Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: Politix |
How Pelosi Saved Health Care |
2010-03-24 |
![]() The wheels were coming off... Now the president was asking members of his assembled brain trust: What were they going to do? Mathematically, Scott Brown's impending victory would deny Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. With only 59 votes loosely under his control, Reid wanted the House to adopt the version of the health-care bill that had barely squeaked through the Senate on Christmas Eve. No way, said Pelosi. "The Senate bill is a non-starter," she said. "I can't sell that to my members." Yet, in only 61 days, San Fran Nan did exactly that. As Pelosi and Reid left the White House that night, the administration was coming to the conclusion that its fatal mistake had been giving up so much control to Congress. Although the strategy was intended to correct the mistakes President Bill Clinton made in 1993 when his wife's task force wrote a health-care bill in secret, the Obama White House belatedly realized that the months of delay, closed-door negotiations and special deals had tarnished the effort and a president who won office by promising to change the way Washington operates. And he changed it, all right! ![]() Obama, who felt particularly stung by critics who said he had broken his pledge to air the health-care debate on television, immediately embraced the summit concept. It would be a chance to reset the effort, display his willingness to accept Republicans' ideas and claim - albeit more for show than substance - that he was crafting a "new" bill that was not sullied by the deals struck in Congress. And in the end, we got the old bill, as far as I can tell. The first House tally had been close, with just two votes to spare, and it was headed for defeat until an extraordinary day just before when Pelosi, confronting a major rift over federal funding for abortion, called together the female Democrats in the House and said, "We're standing on the brink of doing something great. I'm not letting anything stand in the way of that." ![]() Lacing his commentary with "Goddamn it, what's the deal here?" he said, as colleagues, their spouses and aides looked on. "You're talking platitudes, and we have to go home and defend ourselves. We're getting the crap kicked out of us!" Just wait, Al, just wait. Kucinich's support was more than just one vote in the "yes" column; it was the start of the momentum the White House had been struggling to create. In short order, the news rolled out in a steady, well-choreographed clip. Obama, meanwhile, doused a brush fire with organized labor over changes to a new excise tax that unions did not like. In a chance encounter in an aide's office that was actually well planned out, Obama pulled AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka into the Oval Office. "We're at the one-yard line. We've just got to get the ball in the end zone," the president said, imploring Trumka to hold his complaints for another day. "Rich, you've got to stay with me." At 4 p.m., Altmire released his statement and at 7:30 Obama called once more. "I want to give you something to think about before the vote," the president said gently into the phone. "Picture yourself on Monday morning. You wake up and look at the paper. It's the greatest thing Congress has done in 50 years. And you were on the wrong team." Protesters on the Capitol lawn. Rumors of enticements - a Cabinet post, water access in California, money for NASA. More phone calls, more news conferences, frayed nerves, exhaustion. At the Capitol, Pelosi was once again dealing with the specter of abortion funding, shuttling from office to office as she locked down the final votes. So they won. But nothing about the promised Executive Order that would convert Stupak. Did I dream that? |
Posted by:Bobby |
#8 Thank God she is not on our side. Our side will put tyrants like her under OUR bus. |
Posted by: Elmaiger Hatfield7630 2010-03-24 12:24 |
#7 Too bad she's not on our side. |
Posted by: Perfesser 2010-03-24 11:32 |
#6 Broadhead6---Pelosi was a useful idiot and will probably be thrown under the bus, then they will find someone else to shine up the package with. But I share your worry about the electorate. |
Posted by: Alaska Paul 2010-03-24 10:45 |
#5 JQC, I'm not holding my breath bro'. A Fox poll yesterday said Nazi Pelosi had an approval rating of 8%, a negative rating of 37% and another 50% didn't know who she was or needed more info to form an opinion of her. It is the last number that I find most disconcerting and doesn't bode well for the future of our country. Too much of the electorate is ignorant and/or too lazy to care. |
Posted by: Broadhead6 2010-03-24 10:01 |
#4 I only hope the voters realize how screwed we are with this bunch of clowns-in-charge in Washington. |
Posted by: JohnQC 2010-03-24 09:38 |
#3 You are correct, Spot, the Dhimms didn't use 'deem and pass'. They did, however, gain all the negative attention one could get on deem and pass without using it. Most conservative and independent voters understood what was happening. Deem and pass will be used against the Dhimms in the fall as a symbol of arrogance and political chicanery. It's a marvelous symbol of what's wrong in Washington. It will cost the Dhimms the control of the House and perhaps even (God willing) the Senate. And they didn't use it in the end. Heh. |
Posted by: Steve White 2010-03-24 09:25 |
#2 They didn't do a "deem and pass". The House passed the Senate's version which is what Obama signed into law. They are now arguing an amendments bill that will use the reconciliation method in order to pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 60. The question now is can the Republicans in the Senate prevent the changes bill from being passed? If so, the House Dems will be rubes for having passed the original Senate version (which many hated). |
Posted by: Spot 2010-03-24 08:44 |
#1 Politics are zero sum. Dubya's win in 2004 was extremely costly to Dubya and the Republican Party. This was a costly win for the democrats. And the "Deem and Pass" nonsense will be used to gut government when the Republicans get to power. |
Posted by: badanov 2010-03-24 07:37 |