Waterloo, for whom?

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

(this is a conservative republican blog, fyi)
It's interesting - this process brought out the worst in our governmental process. And whether you like Obamacare or not (and for the record, I do by-and-large), it is indeed flawed. Republicans dragged their feet and chose to be confrontational from the very beginning, rather than engaging in the process to help craft legislation that reflects values of both parties. They let down their own constituents by refusing to lead and playing a partisan, political game. They went for bravado, and were hoping to shoot the moon. Democrats were painted into a corner, so they had to strike less-than-tasteful deals within their own party to pass legislation, which only weakens a bill, never makes it stronger. That no Republican was willing to work with Democrats helped us walk down this road.

No votes yet

I just feel so warm and fuzzy knowing that after BO signs his Govt Run ObamaDeathCare Bill this morning, that NO ONE will ever die of cancer again because they dont have health insurance! WOW! What a guy...and that Nancy in her purple suit...what a gal!!

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

but even so, you are correct Wombat, legislative majorities come and go like the wind.

Unless this bill somehow gets 'repealed'---probably about a 1 in 10 shot at best--this stands forever.

Can't help remembering all the crowing and piling on by the far-right and when Chicago didn't get the Olympics. What was that, 100 years ago?

Music, please, maestro!!!!-----



Now that the tea bagger lost this round, there are really only two outcomes.

1 - the movement looses steam and peters out

2 - the tea baggers get even crazier

tea baggers get even crazier and movement loses steam (mainstream support) because of it.

I think the Tea Party movement illustrates the serious disaffection many people feel toward Washington. While the movement itself might indeed fizzle out, general anger at Washington is likely to stay, perhaps taking other forms.

I agree that the passage of health care reform (assuming parliamentary or judicial attempts to subvert it fail) might be related to an uptick in "crazy" actions, SensorG. I do not recall in my lifetime a period of such anger and divisiveness (I was too young to really understand Vietnam or Watergate at the time). The idea that this is a bitter loss for the far right might cause a few folks to lose their grips on reality; heck, just today SB poster Temperance Tom suggested that a military coup d'état could be the answer.

I would hope that there would be more responsible right-leaning commentators and politicians who would tell everyone to "chill the f**k out," but there is presently too much political hay to be harvested by fanning the flames of rebellion, violence, and secession. And let's face it: when people are struggling, they need answers to why there are problems in their lives they cannot fix. The Tea Party movement attracts a lot of disaffected citizens who believe that no one else is paying any attention to them (and in some ways they are quite correct in this assessment).


(irony alert for the above closing statement to clueless SB trolls who like to ignore context)

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) famously predicted that health reform would be Obama's "Waterloo(1)," saying: "If we're able to stop Obama on this ... it will break him." It looks like Jim DeMint's crowd might be using the same obstructionist strategy toward financial reform.

Racist code words for slave term as in "breaking the slave" has a long history in South Carolina.

It was the interest and business of slave holders to study human nature, and the slave nature in particular, with a view to practical results. I and many of them attained astonishing proficiency in this direction. They had to deal not with earth, wood and stone, but with men and by every regard they had for their own safety and prosperity they needed to know the material on which they were to work. Conscious of the injustice and wrong they were every hour perpetuating and knowing what they themselves would do. Were they the victims of such wrongs? They were constantly looking for the first signs of the dreaded retribution. They watched, therefore with skilled and practiced eyes, and learned to read with great accuracy, the state of mind and heart of the slave, through his sable face. Unusual sobriety, apparent abstractions, sullenness and indifference indeed, any mood out of the common was afforded ground for suspicion and inquiry. Frederick Douglas LET'S MAKE A SLAVE is a study of the scientific process of man breaking and slave making. It describes the rationale and results of the Anglo Saxons' ideas and methods of insuring the master/slave relationship. LET'S MAKE A SLAVE "The Original and Development of a Social Being Called "The Negro." Let us make a slave. What do we need? First of all we need a black n-word man, a pregnant n-word woman and her baby n-word boy. Second, we will use the same basic principle that we use in breaking a horse, combined with some more sustaining factors. What we do with horses is that we break them from one form of life to another that is we reduce them from their natural state in nature. Whereas nature provides them with the natural capacity to take care of their offspring, we break that natural string of independence from them and thereby create a dependency status, so that we may be able to get from them useful production for our business and pleasure.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

You are a sick man wolfman. My God bless you and make you well in mind.

The KKK has a different name?
After watching the activists against the health-care bill swearing at, hurling racial epithets at, and spitting on elected officials, I wondered: When did the Ku Klux Klan change its name to the Tea Party?

Bill Pieper

Now, Obama, FDR, Johnson
Congratulations to President Obama, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, and the other legislators for having the vision and courage to reform health care.

They have joined the ranks of Franklin D. Roosevelt with Social Security and Lyndon B. Johnson with Medicare and Medicaid. What condition would this country be in without those benefits? I’ll guarantee every one of those so-called Tea Party protesters and others opposed to the health-care legislation have benefited in some way, or else their parents have.

In my 50 years of political involvement, including my service as a Toledo City Council member, with the exception of the civil rights movement, I have never seen such hatred and organized effort by Republicans to malign President Obama on a continual basis.

The conduct of the protesters at the Capitol toward minority congressmen is despicable. Is this representative of America? Republicans claim it is.

The cost of health care has skyrocketed and it must have a lid. Millions who are not insured must have coverage. Someone has to pay.

Now it is time to stand up for President Obama, Miss Kaptur, and others who had the courage to reform health care.

June Boyd

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Well, if the Tea Party loses steam, is a question that will be answered in a couple months when the special election for ABSCAM conspirator Murthas' seat is held in Pennyslvania, now won't it? The One, and his obamaton Arlen Sphincter can campaign for the democrat parties' candidate, and the Teabaggers will be done for, finis-kaput-game over, etc.

So that's one vote for crazy. Got it.

So, because a story reported on Huffington Post, claims that tea party protestors hurled insults and spat at certain democrats, it's automatically true?
Because you read it, it's true. Well, I read that no one except, Barny Frank, James, Clyburn, John Lewis, and Emanuel Cleaver (all democrat reps) heard or saw any of this.
None of the policemen, no bystanders, no one else can be found who can verify any of it.

From the people who brought you Tawanna Brawley?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

I thought HCR died with the election of President Scott Brown?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.