Begala on bipartisanship: Democrats "have accepted over 100 Republican amendments, in exchange for" no Republican votes
August 19, 2009 9:06 pm ET
From the August 19 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
















Are you sure that without those conservative Dems Obama would still have a mayority?
We in Germany have the same problems, our BueDogs are called "SeeheimerKreis" - and more often than not I like to blow them...
But what s the alternative? Isn't discussion and confronting them with the possibilities of Not-voting them (if you live in that district)in again better than defacto loosing their voices?
If we have to leave them in the dust to achieve progress, so be it.
So have at it Demorcrats, Liberals, Progressives, whatever you are calling yourselves these days, you deserve the accolades if it works, and the blame if it fails.
I still wouldn't bet money on it, mind you, but for once it's feeling like it's possible at least.
Here's the thing that really bugs me: Democrats negotiate in good faith, Republicans get all the concessions they want, Republicans all vote no, but they still get to keep their concessions.
Isn't the implication that if Democrats compromise with Republicans, Republicans are going to support the final bill? If not, why did they negotiate in the first place?
To go one step further, if Democrats give Republicans concessions to get their support for the final measure, and if Republicans vote no on the final measure, why are Democrats bound to keep the Republican concessions? If Republicans won't vote yes after getting everything they want, the alternative ought to be that they get NOTHING.
Repeat every time the Republicans organize their noise machine.
Since CNN#s "Situation Room" got more and more unfair with the health-care debate, Philips, the sponsor of Gupta#s medical-show is to be seen less und less in the announcments...
Let Phillips know you do not approve the media-enviroment of "SitautionRoom", "Political Mann", "Bias/Bull".
continue for improved healthcare
to late Mr Grassley
I say Fu*k Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, and anyone else who stands in the way of giving people in this nation a choice in their health coverage. The reality is that if you ask any hard working person who is paying over 1,000 per month for family coverage if they would like to pay less and receive the type of coverage their grandparents get, what do you think they'll choose? This reality scares the h3ll out of these politicians who are beholden to big insurance companies.
Furthermore, how in the world do people willingly accept that an insurance CEO hauls in 11 million per year, while their rates increase only to complain about the government giving them an opportunity to pay less? Some of these people are simply stupid. Here is a good example:http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lawrence+O'Donnell+Katy+abram+interview+youtube&docid=1210412499391&FORM=VIRE2#
Or just google Lawrence O'Donnell Katy Abram you tube. It is a must see and painfully indicative of how ignorant some of these town hall people really are.
I don't think it has much to do with Democrats not having any spine. I think the media really enforces it. George W. Bush was given a "mandate" and the GOP was considered to have won in a "landslide" in 2004 with less than 51% of the popular vote.