Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77715)	1/19/2010 11:50:30 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224858

The implications are sure to be far-reaching, and the result leaves Mr. Obama with a long list of tough choices. Stripped of the 60th vote needed to block Republican filibusters in the Senate, will he now make further accommodations to Republicans in an effort to move legislation through Congress with more bipartisanship, even at the cost of further alienating liberals aggravated at what they see as his ideological malleability? Or will he seek to rally his party’s base through confrontation, even if it means giving up on getting much done this year? Will he find a way to ram his health care bill through Congress quickly in the wake of the Massachusetts loss, so that his party can run on a major if controversial accomplishment? Or will he heed the warnings of Republicans, and now some Democrats, that to do so would be to ignore the message of Tuesday’s election, with its clear overtones of dissatisfaction with the administration’s approach so far? It is not just questions of policy: for Mr. Obama and the Democrats, already worried about the upcoming midterm elections, the results could hardly have been more distressing. States do not come more Democratic than Massachusetts, the only one that voted for George McGovern over Richard Nixon in 1972, a fact that older residents still recount with fresh pride. By challenging the legacy of Edward M. Kennedy, the holder of the contested seat for 46 years and a liberal icon, the Republican victory could only be dispiriting to the left. Most ominously, independent voters — who embraced Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign and are an increasingly critical constituency — seemed to have fled to Mr. Brown in Massachusetts, as they did to Republicans in gubernatorial contests in Virginia and New Jersey last November. It is hard not to view that as a repudiation of the way Mr. Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have run things. “This is a giant wake-up call,” said Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman who lost a bid for the Democratic nomination for governor in Virginia last year. “We have to keep our focus on job creation. Everything we have to do is related to job creation. We have to do a much better job on the message. People are confused on what this health care bill is going to do.”

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77715)	1/20/2010 2:01:34 AM
From: Neeka	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

And destroy their congressional futures and give up all of that money and power. What are you smoking Kenneth.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77715)	1/20/2010 2:29:40 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

January 20, 2010, 12:27 am House Democrats Back Off Plan to Pass Senate Bill By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN House Democratic leaders appear to be backing away from a plan to ask their rank-and-file to approve the Senate version of major health care legislation and send the measure directly to President Obama for his signature. House leaders gathered at the Capitol late on Tuesday to chart their strategy in the wake of the Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election. And Representative Chris Van Hollen, a member of the House Democratic leadership who participated in the talks, told Carl Hulse of The New York Times that the health care issue clearly played a role in the election outcome. “Health care was also part of the debate, and the people of Massachusetts were right to be upset about provisions in the Senate bill like the Nebraska purchase and other special deals,” Mr. Van Hollen said in the interview. The so-called Nebraska purchase, a k a the Cornhusker Kickback, is a provision that Senate leaders added to the legislation to help secure the vote of Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska. The provision calls for the federal government to pay Nebraska’s entire cost of a proposed expansion of Medicaid, even though other states will eventually share some of the cost of broadening Medicaid eligibility. Mr. Nelson himself has urged that House and Senate leaders remove the provision and figure out a way to treat all states equally as they negotiate a final version of the health care bill. He has requested that states be allowed to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. But Mr. Van Hollen’s pointed reference to the Nebraska provision suggested that House leaders were focusing on some of the most politically problematic aspects of the Senate bill, and facing a growing realization that rank-and-file House Democrats could not approve it as-is. House Democrats have already voiced numerous problems with the Senate bill, and the White House and Congressional leaders have been working hard to resolve those differences. But with the fate of the legislation now in doubt as a result of the Massachusetts election results, the efforts to reconcile the bills may be a moot point. Some Democrats have suggested that a better approach going forward would be to use a procedural tactic known as budget reconciliation to advance the health care legislation without the need for the 60-vote supermajority in the Senate to overcome Republican filibusters. But budget reconciliation is complicated and could force Democrats to substantially rethink the health care measure. Such a move would also draw the ire of Republicans, who see budget reconciliation as a hardball tactic aimed at short-circuiting the normal legislative process. Asking House Democrats to approve the Senate bill held enormous appeal, because it would require just one additional vote before the bill could be sent to the White House. But the health care issue is perilous enough without adding to the mix an array of provisions inserted by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to help win the votes of individual lawmakers.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77715)	1/20/2010 4:22:43 AM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224858

Wrong. That is what they can don not what theyh should do...

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77715)	1/20/2010 8:53:41 AM
From: JakeStraw	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224858

Boston Tea Party online.wsj.com Massachusetts voters tell Democrats to shelve ObamaCare. The resounding five-point victory in one of America's most liberal states is an upset heard 'round Washington—and one that ought to force Democrats to rethink their entire agenda, national health care in particular.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (77715)	1/20/2010 10:04:45 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224858

Ken, don't voters opinions mean anything to you? Afterall, it's Democrats saying they don't want O's healthcare bill.