Now Sebelius Can Resign
Today was a momentous day in the United States Senate, as filibuster rules were changed in the first major way since the 1970s. I'm not going to write about the direct fallout of this extraordinary action, since I did so yesterday and plan on doing so tomorrow as well. Instead, I'd like to take today to point out a (so far) little-noticed secondary consequence of Harry Reid's historic vote. Because if the early reports are correct in stating that confirmations will be filibuster-free not just for "non-Supreme Court" judicial nominees but also for high-ranking executive branch nominees, then it clears the path for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to tender her resignation.
Again, before I expand that thought, I've seen the vote today reported at least two different ways. The first is that the filibuster was removed only from judicial nominees below the Supreme Court level, and the second is that it also will include other presidential appointments (not just to the judiciary, in other words, but to executive departments as well). I am assuming, for the purposes of this article, that the latter is true. Just wanted to be clear on that, up front. If this assumption is incorrect, then the point this article is about to make would be completely invalidated.
But if cabinet secretaries will also enjoy up-or-down confirmation votes which only require 50 votes (plus Biden) without the possibility of any cloture motions or other filibuster supermajorities, then the only remaining reason why Sebelius hasn't resigned disappears.
Sebelius has been in charge of the Obamacare website rollout. It is her department which is responsible for its implementation. And to say it didn't go well is being incredibly polite, at this point. Which is why there have already been calls for her to step down.
Sebelius, to her credit, has done a good job of not even attempting to avoid blame, so far. She testified before Congress and when asked to name some subordinate to pin the lion's share of the blame upon, she demurred. She told the committee that she was the one to blame, since it was her department, and that she took full responsibility (even though we all know she wasn't the one actually writing the computer code).
But all the calls for her to step down came from Republicans. Democrats refused to take this step, and they had a very good reason not to do so. If Sebelius resigned, the Senate Democrats reasoned, then it might be nearly impossible to ever get anyone else confirmed to this cabinet-level position. Republicans have been obstructing everything they can, and any confirmation hearings would be merely another chance for Republicans to basically put Obamacare on trial all over again. At the end of the process, the nomination would be filibustered, and H.H.S. would be denied a permanent secretary at its helm for the rest of Obama's term.
This was indeed a valid fear. But that fear should now no longer exist.
Rather than just facing endless hearings and endless parliamentary obstruction, if the Senate can now confirm cabinet members on a straight majority vote, then a successor to Sebelius can be chosen, vetted, and confirmed in a timely fashion. There is nothing to stop Sebelius from announcing that it's time "to spend more time with her family," and setting a date for when she'll step down (a few months into the future). This would allow her to do her best to clean up the mess before she leaves, but at the same time let it be known that someone will indeed be held responsible for the laughingstock that the Obamacare website has become.
In the private sector, when people screw up, they are either fired or eased out. By resigning, Sebelius would make good on her statements to Congress that she is the one who should bear the ultimate responsibility for this epic failure. She could leave knowing that a replacement will indeed be confirmed by the Senate early next year. She already has become the personification of the website's failure, which should lead to only one final way to take full responsibility, both politically and personally.
Kathleen Sebelius can now resign. There is nothing to stop her from doing so, not even politics. She should make this announcement the day after President Obama announces that the website is fixed enough for people to try using it once again (which is supposed to be scheduled for the end of this month). Set the date for her last day in office a few months hence.
Because, whether he meant to or not, what Harry Reid did today removes the last reason why Sebelius still has her job. Now that the path is clear, Sebelius can step down.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Because if the early reports are correct in stating that confirmations will be filibuster-free not just for "non-Supreme Court" judicial nominees
Don't you find it funny that Reid didn't include SCOTUS nominees???
I don't...
Reid knows that the GOP will, sooner or later, control the Senate again and have the White House again.
Likely sooner rather than later..
Reid didn't want to neuter the Democrat Party's ability to filibuster a GOP POTUS's SCOTUS nominee..
You see the irony??
Ya'all whine and bitch and moan about the GOP and the obstructionist filibustering and Reid makes sure that DEMOCRATS will be able to be as obstructionist as the GOP was, when it comes to SCOTUS nominees..
But, the joke is going to be on Reid..
Because, since Reid has already established the precedent, when the GOP *DOES* take the Senate, the VERY first order of business will be to include SCOTUS nominees in that "No-Filibuster" rule that ya'all are cheering now...
And I don't have to tell ya'all how bad THAT will be for Democrats...
That's the problem with Democrats...
The NEVER think long-term..
They are ALWAYS about the pleasure of the moment...
And that's why they will lose...
Sebelius has been in charge of the Obamacare website rollout. It is her department which is responsible for its implementation. And to say it didn't go well is being incredibly polite, at this point.
I would say it's being naively polite, but why quibble since we are both on the same page.. :D
In the private sector, when people screw up, they are either fired or eased out.
Obama's as much, if not more, to blame the Seibelus...
Does the same apply?? :D
Michale
I know I should quietly demur and let ya'all soak in this "victory"...
But I am just so damn glad to have Weigantians feeling happy again!!! :D
It was getting morbidly depressing around here!! :D
Michale
In the car today, I heard a news story on NPR that the head of the ATF had been confirmed. First permanent one in seven years apparently. I'm pretty sure it's all judicial and executive appointees below the SCOTUS.
"Because, since Reid has already established the precedent, when the GOP *DOES* take the Senate, the VERY first order of business will be to include SCOTUS nominees in that "No-Filibuster" rule that ya'all are cheering now..."
Keep in mind that there are a lot of lower level Obama nominees in the hopper, but no supreme court nominees. So why should Reid twist the knife now, over a hypothetical? It just further bloodies the water.
This would change if a SCOTUS justice should die or retire while Democrats still control White House and senate. Reid can tehn launch a follow up strike to clear a path for an Obama SCOTUS nominee.
In any case, Reid certainly expects a Republican counterstrike against SCOTUS filibusters as soon as Republicans control White House and Senate, regardless of any actions he takes now. This is just a minor extension of what CW covered in his previous post. Republicans might well seek to rebuild the the old filibuster infrastructure should in 2016 they regain the Senate, but fail to take the Presidency. Only to nuke that too if an when they take White House, Senate and an open slot in the SCOTUS somewhere down the line.
The old game was unstable, and the new game looks unstable too, at least when different parties control Senate and Presidency.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of lower level Obama nominees in the hopper, but no supreme court nominees. So why should Reid twist the knife now, over a hypothetical? It just further bloodies the water.
Uh.... He's a politician???
The old game was unstable, and the new game looks unstable too, at least when different parties control Senate and Presidency.
But as long as the Democrats get what they want, screw tradition and precedent, eh??
That's what is so hilarious about all this.
Ya'all incessantly whine and complain and bitch and moan about how Republicans use the rules to their advantage...
And yet, you cheer on Democrats when they do the EXACT SAME THING...
Hypocrisy..
It's it's purest and most unadulterated form...
All I ask for is a little consistency...
Michale
The old game was unstable,
I remind you that the "old" game has been working for over 200 years...
Doesn't sound like instability to me..
Oh wait. You mean it was unstable for DEMOCRATS...
You mean that, since Democrats are incompetent when it comes to employing the filibuster, that they are just going to do away with the rules..
Gotcha {{wink}} {{wink}} :D
Michale
WASHINGTON — President Obama will get a short-term lift for his nominees, judicial and otherwise, but over the immediate horizon, the strong-arm move by Senate Democrats on Thursday to limit filibusters could usher in an era of rank partisan warfare beyond even what Americans have seen in the past five years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/a-move-years-in-the-making-with-lasting-ramifications.html?_r=0
Remember, people..
You reap what you sow....
Michale
Michale - rather than arguing just read CW's article from yesterday. He very neatly summarised why there is literally nothing to lose by the Democrats doing this. It's already clear that Republicans can and will break any rule and push the boundaries of existing rules to get their way. So why stop the country from progressing and recovering because they don't want it to...
could usher in an era of rank partisan warfare beyond even what Americans have seen in the past five years.
Lol 'could'. Considering Republicans have filibustered more Obama nominees than every single President before him put together has seen filibustered I would say the Partisan war was started a while ago.
Democrats could have made this rule change a while ago. But they naively believe that Republicans would start to behave sanely. After it became clear this was not the case, they had no option but to nuke them.
Ya know, it's blatantly obvious why Reid pulled this stunt at this time..
Obama and the Democrats were dropping in the polls faster than a redneck prom queen's dress on prom night.
(I know that's sexist, but it's the only thing I could come up with. I figgered if I threw in the "redneck" part, ya'all wouldn't care about the sexism.. :D Hell, if I somehow squeezed Palin in there, ya'all would have whole-heartedly approved!! :D )
But, as usual, they are being pretty incompetent about it.
Today is the 50th Anniversary of the JFK assassination and that will likely be dominating the news cycle or, at the very least, steal a lot of the thunder...
Then we'll be back to the drip-drip-drip black eye that makes obamacare or the ACA or whatever they are calling it this week so much fun.. :D
Michale
Oh you just HAVE to love the hypocrisy...
NY TIMES 2005 GOP POTUS
The Senate will return from Easter vacation with nuclear options on its mind. Republicans seem determined to change the rules so Democrats will no longer be able to stop judicial nominations with the threat of a filibuster. If they're acting out of frustration, it's understandable. In the past we've been frustrated when legislators tried to stop important bills from passing by resorting to the same tactic. The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes.
NYTIMES 2013 DEM POTUS
For five years, Senate Republicans have refused to allow confirmation votes on dozens of perfectly qualified candidates nominated by President Obama for government positions. They tried to nullify entire federal agencies by denying them leaders. They abused Senate rules past the point of tolerance or responsibility. And so they were left enraged and threatening revenge on Thursday when a majority did the only logical thing and stripped away their power to block the president’s nominees.
The case of blatant political hypocrisy makes itself...
Michale
michty6,
Lol 'could'. Considering Republicans have filibustered more Obama nominees than every single President before him put together has seen filibustered I would say the Partisan war was started a while ago.
And you honestly can't see it getting any worse??
You HONESTLY believe that Democrats won't come to regret this move??
I guess marijuana has been legalized in yer neck of the woods, eh? :D
Let's revisit the issue under a GOP POTUS and a GOP Senate and House, shall we...
THEN we can discuss how grand of an idea this was.. :D
I look forward to that conversation. Ya have to admit, I have a great track record in my recent predictions.. :D
Michale
Ya have to admit, I have a great track record in my recent predictions.. :D
Well, I guess ya don't HAVE to admit it.. :D
But it's still true nonetheless...
Michale
Michael
The old game has been evolving for over 200 years. Major changes in 1917 (cloture rules) and 1971 (modified cloture).
A system is said to stable when it tends to return to steady state after disturbance. Within limits.
"If you push it hard enough, it will fall over." I think that's called "Fud's First Law."
The senate rules just fell over (again). The system went unstable. Depending upon the outcome of near term elections, the new rules may prove unstable too.
The senate rules just fell over (again). The system went unstable. Depending upon the outcome of near term elections, the new rules may prove unstable too.
It all depends how one defines "stable".. Or more accurately, "unstable"...
Around here, "stable" seems to mean anything that benefits the Democrat agenda ONLY and "unstable" seems to mean anything that benefits the Republicans...
Of course, it's the COUNTRY that gets scrooed over...
Michale
Because, since Reid has already established the precedent, when the GOP *DOES* take the Senate, the VERY first order of business will be to include SCOTUS nominees in that "No-Filibuster" rule that ya'all are cheering now...
Michale, here's my quick BATNA analysis of this for Democrats.
The do nothing case:
- Republicans block nominees when a Democrat is in power
- Republicans confirm their nominees anyways when Republicans are in power because the corporate media calls out any possible Democratic filibuster as "obstructionism"
The change the rules case:
- Democrats able to appoint Obama nominees over filibuster threats when they hold the White House
- Republicans able to confirm their nominees using same rules if they are in power
Do you see what's going on here? It doesn't matter whether Republicans change the rules to include Supreme Court justices because Republicans will get those justices approved anyway whether the rules change or not.
When have Democrats been able to stop a conservative Supreme Court justice nominee? It hasn't happened Robert Bork in 1987.
In other words, if you look at this from a BATNA perspective, Democrats have little to lose.
This doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the decision, but I think it's how it is being made politically.
-David
After it became clear this was not the case, they had no option but to nuke them.
Exactly as I said..
The Ends Justifies The Means
Glad ta see you FINALLY admit that Democrats are no different than Republicans :D
Michale
Chris: I don't think Sebelius should resign. I hope she doesn't. I don't think it would make the slightest difference to whatever hearings Issa will convene -- if he's not harassing Sebelius he'll harass someone else -- that's what he does.
I don't think Obama or his team or Dems should do anything at all on the basis of what they think the repubs will do or not do. All they need to know is that the repubs will do anything and everything they can think of and/or get away with to cause trouble. They don't require actual "reasons"; there doesn't have to be any basis in reality for what they do. There is no point in appeasing them in any way. Instead they need to aggressively do what they need to do; they need to promote and support their goals and activities and bulldoze over the repubs as opposed to defensively crouching in fear of the inevitable repub dirty behaviors.
If you think she should resign because the rollout has had problems well I guess you can apply that standard -- one which doesn't appear to be applied to anyone else. But I don't see why she has to fall on her sword when absolutely no one else in Washington, on either side, feels compelled to do so. Issa, for instance, gets to make up scandals as he goes along; he is repeatedly discredited and is then immediately taken seriously when he levels the next spurious charge.
Lara Logan ain't resigning, is she?
I feel sympathy for Sebelius because she was actually in charge of doing something concrete and she was faced with massive and deliberately constructed hurdles. You see her "failure" because the website get's used by people. It's "visible". But what about all the things that weren't done to help her? How is it that she was supposed to accomplish this monumental task without the money or staff she needed? Was it her decision that a bunch of despicable repub governors were going to refuse to set up their own exchanges? That the website's requirements would be exponentially increased late in the game?
I don't think anything would be improved by her resigning. It would just look like she was the scapegoat and she'd be another republican scalp. Fixing the website is what needs to happen (and is happening).
Michale - the only "true American here" -
"TGlad ta see you FINALLY admit that Democrats are no different than Republicans "
repeats his only argument.
Michale - the only "true American here" -
Naaawww...
There are one or two others.. :D
repeats his only argument.
Oh, I have MANY arguments.
But this one is one of my favorites because it is the most effective one that has yet to be refuted.. :D
Michale
Lemme ask ya'all one question..
Do you honestly and truly believe that Obama's legislative agenda has a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere now??
Because the filibuster is alive and well in that area of the Senate..
Do you honestly believe that, since Democrats threw the first nuke, that Republicans are not going to respond in kind??
That's why it's called MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION..
If ya'all honestly believe that the GOP is going to just go home and lick their wounds, I have some swampland in FL I wanna sell you.. :D
Michale
Allow me to remind ya'all again..
The decision to nuke the Senate was a PURE Partisan decision.. Democrats own it like they own obamacare..
And, like obamacare, the OPPOSITION to the nuking of the Senate was BI-PARTISAN...
Let me repeat that for the cheap seats..
*** BI PARTISAN ***
I have always said it and Democrats just proved me right once again..
Democrats don't care about this country or about compromise..
All they care about is imposing their agenda on all Americans, by hook or by crook, whether those Americans want it or not...
Don't worry. As it SHOULD be, this issue will be decided at the ballot box..
And, considering the plummeting poll numbers of Obama and the Democrats, it's going to be a massacre of Democrats..
"The sport ends. The massacre begins"
-Primus T'ceal, THE FINAL FRONTIER
Michale
Michale: the one-argument-Country-First-while-everyone-else-puts-party-first:
"If ya'all honestly believe that the GOP is going to just go home and lick their wounds, I have some swampland in FL I wanna sell you.."
Bingo. Something on which we agree.
Dems need to realize that the repubs will now slither around and try something else. They'll get together and draft plans, just like they did to submarine the ACA rollout, and they'll pass out their gameplan and will commence whatever nasty, dirty ploy(s) they can come up with.
Dems need to expect this and they need to stomp. They need to be better and stronger than the pubs and they need to fully internalize that there's almost nothing to which the pubs won't stoop. The ends do NOT justify the means. I don't think the Dems have to adopt pub-like strategies -- torture ISN'T justified, lying-into-war-for-oil ISN'T OK, disenfranchisng voters IS reprehensible, and Dems don't need to do those things.
But they do need to fully understand the nature of the pubs and respond with strength. They need to get out front and be proactive rather than reactive.
Here's another thought to consider..
Dropping a nuke is, by definition, NOT a rational thing to do.
I think we can all agree on that.. I think we can all agree that using nuclear weapons is a sign of desperation...
Following this train of thought to it's logical conclusion, it's apparent that this was done by a desperate Party who don't believe that they will obtain the House and retain the Senate in 2014 and retain the White House in 2016.
This action is the sign of a flailing and sinking Party...
Michale
But they do need to fully understand the nature of the pubs and respond with strength. They need to get out front and be proactive rather than reactive.
In other words, you want Democrats to act EXACTLY like you accuse Republicans of acting. :D
Michale
CW,
While I understand the politics of a Sibelius resignation, I disagree. Holding people accountable for things that they could not control or prevent, is NOT accountability, its scapegoating. Its damaging our national interests to remove capable people and disrupt government functions for no good reason.
The 24/7/365 campaign mentality, governing by poll, and media management is destroying our government. Its WHY we have "The Party of No!(tm)," a grid-locked Congress, and government so corrupt that EVERYONE takes it as a given there'll not only be tit for tat over the rules change, should Republicans gain the majority, but that biased ideological judges and justices will inevitably result.
We've at least finally discarded the fiction that our judges and justices are apolitical and objective, but that we just accept their corruption as the new reality means accepting that our Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law, are functionally dead. I'm personally unwilling to do that. Folks are so intent on playing politics they can't see the forest for the trees.
In spite of the latest Republican/media fantasy Obama "scandal," the website is mostly functional. Given the lack of funding and Congressional support, and the complete arbitrariness of the target date, that IS "on-time" performance.
You're always too eager to throw people under a bus for damage control and political spin. I believe elected officials' priorities should be governance, not campaigning. Obama isn't even up for reelection. NOTHING he, or anyone else, does will reduce the antipathy, mindless attacks, or faux outrage from the right. So what, exactly, would be the point in sacrificing people?
Michale: the-only-true-American-one-arguement-man
"In other words, you want Democrats to act EXACTLY like you accuse Republicans of acting."
I know it's hard for "true Americans" to grasp the distinction between being "proactive" and "strong" in good ways, with being aggressively dishonest, greedy, heartless, robotically hypocritical (repub Congressman votes to make Floridians get drug tested for food stamps while he abuses cocaine) and relentlessly destructive, but try.
Yes, pubs are proactive and strong in their dishonesty, greed, heartlessness, hypocrisy and destructiveness, but it is also possible to be strongly and proactively honest, fair, compassionate, intelligent, constructive, consistent, and a number of other good qualities. Repubs have long since lost touch with good qualities -- they mouth the words but don't actually understand them -- but they are indeed, very much in tune with "strong" and "proactive", just in the service of ugliness.
LewDan - 26 - Yep, yep, yep, yep. You said what I think, only better!
Yes, pubs are proactive and strong in their dishonesty, greed, heartlessness, hypocrisy and destructiveness, but it is also possible to be strongly and proactively honest, fair, compassionate, intelligent, constructive, consistent, and a number of other good qualities.
I completely and 1000% agree...
It IS possible to be strong and proactively honest, fair, compassionate, intelligent, constructive, consistent and a whole host of other good qualities.
I completely agree..
So why don't you hold your Democrat leadership to such standards???
THAT is the question that boggles me...
"What is my boggle????"
-Wesley Snipes, DEMOLITION MAN
Michale
LD,
In spite of the latest Republican/media fantasy Obama "scandal," the website is mostly functional.
What IS the weather like on your planet!??
Not even Obama himself would show such blatant fabrication!!
And THAT is saying something!!
"The Website is mostly functional"
That is going to join such statements as, "I did not have sex with that woman", "Read My Lips. No New Taxes" and "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance" for a total disregard of reality and the facts... :D
Michale
Note:
Guess Ezra Klein of the Washington Post read this column... heh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/21/one-huge-effect-of-filibuster-reform-obama-can-actually-fire-people/
:-)
-CW
Guess Ezra Klein of the Washington Post read this column... heh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/21/one-huge-effect-of-filibuster-reform-obama-can-actually-fire-people/
Now let's see if Obama has the competence to do so.. :D
Michale
What I mean is, I would be a lot more impressed with our leader if he actually would... ya know... LEAD....
Michale
Let me ask you something CW...
Since you are only one of a small handful here who can actually think objectively..
Do you think there will come a time when Democrats regret being the first to use nukes??
Michale
I have a request, CW...
I know it's likely too late to include this in the coming FTP, but I would like an analysis..
Let's postulate a scenario where Democrats are NOT the selfless heroes of yor', the quintessential White Knights, always good and pure that some political/ideological fanatics think they are..
Let's postulate a more realistic and factual scenario where Democrats are the same greedy, corrupt and selfish congresscritter that ALL politicians are...
Given this, WHY would Reid, Obama and the Democrats toss a nuke???
An analysis from you would be REALLY welcome, but I'll be happy to tackle it if ya like.. :D
Michale
CW- 31 - What about it?
Michale - the-one-true-American-with-one-argument: - 35 -
"Let's postulate a more realistic and factual scenario where Democrats are the same greedy, corrupt and selfish congresscritter that ALL politicians are..."
Continues true to form.
Michale - the-one-true-American-with-one-argument:
I've been called worse.. :D
Continues true to form.
You have yet to refute the claim..
"I WONDER WHY THAT IS!!!???"
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR
:D
I am SOOOO glad to have ya'all back!!! :D
Michale
Paula,
If Democrats in Congress are the pure of heart "strong and proactively honest, fair, compassionate, intelligent, constructive, consistent" leaders you CLAIM them to be, please explain the following:
Assassination Of American citizens w/o Due Process
NSA spying
Lobbyists in the White House
Complete lack of transparency
IRS
Benghazi
Targeting Reporters
I have a couple hundred others, but that's a good place to start...
I await your comments with baited breadth... :D
Michale
Oh and add Obama's Red Line To Nowhere In Syria....
Michale
Michale, the only True American man of one argument:
"If Democrats in Congress are the pure of heart "strong and proactively honest, fair, compassionate, intelligent, constructive, consistent" leaders you CLAIM them to be, please explain the following:"
I didn't say Dems were those things. Reread my comment. I was saying that repubs are none of those things, which is different.
I was explaining that "strong" and "proactive" are descriptives that can be applied to other qualities, good or bad. You can be strongly good or strongly bad. And I was saying that Dems need to apply strength and proactivity to their support of the ACA, and to their support for other things they are working on.
To your point re: NSA spying and Drone Strikes, and targeting not just reporters but all whistleblowers, I agree with you. I think those are bad. I think Obama needs to answer for those things, as do others in government from both parties. However, the IRS and Benghazi stuff is just rightwing bullshit and the ACA is not a bad thing at all (though, as I have said many times, it could have been better.)
Now, if you wanna get down on Obama for the NSA, fine. But if you want to get down on him for Benghazi, not-fine because its not real. See, learning to distinguish fact from fiction is important.
You wanna get down on Obama, go after him for deciding to "look forward, not backward" and letting the Bush administration war criminals get away with their crimes. If you think Obama should be impeached over Drones then I'm sure you're right there with me thinking Bush and Cheney should have been tried at the Hague for war crimes.
David,
Yours from #16, this morning.
The difference is in the use to which the holds & filibusters are being put. As an example, Democrats did not filibuster the nomination of John Roberts. Agree politically, or not, there was nothing establishing that he'd be unfit for the position. Compare Sen. Jeff Sessions (R AL) who has placed a hold on every nominee President Obama has appointed. Compare the filibusters on any number of Federal appointments to the point where the NLRB was going to have to cease functioning for lack of a quorum.
The Republicans are engaging in the politics of obstruction to a point unthinkable even 30 years ago. If President Obama wants to do anything with the next three years; this had to happen.
Oh Michale,
In re: Syria. What are you unhappy with?
The ongoing war? What's your solution?
The destruction of Assad's Chemical Weapons by an international authority? What's your alternative?
What point are you trying to make & what alternative do you propose?
DB-41 - exactly.
Michaele,
There's no fabrication in saying the website is mostly working. People have been using it to sign up all along. The issues have primarily been inability to handle the volume of transactions.
"I think then we have to consider extending the deadline for the mandate, but let’s hope that doesn't happen."
-Al Franken
The writing's on the wall people..
obamacare is toast...
Michale
There's no fabrication in saying the website is mostly working. People have been using it to sign up all along. The issues have primarily been inability to handle the volume of transactions.
When the website needs to handle 60,000 - 80,000 users simultaneously and can't even handle HALF that, it's complete BS to say that "the website is mostly working"...
Spin it all you want. I know the reality..
And, apparently so do many Democrats who are bolting..
Michale
Paula,
*I* don't want to get down on Obama for those things..
But you are claiming on the one hand that your Democrat leaders are "strong and proactively honest, fair, compassionate, intelligent, constructive, consistent"
And yet you let them get away with the NSA and the American assassinations.
I just want to know WHY you let Democrats get away with that stuff if they are, by YOUR standards,
"the good guys"...
Hmmmmm??? :D
Michale
DB,
If President Obama wants to do anything with the next three years; this had to happen.
The ONLY thing Obama is going to be able to do is judicial appointments and THAT is only going to last a year..
His legislative agenda is toast. He won't be able to pass ANYTHING..
You think the GOP obstructed before..
I am willing to wager that ya'all haven't seen ANYTHING yet..
And *I* will be laughing my ass off at the legislative logjam that Democrats have created... :D
Michale
Michale, the only True American one argument man:
"But you are claiming on the one hand that your Democrat leaders are "strong and proactively honest, fair, compassionate, intelligent, constructive, consistent"
Once again, wrong. I claimed the repubs ARE NOT those things. Try to follow this: saying "repubs are NOT honest" does not automatically translate to "Dems are honest". Dems May or May Not be honest, etc., entirely independent of repubs. It's a good example though of how your mind works. You are literally unable, apparently, to conceptualize the idea that every single comment about a repub does not mean Dems are the opposite. It is actually, now try to grasp this, it is actually possible to make a comment about republicans without referencing democrats at all.
Let me make it simpler for you: "cats have soft fur". Now, saying that does not automatically mean "dogs have rough fur".
So repeat after me: "Republicans are dishonest and despicable" -- just that, nothing more. Just like you could say "slugs are kind of gross" without automatically having to say "but bunnies are cute".
Michale,
"You think the GOP obstructed before..
I am willing to wager that ya'all haven't seen ANYTHING yet"
Aside from the sloppy definitions; I'm actually inclined to agree. I see no reason to believe that the Republicans will cease the "Politics of Obstruction".
But I notice you ignore the Syria questions.
"obamacare is toast..." But just last week you asserted that "Obamacare" is nothing more or less than only the website healthcare.gov. That website is demonstrably improving & therefore your statement is inaccurate.
Michale [1] -
I think, no matter what party is in control, the next SCOTUS nominee is going to pass without a filibuster. Both parties will push the precedent set and revoke the filibuster for the final vote. Mark my words -- doesn't matter WHAT party is in control, there will be no more SCOTUS filibusters.
I find it interesting that the GOP is threatening "more Scalias!" when Scalia is ALREADY on the Supreme court -- he was approved, and everything. So how, exactly, is "more Scalias" any sort of threat?
[2] -
Hah! Got a laugh out of that! Around here, we feel bad when the schadenfreude dial goes off the scale, no matter which way it goes, I have to admit. I mean, I actually felt kind of bad for you when Obama destroyed Romney in the Electoral College. So it does indeed work both ways.
YoYo [3] -
Look for more of these types of announcements, in the coming weeks!
:-)
OK, something weird's going on with the computer, so I'm going to post this now, and continue in another comment.
-CW
TheStig [4] -
I've been thinking about the future, and SCOTUS nominees. I'm thinking Monday's article will address this. At the very least, within a week.
Michale [5] -
And here I'd been thinking you'd be impressed by the Dems acting in solidarity, or "like Republicans" for once...
Heh. Guess that's too much to ask...
[6] -
I remind you that the "old" game has been working for over 200 years.
Actually that should be "since 1975." So, "for 38 years." See Friday's column...
Nice try, though. Hey, the Washington Post got it even more wrong, so you shouldn't feel bad.
[10] -
Obama and the Democrats were dropping in the polls faster than a redneck prom queen's dress on prom night.
OK, call me whatever you will, but I found it funny! Taken in the spirit it was offered...
:-)
As for JFK, well in certain circles Saturday's 50th "Doctor Who" anniversary is more prominent.
Heh.
AS for [11], see my response in FTP comments, from a graphic I "borrowed" from democraticunderground.com.
TheStig [14] -
"The tire is only flat on the bottom."
-Finagle's First Finding (or maybe Fishbein's Conclusion?)
akadjian [16] -
OK, I'm familiar with "back of the envelope" but what the heck is BATNA?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Also, I think you're missing a "since" in that Bork sentence... heh.
Paula [18] -
Aha! I was hoping there'd be a Sebelius defender here!
I think she should fall on her sword for the political value of doing so. Maybe that's crass, but there it is. I think things are so screwed up (I spent 20 years in Silicon Valley, which may bias my opinion, I freely admit)
Also, because she has (admirably) been so willing to take responsibility up until now. It's an extension of that, really.
{OK, that's [1] through [20], so I'm going to post this and then continue...}-
-CW
Michale [21] -
OK, let me ask you one question:
If Reid hadn't dropped the nuke, where would you have seen Obama's legislative agenda going? Seriously -- how could it get any worse? The House isn't going to pass anything without a knife to their throat, so whatever the Senate does is immaterial, really. Do you see this changing -- with or without the "nuclear option" -- before the 2014 elections? After the election, of course, we'll have to live in a new world, but I believe I addressed that Wednesday.
[22] -
Except, of course, that Republicans came up with the idea (and named it the "nuclear option," even, way back in 2005.
So much for that "Democratic plot" talking point, eh?
Paula [23] -
Hey, we've got Harry Reid this far. One step at a time!
:-)
Michale [24] -
Except that, if the GOP takes the Senate, the whole filibuster thing will be a moot point. They'll have the majority, after all. See Wednesday article.
LewDan [26] -
OK, fair point.
But the chain of command does mean something, whether military or bureaucratic. That's why I included that "even though we all know she wasn't the one actually writing the computer code" phrase. She has been willing to draw all the heat until now, and she should be held to the standard she set for herself. Commanders who oversee failures may not have done anything wrong themselves, but they take the heat for them -- right or wrong.
The point in sacrificing people is the reason Sebelius offered herself up for that role -- it politically protects those who are even higher than you. That means President Obama. Show me any cabinet member in all of US history who didn't understand that was part of the job -- something Sebelius understands.
Michale [34] -
Possibly, but I think that Democrats will have a lot of other big problems to worry about if that situation does come to pass. How's that for an answer?
[35] -
I'm pondering all the implications, this weekend. Granted, it may look like I'm just watching football games, but that's merely a charade, I assure you. I will write about the long-term impacts next week, though, I promise.
Paula [40] -
Excellent comment, all around, just had to say that!
:-)
OK, I've hit 40 comment, so I'm going to post again, will continue later (may be tomorrow...)
-CW
Michale [48] -
And *I* will be laughing my ass off at the legislative logjam that Democrats have created... :D
Legislative logjam? Democrats created?
Let me guess... you're trying out for Jay Leno's slot as a comedian?
That's really the only possible answer to that question.
Paula [49] -
"cats have soft fur"
Well, on this site, I must remind everyone that Egyptians used to worship cats as gods. Solely -- mind you -- because cats demanded it as their ony due.
Heh.
As for slugs, well, even slugs can be mascots! [aside to Michale: search for "Travolta" and "Pulp Fiction"] Everyone else:
http://www.ucsc.edu/about/mascot.html
:-)
OK, that's it for now, folks! More later, undoubtedly...
-CW
Paula The Party Before Country girl,
You claim that Democrats are better than Republicans.
Prove it..
Because I have a MILLION facts that says you are wrong..
DB,
That website is demonstrably improving & therefore your statement is inaccurate.
Like I said to Party Before Country Paula..
PROVE IT.
"And any attempts to prove it is futile because it just ain't so."
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN
As to Syria...
Assad is still in power and still possesses his entire CWMD arsenal..
Obama's "Red Line" was a joke. He has lost ALL credibility in the Middle East.
Michale
CW,
If Reid hadn't dropped the nuke, where would you have seen Obama's legislative agenda going? Seriously -- how could it get any worse?
I think ya'all are about to find out.. :D
Let's revisit the question in about 6-10 months and see if it's answered..
Except that, if the GOP takes the Senate, the whole filibuster thing will be a moot point. They'll have the majority, after all. See Wednesday article.
They'll have a MAJORITY, but not a SUPER Majority..
Which won't be relevant until 2016 when a GOP'er is in the White House, agreed..
Basically, the Democrats have just castrated themselves in their haste to take the heat off of Obama over the train wreck that is obamacare..
Party Before Country Paula,
I think Obama needs to answer for those things
Then DO IT!!
Make him answer for those things.
You can't. Or more accurately, you won't because he is a Democrat..
And you are Party uber alles...
I am sure you never had ANY problem condemning those activities under Bush, no??
Then why don't you condemn those actions under Obama in the same manner??
See above for the answer..
Michale
Michale,
#55. John Boehner signed up at healthcare.gov.
QED.
Paula,
You go on and on about how Republicans aren't "strong and proactively honest, fair, compassionate, intelligent, constructive, consistent"....
Yet, you concede that neither are Democrats...
And yet, Republicans are the only ones who get's blamed for not being that way..
"I WONDER WHY THAT IS!!??"
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR
:D
Michale
DB,
Michale,
#55. John Boehner signed up at healthcare.gov.
QED.
Do you want to compare success stories vs horror stories??
I am game if you are.. :D
Michale