The Blame Obama Brigade
This weekend seemed to be filled with lots of discussion all over the internet re: Matt Taibbi’s piece giving President Obama’s economic team a not undeserved beat down. I like Taibbi’s writing a lot and the fact that he doesn’t do conventional “objective” reporting doesn’t bother me (but the repetition of bad data does bother me, like the so-called “cost” of all of the bailouts being 23.7 trillion), but I still find it hugely remarkable that there are plenty of people on the left who are very comfortable blaming Obama for not being liberal or progressive enough – as if that is all it would take to get major legislation through Congress. One thing jumps out at me though:
Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers “at the expense of hardworking Americans.” Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it’s not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.
Not only did Obama not campaign as an economic progressive, but actively reflected back to the Clinton/Rubin era as one of growth and sensible government that had much to aspire to. When the discussions on the bailouts caused the McCain people to “suspend” his campaign, Obama went to those discussions pretty vocally in favor of said bailouts. Taibbi wrote at great length about the Obama candidacy and was one of the more entertaining (if not still strident voices) against Hillary Clinton. This paragraph indicates to me that he drank the kool-aid and I think that much of the rage and disillusionment from the left comes directly from drinking the kool-aid. And now they are all mad that Obama isn’t the miracle worker that they thought he’d be.
Taibbi waits until the end of his piece to even mention Congress – the place where laws are actually made. He never really gets to the point that any Obama agendas are necessarily limited by how many votes he can get in the Senate. Most of the Obama-proposed initiatives – many of them not especially radical at that – get watered down and weakened in the House and especially in the Senate. How many people observed that the original figure proposed by the administration was too small? It was made smaller as it wound through the Congress and we now know for a fact that the stimulus as passed was too small.
The conspiracy theory spun out of a 6 Degrees of Robert Rubin game is also abit much (and also wrong in a key detail – the Jamie Rubin hired by the transition team was not Robert Rubin’s son, but Christiane Amanapour’s husband). No one seems to remember that this time last year, everyone was holding their breath about the state of the economy. It all seemed incredibly dire, but when Obama started announcing his picks for the core team the main reaction was relief – because he had picked people with government experience, who could hit the ground running and could make the financial world think that the US had its problems in hand. These criteria were important 11 months ago, as the credit markets were largely dead and as the rest of the economy kept falling off of its cliff. No one seems to remember that once approved by Congress, it was the Fed who pushed out bailout monies and other guarantees to the banks and most of that was done prior to the inauguration.
The real problem with this economic team – Tim Geithner especially – is that they have not played their cards as aggressively as they should have. While I still disagree with the bank bailouts, those bailouts could have been aggressively leveraged to provide more relief for homeowners. The Obama Administration has implemented at least two programs for rewriting mortgages and neither are doing what they should. Geithner should be making these banks an offer they can’t refuse – rewrite mortgages aggressively or the bailout and guarantee programs end for banks that don’t comply. Bank bailout and guarantee facilities should have come with more strings attached – like no paying of lobbyists while on the government dole. But making sure that taxpayers were well protected, had some upside in these deals and were getting something in value in return for these deals were well within the power of Tim Geithner and he never seemed to push for taxpayer value.
The old saying “What’s good for GM is good for the nation” is now “What’s good for banks is good for the nation” – but that has been true since the Reagan administration. Except that now we have been living through almost 15 months of proof that this orientation is quite broken. The opportunity missed (and not quite passed yet) is one that makes these same banks actually do something that will be good for the nation in terms of the still astonishing number of bad mortgages out there. The other opportunity missed seems to be the inevitable codification of Too Big To Fail – a codification that functionally seems to make GSEs out of the big banks with no chance at any upside for taking the exposure. But once you get past the
But for the missed opportunities and inept negotiating, you still get back to the main observation – President Obama can propose and write himself the most progressive legislation on the planet for whatever topic you name and if he can’t get 60 votes in the Senate for it, you are still in massive legislative failure mode. So while everyone rages away at Obama for not being progressive enough, these same eveyones are not counting votes in the Senate, where the work gets done. Replace Lieberman, Nelson, Snowe, Collins (and sometimes) Bayh, Baucus, Carper, Conrad with definitively more progressive Democratic versions and you’ve changed the game. The failure of these Senators is not Obama’s failure. It is true that the banking industry does “own this place” as Dick Durbin noted some weeks back and suffered quite the shitstorm over. It is also true that Obama got a great deal of money from banks and Wall Street during his campaign. But it is also true that progressives stayed pretty silent through the campaign as Wall Street money poured in — preferring to indulge in money horserace on the way to winning all of those seats just like everyone else, rather than ask what all of that money may mean. It is easier, really, to spin out a narrative with the fault clearly pinned in one place, but that doesn’t focus any energy on where the real change has to take place.
Tags: Bailouts, Banking Industry, Geithner, President Obama
Well said.
“I’m an apologist for Obama” would have been a better title.
As I read this I guess we don’t really need a President then. Based on the limited role he seems to play in your eyes. Really, what’s the point. He’s just a talking head that prattles about from country to country spreading word magic for all the land to believe.
But, when it comes time to actually place blame. It’s the Senators fault. Not O’s? Right. This is an amazing defense.
Hmmmm, where I have heard this sort of defense before? Ehhh, I must be dreaming. This is the first time I’ve heard it.
The failure of these Senators is not Obama’s failure
Uh, yes it is. Bush had no problem getting his bitches to march when he said march. Leadership Cassandra.
I await your next Obama defense
Obomba has shown to be lacking in either backbone or principle or both. We saw it with his FISA backstab; we see it with his non-support of the public option, his do-nothing and worse for the GLBT community, his war escalation, his failure to prosecute torturers, his state-secrets policies, failure to close Gitmo and on and on and on.
Many in the liberal/progressive community are in denial about how Obomba has thrown us overboard. I’m not.
Why should we have his back when all he has done is turned it at us?
You are so right-on, DV. There is much he could do as President that doesn’t need ANY legislative approval that he has not done.
I still find it hugely remarkable that there are plenty of people on the left who are very comfortable blaming Obama for not being liberal or progressive enough – as if that is all it would take to get major legislation through Congress.
I think Obama has learned the lessons of Hillary and made a strategic decision to let Congress fight out the details. The thing is, Obama will have to fight for 60 votes for *any* legislative victory to the left of the RNC. So if you have to fight, why not fight for the public option?
It’s not Obama’s leftness or rightness, it’s the lack of passion. The Democratic base needs passion. Paraphrasing a comment I read somewhere: Obama says he ‘prefers’ a public option with the same disinterest one might say one ‘prefers’ a Snickers bar to a Milky Way.
any Obama agendas are necessarily limited by how many votes he can get in the Senate.
I have thought the same thing myself, but I now see it as a typical defeatist attitude that has done in the Democratic agenda so many times before. Obama has not even begun to fight, and doesn’t really show any interest in doing so.
Instead of scorching Conservadem ass, Presidential energies have been spent telling Progressives to sit down and shut up (through proxies like Bill Clinton).
If Obama wanted a public option, he has a whole bag of weapons he hasn’t even opened yet. Call Harry Reid to the woodshed. Appoint Tom Carper to some godforsaken office. Line up some White House-supported primary opponents for wingnuts like Nelson. Create a committee to explore closing the Groton sub base. Bribe their asses off (see: Landrieu) … actually I have been to LA – it’s not a bribe; they really need the money.
Now, what it looks like we are getting does not deserve to be considered health care reform, or even health insurance reform. It will just be a minor regulatory tweak. OK on its own merits, but Dems will not be able to claim even a step toward the dream of nailing the final plank in the New Deal. And if we get the individual mandate with no real public option it will be a step away from the dream.
Bush had no problem getting his bitches to march when he said march.
True. How much energy did Bush have to waste sweet-talking Olympia Snowe?
gotta agree with DV here. Obama is the decider. I’m really starting to becomes distressed at how removed he his from the whole fight. The “let things play out” approach is really becoming tiresome and i would live to see Obama validate those who voted for him, act like a leader and really push to get thing done. NOTHING will ever be accomplished in the senate or house. THey are ALL constantly fighting to get re elected and really dont care about “the people” just look at Carper. he knows he is untouchable so why should he upset his Lords on Orange street?
Barack Obama has let wall street take back all their money, has let the wingnuts control the health care debate, and is not allowing an insurgent government in the form of GOP congressmen accompany him to a meeting of heads of state.
Everyone here knows i supported Obama as much as anyone and, was for a time willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I was willing to chalk it up to enormous opposition form the republicans or “the old way” but as long as he was trying to go against the tide, i was willing to follow. Not anymore. I personally need to see a change in Mr Change.
I still find it hugely remarkable that there are plenty of people on the left who are very comfortable blaming Obama for not being liberal or progressive enough – as if that is all it would take to get major legislation through Congress.
is Cass channelling Del Dem? I’ve never seen people so quick to attack the left. You know, the ones that got Obama elected. His base, I think they call it.
It’s like people here (dd and Cass) forget that the past 8 years saw the base get treated like the folks that got people elected. It’s sort of upsetting to read people attack their own “side” or supposed side. You really learn they aren’t liberal and just democrats willing to support a side and not ideas.
spot on. I didnt vote for Barack Obama. I voted for what Obama said he was about. I’m not seeing it.
yeah i know you can look back to what he said during the campaign and find justification for stroking the banks, or letting the public option die. But did anyone HONESTLY see this coming? Or were we certain he was going to make public fools out of people like Vicrem Pandit, or Jim Demint?
But did anyone HONESTLY see this coming?
Yes.
But did anyone HONESTLY see this coming?
Yes.
I supported Edwards over Obama for exactly this reason – because I believed Edwards would take on the insurance companies and get health care done. Meanwhile Obama was making accomodationist noises.
(hey, it was a good theory at the time)
Edwards:
And for everyone playing at home — go back and read these comments again. Only one saw fit to engage with what I had to say, rather than their own issues. And their issues largely amount to bitching about the government not working in the way they want it to, rather than in how it actually does. You do not get to bitch about not engaging in “ideas” when you specifically do not engage with anything that ever gets said in favor of just putting your ohsosuperior rage on display.
But I suppose I can play too — Obama is responsible for the fact that we all don’t have ponies, too.
Anon has some interesting points to make and I’ll get back to those in a bit.
How much energy did Bush have to waste sweet-talking Olympia Snowe?
He didn’t. He had Gephardt and Daschle and Biden all making lipstick angels on his butt.
And soon it will be time for Obama to keep his pledge to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich while keeping them for the middle class. Is Obama going to let Conservadems hijack that too?
but I still find it hugely remarkable that there are plenty of people on the left who are very comfortable blaming Obama for not being liberal or progressive enough – as if that is all it would take to get major legislation through Congress.
If you are going to point fingers Cassy, don’t act like you can’t have them point back at you.
You do not get to bitch about not engaging in “ideas” when you specifically do not engage with anything that ever gets said in favor of just putting your ohsosuperior rage on display.
and you don’t get to make comments in a post about people blaming Obama, then stand back and act like you don’t deserve criticism yourself.
You are blaming congress. But Doesn’t the president set the agenda? doesn’t the President have “political capital” that he gets to use and force the congress to do what he was elected to do? Doesn’t the president fly in on a helicopter and sign legislation on a Sunday to prevent a vegetable from having her plug pulled? That isn’t the Senate Cassandra, that is the president. Setting the tone and being a leader. I’m not saying W wasn’t full of shit and an empty suit, but he played the part and his people followed. Doesn’t the president send more troops to war? And won’t a ton of people catch shit if they don’t send troops?
and, I’m not ohsosuperior. I am however able to point out the fact that you have two sets of standards. One for your guy, and for the opposition.
People said the exact same thing about Bush. That it wasn’t him, it was everyone else. And we (I) blasted that bullshit away. Now, here I sit reading a post that absolves Obama and blames the Senators. Amazing, simply amazing.
Am I happy with everything Obama’s done or not done? Of course not.
Am I happy with Obama as President? You betcha!
It would be better if we had a real liberal/progressive President, not a a faux one like Obomba.
I’m happy Obama isn’t McCain. And I’m willing to wait and see what happens. I’m confident more has been done for this country then would have been done with the other candidates. But, that doesn’t mean I didn’t expect more from him regarding leadership and from the people he presides over.
It’s hard not to get tremendously irritated as you sit and watch the money flow. Money from lobbyists we were told weren’t going to have influence in Washington Anymore.
There’s an old saying in politics: Never fall in love with a politician because they will break your heart every time.
Is there anybody here, other than poor deluded R.D., who thinks we’d be better off if McCain had won? Honestly DV? Heck, if Obama gets it right half the time we are SOOOOOOOO much better off. This isn’t Nirvanah. The US doesn’t always do the right thing and most folks who are willing to run for elected office get it wrong a lot.
Cass, great piece and lots of thought went into it. I’m with you.
DV, if you accuse me of being a party hack who is blinded by loyalty so be it. At least I’ve got a grip on reality and I don’t go chasing windmills.
🙂 You’re no hack.
We were promised “Hope and Change” and all we get is “Nope and Same.”
Is “better than McCain” the standard we should be measuring? Hardly. It isn’t too much to ask that Obomba live up to the content of his rhetoric. Or at least try. If liberals are going to accept crumbs so that Obomba can make all nicey-nice with republicans, then it is crumbs that we’re going to get.
But don’t look at the crumbs on my plate and tell me that it is cake.
if Obama gets it right half the time we are SOOOOOOOO much better off
That’s too crude of a measurement for me. What if the half he gets wrong is all the important stuff?
If we lose health care, how many more losses can progressives stand: Taxes? Environment? Social issues? Supreme Court appointments?
Public health care would be such a fundamental driver and liberating force for the economy, you have to wonder – if we lose health care, can we really win on any other economic issues?
Without public health care, the only way Dems win is if there is massive job creation and prosperity. Then voters will be fat and happy and won’t stop to think that when the next recession comes they will lose health care again.
DV? Heck, if Obama gets it right half the time we are SOOOOOOOO much better off.
agreed
but to Anonone’s point
We were promised “Hope and Change” and all we get is “Nope and Same.”
Is “better than McCain” the standard we should be measuring? Hardly. It isn’t too much to ask that Obomba live up to the content of his rhetoric. Or at least try. If liberals are going to accept crumbs so that Obomba can make all nicey-nice with republicans, then it is crumbs that we’re going to get.
But don’t look at the crumbs on my plate and tell me that it is cake.
we aren’t getting half yet. We are getting shit on
We have a dysfunctional Senate. That is a big problem we’re dealing with. What do you expect Obama to do about that in public? He wants to get his agenda passed, so he can’t afford to say suck it to all the senators. It’s Reid and Rahm that have to do the dirty work here.
If you are going to point fingers Cassy, don’t act like you can’t have them point back at you.
There was no figure pointing until you showed up pretending that people who are not as angry as you are not as pure as you. And I’ll still note that both you and A1 have gotten on your purity soapboxes and still not engaged with anything noted in my post.
And we still don’t have any ponies, either.
I, for one, am happy that the Democrats don’t goose-step as easily as the Republicans.
?We have a dysfunctional Senate. That is a big problem we’re dealing with. What do you expect Obama to do about that in public?
Obama thinks he is Lincoln but he needs to be LBJ.
If you are going to point fingers Cassy, don’t act like you can’t have them point back at you.
There was no figure pointing until you showed up pretending that people who are not as angry as you are not as pure as you. And I’ll still note that both you and A1 have gotten on your purity soapboxes and still not engaged with anything noted in my post.
And we still don’t have any ponies, either.
You seem to be thinkin that I think I’m pure. I just like to point out your bias. I point out my impurities plenty.
and people that aren’t as angry sadden me. I engaged your weak comment about Obama not being the President and how he has no control over the Senate.
I call bullshit. I even sited an example that Bush did and was able to round up his guys when the time came to count votes.
Ha! Donviti wants Bush-Style leadership. Where did that get us? Iraq, Afghanistan and a huge recession. If that’s leadership, I don’t want none.
I have thought the same thing myself, but I now see it as a typical defeatist attitude that has done in the Democratic agenda so many times before. Obama has not even begun to fight, and doesn’t really show any interest in doing so.
I really don’t see how this is defeatist given what you see happening on a daily basis in the House and the Senate. The difference between Republicans in Congress and Democrats in Congress is that the latter insists on running things their way. GWB and Karl Rove sent up to the Hill legislation already written expecting both bodies to largely act like a parliamentary body and rubber stamp what was given to them.
Which is an easier task for Republicans. Their members are more ideologically homogeneous and their leadership exacts a pretty high price for straying off of the established reservation. Democrats don’t do that much — as much as we’d like them to — but that is a structural problem that won’t get resolved until Congressional Democrats are more ideologically more homogeneous.
Obama is not LBJ and we all knew that going in. He will definitely respect process (that is the ex-Senator and community organizer working) and will play the cards he is dealt. That said, he has had Reid, the conservadems and many others up to the WH for various conversations that we don’t know much about. He has been up to the Hill to rally the troops. Maybe he can do more — but I doubt it. because all of the dysfunction is pretty much located in the diverse makeup of the Dems in Congress AND in the way that Congress currently operates.
We all raged away at the Bush-style leadership and now we are supposed to rage away that there is no Bush-style leadership.
Bush-style leadership pretty much had the entire Republican caucus on lock down. They did what they were told and no more. That is how they got to work 3 days a week for fewer weeks than pretty much any other Congress. Republicans also tolerate that Borg style too. Democrats do not.
And Bush-style leadership got us into the trouble we have now — massive deficits, a broken economy and all of the rest.
You seem to be thinkin that I think I’m pure. I just like to point out your bias. I point out my impurities plenty.
You just trot out the impurities that you think are entertaining. You certainly do think that you are purer than everyone else — even though that purity is a result of not exactly grasping how your government works or even grasping the politics in play.
You just want your pony which Obama still isn’t giving you.
cassandra_m,
I’ll engage you on the single most obnoxious piece of democratic excuse-making in your post:
“…and if he can’t get 60 votes in the Senate for it, you are still in massive legislative failure mode.”
The dems don’t have a 60 vote majority. They have 58 votes. Bush and the Repubs passed their first year tax plan without even having a senate majority!
How?
They used “reconcilliation” and the repubs used it to pass ALL of Bush’s major tax cuts. The Dems only need 51 votes (or 50 and Biden) to pass anything they want.
So you can’t use the Senate as an excuse anymore. What else you got?
Ha! Donviti wants Bush-Style leadership. Where did that get us? Iraq, Afghanistan and a huge recession. If that’s leadership, I don’t want none.
How long would you like to wallow in the status quo?
Obama is not LBJ…
LBJ was the guy who got Medicare and Medicaid done. A lesson for Obama.
Here’s a better description of LBJ and Medicare.
Sound familiar?
The dems don’t have a 60 vote majority. They have 58 votes. Bush and the Repubs passed their first year tax plan without even having a senate majority!
Try again, A1. Apparently you have not seen the analysis of the risks of reconciliation for health care. You would not get much of what is on the table that is not directly related to finance. Reconciliation is still possible, but a pretty attenuated version of the current bill will get through.
The BushCo tax cuts got done because they could peel off enough conseradems to get their agenda done. So you are back to a caucus that isn’t especially homogeneous and some that will vote when they want with repubs.
The 60 vote thing is its own problem, but it is the problem at hand. You engage that by mapping out how you get to 60 votes. So get to it. Harry Reid is waiting.
I love anon’s LBJ example of Medicare. LBJ compromised to get his deal. Go Figure.
The public option IS the compromise. Anything less is capitulation.
LBJ’s compromise resulted in Medicare and Medicaid. What is Obama’s compromise going to deliver?
I promise this is the last LBJ link. It is more comprehensive and includes transcripts of a lot of LBJ phone calls:
http://www.larrydewitt.net/Essays/MedicareDaddy.htm
Based on your post Cassy you will be trying to get it both ways. If Obamas has no ctonrol over the Senate and the House then when something rolls out that is considered a success he will have nothing to do with it either.
You don’t get it both ways and this post tries to do just that.
You know, Donny, you really do need to follow the thread of the conversation here. I’m not trying to have anything both ways. I don’t much care who claims credit for getting the thing done as long as it gets done.
But I note that you still have to keep creating stuff to argue over rather than deal with the point of this post.
Bu rage away Donny — you’ll hit the subject sooner or later.
Nemski,
I don’t have a problem with the leadership style if it get’s things done. BUSH CATERED AND SERVED HIS BASE REPEATEDLY. That was/is my point. he stood up there and shoved it down their throats and guess what it worked. I’m not saying the laws and what he pushed for was right, but it got approved didn’t it.
I would be more than FINE if Obama did what Bush did and shoved his party leaders the direction his base wanted to go. But right now, he isn’t do jack shit for his base.
When Newt Gingrich, McCain and all the other Hawks are saying they loved Obama’s speech at West Point. Houston, we have a problem.
Ha! Donviti wants Bush-Style leadership. Where did that get us? Iraq, Afghanistan and a huge recession. If that’s leadership, I don’t want none.
LBJ compromised with his own party that had a super majority in both houses?
The public option IS the compromise.
The public option as it exists in the Senate Bill is worthless. It isn’t even a compromise. The House version is better, but that is closer to a real compromise. The original idea for a Public Option is quite gone already, I’m afraid.
question for the wonks, who was the last President to have a 60+ vote majority in the senate?
Cass, as far as i’m concerned, i see Obama right now they way i see CHase Utley when he is in a slump. We are about to lose the public option to a minority party. That is pathetic. To hell with the nature of the senate and letting the traditional process play out. The process is going to let a few wingnuts hijack health care for the American people and cause the main reason i personally voted for Obama to fail. Obama has A LOT more weight to throw around then he has been… he has a long way to go before he is acting like Bush, but this is an issue where he should use all the power of his office to get the job done. He promised health care reform. What we are getting is candy for the losing party and MORE MONEY FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!!
I still believe he can do all he promised. Still end up being a president worthy of being on money…. but it wont happen this way.
And when i asked a while back if anyone honestly saw this comming, i was talking about the candy for republicans. Did you really think he was going to be bipartisan to a horrible horrible fault? if so, why did you vote for him?
Right now, my biggest problem is with the congress. The democratic leadership is awful. Harry Reid is as bad as Andy Reid from a few years age (mormons named reid….. just sayin) Pelosi is SO polarized that ANY support of a progressive agenda is tantamount to support of communism… no that isn’t HER fault entirely, but the Dems let the American Taliban control the message, the media, the PR game…. As we are seeing majorities dont mean a thing if the other side controls the message and i blame the democratic leadership for that.
However. Barack Obama is the head of the Democratic party. If everything that went wrong with republicans and republican legislation was Bush’s fault…. the metric has to follow to the next president. Brownie was Bush’s fault because he appointed a moron. Geithner, and everything he does wrong is Obama’s responsibility. The Buck stops with him.
Excuses that it isn’t Obama at fault in this post. Numbered for your digestion:
1. Not only did Obama not campaign as an economic progressive, but actively reflected back to the Clinton/Rubin era as one of growth and sensible government that had much to aspire to.
2. He never really gets to the point that any Obama agendas are necessarily limited by how many votes he can get in the Senate. Most of the Obama-proposed initiatives – many of them not especially radical at that – get watered down and weakened in the House and especially in the Senate.
3. How many people observed that the original figure proposed by the administration was too small? It was made smaller as it wound through the Congress and we now know for a fact that the stimulus as passed was too small.
4. These criteria were important 11 months ago, as the credit markets were largely dead and as the rest of the economy kept falling off of its cliff. No one seems to remember that once approved by Congress, it was the Fed who pushed out bailout monies and other guarantees to the banks and most of that was done prior to the inauguration.
5. The Obama Administration has implemented at least two programs for rewriting mortgages and neither are doing what they should. Geithner should be making these banks an offer they can’t refuse – rewrite mortgages aggressively or the bailout and guarantee programs end for banks that don’t comply.
6. But for the missed opportunities and inept negotiating, you still get back to the main observation – President Obama can propose and write himself the most progressive legislation on the planet for whatever topic you name and if he can’t get 60 votes in the Senate for it,
7. It is also true that Obama got a great deal of money from banks and Wall Street during his campaign. But it is also true that progressives stayed pretty silent through the campaign as Wall Street money poured in
or for those of you that don’t feel like re-reading that nonsense.
It isn’t Obama’s fault, just the people he put there or the people that make the laws that he signs.
“I would be more than FINE if Obama did what Bush did and shoved his party leaders the direction his base wanted to go. But right now, he isn’t do jack shit for his base.”
agreed. Obama was very clear about the direction he wanted to take. He was elected to do that, and if it could be done in a bipartisan way, that’s cool too. But bipartisanship should not mean letting the losers run the show. they lost for a reason. Their view of the world was rejected for a reason.
“It isn’t Obama’s fault, just the people he put there or the people that make the laws that he signs.”
and i know i held bush accountable for EVERYTHING. even mark foley and those jackasses. He is the leader, responsible for all those in his party and how they do their jobs. (by the way, this is exactly why i wanted Hillary to replace Harry as SML… she has a MUCH bigger pair.)
It isn’t Obama’s fault, just the people he put there or the people that make the laws that he signs.
Thanks for playing, Donny — but those don’t exactly amount to excuses until you can demonstrate that they are definitively not true. And you can start with explaining to us when the separation of powers actually went away. Because if it is true that Obama can just pass health care by decree then we have an entirely different fight on our hands here.
one more thing. It is possible to be frustrated with the way Obama is letting things happen and NOT have turned against him. Like i said… right now its like Chase Utley.. or more accurately Jimmy Rollins in a slump. you have faith he will pull out of it and start producing again, but the longer it drags out, the harder it is to root and cheer. The danger is that he turns into McNabb. Some flashes of brilliance, but eventualyl you realize he is never going to be what you thought and you come to expect the turnovers and blown passes… he isnt there YET, not even close actually, but he is the president. It is his agenda. lets see some good old “fuck you if you disagree” bushian leadership.
one more thing. It is possible to be frustrated with the way Obama is letting things happen and NOT have turned against him.
What I should have said. Well put.
better said like this
cassandra_m,
“Apparently you have not seen the analysis of the risks of reconciliation for health care.”
Do you have a credible link for this analysis?
Regardless, Dems could get the public option and other controversial parts through by using reconciliation. They could get the non-controversial parts through without it, if they needed to.
The fact is that if Obomba would rally the liberal democratic party base, twist some arms, and try to exert some real leadership instead of sucking up to President LIEberman and repubs, he could get this done.
Thanks for playing, Donny — but those don’t exactly amount to excuses until you can demonstrate that they are definitively not true. And you can start with explaining to us when the separation of powers actually went away. Because if it is true that Obama can just pass health care by decree then we have an entirely different fight on our hands here.
Oh, I get it you are right and I’m wrong b/c you said so.
noted.
go blame Congress for the Surge now. I’m sure that’s their fault too
so cass, would you take a health care bill that gave more money to insurance companies and did more harm then good as long as the “process” was respected? If separation of powers means the powerful lobbies can send a few people with a lot of money to alter legislation that will effect the whole country…. is that acceptable? I say congress doesn’t work the way it is meant to, and since Obama cant just pass a decree, he needs to be louder to the congress then the sound of all that money. He promised health care. HE needs to find a way.
additionally, based on this post’s logic you don’t blame Bush for anything that happened with a majority of Dems in both houses I assume.
this is fun!
So what about the Senate bill causes “more harm”?
go blame Congress for the Surge now. I’m sure that’s their fault too
Thanks Donny! We needed more made up crap from you to argue about. When you get around to addressing something I’ve actually said here, I’ll let you know.
But rage away! It’s what we’re here for!
So what about the Senate bill causes “more harm”?
Individual mandate.
A mandate for coverage and no public option? that is pretty freakin’ harmful
How?
Exactly, please.
The Massachusetts plan has an individual mandate and no public option (other than Medicaid) and that works pretty well. They still have challenges with cost control, but people are covered and they largely like it.
Thanks Donny! We needed more made up crap from you to argue about. When you get around to addressing something I’ve actually said here, I’ll let you know.
I’m applying your logic to other Obama related items that the Congress acts on is all. Don’t get all flustered if I’m picking the logic apart and using it on other topics.
Quick question then Cassy:
Who was at fault in 2006 to 2008 when Bush was in office and the Dems had a majority?
fyi: Obama was a Senator back then so be careful.
The Massachusetts plan has an individual mandate and no public option (other than Medicaid) and that works pretty well.
so now you are defending Mitt Romney?
Aren’t the cost still sky rocketing and mass is getting in real trouble trying to manage the budget?
I did say that they were having cost control issues.
Still waiting to hear how an individual mandate with no public option is a disaster. Specifics please.
issues? like the state budget is totally f’d and it was a huge win for the insurance companies b/c they had no competition. Those are minor issues to you? Other than those few details the plan is a success? So essentially, Mitt Romney’s plan that was a huge wine for the Insurance company was a good plan in your mind?
Uh, it’s a disaster b/c of the costs are not deterred. What incentive do they have to cut costs with no real competition? With the mandate won’t they still have their local monopolies? and the subsidies that go to the insurance co’s. they don’t lower the costs. All they do is lower the costs up front and then taxpayers are still footing the bill on the back end.
All (well almost all) of you are pretty damn naive, both sides – ones who blame BO and ones who don’t.
DV said some really stupid shit thinking that things can just change out of absolute will, and the whole “GWB got his that soon” argument is laughable! like anything in this country, be it jobs, economic, etc changes at a sprinter’s pace, and the legislative situation was quite different in 2001, along with the Maoist uniformity displayed after 9/Guilliani.
It ain’t the same shit.
Now to the defenders of all things Obama too need a reality check. the big tent dem caucus is bringing your man down. It’s easy when your tent is all the Krazies (see current GOP), but when the progressives have to lay with the Corp Whores, blue dog pussies, and the religious sycophants – well you ain’t gonna get shit done either.
Why wait until 2010 for a stronger majority (not gonna happen anyways, but…)? Blow that shit up now with the nuclear option.
“Mitt Romney’s plan that was a huge wine…”
Freudian slip, DV? 🙂
Um, cassandra_m, I’m waiting for a supportable response why the D’s can’t pass HCR using reconciliation…
Why?
They’ve already gone through that and made their decision. The task right now is still getting 60 votes. The nuclear option is possible that VC notes is possible but still a long shot. So that current path chosen is 60 votes and we are still waiting to hear how you get that.
“Why” you ask?
“They’ve already gone through that and made their decision.”
Are you kidding? You KNOW that they can still pass it using reconciliation if Obomba and the Dems had any backbone. That “60 votes” nonsense is for losers, which Obomba and the Dems still are.
Ezra Klein weighs in — specifically deconstructing more of the Robert Rubin boogeyman conspiracy. And he also reminds where the legislative work gets done:
“John Podesta, reacting to the Lieberman fiasco: “I suspect musty folders on reconciliation got dusted off this morning.”
From
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
So, you see? It is still possible.
Are you kidding? You KNOW that they can still pass it using reconciliation if Obomba and the Dems had any backbone. That “60 votes” nonsense is for losers, which Obomba and the Dems still are.
Then you should make your argument for something they’ve pretty clearly decided not to do. Reid and Obama met some weeks ago before this came to the Senate floor and Reid rejected reconciliation then. It may have been a mistake — but you and Donny and the rest who think that there are ponies somewhere in this process would have been juts as mad when pieces of this bill could not get done via reconciliation. But I’m expecting a bit much from people with no clue as to how separation of powers works anyway.
So if you don’t have a map to 60 votes, then perhaps you have a map to get all of the current bill through reconciliation with the current rules. Again, Harry Reid would love your input on this if you’ve got a fool-proof way to get it done.
Still waiting to hear how an individual mandate with no public option is a disaster. Specifics please.
You want specific? Specific #1 is that there isn’t any specific evidence, because apart from Massachusetts nobody had been dumb enough to implement and individual mandate for health insurance.
And in MA, the plan is backstopped by Federal Medicaid dollars.
An individual mandate in MA means that 96% of tax filers have insurance.
I don’t see how so many people with coverage can be a disaster.
96% of tax filers have insurance.
My truthiness detector just pegged at that “tax filers” line.
I do know the latest stats on medical bankruptcies aren’t out yet.
… actually if you are bankrupt because you paid for mandated insurance – do you even show up as a medical bankruptcy? We’ll see if they count them.
Cassandra,
I have family in Mass. and those “fortunate” enough for mandated purchased insurance all agree that it sucks.
REAL health care reform = Single Payer (Medicare-for-All), not the corporate give-aways now in Congress (including ‘public option’)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/16-4
“Plans that combined mandates to purchase coverage with Medicaid expansions fell apart in Massachusetts (1988), Oregon (1992), and Washington state (1993); the latest iteration (Massachusetts, 2006) is already stumbling, with uninsurance again rising and costs soaring.”
Don’t know why 96% of tax filers having insurance would be a truthy number. The way that the MA system is set up to count for compliance is via the income tax forms. So basically this says that a pretty damn big majority of people who should have insurance (and the dependents they report) have insurance.
Still do not get why 96% of MA residents having insurance is a disaster.
But your dance away from that claim is noted.
And Delacrat — I have friends in MA who are grateful for this insurance. Want to know why? Because they wouldn’t have any insurance whatsoever without it. Which I think is the point of this effort. Single payer would be great, but it is simply not on the table and never credibly has been. But if you have a whip count for 60 votes to pass single payer today, I’d LOVE to see that.
But while everyone is waiting for single payer, I cannot for the life of me figure out why having some insurance is somehow less good than having NONE AT ALL.
Obama did not campaign for universal healthcare. This was a distinguishing point between Obama & Edwards (and I think that Hillary Clinton had a position closer to Edwards). I don’t think that Obama doesn’t like universal healthcare, but rather that he judges that it is not feasible given the recent and current Congress makeup.
As Rummy said, you go to war with the army you’ve got.
So Obama has a majority of Dems in the US senate. Well, the Democratic party in DE has a majority of Dems in the state senate for years, and yet we had a anti-discrimination bill in a desk drawer for ten years, and open government took how many years?
It is WAY too simplistic to lay the current health care reform legislative state at Obama’s doorstep. YES, HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND THE BUCK STOPS THERE, however we have separation of powers, and there are limits to the power of the bully pulpit.
Keep in mind that Obama regularly surprised opponents during the election, by out-chess-maneuvering them. Obama showed time and again that he fully understands the long-game.
I worked for Obama based on his vision, and based on my faith in his integrity and leadership skills. This isn’t to say that I am pleased with all of his actions and inactions. But the last I checked, no one elected me (or cass or dv) president of the United States.
As Jeb Bartlett said in West Wing–“how’s the view from the cheap seats?”
Hey, cassandra_m, you can wave your hands all you want about reconciliation, but you haven’t given any reason that it couldn’t be done. None.
Saying that it is “something they’ve pretty clearly decided not to do” is not a reason that they couldn’t. However, it does makes the point that you are desperately trying to refute: Obomba is just another weak and spineless Dem.
The only ones who thinks that there are ponies are the liberals and progressives who still think that Obomba is somehow different.
It is one thing to say that Obama did not campaign for Universal Health care and quite another to say that a watered down POS bill that doesn’t control costs and mandates 40 million new customers for big insurance is a non-issue that has nothing to do with the administration.
The White House had a revolving door of secret dealmaking through the spring with the big corporate providers and it appears that the deals that were cut do more for Obama’s reelection campaign than for the American people.
Bushies rammed through legislation with 51. I dare Harry Reid to give Americans Democrats what they want – a strong public option – via reconciliation.
Paul – a slew of polls today show that if they don’t get a public option, DEMs won’t be showing up in 2010. Is that part of a smart and fantastic Barack Obama or one that (as with his financial team) is stuck with a bunch of crappy advisors.
I give him an A+ for SCOTUS. Otherwise a C-.
There’s no handwaving — I’m not in the business of defending reconciliation which is what you want to have happen. But I do note that you have no plan for reconciliation that gets you everything you want here. Because you could probably get your ponies that way too.
Or at least you’ll be back bitching and complaining that Obama didn’t get the bill you wanted through reconciliation without making sure you understood what was possible there.
But we are all waiting to hear your magic plan that gets you ALL of the bill as it exists through reconciliation.
If you are tired of LBJ analogies, here’s how Clinton got his economic plan through, leading to prosperity for the rest of his Administration (granted it was a budget bill so filibuster was not an issue):
Bushies rammed through legislation with 51.
Do recognize that the 49 that weren’t “with them” included Blue Dog Dems who had no problem boosting a cloture vote to at least 60. Bush’s Congress wasn’t facing a ‘minority’ Party of goose-stepping No votes, the way that Obama’s Congress is.
It’s different this time.
Nancy–on the polls–you know as well as I that polls depend greatly on the wording. Further, the point that you are making is exactly what is energizing the party of no. By emasculating the public option and the ultimate legislation, Republicans are trying to drive wedges between groups of Dem voters.
Do we play their game? It’s your choice.
Back to the issue of ‘poll wording’. When it comes down to it, are Dems really going to stay home if the future of the Supreme Court is on the table? Furthermore, is it going to matter when the Republican opponent is facing a third-party tea-bagger in the general election?
It’s not as simple as the polls’ headline summary indicates.
GWB found a way.
Honestly, i really hope this isnt what Obama had in mind. The rewards for failure on wall street, making sure Goldman is happy, giving in to right wing nutjobs who were soundly defeated. There are some things now i am very distressed with…some things i couldn’t be happier. Foreign policy for example, I’m happy and feel he has delivered.
Cass, you seem to not be surprised at all at his laissez faire approach to domestic policy. but I am seeing surrender to a political insurgency. And if he indeed had planned the whole time to conduct domestic policy in this way.. i.e let the republicans, and big business walk ALL OVER him AND us…. i must say, i feel duped.
“I’m not in the business of defending reconciliation”
Of course not, you’re in the business of defending more “business as usual” spineless Dems who are still trying harder to please republicans than they are the liberal supporters who elected them and the American people who overwhelmingly support a public option.
You said that you had some reference to why HCR couldn’t be done through reconciliation, so where is it? I say that it can be done and others, like John Podesta, imply the same thing.
But spineless jellyfish dems continue to look for ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory instead of doing what it takes to win.
You said that you had some reference to why reconciliation couldn’t be done through reconciliation, so where is it?
I said no such thing.
You are the one convinced that you’ll get everything you want via reconciliation. If you think that is true, you need to lay that out. Because I strongly suspect that you’ve no idea that reconciliation comes with rules.
And if pointing out that there are no ponies at the end of the rainbow counts as defending something, then whatever. You still haven’t engaged on the real points of this post. You want to argue about the stuff that isn’t on the table (at least right now). I want to talk about What Is Now — and that is 60 votes.
“But spineless jellyfish dems continue to look for ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory instead of doing what it takes to win.”
couldn’t have said it better myself. The republicans knew they could defeat the dems…. they are already puting together their 2010 campaign around how the democrats couldn’t even serve the american people with a huge majority… I just wonder how long until Harry the Slug (tryin out new names for him) says “ooohhh if only we had 80 senators we could REALLY get something done.”
i really hope he loses his seat in 2010
GWB found a way.
a.price, you are beyond a doubt NOT an ignorant guy. You go read up on the rules of reconciliation and you’ll know how he got that through. It will be clear right in the intent of those rules. This legislation has sections that will confound the reconciliation rules, leaving an already incredibly weak bill weaker.
And subject to the usual suspects who would blame Obama for this even though the Senate Parliamentarian does not — you know, work for Obama.
And I don’t think that lassiez faire means what you think it does.
Harry will lose to a Republican, as will several other Senators. Then the next Senate leader will have a real excuse.
The truth is hard for liberals to accept. The fact is there are neo cons in both parties. Clinton, Biden, Nelson, Landriu, Carper, Baucaus,Reid, et al are all neo cons. Some on the left want to believe Obama “was caged in” by the neo cons in his party? If you believe that your are a dyed in the wool liberal. Obama had the majority believing he would challenge the status quo, but turns out he IS the status quo. He is a capitalist wall street banker supporter, he supports torture (its still going on in Bagram and in Afganistan), he and his AG are supporting John Yoo the torture expert~. He kept on Gates, Petraeus and McChrystal…all who should have been fired and replaced. He is still permitting rendition. He escalated the war in Afganistan~~not because of “terrorism”, but because the Unocal pipeline is still not completed. Like Vietnam, the US is building the biggest military base in Afganistan (while committing Blackwater an the CIA to do maneuvers in Pakistan! These are war crimes people! Dennis Kucinch is the man with a concience and after the Christmas break will bring a resolution to go “back to our Consitution”, only CONGRESS CAN DECLARE, NOT the Executive Branch. Do you think Obama is foolish enough, not astute enough re: the Consitution to know he HAS NO POWER TO ESCALATE WAR IN AFGANISTAN? He is an arch capitalist, and has surroune himself, insulate himself with neo cons so he can claim he was “following the advise of his counsel. What a jerk this guy turns out to be. He will assure that no progressive will ever be elected for generations…so we shouldnt refer to him as such for he is not. He threw Gandhi and Martin Luther King under the bus while claiming Afganistan to be a “just war”! What hypocrisy!
These demorat neo cons will make sure the US treasury is bankrupt, there will be no real reform in health care, the american worker is not needed or necessary. Why do you think Obama went to China and India…for the benefit of the american worker or the benefit of the new cheap labor market and corporate profits? Both parties are corrupt. We shouldnt waste another minute waiting for hell to freeze over…its already cold outside and we are in the freezer.
Let’s state the obvious, reconciliation is designed to address budgets (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)).
Saying that Bush was able to get what he wanted in a tax cut (budget) bill, through the reconciliation process, and therefore Obama should be able to do the same with the health care reform is, as others and I have been saying, short-sighted and over-simplifying. It’s a case of apples and oranges.
cassandra_m wrote “Apparently you have not seen the analysis of the risks of reconciliation for health care. You would not get much of what is on the table that is not directly related to finance.”
So where is this analysis that I have not seen but you have?
It is not, PB. They can get almost anything through on budget bills. It is done all the time.
So where is this analysis that I have not seen but you have?
Google is your friend, pal. Reconciliation was discussed at length this summer and at length just before Reid convinced Obama he could get the votes. There’s a ton of writing out there, so have at it.
And it is amazing to me that you could be arguing for reconciliation without knowing that thus is supposed to deal with straight budget bills. Not even knowing what you are talking about does not count as “doing what it takes to win”.
From the Wikipedia link:
“President Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets. However, on August 25, 2009, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), one of the members of the Senate Finance Committee’s “Gang of Six” bipartisan group to work on a health insurance reform bill in the Senate, has said that reconciliation may be used, is an acceptable option, and that he can support it.”
So it is not as cut and dry as you want people to believe, but I guess if you’re looking for an excuse to lose, insisting reconciliation won’t work is as good as any.
Senator Robert S Byrd on April 29, 2009:
On 9/1/09, at http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/going-it-alone-on-health-care-dems-face-tug-of-war-over-public-option.php is the quote “According to Martin Paone, a legislative expert who’s helping Democrats map out strategy, a more robust public option–one that sets low prices, and provides cheap, subsidized insurance to low- and middle-class consumers–would have an easier time surviving the procedural demands of the so-called reconciliation process. However, he cautions that the cost of subsidies “will have to be offset and if [the health care plan] loses money beyond 2014…it will have to be sunsetted.””.
The paragraph notes that if a ‘great solution’ is accomplished through the reconciliation process, as some here are promoting, then it will be required to have a trigger/do-over feature if it doesn’t work well the first few years. This is really what we want?
The reconciliation process appears to have a lot of requirements. I am disappointed that some posters don’t acknowledge that.
a USA reporter noting that Podesta said that ‘some Democrats’ are taking another look at the reconciliation process for HCR is far from having Podesta pounding the podium recommending the reconciliation process.
Is Mike Gravel on the left? No he is a democratic centurist. Here is what he had to say yesterday.
Obama has wasted an opportunity to be a great president. More than 50% of the american people do not buy into this war. He could have stood up and said, “we are getting out”. Forget Congress. Forget the republicans. Forget the war hawks. Forget the NYTimes and the Washington Post (both pro war). He could have weathered the storm because he had the american people on his side. What did he do? He caved to the leadership of Petraeus, and McChrystal, adopted a scenario that is a total loser.
Dont be hoodwinked by Obama going to Dover Air Force Base, or to Arlington to salute the graves. It is not honorable to die in vain. People died in Vietnam, people are dying in Iraq and Afganistan and more are dying because of Barack Obama. They dont hate us because we are are free, they hate us because we are killing them.
We are spending more than 50% of our tax dollars on war and the Pentagon. More than all other nations combined. We cannot sustain these wars and not deliver on health care for the people, infrastructure and saving our economy with jobs.
So how can there be any real discussion on healthcare, when these imperialist wars are destroying our future?
I’m still Confused on why Cassandra is propping up Mass (Mitt Romney) as a solid defense.
Wasn’t that a huge win for the Ins companies? Isn’t it bankrupting the state.
an oh yeah, it isn’t covering everyone.
Help me out here? This plan is good because you know someone who’s sister’s brother’s niece is covered?
I agree with Donvitti. Some facts for Cassandra. Even Mitt Romney wouldnt support the Mass Plan for all america when he ran for President. The fact is that the Mass Plan is bankrupting the State. You cant have it both ways…keeping the for profits in and forcing people to buy in or go to jail or face huge fines. The Mass Plan is DOA. The issue is not about health care. The issue is about for profit vs. non profit. For profits take 42% to administer not attributing a penny towards health care. Medicare costs 1% to administer. So why are the neo cons like Carper, Leiberman pushing for the Personel Management Group who have no experience operating such a plan. Why not let the current Medicare system continue. Because Joe Lieberman wants to be the Chair of the Personel Management group who would oversee the program. He is a corporate prostitute and spokesperson for the for profits. He would make sure only the sickest of the sick were entered into the program, so it would go belly up in the first 3 years. Plus it costs $12 million to start up that program. Why bother? These Senators are not interested in saving money, they are interested in saving the for profit corrupt greedy corporate system which they have benefited from for decades.
woohoo!
To Paul Bambach: Re: Obama didnt campaign on universal health care. Thats dead wrong. In fact, when Obama ran for the Senate he was a huge supporter of single payer health care. You can see it on Youtube. When Hilary spoke of universal health care during the campaign she accused him of not supporting universal health care. Obama said, that his plan would be universal. He was dead wrong of course and it was John Edwards who joined Clinton stating that the plan put forth by Obama was not universal. That was the campaign.
Now the guy is president. He has done absolutely nothing (publicly) to support any of the health care plans. But behind the scenes he and Rahm have done many many dirty deals with Big Pharma and with AARP and the AMA so get them on his side. He is a deal maker but the deal he is willing to make will do nothing to bring down the costs of health care nor will the plan appease the democrat neo cons, the corporate whores who make up the Senate.
Senator “Pork Barrel” Byrd is hardly the last word on all things Senate.
Pork Barrel Byrd is also the author of the reconciliation process. If you think that Byrd’s lack of support for this won’t mean something then you’re pretty well not even in this game.
But we’ll wait on your plan to get this whole bill through reconciliation — it ought to be fascinating.
Cassy,
I may have missed your answer to my other question. But I was still wondering if based on your views represented in this post that you Blame the Dems that had the majority in Congress for all that happened in 2006-08?
It can’t be Bush’s fault right? He’s just the president and has no control over Congress.
Please, answer. I know how you like to pester folks until they answer your questions. Thought I’d do the same
You didn’t miss it.
I think I told that that I’d let you know when you’ve actually engaged with anything that I’ve actually said here.
I haven’t changed my mind on that. So pester away!
I understand you not wanting to answer it. It would pretty much disintegrate the logic in your post. I’ll go ahead and answer for you.
Your answer would be Bush was responsible and not the Congress. Ergo, you are full of shit and so is this post.
You don’t get it both ways Cassy which was the problem with this unthought out post from the get go. If Congress is to blame and Not Obama than Bush is off the hook for quite a few things from 2006/08 and The same Dems you defend Obama with, you now have to place blame on for 06/08 letting Bush off the hook or get called out by little ol me.
Damn I’m good.
That wasn’t even an especially good try.
But hey — keep hope alive, man.
I’m waiting for your answer Cassy. Have at it.
Congress is to blame so Obama is safe
Congress is to Blame so Bush would be safe too.
After all they water down whatever the President is asking for and he doesn’t control them.
check mate
oh and I do love you using Mitt Romney’s healthcare as a solid example too. That’s going to be a nugget worth using again and again.
cassandra_m, Pork Barrel Byrd didn’t say it couldn’t be used, he said it shouldn’t be used. There is a difference. If he doesn’t like it, he can vote against it. We still could get 50 Ds + Biden to vote for it. That’s the plan. But the D’s and Obomba got no spine.