out in the spirit of compromise, though I will say that Pelosi does seem to relish being a polarizing influence at times. It seems to me that cooperation and compromise in Washington have been something of an endangered species since the first Clinton administration but the fact that it’s not quite up to previous levels doesn’t mean it’s completely dead.

    As far your opinion that Obama “wants to destroy rugged individualism and any source of freedom independent of government control” and “the fact that every solution he offers subordinates the individual to the state and diminishes the ability of Americans to keep what they earn”, it seems a little strong on the rhetoric but really isn’t that different than the basic objection conservatives have had to liberals since I can remember. It’s a legitimate argument but the problem with leaning so heavily on it in this situation is that it ignores the fact that we already live in an interdependent society; the uninsured already cost Americans far too much both in terms of government spending and skyrocketing health care costs. People don’t just crawl off into the woods to die anymore.

  • Independent

    LFC, you’re far, far too easy a hit, sweetie.

    Of course the White House contends the Obama sCare plan includes all kinds of GOP proposals –the House GOP and Sen GOP leadership said this about that:

    “Today, the White House communications office proved it’s still stuck on campaign rhetoric instead of truth with their claims that the President’s bill includes Republican proposals to reform health care.

    “Let us be clear, the proposals and names of legislation included in the President’s bill bear no resemblance to the original Republican drafts and legislation contained in those bills.

    “For instance… the Republican proposal to allow families and employers to purchase health care insurance across state lines, bringing much needed competition into insurance health care pricing, and breaking the federally protected monopolies for state-based insurers. The President’s plan does nothing remotely like that and, in very small test cases in limited regions, may one day allow specialized lines of insurance for high risk pools to cross some state lines if all state regulators agree.”

    LFC at #30 –chicanery is defined as artful subterfuge or sophistry… you and the White House Press Office of DoughBoiGibbs get the Chicanerists’ Blue Ribbon, it seems.

    Like I said, you need to bring a better game to the discussion if you want to win. Or more people into your echo-chamber.

  • Independent

    agent’P as B’fault pines: “Umm – when I’m sneering and baring my teeth, I come up with much harsher epithets than “Dork”. That’s the kind of thing I say when I’m mocking someone who is really beneath being sneered at.”

    Well, B’fault, it still violates the FF Comment Policy and you’ve been reported to the proper authorities. I’d advise you tone down the vitriol and take some viagra because the impotency of your arguments are still keeping it flaccid.

    I get you’re angry that your beloved Democrats had to commit political suicide to get Obama sCare passed. I get that you’re angry the voters aren’t buying Obama’s pig even with lipstick smeared on the front and back –it would seem.

    But personal attacks are unwarranted even if there are flaccid in effect.

  • nhthinker

    John,
    Thank you for being a voice of reason. Frum has yet to mention any importance associated with Pelosi in the Health care debate. Why do you think he does not mention her?
    1) because it’s obvious that she secretly would be voluntarily willing to accommodate Republican ideas?
    2) because it’s obvious that she could have been easily forced into something by Harry Reed?
    3) because Frum’s arguments fall completely apart when Pelosi is considered in the picture.