GOP already backing away from campaign promises.....

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why would anyone be shocked? All you need to do is look at the Republican's pledges.


As I understand it, Boehner will bring up two bills on health care. One is a clean repeal that is one page long. The other is the replacement bill which as I understand it, amendments will be allowed. If the goal is a clean slate to start from it makes perfect sense to not allow the initial repeal to be significantly altered to the point that it changes the original intent of a full repeal. Of course explaining the mechanics takes time and as we can already see the mainstream media isn't going to be doing the Republicans any favors. So it is simiply a violation of their promises. Did the Republicans not promise "an up or down vote on a clean repeal bill". I do beleive they did. Are the promises contradictory? Yes, but so were the Democrat promises. How is this different then Pelosi waiving her own paygo rules or Obama violating his pledge to veto pork filled bills? It's not. The Republican's would loose more by not having an up or down vote on a clean repeal bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are you kind enough to remind us the circumstances under which he uttered that phrase?

He said it during negotiations with Congressional Republicans after Republicans noted their concern with spending. Great negotiating.

Well, as much as it may surprise you the minority can't FORCE their policies on the majority. Especially when they have settled on a strategy of "No Compromise".

Who said anything about forcing policies on anyone? You don't say "I won" after campaigning on changing politics and all of his other nonsense at negotiations.

You can if the losing side behaves as if they own the place.

Right, px.    They were acting like they owned the place by voicing their concerns over spending. Thanks for your daily dose of hackery.

Where were those concerns during the Bush years? They remembered them when a Democrat was in the White House as a fig-leaf for their obstruction.

They were there. Mike Pence, Jeff Flake, Ron Paul and Tom Coburn were there complaining about spending and even confronting veteran Republicans on their out of control spending. I seem to remember a Republican being in the White House when Pence, Shadegg and others decided to challenge the leadership of the congressional GOP, when Flake and Charlie Bass moved to completely replace the entire House GOP leadership in early 2006.

You guys were just busy and not paying enough attention. Because these were just the fringe kooks of course.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Tell me why his approval rating was 44% in midterm exit polls, px. Was it because people actually really liked him and just had this impulse to say otherwise?

Your knee jerk tendency to spout DNC talking points as if Tim Kaine was handing you your check every other week aside, everyone can admit that Obama lost the trust of the voters in 2010. He rammed an unpopular healthcare overhaul through Congress. People don't like the bill and don't like the way it was passed. It's time to open your eyes and admit that he paid a price for his style in the first two years of his term.

LOL! Do you know "kid" that Obama is by far the most popular politician in Washington? People certainly trust and like him much more than Bhoener and McConnell. Read a poll if you don't believe me.

And if unemployment was at 7% and falling nobody would have cared even if they passed HCR in the middle of the night with exotic dancers on the floor of the House celebrating its passage.
You talk about talking points but you seem to wallow in them. How it was "rammed" through congress? After six months of negotiations and with a 3/5ths majority in the Senate?

Maybe you prefer the ...bipartisan way through which the Bush tax cuts passed: with 50 votes and Cheney casting the tie-breaker. But then it was apparently a triumph of the will of the people. While Dems passing a bill with 60 votes was an "unprecedented power grab". 

Not necessarily. If the economy was improving it would also have dropped in importance as an issue as well, allowing a void to be filled by health care, by anger at procedural nonesense, and by the deficit.  Also those ethical problems with Rengell and others would have received more attention. The economy served to magnify problems for the Democrats but it most certainly wasn't the only driving force in the election. Without a bad economy, the Republicans taking over would have been a 1994 style surprise that wasn't even that clear by late summer and really only became more visible after labor day. In this way the Democrats may have benefitted by knowing in advance and thus allowing them to plan accordingly. The point is, it still could have happened.

Its like saying the Republicans wouldn't have lost the Congress in 2006 had it not been for Iraq. There is no way to know and there were other issues working against the Republicans that year like the scandals and some of the social issues.