Obama's Old Tune: No Reconciliation

Friday, March 5, 2010

Barack Obama didn't always think ramming through health care "reform" with reconciliation was a good idea.

During a CBS-TV election night interview on Nov. 2, 2004, for example, Obama said, "My understanding of the Senate is, is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?"

At the Change to Win convention on Sept. 25, 2007, he declared, "The bottom line is that our health-care plans are similar. The question, once again, is: Who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we're going to have to have a 60 percent majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're going to have to have a majority, to get the bill to my desk, that is not just a 50-plus-1 majority."

He didn't stop there. On Oct. 9, 2007, in an interview with the Concord (NH) Monitor, Obama pontificated, "You've got to break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus 1, but you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One -- I mean, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can't deliver on health care. We're not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy."

At the Center for American Progress on July 12, 2006, he confided, "You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives -- and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion -- is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we identify our core base, we throw them red meat, we get a 50-plus-1 victory. But see, Karl Rove doesn't need a broad consensus, because he doesn't believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority."

Obama was right then, though he was merely campaigning. He has always been motivated by radical ideology and narcissism. His present course of calling for a 50-plus-1 victory is just part of the game.



Comments

Jill7

It just goes to prove that this guy and his cronies will stop at nothing to push, shove and ram this terrible legislation thru...we've already seen what tactics he and his bunch are capable of using; buying votes, bribes, the use of reconciliation when that has never been used for anything this giganitic in the history of our nation.

Posted March 5, 2010 at 12:03:37 PM


Jimmy

Obama, you are a liar. In the same manner that you lie straight to our faces, I'll be glad to tell you, to your face, that you're a liar. Truth and integrity are not part of your makeup. That congressman had it right when he blurted out "You lie."

Posted March 5, 2010 at 12:16:36 PM


Evan

when your life is a lie, lying comes easy

Posted March 5, 2010 at 2:40:42 PM


Ileana

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and BO are all on record as Senators and Congressmen, stating how bad reconcilliation was when the Republicans were in control of the House. Now that Democrats are in control of both houses, reconcilliation must be "patriotic" and necessary for the good of the people (read political expediency).

Posted March 5, 2010 at 4:08:02 PM


Charlie

It doesn't matter that reconciliation "has never been used for anything this giganitic in the history of our nation." Reconciliation was never intended to enact legislation. It was only intended to "reconcile" budgetary issues.

Posted March 5, 2010 at 10:06:34 PM


Susan

OR, is it more like every other person in power trying to get something done WHEN faced with DISSENTION, DISAGREEMENT AND DISAPPOINTMENT to what they believeD would be for the good of the land. Trying to work things out so the end result is closer to what they believed could happen. President Bush probably felt it was for the good of the land to attack Iraq, and perhaps to "justify" it with the nuclear weapons story. DOES THE END ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS???

Posted March 6, 2010 at 1:13:08 PM


mike

I think if we get rid of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid we will save a bundle of money and this Heath Care wont be such a big issue we will be saveing money there no matter who run the Congress and Senate

Posted March 8, 2010 at 4:51:13 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund