Jump to bottom

247 comments
1 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:44:10am

maybe learning to deal with republicans will help train him to better deal with the iranians, russians, and chinese. He needs some experience in real horse trading, not permanent campaigning.

2 Buck  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:46:24am

"Give me any ideas you might have for health care reform"

"Give me only ideas that my advisors think will absolutely work"

3 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:48:01am

I watched it. It's nice to have a president who doesn't hide behind his handlers and faces his critics. But the GOP is regretting the cameras, apparently:

Luke Russert Twit:

GOP aides telling me it was a mistake to allow cameras into Obama's QA with GOP members. Allowed BO to refute GOP for 1.5 hours on TV


[Link: twitter.com...]

4 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:48:59am

re: #2 Buck

"Give me only ideas that my advisors think will absolutely work"

Of course that's not what he said, implied or meant. This kind of dishonest bullshit from Republicans/conservatives is why there's so little constructive debate in this country.

5 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:49:05am

re: #3 darthstar

I watched it. It's nice to have a president who doesn't hide behind his handlers and faces his critics. But the GOP is regretting the cameras, apparently:

Luke Russert Twit:


[Link: twitter.com...]

How foolish of us to let Obama document whatever was said beyond the shadow of a doubt, everyone knows facts have a liberal bias!'

6 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:51:05am

re: #3 darthstar

I watched it. It's nice to have a president who doesn't hide behind his handlers and faces his critics. But the GOP is regretting the cameras, apparently:

Luke Russert Twit:


[Link: twitter.com...]

Interesting. I think Obama came off pretty well from what I saw. Much of the Republican participation was pretty good and constructive. The exchange with Hensarling (video on the previous thread) was an exception.

7 American-African  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:51:18am

After the less than Presidential calling out of the SC at the SOTU, I appreciated the exchange that took place this afternoon. That was the person I voted for back in November. Welcome back, Sir.

8 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:52:07am

This is unprecedented in my memory. Wonderful! Negativity towards it? Speaks to predetermined bias, as usual.

9 Buck  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:52:11am

re: #4 Killgore Trout

Of course that's not what he said, implied or meant. This kind of dishonest bullshit from Republicans/conservatives is why there's so little constructive debate in this country.

It is exactly what he just said. I can't find the transcript yet...

10 Taqyia2Me  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:52:26am

He's just prepping himself for next January when he'll be dealing with Congressional ADULTS on a full-time basis.

11 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:53:25am

re: #6 Killgore Trout

Interesting. I think Obama came off pretty well from what I saw. Much of the Republican participation was pretty good and constructive. The exchange with Hensarling (video on the previous thread) was an exception.

I saw the Hensarling video. Someone needed to be a hero for Fox news. Marsha Blackburn (ex-TeaParty speaker) tried talking down to him and lecturing him, but he responded quite gracefully to her attempt.

I'd like to see more and more of this over the next few months. In fact, President Obama should invite the GOP to a Q&A session every month on C-SPAN at least through the election.

12 American-African  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:54:21am

re: #9 Buck

It is exactly what he just said. I can't find the transcript yet...

What I heard was, he would need to take ideas presented to independent experts, Democratic and Republican, and ask them if this can work. What is the mechanism. Though I have not found a transcript either.

13 RadicalModerate  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:54:34am

I think President Obama did extremely well in what would be best described as a hostile environment. He answered the majority of the questions directly, admitted on multiple occasions that mistakes were done on his part, did very little hemming and hawing, and took a couple of questioners to task for framing their statements in a "talking points" fashion instead of asking substantive questions.

I can hardly wait to see how the Becks, Malkins, etc. try to spin this one.

14 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:55:01am

I'm all for it. This is transparency where weasel words, partisanship, obstruction, and foregoing fixing things for political points will become clear.

If the two sides can't talk, work things out, and come up with solutions, then both sides have proven that they cannot govern the country due to having gone too far down the path of polarization. In which case, the whole bunch should be voted out, and hopefully a set of pragmatic moderates can be voted in.

Instead, I expect to see finger pointing about how the other side forced them into this position, or that the previous administration of the other party ruined everything first by pushing Humpty Dumpty off the wall. Which is simply the status quo that keeps us amused while nothing gets done.

15 American-African  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:55:19am

re: #11 darthstar

President Obama should invite the GOP to a Q&A session every month on C-SPAN at least through the election.

Oh, I think this is the last we will see of this type of thing for a while.

16 Soap_Man  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:56:13am

re: #1 _RememberTonyC

maybe learning to deal with republicans will help train him to better deal with the iranians, russians, and chinese. He needs some experience in real horse trading, not permanent campaigning.

I don't know. You can count me in the "disapprove" column for Obama, but these Republicans seem to be completely unwilling to negotiate under any circumstances. I understand they have major philosophical differences on many issues (HC for example) but they are also unwilling to support middle of the road, or day I say conservative, ideas (pay-as-you-go, the commission on deficit reduction, spending freeze)

If any of those three were proposed by President McCain, they would vote for them. Period.

17 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:56:19am

re: #15 American-African

Oh, I think this is the last we will see of this type of thing for a while.

True...far better to hide from the president and then accuse him of not reaching out--"Real American Hero" style... Plays better on TV.

18 simoom  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:57:19am

re: #8 Stanley Sea

It had a bit of a Question Time feel to it. It will be interesting to see what happens with the next one of these.

19 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:57:27am

re: #7 American-African

After the less than Presidential calling out of the SC at the SOTU, I appreciated the exchange that took place this afternoon. That was the person I voted for back in November. Welcome back, Sir.

It's not that this is a bad thing. It's a good thing. The man's a mediator. It's not even "a strong point" of his personality. It's really who he is.

OTOH, he has a lot to deal with in his own party. The Democrats are just about as disappointed with him (for very different reasons) as the Right is. Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but he should have talked to them first.

20 American-African  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:58:34am

re: #17 darthstar

Not just that, but this President is just too well prepared for an environment like this and from a political perspective, it does not make all parties involved look good. A round table event or something, perhaps. But no more "law professor takes questions from his students" stuff.

21 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:58:43am

re: #15 American-African

Oh, I think this is the last we will see of this type of thing for a while.

Why, which side wouldn't want to do it again?

22 Lateralis  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:59:00am

This is great dialogue between the President and Republicans. The problem is the dialogue between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Pelosi basically said today she is going to pass health care reform no matter what gets in her way.

23 Diego  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:59:03am

re: #15 American-African

re: #11 darthstar

Indeed. In fact, the House leadership [sic] will be tared and feathered for this event, just you watch. Shame too, it was an excellent exchange and we need more of them in this country.
Oh, I think this is the last we will see of this type of thing for a while.

24 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 11:59:36am

re: #22 Lateralis

This is great dialogue between the President and Republicans. The problem is the dialogue between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Pelosi basically said today she is going to pass health care reform no matter what gets in her way.

As well she should.

25 RogueOne  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:00:00pm

Killgore, you may want to retract your "you're lying Mr. President". What was said was:


"I am happy to have any independent fact checker out there take a look at your presentation versus mine, in terms of the accuracy of what I just said"

The response from the republican was:

"That'd be fine, Mr. President". Not, You're lying. The sound of the C-Span video is much clearer. Scroll ahead to the 1:20 mark to catch more of the exchange.

26 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:00:12pm

re: #16 Soap_Man

I don't know. You can count me in the "disapprove" column for Obama, but these Republicans seem to be completely unwilling to negotiate under any circumstances. I understand they have major philosophical differences on many issues (HC for example) but they are also unwilling to support middle of the road, or day I say conservative, ideas (pay-as-you-go, the commission on deficit reduction, spending freeze)

If any of those three were proposed by President McCain, they would vote for them. Period.

all true and i agree with you. but until he learns how to deal with "the enemy" and get them to "come around" at home, how will he do it around the world? the rest of the world wants to screw him, which is a new concept for him to grasp. He has little experience dealing with that sort of thing.

27 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:02:01pm

re: #12 American-African

What I heard was, he would need to take ideas presented to independent experts, Democratic and Republican, and ask them if this can work. What is the mechanism. Though I have not found a transcript either.

Yes, That's what he said.

28 cliffster  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:02:14pm

re: #20 American-African

Not just that, but this President is just too well prepared for an environment like this and from a political perspective, it does not make all parties involved look good. A round table event or something, perhaps. But no more "law professor takes questions from his students" stuff.

Agreed. For the country, I think it is a good thing. For the politics, it necessarily paints a picture, like you describe, of the democrats being the knowledgeable leaders and the republicans yipping at their sides.

29 American-African  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:02:52pm

re: #21 jamesfirecat

I honestly felt it made the GOP look less impressive. A round table or at least an event without the cameras there would be better. I did enjoy seeing the true exchange of ideas, which happened quite a bit.

30 Buck  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:03:52pm

re: #12 American-African

What I heard was, he would need to take ideas presented to independent experts, Democratic and Republican, and ask them if this can work. What is the mechanism. Though I have not found a transcript either.

Right, but the democrat leadership didn't take the ideas to any independent person, they just kept saying (the president included) that the republicans don't have a plan.

31 Soap_Man  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:04:58pm

re: #26 _RememberTonyC

all true and i agree with you. but until he learns how to deal with "the enemy" and get them to "come around" at home, how will he do it around the world? the rest of the world wants to screw him, which is a new concept for him to grasp. He has little experience dealing with that sort of thing.

I agree with you in principle, but dealing with a hostile opposition party and hostile foreign countries are two different things. When it's domestic, it's one side vs. another and that's it. When its foreign, there are a host of complexities that go along with it, like possible military force (or at least the threat of it) the opinions or possible actions of American allies and friends, and the opinion or possible actions of the other countries allies and friends, global opinion, etc. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

But yes, he is inexperienced in dealing with both. And it shows.

32 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:06:28pm

re: #29 American-African

I honestly felt it made the GOP look less impressive. A round table or at least an event without the cameras there would be better. I did enjoy seeing the true exchange of ideas, which happened quite a bit.

Okay then, I'd be up for a round table discussion idea.

Or we could go whole hog on it and turn it into a quiz show format! Say the secret word and win Olympia Snowe's vote for cloture!

33 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:07:12pm

There is no downside to this for the American people. Live questions and answers? That's a win. Period.

And I agree, the GOP is playing the "no" card over and over again.

And I have an honest question for those who disagree with that. Explain
this voteto me.

Does this not try to reestablish "pay-as-you-go" budgeting rules that mandate that any new spending must be paid for? If it does, then why the Nay votes?

34 lawhawk  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:08:27pm

Funny, but this event actually made the President look more Presidential than the SOTU. Perhaps that's why the GOP was concerned that they allowed cameras in to capture the interactions?

Where was this kind of event 6 months ago or before ramming through the stimulus package? That could have gone a long way to reducing the rhetoric and negativity around the state of the economy and gotten GOPers on board with some of the proposals.

As an aside, if a member's constituents are opposed to Obama's plan - isn't it the member's obligation to vote per the constituents' wishes? That's what they were sent to Congress to do after all.

Oh, and here's some common ground for Republicans to chew on.

35 American-African  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:08:35pm

re: #30 Buck

Right, but the democrat(ic) leadership didn't take the ideas to any independent person, they just kept saying (the president included) that the republicans don't have a plan.

*fixed.

The President directly responded to that charge, and admitted not only that there are some good GOP ideas, some, with caveats, were included in the two bills. He did expound on that answer to include those things which after being reviewed by these experts, did not have a mechanism that would make them effective. Not quite the same thing as saying there are no good ideas from the opposition.

And I do not know that outside experts were not consulted. I will take the President at his word that they were for now.

36 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:08:36pm

re: #25 RogueOne

"That'd be fine, Mr. President". Not, You're lying. The sound of the C-Span video is much clearer. Scroll ahead to the 1:20 mark to catch more of the exchange.


Good catch. It's still a little unclear but I think you might be correct. I hope you are.

37 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:09:25pm

re: #33 abbyadams

There is no downside to this for the American people. Live questions and answers? That's a win. Period.

And I agree, the GOP is playing the "no" card over and over again.

And I have an honest question for those who disagree with that. Explain
this voteto me.

Does this not try to reestablish "pay-as-you-go" budgeting rules that mandate that any new spending must be paid for? If it does, then why the Nay votes?

Must we really answer that for you?? lol

You're pretty right on there, Ms. Adams.

38 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:09:26pm

re: #31 Soap_Man

I agree with you in principle, but dealing with a hostile opposition party and hostile foreign countries are two different things. When it's domestic, it's one side vs. another and that's it. When its foreign, there are a host of complexities that go along with it, like possible military force (or at least the threat of it) the opinions or possible actions of American allies and friends, and the opinion or possible actions of the other countries allies and friends, global opinion, etc. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

But yes, he is inexperienced in dealing with both. And it shows.


Maybe I'm setting the bar pretty high here. What made Ronald Reagan so great domestically was the ability to get political enemies to work with him. Tip O'Neill being the prime example. And I feel one of the reasons he was great internationally was because he knew how to deal with political enemies at home. Anyway, if Obama develops that skill and comes close to Reagan he will be succesful. But he has a lot to learn.

39 cliffster  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:10:17pm

re: #34 lawhawk

Where was this kind of event 6 months ago or before ramming through the stimulus package? That could have gone a long way to reducing the rhetoric and negativity around the state of the economy and gotten GOPers on board with some of the proposals.

The 41st senator.. funny thing that

40 Buck  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:11:05pm

re: #35 American-African

*fixed.

The President directly responded to that charge, and admitted not only that there are some good GOP ideas, some, with caveats, were included in the two bills. He did expound on that answer to include those things which after being reviewed by these experts, did not have a mechanism that would make them effective. Not quite the same thing as saying there are no good ideas from the opposition.

And I do not know that outside experts were not consulted. I will take the President at his word that they were for now.

Well, if there were ideas taken from the republican side, in those closed door meeting where no republicans were allowed, then it is news to anyone who is following this. The president can say what ever he wants, but he didn't give any examples, and that would have gone a long way...

41 lawhawk  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:11:13pm

re: #33 abbyadams

Good questions. One possible answer is that the GOP was opposed to the debt ceiling being raised because it relates to the out of control spending that wasn't pay-go (the stimulus). Only now they're looking to do it after the horse already left the barn, and which would likely exclude the health care reform and other big ticket items that the President mentioned in his SOTU.

42 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:11:51pm

re: #37 marjoriemoon

Thanks, MM. I am a science person, not a law person. Legal speak is not my forte, so sometimes I misunderstand the meaning behind the words that get tossed around.

43 Cog  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:12:03pm

Props to Obama for even trying, but he has a long way to go to even approach the notion of bipartisanship.

And how does someone who won a presidential election on the fact that he was not George Bush decry divisive rhetoric? Your congressional leaders are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and the president is one of the most liberal senators in the last few years.

If this was not a one off publicity stunt, then he should pare off different groups of republican and democratic congessman and have similar meetings on specific issues. Tackle invididual components of health care reform first. Start with reigning in special interests and lobbyists.

44 RogueOne  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:12:40pm

re: #36 Killgore Trout

Good catch. It's still a little unclear but I think you might be correct. I hope you are.

I had to put on my headphones. My laptop speakers weren't clear enough.

45 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:13:02pm

re: #33 abbyadams

There is no downside to this for the American people. Live questions and answers? That's a win. Period.

And I agree, the GOP is playing the "no" card over and over again.

And I have an honest question for those who disagree with that. Explain
this voteto me.

Does this not try to reestablish "pay-as-you-go" budgeting rules that mandate that any new spending must be paid for? If it does, then why the Nay votes?

And a party line no at that. Only Lieberman voted yea. Thanks for reposting that abbyadams.

46 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:13:18pm

re: #25 RogueOne

The response from the republican was:

"That'd be fine, Mr. President". Not, You're lying. The sound of the C-Span video is much clearer. Scroll ahead to the 1:20 mark to catch more of the exchange.

I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."

47 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:13:40pm

I am not sure which worries me more the Ds & Rs working together or not... I guess I will need to wait & see what if anything they come up with but somehow I think it will just be a version of Obama lite with a few "incentives" for the Rs to play along.

48 Soap_Man  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:13:51pm

re: #38 _RememberTonyC

Maybe I'm setting the bar pretty high here. What made Ronald Reagan so great domestically was the ability to get political enemies to work with him. Tip O'Neill being the prime example. And I feel one of the reasons he was great internationally was because he knew how to deal with political enemies at home. Anyway, if Obama develops that skill and comes close to Reagan he will be succesful. But he has a lot to learn.

Agreed. I still think Obama is very smart and has the potential to be a good, perhaps very good, president. But in any career, you have to go through that trail-and-error period of figuring out what works and what doesn't it real life scenarios.

To use a business analogy, he seems like the kind of person who was the top student in a very prestigious school but was immediately hired to a high-level management position (somebody like that in my company). Smart enough to do it, but missed the very important step of cutting one's teeth.

49 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:14:23pm

re: #3 darthstar

I watched it. It's nice to have a president who doesn't hide behind his handlers and faces his critics. But the GOP is regretting the cameras, apparently:

Luke Russert Twit:


[Link: twitter.com...]

Eh. The audience (with the exception noted by others) handled themselves pretty well too. So Obama looks cool, GOP congressfolk look cool...guess who gets left out?

50 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:14:44pm

re: #46 Charles

I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."

Maybe he said "I want pie," because who doesn't?

51 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:15:33pm

re: #49 Aceofwhat?

Eh. The audience (with the exception noted by others) handled themselves pretty well too. So Obama looks cool, GOP congressfolk look cool...guess who gets left out?

He'll have a similar meeting with Democrats soon, I'm guessing. Then we'll hear the old cries of "We're being ignored!" from the right.

52 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:15:48pm

re: #41 lawhawk

Hi Lawhawk. Thanks for answering my question. How would a defeat of that measure have helped us now? Would it have capped deficit spending? I'm honestly that ignorant.

53 webevintage  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:15:50pm

re: #26 _RememberTonyC

all true and i agree with you. but until he learns how to deal with "the enemy" and get them to "come around" at home, how will he do it around the world? the rest of the world wants to screw him, which is a new concept for him to grasp. He has little experience dealing with that sort of thing.

sheesh....

54 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:17:43pm

re: #46 Charles

I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."

Just re-listened with the noise reduction headphones...sounds like "that'd be fine" to me too.

55 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:17:59pm

re: #33 abbyadams

There is no downside to this for the American people. Live questions and answers? That's a win. Period.

And I agree, the GOP is playing the "no" card over and over again.

And I have an honest question for those who disagree with that. Explain
this voteto me.

Does this not try to reestablish "pay-as-you-go" budgeting rules that mandate that any new spending must be paid for? If it does, then why the Nay votes?

Because it doesn't limit spending, it just says that you have to raise taxes every time you want more spending. It's a BS rule. I love the "no" card when it's played against more spending and more taxes.

It's hard enough getting congress to reduce spending when we CAN'T afford it...imagine trying to reduce spending if they've already enshrined it in our taxes...

56 lawhawk  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:18:16pm

re: #52 abbyadams

I think the GOP figured that this would be a symbolic vote against out of control spending, seeing that the Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling every few months it seems. Still, the GOP is party to this mess since they helped push out of control spending when they were still the majority party pre-2006 election.

57 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:18:16pm

re: #38 _RememberTonyC

Maybe I'm setting the bar pretty high here. What made Ronald Reagan so great domestically was the ability to get political enemies to work with him. Tip O'Neill being the prime example. And I feel one of the reasons he was great internationally was because he knew how to deal with political enemies at home. Anyway, if Obama develops that skill and comes close to Reagan he will be succesful. But he has a lot to learn.

What if it's as simple as Tip O'Neill et al wanted to work with him, and the current GOP doesn't? It takes two to tango.

58 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:18:41pm

re: #51 darthstar

He'll have a similar meeting with Democrats soon, I'm guessing. Then we'll hear the old cries of "We're being ignored!" from the right.

Lord, i hope not. If so then i will join you in heartfelt mockery.

59 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:20:06pm

re: #6 Killgore Trout

Interesting. I think Obama came off pretty well from what I saw. Much of the Republican participation was pretty good and constructive. The exchange with Hensarling (video on the previous thread) was an exception.

I saw 30 minutes of this on Fox News while I was at lunch; did they run the whole thing? Good on 'em if they did.

60 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:20:37pm

re: #46 Charles

I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."

+

61 lawhawk  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:21:45pm

re: #57 Stanley Sea

Well, GWB did sit down to work with Sen. Ted Kennedy to work on the NCLB, immigration reform, and prescription drug plan.

It always helps to have someone to work with from the other party on key issues such that even if you don't agree on all the issues - you can move your own agenda forward on important ones.

Looks like Obama needs to cultivate someone along these lines and move past the divisive rhetoric of his own.

62 Baier  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:22:20pm

re: #50 Mad Al-Jaffee

Maybe he said "I want pie," because who doesn't?

Maybe he said "Help that Mine" because there was a mime caught in an invisible box off camera.

63 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:22:23pm

re: #59 The Sanity Inspector

I saw 30 minutes of this on Fox News while I was at lunch; did they run the whole thing? Good on 'em if they did.

Nope...Fox cut away when President Obama refused to break down and cry for mercy.

64 Baier  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:22:39pm

re: #62 Baier

Maybe he said "Help that Mine" because there was a mime caught in an invisible box off camera.

Mine=MIME

65 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:22:45pm

re: #42 abbyadams

Thanks, MM. I am a science person, not a law person. Legal speak is not my forte, so sometimes I misunderstand the meaning behind the words that get tossed around.

Ahh, well sometimes my bitterness and cynicism sometimes get in the way. Not a good trait to have, probably!

Anyway, you were right when you mentioned The Party of No and I believe that all too often if it's something the Dems want, it's automatically something the Reps do not.

So while I think that this talk is a great thing, I really do, something inside me says, "Why?" Does he really feel the Reps will come to love and respect him? I could be absolutely dead wrong, but I think he should be speaking to the people who actually supported him during the ugliest campaign in history (in regard to mudslinging).

66 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:24:30pm

re: #65 marjoriemoon

Interesting. Did you think that McCain-Obama was worse than Bush-Kerry? (I thought the latter was worse...not trying to ask open-ended questions!)

Or did you mean Hilliary-Obama?

67 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:25:04pm

re: #50 Mad Al-Jaffee

Maybe he said "I want pie," because who doesn't?

Pie, Pie, Me oh my
Nothing tastes sweet, wet, salty and dry
all at once oh well it's pie
Apple!
Pumpkin!
Minced
an' wet bottom.
Come to your place everyday if you've got em'
Pie
Me o my
I love pie!

68 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:26:04pm

re: #61 lawhawk

Well, GWB did sit down to work with Sen. Ted Kennedy to work on the NCLB, immigration reform, and prescription drug plan.

It always helps to have someone to work with from the other party on key issues such that even if you don't agree on all the issues - you can move your own agenda forward on important ones.

Looks like Obama needs to cultivate someone along these lines and move past the divisive rhetoric of his own.

Which I hope may result from this little Q&A. I don't see any negatives.

69 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:26:38pm

re: #65 marjoriemoon

Ahh, well sometimes my bitterness and cynicism sometimes get in the way. Not a good trait to have, probably!

Anyway, you were right when you mentioned The Party of No and I believe that all too often if it's something the Dems want, it's automatically something the Reps do not.

So while I think that this talk is a great thing, I really do, something inside me says, "Why?" Does he really feel the Reps will come to love and respect him? I could be absolutely dead wrong, but I think he should be speaking to the people who actually supported him during the ugliest campaign in history (in regard to mudslinging).

He is only talking to the Rs because he has to.

70 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:26:40pm

re: #66 Aceofwhat?

Interesting. Did you think that McCain-Obama was worse than Bush-Kerry? (I thought the latter was worse...not trying to ask open-ended questions!)

Or did you mean Hilliary-Obama?

The racism that came out of the campaign against Obama was worse than anything. The whole thing was just horrifyingly ugly.

Bush Kerry was ugly? That was a pretty much hands down win for Bush. All campaigns are ugly, but this last one was a doosie.

71 jaunte  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:26:56pm

re: #65 marjoriemoon

The President actually spoke to that point in the talk, reminding everyone that it makes doing the people's business very difficult if it means you have to back down and deal with a political opponent after you've cast them as the devil.

72 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:28:39pm

re: #70 marjoriemoon

The racism that came out of the campaign against Obama was worse than anything. The whole thing was just horrifyingly ugly.

Bush Kerry was ugly? That was a pretty much hands down win for Bush. All campaigns are ugly, but this last one was a doosie.

oh, i see. i thought you were talking about official advertising mudslinging. sorry, misunderstood! carry on!

73 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:28:55pm

re: #62 Baier

Maybe he said "Help that Mine" because there was a mime caught in an invisible box off camera.

Or someone asked him what his favorite Beatles song was, and he said "I, Me, Mine."

74 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:29:25pm

re: #73 Mad Al-Jaffee

Or someone asked him what his favorite Beatles song was, and he said "I, Me, Mine."

"I Feel Fine"?

75 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:29:43pm

re: #71 jaunte

The President actually spoke to that point in the talk, reminding everyone that it makes doing the people's business very difficult if it means you have to back down and deal with a political opponent after you've cast them as the devil.


Obama:

"So all I'm saying is, we've gotta close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I'm not suggesting that we're gonna agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you.

But if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

The fact is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable with your own base in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've told your constituents is this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's gonna destroy America."

Again, I'm hopeful that something good will come of this. Yeah, I said hope.

76 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:29:56pm

re: #71 jaunte

The President actually spoke to that point in the talk, reminding everyone that it makes doing the people's business very difficult if it means you have to back down and deal with a political opponent after you've cast them as the devil.

I'll listen to it when I get home. I had a lovely lunch today and it was on the TV in the restaurant, but I couldn't pay attention to that either. What I said above was my gut reaction when I heard he was going to do this.

77 windsagio  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:29:58pm

re: #68 Stanley Sea

heh the negative is that the (R)s won't let it happen again, at least not where anyone can see it ;)

78 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:30:01pm

re: #65 marjoriemoon

Eh, I'm still Ms. HopenChangy. I thought this was a brilliant thing to do.

I think he's trying. I think it used to be that people from one party could at least understand that the other party governed in good faith, even while they disagreed (however vehemently.) It's just not that way, now. The thing is, I think we're screwed if we don't get that good faith back, and I respect Obama enormously for trying. I hope a precedent was set today.

79 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:31:22pm

re: #68 Stanley Sea

Which I hope may result from this little Q&A. I don't see any negatives.

Whichever Republican(s) has/have the strength to reach out to President Obama and seriously work with him will be safe for reelection, and will benefit greatly from the effort. Don't expect it to be Boehner, Cantor, Bachmann, etc. or McConnell on the Senate side.

Orrin Hatch could do it, or Chuck Lugar. They would have the best shot at crossing the aisle and having people respect it.

McCain's damaged goods now, as he's gone teabagger to do battle against JD Hayworth (isn't he the It's my money and I want it now! guy?) And all of McCain's rhetoric from 2008 about working across the aisle was quickly abandoned once he realized he wasn't going to win the presidency.

80 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:32:09pm

re: #69 brookly red

I disagree. There's more Ds than Rs right now. For all the talk of everything getting shoved down everyone's throats, that's not happening, and the partisan liberals are more than pissed that it's not. He doesn't haveto talk to anyone.

81 Baier  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:32:21pm

re: #74 Aceofwhat?

I'm so freakin' HIGH!

82 simoom  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:32:39pm

ROFL! FNC tweet:

foxnewspolitics: The I's Have It: Obama Uses 'I' 43 Times in Baltimore
http://fxn.ws/96AAGH

Their link goes to the transcript of Obama's introduction, which of course is prefaced with the possessive pronoun count. And then there's this:

FoxNews.com is tracking the president's speeches all this month and will report back after each to see whether The "I's" Have It.

Look out folks, journalists at work...

83 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:33:21pm

re: #80 abbyadams

I disagree. There's more Ds than Rs right now. For all the talk of everything getting shoved down everyone's throats, that's not happening, and the partisan liberals are more than pissed that it's not. He doesn't haveto talk to anyone.

That's because the Democrats lack the balls to use their majority.

Youtube Video
84 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:34:22pm

re: #83 darthstar

Love it. :-) Agreed, too.

85 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:34:44pm

re: #82 simoom

ROFL! FNC tweet:

Look out folks, journalists at work...

Knowing Fox, they'll count the 'i's in all the words the President uses. God help him if he says Mississippi more than three times...that'll totally screw up the count.

86 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:35:15pm

re: #80 abbyadams

I disagree. There's more Ds than Rs right now. For all the talk of everything getting shoved down everyone's throats, that's not happening, and the partisan liberals are more than pissed that it's not. He doesn't haveto talk to anyone.

I would say that is exactly why he needs to, but it is after all only my opinion.

87 Baier  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:35:48pm

re: #83 darthstar

That's because the Democrats lack the balls to use their majority.

Exactly. The Democrats had a full year with a filibuster proof majority that unexpectedly lasted only 1 year. The only people that the Democrats should be blaming right now for partisanship is themselves. They just didn't realize they'd have to be extending their hand so soon.

88 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:36:27pm

re: #81 Baier

I'm so freakin' HIGH!

Youtube Video
89 cliffster  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:36:31pm

re: #74 Aceofwhat?

"I Feel Fine"?

"I want wine."?

90 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:37:14pm

re: #87 Baier

Well remember that "fillibuster proof majority" included a guy who actively campaigned against the President, so I'm sure he was quick to get on board with all of President Obama's plans.

Not to say the Democrats aren't spineless wimps but we're spineless wimps who have backstabbing 'friends' as well.

91 Baier  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:37:27pm

re: #89 cliffster

"I want wine."?

"I've been slimed"

92 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:38:07pm

re: #91 Baier

"I've been slimed"

"Third Eye Blind"?

93 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:38:37pm

re: #91 Baier

"I've been slimed"

"can you spare a dime"

94 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:38:45pm

re: #91 Baier

"I've been slimed"

"Are you kind?"

Youtube Video
95 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:39:05pm

re: #83 darthstar

That's because the Democrats lack the balls to use their majority.

They need brass balls.

Youtube Video
96 Baier  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:39:17pm

re: #90 jamesfirecat

Well remember that "fillibuster proof majority" included a guy who actively campaigned against the President, so I'm sure he was quick to get on board with all of President Obama's plans.

Not to say the Democrats aren't spineless wimps but we're spineless wimps who have backstabbing 'friends' as well.

Cry me a river. The democrats could have gotten much more done if they'd courted Republican support from the beginning. I'm not saying the republicans are blameless, be the Democrats really put their backs against the wall.

97 drcordell  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:39:45pm

re: #87 Baier

The only people that the Democrats should be blaming right now for partisanship is themselves. They just didn't realize they'd have to be extending their hand so soon.

I guess that means you haven't been paying attention for the last year. Remember when Obama cut the stimulus by roughly a third and added large tax cuts in an effort to lure GOP votes, and received none? What about when the HCR bill was basically gutted in an attempt to woo GOP votes, none of which materialized?

The Dem's problem was precisely that they didn't just abuse their majority. They actually attempted to govern in a manner that assumed the Republicans were bargaining in good faith. Which they clearly were not.

98 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:40:50pm

re: #97 drcordell

Or the HCR bill could just be a big, hot, sweaty, nasty bad idea.

99 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:41:05pm

Sidebar: Among the most beautiful musical instruments ever made is the Gretsch White Falcon electric guitar:

Youtube Video
Youtube Video
100 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:41:32pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

Or the HCR bill could just be a big, hot, sweaty, nasty bad idea.

and it done smell too good either...

101 webevintage  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:41:41pm

FoxNews.com is tracking the president's speeches all this month and will report back after each to see whether The "I's" Have It.

Really, just WTF is up with this whole "ZOMG!!!111!!! He used "I" 45 times" crap?
How does one give a speech about what they are doing AS PRESIDENT or what they will do or want to do or how they want to work with the other damn party without the use of "I"?
Really, it is the stupid shit that pisses me off the most, that and Rudi lying.


It makes one think that they really have nothing fair and balanced to use for their "news" programs.

102 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:42:10pm

re: #78 abbyadams

Eh, I'm still Ms. HopenChangy. I thought this was a brilliant thing to do.

I think he's trying. I think it used to be that people from one party could at least understand that the other party governed in good faith, even while they disagreed (however vehemently.) It's just not that way, now. The thing is, I think we're screwed if we don't get that good faith back, and I respect Obama enormously for trying. I hope a precedent was set today.

That would be terrific. I really shouldn't be so pessimistic.

Certain things nag at me, like Joe Wilson yelling in the middle of his speech "You lie." Is that outrageous or what? I mean, was that ever done before to any president? Yes, it's one man, but it really shows a breakdown of respecting the office, if you don't like the man. Maybe it's a commentary on our society too. No respect, I tell's ya.

Do kids refer to their friends' parents as Mr. and Mrs. Smith or just Bob and Jane? I know one little girl who call me Mrs. Moon out of all my friends, maybe a dozen kids. Is this good or bad?

103 keloyd  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:42:11pm

Tort reform? any mention at all?

Any lizards with the time, patience, and bandwidth - please let me know if this one achilles heel of the Democrats was addressed properly, or at all?

My bandwidth right now is a little better than what a few of my ancestors could manage with smoke signals.

104 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:42:51pm

re: #97 drcordell

They actually attempted to govern in a manner that assumed the Republicans were bargaining in good faith. Which they clearly were not.

It was Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football over and over again. And it was painful to watch. I'm glad they lost the 60th seat because it means 1) they don't have to kiss Lieberman's ass anymore, and 2) they can still reach out for bipartisan support, but have reconciliation as a backup and now will consider it an option if need be, rather than capitulating until the bill at hand is worthless, as that'll just bite them in the ass. The GOP will allow cloture, and then they'll vote "No." because the legislation will suck.

105 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:42:53pm

re: #99 The Sanity Inspector

Nice. I have a Gretsch 6-string acoustic. Best action and feel for an acoustic under $1k, I swear.

106 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:42:56pm

re: #94 darthstar

"Are you kind?"

[Video]

"Out Of Time"?

Youtube Video
107 Aye Pod  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:43:26pm

re: #88 darthstar

[Video]

Well, it is friday night...:)

Youtube Video
108 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:43:37pm

re: #101 webevintage

FoxNews.com is tracking the president's speeches all this month and will report back after each to see whether The "I's" Have It.

Really, just WTF is up with this whole "ZOMG!!!111!!! He used "I" 45 times" crap?
How does one give a speech about what they are doing AS PRESIDENT or what they will do or want to do or how they want to work with the other damn party without the use of "I"?
Really, it is the stupid shit that pisses me off the most, that and Rudi lying.

It makes one think that they really have nothing fair and balanced to use for their "news" programs.

perhaps if he said "we" more often?

109 Baier  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:43:38pm

re: #97 drcordell

I guess that means you haven't been paying attention for the last year. Remember when Obama cut the stimulus by roughly a third and added large tax cuts in an effort to lure GOP votes, and received none? What about when the HCR bill was basically gutted in an attempt to woo GOP votes, none of which materialized?

The Dem's problem was precisely that they didn't just abuse their majority. They actually attempted to govern in a manner that assumed the Republicans were bargaining in good faith. Which they clearly were not.

I guess you haven't been paying attention as closely as I've been paying attention the past year because the Republicans didn't just oppose 1/3 of the stimulous, they opposed the entire stimulus. And the HCR was not gutted to please the GOP it was gutted to please the Blue Dogs.

110 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:44:47pm

re: #108 brookly red

perhaps if he said "we" more often?

Then they would accuse him of acting like royalty.

111 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:45:27pm

re: #110 Stanley Sea

Then they would accuse him of acting like royalty.

now that's just funny stuff right there-

112 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:45:28pm

re: #107 Jimmah

Well, it is friday night...:)


[Video]

Call the dinosaurs...

Youtube Video
113 Lateralis  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:45:59pm

re: #108 brookly red

perhaps if he said "we" more often?

Maybe, since there is no I in TEAM!

114 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:46:07pm

re: #110 Stanley Sea

Then they would accuse him of acting like royalty.

yes, that was the reference...

115 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:47:02pm

re: #102 marjoriemoon

That would be terrific. I really shouldn't be so pessimistic.

Certain things nag at me, like Joe Wilson yelling in the middle of his speech "You lie." Is that outrageous or what? I mean, was that ever done before to any president? Yes, it's one man, but it really shows a breakdown of respecting the office, if you don't like the man. Maybe it's a commentary on our society too. No respect, I tell's ya.

Yes, the Dems--a whole clump of 'em--booed Bush during one of his SOTU speeches.

116 webevintage  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:47:36pm

re: #103 keloyd

Tort reform? any mention at all?

Any lizards with the time, patience, and bandwidth - please let me know if this one achilles heel of the Democrats was addressed properly, or at all?

Not that Tort Reform has been found to make a dif in states that have done it, but here ya go:

"I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget.

It needs to change. This is a big problem and all of us are called on to solve it.

And that's why from the start I sought out and supported ideas from the Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles.

Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions; that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it and it got incorporated into our approach.

Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers -- that's an idea that some of you, I suspect, included in this better solutions. That's an idea that was incorporated into our package. I support it, provided that we do it hand-in-hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.

A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they are 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package."

117 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:47:43pm

re: #114 brookly red

yes, that was the reference...

Brookly, I never know with ya.

118 cliffster  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:47:46pm

re: #113 Lateralis

Maybe, since there is no I in TEAM!

There is also no I in presadent.

119 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:47:53pm

re: #101 webevintage

FoxNews.com is tracking the president's speeches all this month and will report back after each to see whether The "I's" Have It.

Really, just WTF is up with this whole "ZOMG!!!111!!! He used "I" 45 times" crap?
How does one give a speech about what they are doing AS PRESIDENT or what they will do or want to do or how they want to work with the other damn party without the use of "I"?
Really, it is the stupid shit that pisses me off the most, that and Rudi lying.

It makes one think that they really have nothing fair and balanced to use for their "news" programs.

Maybe Fox would be happy if Obama started using the royal "we" instead?

120 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:48:05pm

re: #117 Stanley Sea

Brookly, I never know with ya.

assume the worst ;)

121 RogueOne  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:48:23pm

re: #46 Charles

I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."

Just so you know, I'm printing that comment out and thinking about putting it in a nice fram.

122 webevintage  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:48:29pm

re: #108 brookly red

perhaps if he said "we" more often?

has anyone taken the time to do WE counts?
and no matter, it is still stupid, silly, petty and a waste of time.

123 simoom  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:48:39pm

re: #101 webevintage

Really, just WTF is up with this whole "ZOMG!!!111!!! He used "I" 45 times" crap?

It's a lazy / juvenile way to dismiss the substance of the President's speeches outright and at the same time imply he's a narcissist. It seems to have replaced their old standby which was to obsess over the teleprompter, constantly suggesting that he wasn't bright enough to function without it.

124 RogueOne  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:49:02pm

re: #121 RogueOne

Just so you know, I'm printing that comment out and thinking about putting it in a nice fram.

That'd be "frame"

125 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:49:22pm

re: #113 Lateralis

Maybe, since there is no I in TEAM!

There is in "win"!

126 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:50:19pm

re: #122 webevintage

has anyone taken the time to do WE counts?
and no matter, it is still stupid, silly, petty and a waste of time.

I am more concerned by how many times he says Taxes...

127 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:50:51pm

re: #115 The Sanity Inspector

Yes, the Dems--a whole clump of 'em--booed Bush during one of his SOTU speeches.

Booing is not too way out. Yes, it's definitely rude (they Right booed the other night too), but shouting out You Lie? That's gotta be some kind of record.

128 RogueOne  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:50:56pm

I hate taking an ass chewing, especially when I have it coming. I've been dealing with an irate customer all day. He's pissed and he has a right to be. I hate that.

129 webevintage  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:51:06pm

re: #123 simoom

It's a lazy / juvenile way to dismiss the substance of the President's speeches outright and at the same time imply he's a narcissist. It seems to have replaced their old standby which was to obsess over the teleprompter, constantly suggesting that he wasn't bright enough to function without it.

Yeah, just today you could see what kind of BS the old teleprompter meme was...unless Rham was behind the curtain whispering the answers to the President.

130 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:51:47pm

re: #109 Baier

I guess you haven't been paying attention as closely as I've been paying attention the past year because the Republicans didn't just oppose 1/3 of the stimulous, they opposed the entire stimulus. And the HCR was not gutted to please the GOP it was gutted to please the Blue Dogs.

Agree in part and disagree in part The Republicans proposed a ~400 billion and change stimulus package, The Democrats wanted 1 Trillion plus, and things ended up at 787 Billion, and still no Republican votes.

You're pretty on target with HCR, The senate Democrats gutted and mangled HCR until it was unpalatable to the more liberal members of the house, so now there's a bill out there that no one likes and; as much as I don't like to say it, Health Care isn't going to fix itself.

131 Baier  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:51:59pm

re: #97 drcordell

The Dem's problem was precisely that they didn't just abuse their majority. They actually attempted to govern in a manner that assumed the Republicans were bargaining in good faith. Which they clearly were not.

Just to add, to your second point, the democrats did not in fact try to govern in good faith, they thought they'd win Mass. and didn't realize they'd run out of time.

I'm not defending the Republicans, I think they've acted like idiots, (and you can read many of my post here on LFG sying so) but to say the Democrats were at all more innocent or well intentioned is just ridiculous.

132 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:52:20pm

re: #116 webevintage

Not that Tort Reform has been found to make a dif in states that have done it, but here ya go:

"I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget.

It needs to change. This is a big problem and all of us are called on to solve it.

And that's why from the start I sought out and supported ideas from the Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles.

Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions; that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it and it got incorporated into our approach.

Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers -- that's an idea that some of you, I suspect, included in this better solutions. That's an idea that was incorporated into our package. I support it, provided that we do it hand-in-hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.

A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they are 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package."

Wait, Obama supports selling insurance over state lines??

133 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:52:57pm

re: #127 marjoriemoon

Booing is not too way out. Yes, it's definitely rude (they Right booed the other night too), but shouting out You Lie? That's gotta be some kind of record.

just wait till they start flipping birds...

134 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:53:08pm

re: #128 RogueOne

I hate taking an ass chewing, especially when I have it coming. I've been dealing with an irate customer all day. He's pissed and he has a right to be. I hate that.

Injustice is relatively easy to bear; it is justice that hurts.
-- H.L. Mencken

135 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:53:27pm

re: #57 Stanley Sea

What if it's as simple as Tip O'Neill et al wanted to work with him, and the current GOP doesn't? It takes two to tango.

if he makes excuses every time he doesn't get his way, he is destined to fail. he needs to "man up" and make them WANT to work with him. And the way to do it is to have good ideas and also be smart enough to be talked out of his bad ideas when warranted.

136 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:54:06pm

re: #133 brookly red

just wait till they start flipping birds...

heheheeh I have this vision of some very animated Italian person, kinda like when Kramer tried to pay the calzone guy in pennies LOL

137 RogueOne  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:54:07pm

re: #54 darthstar

Just re-listened with the noise reduction headphones...sounds like "that'd be fine" to me too.

It was a contentious exchange but they both seemed to be trying to be civil. Probably because the cameras were on.

138 MandyManners  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:54:11pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

Or the HCR bill could just be a big, hot, sweaty, nasty bad idea.

In bed.

139 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:54:58pm

re: #116 webevintage

Not that Tort Reform has been found to make a dif in states that have done it, but here ya go:

"I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget.

It needs to change. This is a big problem and all of us are called on to solve it.

And that's why from the start I sought out and supported ideas from the Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles.

Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions; that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it and it got incorporated into our approach.

Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers -- that's an idea that some of you, I suspect, included in this better solutions. That's an idea that was incorporated into our package. I support it, provided that we do it hand-in-hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.

A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they are 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package."

I'm so confused. Who is saying this??

140 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:54:59pm

re: #102 marjoriemoon

I have two little ones, and it depends. Some of my friends want to be called by their first names - so I tell them they have to say a "Mr." or "Ms." in front of that (Ms. Marjorie.)

I think that Wilson's breakdown does reflect society, sadly. And a lack of respect for the office. That's just an extension of the blogs, though, IMHO, and the lack of civility that goes on sometimes - we get used to being confrontational, and it transfers to real life.

141 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:55:17pm

off to work ... see you tonight around 2am ET

142 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:55:45pm

re: #96 Baier

re: #97 drcordell

Why not just realize that we're commonly being played by a special interest beholden oligarchy that simply has two public faces?

143 webevintage  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:56:01pm

re: #139 marjoriemoon

I'm so confused. Who is saying this??

That is from the transcript of the Q&A time today, President's comments.

144 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:56:06pm

re: #136 marjoriemoon

heheheeh I have this vision of some very animated Italian person, kinda like when Kramer tried to pay the calzone guy in pennies LOL

Ooooooh, I want a clazone... yes. a nice hot, fat calzone with spinach.

145 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:56:22pm

re: #116 webevintage

The power of tort reform is not, as many think, a measurable reduction in health care costs. Rather, it stops the flight of providers out of your area so that you can actually get proper care.

Here's an excerpt of an article on the subject...note that it doesn't deal with costs, but rather absence of health care.

146 webevintage  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:56:33pm

Sorry, here is the whole thing transcribed:
[Link: projects.washingtonpost.com...]

147 cliffster  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:56:46pm

re: #132 marjoriemoon

Wait, Obama supports selling insurance over state lines??

It's not a part of any dialog he's having, as far as I know. The "tort reform" you've bolded is a different thing from that.

148 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:57:05pm

re: #142 oaktree

re: #97 drcordell

Why not just realize that we're commonly being played by a special interest beholden oligarchy that simply has two public faces?

what exactly is a "special interest" anyway?

149 SixDegrees  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:57:11pm

re: #56 lawhawk

I think the GOP figured that this would be a symbolic vote against out of control spending, seeing that the Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling every few months it seems. Still, the GOP is party to this mess since they helped push out of control spending when they were still the majority party pre-2006 election.

True. But the current deficits, and those projected over the next decade or so, dwarf even the worst deficits of the past by several times. One look at the rapidly escalating national debt shows that currently proposed budgets are completely unsustainable, and that the day of reckoning is fast approaching - not just within our children's lifetime, but within ours, as debt exceeds GDP in as little as 9 more years, with the deficit growing at an unprecedented rate.

150 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:57:17pm

re: #135 _RememberTonyC

if he makes excuses every time he doesn't get his way, he is destined to fail. he needs to "man up" and make them WANT to work with him. And the way to do it is to have good ideas and also be smart enough to be talked out of his bad ideas when warranted.

He has to "make" the Republicans represent their constituencies? Were they running for office for the sole purpose of opposing the president? That doesn't sound like a very good campaign platform to me. "Elect me, and I will do absolutely NOTHING to help you, and you can take that to the bank homeless shelter."

151 drcordell  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:57:27pm

re: #142 oaktree

re: #97 drcordell

Why not just realize that we're commonly being played by a special interest beholden oligarchy that simply has two public faces?

Oh I agree 110% with you there. But at least the Democrats seem slightly more willing to throw the peasants a few scraps every now and again to keep them placated.

152 drcordell  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:58:08pm

re: #148 brookly red

what exactly is a "special interest" anyway?

Special interests = multinational corporations

153 darthstar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:58:53pm

Well, it's almost 1:00pm. Time for Wolf Blitzer to report on the "tough questions" President Obama took from Republicans...though I don't expect him to play the President's responses. Blitzer's such a tool.

154 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:59:05pm

re: #148 brookly red

Varies, but a generalization for the various PAC and lobbyist groups who make most of the campaign contributions. Insurance industry, defense contractors, unions, etc.

Bit of a broad brush there... Hmm.

155 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:59:17pm

re: #123 simoom

And ignoring that Reagan was a master of the teleprompter. One of the first to use it, and, heck, he should have been. It's okay!

156 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 12:59:26pm

re: #152 drcordell

Special interests = multinational corporations

Oh, so not like Planned Parenthood or anything like that? OK I get it.

157 Blueheron  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:00:02pm

re: #7 American-African

After the less than Presidential calling out of the SC at the SOTU, I appreciated the exchange that took place this afternoon. That was the person I voted for back in November. Welcome back, Sir.

Yep he finally showed up didn't he?

158 Cineaste  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:00:11pm

I feel like it's fair to state that out of control spending is not a party issue, it's a power issue.

The party in power spends profligately. It was true under the Democrats and true under the Republicans. Ironically, based on pure facts, spending increases more slowly under democratic regimes over the last 20 years than democratic ones.

159 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:00:28pm

re: #142 oaktree

re: #97 drcordell

Why not just realize that we're commonly being played by a special socialist interest beholden oligarchy that simply has two public hidden faces?

BTFY!*
/Becked that for ya

160 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:01:29pm

re: #152 drcordell

Special interests = multinational corporations

so a 10billion dollar national corporation is good and a 100million dollar corporation with branches in other countries is evil?

right, got it.

9_9

161 webevintage  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:01:50pm

I'm thinking that what the President means when he is saying he likes the idea of "across state lines" is the exchanges.

162 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:03:54pm

re: #160 Aceofwhat?

What if we just started calling them "Multicultural Corporations"?

163 Blueheron  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:04:24pm

re: #19 marjoriemoon

It's not that this is a bad thing. It's a good thing. The man's a mediator. It's not even "a strong point" of his personality. It's really who he is.

OTOH, he has a lot to deal with in his own party. The Democrats are just about as disappointed with him (for very different reasons) as the Right is. Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but he should have talked to them first.

Don't you think he has?

164 Aye Pod  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:04:25pm

re: #110 Stanley Sea

Then they would accuse him of acting like royalty.

what an ego...who cares...didn't you see the way he was standing...that supposed to be a president?...what a joke...you dems all take yourselves too seriously...real people ain't impressed...

;-)

165 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:02pm

re: #160 Aceofwhat?

so a 10billion dollar national corporation is good and a 100million dollar corporation with branches in other countries is evil?

right, got it.

9_9

I kinda thought that any group of citizens who pool resources for common cause is a special interest group... yeah some people really hate that.

166 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:12pm

re: #162 Slumbering Behemoth

Either that or TEH EVIL. Both have their appeal!

167 SixDegrees  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:15pm

Pork shoulder on sale at $1.25 per pound. That, some apples, cider, onions and selected spices are going to make an awesome braise tomorrow.

I should buy another one and freeze it.

168 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:20pm

re: #147 cliffster

It's not a part of any dialog he's having, as far as I know. The "tort reform" you've bolded is a different thing from that.

Oh sorry, I didn't bold that. I think it was pre-bolded heh

I had no idea he supported buying ins across state lines. It's a horrible idea. Good lord, it's the only freakin idea the Reps came up with!! This is my problem with him.

I also have a problem with tort reform. Let's say you have a man who's making $300,000 a year, a wife, 2 kids, lives in Atlanta. Not a bad salary. Doesn't put him in the millionaire category, but upper middle class, yes? Pretty big city, not LA or NY.

He's killed because of negligence, say a defective car... the wheels fall off, he crashes, dies instantly. What should his wife get paid? She is not skilled, but now has to take care of herself and two kids. Should she be forced into the poor house because some moron didn't give a care to make a safe vehicle?

I worked for a med mal firm at one time and almost this exact scenario happened, btw.

169 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:30pm

re: #145 Aceofwhat?

The power of tort reform is not, as many think, a measurable reduction in health care costs. Rather, it stops the flight of providers out of your area so that you can actually get proper care.

Here's an excerpt of an article on the subject...note that it doesn't deal with costs, but rather absence of health care.

I read a book recently about a man who got laid off and spent time working at several menial jobs for a while. One of them was an emergency room technician, doing scut work in the hospital like mopping up blood & such. He tagged along after the ER doc, and noticed what happened whenever a pregnant patient would come in. The patient would receive every conceivable test, even though they probably weren't necessary. It was because the doctor had seen the pregnant patient and breathed the same air. That meant that, to a lawyer, the doctor was now on the hook for anything going wrong from that time to the delivery of a health baby. So, the unnecessary added costs to healthcare.

170 SixDegrees  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:05:40pm

re: #165 brookly red

I kinda thought that any group of citizens who pool resources for common cause is a special interest group... yeah some people really hate that.

Like unions, for instance.

171 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:06:22pm

re: #165 brookly red

I kinda thought that any group of citizens who pool resources for common cause is a special interest group... yeah some people really hate that.

I know...as if they have a right to petition their government. Capitalist pigs, the lot of them-

172 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:06:52pm

re: #161 webevintage

I'm thinking that what the President means when he is saying he likes the idea of "across state lines" is the exchanges.

YUUCKKK. He could just say "I like the exchange" and tell them why they are dead wrong (in his nice mediating way that he does, not like a screaming banshee like me).

173 Blueheron  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:05pm

re: #22 Lateralis

This is great dialogue between the President and Republicans. The problem is the dialogue between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Pelosi basically said today she is going to pass health care reform no matter what gets in her way.

Yep someone should have a talk with her.
Or maybe they have talked and we are being treated to good cop/bad cop. I hope not.

174 RogueOne  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:11pm

re: #108 brookly red

perhaps if he said "we" more often?

I learned that in my anger mgmt classes. Instead of saying "YOU have an f'ing problem!" I now say "WE have an f'ing problem". Doesn't seem to work much better.

It's almost 4:20 here. Time to go home.

175 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:16pm

re: #170 SixDegrees

Like unions, for instance.

/OH, that's different...

176 The Sanity Inspector  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:22pm

re: #148 brookly red

what exactly is a "special interest" anyway?

My cause is a public interest group.
Your cause is a special interest group.
The other guy's cause is insider lobbying.

177 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:27pm

re: #149 SixDegrees

True. But the current deficits, and those projected over the next decade or so, dwarf even the worst deficits of the past by several times. One look at the rapidly escalating national debt shows that currently proposed budgets are completely unsustainable, and that the day of reckoning is fast approaching - not just within our children's lifetime, but within ours, as debt exceeds GDP in as little as 9 more years, with the deficit growing at an unprecedented rate.

If I remeber a study my brother once saw our national debt goes up whenever we're in a war and goes down when we're not. The problem is that we never got around to fully paying of the national debt from WW2, and its been increased by every war since.

So maybe once we get out of Iraq and Afganistan (a million dollars a solider talk about out of control government spending) then hopefully we'll have a better shot at decreasing the national debt.

All we are saying.... is give peace a chance....

178 American-African  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:07:44pm

re: #138 MandyManners

In bed.

I haven't been here very long, but I get the distinct impression you are often being naughty...

179 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:08:28pm

re: #155 abbyadams

And ignoring that Reagan was a master of the teleprompter. One of the first to use it, and, heck, he should have been. It's okay!

Well a teleprompter is a lot like those cue cards they have for actors when they forget their lines, right? Makes sense Regan would figure out how to use one pretty quick...

180 Kragar  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:08:36pm

Ah, joy of joys. I get to work late until an undisclosed hour to help cover the other team's fuck up. Just got back from stocking up on my snack run.

181 brookly red  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:09:06pm

re: #174 RogueOne

I learned that in my anger mgmt classes. Instead of saying "YOU have an f'ing problem!" I now say "WE have an f'ing problem". Doesn't seem to work much better.

It's almost 4:20 here. Time to go home.

no, no... it's WE have a failure to communicate.

182 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:09:13pm

re: #179 jamesfirecat

Well a teleprompter is a lot like those cue cards they have for actors when they forget their lines, right? Makes sense Regan would figure out how to use one pretty quick...

And the above is in no way intended as an Alzheimer's joke!

183 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:09:24pm

re: #168 marjoriemoon

That would suck...it would absolutely suck. But are you saying that his life is worth more than someone else's if the doctor's mistake (trying to bring it back to malpractice) killed them instead?

184 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:10:34pm

re: #182 jamesfirecat

Neither was mine. Mine was just a reference to his acting skills. The whole teleprompter thing is just a non-issue. Next!

185 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:11:16pm

re: #169 The Sanity Inspector

I read a book recently about a man who got laid off and spent time working at several menial jobs for a while. One of them was an emergency room technician, doing scut work in the hospital like mopping up blood & such. He tagged along after the ER doc, and noticed what happened whenever a pregnant patient would come in. The patient would receive every conceivable test, even though they probably weren't necessary. It was because the doctor had seen the pregnant patient and breathed the same air. That meant that, to a lawyer, the doctor was now on the hook for anything going wrong from that time to the delivery of a health baby. So, the unnecessary added costs to healthcare.

I don't doubt for a minute that there are costs to be reduced through tort reform. But I'd expect cost reduction to be a minor effect, and care availability to be the major effect (the cost reductions haven't been all that measurable yet in states with tort reform, although these things can take time to shake out).

186 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:12:04pm

re: #178 American-African

I haven't been here very long, but I get the distinct impression you are often being naughty...

in bed!!

187 keloyd  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:12:31pm

On the subject of multinational corporations = evil, I'm calling shenanigans on that. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, he has a chapter on how the big oil companies compare to government-owned Big Oil (like Mexico) of similar size, niche, and total capital, especially in New Guinea, where one would guess you can get away with cutting corners. It turns out the big corporations are much better behaved environmentally than government-run counterparts. The big companies who can get beaten about the head and shoulders with bad publicity are the best behaved. Corporations are never good or evil, they just react to their incentives.

Same goes for segregation in the US 50+ years ago. They were a force for giving the people what they wanted, good or ill.

188 recusancy  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:12:32pm

re: #15 American-African

Oh, I think this is the last we will see of this type of thing for a while.

It's going to happen monthly. He said it in his SOTU address.

189 cliffster  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:13:22pm

re: #168 marjoriemoon

Oh sorry, I didn't bold that. I think it was pre-bolded heh

Oops, my mistake

I had no idea he supported buying ins across state lines. It's a horrible idea.

I'm interested in hearing why you feel this way?

I also have a problem with tort reform. Let's say you have a man who's making $300,000 a year, a wife, 2 kids, lives in Atlanta. Not a bad salary. Doesn't put him in the millionaire category, but upper middle class, yes? Pretty big city, not LA or NY.

He's killed because of negligence, say a defective car... the wheels fall off, he crashes, dies instantly. What should his wife get paid? She is not skilled, but now has to take care of herself and two kids. Should she be forced into the poor house because some moron didn't give a care to make a safe vehicle?

I worked for a med mal firm at one time and almost this exact scenario happened, btw.

Well, in your example, that is not related to health care reform. It's not referring to all tort, just medical malpractice. Additionally, it's tort reform, not tort elimination. Obviously, there are many cases where there is negligence, and a civil lawsuit with pain/suffering/continuing-expense awards are appropriate. Spelling out what separates good suits from bad ones is what makes reform a challenge.

190 Blueheron  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:13:24pm

re: #47 brookly red

I am not sure which worries me more the Ds & Rs working together or not... I guess I will need to wait & see what if anything they come up with but somehow I think it will just be a version of Obama lite with a few "incentives" for the Rs to play along.

It would be great if everyone could tone it down. We have had too much rancor in this country to suit me.

191 American-African  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:14:01pm

re: #186 Aceofwhat?

ok, I get it

192 Mr. Hammer  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:14:19pm

re: #78 abbyadams

I think it used to be that people from one party could at least understand that the other party governed in good faith, even while they disagreed (however vehemently.) It's just not that way, now. The thing is, I think we're screwed if we don't get that good faith back, and I respect Obama enormously for trying. I hope a precedent was set today.

I used to believe this too, then I read about Jefferson and Madison's shennanigans during Washington's second term. GW was most vexed about it all. He wrote in his Farewell Address:

"Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.... This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind....
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.... " and so on.

I don't think there ever were any good old days.

193 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:14:47pm

re: #183 Aceofwhat?

That would suck...it would absolutely suck. But are you saying that his life is worth more than someone else's if the doctor's mistake (trying to bring it back to malpractice) killed them instead?

Yes, it's the same. Wrongful death specifically, someone kills you through negligence. If he (or she) is the head of the household, how much should a cap be?

194 American-African  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:15:09pm

re: #188 recusancy

I do not think they will have cameras again, though.

195 SixDegrees  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:16:20pm

re: #177 jamesfirecat

If I remeber a study my brother once saw our national debt goes up whenever we're in a war and goes down when we're not. The problem is that we never got around to fully paying of the national debt from WW2, and its been increased by every war since.

So maybe once we get out of Iraq and Afganistan (a million dollars a solider talk about out of control government spending) then hopefully we'll have a better shot at decreasing the national debt.

All we are saying... is give peace a chance...

Unfortunately, that's not what's driving the problem at the moment. According to the CBO, it's the projected costs of the Administration's proposed entitlements - particularly health care - that will drive the annual deficit to levels three to five times it's current peak every single year for the next decade. That, and what is rapidly morphing into the Never Ending Stimulus, pouring trillions of borrowed dollars - money from the future - into the present-day economy, creating jobs and entire industries that cannot support themselves except by continuing government largesse.

Most people look at these projections, and when they come to, they proceed through life terrified. And rightly so.

196 simoom  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:16:26pm

The C-Span video seems to be getting totally hammered, so here's an alternate source if anyone needs it:

MSNBC Video

(this is just the Q&A part which totals ~67 minutes)
197 recusancy  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:16:57pm

re: #59 The Sanity Inspector

I saw 30 minutes of this on Fox News while I was at lunch; did they run the whole thing? Good on 'em if they did.

Nope. They cut it off after it became obvious that Obama was handling the questions well and making the GOP look bad. It didn't mesh with their world view.

198 simoom  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:18:44pm

re: #197 recusancy

They switched to Rep Pete King instead. I guess they thought he made for more interesting television than what was going on at the retreat...

199 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:19:43pm

re: #189 cliffster

Well, in your example, that is not related to health care reform. It's not referring to all tort, just medical malpractice. Additionally, it's tort reform, not tort elimination. Obviously, there are many cases where there is negligence, and a civil lawsuit with pain/suffering/continuing-expense awards are appropriate. Spelling out what separates good suits from bad ones is what makes reform a challenge.

Ahhh ok, now I get Ace hehe. I didn't realize it was only related to medical tort reform. Well, that doesn't thrill me either. There's mistakes and there's mistakes.

Ok, another example, a doctor operates on the wrong body part, now you can't walk. What should be the compensation? Now, that's possibly different than say a doctor not diagnosing cancer after giving you a barage of tests and not finding it. I've seen docs sued for this too.

200 SixDegrees  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:20:09pm

re: #187 keloyd

On the subject of multinational corporations = evil, I'm calling shenanigans on that. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, he has a chapter on how the big oil companies compare to government-owned Big Oil (like Mexico) of similar size, niche, and total capital, especially in New Guinea, where one would guess you can get away with cutting corners. It turns out the big corporations are much better behaved environmentally than government-run counterparts. The big companies who can get beaten about the head and shoulders with bad publicity are the best behaved. Corporations are never good or evil, they just react to their incentives.

Same goes for segregation in the US 50+ years ago. They were a force for giving the people what they wanted, good or ill.

Good point. And it brings to mind one of my favorite Veridian Dynamics commercials:

Youtube Video
201 Blueheron  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:20:16pm

re: #192 Mr. Hammer

I used to believe this too, then I read about Jefferson and Madison's shennanigans during Washington's second term. GW was most vexed about it all. He wrote in his Farewell Address:

"Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally... This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind...
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism... " and so on.

I don't think there ever were any good old days.


You are so correct.
Hamilton was a first class manipulator and caused to some degree Adams to loose his bid for the Presidency against Washington.

202 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:21:16pm

re: #193 marjoriemoon

Yes, it's the same. Wrongful death specifically, someone kills you through negligence. If he (or she) is the head of the household, how much should a cap be?

Good question. But i think that agreeing that some sort of cap should exist is the big step. Agreeing ON the cap is, IMHO, simpler...there are already a lot of "standard" wrongful death reimbursement standards out there. At least we agree there should be a cap!

203 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:21:41pm

re: #192 Mr. Hammer

Oh, I know that it's always been pretty nasty. Look at the power play Jefferson played on Adams. I just think that there was an underlying "I think your ideas may suck, but you care about America" feeling that existed. I'm not so sure about that anymore. I'm not a huge fan of VP Biden, but he said something last week about this being the first time any decision in the senate has taken 60 votes. There's something wrong, there.

204 cliffster  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:21:43pm

re: #199 marjoriemoon

Agreed, it's a sticky topic. But if there's a way to remove frivolous and unjust lawsuits, that should be pursued. It would have to be done by people smarter than me.

I also had asked about your statement that selling across state lines was a terrible idea. Why is that?

205 Blueheron  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:23:07pm

re: #203 abbyadams

Oh, I know that it's always been pretty nasty. Look at the power play Jefferson played on Adams. I just think that there was an underlying "I think your ideas may suck, but you care about America" feeling that existed. I'm not so sure about that anymore. I'm not a huge fan of VP Biden, but he said something last week about this being the first time any decision in the senate has taken 60 votes. There's something wrong, there.

Wasn't wrong when the Democrats were in the minority. /

206 recusancy  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:24:42pm

re: #204 cliffster

Agreed, it's a sticky topic. But if there's a way to remove frivolous and unjust lawsuits, that should be pursued. It would have to be done by people smarter than me.

I also had asked about your statement that selling across state lines was a terrible idea. Why is that?

Because, for one, as Obama implied today, the companies would conglomorate and eat up all the healthy people. Which would leave all the less healthy people worse off then they already are.

Also they would all move to one state and buy up the legislature ala CC companies and Deleware.

207 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:26:15pm

re: #204 cliffster

I hope you don't mind me answering why the state insurance competition can be a bad idea. I think the problem might stem from the fact that insurance companies will move to the states with the least regulation, and the coverage will be terrible.

It's a faith in the company vs. mistrust of the company issue, like trickle down economics. A real R-D disconnect.

208 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:27:04pm

re: #195 SixDegrees

Unfortunately, that's not what's driving the problem at the moment. According to the CBO, it's the projected costs of the Administration's proposed entitlements - particularly health care - that will drive the annual deficit to levels three to five times it's current peak every single year for the next decade. That, and what is rapidly morphing into the Never Ending Stimulus, pouring trillions of borrowed dollars - money from the future - into the present-day economy, creating jobs and entire industries that cannot support themselves except by continuing government largesse.

Most people look at these projections, and when they come to, they proceed through life terrified. And rightly so.

Then what was up with all the talk I was hearing about how the CBO said that the Democrats plan would decrease the deficite by a few billion over the next decade? (Confused rather than sarcastic)

209 SixDegrees  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:28:38pm

re: #202 Aceofwhat?

Good question. But i think that agreeing that some sort of cap should exist is the big step. Agreeing ON the cap is, IMHO, simpler...there are already a lot of "standard" wrongful death reimbursement standards out there. At least we agree there should be a cap!

There's a potential problem with caps, too, however. Right now, lawyers go for the highest award they can dream of, but they very rarely receive it. Much, much more often, they happily accept a much, much smaller out of court settlement. And even if they wind up in court, the chances of getting anywhere near what they're asking is still awfully slim, although not zero.

With caps, you've effectively set a tangible cost on what some particular injury is worth - and absolutely everyone is going to feel entitled to receive that amount, without dickering.

The caps have to be set high enough to seem reasonable - say, $10 million plus incurred costs, a reasonable figure for a lifetime's disability. Now, everyone is going to demand - and likely receive - that amount, while as things now stand claimants will receive anything from maybe $100 million all the way down to nothing, with the vast majority receiving a few tens of thousands at best. It's entirely possible that placing caps on such things will wind up increasing overall malpractice costs.

210 SixDegrees  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:31:43pm

re: #208 jamesfirecat

Read through the report I linked, above, which is based on last summer's CBO projections.

The "savings" to be realized by the Democrat's health care plan only applied to the plan itself, not to the overall budget. And just a couple of weeks ago, even those savings became illusory, when the Democrats sat down with unions and agreed to let their membership keep their "Cadillac" health care plans without paying the proposed tax increase on them, completely wiping out predicted savings that were questionable to begin with.

211 recusancy  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:32:23pm

re: #205 Blueheron

Wasn't wrong when the Democrats were in the minority. /

The Bush tax cuts for the rich were passed in reconciliation.

Also the dems never used the filibuster as close to as much as it's being used now.

212 cliffster  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:36:35pm

re: #206 recusancy

re: #207 abbyadams

Thanks for your replies. immediate, unresearched response would be that these are problems that competition would solve, not cause. Either way, a lot of it is a resignation to the fact that you have to require healthy, young people to buy the insurance to make the actuarial numbers add up.

213 Joo-LiZ  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:37:07pm

re: #46 Charles

I think you're right. Not sure he said "that'd be fine," but it wasn't "you're lying."

I think he said "As am I"

214 abbyadams  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:38:53pm

re: #212 cliffster

If you do research this, and have some answers, I hope you will share them on another thread when this comes up again.

215 Joo-LiZ  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:40:10pm

Also just wanna say, I just finished watching the whole thing, I'm quite impressed with the way that whole thing was handled. I'm curious what something similar would have looked like at a Democrat retreat, with a Republican President.

While I still think many of Obama's policies (especially his foreign policies, which weren't mentioned) are the opposite of what they should be, I've got a different perspective on Obama the man.

216 recusancy  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:40:44pm

re: #212 cliffster

re: #207 abbyadams

Thanks for your replies. immediate, unresearched response would be that these are problems that competition would solve, not cause. Either way, a lot of it is a resignation to the fact that you have to require healthy, young people to buy the insurance to make the actuarial numbers add up.

Competition only exists until a few get big enough to buy out it's competitors. A true free market will always eventually lead to a monopoly.

217 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:41:07pm

re: #211 recusancy

The Bush tax cuts for the rich were passed in reconciliation.

Also the dems never used the filibuster as close to as much as it's being used now.

This is your local congress report and its fillibuster city down there bills are blocked end to end and I just see no end in sight! You better take the reconcilliation offramp or the executive order turnpike because otherwise you might as well be walking to healthcare town!

218 RogueOne  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 1:54:42pm

re: #192 Mr. Hammer

I don't think there ever were any good old days.

Absolutely right. I'm not sure how the meme that we were once so civilized to each other ever got started, but it's based on pure b.s.

219 recusancy  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:00:32pm

re: #218 RogueOne

Absolutely right. I'm not sure how the meme that we were once so civilized to each other ever got started, but it's based on pure b.s.

The Daily Show got the heart of that meme here. And George Lucas, the guest, comes on at the end of the show and makes a parallel point about how we always remember our childhood times as the good old days when things were better. He brings up the example of how old Star Wars fans think the new Star Wars films suck and visa versa for young fans.

220 Jeff In Ohio  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:07:22pm

re: #87 Baier

Exactly. The Democrats had a full year with a filibuster proof majority that unexpectedly lasted only 1 year. The only people that the Democrats should be blaming right now for partisanship is themselves. They just didn't realize they'd have to be extending their hand so soon.

Quick clarification: not 1 year, 4 months.
The Four-Month Supermajority

221 Opal  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:18:26pm

This is the Obama that won my vote in 2008. Here is a well-informed, logical president having an exchange with those who have framed his every move as a socialist plot. Bravo to Obama, and a small bravo to the Republicans who gave him the forum. I don't know whether Republicans gained much from this, but the public did.

222 blueraven  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:19:59pm

re: #30 Buck

Right, but the democrat leadership didn't take the ideas to any independent person, they just kept saying (the president included) that the republicans don't have a plan.

The CBO scored the republican health care plan. It did not fare well.

223 Mr.Boots  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:41:14pm

re: #12 American-African

What I heard was, he would need to take ideas presented to independent experts, Democratic and Republican, and ask them if this can work. What is the mechanism. Though I have not found a transcript either.

That is basically what I heard, but even if it was phrased as stated, as bluntly as stated. Certainly, Obama clearly stated that he wasn't going to accept Republican talking points or worn-out dogma without details or without examining and evaluating the details.

He doesn't have to accept their ideas without question or dissection. The Republicans are a minority who insist upon being treated as though they are the majority.

224 Mr.Boots  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:50:36pm

re: #30 Buck

Right, but the democrat leadership didn't take the ideas to any independent person, they just kept saying (the president included) that the republicans don't have a plan.

Maybe they didn't when they were asked for details. They sure couldn't provide them at the time. Now they have "details." Hindsight is 20-20.

225 garhighway  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:54:08pm

re: #209 SixDegrees

There's a potential problem with caps, too, however. Right now, lawyers go for the highest award they can dream of, but they very rarely receive it. Much, much more often, they happily accept a much, much smaller out of court settlement. And even if they wind up in court, the chances of getting anywhere near what they're asking is still awfully slim, although not zero.

With caps, you've effectively set a tangible cost on what some particular injury is worth - and absolutely everyone is going to feel entitled to receive that amount, without dickering.

The caps have to be set high enough to seem reasonable - say, $10 million plus incurred costs, a reasonable figure for a lifetime's disability. Now, everyone is going to demand - and likely receive - that amount, while as things now stand claimants will receive anything from maybe $100 million all the way down to nothing, with the vast majority receiving a few tens of thousands at best. It's entirely possible that placing caps on such things will wind up increasing overall malpractice costs.

Caps are generally only set on pain and suffering. So the plaintiff's recovery, in a state with caps, would be (at the most) ALL of their economic damages (medical bills, lost wages, etc...) plus the capped pain and suffering number. While this still leaves open the possibility that a plaintiff can try to blackboard silly large numbers by exaggerating their economic loss, that is a reasonably easy thing to control and leads to fairer outcomes.

But the existence of caps does not make the plaintiff's liability case any easier. Med mal is a field in which you need a second medical professional to testify on behalf of the plaintiff, saying that the defendant violated the standard of care, and that is not an easy thing to make happen. So in capped states, plaintiffs still lose if they have a bad case.

What you seem to have in mind is more like the 9/11 victim's fund, where you were assured a recovery I you were eligible, and in exchange for that "sure thing", you accepted an amount determined by Feinberg that was based on economic loss. No one has proposed that in health care, that I have heard of.

226 garhighway  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:55:43pm

re: #221 Opal

This is the Obama that won my vote in 2008. Here is a well-informed, logical president having an exchange with those who have framed his every move as a socialist plot. Bravo to Obama, and a small bravo to the Republicans who gave him the forum. I don't know whether Republicans gained much from this, but the public did.

Perhaps now we can bury once and for all the "Obama is inarticulate when he isn't reading off of a teleprompter" meme.

227 CarryOn  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 2:55:52pm

I watched this entire thing today.
It was refreshing. I applaud Obama. I just wish he had done this a year ago, but hey....a good start. I hope it wasn't just all for show. There were some good exchanges going on.

228 oldegeezr  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:03:31pm

re: #129 webevintage

Ah how soon we forget…?
NASA photo analyst: Bush wore a device during debate.

Now that’s funny…did anyone check Prez. Obama’s back for a wireless mic to Rham…?

229 American-African  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:06:47pm

Luke Russert talking with Tom Cole on MSNBC today

RUSSERT: Tom Cole — former head of the NRCC, congressman from Oklahoma — said, “He scored many points. He did really well.” Barack Obama, for an hour and a half, was able to refute every single Republican talking point used against him on the major issues of the day. In essence, it was almost like a debate where he was front and center for the majority of it. … One Republican said to me, off the record, behind closed doors: “It was a mistake that we allowed the cameras to roll like that. We should not have done that.”

230 Girth  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:36:58pm

re: #229 American-African

Luke Russert talking with Tom Cole on MSNBC today

RUSSERT: Tom Cole — former head of the NRCC, congressman from Oklahoma — said, “He scored many points. He did really well.” Barack Obama, for an hour and a half, was able to refute every single Republican talking point used against him on the major issues of the day. In essence, it was almost like a debate where he was front and center for the majority of it. … One Republican said to me, off the record, behind closed doors: “It was a mistake that we allowed the cameras to roll like that. We should not have done that.”

That just pisses me off. I got to watch the whole thing on CNN this afternoon, and it was fantastic. For someone to say that it was a mistake for the cameras to show a civil and honest question and answer session between members of our government is indefensible.

231 shai_au  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:47:54pm

Is it normal for Presidents to do this kind of thing? Get a grilling from the "opposition", I mean.

232 CarryOn  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:51:44pm

re: #230 Girth

That just pisses me off. I got to watch the whole thing on CNN this afternoon, and it was fantastic. For someone to say that it was a mistake for the cameras to show a civil and honest question and answer session between members of our government is indefensible.

I don't take their word for these comments anymore. "One republican said to me"....Really? Tell us their name or don't bother. I'm so sick of 'anonymous' sources.
I'd be surprised to hear that any of them were upset about cameras.

233 CarryOn  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:52:18pm

re: #231 shai_au

Is it normal for Presidents to do this kind of thing? Get a grilling from the "opposition", I mean.

Yes, but most of the time Presidents meet with the opp. party often. Obama has not done this. He has avoided them.

234 shai_au  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:55:01pm

re: #233 CarryOn

Yes, but most of the time Presidents meet with the opp. party often. Obama has not done this. He has avoided them.

Oh. Well I don't know either way about that. It was just that the "extraordinary moment" comment in the OP led me to believe that this was not the norm.

235 elizajane  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 3:59:47pm

re: #231 shai_au

It's normal in England, and huge fun: I used to stay awake at night when I lived in Amsterdam to hear the broadcast of "Today in Parliament" when it was Margaret Thatcher on Question Time. Wow, could she whop those Labour backbenchers!
Alas, not normal here.
I love the idea that it's a Mainstream Media conspiracy to show Obama standing up to the GOP for 1.5 hours. Of course that's right! They never showed George Bush standing up the Democrats' questions for hours on end, did they? It must have been a librul conspiracy.

236 teleskiguy  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 4:05:56pm

I'll echo Krauthammer on this one. Things like today's exchange should be institutionalized. I was yelling out "Yeah For Our Constitutional Republic!" after viewing this!

237 simoom  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 4:51:57pm

re: #234 shai_au

No, you had it right. As far as I know it's unprecedented for a U.S. President to do what is essentially a live, televised press conference with the opposition party as the questioners.

Sure it's not uncommon for meetings in private, or in choreographed photo-op settings, but nothing like this where the political dynamic is clearly very different.

238 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 5:25:18pm

re: #202 Aceofwhat?

Good question. But i think that agreeing that some sort of cap should exist is the big step. Agreeing ON the cap is, IMHO, simpler...there are already a lot of "standard" wrongful death reimbursement standards out there. At least we agree there should be a cap!

Sorry, I had some trouble loading the page and I couldn't get back till now. Hope your still reading.

I don't think I was advocating a cap! Maybe I was. The cap amount that was going around last time this became any issue, like around the mid-late 90s, was $250,000 and I think that's far too low.

239 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 5:38:37pm

re: #206 recusancy

Because, for one, as Obama implied today, the companies would conglomorate and eat up all the healthy people. Which would leave all the less healthy people worse off then they already are.

Also they would all move to one state and buy up the legislature ala CC companies and Deleware.

Another main issue, from what I've read, is that because insurance companies are regulated within the state they practice (meaning the state regulates what they must cover or are not obligated to cover), someone out of state would be denied coverages. What I've heard discussed are "benefit mandates" which are things like diabetic testing supplies, pre-natal or maternity care. It would also give incentive for insurance companies to move to these states to do business, not cover a variety of issues and yet not have to worry about getting customers. At least, that's my understanding of it.

240 Decider  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 5:53:32pm

Could the Republicans look worse? This is like watching a Bruce Lee film with Bruce Lee taking on 100 bad guys and annihilating them all.

241 oldegeezr  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 6:08:50pm

re: #240 Decider

It was the Harvard debating society…
There’s something to be said for the British house.

Why not?

242 oldegeezr  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 6:23:19pm

re: #235 elizajane

God luv yah ej...!
Dubyah has degrees from both Harvard and Yale...!
Or did..?

I believe "O" only managed one from Harrrvard...?
I truly luved the spontaneous debate...!

243 shai_au  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 6:46:23pm

re: #108 brookly red

perhaps if he said "we" more often?

"we"??!? What is he, a communist or something?

244 oldegeezr  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 6:58:25pm

The very dynamic, temperate leadership and understanding that President Obama displayed today puts him into the history books of societal change.

Olde soldier sends…!

245 Opal  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 7:35:12pm

re: #239 marjoriemoon

"Another main issue, from what I've read, is that because insurance companies are regulated within the state they practice (meaning the state regulates what they must cover or are not obligated to cover), someone out of state would be denied coverages. What I've heard discussed are "benefit mandates" which are things like diabetic testing supplies, pre-natal or maternity care. It would also give incentive for insurance companies to move to these states to do business, not cover a variety of issues and yet not have to worry about getting customers. At least, that's my understanding of it."

I think that was probably one main reason. When the Enzi bill, which would have opened up purchasing insurance over state lines, was defeated in 2006, there were good and valid reasons:

[Link: releases.usnewswire.com...]

In short, it was a "least common denominator" situation that would have left consumers in worse straits than if nothing was done at all.

246 What, me worry?  Fri, Jan 29, 2010 9:49:11pm

re: #245 Opal

"Another main issue, from what I've read, is that because insurance companies are regulated within the state they practice (meaning the state regulates what they must cover or are not obligated to cover), someone out of state would be denied coverages. What I've heard discussed are "benefit mandates" which are things like diabetic testing supplies, pre-natal or maternity care. It would also give incentive for insurance companies to move to these states to do business, not cover a variety of issues and yet not have to worry about getting customers. At least, that's my understanding of it."

I think that was probably one main reason. When the Enzi bill, which would have opened up purchasing insurance over state lines, was defeated in 2006, there were good and valid reasons:

[Link: releases.usnewswire.com...]

In short, it was a "least common denominator" situation that would have left consumers in worse straits than if nothing was done at all.

Exactly. I found a lot of links, but this one from Kaiser is pretty good. It talks about pros and cons.

Ironically, the states with minimal mandates represent only about a 5% difference in the cost of the insurance. So for 5% more, you can be covered by a fully comprehensive policy. The link to the CBO study on that is there too.

247 Pacific moderate  Sat, Jan 30, 2010 12:40:04pm

re: #240 Decider
Yeah, to me it was like watching an overconfident football team getting beat, like, 31-7 at home.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh