RSS Feed MenuTwo poll numbers will shock congressional Republicans into realizing the dangers of obstructionism in the lead-up to tomorrow’s healthcare summit:
1. Rasmussen reports 70% of likely voters say that this Congress has not passed any legislation that would “significantly improve life in America”.
2. A CNN poll shows that only 31% of people think that Republicans are doing enough to work with President Obama (compared to 67% who think they’re not).
This is in addition to a previous Rasmussen poll which says that only 35% of Americans think the GOP have a plan for where it wants to take the country. Republican strategists will protest that they have ideas, but I imagine that most voters would be hard-pressed to name one major Republican initiative.
As Newt Gingrich said this past weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the issues facing the United States are too great for the GOP to go on recess for the next three years.
Yet the conservative base hasn’t gotten the memo – Scott Brown’s vote last night in favor of a small jobs bill was met with a massive outcry among tea partiers who support his candidacy. It’s open season on the treasonous – treason being defined as any cooperation with the enemy.
Of course, without cooperation, no progress can be made – the status quo of healthcare is untenable in ways that appeal to both liberal and conservative sensibilities – on coverage, and on cost. In agreeing to appear at tomorrow’s bipartisan healthcare summit, Republicans have chosen to confront their obstructionism problem. But will it be a stage show or a productive conference?
If they wish to regain the trust of Americans, Republicans need to show that they’re working with Obama. To get Congress moving again, conservatives need to demonstrate that, despite disparate interests, they can come to compromise.
Follow Tim Mak on twitter: @timkmak
balconesfault // Feb 26, 2010 at 12:32 am
GOP’s intellectual superior (hey, if you can play with names, so can I!) ‘pines “There never was a tort reform bill proposed to filibuster”… because, as we now know from the books written about that timeframe, PrezSlickWilly –working as a shill for the trial lawyers– was telling DC & NYC-based lobbyists at the White House ‘96 Christmas Party that tort reform was dead in both chambers; he’d veto any plan that touched the sacred Democrat rail and would “put on the brass knuckles” if the GOP House and Senate sent him a plan.
Referring to my original comment:
Out of curiosity, can anyone on the right tell me why when Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency they never tried to limit people’s right to sue for malpractice until now?
Thanks for your rant. Now answer the question?
GOProud // Feb 26, 2010 at 11:23 am
Asked and answered, BlankHead. As I tell my moot court students “Move on, counselor”.
The closest the GOP came to having a fillibuster-proof Senate control was when there were still men of conscience left inside the Senate democrat caucus who might be persuaded to agree with men of good intentions and right policies. Sadly, those days are gone.
That was 96 and SlickWilly –as a shill for the democrat trial lawyers– said no and threatened violence to the GOP Senators if they persisted… of course, with a White House scandal like Vince Foster’s still fresh –even if the corpse was cold– one wouldn’t want to tempt an ego maniac that’s already killed once, raped repeatedly and lied with the passion of a pimp –ooops, wrong image for SlickWilly.
Asked and answered, counselor. I’m sorry if you can’t comprehend inside the farLeft spaceship heading into deep space. Say hello to Dr Dean of Vermont, please?
GOProud // Feb 26, 2010 at 11:30 am
By the way, BlankHead, the GOP did try to pass a tort reform act after the 1994 elections provided the most sweeping mandate to Congressional GOPers in the nation’s history –it was the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was enacted in 1995.
It was vetoed by Clinton. Congress, pressured by GOP political gains, overrode the presidential veto.
Care to try again or is the spaceship on auto-pilot now?
balconesfault // Feb 26, 2010 at 11:50 am
Asked and answered, counselor.
Nope. Evaded once again.
Out of curiosity, can anyone on the right tell me why when Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency they never tried to limit people’s right to sue for malpractice until now?
If the Republicans wanted to showboat on something that they really didn’t want to pass, it was easy to propose it at a time there was a Democratic President who announced he would veto it.
Bush was actually a champion of tort reform here in Texas. Why did the Republicans never try to push the bill through when they had a President obviously sympathetic to their cause?
Most plausible answer – because it would have become law, and they couldn’t campaign on it any longer.
kevin47 // Feb 26, 2010 at 6:14 pm
I answered the question, and nobody seemed to disagree with me. What is the point of continuing this discussion?
GOProud // Feb 28, 2010 at 12:09 am
BlankHead is almost as dense in accepting truthful facts as the birthers are that Obama isn’t spawn of the commanders from an alien spaceship.
I wouldn’t reduce your reply to “Nope. Evaded once again.”
What you meant to write, BlankHead, was “Na, na, na. I’m right, you’re wrong”. Why anyone debates with your childish self is a question worthy of serious reflection.
Ignorant and childish; you got both nailed BlankHead.
balconesfault // Feb 28, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I answered the question, and nobody seemed to disagree with me. What is the point of continuing this discussion?
Well, in my opinion your answer contained the really correct answer – “There was a big push at the state level (where it should be)…”.
The effort to limit medical malpractice claims (as well as the push to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, which will significantly impact state regulatory agencies ability to effectively enforce insurance collusion at the same time the insurance industries Federal anti-trust exemption prevents the DOJ from doing so) both seem to be direct attacks on the principle of Federalism.
I’m personally not as worried about that as some – but I hear consistently from the right a desire to return more to Federalist principles. Even in the healthcare debate, I’ve heard a lot of conservatives say that any expansion of government provided healthcare should come at the state level, and not the federal level.
So why should we take that seriously, when at the same time conservatives seem not only willing to but strident about measures which clearly strip states of certain rights of self-governance?