Dems: "Ramming it through" was bad

A left-center friend defended to me the Obama/Congress idea of ramming healthcare through.

“You didn’t mind it when Bush did it,” he said.

Actually, he can’t know that (and I do recall having some hesitations about how rancorous it was all becoming) but more to the point -and the conversation broke off, so I could not say it to him- if something is reprehensible when a president/congress you hate does it, isn’t it still reprehensible when a president/congress you don’t hate does it?

So it goes; round and round.

Wow. How everyone has aged in just six years. I guess we all have.

Barone: Nanny-statism insults the American spirit

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Kurt

    Another related point is that just about every key piece of legislation passed under Bush–no matter how controversial–passed in a bipartisan fashion in an open floor vote in both houses of congress. In terms of his legislative agenda, Bush’s most notable failures were immigration reform (which collapsed when many Republicans took heat for supporting it) and social security reform. But the “patriot act” was significantly bipartisan, as were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to say nothing of “no child left behind.”

  • Gayle Miller

    “We the People” have told the administration and Congress in loud – very loud – and very explicit terminology that we don’t want it. We don’t want what they’re selling and we don’t need what they’re selling; but in their arrogance, they think they know better than we do and they’re intent on jamming it down our throats. And mark my words – they’ll look astonished when they are forcibly unemployed by “We the People” in November!

  • Elizabeth K.

    This video is a bit misleading–my understanding is that the “nuclear option” was a permanent change to the Senate rules, while “reconciliation” applies only to fiscal decisions and has been used many times in the past by both Deocrats and Rebublicans, particularly to pass healthcare bills. This doesn’t mean I think the healthcare bill should be passed without greater support–I do think it would be best to reach a bipartisan solution. But I don’t buy what Breitbart is selling.

  • Kirstin

    Yes, in order for credibility to be maintained, one has to denounce deplorable actions regardless of whether they are the result of “our” party or “theirs.” I was just as disgusted at some of Bush’s overreaching as I am at Obama’s, and I don’t respect those who overlook their own side’s trangressions but pound the opposition’s. Our country needs voters who can perform rational, intelligent, objective analysis of the policies that our government wants to implement.

  • Pingback: Catholic News Headlines Feb. 24, 2010 « Catholic News

  • Bender

    Dems admit that they will not be attending the meeting in good faith –

    Democrats looking beyond health-care summit to final talks within party

    Regardless of what is said in the meeting, the Dems are going to do whatever the hell they want anyway.

  • Doc

    Elizabeth, I think you’ve been sucked into the corporate media narrative. The nuclear option, which was killed by McCain’s Gang of 14, was specifically intended to stop the Democrats’ unprecedented filibuster of Bush judicial appointments. Judicial appointments had traditionally received an up or down vote after getting out of committee. These judges were all highly regarded and respected by the way. The Democrats targeted them specifically for the way the would be likely to rule on cases, like Roe v Wade, for example. Miguel Estrada was targeted specifically for being a conservative Hispanic, and the Dems feared a future Supreme Court appointment for him. Clarence Thomas is bad enough. We can’t have Hispanics veering off the ideological plantation now, can we?

    Oh, and reconciliation has never been used on a Bill this impacting and was never intended for it. Of course, I don’t know if we have ever seen a Bill that threatens to nationalize a sixth of the nation’s economy, so it’s a Brave New World after all.

  • Elizabeth K.

    You make a good point, Doc. It’s just that, to someone ratehr uniformed like me, the Breitbart video came off as if the Democrats were protesting the exact same technique they now advocate–until I looked it up, I was given the impression that “reconciliation” was merely a new name for what had been dubbed “the nuclear option.” This seemed less than transparent to me, when what I really long for is soem transparency, anywhere, and I feel suspicious when it’s not there–regardless of the source. You make an important point about what reconcliation has been used for in the past, and what it may be used for now. And as I probably should have said, I don’t like this bill, nor do I care for what I’ve come to call the smuggery of the reigning Dems.

  • Elizabeth K.

    Um, please ignore the numerous typos–I am uninformed, not uniformed (a least most of the time, LOL). MUST remember to proofread.

  • Doc

    We all come here to get informed Elizabeth. Anchoress, Spengler, and Gateway Pundit are great resources. Daily newspapers and TV news are pretty worthless. I look forward to learning a few things from you as well. I’m just tired of being lied to by the Dems and corporate media (but I repeat myself).