OK, now I’m ignoring my own advice, but am I crazy…

[rbnyc]

…or did we not have a Democratic President, A Democratic House and a Democratic Senate during the whole Health Care fiasco?

I keep reading these comments about how it’s unfair to criticize President Obama because of the crazy tea-party-controlled House, and how we need to get Democratic control back so he will be empowered to do a better job for us. But didn’t he have a majority in both the House and Senate when he tried to pass meaningful healthcare reform? Am I not remembering that right?

He had a real chance to create profound change and make a real impact, but what happened? Sure, there are some things tucked into the overall plan that qualify as progress, but again, what happened? President Obama allowed a small group of vocal nut jobs completely define the terms of the debate. It was madness. Don’t you remember? Weren’t you angry?

Remember when he said he wouldn’t mandate health insurance, that it made no sense to do so, that you can’t solve homelessness by mandating that everyone have a home so how could you solve the health care crisis by mandating that everyone have health insurance? I did not see him fight hard for that. I didn’t see it. Did you?

He could have had a great accomplishment to run on now, but instead he has a crap accomplishment that requires heavy spin to sell to his own supporters – because he didn’t stand up. He had the public behind him; he had the majority; he had momentum; he had an amazing opportunity to do something for us that would make a huge difference in our lives, and what I saw was him backing down because of the amplified hyperbole of a minority of obstructionists. Did you see that? Am I crazy?

I’m glad we will be able to insure a few more people and that pre-existing conditions are no longer to be disqualifies for those lucky enough to have access to health insurance in the first place. But this really isn’t enough, it isn’t what we asked for and what we sent him there to do, and it could have been so much more were it not for his mistakes. It was his mistake to let them control the debate. I don’t care how much MSM they had behind them. He could have made them look stupid. Instead, he gave them credibility. The debt ceiling debates were a perfect replay of this scenario. It doesn’t matter who controls congress, it matters if a man can stand up.

Small and mid-sized businesses are buried under the weight of health insurance premiums. They must ask their employees to share a greater and greater percentage of these ever-inflating premiums. And employees also pay in reduced wages and salaries as businesses cannot afford to give raises as health insurance premiums go up each year. At the same time, co-payments increase, covered items decrease. We pay for health insurance we can’t afford to use, so even the insured still aren’t getting preventative care and aren’t addressing issues until they become very, very expensive.

We had a chance to extricate health insurance from employment – which would have been a real job-creating policy and would have increased consumer confidence. We watched that chance turn to shit for no good reason while we were actually holding most of the cards.

I will vote for President Obama. I will give money to his campaign. I might even be able to work up the mindset to volunteer for him. I like him and I want him to be successful. But I can’t ignore my perceptions and I don’t think making excuses or buying into excuses for him will help. I want mistakes to be recognized and I want him (and us) to learn and do better.

All I’m saying is we did see a failure of leadership while we had a Democratic majority in the House, and we saw the exact same failure with a Republican controlled house. Pertaining to this particular brand of failure, control of the House is not the critical variable.

I've read so many times I can't keep track in response to criticism of President Obama that we are expecting miraculous and outrageous accomplishments despite the Republican controlled house. I just have to call BS on that. A thousand times BS.

EDIT: typo

[leeroysphitz]

1. We had the whitehouse Senate and Congress. We also had a lot of spinelessness, lies and excuses.

[Warpy]

37. We also had Blue Dogs owned by the insurance industry

and a sprinkling of religious zealots (Lieberman, Baucus, I'm looking at you bastards!). Some of them are no more, defeated in 2010 to install teabaggers whose rain is acrimonious and will likely be very short. The rest, like Lieberman, should be pricing their get out of town luggage by now.

[leeroysphitz]

44. The blue dog thing falls under the excuses category. Was the dem whip on vacation that year? n/t

[Firebrand Gary]

102. Excuses? You are wrong!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. You are not crazy; you are remembering it right.

It makes me very sad.

[rbnyc]

6. My dear CaliforniaPeggy...

...Bless you. A thousand times bless you.

[annabanana]

3. Does the word filibuster ever come up?

Sadly, it would have taken tremendous political courage to roar out against it and "go nuclear". . something that most elected officials are sorely lacking.

[Hydra]

10. Reconcilliation

The Public option got nuked when we had the votes to pass it that way, and the mandate remained.

How did that happen when we had all the cards?

[Little Star]

21. Don't hold your breath waiting for a truthful answer to that one.

[bluestate10]

36. Look at my answer and Waith's answer. Those answers are real, clear headed

summaries of the issues that a democratic Congress from 2008-2010 faced. Your ilk like to lament the lose of democracy, but you seem to propose actions that would destroy democracy in an instant. Whether me or you like it, Congress has constitutional limitations on what it can do with legislation.

Kill those constitutional limits, watch what happens if republicans gain strong control of Congress. People of your ilk may want to risk that debacle, but no thoughtful citizen would agree with you.

[Hydra]

53. Destroy Democracy in an instant?

You missed that Citizens United thing, didn't you? Or how about the SCOTUS decision that gave Bush the WH?

Or how about Ronald Reagan, winning an election by asking the Iranians not to give our hostages back?

We're pretty far into post Democracy territory to be worrying about the fragile thing being broken by an FDR type bill.

[TheWraith]

23. A public option could not be passed by reconciliation, nor could almost any of HCR.

You seem to be ignoring the 10 year sunset on reconciliation items, as well as the budget-items-only restriction.

[bluestate10]

34. Yes. Willful ignorance works for some. But it accomplishes jack. You are exactly right. nt

[Hydra]

43. 10 year rule applies only to deficit items

Like the Bush/Obama tax cuts.

The public option could have been put in as a revenue generator and a subsidy offset. Also fits for a budgetary item.

When the possibility came up, President Obama mentioned that he had never supported the Public option. Convenient, no?

[no limit]

78. Are you familiar with COBRA and SCHIP?

Both were passed using reconciliation. You are simply spewing more excuses.

[bluestate10]

33. There was never enough votes to pass a public option.

Democrats like Conrad and Nelson in the Senate would not go for a public option. With the 60 vote rule, the best the democrats could muster would have been 59 votes. 59 votes would not have broken a filibuster. You write reconciliation, may be you should spend time understanding the limited conditions under which that route can be used. I am back to the issue that I have with the far Left, two parts passion, five parts ignorant innocence.

[Hydra]

47. 5 parts truth

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation

There were 51 votes and it passed in the House. The will was there, but the WH had already negotiated it away.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32087532/ns/politics-white_house/t/after-lawsuit-obama-opens-bit-info-meetings-health-care-executives/

Sorry to say that revisionism is hard in age of the internet

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/obama-i-didnt-campaign-on-a-public-option-progressives-excuse-me.php

[rbnyc]

50. Thanks for links. nt

[BzaDem]

51. Just because something passes the House does NOT mean it can pass the Senate with 51 votes. Look up

the Byrd rule.

Every single line in the public option subtitle would be subject to a challenge, that if upheld by the parliamentarian would take 60 votes to overcome. Every single line.

You also say that it "passed in the House." What you are missing is that while it did pass in the House the first time, many original public option supporters changed their mind and voted NO on the House vote on March 21st. The only reason anything passed was that various blue dogs switched their previous votes from no to yes, and justified it by saying that the new bill did NOT have a public option. The votes were never there to pass a public option by March, and even if it somehow did pass it would never have gotten the 60 votes in the Senate to survive the Byrd rule.

All of this historical rewriting ("Obama could have gotten a PO! etc") requries completely misunderstanding the legislative process.

[emsimon33]

88. We the people never "had all the cards"

The deck was stacked and Obama was there stacking it with the greedy filthy rich like the Kochs (should be pronounced "cock" because they are just "dicks"), the military-industrial complex, and corporations.

[Hydra]

97. Quite true

"We the people" didn't have the cards, but the Democratic Party did. The fact that they slipped the other side our aces needs to be recognized and dealt with.

[emsimon33]

101. Well said!

[Booster]

12. Money from the powers that be is what happened.

[0rganism]

19. in 2013, when the GOP controls all 3 again, they'll find the courage

When the GOP retakes the senate next November, you can bet the rules for cloture votes and filibusters will change dramatically. Bet on it.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity." - Yeats/The Second Coming

[BzaDem]

52. Just like it did under Bush, where they failed to cut SS because they didn't have 60 votes? n/t

[Obamanaut]

82. Does the knowledge that the senate can change the rules at beginning of the session,

and the filibuster rule could have been thrown out have any bearing?

But they leave the filibuster in so they can play the game of "They threatened to filibuster", then don't do squat and blame the other guys.

[zalinda]

93. The dems had a chance to change the filibuster rules, and didn't do it. n/t

[LaurenG]

4. We are seeing a huge failure. I am so disappointed in him.

Criticism of him is the least anyone should expect.

[leeroysphitz]

17. +1

[sabrina 1]

5. You're not crazy, we did have a Dem Majority in both

houses and the WH. Before that we had a majority in Congress but the story then was, 'we need both Houses and the WH'. So we did that. Then the story changed again to 'it's not enough' Which said basically that Republicans completely OUT OF POWER had MORE POWER than Democrats IN POWER.

Then we lost the House, and that was the excuse. Now, we are back to square one.

We need both Houses of Congress and the WH! Again!!

So, no, it is not you. The goal posts move around so fast it's hard to keep up.

[Tesha]

45. I think the new story is that we need 101 Democratic Senators and 436 Dem Congressional Reps.

*THEN* you'll see something get done, by Jimminy!

Tesha

[butterfly77]

68. Again?

we never had the house or senate because many of them are/were republiCONS some are now quitting because they have been outted..

[LWolf]

7. You, and your memory, are just fine. nt

[treestar]

8. Very unsophisticated analysis

It's not a black and white thing. Democrats vary in their opinions (even Republicans do, to a lesser extent).

Each person in Congress thinks of themselves as powerful, not a lock step to the party leadership.

This is lazy thinking. Since it would take a while to read a lot of wonky proposals, it's so much easier to skip that and just pass judgment negatively for not getting what you want. If you want more, you have to work for it and within the Democratic party, too. And smartly, not in the childish way so often asserted for on the internets.

[rbnyc]

13. I respect and appreciate your remark.

I also agree that it’s not black and white. I don’t think that a win would be coming out with the exact health care reform I envisioned. But what we got was so far from what most people wanted, and it seems to me, the reason wasn’t because differences in approach among the many contributing policy-makers who all have some degree of power in such a negotiation. It seems the reason what we got was so far from what most people wanted was because of the political mistake of treating obstructionists as if they are trying to make a contribution. It’s not just President Obama, though he seems to be a master of it. For a long time now, Democrats have allowed the radical right to control all the language and messaging around issues.

EDIT: I can't get through one post without a typo.

[libmom74]

92. Don't forget the back room deals

Obama made with big Pharma and the for profit Hospital lobby groups. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

[rbnyc]

98. No doubt...

...and that really goes to my gteater point.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. It is about power, which party has it...

and who in the party uses it.

They want us to help maintain them in power, for which they will throw us a bone...maybe

Republicans are the same, only the bones are different.

[Zax2me]

11. So, who is at fault?

If we were in charge?

[rbnyc]

16. Short answer: us.

Although, I do have to quote another recent rant of mine.

There’s a reason why Republicans can get things done and Democrats can’t. It’s not because Republicans are better at spin; it’s not because Republicans are unyielding; it’s not because Republicans are better at playing the game; it’s not because Democrats try to find common ground; it’s not because Democrats try to prove things with complicated facts and long, boring logical arguments and it’s not because Democrats care about the means as much as the ends. It’s because the real people in power allow the Republicans to win because Republicans allow themselves to be inseminated with the corporate agenda in exchange for being on the winning team.

So I know I'm saying two different things. On one hand, I'm saying we put ourselves in a weak position even when we have a majority in power by giving undue credibility to the disingenuous - aka "negotiating with terrorists." On the other hand, I've been saying that even if we were to hold our ground, nothing will ever happen in this country that the Food Industry, Arms Industry, Fossil Fuel Industry and Pharmaceutical Industry don't want to see happen.

[Hydra]

14. You've pointed the main weakness fo the current talking point

Since day 1 at the Whitehouse, "We don't have the votes" has been the meme. "The Republicans have good ideas." "The American People want bipartisanship."

a) Crap

b) "The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." George Carlin

c) Not what President Obama campaigned on

All I can think when I hear the talking points passed out by the WH is, "How stupid do you think we are?!"

[WCGreen]

15. In a perfect world, yes...

But he expended a whole lot of political capital and time in pulling the country out of the depths of the economic mess...

The GOP isn't stupid. They harped long and loud about how we were broke and how we couldn't afford such nonsense.

The GOP media shouted this loud and loud before president Obama's hand went up to take the oath of office.

Am I disappointed, you betcha, but I do understand that the plate president Obama was handed was full of cornpone and little else...

What I am afraid will happen now is the GOP gains more political momentum and even the little changes he somehow put to put through will be gone with the wind.

[rbnyc]

20. I hear you. nt

[Little Star]

18. What we did not have was leadership. n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

26. +1

[Enthusiast]

83. By the President. nt

[bhikkhu]

24. He needed 60 votes to get a public option through the senate

...and he didn't have 60 votes. This was all over the news and analysis at the time, and has been endlessly rehashed here.

Usually the story is that Lieberman was the main roadblock, but in the course of getting the bill through Obama met with many of those in congress personally, and I've heard that several may have been leery of the public option anyway, based simply on the election-year politics. He did the best he could with what he had to work with, and it was certainly a better job to have passed what he could then than to have waited for the next congress!

[rbnyc]

28. OK

That's a good point.

I feel like he could have gotten those 60, but I guess really there's no point in arguing about any of this.

[bluestate10]

41. Obama could not have gotten 60 votes.

Lieberman is as good as a republican on progressive legislation. Nelson is not any better. Conrad is questionable at best. President Obama did not have and could not get 60 votes regardless of how hard he worked at it.

[readmoreoften]

64. I do remember Obama voting for Lieberman over the Democrat who beat him in the primary.

Sounds like he shouldntve done that.

[AtomicKitten]

75. Pres. Obama supported Lamont in the GE.

It is traditional for the party to support the incumbent which is why all Democrats (if there is an exception, I can't think of one) supported Lieberman in the primary. After Lamont won the primary, the Democrats - including Obama - closed ranks behind him.

Barack Obama Supports Lamont:
http://crooksandliars.com/2006/10/26/barack-obama-supports-ned-lamont

Obama Supports Lamont:
http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/obama-supports-ned-lamont.html

Lamont Gets Help From Obama:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601187.html

The lie that Obama supported Lieberman in the GE keeps getting repeated over and over here as if it were a fact, and it is not.

[Bluebear]

69. Pfff

[Lorien]

72. Yet Bush only ever needed 51

They changed the rules to give themselves an excuse.

[no limit]

79. This is such a blatant lie I can't believe it's still repeated here. Do you truly not know this?

You honestly are not aware that they used reconciliation and had more than enough votes using that process to get a public option through? The way people here try to change history is unbelievable to me.

Reconciliation was used to pass COBRA and to pass SCHIP. Yet the entire healthcare debate Democrats kept insisting that if they used reconciliation it would blow up the government. So they kept caving on issue after issue in an effor to appease the blue dogs. Then what happened? They weren't paying attention and Scott Brown got elected and all of the sudden reconciliation was perfectly okay. Except instead of making the bill stronger since they now only needed 50 votes in the senate (with Biden being tie breaker) they kept the water downed bill and refused to have the house add a public option.

It really makes my blood boil when people keep repeating this 60 vote lie.

[Enthusiast]

84. Thank you.

We should have known then that Obama was a Republican masquerading as a Democrat.

[NorthCarolina]

86. +1

[Hosnon]

25. For practical purposes, the Dems did not control the Senate.

That requires 60.

[rbnyc]

30. Yeah...

You're right.

[Enthusiast]

85. But the bill was passed through reconciliation

with a simple majority. Or did you forget.

[Hosnon]

106. No, I didn't, because it wasn't.

The original bill was not passed via reconciliation. The subsequent amendment was.

[Tx4obama]

27. Franken was not sworn in until July 2009, Kennedy died in August 2009, and

Scott Brown (R-MA) took over Kennedy's seat February 2010.

With all the GOP obstruction it has taken 60 votes to invoke cloture on all the bills and all the nominations that the dems have tried to get passed in the Senate.

Put the blame on the GOP where it belongs.

[rbnyc]

35. It's true...

...I guess I'm still just so mad.

I was really trying to make 2 points. One was that we weaken our position when we allow the radical right to define the terms of the debate. The whole "Death Panel" thing really changed the climate in which we were trying to get this done, and I feel that better leadership could have made that kind of crap less damaging.

But my other point was that we were "holding all the cards" and it's true, we weren't. I wish we didn't need all of them to get things done. They don't seem to need them. But we do.

[bluestate10]

40. I agree that democrats could have message better.

The messengers during the 2009 debates were silent. I blame that on the rather weak crop of supposed democratic consultants that get paid to develop messaging. Two things should happen, the crop of consultants now in place need to be replaced with smart fire-breathers, and democratic voters must combine with independents to deliver solid democratic majorities in the Senate and House. Until those two changes happen, expect continued choppiness.

[rbnyc]

42. +1 (nt)

[bluestate10]

38. The issue that infuriates me is that the people calling themselves

progressives NEVER seem to arrive at that rather obvious conclusion. That leaves me to wonder whether the group is composed of either fools or republican sock puppets.

[rbnyc]

48. I'm not stupid and I'm not a sock puppet.

It's an obvious PART of the equation, and I ignored it, that's true.

One party hasn't had 60 in the Senate since 1978. Yet, the other side has a lot more success pushing a radical agenda. A lot of it is about leadership style and controlling the debate.

[joshcryer]

76. Fools. Talking points are a lot easier on the mind than actual thought.

[bluestate10]

29. With the 60 vote rule in the Senate and Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad.

Democrats did not control Congress. Be aware the the House under Nancy Pelosi passed some pretty impressive legislation, but that legislation died in the Senate because of the 60 vote rule to get a vote on a bill. Instead of crying, why don't Obama and democratic critics resolve to take back the House by a large margin and increase the Senate democratic numbers past 60, may be to 63 or 64. Along the way democrats like Nelson need be primaried and defeated by a democrat that can win a general election in Nebraska. I know what you are thinking, please don't go there. If Reid pushes back the 60 vote rule to a simple majority, what happens if complaining progressives sitting on their hands deliver the Senate to republicans, but democrats have more than 40 senators? Looking at the glass as half empty is always tempting if one does not consider the consequences of that limiting thought.

[rbnyc]

32. It's true. nt

[Lorien]

73. Again, Obama changed the rules. Bush only ever needed 51 votes to pass ANYTHING

Obama "hobbled" himself on purpose.

[Major Hogwash]

104. Obama couldn't change the rulez in the Senate, he wasn't in the Senate at the time.

He was a little more pre-occupied as President of the United States.

:rofl:

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[WinkyDink]

39. "He had a real chance to create profound change "The reason he was elected, and the reason he might

NOT be.

[myrna minx]

46. You aren't in the least bit crazy, my friend. My biggest issue

is why does the President of the United States of America, who is a member of the Democratic Party, work entirely within the radical right wing tea party framing, the predatory Milton Friedman economic framing and not of the framing of the Democratic Party platform? No one - not the media, Congress or the tea baggers can make him accept their framing but him. Why does he not openly support tried and true Keynesian policies? This is why I no longer trust him economically because he legitimatizes the tea bagger madness by working withing their own framework. As long as he works within the right wing framing, we will won't ever succeed and no one - not blue dogs, not tea baggers, not progressives, not republicans, not the media makes him accept the tea bagger framing but him. I didn't vote for Reaganomics on steroids.

[rbnyc]

49. Framing!

Thank you. This is what I'm talking about.

[myrna minx]

54. President Obama has always had an uphill battle with Congress, especially when the

Republicans have determined to make it their sole goal destroy him, so why he decides to work within their limited financial frame and not the populist Keynesian frame is why liberals are tearing their hair out. He has the people on his side, ready to cheer him on, but he still chooses to fall victim to the Republican framing and it's maddening.

[Hydra]

55. That presupposes that he doesn't agree with them

Especially in the SSI debacle, I wasn't the only one to note that the President seemed to be BEGGING the Republicans to take his offering of Social Security.

I think he made a BIG mistake, however. Being a Republican Rep is not about having a set of values- it's about being a heartless thug. If he's trying to blend with them by adopting their current goals, he's missed the point.

[myrna minx]

57. I honestly don't have a clue what he's thinking or what his motivations are at this point.

All know is that since he chooses to work within the right wing frame, he isn't a victim. This is his choice.

If he chose wisely and differently, he would have the majority of the American People on his side cheering him on, but right now he seems to be embracing Reagonomics and therefore we have more of the desperate same. *sigh*.

[MissMillie]

56. framing the debate is everything

I just made a post that frames it the way it should be framed....


You can't fix the economy by fixing the debt, but you can fix the debt by fixing the economy

[myrna minx]

58. All of the snide rejoinders and mockeries about ponies, magic wands, purity and ultra radical

leftism doesn't explain away why President Obama works within the radical right's framework. Filibusters, blue dogs, no super duper majority and all the other reasons why the Dems give away the store can't explain away this immediate, out of the gate position of weakness.

[MissMillie]

59. he's working in their framework

because he can't change the argument. The right's argument is bad, but for some reason people like it.

[myrna minx]

60. People want to end the wars and tax the rich.

That's what the people want.

On edit - I thought he was all about change? So he can't change the argument?

[Hydra]

61. The people don't like it though

TARP, Romneycare, Bush/Obama Tax cuts, Austerity...

The President is working his tail off to sell unpopular legislation created by Fat Cats that nobody likes through a RW media that is straining to make it all sound reasonable.

Dem programs would have SAILED through Congress and gotten us good political capital in the first 2 years. The 2010 debacle wouldn't have happened.

Instead, we went from the utter crazy of the Bush Era to reassurances that Bush Era policies are in fact NOT crazy, quite reasonable, and the only possible choice.

How the HELL did THAT happen?

[Enthusiast]

87. It is perfectly obvious........nt

[applegrove]

62. Kennedy was gone and Al Franken was held up in taking his seat.

And Lieberman is a fink. What about them?

[MilesColtrane]

63. It's all about Congressional numbers.

When Democrats have overwhelming majorities in Congress and the White House, good legislation gets passed.

FDR had large majorities that helped get the New Deal and Social Security started.

LBJ had Democrats in a 2:1 ratio to Republicans in the House and 32 more seats in the Senate in 1964. The result? The Civil Rights Act and Medicare and Medicaid.

The problem is that this rarely happens. There's a big difference between the Congressional majority cited above and what we had in 2008.

[readmoreoften]

65. The Democratic Party is so empty and full of stalking horse Blue Dogs that it will simply

never get a super majority. LBJ had that because he and the Dems had an actual platform; they stood for something. These buffoons today think that all they need to run on is being less perverse and insane than the Republican candidates while still bilking Americans out of everything they've fought for the past century. You win elections by having a positive program, not beating the enemy at its own game.

[johnaries]

66. We did not have control of the Senate.

Because the Republicans decided to abuse the filibuster, we needed 60 votes to do anything. We only had 56 Democratic seats, with 2 Independents who caucused with the Democrats through most of the session, and only briefly 58 Dems. However, one of those Independents was Joe Lieberman who acted like a Republican. He is the reason it didn't contain a Public Option.

[The Wizard]

74. It was Holy Joe

who threatened (no one really filibusters any more)a filibuster on the amendment to allow a Medicare buy in at age 55.
Lieberman is a useless scumbag who should spend the rest of his life on the Isle of Elba.

[BR_Parkway]

67. The biggest change we need is in the Senate - the House delivered a lot

during that time and the Senate shot it down, watered it down or just let it fade into oblivion. We had Lieberman, Specter and a solid handful of clearly not-progressive Senators - and depended on the votes of Snowe, Scott Brown and Collins.

We had "control" of the Senate in name only. And without some serious change there, very little is going to be done.

[Scuba]

70. K & R

[bvar22]

71. The Democrats had MUCH MORE than just majorities in the House & Senate.

More importantly,
Obama had an Overwhelming Popular MANDATE for "CHANGE",
and an ARMY Standing in the Streets to help him.

He used neither.

A Mandate unused
is a mandate wasted.

An ARMY unused,
is an ARMY wasted.

Had Obama called at any time during Tea Bagger Summer,
his ARMY would have responded.
MILLIONS (including myself) would have joined him in Washington or Connecticut (Lieberman's Home State),
or Wherever he indicated to Join Him and to STAND with him!

We have witnessed a Failure of Leadership on a GRAND SCALE.


The Epitaph for the Obama Administration:
"Oh What Could Have Been".


Opportunity WASTED.



Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[blkmusclmachine]

77. No, we had (and still do) "New Democrats." They are "Democrat" IN NAME ONLY:

They are also known as "New Way" and DLC "Democrats." Ever bit as vile as the GOP. Just with a prettier face, and better speeches telling us why their hands were tied and some $h!t piece of GOP Legislation is the best they could do.

[McCamy Taylor]

80. We did not have a super majority in the Senate. FDR and LBJ both had supermajorities.

Here's something I put together about the topic in 2010.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/507

[Major Hogwash]

103. Don't use facts, McCamy. This isn't about politics, policies, or facts.

It's about the black man in the White House, dammit!!

It's just a shame that DU will go down in flames like this.
If the Tea Party had a forum, it wouldn't look a whole lot different than DU does now.

[Enthusiast]

81. A million times BS.

And I'll cast a vote against Obama. For...someone.

[swilton]

89. If you have pre-existing conditions, yes you may be able

to get health insurance, but there is no control on what that will cost...The health insurance mandate also has no control on costs - it's a win-win deal for the health insurance industries.

[swilton]

90. You are not crazy -

I have recognized this long ago - OFA has nothing to campaign on - their main strategy is built upon not what they have done nor what they will do but to bash the GOP...Now Obama is bashing Congress - not the 'tea-party' but Congress as a whole...

[gateley]

91. Unlike the Republicans, Dems don't vote straight party, so we had

trouble with that. We needed the numbers, and in order to get them, as usual, we had to "adjust" what we were asking for. :(

It would be so much better if every Democratic believed as we do! :7

The Republicans aren't listening to a large number of their constituents, and I'm watching in fascination as I see what's happening to their Party. Fascination and anticipation.

[Jakes Progress]

94. Shhhh. Truth isn't always welcome.

But don't worry. There are lots and lots of excuses. Not much progress. But lots and lots of excuses.

[Squeech]

95. Betrayal by Lieberman in particular

When Lieberman ran against the legitimately elected Democratic primary winner, there were several prominent Democrats that supported him in this, including then-senator Obama. This is something politicians do all the time, standing up for each other and trading favors, and it's a favor that shouldn't be easily forgotten, especially when there was risk involved. (Imagine if Lamont had won, and then supported the junior senator from New York in the 2008 primary...)

Lieberman of course welshed on his side of the bargain by prominently supporting McCain, but after the votes were counted the Democratic caucus let him keep his old perks, declaring "He's with us on everything but the war." This was of course a crock. I don't know how Obama could have played it, but if he and Reid had realized that they needed to keep Lieberman on a leash, they might have been able to engineer some way to make his committee chairmanships provisional on his support of Presidential priorities-- and then we'd have had Medicare for 60 year olds. (Unless you believe that Obama didn't actually want any of that, which I admit looks more plausible to me every day.)

[skyounkin]

96. If you are going to vote, donate money

and possibly your time after all that has happened since his inaguration then you get what you deserve.

I will not do any of those things.

[rbnyc]

99. There has to be some way...

...to hold our elected officials accountable without handing to their seats to Republicans.

[rucky]

100. It proves there are just enough bought-off Dems to do the plutocrats bidding

no matter who's in power.

The sooner we get away from the Dem-Republican charade and focus on the class war, the better.

[rbnyc]

105. +1

I agree.