As GOP civil war rages, Democrats look to benefit

"The GOP is likely to survive its bitter intraparty battles in such states as Alaska and Utah, "

Because, you know, the GOP in those states had "come to terms" with Tea Party types long ago.

The last four paragraphs of the article say a lot, but I think that this article is being charitable to the GOP. If these new candidates win, HOW do they win? Sure they are "out of the mainstream", and people will be angry blablabla, but if the GOP is going to be the party of NO, then winning in 2012 is vanishing in the distance. So you have to appease these Republican factions even though you are basically pitting them against each other. Then you have to reconcile THAT with mainstream voters for general elections. Look for shaky platforms full of holes.

So the last four paragraphs say it all. If the economy improves, the GOP will be crushed. If it doesn't, then the GOP have a chance to make temporary gains, but only a chance. FDR had a dicey time like this. I suspect Obama will twist up the GOP by doing something with social security. There are plenty of issues that will make the GOP implode.

What's GOP? Please explain local acronyms, Kyodo. This isn't a US site, after all. Would you put NF in an article about the UK without explaining it?

Moderator: GOP refers to the Republican party. The story is from the Associated Press, not Kyodo.

GOP = Grand Old Party, also known as the Republican Party in the US.

That name always puzzled me: the democratic party is a good 20 years older than the republican party...

As we work our way through the primaries we're seeing this surge of winning by super conservative republicans. But when it gets to the general elections the independents will be pulled over to the democratic side. They will be swayed because the ultra right scares them to death. < :-)

That name always puzzled me: the democratic party is a good 20 years older than the republican party...

True and yet not true at the same time. The Democratic party has had their name changed several times before settling on their current moniker. Jefferson was the first "Democrat" president. Another party the whigs, more of a coalition of different groups, merged to form the Republican party, shortly before the civil war. Lincoln if I remember my history right was the 2nd Republican President. After the war, because of Lincoln, Republicans dominated politics until the early part of the 20th century. Thats when they picked up the GOP nickname. Dems, despite being an earlier party, merged with several others, and eventually changed their name to be simply the Democratic party. That happened though late in the 19th century, so you can make the claim that the Republican party is actually older. Certainly their name and moniker predate the Democrat party by a few years, but all told, its not like it really matters. The parties switch positions every couple decades anyway. Dems are more conservative for awhile, then its Republicans, then back to Dems. And progressives count themselves as members of both parties, preferring to vote for candidates who favor big governement solutions.

Back on topic now, this isn't really going to matter all that much. Dirty Harry is going to have a very tough time pulling out a victory. So many people are worried about the economy, and about the Dems ideas that government is the solution to all our problems, that well anyone who backs these ideals, is going to have a tough time. Thats what you're seeing in Alaska, as well as Florida. A pushback against those who espouse big government solutions.

The Dow is about to drop below 10,000. Millions of Americans' retirement plans and retirement incomes are in dire jeapordy. The "official" unemployment rate looks to climb above 10% with no end in sight.

These are the things voters will be thinking of when they vote in November. Looking back at Mr. Bush they see unemployment half of what it is now and the Dow breaking 14,000. The democrats trying to dump on that won't play well.

November will be no friend to the party of endless entitlements.

RR

"November will be no friend to the party of endless entitlements." -- RR

People who see Dems that way have already made up their minds. As far as the others, well what choice do they have? For a lot of people, it will be Hitler vs. FDR. Or the party of NO vs. the party of Maybe. For all of their bluster, I don't see a whole lot of ideas coming out of the Tea Party and their buddies. The GOP doesn't either.

So if people come down to making what amounts to a protest vote or actually choosing a leader, why would they choose a GOP candidate? All they talk about is wrecking the government, not using it for the benefit of the electorate.

"Lincoln, Republicans dominated politics until the early part of the 20th century." In fact, Lincoln was so admired by black people that most were Republicans all the way up to the Depression. Reagan so inspired Hispanic people that they won him the vote repeatedly in Florida, Texas, and California. Take a look at what those groups think of the GOP these days.

As always, the election outcome will hinge on how well the GOP persuades poor people to vote against their interests. They will use religious or sexual issues. If they can't do that, they will use thinly veiled racism in the guise of crime or welfare issues. Most likely though, they will just go straight for Obama personally. I have watched the GOP do this kind of stuff time and again. If you know what to watch for, the whole strategy is as plain as day. It will be worse this year because the GOP does not have anything positive to say at all.

Nevada Republicans’ nomination of tea party favorite Sharron Angle may save Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. His popularity has fallen sharply among state voters, but Democrats say Angle’s comments are scaring voters away from her and back toward him.

No surprise; Sharon Angle is terrifying.

The Republicans really have stirred up a hornets nest this time around, and they are taking a big gamble by being as persistently obstructionist as they've been. These last 18 months have been particularly dark times for governments based on democratic principles, with the autocrats in China making these governments look really bad.

Personally, I think the GOP should get clobbered if for no other reason than because of their tactics. You can debate about whether the Democrats or Republicans have good ideas for helping put the country back on track, but the fact is that the brazen obstructionism they've been engaging in this last cycle is particularly odius. Very irresponsible.

David Frum had it right when he said that Republicans blew it big time when they went obstructionist instead of working with the Dems on health care reform. The Republicans passed up a great opportunity to help shape the legislation, but instead they ended up with a flawed bill that will have to be fixed by some future Congress.

These kinds of tactics belong in a WWF wrestling match ring, not in a responsible political arena. What a shame.

They've been imploding under their own weight of stupidity since sometime 2005. It's funny to watch, especially the fat old white man's political pin-up, sarah palin.

This internal strife in the GOP is a microcosm of what's happening in the USA at large. A house divided shall not stand. One has to ask cui bono? Who benefits from fomenting all this internal strife, division and fratricide? Not the ordinary Joe's and Josephine's that's for sure.

"Who benefits from fomenting all this internal strife, division and fratricide? Not the ordinary Joe's and Josephine's that's for sure."

Perhaos it's a step in the right direction which could end the stagnant and un-democratic two-party system.

While it is comical to see the socialist and pork-loving state of Alaska going all Tea Party, it is really just a lot of noise from people who don't know the difference between co-relation and causality. Is the USA going downhill? - yep. Is the US government big? - yep. Do Americans pay a lot of taxes? - yep, the ones who still have an income do.

Do shark attacks go up in summer? - yep. Do ice cream sales go up in summer?- yep. So the obvious solutions are to ban ice cream sales and vote for Tea Party Republicans. Then watch nothing happen, at least nothing good.

"Who benefits from fomenting all this internal strife, division and fratricide?"

Anybody who can get a tax cut, an illegal immigrant maid, a bail out, health insurance, private schools, AND a gated community. Oh, and deferred capital gains.

Those are the winners and they will keep sitting pretty as long as they can make enough poor people think that gay marriage will make or break the future of America.

"Do Americans pay a lot of taxes? - yep, the ones who still have an income do."

"Do Americans pay a lot of taxes? - yep, the ones who still have a taxable income less than 200,000 do."

Because don't forget that the homeless guy in the street who buys a can of orange juice and a twinkie is paying taxes. And don't forget that many huge corporations, even profitable ones, can be exempted from paying taxes for various reasons. BP costs to clean up its mess actually reduce its taxes. You know that, right? The more it messes up, the less it pays. Kind of like GM, really.

Anyway, the GOP will have to address that in its campaigns. How come Bush spent so much time helping big companies and wealthy individuals and not plain folks?

Looking back at Mr. Bush they see unemployment half of what it is now and the Dow breaking 14,000.

LOL!!! Only a fool would look back at "Mr. Bush" and not see that his house of cards was tumbling down. Fully a month before the election of 2008, the Dow had fallen to well below 10,000.

It was mainly because of this wonderful performance by Bush and the Republicans that the Democrats won control of the White House.

The GOP is likely to survive its bitter intraparty battles...

Way back in the late 1960s, when the Democrats last went through this type of internecine bloodletting, the Republicans put forth an observation. Hmmmm...what was it?... Oh, yeah:

If they can't bring their own party together, how can they expect to bring the country together?

David Frum had it right when he said that Republicans blew it big time when they went obstructionist instead of working with the Dems on health care reform. The Republicans passed up a great opportunity to help shape the legislation, but instead they ended up with a flawed bill that will have to be fixed by some future Congress.

Yeah, sorry that doesn't fly. Americans were completely opposed to health care, and its one of the reasons Republicans will be regaining control of the House, and though its still a longshot, possibly the Senate. Your party of No mantra doesn't really work either. Republicans have reached out, repeatedly, but when Dems refuse any compromise, when they push for radical stuff that only Dems want, and that most Americans oppose, the Dems aren't the party of no, they're the party of Arrogance. The party of elitists who think they know whats best for America.

Anybody who can get a tax cut, an illegal immigrant maid, a bail out, health insurance, private schools, AND a gated community. Oh, and deferred capital gains.

More tired class warfare crap. This is what I mean too. This idea that the poor are hurting themselves by voting for Republicans. The Dems idea of trashing the economy and the system, to "level" the playing field is precisely what turns people off. The American system that says anyone can succeed, through hard work and a bit of luck is what the Dems are destroying. And one of the reasons why people are pushing back so hard now. Making people just drones of the party seems to be the goal of the Democrats. Thats why they're in favor of illegal immigration, why they back the unions to the hilt, and why they're desperate to stifle freedom of speech.

The dems brought their upcoming ass kicking at the polls upon themselves. They totally thumbed their noses at the wishes of We The People. More than 70 percent of Americans were against the Barack Hussein Obama Memorial Health Care Scam but the democrats listened to us voters with a political tin ear. Vote with the progressive/socialists and you get retired early.

RR

It's funny to watch, especially the fat old white man's political pin-up, Sarah Palin.

Heh, oh, how Obama wished he had the positive influence on candidates that Mrs. Palin does. She endorsed candidates in 5 races last night and all 5 seem on their way to victories. A sweep would give her an 18-10 endorsement record --.643 percent. And several victors have given Mrs. Palin huge credit for their wins.

Meanwhile, when Obama comes to town, democrat candidates run for the hills. Instead of sucking down the kool-aid, they know all too well that being seen with the One is akin to drinking political hemlock.

RR

"GOP civil war"

Ha ha, gotta love the AP.

How about "Democrat implosion"? Nah...

Heh, most Democrats are trying to spin it that they opposed Nancy Pelosi and Obama. Of course all the Republicans have to do, is point out that they voted for Health care, and that they're one of Obama's lackeys. Americans are waking up to the fact, that voting for a Dem means you support Obamas socialist vision. Thats why even most Dems are now admitting they're going to lose the house, and they're seriously worried about the Senate as well.

Heh, no one's going to miss the GOP except the terrorists.

Well...as the gop scrambles rightward to try to out zany the tea-baggers, that leaves the middle and moderates on the right without a candidate.

To them, I say, you are welcome to join the Democratic Party. C'mon in, take off your shoes and get to know the place, friends. We hope you'll like it and want to stick around for a while.

Taka

romeo, sarge.....

Weren't you guys predicting the same in 2006....

...and 2008?

"To them, I say, you are welcome to join the Democratic Party."

Or start a new, fresh party with members of the GOP that aren't the shrieking, religious nut-bags some of them are.

"Or start a new, fresh party with members of the GOP that aren't the shrieking, religious nut-bags some of them are."

That'd only leave the cleaner and the guy who stocks up the drinks cabinet.

The independents are going to be scared away from the republican party with all the Tea Party candidates. They are so far to the right that it'll be good for the democratic party. < :-)

"That'd only leave the cleaner and the guy who stocks up the drinks cabinet."

I don't think so.

And so the big tent collapses... the inevitable result of falling from power. And the right canibaliszes itself... for the life of me, I can't understand this impulse to purge moderates; strength through ideological purity, I guess.

Weren't you guys predicting the same in 2006.... ...and 2008?

I don't know about romeo and sarge, but I was thinking that Republicans would have a tough time holding onto congress. In 2006 I thought they would lose the house, I didn't forsee the Senate though. 2008, I knew Republicans would fall farther, but didn't think Dems would manage to get the 60 vote margin in the Senate. Now though the shoe is on the other foot. Dems are the ones falling. They will lose the house, the Senate is a reach, but even that is possible. Thats not me being optimistic here, thats just looking at the numbers and being realistic.

And so the big tent collapses... the inevitable result of falling from power. And the right canibaliszes itself... for the life of me, I can't understand this impulse to purge moderates; strength through ideological purity, I guess.

Wait, you, Sushi, aday, and Madverts all seem to be predicting precisely the opposite of what is actually occurring. Do you honestly believe that Dems are going to hold their majorities? Saying the Big Tent collapses is like saying the Republican party is done, something I heard a lot of from you guys after Obama was elected. Now here we are 2 years later and the Dems are on the verge of being thrown out of office in favor of "shrieking, religious nut-bags". Think the reality is that people have woken up to the fact that the hysteria is on the left. I mean listen to a typical Dem rally, its all racism this, and raise taxes that, and spend, spend, spend. Money we don't have. And of course we can't forget the well used, line, its all Bush and the Republicans fault. Well, keep deluding yourselves then. Your sand necktie must be starting to chafe, the longer you keep your head buried in the sand. Hopefully when November rolls around, you won't be too surprised.

Hey Molenir, it's going to be fun. < :-)

Hey Molenir, it's going to be fun. < :-)

Well, I'm looking forward to it, where I wasn't 2 years ago. Still, its good to keep a sense of humor about things, even when you know where things are headed.

I agree, this election is going to be fun to watch as the GOP and tea partiers struggle to out-Right each other and continue to bask in their ignorance by throwing around words like Socialist, Obamacare, Ground zero mosque and more that show the only thing they know how to do well is lose.

Yeah, sorry that doesn't fly. Americans were completely opposed to health care,

That is incorrect. The public was evenly divided over the health care issue at the time, and that was substantiated over-and-over in the polls during the debate.

Your party of No mantra doesn't really work either. Republicans have reached out, repeatedly, but when Dems refuse any compromise, when they push for radical stuff that only Dems want, and that most Americans oppose, the Dems aren't the party of no, they're the party of Arrogance.

I'm sure you are aware of Republican Mitt Romney's health care plan and its relation to the one proposed by the Democrats, right? Mitt Romney spent weeks backpedaling on the topic because the plan proposed by the Dems was modeled on his Massachusetts plan, and closely mirrored the plans proposed by the Republicans themselves in the 90s. Obama's administration wanted a bipartisan agreement, but all the Republicans could do was tell him to completely throw out the existing plan, a plan that closely mirrored the Republican's own proposals, and start over. That's not exactly reaching out.

From an article entitled "The Empty Chamber" in the New Yorker:

"Other amendments were more nakedly partisan, and outlandish. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, proposed an amendment that repealed the entire law. Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican obstetrician from Oklahoma, introduced an amendment to insure that veterans diagnosed with mental illness would not be denied the right to own firearms, and another to prevent “convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders” from buying erectile-dysfunction drugs with taxpayer funds. Coburn got through the minute he was allotted to explain his Viagra amendment without cracking a smile. “This is not a game amendment,” he insisted. “It actually saves money.”

So many senators snickered that the presiding officer banged his gavel for order."

(Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa_fact_packer?currentPage=all#ixzz0xloQ2jEP)

And it's not just the health care initiative they've been obstructionist on, either. It's no secret that Mitch McConnell's Republicans in the senate are united in opposition to just about anything significant the Democrats try to do. It's their strategy and they're not hiding it:

From this article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html in the New York Times:

“We came in shellshocked,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “There was sort of a feeling of ‘every man for himself.’ Mitch early on in this session came up with a game plan to make us relevant with 40 people. He said if we didn’t stick together on big things, we wouldn’t be relevant.”

As you know, 40 refers to the Senate filibuster. The Republican minority is using the filibuster to leverage its minority in the Senate. That sounds a lot like the party of 'No' to me.

The just saying no got the republicans nothing. If it got anything, it got Tea Party folks pissed off at republicans. That splits the party. It splits the independents. This all helps the democrats. < :-)

That is incorrect. The public was evenly divided over the health care issue at the time, and that was substantiated over-and-over in the polls during the debate.

Wow, talk about revisionist history. The public was never evenly divided over the issue. The longer it went on, the more opposed to it Americans became. At the low point I think the figure was 67% opposed. Thats not an even divide. Thats huge number against. Making up stuff to support your position here after the fact is just being, as I said, revisionist.

And it's not just the health care initiative they've been obstructionist on, either. It's no secret that Mitch McConnell's Republicans in the senate are united in opposition to just about anything significant the Democrats try to do. It's their strategy and they're not hiding it:

lol, obstructionist... Heh, the Dems have the votes to push anything through they want. Republicans can slow them down a bit, but not by much. The whole ordeal was in convincing Dems to get onboard a certified loser. A loser they know the American people opposed extremely strongly. Even today, that latest polls I read said nearly 60% would like to see it repealed. Nearly 50% of Americans are strongly in favor of repealing it. Think you'd better check your facts again, and quit just making stuff up to suit your perspective.

The just saying no got the republicans nothing. If it got anything, it got Tea Party folks pissed off at republicans. That splits the party. It splits the independents. This all helps the democrats. < :-)

Heh, aday, some of them lost their jobs, but more of them kept their seats because of it. McCain kept his seat because he veered so hard to the right. Course spending 20 million dollars to point out your opponents flaws certainly didn't hurt either.

McCain only made it because Palin said so. You know your Grisly Mommy. < :-)

"Republicans"

"Democrats"

Heck, we've got the best politicians money can buy, lol.

McCain only made it because Palin said so. You know your Grisly Mommy. < :-)

Thats such a funny nick for her. I'm not even a fan of Palin, but I love how the libs go nuts whenever her name is mentioned. Whats great about her, is that her record for endorsements is so much better then Obamas. Dem candidates now are going to the President and begging him not to endorse them. Its like the kiss of death for Dems in any kind of competitive district. Or even not so competitive districts, such as Massachusetts and New Jersey.

I didn't go nuts. She's the one who choice the Momma Grisly montra, no one else.

Dem candidates now are going to the President and begging him not to endorse them.

Hmmm, no different then when the republicans were running in 2008. bush got a good 4 months of rest.

The best part are the republicans calling each other liars and I'm more conservative then he is rhetoric. Here in Kansas they were damn never cutting their own throats to prove they were more better then the other. < :-)

Please God let Palin run in 2012. Obama will win in another landslide election. I never thought anyone would make bush look smart, but Palin does.

Wait, you, Sushi, aday, and Madverts all seem to be predicting precisely the opposite of what is actually occurring. Do you honestly believe that Dems are going to hold their majorities?

I don't know, Molenir; I'm not sure who is going to win, but if it;s the Republicans I'm pretty sure it will be because of the fact the economy sucks rather than because of tea party-ism. "Alienate the Moderates in order to fire up the Base" never seems like a sound strategy to me; I didn't like it when the "netroots" fanatics were pushing it on the Democrats, and I don't like it now with the Republicans. Then again, I am biased - I'm a moderate and I don't appreciate being alienated.

I'm not even a fan of Palin, but I love how the libs go nuts whenever her name is mentioned.

This is a terrible reason to support a candidate; and while you may not, I am sure - depressingly - there are millions that do.

"Obama will win in another landslide election"

53% is a landslide?

Please God, let Obama run in 2012, whoever the Republicans nominate will win in a landslide.

@Molenir:

Wow, talk about revisionist history. The public was never evenly divided over the issue.

The only source I know of at that time having numbers approaching 67% was Fox News. The Washington Post and New York Times and most everyone else reported completely different numbers from Fox. However, since you think I'm making it up, why don't you check for yourself?

The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032804094.html

The Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704784904575111993559174212.html

The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll:

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8058.cfm

The New York Times CBS poll, Gallup ... I can keep going. There are lots of links here. As you can see, I'm not making it up. The country was in fact divided during the health care debate. For you to suggest the public was 'never' divided is revisionist. Check your facts.

If anything, the public didn't like the health care bill because it didn't go far enough. There are poll numbers to support that claim as well.

The longer it went on, the more opposed to it Americans became

I agree, although I'm not sure why you mentioned that in this context. It doesn't change the fact that the public was, and still is, divided.

Heh, the Dems have the votes to push anything through they want.

Are you familiar with the rules in the Senate concerning cloture votes and filibusters, and how bills become law in the US? If so, then you know the Dems do not have the votes to push through anything they want, especially while Republicans act in lock step against each major initiative. If they did, you can bet they would have done it by now.

And the health care debate is just one of many examples of Republican obstructionism. The filibuster was used almost twice as often by the the 110th Congress than any Congress in history, the current Congress has already enacted 50 filibusters, in and of itself a dubious achievement, and even Republican Senators have acknowledged obstructionism is Mitch McConnell's strategy.

First 40, and now 41 Senators from across the Republican spectrum are acting in lockstep to prevent bills from passing and to obstruct judicial nominations and executive appointments. Republicans have been employing parliamentary tactics to the fullest to delay and disrupt the workings of the legislative branch.

This is obstructionism, plain and simple, at an important time in the history of the US, and it's irresponsible. I hope the Republicans receive a drubbing for it.

This is obstructionism, plain and simple, at an important time in the history of the US, and it's irresponsible. I hope the Republicans receive a drubbing for it.

I would like to echo this sentiment.

It doesn't change the fact that the public was, and still is, divided.

Divided, but most against the health care sham.

This is obstructionism, plain and simple,

Completely wrong, and shows how plain uncompromising the Democrats are. They will try to ram their personal agendas through, regardless of how much of a majority of the American people are against it. Well, in November the Demos will find out. :-)

Eh, when what liberals really wanted was single-payer health care, it's really hard to say they were "uncompromising". That Empty Chamber article on the Senate is just excellent - I highly recommend it.

Eh, when what liberals really wanted was single-payer health care, it's really hard to say they were "uncompromising"

The Demos have been one-sided ideologues all along, and never had any intention of governing according to what the people want. the bailout, the healthcare sham, financial reform, government and union partnerships in corporate takeover... all of it are personal agendas and favors, not national ones.

The Demos have been one-sided ideologues all along, and never had any intention of governing according to what the people want.

And what people would those be? The Real Americans (TM), perhaps?

ahh Triumvere, you're trying to turn any criticism into an act of racism. Pretty sad.

I have no idea what that 9:02 comment is supposed to mean. None at all.

I guess it means The Real Americans are racist Americans. Or maybe somebody pulled out the victim card too quick.

MFA,

nah. it's just a reference to the tired coasts vs. the heartland meme.

"victim card"

It's a something-card for sure. The GOP is a "race" now?

There is no cure for what these people have.

I'm going to enjoy the November elections. I think the republicans will be split between their Tea Party isolationist and the moderate republicans. Then you have the independents. They will split like a tree struck by lightening.

It all benefits the democrats. < :-)

If anything, the public didn't like the health care bill because it didn't go far enough. There are poll numbers to support that claim as well.

Nonesense. There were a very small minority who felt that way. Most Americans were screaming NO!

Are you familiar with the rules in the Senate concerning cloture votes and filibusters, and how bills become law in the US? If so, then you know the Dems do not have the votes to push through anything they want, especially while Republicans act in lock step against each major initiative. If they did, you can bet they would have done it by now.

Are you familiar with them? This is not a case of obstructionism, for most of the time, the Dems had 60 votes. They could have rammed through whatever they wanted. Then in Massachusetts of all places, after they had already passed the bill, Scott Brown won election to Teddy Kennedy's seat, for promising to STOP this bill. Even still, had they been willing to compromise on some key points, they could have gotten most of it through with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins support if nothing else. Compromise on more key points, and it would have been truly bi-partisan. That however was not the path the Dems chose. They approached this with a my way or the highway mentality, intending to run over anyone who got in their way. They got their bill through. They will pay the price for their arrogance in November. They will be almost certainly holding the Senate, but it will be a much closer Senate, and the Dems won't be able to ram anything through. They will lose the House.

This is obstructionism, plain and simple, at an important time in the history of the US, and it's irresponsible. I hope the Republicans receive a drubbing for it.

Compromise, learn to love it. If you can't compromise, then you might as well not be in politics.

It all benefits the democrats. < :-)

Heh, but they're still losing the House, and though its a reach, maybe the Senate as well.

The Dems typically have this nanny state, we know whats best for you, idea. And here you go pointing this out once again. Well thank you, but as an American, I think I know where to best spend my money. If you want to live in a state where the government decides whats best for you, may I suggest, Soviet Russia. Oh wait, that got broken up. Well, North Korea still practices that brand of government. Feel free to emigrate. I'm sure you'll love that workers paradise. Where a job is a right, and where the government knows best.

I'm sure you'll love that workers paradise. Where a job is a right, and where the government knows best.

More free market "crap". But you have a simliarity with North Korea Molenir. You both think that the people should be sacrificed to the system. If millions are floundering in poverty in free market, liberatian capitalism, no flippin problem. It is "their fault." This is all your system is about. When we have dozens of workable, and CHEAPER health care systems around the world that use "public"/government aid, it is obvious that this is a better way to go. Right now, the USA is the MOST expensive health care system. So, if the Americans are stupid enough to vote for these idiots, I really hope that they suffer for the system, and they will.

More free market "crap".

LOL! Yes, working hard and earning what you deserve is such a terrible system. Better that I can relax and take your money.

Right now, the USA is the MOST expensive health care system.

Maybe because of all the liberal neo-commie lawyers, unions, and advocates groups that push cost and insurance through the roof? Or the broken welfare state that makes treatments more costly to people who actually pay?

Maybe because of all the liberal neo-commie lawyers, unions, and advocates groups that push cost and insurance through the roof? Or the broken welfare state that makes treatments more costly to people who actually pay?

Nah, it would not be the insurance corporations that would be doing it. I believe one biggie pushed off 60,000 people off of its rolls as they were deemed to high risk. Not to mention, the yearly/quarterly need to increase profits. Nah that could not be the reason. Not to mention how they threaten the government, particularly in California that if reform was passed through they would raise rates 110%. Oh, how my heart bleeds for these poor ole corporate "entities." Hey, manfromfascistAmerica, tell me the names of these neo-commie lawyers.

@Molenir:

Nonesense. There were a very small minority who felt that way. Most Americans were screaming NO!

That's an interesting interpretation of the polls -- too bad you're wrong. If 41% of people were saying they want the health care bill and 12% were saying they want health care reform but it didn't go far enough (the single-payer crowd), that means 53% were against maintaining the status quo -- they, a majority, wanted serious change. They weren't screaming "NO," they were screaming "MORE!" The Republicans sat on their hands.

Keep in mind this discussion started because you claimed the American public was never divided over the issue of health care. You're STILL wrong. Now you're wrong by a lot.

Are you familiar with them? This is not a case of obstructionism, for most of the time, the Dems had 60 votes. They could have rammed through whatever they wanted.

Wrong again, Molenir. You seriously need to check your facts: Joseph Lieberman was and is an Independent, not a Democrat. The Dems were one vote short of the cloture vote. Joe Lieberman threatened to hold up the legislation and the Dems were forced to change it on two separate occasions to appease him: first for the public option, and then again for the provision allowing individuals as young as 55 to receive Medicare.

The Dems definitely did not have 60 votes to ram through "whatever they wanted." Again, check your facts.

Compromise, learn to love it. If you can't compromise, then you might as well not be in politics.

The reason the Democrats didn't just pass the bill with the majority they had is because they wanted to develop a bipartisan bill! Your suggestion that they didn't want to compromise is disingenuous. You mention Olympia Snowe. You know why she didn't vote for health care reform? In her own words after announcing her decision:

"This process denies us the opportunity to thoroughly and carefully and deliberately evaluate what's at stake"

This coming from the woman who voted 'yes' with the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee's version of the reform plan. Apparently she had plenty of time to thorougly and carefully deliberate back then. She flip-flopped, but it worked as intended. She bought enough time for the election in Massachusetts that forced the Dems into reconciliation.

You mentioned Susan Collins, but I don't know of anyone who seriously considered Susan Collins a 'yes' vote on health care, do you? After all, her stated primary concern about the bill was its cost, but anyone with a memory knows that Susan Collins voted for Medicare Part D and the Bush tax cuts. She didn't fool anyone but herself.

But one has to ask, "Why did the whole bipartisanship issue rest with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins?" The reason is because they were the only Republicans who even hinted they might vote yes on legislation that was originally presented by the Republicans themselves back in the '90s during the Clinton administration.

Every other Republican was in lockstep opposition to the bill, originally a Republican bill, and wanted to start over. This was Mitch McConnel's strategy, and it worked. Again, they deserve a drubbing.

Compromise on more key points, and it would have been truly bi-partisan. That however was not the path the Dems chose

Right, like the point that says you have to buy insurance or pay a fine? Any honest person who has seriously studied this issue understands that mandatory insurance is a requirement for a system that guarantees coverage for everyone. The ammendment to eliminate the requirement was a poison pill ammendment, like many of the poison pill ammendments introduced by the Republicans, that demonstrates they did not bargain in good faith. Compromise doesn't mean voting for ammendments that totally destroy the legislation or otherwise render it useless. That's called capitulation, and that's not how it is supposed to work.

I would like to reiterate, the Health Care legislation is just one of many examples of how the Republicans have been the party of 'no' in Congress.

Reckless brinksmanship, plain and simple.

And do you know why it's so important that the Republicans take a beating over this? Because the next time they are in power and there is a major crisis, the Democrats might do the same thing to the Republicans. Where will that leave the unfortunate citizens of the US who are subject to this silly one-upsmanship? Imagine a US Congress in which no bill can pass unless you have 60 vote supermajority. The US Congress was not designed to function in this way.

Short sighted and irresponsible. Shame on the Republicans.