Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans Don't Understand Obama

From the extremist Teapartiers you hear that President Obama is not truly president, that he is working to subvert the American democratic system of government, and that he is a bigger threat to the country than the terrorists. From the “moderate” Republicans you hear that the president is trying to impose a European-type socialism that the mostly-conservative public will not stand for. Republicans (and some Democrats) do not understand Obama.

Republicans believe that they are in ascendancy. They have engaged in outrageous verbal attacks and villainous smears, procedural obstructionism and constant filibustering, and have flooded the airways with demagogic propaganda. Republicans have done this with healthcare as well as with energy, climate change, the economy, regulating Wall Street, and much more. All of this for the sole purpose of placing Republicans in power.

Republicans don't give a damn about helping the American people but only to gain power for themselves.

And they think that they are succeeding. Most of the pundits are predicting a bad November for Democrats. Republicans go further and say that Obama will be a one-term president.

They don't understand President Obama. They look at current polls and make decisions. Ezra Klein has come up with this quotation from David Broder assessing President Reagan after his first year in office:

It is customary in the second January after each inaugural ceremony to write a midterm assessment of a presidency. That is what I set out to do. But it quickly became clear that in the case of Ronald Reagan, something else is required.

What we are witnessing this January is not the midpoint in the Reagan presidency, but its phase-out. "Reaganism," it is becoming increasingly clear, was a one-year phenomenon, lasting from his nomination in the summer of 1980 to the passage of his first budget and tax bills in the summer of 1981. What has been occurring ever since is an accelerating retreat from Reaganism, a process in which he is more spectator than leader.

Polls today say what they say because healthcare reform has not passed and people blame both parties. But once healthcare reform passes - this is imminent - the entire conversation will change. And the favorability of Democrats will bloom.

Republicans have completely underrated Obama. Most of the journalists have too. Republicans thought that Obama was naive and that they could easily roll him. They thought they could beat him with the old "Washington ways." For a long time it appeared that they would. You see, Obama is a tolerant guy and has a lot of patience. But Republicans are in for a big surprise.

Obama came to Washington to solve problems, not to have left-right fights. When he says he will accept ideas from both parties, he means ideas that will help solve the problem. This is not what the Republicans have offered. Obama tried, tried, tried, tried.....tried and got nowhere. He extended his hand and got a fist in return.

Now you will see the other side. He is pushing the House to pass the Senate healthcare bill, and then the Senate to improve the bill with a few amendments. The latter will be done with a simple up-or-down vote.

After the complete healthcare package is passed, Obama will be able to proclaim to the world that he accomplished what could not be accomplished by others for half a century. The Democrats will sing his praise daily. The number of losses in the House will be small. Then Republicans will understand President Obama.

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 2, 2010 2:07 PM
Comment #296564

If I am reading Paul correctly, we will finally see the “spine of steel” that Joe Biden ascribed to Obama in the campaign. Frankly Paul, I believe your remarks deny reality.

Paul writes; “Polls today say what they say because healthcare reform has not passed and people blame both parties. But once healthcare reform passes - this is imminent - the entire conversation will change. And the favorability of Democrats will bloom.”

I have a difficult time understanding this magical thinking that American’s will love this health care program shortly after it is passed (if it is) when the benefits don’t take place for years…but the increase in premiums and taxes take place right away. Please explain.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 2, 2010 5:56 PM
Comment #296566

It seems fairly simple to me…the public asked for health care, it has not been delivered so the public is angry, but when it passes and the public sees actual accomplishment on something they said they wanted…wahlah! Public happy with those who made it happen.

Republicans continue to spin this as though the public is against health care reform…ah contrare… the public wants it and voted for it and still wants it. The public will get it, but it will be so watered down by Obama’s wish to apease Republicans that it won’t be a very good plan and won’t work until it gets stroked in later years, but there will be a health care reform bill passed soon.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 2, 2010 6:22 PM
Comment #296568

Obama as an appeaser is hilarious. Biden told us he had a spine of steel? Would Marysdude please share the source from which he draws his conclusions about the majority of American’s wanting the reforms contained in the current plan? Reform…yes…this plan…no.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 2, 2010 6:30 PM
Comment #296569

Source? Source? Source? Is someone here living with their head buried in the sand? Has someone here been smoking an illegal substance? Has someone here lost the senses of sight and hearing? Why would I need a source, when there is plenty of actual video footage, reading matter and a watered down bill to prove my point. YOU read and listen and analyze, I’ve already done it.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 2, 2010 7:10 PM
Comment #296570

Paul wrote: “Polls today say what they say because healthcare reform has not passed and people blame both parties. But once healthcare reform passes - this is imminent - the entire conversation will change. And the favorability of Democrats will bloom.”

Health care reform passing will improve Democrat’s approval rating a few points. But, to get any kind of boom response, they would have to pull a rabbit out of the hat on jobs. And that isn’t in the economic cards.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 2, 2010 7:12 PM
Comment #296571

LOL…when all else fails…obfuscate. Please tell me why I should adopt your unsourced opinion?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 2, 2010 7:16 PM
Comment #296576

Royal Flush, what Marysdude is saying is that you really should pay more attention to the news.

Obama has just played gotcha with McConnell and Boehner and I think he may have them in a bad spot.

Posted by: jlw at March 2, 2010 8:43 PM
Comment #296577

That’s OK, Obama doesn’t understand Republicans either

Posted by: Jim Buckley at March 2, 2010 8:45 PM
Comment #296582

Royal Flush states: Reform…yes…this plan…no.

Out of curiosity, what specifically in the plan are you against?

Posted by: Tom at March 2, 2010 9:25 PM
Comment #296584

RF, I’ll help Marysdude out and provide a source for the popular support of the Democratic Party’s health-care proposals.


I don’t know where you get your news, but this is my take on what happened regarding health-care.

Last year, all the polls showed that Americans were very supportive of the health-care plans pending in Congress. Of course there is the caveat that the bill was in its infancy and few details were known. Polls from last year showed several ideas that were being floated as being quite popular. I’m talking about the public option, prohibitions on rescission and denials due to preexisting conditions, medicare buy-in, and a national exchange to allow purchase of insurance over state lines.

Last summer, the right refused to participate in the legislation process. Max Baucus met with Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley and other Republicans all summer, but none of the GOPers would budge; even when the Democrats offered concessions such as including tort reform and expanding interstate insurance purchases through the exchange.

Also, parts of the GOP attacked the reform proposals with fabricated criticisms; labels such as “Death Panels” and “government takeover” became Republican verse, when there has been zero evidence to show any of them have an iota of truth behind them.

During Autumn, public opinion of the overall bill (but not about its crucial details) soured. I think the number one reason for this is due to the process the bill went through at the time (a process that I am not happy with myself). Senators Nelson, Lieberman and Landrieu recognized that health-care reform could not pass without them and Harry Reid was desperate (and a bit of weak leader). Landrieu, Lieberman and Nelson extorted concessions from the other senators which no one is happy about.

Nowadays, when pollster’s ask the electorate about health-care, a majority will say they oppose the bill pending in Congress, but process rather than policy seems to be the primary motivation behind this (in my opinion)

Tom, I bet RoyalFlush isn’t happy with the individual mandate. It’s argubably the weakest link in the pending bills due to mixed public opinion. Heck, when it was revealed in late 2009 that the public option would be removed and the individual mandate would remain; I was furious and started opposing the bill. I even emailed my senators & rep (Sen. Kerry + Sen. Kirk + Rep. Tsongas) to tell them what I thought. I also had planned on voting for Scott Brown (or libertarian Joe Kennedy, I hadn’t really decided at the time) in the special election, but I changed my mind in the last week when I realized that the individual mandate is necessary to prohibit denials for preexisting conditions; I also realized that I had been living with an individual mandate for four years anyway without any problems (I live in Massachusetts, the land of Romneycare). So, I voted for Coakley even though she still lost, but I hope my new senator (Scott Brown) will be the independent voice he promised and not Mitch McConnell’s lap dog. So far so good in that regard.

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 2, 2010 10:06 PM
Comment #296585


Thanks. I just could not believe Royal was serious, as he seems to be a fairly intelligent poster. To me it was as though he’d been living in a cave, without electronic communications or something. I should have cited some things I guess. At the time I was merely dumbfounded.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 2, 2010 10:21 PM
Comment #296589

Could you all help me out? I’m confused. If the house passes the senate bill and then the senate (through reconciliation) passes changes to their original bill, won’t the house have to come back and vote for the changes the senate just voted for? I don’t know why they say the house has to vote first. Unless it’s because the corporations don’t like the house bill.

Also has anyone checked out the coffee party?

Posted by: mike the cynic at March 2, 2010 11:05 PM
Comment #296591

Mike-the-cynic -

I just heard about these ‘Coffe Party’ folks. The movement came on very fast and became ‘virile’ after a You Tube post and a Starbucks-induced FaceBook campaign took root.

Annabel Park is the so-called founder; apparently, she’s giving Glenn Beck a run for the money.

See skinny on this from one of my daily local websites:

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 3, 2010 12:42 AM
Comment #296592

More about Annabel Park:

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 3, 2010 12:45 AM
Comment #296593

I’d refer to this organization as the:

Diet Tea Party, or Tea Party Lite; how about Caffeine-Free Coffee Party ;)

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at March 3, 2010 12:47 AM
Comment #296598

mike the cynic asked: “If the house passes the senate bill and then the senate (through reconciliation) passes changes to their original bill, won’t the house have to come back and vote for the changes the senate just voted for?”

It is my understanding that the House will NOT have to vote on the Senate’s reconciliation, because the Senate’s reconciliation will have resolved the differences between the two bills, which is the purpose of Reconciliation. Hence, the name for this process.

In essence, the House votes to adopt the Senate version. with differences to be reconciled by the Senate. If the Senate reconciles the differences, the bill goes to the President’s desk for signing or veto.

It is also my understanding that the parliamentary procedures are not nearly as simple as I just stated, and some hurdles remain as to whether the Senate’s reconciled version will achieve the 51 votes needed. So, it is not the slam dunk it might appear to be.

I must confess here to not being a student of Parliamentary procedures, and my understanding comes from MSM articles explaining the process in more complicated detail.


Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. The Presiding Officer need not necessarily follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian can be replaced by the Senate Majority Leader.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 3, 2010 2:43 AM
Comment #296601

Some benefits do start right away. One example: If you are changing jobs and your wife finds an unusual lump in her breast the carrier for your next job will not be able to deny her treatment because she had an‘“existing condition”. This bill will save lives from the start.

Posted by: bills at March 3, 2010 6:48 AM
Comment #296613

Republicans have used reconciliation 90% more than have Democrats, including a couple of the Cheney/Bush tax cuts. If it this one fails the Constitutional test, would the wealthy have to give back all that money Cheney/Bush gave them?

Rachel Maddow’s rip on Orrin Hatch could be an eye opener about reconciliation:


That Constitutional lawyer you refer to…he/she wouldn’t happen to be on the Faux News staff would he/she?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 3, 2010 10:30 AM
Comment #296619

Was reconcilliation used for the purpose it was intended for those 90% more times?

Posted by: KAP at March 3, 2010 11:20 AM
Comment #296620

My job changed HC insurance and I changed jobs twice and each time my wife’s pre exsisting conditions were covered so what’s your point?

Posted by: KAP at March 3, 2010 11:25 AM
Comment #296623

Nothing is more relevant to the budget or our economy that health care reform…reconciliation is the legal and apparently necessary answer.

Some are lucky enough to have good coverage by a good insurer, but most are not, and several millions are not covered at all. Insurers have the upper hand, and use that edge to the detriment of nearly all Americans. The shortfall that you and a handful of others enjoy is being paid for at a horrible cost to everyone else.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 3, 2010 12:58 PM
Comment #296628

“… what business in the US would hire BHO to run their company?”

Typical conservative thinking, as if running the country were a business. Is it any wonder conservatives are so anxious to sell out the country and our freedoms to corporations? AFter all, we all know how competent corporate executives are, right? Even worse, conservatives actually cheer the Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to give unlimited amounts in political campaigns, as if a corporation is a ‘person’ and money is ‘free speech.’ This kind of thinking- that a president should be a CEO- represents a disturbing undercurrent of corporatism, and it lies at the heart of conservatism.

Posted by: phx8 at March 3, 2010 3:02 PM
Comment #296631

KAP, Bills,

“My job changed HC insurance and I changed jobs twice and each time my wife’s pre exsisting conditions were covered so what’s your point?”

Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996, group employer plans are prohibited from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. There are some limitations, e.g., if the condition was treated within the last six months, the group plan may exclude coverage for the condition for a period not to exceed 12 months. However, in the case of person changing jobs, who had group insurance with the prior employer, there is a provision for “creditable coverage” under HIPPA to cover the new employer plan exclusion period. In addition, if the person is not going to enroll in a new group plan (new employer doesn’t offer plan) HIPPA provides that the person, previously covered by a group plan, cannot be denied individual insurance coverage for the pre-existing condition.

The issue of pre-existing condition prohibitions being debated in the proposed bills relates to the individual health insurance market not employer group plans. For example, the self-employed with pre-existing conditions who have not been part of a group plan would benefit from the proposed prohibitions.

Posted by: Rich at March 3, 2010 3:18 PM
Comment #296635

The Republicans certainly DO “understand” Obama…that is why they are pulling every lying cheating trick they can think of to try to thwart him…they know that he is NOT the property of the big corporations, and that the lobbyists and kickbacks and all that will not succeed, and their “sponsor” richpig backers will not make as much profit if Obama’s programs go through, especially health care. They do not give a rat’s patoot about the Average American, only their Country-Club corporate pals…the rest of us are just the dumb masses, or at times cannon fodder for their warmongering.

Posted by: capnmike at March 3, 2010 4:33 PM
Comment #296636


It makes a difference, because there are as many opinions about what is Constitutional as there are about what is art. A ‘Constitutional Lawyer’, if he/she works for Faux News would announce a biased view that might parallel the views of the Australian, Rupert Murdoch, who hates America and Americans with a great and abiding passion.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 3, 2010 4:38 PM
Comment #296638

MSNBC, CNN, and some of the other liberal news media I suppose is not biased. LOL

Posted by: KAP at March 3, 2010 4:44 PM
Comment #296646

I would like to invite my liberal friends to purchase an automobile at my fictional dealership. Pick any make or model providing it meets with the approval of your federal government bureaucrat. Your payment book will be mailed to you and you start making payments in 30 days.

Delivery of the car you chose will be made in 4 or more years. Welcome to the new world of Obama/liberal/think.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2010 6:42 PM
Comment #296651

Hey Dude…are you a media expert? If not, how in the world could you possibly know the astuteness of the audience of any group of TV watchers? Comments such as this are pure speculation. When I read such comments it only sounds like envy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 3, 2010 7:40 PM
Comment #296652

I’ve heard both Olderman and Maddow, Thomas is correct they are far left fruitcakes like Limbaugh is a far right nut

Posted by: KAP at March 3, 2010 7:50 PM
Comment #296653

Royal Flush,

If you walk into any automobile dealership today, you will see every vehicle has been approved by a government official of some sort to make certain it meets certain standards.

With the health-care legislation that is pending, the lion’s share of the benefits and costs will be phased in at the same time. From what I recall, the only benefits that would be delayed are the subsidies to low-income people and the public option, but the public option is no more so that’s a moot point; so your analogy of starting payments next month for a car not to be seen in four years is in error.

BTW, Are you going to talk about what I said earlier. Each of the individual parts of the Democratic health-care plan are quite popular. The only time you get opposition to them is when you affix the label of the Democratic Party. I think that lends credence to the hypothesis that most of the opposition to the Democratic Health Care plan stems from frustrations over process and not from objections to policies actually in the bill. Another possibility is the opposition may be motivated by a certain policy that is perceived to be in the bill, but in reality is not (“Death Panels” or “government takeover” for example).

Posted by: Warped Reality at March 3, 2010 7:52 PM
Comment #296718

Warped wrote; “Each of the individual parts of the Democratic health-care plan are quite popular. The only time you get opposition to them is when you affix the label of the Democratic Party.”

That’s an interesting statement…the parts are popular but the party isn’t. I thought your party won a mandate in the last election. We are constantly being reminded in these blogs how popular your party is. What’s going on?

If the dems had the votes in the house to pass the senate plan the vote would have already taken place. Are the dem holdouts waiting for some pork or do they also have some reasonable objections just as rep’s do?

Obama lied the other day when citing what was in the senate bill. To add what the president said was in the bill would require another vote. That won’t happen because the senate dems don’t have 60 votes any more.

The senate dems expect house dems to fall on their swords to pass this flawed bill knowing that it will cost them reelection. They may be dems…but they’re not dumb. Why would any of them give up their seat for something they don’t even want, much less what their constituents want? One should realize that not all dems are liberals. And many dems really do care more about their country than their party.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 4, 2010 1:34 PM
Comment #296723

I would like someone to explain to me how establishing another huge entitlement program by taking $500 billion from an already established entitlement (and broke) program makes any financial or economic sense. If we can’t sustain Medicare without going ever deeper into the red every year, a program that that has been around for decades, how in the world can we fund future costs of this health care plan without huge and potentially crushing taxes.

Too many folks are blinded by CBO scoring of the senate plan. The real costs down the road are horrendous. Anyone who understands the conception of both SS and Medicare knows how erronious early estimates of costs can be.

We currently borrow money just to pay our national bills. A day of reckoning is coming and soon. When our national credit rating drops the interest on existing debt will rise dramatically. We cannot continue to play the games congress does so well. Spend today and to hell with tomorrow. Today’s decisions are tomorrow’s reality.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 4, 2010 2:10 PM
Comment #296833

Hey! - Conservatives and teabaggers: What’s the number of the House bill? What’s the number of the Senate bill? When did Obama try and promote legislation that says all American citizens shall have guaranteed housing, guaranteed income for a decent standard of living, guaranteed health care that handles all health situations, guaranteed productive employment that isn’t boondoggle for the ultra-rich? HR**** what? SB**** what? If that’s what you’re saying, then prove it. Socialist? GET REAL! Bush 3, Clinton too. That’s the score. That’s the reality.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at March 6, 2010 5:28 PM
Comment #296917


IE, popularity of Democrats…it took a full court press by lying liars and tea swilling jerk-wads, out-shouting us in town halls to turn the thing against the brand. None of that changes the fact that Americans want health care reform. They may have been confused by all the bushwhacking going on (Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Hannity etal), and persuaded to some degree by their Congressmen, who lied shamelessly about all reform proposals. But, public opinion never swayed much regarding support for reform. Your guys out-shouted and out-lied us that’s all. Now Democrats are almost as unpopular as Republicans…what a deal!

Posted by: Marysdude at March 8, 2010 4:34 PM
Post a comment