Newsweek gives Obama the thumbs down

[cybrsage]

Obama promised a lot of things... but promises require two actions by two different people; one to make the promise and another to choose to believe it. I never bought the "hope and change" bullshit, and I find it hilarious that anyone seriously did or would feign that they did simply to score points against Obama.

If you want to say Obama is simply a huge liar and he purposefully mislead the public, that is fine. I am saying he should really have at least tried to do what he claimed he would do.

I'm blaming politicians for the failings of politicians. Stop pretending like the Republicans are or act any differently in these matters than the Democrats. They don't. Each is just as calculating and scheming and opportunistic as the other.

No, you are not. You are blaming the republicans for the actions of the democrats. Stop pretending to be non-partisan when you clearly are expressing partisan views here. You are not clever enough to hide your partisanship well enough and have clearly outed yourself again.

 

[zsdersw]

If you want to say Obama is simply a huge liar and he purposefully mislead the public, that is fine. I am saying he should really have at least tried to do what he claimed he would do.

Obama mislead the public, but so have his opponents in the Republican party.

No, you are not. You are blaming the republicans for the actions of the democrats. Stop pretending to be non-partisan when you clearly are expressing partisan views here. You are not clever enough to hide your partisanship well enough and have clearly outed yourself again.

Wrong. I don't have to be clever because I'm blaming both Democrats and Republicans for being unwilling to compromise. Actions result in reactions... cause and effect. I'm not sure you can really say who started it, because Republicans and Democrats have been doing this back and forth for, well, as long as they've been the two dominant parties in our government.

 

[cybrsage]

Obama mislead the public, but so have his opponents in the Republican party.

There you go, invoking the reps for the actions of the dems. Partisan, they name is zsdersw.

Wrong. I don't have to be clever because I'm blaming both Democrats and Republicans for being unwilling to compromise. Actions result in reactions... cause and effect. I'm not sure you can really say who started it, because Republicans and Democrats have been doing this back and forth for, well, as long as they've been the two dominant parties in our government.

In this instance, the administration decided to slap down the reps while they had the power to do so. You pretend the new administration did not have the option to work with the reps and therefor give them a pass. It is not Obama's fault he refused to work with the reps until he was forced to do so...it is those ebil republicans, they are at fault.

Non-partisan? No possible way.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you reject the possibility that they voted against it for reasons other than policy?

Do you reject the reason they voted against it was that they were totally excluded from the process and then were forced to vote on the bill without a chance to review it?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Do you reject the reason they voted against it was that they were totally excluded from the process and then were forced to vote on the bill without a chance to review it?

Yes, I do. I see no evidence that they were "totally excluded from the process". I believe their opposition was entirely political in nature, because they viewed this as the signature legislation of Obama's first term, and Republican leaders have said flat out since the day he stepped into the White House that they wanted to ensure he was thwarted at every step.

The principles behind the ACA are based on Republican ideas from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney and others. The GOP started to hate it as soon as Obama got involved.

 

[zsdersw]

There you go, invoking the reps for the actions of the dems. Partisan, they name is zsdersw.

Nope, I'm saying both Obama and the Republicans have misled and lied to the public. Whether one led to the other; whether the chicken or the egg came first... it doesn't matter. They both did it, so both are to blame.

In this instance, the administration decided to slap down the reps while they had the power to do so. You pretend the new administration did not have the option to work with the reps and therefor give them a pass. It is not Obama's fault he refused to work with the reps until he was forced to do so...it is those ebil republicans, they are at fault.

Non-partisan? No possible way.

Of course they had the option to work with the Republicans, but as I said, they (Democrats and Republicans) only compromise when they have to.. which didn't happen until the 2010 elections. It's the fault of all involved when compromise doesn't happen.. not just one person or one party.

 

[cybrsage]

Nope, I'm saying both Obama and the Republicans have misled and lied to the public.

This is about Obama, yet you refuse to stop blaming the reps. Nope, not Obama - look at those reps!

Of course they had the option to work with the Republicans, but as I said, they only compromise when they have to.. which didn't happen until the 2010 elections. It's the fault of all involved when compromise doesn't happen.. not just one person or one party.

You do realize it is stupid to say that Obama and the dems refusing to work with the republicans until they were forced to do so is the fault of the republicans, right? No, of course not, your partisanship prevents you from realizing this.

I am going to stop responding to this tangent now, you can continue to lie and say you are not partisan - you have already clearly outed yourself again.

 

[Desturel]

Obama = Bush on steroids

Hmm... as far as I recall, Obama never started a war against the wrong nation while cutting taxes that guaranteed that the war would be unfunded. I must have missed that part of his Presidency.

At some point I wish the "Obama and Bush are the same" people would look at facts instead of what they want to believe

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, I do. I see no evidence that they were "totally excluded from the process". I believe their opposition was entirely political in nature, because they viewed this as the signature legislation of Obama's first term, and Republican leaders have said flat out since the day he stepped into the White House that they wanted to ensure he was thwarted at every step.

The principles behind the ACA are based on Republican ideas from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney and others. The GOP started to hate it as soon as Obama got involved.

You see no evidence that Republicans were excluded from the process? Really?

So, you believe Republican opposition was entirely political in nature? Tell me this...do you believe that Democrats drafting the bill without Republican input behind closed doors and forcing Repuiblicans to vote on it without giving them a chance to review it was not entirely political in nature? You think? Get real.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You see no evidence that Republicans were excluded from the process? Really?

So, you believe Republican opposition was entirely political in nature? Tell me this...do you believe that Democrats drafting the bill without Republican input behind closed doors and forcing Repuiblicans to vote on it without giving them a chance to review it was not entirely political in nature? You think? Get real.

Where is the evidence that there was no Republican input? Sounds like a complete fabrication to me based on both my recollection and available documentation:

Beginning June 17, 2009, and extending through September 14, 2009, three Democratic and three Republican Senate Finance Committee Members met for a series of 31 meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill. Over the course of the next three months, this group, Senators Max Baucus (D-Montana), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed became the foundation of the Senate's health care reform bill.

Furthermore:

The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, bore similarities to prior healthcare reform proposals introduced by Republicans. In 1993 Senator John Chafee introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act which contained a "Universal Coverage" requirement with a penalty for non-compliance.[137][138] Advocates for the 1993 bill which contained the "individual mandate" included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate, namely Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO) [139]. In 1994 Senator Don Nickles introduced the Consumer Choice Health Security Act which also contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision.[140] However, Nickles removed the mandate from the act shortly after introduction, stating that they had decided "that government should not compel people to buy health insurance."[141] Many experts of healthcare policy have pointed out that the "individual mandate" requirement to buy health insurance was contained in many previous Republican/conservative proposals for healthcare legislation, going back as far as 1989.[142] Other experts have pointed out that the healthcare legislation that emerged from Congress in 2009 and 2010 is patterned, largely, after former Republican Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney's state healthcare plan which also contains the individual mandate. [143]

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Where is the evidence that there was no Republican input? Sounds like a complete fabrication to me based on both my recollection and available documentation:

Republicans had no input on content of the final draft of the bill that was voted on. I thought my intent was quite clear...I guess not.

Please answer my previous questions:

So, you believe Republican opposition was entirely political in nature? Tell me this...do you believe that Democrats drafting the bill without Republican input behind closed doors and forcing Repuiblicans to vote on it without giving them a chance to review it was not entirely political in nature?

You critcize Republicans for imagined political motives, yet turn a blind eye towards Democrat's blatant political antics. Somehow this does not surprise me.

 

[hal2kilo]

Republicans had no input on content of the final draft of the bill that was voted on. I thought my intent was quite clear...I guess not.

Please answer my previous questions:



You critcize Republicans for imagined political motives, yet turn a blind eye towards Democrat's blatant political antics. Somehow this does not surprise me.

Imagined political motives. Now that's funny.

 

[berzerker60]

You critcize Republicans for imagined political motives

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc (20 second clip)

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Republicans had no input on content of the final draft of the bill that was voted on.

That, of course, is not what you said before. So now you have a new claim.. where is the evidence for it?

You critcize Republicans for imagined political motives, yet turn a blind eye towards Democrat's blatant political antics.

I don't, actually. I call out the Democrats on their antics where I feel it is appropriate.

But the topic here is Obamacare. Republicans voted against it purely for political reasons, even though -- as I've already documented -- many of them supported similar or even identical provisions up until the point that Obama was elected.

Thus, turning around and claiming that their refusal to vote for it proves anything negative about the bill or the Democrats is fallacious. They would have voted against it no matter what it contained, and no matter what process was used to create it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't, actually. I call out the Democrats on their antics where I feel it is appropriate.

Do you believe that Democrats drafting the final bill without Republican input behind closed doors and forcing Republicans to vote on it without giving them a chance to review it was or was not entirely political in nature?

This is now the 3rd time I've asked this question...apparently you don't feel it's appropriate to call out Democrats for these "antics"...why am I not surprised? <-- This is a rhetorical question, the first one is not.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Do you believe that Democrats drafting the final bill without Republican input behind closed doors and forcing Republicans to vote on it without giving them a chance to review it was or was not entirely political in nature?

This is now the 3rd time I've asked this question...

It's the third time you've made a claim without backing it up. First demonstrate that what you're saying is true, and then I'll damn the Democrats for it.

As a reminder, just a few hours ago you were claiming the Republicans had no input in the process at all, which turned out to be completely false.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's the third time you've made a claim without backing it up. First demonstrate that what you're saying is true, and then I'll damn the Democrats for it.

Here's a link to the Procedural History of H.R. 3200 (page 174) which clearly states that Democrats crafted the bill behind closed doors.
http://books.google.com/books?id=qGrvdu099GwC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=Democrats+drafting+the+final+bill+without+Republican+input+behind+closed+doors&source=bl&ots=W3nYimtrKf&sig=5V_U2Lv2JCEk4LhVjX7mb3qx-g8&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Democrats%20drafting%20the%20final%20bill%20without%20Republican%20input%20behind%20closed%20doors&f=false

H.R. 3200, Procedural History
On the afternoon of Friday, June 19, 2009, House Democrats circulated the ``TriCommittee Draft Proposal for Health Care Reform,'' an 852-page health care plan crafted behind closed doors by the Democrat Chairmen of three House committees with jurisdiction over health care issues. The draft proposal was not formally introduced or assigned a legislative bill number. There were vast shortcomings and gaps in the draft proposal, including the lack of a cost estimate and the absence of several key provisions, including specific financing mechanisms. House Republicans were denied the opportunity to provide meaningful input on the "draft proposal,'' and met for the first time with Committee Democrats only two days before the proposal was publicly circulated.

On Tuesday, June 23, 2009, the Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing on the draft proposal. Although Committee Republicans and invited witnesses provided valuable commentary, the short time frame for review and the significant gaps in the draft proposal hindered the ability to comprehensively analyze the Democrat health care reform plan prior to the hearing on June 23.

Thereafter, on July 14, 2009, House Democrat Leaders formally introduced their health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, the ``America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.'' The introduced bill totaled 1,017 pages (an increase of 165 pages) and contained numerous technical and substantive changes.

^ I thought this was common knowledge...however, you certainly proved me wrong about that.

As a reminder, just a few hours ago you were claiming the Republicans had no input in the process at all, which turned out to be completely false.

Thank you for pointing out my gross exaggeration. I clarified my point accordingly in subsequent posts to say they had no input on the final content of the bill.

Meanwhile...you avoid my direct question for the 3rd time.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Here's a link to the Procedural History of H.R. 3200 (page 174) which clearly states that Democrats crafted the bill behind closed doors.

That's a redacted preview. It took a while, but I found the full document (PDF). And when you look at the full document, you'll see that the page you highlighted is in a section called "minority views" and was written by Republicans.

I already quoted you references showing that Democrats and Republicans were involved in the process in the timeframe you are quoting.

^ I thought this was common knowledge...however, you certainly proved me wrong about that.

So far you've proven that it's a common myth, that is all.

Meanwhile...you avoid my direct question for the 3rd time.

I didn't avoid it. I said directly: "First demonstrate that what you're saying is true, and then I'll damn the Democrats for it."

You still haven't.

 

[zsdersw]

This is about Obama, yet you refuse to stop blaming the reps. Nope, not Obama - look at those reps!

This is about whatever someone makes it about. When they make it about something other than you want, and yet you respond to them anyway, you've just agreed to have it be about what they want it to be about.

I never said "nope, not Obama", I said "yes, Obama and Republicans, too".

You do realize it is stupid to say that Obama and the dems refusing to work with the republicans until they were forced to do so is the fault of the republicans, right? No, of course not, your partisanship prevents you from realizing this.

You do realize it is stupid to mischaracterize what I said, right? What I said is that neither of them work together and compromise unless they have to.

I am going to stop responding to this tangent now, you can continue to lie and say you are not partisan - you have already clearly outed yourself again.

By all means, take your ball and go home. You're the only one making the claim that I'm partisan... and leading that charge makes you a leader with no followers... otherwise known as just a guy taking a walk.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's a redacted preview. It took a while, but I found the full document (PDF). And when you look at the full document, you'll see that the page you highlighted is in a section called "minority views" and was written by Republicans.

The version I linked is dated the same as the version you linked (october 14, 2009). Also, the parts I quoted on Page 174 are identical. Do you have proof that Republicans lied in writing their minority view and that Democrats were actually working with Republicans in the final weeks before the bill was rushed to vote? I'm all ears.

I already quoted you references showing that Democrats and Republicans were involved in the process in the timeframe you are quoting.

You previously linked to a Wikipedia page that did not support your claim in any way. But perhaps I missed the part where it totally debunked this "myth" of the final bill being drafted by Democrats behind closed doors...please quote.

&#8220;We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.&#8221; - Nancy Pelosi

 

[cybrsage]

The version I linked is dated the same as the version you linked (october 14, 2009). Also, the parts I quoted on Page 174 are identical. Do you have proof that Republicans lied in writing their minority view and that Democrats were actually working with Republicans in the final weeks before the bill was rushed to vote? I'm all ears.

You are wasting your time, he only believes facts that back him up. Those that do not are twisted in his mind to also back him up.