Friends in odd places: A wide spectrum of groups file support for Christian Legal Society case 
Click to Print
Include Comments
UPDATE: Motion carries 60-39
Democrats have 60 votes
WORLD Washington Bureau chief Edward Lee Pitts writes that there’s not much drama left in tonight’s Senate vote on healthcare reform, especially after two fence-sitting Democrats, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced their intentions earlier today that they’d vote alongside their fellow party members:
Both Landrieu and Lincoln qualified their decisions:
“Much more work needs to be done,” said Landrieu.
“Although I don’t agree with everything in this bill, I have concluded that I believe it is more important that we begin this debate to improve our nation’s healthcare system for all Americans rather than just simply drop the issue and walk away,” added Lincoln.
Both Landrieu and Lincoln bashed the government-run public insurance option found in the bill. Another holdout, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who signaled his support for moving forward on Friday, remains concerned with the bill’s abortion provisions. Democrats will have to continue to entice these moderate fence-sitters before a final vote on the bill.
From the other side of the aisle:
“Senators who support this bill have a lot of explaining to do,” warned Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who called the bill a budget-busting monstrosity. “Americans know that a vote to proceed, to get on this bill, is a vote for higher premiums, higher taxes, and massive cuts to Medicare.”
Read Lee’s report in its entirety here. The vote to move on to debate is scheduled for 8 p.m. ET.
UPDATE: The motion to move to formal debate in the Senate passes 60-39. Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio was the only senator not to cast a vote.
back to top119 Comments to “UPDATE: Motion carries 60-39
Democrats have 60 votes”
Yes, they do seem to have scrounged up those last three votes. I’ve been listening most of the day. One of the most effective GOP arguments was made by Sen. Gregg, pointing out what a bait & switch scheme it is. I will still wait for the 8pm vote. That’s my reality TV
Report comment to moderator
Watching the “closing arguments” for the Senate’s health care bill, eating Bugles and salmon-cream cheese. Went for a cranberry juice refill and discovered I’d put it in the cupboard instead of the ice box. Let’s hope I can keep it all down
Report comment to moderator
Sen. Byrd was just wheeled out. He’s a determined old goat.
Report comment to moderator
C-Span is actually captioning it as “$848B Health Care Bill”
Report comment to moderator
60-39 – down partisan lines.
Report comment to moderator
Sen. Voinovich (R-OH) did not vote.
Report comment to moderator
From Susan B. Anthony List Pres. Marjorie Dannenfelser:
“It’s gravely disappointing the pro-life Democrats in the Senate failed to show the same courage and conviction shown by their counterparts in the House of Representatives.
“Senators should consider themselves on notice: America is still waiting for you to strike government funded abortion from this legislation. Votes have consequences, and if this health care bill makes it to conference committee without an authentic abortion exclusion, Senators Casey, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson and Reid will be held especially accountable.
“Their first opportunity to defend Life was on the motion to proceed. Their last chance will be on the final cloture vote to end debate. A vote to close debate without the addition of strong pro-life language will be a vote for government-funded abortion. That would be the ultimate betrayal of pro-life constituents and even self-described pro-choice Americans who oppose government-funded abortion.
Report comment to moderator
7 cont’d: Unlike the House version of health care reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act explicitly authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the public option. The bill also allows the use of government subsidies to purchase insurance policies that include elective abortion coverage. This is a departure from current federal policy, which bans the use of taxpayer funds for abortion and health plans that cover abortion
Report comment to moderator
First my apologies for my absence: work has been hectic.
Second, with this vote, effectively the health care reform effort is completed. We will have to wait the 3 weeks of promised formal debate, and it is possible a poison pill might be passed, but those opposing health care are effectively running on borrowed time.
And when considered in light of the conservative debacle in the NY 23rd (no Virginia, there will be no Santa Claus on this one) I suggest that the impotence and irrelevance of the present conservative movement is now etched clearly for all to see.
I have argued in this blog for some time that for conservatives to be relevant they will need to establish a clear policy position of what they are for, and to make such a position relevant to the majority of voters. As we see in both these cases, it would appear that the conservative movement appears to be more focused on ideological purity rather than making relevant policy proposals and taking the leadership to show they can govern.
So please please continue with the conservative focus on ideological purity at the expense of viable policy proposals. I am tiring of ever hoping for a viable opposition movement and am looking forward to a relatively quiet and low key 2010 and 2012 election.
P.S. please do run Palin for 2012. My sense is that if she does not have the patience to stay to complete her book signings or to complete her governors term, she will not have the patience to run an effective campaign.
P.P.S. now of course if we have another severe recession in 2010 things may change: do conservatives want to bet their future on such a scenario???
Report comment to moderator
P.P.S. if carefully managed from here on it, it would appear that Reid needs only 51 votes.
Conservatives may get lucky, but again, is hoping for luck a strategy???
P.P.PS. I posted early on that to get a cloture vote, the Senate would apparently have to remove the public option and ti would have to be added back in conference committee. It would appear that I was incorrect on this point. As such, it appears that a public option is now effectively a fait accompli.
Report comment to moderator
P.P.P.S, and conservatives really expected that they would be able to leverage the health reform bill to extend well beyond the Hyde amendment???
Report comment to moderator
And Nana is the only conservative commenting?
The conservative wing does appear to be tiring! 
Report comment to moderator
Musing – No, this was a motion to begin debate. The final cloture vote to end debate still has to be passed, and that will be harder. If Landrieu and Lincoln stick to their guns on the public option, it will be impossible unless the option is removed.
If the plan does not adopt language stopping the government from paying for abortions with federal money (which it would do through the public option, in the current bill), Nelson may not vote for cloture either. One hopes Bob Casey also will stand up for life.
Report comment to moderator
Watch the video here. Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana exposes the fraud that is the HarryCare bill.
Report comment to moderator
I just came across David Broder’s latest column. He tends to be a moderate, even liberal-leaning commentator. And here he says:
While the CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one Reid has drafted meet Obama’s test by being budget-neutral, every expert I have talked to says that the public has it right. These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters.
Here, for example, is what Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of budget watchdogs, told me: “The Senate bill is better than the House version, but there’s not much reform in this bill. As of now, it’s basically a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases.”
Here’s another expert, Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: “While this bill does a better job than the House version at reducing the deficit and controlling costs, it still doesn’t do enough. Given the political system’s aversion to tax increases and spending cuts, I worry about what the final bill will look like.”
These are nonpartisan sources, but Republican budget experts such as former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin amplify the point with specific examples and biting language. Holtz-Eakin cites a long list of Democratic-sponsored “budget gimmicks” that made it possible for the CBO to estimate that Reid’s bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion by 2019.
This bill is a disaster.
Report comment to moderator
Remembering the ultimate context of this existence is about all that keeps me from despair sometimes.
The One who is telling this story is in control of what He has brought into existence, and things are headed in the direction He has always intended. The things that take us by surprise and disconcert us do not surprise Him, nor is He ever reduced to reacting to unforeseen disasters, hoping that a vaguely defined ‘Plan B’ succeeds.
My focus needs to return continually to who I am (one small, broken creature), serving a small role given me by the One who is the sovereign Author of all truth, goodness and beauty, and Whose I am. He is actively, invisibly and irresistibly working to bring the story to its proper conclusion. He wants me settled in understanding and at peace, and acting in wisdom and love as He gives me opportunity.
Peace and joy to all who wait and long for God’s concluding movements to this astounding symphony.
Report comment to moderator
Nana, thank you for your reports. As yo know, I don’t have cable. I hope your “snack” stayed with you.
No one is opposing reform. We oppose being squashed to death in taxes and government.
The thing to remember about the Hyde Amendment is that it just that — an amendment.
Also remember the word “repeal.”
Report comment to moderator
NJL – Good Sunday Morning. I ended up not snacking very much watching the end of that sausage being made.
Yes, if the liberals get their way we’ll be saddled with more coercive taxes and all have in an intere$t in our neighbors’ lifestyles.
I’m a bit rusty on the Hyde Amendment, but I think it has to be reapproved every year in relation to appropriation bills for Medicaid. And it has been added every year since 1976. That used to mean something until now. With even more public sentiment against abortion, the pro-abortion gang wants to obfuscate their deadly intentions with slippery language and sob-sisters demanding the gov’t pay for their choice. Sickening.
I hear my church bell
Report comment to moderator
I’m in the middle of getting ready, too.
My point is that anything can be amended. Not all amendments are voted on year after year.
Our representatives do not seem to understand that for every Tea Partier who goes out there and protests, there are a hundred more sitting at home thinking the same thing. Our representatives have absolutely NO concept of living within our means. Here in NY and NJ they want to nickel and dime people with new fees and tolls to make up for the loss in sales taxes. People with brains would cut back, but our representatives have their salaries and they can raise their salary, so there’s no impact on them. You can’t get blood from a stone. And if they nag people about food — that’s gonna backfire, too.
See you later on this afternoon. Have a happy service.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y post 13,
so it would appear that you disagree with the Republican argument that this was the critical vote?
Do remember that if necessary, this bill can be passed using reconciliation procedures and cloture will not be necesdsary.
As an anology, the troops have landed at Normandy and are now moving inland. If you wanted to cleanly stop this, you needed to stop it at the beach, and observationally the conservatives were unable to do so.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 17,
you mean that the Republicans did not state ibefore the Augiust recess that they would oppose health care reform simply to make Obama’s waterloo?
And if the conservatives are in favor of reform, where are their realistic proposals? To provide tort reform and save perhaps 1% – 3%? Sure, NJLawyer, sure.
Sure, NJLawyer, sure.
Report comment to moderator
Musing (20): False analogy – the soldiers who landed at Normandy did so to defend our freedom, and this Democrat proposal is part of an expansion of government that will help kill our freedom.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus post 22,
not a false analogy at all: the progressive effort to provide equal access to health insurance is indeed an issue of freedom AND, as anyone who considers this closely will admit, failure to stop the Senate at the beginning makes it increasingly unlikely that passage can be derailed.
Report comment to moderator
NOe Matt Y does raise a real issue: there are more voites coming and under some conditios, these votes could require 60 votes in the Senate.
But does anyone seriously suggest that some form of health reform will pass?
And with the inclusions of the public option during this vote and the diluting of the abortion language during this vote, I suggest that the final outcome is becoming clearer and clearer.
Which brings Nana’s comments in post 8 into some perspective: if the copnservatives would guarentee say 10 voites for passage with a public option then observing the bill’s behavior in the house, it is likely that strong anti-abortion language might be included.
Are the conservatvies willing to guarentee perhaps 10 votes in return for strong abortion lan guage?
I thought not.
And with this intransigance, passage of the bill is nearly assured AND the liklihood of strong anati-abortion language is increasingly unlikely.
Report comment to moderator
Post 24:
But does anyone seriously suggest that some form of health reform bill will not pass?
Report comment to moderator
So perhaps we can extend the discussion further.
I am reminded of Victoria’s admonitions to conservatives not to dilute thier votes on third party candidates. Indeed victoria’s comments on this point are very saliant: the conservative right has demonstrated unequivocally that they can cause the Republicans to lose.
They have also shown repeatedly that they are unable to cause the conservative cause to prevail: c.f. NY 23rd as an example.
In short, the conservative drive toward ideological purity threatens the viability of the Republican party without providing any viable alternative. Indeed a read of thge right wing blogs shows that this is apparently understood by the conservative right, often with the suggestion that extra-constitutional means may be necessary.
Report comment to moderator
It was so nice on here when Musing was gone……..what a shame you had to come back and gloat over a victory that is going to cost American tax payers trillions of dollars and still not take care of the challenge with people who cannot afford health insurance.
Report comment to moderator
This 2100 page disaster in the making means that EVERY American who pays taxes will have higher taxes – now there is something to look forward to.
This means that abortions will be paid for by tax payer money in the form of a subsidy – now there is something to get excited about.
It means that small businesses will be having to make the decision about whether to do more with less meaning more unemployed – gosh more exciting stuff.
This means that the 200,000 resellers of private health insurance will go out of business once Obama/Pelosi/Reid Care goes into effect and the public option becomes the single payer option – gosh I should be more excited about this bill than I already am.
This means that we will have to put up with more gloating from liberals who say they love this country but are doing everything they possibly can to make a free country look more and more like a socialist country – and no socialism isn’t freedom and it isn’t free and the more you attack the producers and sap the strength away from them and add government jobs which need more and more tax payer money to support their addictive habits, the more and more this country will go down the tubes.
So gloat away Musing…you are the cause of the problems we have in America, not the solution.
Report comment to moderator
Itsabouttruth post 27,
ah yes, you never do seem to actually read my material.
I have said many times that America needs a strong and effectvie opposition.
Conservatives have demonstrated their inability to effectively meet that need.
And it is a loss to America that they are so focused on ideological purity that they are not effective in governing.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 28,
actually when you say:
“So gloat away Musing…you are the cause of the problems we have in America, not the solution. ”
I suggest rather it is the ideological blindness to the objectvie data, a point which you in particular have demonstrated so well during the health care debate, which is the real danger to America.
Report comment to moderator
Yep I am the danger to America Musing. I love my country, have served my country, employ people in my country and pay taxes in my country. That makes me a danger to the socialist dreams of America. No Musing, it is socialism that is a danger to America and I do read your endless words defending a socialist who wishes nothing less than the total destruction of everything great about America. Now go back to your hard work with Organizing for America and defending socialism.
Report comment to moderator
The Democrat Party owns America and it owns you and me lock stock and barrell for one reason: THEY ARE LOYAL to their party, come what may. Republicans are languishing and will continue to languish because they are loyal to PRINCIPLES and not so much to Party. Republicans do not realize that this is politics. Democrats do.
Disloyalty to Party and loyalty to principle feels rather good on the inside, expect after the results come in.
I am not necessarily advocating that we be more loyal to party than principle, but just explaining why the Democrats win and Republicans do not. It’s politics and the Democrats know it.
Report comment to moderator
A “third party” candidate who attracted many votes from principled conservatives (who were too angry at Sen. Norm Coleeman for not being conservative enough) is why we got Al Franken (#60 for the Dems in control) and why this bill may pass.
All you conservative Republican-bashers and Libertarians can feel good about yourselves superficially because you ignore the fact that you caused this. You are causing our gov’t to get much MUCH bigger and spendier and far less free.
Report comment to moderator
Mary Landrieu, a true Democrat, knows this is politics. Give me and my state a TON of money and I will give you my vote (even if I tell my constituents I don’t agree with the bill).
Report comment to moderator
If this passes, we will pay higher taxes for 3 solid years for absolutely NOTHING, all before one iota of alleged benefits are even CONSIDERED for anyone. And even at that, we will not be able to honestly pay for it.
This was a vote for fiscal irresponsibility and national backruptsy. First, millions of American votes were bought and paid for, then the votes of key representatives and senators were bought and paid for. Welcome to Democrat owned America.
Report comment to moderator
Those who support the bill, have you checked out some of those poll numbers lately?
Not sayin’ that polls (or the majority) are always right. But it occurs to me that perhaps those who live by the polls shall perhaps also die by the polls — just a few months later? Don’t look now, but if there was ever a consensus or “mandate” (oh, I love that word), well, it’s gone.
If more citizens aren’t brought on board — and fast — this bill will pass to the peril and ultimate regret of its supporters.
Talk about winning the battle but losing the war. Stay tuned. Election time 2010, just around the corner now.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y, good Broder link, thanks.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 31,
indeed I suggest you are a danger: you happear to have a high certainty that you are correct, but a demonstrably weak ability to support your assertions with data (e.g. the number of new agencies in HR3200).
And such certitude backed by an apparent lack of understanding is a fertile ground for demagogery.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 33,
an isightful post. The choices really appear to be:
1) support the Republican party
or
2) effectively surplant the present Republican leadershp (which is a very long effort indeed)
To pursue a third party effort is to effectively abandon the field. There is a lovely mathematical analysis of this in the book “Gaming the Vote”.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 36,
excellent insights But at this point based on how the Republicans have positioned their opposition, for the Democrats to not pass the bill will also lead to peril at the polls.
Actually, I suggest that the 2010 election (assuming passage of health care reform) will hinge on:
1) the economic conditions: and remember that perhaps 1/3 of the stimulus will be spent in the first half of 2010
2) whether the conservatives continue on their present path of demanding ideological purity: we saw the impact of this in the 23rd. Compare this to the more mainstream Republican electoral efforts in the governorships of NJ and Virginia
And if the Republicans keep on their forced march of insisting on being a minority party, it will indeed make the 2010 elections easier. Remember, the mid-terms always favor the opposition party to the president: if conservatives fail to seriously reverse their fortunes it is in fact a win for the Obama presidency.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (32): I suspect the Democrats learned this lesson after Ralph Nader’s run in 2000.
Passionate members in both parties manage to forget it from time to time, but a 3rd party candidate can, in a close race, absolutely turn an election on its head. It worked in favor of the GOP in 2000.
Report comment to moderator
Musing — ideological purity can derail (and has derailed) both parties, as I mentioned above.
It’s historically not only a “Republican” problem, far from it. I think the GOP has been much more solidly loyal through the past 50 years than the Democrats, which as you’ll recall was always the much larger party until recent years.
Report comment to moderator
Dopnna Jp post 42,
good insights. Indeed both parties have (and at times continue) to focus on ideological purity.
However, right now the conservatvies have appeared to raise this to an art form, and as Joel Mark noted, this is costing them: c.f. NY 23rd as one case.
Report comment to moderator
A number of Republicans have apparently “enjoyed” the populist effort which surrounded the protests in August.
However, a quick review of these web sites from this effort suggest that this populism is as much against Republicans as Democrats. And Republicans are at the present time easier for them to attack.
I do sense that, much like the committee for public safety in the French Revolution, we see a real risk of the popular protest turning on its own leaders.
Report comment to moderator
Musing — It depends. If the Republican leadership hears what’s being said with regard to a return to smaller government and more responsible government spending, I think you’ll see the party respond to those messages. Those principles are, after all, hallmarks of what the Republican party says it stands for (if not always follows very well). So it’s really a call to return to its own roots.
And politically speaking, being bumped almost completely out of power by the voters is usually the great motivator and wake-up call for any political party to be willing to figure out what went wrong, and then to be willing to adapt.
Report comment to moderator
I think conservatives have every reason to hope that the GOP is in the process of regaining its footing. And with the Democratic administration spending like sailors (which without a doubt will affect the already-too-big deficit + require even more taxes), the atmosphere in the nation will be ripe for a changing of the guard.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you made a statement about the conservatives here on this blog, that there were no comments and that’s what I remarked on. Don’t quote statistics to me about conservatives and Republicans when I’m commenting on the people here who had not posted, which was the complaint. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
And there’s no “victory” yet. And as Donna notes — victory today is easily undone tomorrow.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 47,
as I discussed in an earlier post: do you seriously suggest that health care reform will not pass the senate?
If so, then the best th eoppositioon can hjope for is to pass a poison pill. It almost worked in the house, do you really think that with only 40 votes in the Senate ythe opposition can succeed here?
As I noted earlier and you note as well: the battle most certainly is not over.
The end game, however, is becoming clearer and clearer, and it does not look good for the opposition. This was their real chance and they failed.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 46,
I find you comment here interewsting:
“I think conservatives have every reason to hope that the GOP is in the process of regaining its footing. ”
I suggest that at the present time conservatives provide the biggest threat to Repu8blicans in a long long time.
And the Republicans will either overcome this conservative threat OR Republicans will fail to be relevant AND neither conservatives nor Republicans will be anything but a highly regionalized entity.
See Joel Mark’s comment earlier.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 45,
when you say:
“And politically speaking, being bumped almost completely out of power by the voters is usually the great motivator and wake-up call for any political party to be willing to figure out what went wrong, and then to be willing to adapt.”
In general, I agree. However, the conservatives appear to believe that just because their purity of ideology failed, that the response should be to be even more pure in their ideology: a case of if the fire hurts, touch it again.
Until conservatives either reform OR are suppressed by the Republicans, both conservatives and Republicans are at risk of being imnpotent and irrelevant.
Report comment to moderator
Conservative “threat”?
The party is grounded in conservative ideals and values (theoretically), an articulate, intelligent candidate who stands in a center-right position might not please everyone, but it would be persuasive enough for most practical-minded conservative voters who want to win — not to mention the vast numbers of independent moderates in this country who appear to be pulling away from Obama in droves.
Report comment to moderator
Uh, but McCain wasn’t really all that conservative, was he? Perhaps that’s where the party’s misstep occurred.
Report comment to moderator
Again, take a look at the polls — the course embarked upon by the Obama Administration (so far) isn’t so popular with the middle. How will the Democrats deal with that?
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer wrote; “…victory today is easily undone tomorrow.”
Unfortunately, in some cases, this has not always been my observation in politics.
Report comment to moderator
I have no idea what’s going to happen. People don’t want to pay more taxes, they don’t want to pay for abortion. Do I think something will pass? Probably, but only if people are more interested in buying their Christmas presents. It is one thing to vote for a debate, another to vote for the bill as presently drawn.
I think Donna is right. In the long run, Obama and the Dems are in trouble.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, even if this bill gets through, it doesn’t mean people want it, and it doesn’t mean the Dems will not lose control next November. So, if someone wants to gloat today, tomorrow things can change.
Report comment to moderator
And I like your word “spendier.”
Report comment to moderator
Musing 20 out of 54 posts is why most people on WMB are really getting tired of your act. It is why we didn’t miss you while you were gone and don’t need your apology for missing. You dominate the posts and you make everybody else seem like we are a bunch of frothing idiots while you are so superior to everyone. Please go back to advocating for all things Obama or whatever “work” you do and leave us all alone.
Report comment to moderator
Good points, Donna. I do think, though, that liberals and Democrats have tended to be more loyal to their party over recent years, while conservatives and Republicans tend to be more loyal to their principles. Just generalizing.
One example that comes to mind is that Bush’s approval rating went very low because…
1. Liberals just hated him regardless.
2. Conservatives were angry with him and not willing to support him when he strayed from our principles of less spending and limited gov’t.
3. Whereas, Democrat Presidents simply never fall to disapproval numbers as low as Bush simply because their base just does not care how bad they act or how many principles they betray–they always hate Republicans worse and will support their party man.
Again, just generalizing.
Report comment to moderator
#33, Musing, I don’t see how ‘Itsaboutfreedom’ is a danger, and you never explained why you did. You did not back up your point with data or with reason. I also think that Itsaboutfreedom had little trouble making his point and reasonably so.
Report comment to moderator
And as for any mistakes I made in a post I made in June when I was new here, stick it in your ear and get current. At this point Musing you can attack me all you want but you and all your liberals are the reason this once great country will become a very average if not a third world country by the time you are through with it. Tax the producers and soon the producers will not have anything with which to pay employees which will directly affect your wonderful government’s ability to continue to grow, grow, grow. You can call this a Democrat/Republican problem but that is not what it is. It is a irresponsible/responsible problem. This health care act is just one more step in an out of control government that is listening to the minority in this country simply to stay in power. You are correct when you state that the Democrats have figured out how to do politics and that is what the average American (that is the American paying taxes and working their butts off to try and keep people employed and try and keep their companies profitable) is getting quite sick of.
We are sick of politics and we are sick of politicians. We are sick of a bunch of whiny liberals who contribute nothing to this great country but simply want to take, take, take and give nothing back.
So call me the problem all you want but at least people can read my posts because I know how to actually correct any misspellings before hitting post.
Your posts are much like your Democratic bills, full of a bunch of big words that when you add them all up say one thing “GIVE ME MORE!!!!”
Report comment to moderator
Itsaboutfreedom, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments regarding musing. After reading that he was gone from here, it was disappointing to see him posting again. Oh well, guess I’ll just go some where else for awhile and hope for a change!
Report comment to moderator
“I suggest that at the present time conservatives provide the biggest threat to Republicans in a long long time.”
Nonsense. The relevance of Republican is tied at the hip to its conservative foundations and convictions.
__________
Don’t read me wrong. I admire Republicans for being more likely than Democrats (im ny view) to put principle over party & politics, but it leaves me with a quandry–our shortfall in party loyalty (compared to Dems) makes it harder to win political battles, which are often important to win.
But I do think Donna is on to something with the phrase (way above) “winning the battle but not the war…” I hpe, for America’s sake, this is the case for Democrats who seem to be winning battles now.
Report comment to moderator
I whole heartedly agree with Donna and Joel Mark especially Joel’s last sentence “I hope, for America’s sake, this is the case for Democrats who seem to be winning battles now.” I love my country, I love everything about my country and that is a big reason that I have continued to serve my country in whatever way I can. I wish there was a way that Republicans and conservatives could figure out how to fight back and win some battles but I have a feeling that for now the battles won are going to be few and far between. In the meantime we are going to see taxes like nothing we have ever seen before. Obama wanted a great crisis to take advantage of and he is going to get it. When 200,000 small business health insurance resellers begin to lay off workers the unemployment is going to go way up. When the businesses that have supported them begin to go out of business we are going to see more unemployment.
Obama and all his liberal supporters wanted a crisis to take over more of America and they are doing their best to create one.
Report comment to moderator
#58
Musing 20 out of 54 posts is why most people on WMB are really getting tired of your act. It is why we didn’t miss you while you were gone and don’t need your apology for missing.
My, my. Sounds like sulky sour grapes to me. Many people here have very little reply for Musing, and so they turn to fussing about his style of posting, how often he posts, and other trivial rejoinders. If you don’t like a poster, there is a simple way to deal with it. It’s called scrolling. You take your mouse and drag down the scroll box and then just read comments by people who agree with you and then everything will be copacetic.
About every 1st world country in the world seems to have a better health care system than the United States. Of course, we will all die in the end, so one can take your bet on going to Heaven. However, it is striking how much conservative Christians, who are so confident about a happy life in eternity after we depart from this “Fallen” world, are so strong on “protecting life.”
To an unbeliever, your belief system in inconsistent and incoherent.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 51,
so long as conservatvies:
1) insist onj ideological purity in the Republican party
2) show the distrust of structure evidenced by the recent populist conservative protests (tea bags come to mind)
then conservatvies are indeed a threat to Republicans.
I use the 23rd as annecdotal evidence. How about Specter who provided the 60th vote on health care in the senate? Shall I continue?
Report comment to moderator
How are Specter’s chances looking for re-election these days?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 52,
actually I suggest that if McCain had been able to maintain his moderate independence, he may very well have won.
When we had the conservative threat of a floor fight which ended up with Palin, however, the die was cast and arguably the outcome of the election preordained.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 67,
much better than if he was a Republican!
Report comment to moderator
I’d say he’s neither fish nor fowl. Bad place to be.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAbourtFreedom post 64,
when you say:
“I love my country, I love everything about my country ”
I merely observe that you apparently do not appear to love your country well enough to do decent research on the facts and data of the health care debate: c.f. your erroneous 20 new governmental organizaitons for a start.
If you truly loved your country would you not be willing to put in the time and effort to truly understand what is entailed in the health care debate so you could provide fact and data based opinions and observations?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 70,
it does depend on:
1) whether health care reform passes
2) whether Specter supports it
3) whether the economy improves
Given these three, the full Democratic support will be behind him which will give him a shot and he has a real shot (or he would not have switched parties).
If he tries to run from the Demiocrats, then they will of course not support him.
Report comment to moderator
Palin was the only reason McCain got as many votes as he did. Everyone was pretty much yawning through it on the GOP side until that happened. Say what you will about her — and I’m not sold on her, to be sure — but she definitely energized the campaign in its last couple of months.
Let’s face it, the Democrats would have had to have fowled up royally to lose in 2008. As it was, they won — but it was far from a rout and only happened because they were able to convince so many moderates to come onboard.
And those are exactly the voters who are now having major second thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 63,
if you are correct in your statement:
“Nonsense. The relevance of Republican is tied at the hip to its conservative foundations and convictions.”
then I suggest Republicans are for the near term doomed, short of a continued economic crisis.
Conservatives as represented by the extreme right are, as shown in the 23rd, already a marginal political entity.
Report comment to moderator
Come on, Specter just wants a job. He calculated the risks, decided he’d *maybe* have a better shot at hanging on if he became a Democrat, then switched.
Such courage.
Report comment to moderator
Republicans are far from “doomed.”
Are you not like worried by now? You should be, so far this administration is not impressing even its supporters.
Oh, and I can’t wait to watch all the nightmare red tape and new taxes that are sure to follow the grand “health care” overhaul. That’ll seal it right there.
Just sayin’ ……
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 73,
I suggest Palin ensured that the base would vote for McCain, and that the independents would not.
If the base had allowed him to be himself, he could have won New Hampshire (he had strong relationships there) and it is unlikely other Republican strongholds would have switched.
Extreme conservatism today, much as Birchism in the 60s, is the poison pill of the Republican party.
In the 60s, the Birchers were disavowed, and the Republicans rebuilt with the Southern strategy.
Can the Republicans do this today?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 75,
indeed Specter did calculate the odds.
His calculations seems to have matched mine. 
Report comment to moderator
McCain was drowning.
And we’re not talking “extreme” conservatism. We’re talking regular, common-sense conservatism. You know, the kind a majority of the American people describe themselves as believing?
What was the percentage of liberals again?
Report comment to moderator
Well then you must be proud to have Specter on your side. Good luck with that. Oh, but don’t really count on him when the going gets tough, ok?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 77,
indeed Republicans are far from doomed UNLESS, as Joel Mark suggests, they are joined at the hip wioth the conservatives, in which case both would seem to be at risk of drowing.
Am I concerned about Obama’s support? Look at the numbers: he seems to have maintained his electoral support up to today (perhaps matching his 53% of the vote). I can also say that his hard core vo0lunteer support form the election remains strong and actvie.
And you are not worried about the Republican approval rating?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 80,
I am neither proud nor not proud regarding Specter switching to being a Demopcrat.
I assume, however, that the conservatives are proud that they gave the Democrats the critical 60th vote to ensure that health care is going into debate. If Specter had not switched, we would be seeing a different end game in action on health care.
Report comment to moderator
Under 50 percent and falling, I believe.
If the administration continues on this track of spending and spending more, “growing” the government beyond its already massive size, then, no, I’m not at all worried about how voters will respond at the ballot box.
In fact, I am smiling.
Report comment to moderator
Hey I say let health care pass. Even better ensures a change coming.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 79,
McCain was drowning because conservatives preferred losing the presidency over admitting that they had blown their primary strategy.
Had conservatives actually supported McCain, possibly Sotomeyer would not have been appointed and we would not be discussing health care reform at this time.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 84,
as indeed health care almost certianly will pass: showing that Obama can fulfill his promises despite the strongest oppositon which can be raised by conserrvatives.
Given that the health care reform measures do no kick in until 2014 (now), it would seem that they will have no negative effect on the 2010 election.
Report comment to moderator
As frustrating as it sometimes can be — because there is, after all, a lot at stake — it’s sometimes kind of nice to sit back and watch the other half do their thing, unbridled. Just keep on what you’re doing. You’re in complete control, let’s see how this all works out for us.
Report comment to moderator
Assuming passage of health care reform, I suggest that the 2010 election rests on:
1) the state of the economy
2) whether conservatives are bent on continued political suicide
The former is to some extent chance.
It would appear based on these posts that we can count on the latter.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – you are the one who needs to do some research on your precious health care bill and don’t you EVER AGAIN QUESTION MY LOVE FOR MY COUNTRY OR I SWEAR I WILL FIND YOU ONE DAY AND YOU WILL FIND OUT WHY I WENT TO COLLEGE ON A HOCKEY SCHOLARSHIP.
You can say all you want about me and you can call me stupid but don’t you ever, ever, ever question my love for my country and base it on doing research on a 2000 page bill full of words that the people who write the piece of garbage even know what they mean.
So this is my last warning to you Musing……DON’T EVER QUESTION MY LOVE FOR MY COUNTRY EVER AGAIN.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, they don’t “kick in” (so to speak, ouch) until 2014 — well now that is probably mightly lucky for you, isn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 87.
the Democrat watched the Republicans in complete control from say 2001 to 2007.
I would say this worked out well (see 2006 and 2008 elections).
The Democrats have strong leadership and a clear policy agenda, one which interestingly enough was supported by the majority in the 2008 election.
The wild card is, as Obama admits, whether the economy improves.
Report comment to moderator
And Mickey if you want to ban me now go ahead and ban me but let’s make sure you ban Musing also because I will never put up with somebody bashing me about my love for my country because I don’t spend 24 hours a day studying every little word in a bill that is full of garbage throw away words that nobody will ever know the meaning of.
So if you decide to ban me, make sure you ban Musing also.
Report comment to moderator
PS I don’t think it matters — most of the people are simply opposed to it. Hello? Anyone in Washington D.C. listening?
No. I thought not.
Report comment to moderator
Uh, if the government keeps up the spending and passes a costly health care package, I wouldn’t really look for that economy to be bouncing back anytime soon.
Report comment to moderator
Dopnna J post 90,
actually this was driven by conservative oppostion, and I suggest, rather unreasoned opposition.
But if conservatives demand that strategically useful poliitcal positions for Democrats be adopted (see slow release of stimulus money for example), then it is perhaps fair for the Democrats to take advantage of it.
Actually, it appears that some of the restraint on health insurance companies may kick in earlier. Again see above.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 94,
but health care refom, particularly in the medium term, reduces the budget deficit.
And in the short term, health care reform has no impact on the economy.
Report comment to moderator
Uh-huh.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 97,
since in the short term there are no expenses …
And if you disagree with the CBO on the defict numbers for health care reform, where are they in error?
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 93,
as to whether the public support health care reform:
WaPo article on poll numbers
It sounds to me like the best the opponents can claim is that it is apparently a tie. Certainly there is no evidence of overwhelming oppositon by the public at large.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting article on Politico regarding the many hurdles and issues ahead in the health care reform effort.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29798.html
Report comment to moderator
A tie ain’t so good when it comes to drumming up solid popular support.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J posts 100/101,
yes there are many hurdles ahead BUT we watched Reid obtain 60 votes for cloture when this was thought to be impossible.
A tie right now I suggest refutes your apparent statement about widespread opposition outside the beltway: your position does not appear to hold up under even the more generous media environments.
Again, as observed earlier, Republicans argued that this was the critical vote. They appeared to have lost it. You are right there are more hurdles to get through, but the Republicans have been unable to stop the Democrats so far despite the big push in August.
Report comment to moderator
The country has been argued by many conservatives to be perhaps a 49/51 country with the edge varying based on the vagaries of the moment.
I suggest that the polls are now arguing more like a 53/47 country with a clear edge to the Democrats.
Can they lose this edge? Most certainly. But I suggest that the evidence indicates this loss will occur over the economy, not health care.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I will say, you know how to look on the bright side.
Report comment to moderator
Donna J post 104,
given the relative strong of Democratic successes recently, it would seem:
1) being optimistic if one is a Democrat is supported by the recent political elections and realities
2) being optimistic if one is a conservative would appear to be a sign of being pollyanaish in the extreme
Report comment to moderator
IAF: You are so correct in your postings about health care, the growth of government, our impending loss of freedoms, etc. However, I would encourage you to not make it personal with Musing. It just isn’t worth it. You’re probably better off ignoring him altogether.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus post 105,
but of course the root of ItsAboutFreedom’s situation here is that he has not been correct in his postings regarding health care. I have provided several clear examples where ItsAboutFreedom did not make the checks necessary for even relatively simple points on the health care bill.
And this behavior is replicated among a number of the posters.
I am in agreement that the health care bill has one of the potentially larger impacts on our country i a while.
To therefore base the discussions and ones support on misstatements and and fear rather than the actual facts is a grave disservice to our country, and one which is easily shown to be a key components of the conservative argumentation (e.g. death panels).
As it seems now, it is highly likely this will pass: the conservatvies failed in what they appeared to fail at what they apparently argued was a critical vote.
But the damage which the conservatvbioes apparent drive for winning at all costs depsite the actual facts or reasoned discussion has inflicted damage on this country which will take some time to heal.
As noted, my sense is the bulk of the damage appears based on the early data (NY 23rd for example) to be on the conservatvies, and hence my initial position in this discussion.
But it has also cheapened poliitcal discussion overall and reduced the Aamerican public’s confidence in their political leadership overall, but again apparently more strongly against the Republicans than Democrats in congress:
http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends
Anyone who doubts that the health reform effort in congress or the elections next year will be hard fought is kidding themselves.
Report comment to moderator
ItsAboutFreedom post 89,
this is a classic example of why posting under real neames in this blog is arguably a bad idea: there are a few people (you being apparently an example) who are unable to refrain from threatening violence during the discussion or otherwise can not focus their discussion on the topic at hand.
That you would threaten violence at all suggest perhaps that:
1) you indeed have run out of arguments
2) you are demonstrating one of the characteristics presently most visible on the right (but not always a monoploy of the right: think weathermen): the belief in their rightness so much that the feel justified and apparently are willing to use violence and not political discourse and the Democratic process to pursue their aims
I suggest that the tragedy of those who demonstrate option 2 (and it appears based on your post that you are one of them) is that they harm America far more than those who pursue misguided policies. If we can not discuss and can not vote without threat of violence then our Democracy is indeed doomed.
Report comment to moderator
IAF lacks self-con-troll.
Report comment to moderator
Did I threaten violence Musing? I merely suggest you and I strap on the skates and go engage in a healthy game of hockey. And what you are over looking is that you question my love of country based on a worthless bill full of words nobody understands.
But just to prove that I can do research I hired two interns today to do nothing but read this worthless 2100 page bill and find me every time that there is a new agency created, whether there is a stated budget for the new agency, how many people they will hire, etc.
Then they are studying for every time the bill uses the word tax, fee or some other variation that would reflect how much the American tax payer is about to get stiffed.
Then they will study just how many times the bill mentions anything about the word “CARE”.
Then they will study just how many times there are appropriations in this bill for something besides health care (namely along the lines of the little gift to Landreiu in the form of a Medicaid payment that should be a separate bill).
And finally don’t ever, ever accuse me of not loving my country. You can call me an idiot all you want, you can say like CCC that I am out of con-troll (spelled wrong on purpose I know). You can make fun of my chosen name on this blog by changing it to ItsAboutTruth, but don’t you ever dare question my love for my country.
I grew up when men were still men and when you called somebody’s passion for their country into question over a health care bill we settled it like men. So either man up and stop that or we will settle this like men, and it won’t be over words and it won’t be violent. It will merely be a nice game of hockey, one on one, you on me. In the end the person with the most goals wins, the person with the most teeth left in their head wins. Got it?
Report comment to moderator
IAF, If more people had as much passion about the evil of Socialist Security as you do about this health bill, this bill would never see the light of day. Unfortunately, Americans have been bred for government health care since FDR brought us Socialist Security. This new bill will pass because generations have been stricken with entitlement-itis and are too blind to see the danger in that check they receive each month. Too many geezers have made Socialist Security their sole source of income because they were too short-sighted to see the evil in this socialist institution. There are too many people depending on it now for it ever to be abolished. And the same will happen to health care when it comes to life. The government will have to collapse to rid us of these monstrosities. But, the NWO will come to the ‘rescue’. Then, bye-bye Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Report comment to moderator
In response to the complaints and reports I received about this thread over the weekend:
Debating is a contact sport, and the debating on WMB is no exception. However, the debate should be focused on the issues and not the individuals taking part. And yes, that can be difficult when emotions take over, but it something you all need to aspire to. Respect for one another is what we are looking for here, not personal attacks or baiting one another. I suggested that the parties involved here apologize to one another and move on to debate another day. And here’s another suggestion: Think, consider, pray, or count to 10 before you click on the “Post” button.
Report comment to moderator
I couldn’t agree with you more CCC and that is what scares me the most about my country, that we have a whole generation of people who think that we are entitled to anything. I grew up when if an employer offered us health care, we said thank you. Now when I hire someone new they think they should automatically get health care and other benefits just for showing up the first day of work. It used to be that if you worked hard and strove to do things honestly you were praised, now we have a whole generation that attacks you for those very things and then tries to find a new way to tax you.
I am afraid for everything great about my country but I fear that the best is behind us in this republic. I fear that with liberals having all the power that we may be on a slippery path to the very idealogies that made the Soviet Union the disaster that it proved to be.
I will keep fighting for my country and I will do so with passion because when you lose passion for your country and you begin to think someone owes you something, you are doomed to failure and to ever thinking that this world needs to give you something.
God never moved a parked car and He doesn’t sit up in heaven waiting to see how He can throw a blessing your way. You move towards God and then wait to see where He will lead you next.
Report comment to moderator
How often did leading Democrats and leftists whine “wolf”, pretending that their love of country and their patriotism was being questioned by those on the right? Yet, they could never say who was doing that, or cite an example. I know of no leading office-holding Republican that ever did that to a peer or a leading Democrat. But the Dems cried those pretentious crocodile tears for years and years and years.
So it is profoundly hypocritical, in my view, for a leftist on this blog to challenge thelove of country of another part6icipant with absolutely no good basis. See #71.
Funny how leftists will dishonestly complain of ill treatement (even though no one is even mistreating the) and then turn on a dime and mistreat others in the very way they are dishonestly claiming to be mistreated.
Report comment to moderator
Sad day that these people decided to destroy our nation
Report comment to moderator
It boggles my mind why there is so much banter. Liberals have a right to an opinion, so do conservatives. There are just some things that conservative Christians will never compromise on and it would be better if folks just let sleeping dogs lie. This is why I do not post more often. Being either condescending or derogatory towards someone is simply not acceptable. Nit-picking at people is not healthy or productive. I may not always agree with someone, but I will always try my best to respectfully disagree with them and I would hope they would extend me the same courtesy.
Report comment to moderator
“It sounds to me like the best the opponents can claim is that it is apparently a tie. Certainly there is no evidence of overwhelming oppositon by the public at large.” (Musing)
Or maybe not so certainly, if one doesn’t ignore the Rasmussen report of 38% support for the Democratic plan, and 57% opposition..
But this kind of pollish schmollish argument only means something to folks who like to play their games here by conflating consensus with wisdom, and who believe the inevitability of what a powered majority does somehow serves to prove the rightness of its actions.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, there is absolutely nothing new with people deciding to “destroy our nation. What is new is that so many Americas are now willing to stand by and let them.
Report comment to moderator
Serious George 11.23.09 AT 1:51 PM
“It sounds to me like the best the opponents can claim is that it is apparently a tie. Certainly there is no evidence of overwhelming oppositon by the public at large.” (Musing)
Or maybe not so certainly, if one doesn’t ignore the Rasmussen report of 38% support for the Democratic plan, and 57% opposition..
But this kind of pollish schmollish argument only means something to folks who like to play their games here by conflating consensus with wisdom, and who believe the inevitability of what a powered majority does somehow serves to prove the rightness of its actions.
–
Musing)
will not pay any attention to that poll or any one that does not support Obama
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!