I agree

Here is one liberal guy I completely agree with:

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - The Blair House Health Summit: Missing Pat Moynihan - Blogs from CNN.com

It is easy to be sympathetic with President Obama?s attempt to revive health care reform by embarking on a big, new gamble this week. After all, he campaigned on health reform, has made it the signature issue of his presidency, and according to those around him in the White House, focuses on it almost to the point of obsession. Like many of his predecessors, Mr. Obama seems deeply moved by past health care struggles of a close family member ? in this case, his mother.

So, the President deserves a significant measure of respect for trying to get reform across the goal line. He has already come closer than any of seven other presidents who have tried. Now he and his aides believe it imperative to give one last try.

But one should not underestimate the size of the gamble. The President and Democrats are already in political trouble for spending a full year on health reform and then hitting a wall. A more cautious president would have walked quietly away from the scene of the accident. Indeed, that?s what Mr. Obama appeared to be doing in his recent State of the Union, insisting that he now focus on jobs and not mentioning health care until he was a half hour into the speech.

But he was apparently itching to try again and when he had a bravura performance, with cameras rolling, as he paid a call on House Republicans in Baltimore, a light bulb went off in the White House: let?s have a ?summit? at Blair House with Republicans and Democrats. If the President, they thought, can once again dazzle in debate with Republicans, that will light a new fire behind reform and maybe ? just maybe ? it will then pass.

So, Mr. Obama is doubling down on his bet. If he succeeds, he could not only revive health care but his presidency. If he fails, however, he will deliver a second body blow to himself and his party. And prospects for passage of a comprehensive bill are uncertain at best: while looking better in the Senate, the House could go either way. So this is a big gamble.

Hovering over Blair House is an even bigger question: Even if it were possible for Mr. Obama to succeed, is it wise? Given current conditions, would passage of his comprehensive bill be in the best interests of the country?

There is no right answer to those questions ? much depends on what you think about the substance of the bill. But there is a deeper wisdom from the past that ought to be considered, too. It was taught to me back in the 1990s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the brightest lights ever to serve in the U.S. Senate and a personal friend. Pat was then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I had just joined up with President Bill Clinton at the White House, and a titanic struggle was underway over the Clintons? efforts to reform health care.

Moynihan, a Democrat, told me that there were two essential pre-requisites to passing major social reform in this country. The first, he said, was that landmark social legislation should be passed with significant, bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle ? otherwise, there would always be trouble with it. He sent me the vote tallies to show how at least a half dozen or more Senators from the opposition party voted for big social initiatives stretching back to the New Deal ? from Social Security in the 1930s the civil rights bills of the mid-60s and Medicare and Medicaid bundled together in 1965.

Secondly, he said, landmark social legislation should enjoy solid support from the public before it is passed. Again, history bears out his point. Presumably, the fact that major legislation enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress helped to build up majority support in the country.

It is sobering ? and should give us pause ? that the comprehensive health care bill now under debate meets neither test. In the House, only one Republican has voted in favor (and has since changed his mind) and not a single Republican in the Senate. People can argue till the cows come home about why. The point is that passage of this omnibus bill through the reconciliation process would be a strictly partisan affair ? a sharp break from recent history.

Just as important, the public doesn?t want Washington to do this. Averaging up the results of ten major polls over the past month, Real Clear Politics finds that opinion is running 52-38 percent against passage of the Obama/Democratic plan. There has been some tightening of late in the Democrats? favor, but the margin against is still the most negative in memory for major social legislation. Today, CNN released a new poll, just out of the field, showing that only 25 percent want Congress to pass this big bill, 48 percent want Congress to start over, and 25 percent want to stop working on health care. Those are important results.

It is possible that President Obama can turn opinion around in the Democrats? favor through the Blair House summit. Again, one should accord the President great respect for trying. But if he is unable to win Republicans to his side AND if he is unable to win over the public, doesn?t that suggest that he should reconsider?

Should he not think again about the recommendation of his own chief of staff ? to take a handful of the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans, weave them into a scaled down bill, and win passage of a bill that will be both bipartisan and enjoy the support of the country? Wouldn?t that be a good way to get started on serious health care reform so that we can also turn our attention back to jobs? I wish Pat Moynihan were at Blair House to whisper in the President?s ear.

Who thinks this summit is going to be more than a show to try and make the GOP look bad and give Obama and company an excuse to pass it any way they can?

Anderson Cooper is a moron.

I don't care what this says.

One good or decent deed does not cover up a lifetime of idiocy and wrongdoing.

Well I certainly was not embracing his entire lifetime of writings, just this one that seems to be dead on and this comming from a very loyal Democrat.

I expect republican groups and people to say things I agree with, but when even the loyal liberal guys are saying Obama should start over, that to me is meaningful.

"CNN calls them 'teabaggers,' which is the gayest term I've ever heard on CNN - other than 'Anderson Cooper." ~ Ann Coulter

I heart Ann Coulter. She's a hottie, but I couldn't date somebody that much smarter than me!

"CNN calls them 'teabaggers,' which is the gayest term I've ever heard on CNN - other than 'Anderson Cooper." ~ Ann Coulter

That was funny as hell.

But consider just how bad Obama must have turned for even Cooper to turn away from what he is doing.

"teabaggers" LMAO........

I find the visual almost too much before noon

So did anyone change their mind about supporting the Democrat's method of healthcare reform based on the so called summit?

I have to say I mostly saw an Obama desperately trying to look for excuses to point fingers at the Republicans.

Yes, we need reform, but there are many, many ways to accomplish reform that does not require a massive tax and power grab like Obama is asking for.

I support several of the ideas Obama and other liberals have offered, but most of what they are doing is not needed, will not decrease costs, and will only further drive America into debt spending money we do not have.

IMHO

said it before and I'll say it again: Health Insurance should be a not for profit industry.

At less than 3% profit margin, it practically is not for profit.

At less than 3% profit margin, it practically is not for profit.

True, and if we were to insert the natural way the Government runs things much worse than the private sector, then even though on paper it would look like people are getting it for 'free' they would actually make it cost more.

That is why it takes 15 months to get an MRI in Canada, the Government there ran out of money and the only way to keep things going was to scale back services.

Nothing worth having is free.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue's massive role in this election year.

 

Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program "This Week."

"We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress," she said. "We're here to do the job for the American people."

Um, let me get this straight, Nancy says they are there to do the job for the America people, and that her fellow elected officials should pass her idea of healthcare reform even if it means they will not get re-elected.....

But if the people respond to their actions by voting them out of office, does that not mean they were "NOT" working for the people in reality? The people would only react like that if you upset them and why would they get upset if you were 'representing' their possitions on these issues?

That is the problem though, our represenative style of Government has us voters putting people into office based on the lies the person told to us that we believed. Then in many cases the elected official ignores his/her constituants until just before it is time for re-election time then they will lie some more just to get votes again.

A lot of Americans are getting tired of this cycle.

Well even the polls in California show the majority there do not think she is doing a good job.

Maybe so, but most San Franciscans will have a hard time forcing their hand to mark an "X" for a Republican on their ballot. Maybe if someone as liberal/progressive as Nancy were to run she'd be hard pressed to get re-elected.

They were thinking the same thing for Massachusetts too.

They were thinking the same thing for Massachusetts too.

Massachusetts went for Reagan twice. Doubt if San Fran did.

Massachusetts went for Reagan twice. Doubt if San Fran did.

Wern't talking about presidential races.

Wern't talking about presidential races.

The point is San Fran is more liberal than Massachusetts.

The point is San Fran is more liberal than Massachusetts.

1972 was the last time a Republican was elected to the Senate from the entire State of Massachusetts.

Scott Brown ran as one of his main promises to vote against Obama's healthcare agenda and other radical liberal policies. I believe it is fair to say that Mr. Kennedy was just as much radical liberal as Nancy is so getting Brown to fill that seat is as close to night and day as someone could imagine. Sure, Brown did not have to run against Kennedy but at the same time Kennedy had pretty high approval numbers where Nancy does not.

Now, on the other hand California is bankrupt, has been bankrupt for many years. They are losing businesses and the "rich" in droves and they cannot tax their way out of this hole they have dug. The people are not completely blind to these facts, they can see what is happening. There are advertisements on their local television stations with other States inviting business owners to move to their States where they can keep most of their earned money instead of giving it to a corrupt California Government. The every day people also see these things and the daily reports of the State being broke.

I would think there is fertile soil to grow some real conservative ideas and canidates to clean out the waste, to steer the State back to fiscal responsibility and bring jobs back to the State by ending the policy of punnishing the job creators.

Easy?

No, but certainly possible.

Obama's plans promise much higher taxes for most Americans either directly or indirectly through higher costs of goods/services. If I was running for office in California I would push this fact and ask them all if they think they still have the room in their household budgets to pay higher taxes?

Then I would ask them to sit down and figure out what each Californian himself receives in California as a resident that other residents of other States do not get to make the much, much higher taxes worth it? Everyone gets roads and schools so those things do not count, so what is it that they get to justify the out of control taxes?

California gets just as many tourists as Florida but there are no State income taxes and no massive businesses taxes in Florida so why can't California do the same thing?

Some facts:

The 8th District gave John Kerry his best performance in California in 2004, taking in 84.2% of the vote. Barack Obama continued on this trend in 2008 when he received 85.22% of the vote in the district while John McCain received 12.38%.

Nancy has nothing to worry about; easy for her to ask others to risk their jobs.

Some facts:

 

 

 

Nancy has nothing to worry about; easy for her to ask others to risk their jobs.

Now your back to talking about presidential races, yes, I agree that on the National scale, California does lean very heavy to the liberal canidate, but that has very little to do with local House races, and it is a specific House race I am speaking about.

Every poll conducted on expected voters in her district has shown a steady decline on her approval numbers. Her name is permenentely attached to most of the negative legislation that has been passed, and is hurting the people of California.

No, removing her will not be easy, but it is certainly possible especially if she forces through legislation like the healthcare bill when even the majority of California voters do not want it to be passed. I do know one thing for sure hugo, you can't beat her unless you try.

You know hugo, you seem to think certain people like Obama and Pelosi are invincible, are you star struck? I agree great challenge exists, but I do not believe they are invincible.

Now your back to talking about presidential races, yes, I agree that on the National scale, California does lean very heavy to the liberal canidate, but that has very little to do with local House races, and it is a specific House race I am speaking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name me one district that voted greater than 6-1 for a Presidential candidate where the member of the favored Presidential candidates party did not win the House race. It don't matter if most Californians hate Pelosi, she just has to win San Francisco. Call me a realist. How much money you want to put down on a Republican winning Nancy's seat?