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.

















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.
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?
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.
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?
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!!
None of which you've ever come close to disproving, despite many weak attempts.
(The section here, of course, is a blog. You can tell by the word "blog" in the URL.)
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?
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.
We aren't playing semantics with one specific word. Use whatever words you want, and Obama didn't say what Beck said he did.
It is not merely the word "promise" which is missing in Obama's comments. It's the entire concept of wanting a supermajority.
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.
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.