Skip to main content

View Diary: O Go, O Go Emanuel... (56 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So wait (4+ / 0-)

    To understand correctly, Durbin, Reid, Rahm and Obama are all bad at their jobs because they can't get the public option in the Senate.  Further, wouldn't that also mean that Clinton, FDR, Truman, Johnson and others are inept for not passing Healthcare?  I think it would.  The only point of constancy with all of those players is the US Senate.  It is a fundamentally broken institution.  

    Your anger is misdirected.  If you want to be angry, be angry at the Senate rules and blast away at those.  Until we speak up, en masse, nothing will change.  We will face disappointments constantly until we realize such.  Demand a reduction of cloture to 55 and all the problems go away.

    I guarantee you if we were operating with a 51 seat pass req in the Senate there would be a pretty strong public option in there.

    •  No (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson

      Because before 1975, it took 2/3 to get unilateral vote for Cloture, then after 1975 it took only 3/5

      So the Senate when the Democrats the Presidency and had enough Senators to force cloture were after the elections of 1934, 1936, 1938 (all FDR), 1964 (LBJ), and 1976 (Carter).

      LBJ got the Civil Rights Act, FDR passed more truly contentious legislation than most any other President. Carter I'm calling weak. Truman and Clinton never stood a chance because of the Filibuster.

      This is my point. This was issue number 1 in the campaign. The House went the right way, the White House was reclaimed, the Senate could invoke cloture without a single Republican vote. The stars were aligned - weak political actors blew the best shot they were ever going to get, and blew it by a mile.

      "I, for one, would like to welcome our new Belgian overlords..."

      by Morus on Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 09:14:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How many dem senators did they have? (0+ / 0-)

        How many republican senators were liberal?  Answer me those questions first.

      •  LBJ had 22 Republican senators (0+ / 0-)

        to help pass Medicare. He only got 83% (57) of Dems, not enough to break a 60 vote filibuster. Obama's certain 56 of 60 (93%) beats LBJ all to hell. It's the Senate, not Rahm, not Obama. Rahm is playing the only hand he has.

        •  There was a different kind of Republican (0+ / 0-)

          in LBJ's day. Some of those Republicans would be Independents or Dems in today's world. And many of those Dems would be Republicans (and some did indeed switch parties)

          LBJ had a great economy.

          He didn't have to prove how much Medicare would cost, and in fact way underestimated the costs in his 10 year projection.

          It took him over a year to get it passed, and only covered those over 65.

          1965 and 2009 are not a fair comparison.

          For some perspective:

          Democrats Could Learn From LBJ's Medicare Push - NPR, Aug 26 2009

          On the Democratic side, what Lyndon Johnson could do is much harder now because the financial situation is so much more complicated. There's an Office of Management and Budget that projects the costs out to the penny way off into the future. There are rules in Congress that say for every penny you spend, you have to find a penny in savings.

          All this makes it much more difficult, but even more than all of that, this battle is not just a battle about our health care system, it's a battle — Waterloo, as Sen. James DeMint (R-SC) put it — it's a battle over who is going to control Washington.

          If Obama fails, he's deeply injured — much more so than Johnson would have been.

          And if he succeeds, why, he succeeded at something that Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy and Carter and Clinton couldn't do. He's bigger than life.

    •  How come Bush got most of what he wanted? (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site