Obama's options, in a post-Massachusetts nation

[Sundown49 aka Otey B]

The one thing that jumped out at me in Senator Brown's acceptance speech was the line about spending the money for terrorists a whole lot better on stuff the military needs rather than on lawyers for terrorists. This country needs to quit trying to be so "politically correct" and just do the RIGHT thing.

[dixidawg]

Obviously I didn't see all the ads, but I saw a news clip (and no, not on Fox or some conservative talk show!) shortly before the election about how she'd blown a big lead and they showed some of her extremely negative ads. It seemed all or most of her TV ads were devoted to nastiness about her opponent and little if anything about why people should vote for her.

Our Va. gubenatorial ads last year got a bit testy but at least both candidates also regularly ran ads explaining what they planned to do and left out the type of odious personal commentary Coakley used. I think her nasty-gram ad campaign harmed her more than her opponent. I don't think that's the only reason she lost, but I think it turned off a lot of people.

You are right. There are negative ads, and then there are NEGATIVE ads. These were so over the top that a lot of people were turned off by them.

[road kill]

You are right. There are negative ads, and then there are NEGATIVE ads. These were so over the top that a lot of people were turned off by them.

Democrats HAVE to run dirty personal attacks.

They lose on every issue!!


rk

[subroc]

The most obvious part of the ad campaign was the attempt to diminish him for just being a republican. Her spot would start with: Scott Brown…republican and a very pregnant pause as if just the fact that the man is a republican is crime enough. The good people of Massachusetts saw through that tactic.

[Gerry Clinchy]

I haven't seen anything lately but there was a short flurry of coverage last fall that said that Hawaii was being driven to bankruptcy and the Governor knew it.

Went and looked:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/l...th-care-system

And, somehow, it is always presumed that if you extend the same program to a larger population, the dynamic will be different.

It would appear that the proposed Fed bill was supposed to correct some of the flaws of the Hawaii plan. Very notable was the fact that ultimately the hospitals could not survive on the payments received from the insurance. With no plan to actually control medical costs (not just pay the providers less) the dog just won't hunt.

[Gerry Clinchy]

Heard on radio today, that Reid and Pelosi are again (still?) considering trying to get the House to pass the Senate bill (without amendments). Then after it is signed by Obama, they are getting 52 Senators to pledge to "fix" the bill with the items that the House wants (like exemption of the unions from the tax on Cadillac health plans; a larger fine for failure to acquire health insurance; etc.)

Since the House bill, itself, only passed by 5 votes to begin with, do you think the politcians in the House will risk there "electability" this year by cooperating in this? Wonder if those Senators will keep their pledge? The only way it works is if the House members feel they can trust the 52 Senators.

Doing it this way they get around the 60 super-majority requirement because no amendments would be allowed in the House.

[huntinman]

Heard on radio today, that Reid and Pelosi are again (still?) considering trying to get the House to pass the Senate bill (without amendments). Then after it is signed by Obama, they are getting 52 Senators to pledge to "fix" the bill with the items that the House wants (like exemption of the unions from the tax on Cadillac health plans; a larger fine for failure to acquire health insurance; etc.)

Since the House bill, itself, only passed by 5 votes to begin with, do you think the politcians in the House will risk there "electability" this year by cooperating in this? Wonder if those Senators will keep their pledge? The only way it works is if the House members feel they can trust the 52 Senators.

Doing it this way they get around the 60 super-majority requirement because no amendments would be allowed in the House.

If they do, they better be prepared to find a new job. Pickup driving regards.

[YardleyLabs]

Heard on radio today, that Reid and Pelosi are again (still?) considering trying to get the House to pass the Senate bill (without amendments). Then after it is signed by Obama, they are getting 52 Senators to pledge to "fix" the bill with the items that the House wants (like exemption of the unions from the tax on Cadillac health plans; a larger fine for failure to acquire health insurance; etc.)

Since the House bill, itself, only passed by 5 votes to begin with, do you think the politcians in the House will risk there "electability" this year by cooperating in this? Wonder if those Senators will keep their pledge? The only way it works is if the House members feel they can trust the 52 Senators.

Doing it this way they get around the 60 super-majority requirement because no amendments would be allowed in the House.

It will be difficult to put together the 218 votes -- harder than getting the 51 needed to pass in the Senate (actually only 50).

It is something of a lose/lose. Had the Democrats stated from the beginning that they would use the reconciliation process to pass the whole program, there would already be a bill and healing would be underway. That was the approach used for the second round of tax cuts by Bush when he could only come up with 50 Senate votes plus Cheney as a tie breaker. By stating his willingness to do that from the beginning, claims that he was short-circuiting Senate rules never really stuck even though public opinion was heavily against the cuts.

In this case, Democrats made it clear that they would take the "high road", relying on their 60 vote majority. What was not factored into their thinking was the price that they would pay in time and "deals" to hold that majority together. By switching gears now, it looks like an effort to railroad the legislation rather than a plan to allow a majority vote to decide the issue -- the explanation given by Bush. That will create negative push back for House Democrats -- who will be named as accomplices. Senate Democrats are not likely to suffer more from such a deal than they will anyway in the absence of a deal. If Pelosi can convince 218 representatives that they will suffer more from no legislation than they will from legislation passed in such controversy, it may work.

I would expect the leadership to try if they can put the votes together. However, part of the deal with the Senate would need to include a public option since that is favored by public opinion and is supported by more than 50 Senators. It wouls also be essential that the Senate vote on modifications be held very quickly following a House vote.

[precisionlabradors]

You are right. There are negative ads, and then there are NEGATIVE ads. These were so over the top that a lot of people were turned off by them.

almost directly reflective of the 08 presidential campaign. mccain/palin had nothing so it went to the hate ads....and people do see through that. if that was the tactic used in this senate race, the D deserved to lose. people don't wanna hear about how bad the other guy sucks...they wanna hear (at least I do) what YOU are gonna do right.
________
WELLBUTRIN SIDE EFFECT

[Gerry Clinchy]

If they do, they better be prepared to find a new job. Pickup driving regards.

All the House seats are up for re-election in 2010; and 33 Senate seats. They'd all be treading on thin ice if they ignore that the public opinion generally feels the bills they have put together are a mish-mash, with too many "exemptions" to make the whole thing effective.

After what they have done to the concept, it seems like it would be impossible to make this work without a public option. OTOH, even a public option would not solve the problem of the cost of the "exemptions".

I would also agree with Jeff that after a "holier than thou" approach at the beginning, if they cut more back-room deals the electorate would be incensed.

It would also be a fracture of the Ds, since Obama, himself, recommended that they wait for the seating of Brown.