I love getting lectured by the left about not electing partisan politicians when their party is run by Pelosi, Reid and Obama.
I love it when conservatives compare the fringe of their side, which has consistently shat the bed on a national level, to the center of the other side. Obama is a two-time, nationally elected figure. I think it might be impossible for a politician to be more mainstream than him. You don't gotta like him, but comparing him to Santorum and co. is just your frustration getting the best of you.
Obama is loooooved by the far left about as much as he is by the far right. This claim that he's hyperpartisan just doesn't hold water; he ain't perfectly in the middle, but ain't anywhere near Santorum either. In my opinion, Pelosi and Reid are the mirror versions of Boehner and McConnell (same style of mainstream/corporate excrement, but different brands), but they aren't the intransigent, partisan fringe. If you wanna decry a lefty love child, you should really look at someone like Elizabeth Warren, and probably as far as Bernie Sanders. But I don't really care; you can call them whatever.
They passed one of the most partisan legislations of all time.
Eh... I mean, on a strict up and down vote, sure. But that's because we are in the age of everybody filibustering everything all the time. From day one Republicans basically decided
this was their strategy towards Obama, and they are really good at sticking to the party line. The actual history of the PPACA tended pretty much towards the middle over time. Why conservatives have wiped their memories of the history, debates, and compromises that led to the PPACA is beyond me. If the Dems had passed a public option, which was the original proposal, you might have a point, but because of the Republican filibuster they had to kowtow to the Liebermans and the Nelsons of the world, and we got this bastard, center-oriented, amalgam thing, which ended up pretty similar to a
Heritage foundation proposal from the 90s.
YOU WERE ALL THERE. THIS EXISTS BECAUSE
YOU* DIDN'T WANT A PUBLIC OPTION. WHY DOESN'T ANYONE REMEMBER THIS? WHY AM I PRETENDING TO BE YELLING BY WRITING IN ALL CAPS?
*I assume this thread, like every thread, is being read by Joe Lieberman.
A legislation that almost everyone hates and they had to spend the majority of the time convincing their own party to sign off on it.
Horse****. Ahem, sorry. I was still overexcited from pretending to yell.
(a) Your statement about "almost everyone" is way off. Like everything in this country these days, a bunch of people hate it and a bunch of people don't hate it. A majority-by-the-margin-of-error disapproves, last I looked. 53% vs 42%, respectively, per
Pew, and that's with respondents answering with about the accuracy of a coin flip about some of the key provisions, so I'm not really confident that the public has a rational opinion here.
Bear in mind that these "against" numbers always include those liberals who want the whole socialist shebang, so I'm really not seeing "almost everyone" feeling the Republicans on this.
(b) If by "their own party" you mean literally these people: Joe Lieberman who was an independent who killed the public option and Ben Nelson who LOL and held out for Nebraska subsidies.... then, sure. But that's like saying "the Republicans couldn't agree amongst themselves!!@!!!" just because Arlen Spector was being wishy washy. The Dems had the majority to pass the bill from day one but the filibuster forced them to bribe these people.
The only reason it made it through the supreme court as a constitutionally legal legislation was due to a technicality that they only started arguing when they knew the court was going to knock it down.
mmm... The constitution pretty much just technicalities. I mean, at least if that's what you are going to describe the "taxation power" as. As for "they only started arguing when they knew the court was going to knock it down" ...no. The Obama administration only got one day to speak on this point. For like one hour. That's it. The narrative you are describing is impossible. And really, the specific arguments aren't that important; the justices and their clerks usually reach their own conclusions based on their own research.
Frankly, this is a really bad talking point for conservatives, not only for the reasons above, but most especially because the Bush appointed Chief Justice wrote the decision. It's your dude, dudes! There's just no winning with you guys!
Pubs are trying to fix it, by only asking for a one year delay and they are the partisan ones.
How does that 'fix it'? And doesn't everyone and their mom know they just want to kill it altogether? Is the most disingenuous thing I've ever read on the internet?*
*that last question was directed as Lieberman, as I assume he is still reading
This is the only way pubs can negotiate with Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
Horse****. Ahem, well, that one was just good ol' fashioned disbelief comin' through.
Republicans control the House. The have a push button filibuster in the Senate. Literally everyday leading up to this moment they could have negotiated with the Dems by offering something to get the thing they want, but they have steadfastly refused to do that. Why? Because they don't actually think it is worth it to compromise. They don't want to give anything of value up. If the Republicans were ACTUALLY OFFERING something worthwhile, the Dems might listen. Because that's how negotiation works. But it's is basically current, right-wing house dogma that negotiation is anathema, and so their offer is "you give me what I want and I give you nothing or **** you." Color me shocking pink that this strategy didn't work for them.
And now to go back on everything I said, I will agree that the current Dem leadership in Congress is a big pile of garbage, so they can get all the blame you want.
