Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Webb drops a bomb on his putative party

What kind of unspeakable crap is this from Jim Webb just minutes after Brown's victory was called?
"In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated."
What kind of game is Webb playing?  The HCR bill-creation process has been open ad nauseaum. Anyone interested has been able to follow every permutation of negotiation on every key permutation through a host of news sources. The whole of both Senate and House bills have been sitting on the web for weeks and months. The Senate has passed its bill, and the House is perfectly within its rights to pass it.

 Ezra Klein, Jonathan Cohn, Jonathan Chait, Josh Marshall have said it all. What is the point of taking office as a Democrat if you will not pass one of these both-more-than-credible health care reform bills  -- and put insurance in reach of tens of millions who currently can't get it while making a host of concerted, serious efforts to get costs under control? Who would not rather have a hand in passing it as a one-term representative or senator than rusticate for decades in either chamber after letting it die?

To state the obvious: Webb has no actual say on what the House votes on.  But it would seem that he's lending cover to those in the House who want to pause, and curl up, and die. Why is he undercutting the White House like this? What's the calculation? Motive?

We have one party that has not got the brains to govern. Will we now learn for certain that we have another party that hasn't got the guts?

Next post: Frank-ly disgusting

14 comments:

  1. Webb is only a Senator because George Allen called some teenager "mucaca", he's a Reagan Democrat (literally, look up his record), don't be shocked if he switches parties this year.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bravo! I liked Webb as a candidate, but I don't like him as an incumbent -- he's gone all girlie on us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree. Democrats are gutless. As a democratic voter, I look at them with disgust. If the situation was reversed, we all know what would happen. Republicans would be screaming nuclear option and up/down vote. And pass a tax cut, all be dammed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Helllo - wow what crap you elicit. Let's face it - King Obama will be dethroned one by one good American like Scott Brown at a time. Thank God this happened or the USA would have been a third world country sooner than you could have thunk.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Webb's response was more disheartening than Brown's win. Take a stand, for God's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Totally agree with Anonymous number 3. Democrats don't understand the concept of a mandate. When you win 60 senate seats the public wants you to govern. American elections are won with turnout, and the Dems timidity is demoralizing to our voters, and has emboldened the right's. It's pathetic that we've preparing to regain the majority for 8 years and then screw it up like this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't get the fuss over Webb's statement. First, I don't know who "we" refers to: the Senate, or Congress as a whole.

    Second, even if he's referring to Congress as a whole, he'd presumably accept the House passing the Senate bill after Brown is seated. That may be as soon as two weeks. So what's the big deal?

    "The Senate has passed its bill, and the House is perfectly within its rights to pass it." Really, I don't see Webb's statement as implying otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am so outta here on the Democrats. I went to the state Democratic nominating convention for Bill Clinton's first run. I was that interested in Democratic politics (I was alos a Jerry Brown delegate, so I was that naive, too) in 1992.

    But as I've grown older, a tad wiser, and way more informed, I've grown insanely frustrated with the fold-at-the-first-sign-of-trouble Democrats.

    Americans want tough leaders. Maybe we want leaders with a bit too much swagger some times, more brawn than is really good for us.

    But y'know, for all their faults, LBJ and Clinton were shrewd and really understood raw political power. Reid and Pelosi don't.

    Jim Webb CLEARLY doesn't. He is doing the classic ass-saving, and it is sickening. I through with Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I'm a media consultant with a lasting interest in how democracy works, how it malfunctions and self-corrects. My core belief is that the electorate is smarter than all of us."

    Is the last sentence in jest? So why are we where we are? Failing banks and businesses, homes foreclosed or underwater, healthcare costs to the yazoo, crumbling infrastructure, etc., etc., and the "electorate" keeps giving answers like, "I voted for him, because he looks like someone I can have a beer with."

    Why would democracy malfulction if the electorate were smarter that all of us? In fact, I believe the electorate is getting dumber and dumber, and not by accident. If you cut school funding and programs that really "educate" people for decades, you end up with the electorate we have now.

    They are oblivious of the real problems facing us and believe anything they are told that "sounds" good.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your last two sentences says it all.

    I have always related our political parties to the characters in "Planet of the Apes". We have Republicans who are nothing more then the blockheaded, crap for brains, bully gorillas and the Democrats were the way to smart, total wimps that the chimps and orangutans were.

    This loss would not be a big deal if the Democrats grew a pair and decided to ram healthcare through as George Bush rammed through many things WITHOUT AS MANY REPUBLICAN SENATORS that the dems have now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I still can't believe how gullible you people are. King Obama sold a lark. Nopw the canary is singing. He had swagger, the msm and bullshit that is all he had. when the bullshit gets this dep and he itifully and purposefully destroys the greatest country on earth, then the bullshit shows. The real people spoke in mass.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous @ 7:43: Even though Bush had fewer Republicans than Obama has Democrats, the problem with health care reform is that there are many aspects that cannot be done without 60 Senate votes (ban on refusing insurance to those with preexisting conditions, universal mandate, the exchanges).

    Bush could ram through his tax cuts because budget measures require only 50 votes.

    Yes, life in the Senate is stupid. But that's the way it is. They tried to get what they could get. And it's far from dead: now we'll see if the House will save the day and pass the Senate bill. More can come later through the 50-vote reconciliation process.

    ReplyDelete
  13. They are going to have to get the House to pass the Senate bill stat with the promise that the odious parts will be adjusted in some reconciliation down the road.

    Brown's played the Mass independents and he will vote straight GOP no matter what kinds of crooning he's doing in Ted Kennedy's name. Classy my ass (sorry, that refers to Andrew Sullivan).

    ReplyDelete
  14. My core belief is that the electorate is smarter than all of us."

    Is the last sentence in jest? So why are we where we are? Failing banks and businesses, homes foreclosed or underwater, healthcare costs to the yazoo, crumbling infrastructure, etc., etc., and the "electorate" keeps giving answers like, "I voted for him, because he looks like someone I can have a beer with."


    No kidding. I prefer Mencken's view:

    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

    ReplyDelete

Share