About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

No, Obama didn't promise to pass health care reform only with a supermajority

March 03, 2010 3:57 pm ET by Matt McLaughlin

Another Andrew Breitbart-hyped video from the Naked Emperor News website is bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber. As usual, it doesn't live up to the hype -- on the campaign trail before the 2008 election, Barack Obama didn't promise that he would pass health care reform only with a supermajority of support -- but that isn't stopping conservatives from using it to attack President Obama.

Last week, Media Matters documented how a Naked Emperor video, hyped by Breitbart, pushed by the Drudge Report, and echoed by Glenn Beck, advanced the falsehood that "the nuclear option" refers to the budget reconciliation process. Right-wingers used the falsehood to accuse Democrats -- who had complained in 2005 when Republicans considered changing Senate filibuster rules in what the GOP at the time called the "nuclear option" -- of hypocrisy for considering using reconciliation to pass health care reform. But there wasn't any inconsistency in Dems' wanting to use a process that has been employed repeatedly to pass legislation, including major health care reforms, after having criticized Republican plans to change the Senate rules.

This time, right-wingers are claiming the new video shows Obama promising that he won't pass health care reform without a supermajority. Here's Glenn Beck from his radio show today:

BECK: New audio for you from Barack Obama saying that we cannot, cannot pass it with a simple majority vote. Health care has to be supermajority, has to be done that way. You can't just slip it by the American people, which they are now saying they're going to do. Yet another broken promise from Barack Obama.

The video itself shows several clips of Obama on the campaign trail in 2006 and 2007 discussing how he expected to pass health care reform. For example, in a September 2007 speech, Obama says of health care reform, "This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not just a 50-plus-1 majority." In another clip, Obama discusses how he wanted to campaign in a way that brought more than a "50-plus-1" majority because "you can't govern" after such a victory and predicts that "you can't deliver on health care. We're not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy." In a 2006 speech, Obama says, "If we want to transform the government, though, that requires a sizable majority."

What he's saying in these clips is that he expected it would be more difficult to govern (such as passing health care reform legislation) without broad support. Whether health care reform has such broad support may depend on how you interpret various polls and how you expect Congress to vote on upcoming bills. But what Obama is not saying in those clips is that he promises not to pass health care reform without a supermajority.

Of course, this hasn't prevented right-wingers from claiming that he made such a promise. Blogger Jim Hoft posted the video at his Gateway Pundit site and wrote: "But, of course, like everything else Obama promised, this statement came with an expiration date. Today Obama will announce that democrats will force their unpopular nationalized health care bill through Congress using a simple majority to ram it through."

Similarly, Breitbart.tv, the Drudge Report, the Fox Nation, and the Jawa Report all posted the video and claimed that Obama said, in Breitbart's words, "Democrats Should Not Pass Healthcare With a 50-Plus-1 Strategy." Did Obama say Dems "should" pass health care reform only with more than that 50-plus-1? That's not what the video shows him saying.

Somehow, I doubt they'll come to realize that the Naked Emperor video, er, has no clothes.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by seahawks123 (March 03, 2010 4:02 pm ET)
      2 21
      Well, seeing how they couldn't get 60 of them on the same page when they had the chance, that's the only way they're going to get Obamacare.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (March 03, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
        12 1
        SQUAWK!!!!

        You are the gift that just keeps on giving. I'd talk more, but I've had more than my fair share of your ignorance today.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mmfa.fan (March 03, 2010 5:02 pm ET)
        10 1
        There's no such thing as "Obamacare". You've been listening to too much RW noise.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (March 03, 2010 5:57 pm ET)
        8 1
        Obamacare
        Six minutes after MMFA's post. Plenty of time to produce your well thought-out analysis.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (March 03, 2010 6:15 pm ET)
        11  
        Uhm they did get 60 votes, as the bill has passed the Senate.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RKAllen (March 03, 2010 7:34 pm ET)
          7  
          Exactly!

          60 votes defeats a filibuster... period. That is the ONLY reason to have a "super-majority" vote... which as Raddave has pointed out to you already, has passed the Senate already.

          If this is such a disasterous bill that will destroy Democrats chances in 2010, then why not allow an "up or down" vote? And if it passes, and this will be the destruction of the Democratic party, then why would Republicans oppose it? If they would take control of the House and Senate in 2010 and be in a position to repeal it, then why filibuster?

          You live in a remarkably resilient country. Why do Republcians fear this so much, especially if they believe that it will be the nail in the coffin for liberals?

          Why?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by carlileb5935 (March 03, 2010 9:57 pm ET)
            4  
            Because they LIE...
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Dekeman (March 05, 2010 4:12 pm ET)
               
            Why go through the agony of repealing a bill that the majority of the population does not want, that will be devastating to the economy, that removes so much freedom from the American Citizenry, yadda, yadda, yadda.

            By following the established rules of the Senate and requiring a 60 vote majority, a controversial bill such as this then assumes a mantle of legitimacy.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Disputed Zone (March 03, 2010 4:12 pm ET)
      16 1
      Healthcare reform did pass with a supermajority.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by For.America.2600 (March 03, 2010 4:23 pm ET)
      11 1
      If you notice the media these days and all the talk of filibusters and needing super majorities to pass bills, you can notice that no one seems to be reminding people that all it takes is 50+1 to pass a bill. The narrative being driven makes it seem that you have to have 60 votes in the senate to pass a bill and they aren't differentiating the filibusters 60 votes and a bills passage of 50+1.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (March 03, 2010 5:15 pm ET)
        8 1
        Right you are. Of the numerous things that require super majorities in the US Constitution, passing a bill is not one of them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by seahawks123 (March 03, 2010 5:33 pm ET)
          2 14
          But taking over 1/6th of the GDP shouldn't pass with a simple majority.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (March 03, 2010 6:02 pm ET)
            7 2
            You don't even know what the GDP is, birdy boy.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by For.America.2600 (March 03, 2010 6:06 pm ET)
            6  
            When the people are added to the rolls of healthcare coverage, whose books are they being added to? The private insurers books are going to swell with membership. Last I checked private insurers weren't the government. The senates bill as is is still free market based.

            Making a baseline of coverage, does that constitute as a take over for you? Offering to pay a larger part of medical costs to alleviate some budget stress on the states, does that count as a take over?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (March 03, 2010 6:16 pm ET)
            7 1
            All Bills pass with a simple majority.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by RKAllen (March 03, 2010 6:21 pm ET)
            6  
            Why?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by rhun1220 (March 04, 2010 7:49 am ET)
              1  
              Because a fillibuster is just a procedural trick that prevents a bill from coming up to a vote by not allowing an end to debate. The actual vote can always be passed with a simple majority.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by SMTDL (March 04, 2010 1:14 pm ET)
        1 1
        The media is absent as usual in trying to keep the public informed with facts!!.How long did it take them to finally refute the "Death Panel" nonsense?Even when they did it was way too late to have any impact.
        The media should be saying that they don't understand why Republicans call this "ramming" when they used it for so many bills in the past!!Instead they use the Republican terms but don't seem to see this as a major bias.They don't even point out that only the revisions would pass by simple majority.Totally irresponsible journalism!!!
        Maybe the Republicans in Congress don't know the procedures either!!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MagCynic (March 03, 2010 6:07 pm ET)
      1 10
      MMFA holds Presidents to their word only if they use the word "promise"?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Disputed Zone (March 03, 2010 6:30 pm ET)
        8 2
        No.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (March 03, 2010 6:48 pm ET)
        7 1
        MMFA holds Presidents to their word only if they use the word "promise"?
        Beck lies that Obama said "promise" even tho he didn't?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MagCynic (March 03, 2010 8:42 pm ET)
          2 8
          So, once again, Media Matters has to take every conservative commentator at their every, literal word? Who communicates like that? No wonder there are pages upon pages of "misinformation" on this site.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by political_left-religious_right (March 03, 2010 8:53 pm ET)
            7 2
            No wonder there are pages upon pages of "misinformation" on this site.

            None of which you've ever come close to disproving, despite many weak attempts.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MagCynic (March 03, 2010 9:45 pm ET)
              2 7
              You can't disprove some of them as most of them are either simply an opinion or a statement taken literally. Most of the others don't even have anything to do with being a conservative or conservative politics.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by steeve (March 03, 2010 10:26 pm ET)
                6 2
                Would you care to take a quick glance at the top of the "research" section? All of them cut to the core of conservatism, and there's no MMFA opinion or excessive literalism in sight.

                (The section here, of course, is a blog. You can tell by the word "blog" in the URL.)
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MagCynic (March 04, 2010 12:23 am ET)
                  2 7
                  I did a quick check of the top 5 most recent that I saw. Here's what they were.

                  1. Malkin and Hannity falsely claimed Rep. Stark has an "ethics scandal"
                  Nothing to do with believing in conservatism.

                  2. Quick Fact: Quinn falsely suggests that no one believes that "the last 10 years were the hottest 10 years on record"
                  Nothing to do with believing in conservatism.

                  3. Fox & Friends falsely claimed Hoyer supports raising the top tax rate to 70%
                  Nothing to do with believing in conservatism.

                  4. Fox News, right-wing blogs attack Obama's embrace of GOP health care ideas as a "gimmick"
                  Nothing to do with believing in conservatism.

                  Being a conservative doesn't automatically make everything that appears on this site conservative misinformation. I'll bet all these "conservatives" in these articles had other things in common. If they were all pro-life would you consider it "pro-life misinformation" too?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by bludog1 (March 04, 2010 8:18 am ET)
                    2 2
                    Excellent and thank you!
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by political_left-religious_right (March 04, 2010 9:22 am ET)
                    2 1
                    When it comes to Fox, et. al., it has everything to do with "believing in conservatism." Or rather, neoconservatism. Strike four.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MagCynic (March 04, 2010 9:25 am ET)
                      2 2
                      Huh? I don't follow your logic. When it comes to MSNBC does it have everything to do with believing in progressivism?

                      And strike four? Where were strikes one through three? That was a random thing to tag onto the very end of your post. Strike five.
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by New Frontier (March 04, 2010 9:01 am ET)
            3 1
            No wonder there are pages upon pages of "misinformation"
            Here's a couple of really brilliant ideas: (A) Complain to the misinformers, or (B) don't visit this site every five minutes to b!tch about the site.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (March 03, 2010 10:18 pm ET)
        3 3
        MMFA holds presidents to the clear meaning of what they say. Even in paraphrase form, Obama said he expected a supermajority, not that he wanted or demanded a supermajority.

        We aren't playing semantics with one specific word. Use whatever words you want, and Obama didn't say what Beck said he did.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by OOzinEvil (March 03, 2010 11:21 pm ET)
          3 2
          Stop spinning. He said what he said, and is capable of defending his comments.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (March 04, 2010 4:40 pm ET)
            2 1
            "He said what he said" which you need help understanding, "and is capable of defending his comments" which nobody is arguing against.

            It is not merely the word "promise" which is missing in Obama's comments. It's the entire concept of wanting a supermajority.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by bludog1 (March 04, 2010 9:15 am ET)
        4
      Two comments: 1) the proposed use -- or abuse -- of reconciliation with respect to comprehensive healthcare reform is wrong. Ask the author of the reconciliation legislation, Sen. Robert Byrd, who as recently as early this year called moving healthcare by reconciliation an abomination. Also ask Sen. Kent Conrad, Budget Cmte Chair, who said as recently as this past Sunday that the intended use of reconciliation did not include passing something as comprehensive as healthcare. So if comprehensive healthcare fails to qualify for consideration, in the opinion of reconciliation's author and the guy who is the recognized expert on its intended use (both dems), then what do we call a tactic that requires a simple 50+1 vote to get a specific action? Nuclear Option! If it walks like a duck, ....

      2) In context and paying attention to tense, I come away from the audio of candidate and president Obama's comments with a clear, consistent conclusion. Major stuff in Congress requires significant, preferably bipartisan majority support. He supported the principle in today's environment when he was a Senator, he articulated it when he was a candidate and and reaffirmed it as president. As we have seen with so many actions of this WH, words are more easily said than actions implemented. Think about waivers granted for professional lobbyists/former lobbyists; closing Gitmo in a year; transparency (until forced to at least open one meeting on healthcare; and so on.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeffro (March 04, 2010 11:21 am ET)
        3  
        (until forced to at least open one meeting on healthcare;
        You don't know what your talking about. You are a FoxGroupie. Why should Health ins. companies not be put out of business? Give us One good reason. Otherwise you got nuthin'.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bludog1 (March 04, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
            2
          surely you can do better than that. One meeting. Blair House. Otherwise locked doors at both the Capitol and the WH. Get your facts straight please.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by nirvision (March 04, 2010 1:55 pm ET)
        2  
        The biggest lie to come from your Cheetos-stained finger tips is that anything Conrad says can possibly be true. Fact is, much of what is being put through the legiitimate process of reconcilliation is focused solely on the budget. Kent is wrong if he thinks the whole bill, which already passed the Senate with 60 votes, will be voted on through reconcilliation.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bludog1 (March 04, 2010 3:58 pm ET)
            1
          The difficulty with your argument is that those parts of the Senate bill that are the most contentious -- like abortion language -- are the ones that are going to sink the bill unless the intent of reconciliation set aside so a 50+1 vote can occur. Parenthetically, the attempt at "put down" diminish the credibility of the point put forward by the writer.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Dekeman (March 05, 2010 4:08 pm ET)
         
      Typical nit picking wordsmithing tactics of the leftists behind O. One can easily see the intended thrust of his speech, only by finely splitting hairs does one come up with the opinion that O did not promise to pass HC with a 60 vote majority.

      Furthermore to pass such an all encompassing bill would require the 60 vote majority in order to gain acceptance and to govern effectively. To pass the bill on a 50 plus 1 vote would mean huge enforcement problems and a resulting police state just for health care.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.