Political Hotsheet
October 8, 2009 8:31 AM

Can Obama Claim "Bipartisan" Support on Health Care?

(AP / CBS)
Updated at 9:45 a.m. ET with more information.

The White House in recent days has rolled out statements of support for health care reform from a handful of notable Republican leaders. They have come mostly from Republicans with waning influence and fading careers, but they have been recognizable GOP names nonetheless. But as Democrats continue to haul their reform proposals through Congress with virtually no congressional GOP support, do these statements matter to anyone?

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson (from the Bush administration) and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are some of the Republicans who have given recent statements of support for health care reform. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, formerly a Republican and now an independent, joined them.

Former Senate Majority Leaders Bob Dole, a Republican, and Tom Daschle, a Democrat, released a statement Wednesday reiterating their support for bipartisan health care reform. The two men, along with former Republican Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, produced a bipartisan reform proposal in June.

But the remarks from these former GOP heavyweights have been filled with caveats as to what kind of reform they would like to see. Furthermore, they stand in stark contrast to statements from both Democratic and Republican Washington "outsiders" who have expressed serious reservations about health care reform.

That has not stopped the White House, though, from holding them up as a mark of President Obama's "bipartisan" approach. Culling "outside-the-beltway" Republican support served Mr. Obama well during his presidential campaign, and it could do the same in the health care debate.

"This is an effective tactic to influence general public opinoin, especially among persuadable independents," University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato told the Hotsheet.

That said, "it will have no discernible impact among Republicans in Congress," he added.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

White House officials asked Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg to put out their recent statements of support, the Los Angeles Times reports.

In his daily press briefing on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Republicans in Washington are "wildly out of step with their constituents who want something to happen on health care this year."

"There are people that have been outside of the cocoon of Washington dealing with rising health care costs … that are actively encouraging the process that's working to take place," Gibbs said, referencing Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger.

Health Care Progress Report: October 5

A closer look at the comments from these Republican outsiders shows their opinions may not differ greatly from those of Republicans in Congress. Frist, for instance, told Time magazine he is in favor of stricter regulations on insurance companies to protect consumers as well as a mandate for all Americans to acquire health care. He said, however, that the legislation currently under consideration does not do enough to control costs. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have agreed there should be more consumer protections in the health insurance industry, while the individual mandate has not come down as a partisan issue, with support and opposition from both sides.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), pointed out to the Hotsheet that McConnell has given 42 speeches in support of health care reform on the Senate floor since June -- but that doesn't mean he is supporting the Democratic bills.

"There is strong bipartisan support for addressing health care," Stewart said. "Similarly, there is strong bipartisan opposition to what some Democrats have proposed."

Indeed, both some Democratic and Republican governors, for instance, are concerned about the additional Medicaid burden the Senate Finance Committee's bill could place on state governments.

"I can't think of a worse time for this bill to be coming," said Tennessee's Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen reportedly said.

Yet for all the influence governors and outside parties may try to wield, most congressmen -- with a few critical exceptions -- can be relied on to follow the party line on the issue, Sabato said.

"The die is cast. Republicans are not going to vote for health care reform," he said. "Obama wants to present health care as having bipartisan support for public relations purposes for the general electorate."

Even though the White House has not been able to influence Republican minds in Congress, the Obama administration is still trying to portray itself as bipartisan, with this outside support as well as through snatching up available Republicans for cabinet positions, Sabato said.

"They're trying to make the case Obama is running a bipartisan administration outside of Congress," he said.

The tactics may be having some impact. In a recent CBS/ New York Times poll, 60 percent of Americans said the president is trying to work with Republicans, while only 30 percent said the Republicans are trying to work with the president.

Support from the likes of Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg may also give cover to one key Republican -- Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) -- who may be the only GOP senator to ultimately vote for Mr. Obama's plan.

"The idea here is to at least send a message to Republicans that there are Republicans out there that are on the side of the White House, and to send a message to folks on the fence, specifically Olympia Snowe," CBS News Political Director Steve Chaggaris said.

It wouldn't make sense politically, however, for other Republicans to compromise, Sabato said.

"Their stratgety is focused on 2010," he said. "In order to produce a big base turnout, which is key to the midterm elections, they must strongly oppose the health care proposals, and it will probably work. If you want to de-energize the Republican base, just compromise with Obama."
Tags:
Barack Obama ,
health care ,
White House ,
Republicans ,
GOP
Topics:
Health Care
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 101 Comments
by Butcer October 15, 2009 4:08 PM EDT
Give me a break, obama a nazi and like hitler, Obama is nothing like Hitler and this is coming from a real neo nazi(me)
Reply to this comment
by montanadude October 8, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
Obamacare will cost this nation another 500,000 jobs, making the unemployment rate over 10%. In my industry, medical sales, we have lost 20,000 jobs in medical sales already this learn. Learn more at http://www.gorillamedicalsales.com/landing/medical_sales.php
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday_5 October 8, 2009 5:07 PM EDT
"http://www.gorillamedicalsales.com/landing/medical_sales.php "

Perhaps the problem is the gorillas...?
by Aldymac October 8, 2009 2:07 PM EDT
In my astate the dems are on the way out, they came in power with a lot of promises about how much better they were going to do things. In six months they took a debt of less than a billion dollars and ran it up 29 times higher, then they ran the biggest employers out of the state, unemployment is higher than its ever been, and now the dems are crying because they can't pay the bills they created. They also forced the state employees to join a union, took away their state retirement fund that has worked for decades and placed it in the hands of the union. they are taking over city and county health care that has worked very efficiently for the last ten years and charging the citys and countys for doing it, hundreds of thousands of dollars per entity. All this to cover their inability to run the state, there is more of this insanity but I don't want the dems on here to think that I would embarrass them on purpose.
There is no bipartisanism in the democratic partys game, they have a majority for now and they will use it to pass all the legislation they can shove through as quickly as they can, the less that is read, the better they like it.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 8, 2009 2:05 PM EDT
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 1:26 PM EDT
You mean like the Repeal of the Glass Stegal Act in 1999, which deregulated the banks and allowed Commercial Banks and Investment Banks become one again? Who was that who signed that into law? HINT: It was a democrat not a republican




by bqqkn October 8, 2009 1:36 PM EDT
Ooh, ooh, I know. Who is Bill Clinton!






Was it veto proof?

So Clinton couldn't have vetoed it, even though he wanted to, correct?
Reply to this comment
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 2:09 PM EDT
Oh that is such BS. He could have and let Congress over ride him. He chose not to. That was his decision. Don't turn this out to be something it is not. Most of your Political Scientist would tell you he had a choice
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 2:10 PM EDT
Oh that is such BS. He could have and let Congress over ride him. He chose not to. That was his decision. Don't turn this out to be something it is not. Most of your Political Scientist would tell you he had a choice.

He could have vetoed it, but he didn't
by hungry1968-16 October 8, 2009 1:14 PM EDT
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 1:05 PM EDT
You know what, Why don't you look at some of the facts where Democrats got kick backs from the Mortgages. Don't sit there at your desk and play stupid. The Toxic Mortgages were the responsibility of both parties to watch. The democrats had kickbacks too. So I would watch how you word things. I could see if the Democrats had nothing to do with it, but in reality they did, and we both know that







YOU are the imbecile blaming the democrats for "all of our problems" that started "when they took control" - NOT ME.

I'm merely pointing out the fact that the meltdown happened in 2007 and 2008, because of stupidity and ultra-lax regulation enforcement, that happened YEARS before, under the republicans watch.

Maybe next time, you'll think before you type.
Reply to this comment
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 1:26 PM EDT
You mean like the Repeal of the Glass Stegal Act in 1999, which deregulated the banks and allowed Commercial Banks and Investment Banks become one again? Who was that who signed that into law? HINT: It was a democrat not a republican
by hungry1968-16 October 8, 2009 1:01 PM EDT
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 12:11 PM EDT
Yes but Hungry,
The Disaster began AFTER the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. The democrats had a chance to correct it but they choose to ignore it.







Why don't you tell us how the democrats time traveled backwards in 2007, that caused all of those garbage mortgages to be written from 2002 - 2008?
Reply to this comment
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 1:05 PM EDT
You know what, Why don't you look at some of the facts where Democrats got kick backs from the Mortgages. Don't sit there at your desk and play stupid. The Toxic Mortgages were the responsibility of both parties to watch. The democrats had kickbacks too. So I would watch how you word things. I could see if the Democrats had nothing to do with it, but in reality they did, and we both know that
by skericheri October 8, 2009 12:59 PM EDT
Whether you are for or against health reform, please take a minute to contact your Congressmen to voice support for the passage is sponsoring: H.R. 3596, the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt would require both the health insurance industry and malpractice Insurance industries to play by the same, good-competition rules as other industries...and...would strip them of various Sherman Anti Trust exemptions for violations, such as price fixing, bid rigging and market allocation.
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 October 8, 2009 1:03 PM EDT
I need to look that one up...that one sounds interesting!
by hungry1968-16 October 8, 2009 12:06 PM EDT
by bqqkn October 8, 2009 12:02 PM EDT
Sorry, but I thought Obama was in charge when the money was handed out left and right to the financial institutions. Like I said one foot in front of the other. Baby steps. By the way, looks like your cap locks is stuck.







You thought wrong - AGAIN.

Henry Paulson doled that money out - LAST SEPTEMBER.

Care to guess again?
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 8, 2009 12:02 PM EDT
by bqqkn October 8, 2009 11:58 AM EDT
Instead we have someone in there that has never run a state, let alone a country. And you voted for them...... PILS, you kill me. LOL!! : )))






Bush ran a company, a baseball team, a state, and a country, and look at what a disaster that turned out to be.
Reply to this comment
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 12:11 PM EDT
Yes but Hungry,
The Disaster began AFTER the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. The democrats had a chance to correct it but they choose to ignore it.
by slownewsday_5 October 8, 2009 12:18 PM EDT
"by IL-Independent
The Disaster began AFTER the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006."


Is that when Bush blew $1.5 trillion on two tax cuts for the rich?

Is that when we went into Iraq unnecessarily?

I don't care who voted for or supported it - both were Bush's babies, and they have been very expensive disasters.

.
by hungry1968-16 October 8, 2009 11:58 AM EDT
by pigsinlipstick October 8, 2009 11:41 AM EDT
45000 Americans are dying every year so you
republi'con's can make a political point






by Mortarman29 October 8, 2009 11:46 AM EDT
Silly.






45,000 people die every year due to a lack of health insurance, and a neo con thinks that is "silly".

I hate to admit it, but I'm not surprised by the right's extremist "let them die" views anymore. It's come to be expected.
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 October 8, 2009 11:49 AM EDT
Rep. Diane Watson said, in praising Cuba's health care system, "You can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." W.E.B. Dubois, writing in the National Guardian (1953) said, "Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. ... But also -- and this was the highest proof of his greatness -- he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate." Walter Duranty called Stalin "the greatest living statesman . . . a quiet, unobtrusive man." George Bernard Shaw expressed admiration for Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin.

John Kenneth Galbraith visited Mao's China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. Gunther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor admired Mao Tsetung and declared ecstatically that "the men and women pioneers of Yenan are truly new humans in spirit, thought and action," and that Yenan itself constituted "a brand new well integrated society, that has never been seen before anywhere." Michel Oksenberg, President Carter's China expert, complained that "America (is) doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values," and urged us to "borrow ideas and solutions" from China.

Even Harvard's late Professor John K. Fairbank, by no means the worst tyrant worshipper, believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, "Americans may find in China's collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one's neighbor that has a lesson for us all." Keep in mind that estimates of the number of Chinese deaths during China's Cultural Revolution range from 2 to 7 million people. Mao Tsetung was admired by many academics and leftists across our country. Just think back to the campus demonstrations of the '60s and '70s when campus radicals, often accompanied by their professors, marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving Mao's little red book, "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung." Forty years later some of these campus radicals are tenured professors and administrators at today's universities and colleges, as well as schoolteachers and principals indoctrinating our youth.

The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii's Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, "Death by Government." Statistics are provided at his website. The Nazis murdered 20 million of their own people and those in nations they captured. Between 1917 and 1987, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.

Today's leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from Nazism. However, there's little or no distinction between Nazism and socialism. Even the word Nazi is short for National Socialist German Workers Party. The origins of the unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the '20s, '30s and '40s. Those horrors were simply the end result of long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans, like many of today's Americans, who would have cringed at the thought of genocide, who built the Trojan horse for Hitler to take over.

Few Americans have the stomach or ruthlessness to do what is necessary to make their governmental wishes come true. They are willing to abandon constitutional principles and rule of law so that the nation's elite, who believe they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, can have the tools to implement "social justice." Those tools are massive centralized government power. It just turns out last century's notables in acquiring powerful central government, in the name of social justice, were Hitler, Stalin, Mao, but the struggle for social justice isn't over yet, and other suitors of this dubious distinction are waiting in the wings.
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman29 October 8, 2009 10:51 AM EDT
America's lower life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves that their medical systems are superior.

President Obama has too much intellectual pride to make such a specious argument, so instead we have to keep hearing it from his half-wit supporters.

These Democrats are all over the map on where precisely Americans place in the life-expectancy rankings. We're 24th, according to Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Barbara Boxer; 42nd, according to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell; 35th, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; and 47th, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. So the U.S. may have less of a "life expectancy" problem than a "Democratic math competency" problem.

But also, the citizenry's health is not the same thing as the citizenry's health care system.

Besides America's high rate of infant mortality -- based on biology and lifestyle choices, not medical care -- Americans are also more likely to overeat or smoke than people in other developed nations. And the two biggest killers in the Western world are obesity and smoking.

Liberals shouldn't have to be reminded how fat Americans are, inasmuch as they are always chortling about it. A 2004 New York Times article leeringly quoted a foreign doctor, saying: "We Europeans, whenever we came to America, we always noticed the enormous number of obese people on the streets." I note that these are the same people who openly worship Michael Moore.

Somewhat surprisingly to those of us who have long admired France for its humanitarian smoking laws, until the mid-1980s, Americans had had the highest rate of smoking in the developed world.

In 2003, America led the world in smoking-related deaths among women -- followed by Hungary. Simply excluding all smoking-related deaths from the World Health Organization's comparison of life expectancies at age 50 in 20 developed nations would raise U.S. women's life expectancy from 17th to 7th place and lift American men from 14th to 9th place.

Americans are also more likely to die in military combat than the whimpering, pant-wetting cowards our military has spent the past 70 years defending -- I mean, than "our loyal European allies." This is a health risk Europeans have managed to protect themselves against by living in a world that contains the United States military.

These are risk factors that have nothing to do with the health care system. To evaluate the quality of our health care, you have to compare apples to apples by looking at outcomes for specific medical conditions.

Although the United States has a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and diabetes compared to Europe -- because of lifestyle choices and genetics -- it also has better survival rates across the board for all these medical problems.

The most revealing international comparisons look at cancer survival rates, because of the universally extensive record-keeping for this disease.

A European study found that, compared to 18 European countries, the U.S. had strikingly higher five-year survival rates in all 12 cancers studied, except for one: stomach cancer. Even there, the survival rates were close -- and the difference was attributed to the location of the cancer in the stomach.

For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to 66.3 percent survival rate for American men. The greatest disparity was in prostate cancer, which American men are 28 percent more likely to survive than European men.

European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.

In five cancers -- breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma -- American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those -- testicular cancer.

Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim's death -- twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage.

There are no national registries for heart disease, as there are for cancer, making survival-rate comparisons more difficult. But treatments can be measured and, again, Americans are far more likely to be on medication for heart disease and high cholesterol -- medications that extend the lives of millions, developed by those evil, profit-grubbing American drug companies.

To get to the comparison they like (America is not as good as Sweden!), liberals have to slip in the orange of "life expectancy," and hope no one will mention monster truck races, Krispy Kremes and Virginia Slims. As the old saying goes: Life doesn't last longer in socialist countries; it just feels like it.
Reply to this comment
by jameslouiky October 8, 2009 12:03 PM EDT
Great post one thing you could also point out that is a great barometer of a countries hapiness is the US has a lower incided of suicide them many of the countries liberals seem to want to point to as some beaming light of utopia.
by slownewsday_5 October 8, 2009 12:22 PM EDT
Silly, Mortimer.
by Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01 October 8, 2009 12:44 PM EDT
And Mortarman fancies himself as an independent. Gieve creedence to your plagiarization?

Republican shill, you've been exposed.
by Mortarman29 October 8, 2009 12:52 PM EDT
Slow is allergic to facts.

Lawyers...well, you may overtake Slow as being the most wrong on this board (ooppps, sorry...no way either of you catch Slow!...but keep trying). I hate the GOP even more than the Dems. Why? Because the Dems dont know any better. They are silly liberals...it is what they do. The GOP should know better. They pay lip service to being conservatives, then get in power and act like libs.

At least the Dems are honest about being libs. The GOP lies to us by saying "compassionate conservative" and other nonsense.
by slownewsday_5 October 8, 2009 12:57 PM EDT
You love the GOP and Bush both, Mortie - you regularly contradict what you just said.

And you are no conservative other than a social conservative.
by sjc_1 October 8, 2009 10:50 AM EDT
Bob Dole said in 1993 that "you do not want to mess with 10% of the economy", well now it is almost 20% of an economy twice as large as in 1993. If we do not "mess" with it now, it will swallow and crush the whole nation out of functional existence. THIS is how important health care reform is. It is MUCH bigger than oil and the Pentagon combined and growing at an accelerating rate!
Reply to this comment
by jab232 October 8, 2009 10:39 AM EDT
I appreciate people like Bob Dole supporting what is best for ordinary people, but he represents the GOP of the past, more willing to work for the good of the nation, not just the party.

The present GOP is led by the Glenn Beck-Rush Limbaugh coalition. Republicans are the political arm of the big health care and insurance corporations and their bonus-rich CEOs. If you don't believe that, look at the last eight years when the GOP could have done something. At the end of that time what did we have? Depression. The rich had gotten exponentially richer and ordinary people had lost jobs, health care, homes and retire savings. Big banks had to be bailed out to keep the rich/poor divisions in place.

Democrats, get off your duff and pass strong health care reform. That's what you were elected to do.
Reply to this comment
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 11:16 AM EDT
by jab232 October 8, 2009 10:39 AM EDT
I appreciate people like Bob Dole supporting what is best for ordinary people, but he represents the GOP of the past, more willing to work for the good of the nation, not just the party.

The present GOP is led by the Glenn Beck-Rush Limbaugh coalition. Republicans are the political arm of the big health care and insurance corporations and their bonus-rich CEOs. If you don't believe that, look at the last eight years when the GOP could have done something. At the end of that time what did we have? Depression. The rich had gotten exponentially richer and ordinary people had lost jobs, health care, homes and retire savings. Big banks had to be bailed out to keep the rich/poor divisions in place.

Democrats, get off your duff and pass strong health care reform. That's what you were elected to do.

May I remind you that your democratic president Bill Clinton helped in that mess. May I also remind you that Democrats also got rich from that melt down as well. I know you really want to point fingers but first things first, you need to be able to except some responsiblities
by jameslouiky October 8, 2009 10:03 AM EDT
Iagree with Hungry, they need to stay away from this boondoggle. Estimates already predict that Democrats will lose 40 seats in the house next year, why? It's because of gross incompetence and failed promises.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 8, 2009 9:43 AM EDT
Can Obama Claim "Bipartisan" Support on Health Care?







No.

No matter what happens, the republicans SHOULD NOT be allowed to tie their name to the benefits of health care reform when it finally takes place.

F 'em.
Reply to this comment
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 10:19 AM EDT
Good thing Obama does not listen to you
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 12:03 PM EDT
by pigsinlipstick October 8, 2009 11:41 AM EDT
really,

45000 Americans are dying every year so you

republi'con's can make a political point

good luck in the next round of elections, losers

Pig,

First off, not to be mean, but do not reply to me. The fact that you refuse to see the BIG picture is not my problem. Secondly, the Democrats are fighting amongst themselves about this issue. That is why there is still no bill on Obama's Desk. And Third, as usual. ALL politicians lie, from both parties.

And I hate to say this but I am no looser
by dowell100 October 8, 2009 1:48 PM EDT
When Obama says he wants "Bipartisan" support, he simply means that he wants Republicans to agree with him and accept his crazy ideas hook, line and sinker. If they don't agree, Obama says they are "unAmerican." Obama is such a fool.
by chonder2 October 8, 2009 9:24 AM EDT
No bipartisan claim is needed.If the Repubs and Yellow Dogs stand in front of the steamroller...they will make good asphalt if you spred them real thin!!!
Reply to this comment
by chonder2 October 8, 2009 9:10 AM EDT
No bipartisan claim is needed.If the Repubs and Yellow Dogs stand in front of the steamroller...they will make good asphalt if you spred them real thin!!!
Reply to this comment
by stuart-johns2 October 8, 2009 9:20 AM EDT
Is'nt that "Blue Dogs"?
by stuart-johns2 October 8, 2009 9:32 AM EDT
Yet for all the influence governors and outside parties may try to wield, most congressmen -- with a few critical exceptions -- can be relied on to follow the party line on the issue, Sabato said.

"The die is cast. Republicans are not going to vote for health care reform," he said.
=======================

Republicans would do well to not worry about any public relations "tactics" from dems. They had better worry about their own PR stunts this past summer. And even now, Sabato's statement reflects what we have already known for months - that the republicans have no intention on voting for ANY reform. Sabato's statement proves that the GOP is going to object to anything that Obama wants. How sad. What a pathetic political party.

This is what America is seeing. Republicans should focus on what America wants and forget the political shenanigans.
by stn_sage October 8, 2009 10:06 AM EDT
I agree, no claim of bipartisanship is needed by the White House!

The Reps were given their chance to take part and come up with a 'good' health care bill, and from the onset they made it clear they 'really' weren't interested in doing so!

When they determined the public didn't respond to their blanket 'NO',
they pretended to put forward proposals that would destroy any real health bill from taking place...anything to stop the health care bill!

THAT, being the case, you'd be a fool or an idiot to take anything they say on the subject...seriously!
by IL-Independent October 8, 2009 10:19 AM EDT
by stuart-johns2 October 8, 2009 9:32 AM EDT
Yet for all the influence governors and outside parties may try to wield, most congressmen -- with a few critical exceptions -- can be relied on to follow the party line on the issue, Sabato said.

"The die is cast. Republicans are not going to vote for health care reform," he said.
=======================

Republicans would do well to not worry about any public relations "tactics" from dems. They had better worry about their own PR stunts this past summer. And even now, Sabato's statement reflects what we have already known for months - that the republicans have no intention on voting for ANY reform. Sabato's statement proves that the GOP is going to object to anything that Obama wants. How sad. What a pathetic political party.

This is what America is seeing. Republicans should focus on what America wants and forget the political shenanigans.
------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, a lot of Americans do see a lot of what the Republicans are saying. They are saying this would cost a lot. 829 Billion is a lot of money, and you think that because you want to spend that you should be able to because of the war in Iraq. It would do you democrats a lot of good if you were to at least listen to the other side. But since you don't want to, I guess you will have to learn the hard way.

BTW, How many democrats voted on going to IRAQ, and How many Republicans Voted against going to Iraq
by Mortarman29 October 8, 2009 10:39 AM EDT
"This is what America is seeing. Republicans should focus on what America wants and forget the political shenanigans. "

Shouldnt the Dems have done the same thing when Bush was in office? Instead of whining and complaining at every turn?

Both parties are the same!
See all 101 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER