The Dems let the Dems gut it. There wasn’t a Republican that supported it. The massive partisan wall that created is a huge reason why things are so fucked now.
I don’t disagree. The original had more stuff in it that I liked.
There wasn’t a Republican that supported it.
True. The GOP rejected it for many stupid reasons.
The massive partisan wall that created is a huge reason why things are so fucked now.
This statement confuses me. Are you suggesting the Dems should have let the GOP gut it MORE? Are you suggesting the Dems should have dropped the legislation altogether to “keep the peace”? What are you saying the Dems could have done so “things are so fucked now”?
Yes the Dems should have got some gop votes. It may have made the bill slightly worse, but not by much. In return the Democrats would have had far more negotiating power with there own members if there were a couple of the more purple Republicans that they could count on instead. It also would have prevented the bill from being a great campaign piece for Republicans, and it might not have resulted in one of the largest midterm swings ever.
Getting 95% of the ACA and a Congress that wasn’t deadlocked for the next 6 years would have been much better overall. A split government that functioned more like under Clinton or Bush would have been much better than what ended up happening. The decision to stonewall when they had power unsurprisingly backfired.
uhhhh, literally the bill was designed and discussed with the GOP they just refused to support it after they basically got it watered down. then there was the ol’ whats his face dem that refused to vote for it without removing the public option.
Yes the Dems should have got some gop votes. It may have made the bill slightly worse, but not by much.
…and…
Getting 95% of the ACA and a Congress that wasn’t deadlocked for the next 6 years would have been much better overall.
The GOP were looking to deny any Obama passage of positive legislation. Are you not remembering “make him a one term President” message from the GOP?
There was ZERO amount of cooperate the GOP were willing to have on any bill that would give Obama a healthcare win.
A split government that functioned more like under Clinton or Bush would have been much better than what ended up happening. The decision to stonewall when they had power unsurprisingly backfired.
There’s always rhetoric, but completely shutting out the opposition for major legislation was just not done.
History doesn’t support your statement.
Feel free to show me legislation that was later signed during the first quarter of the Obama administration that wasn’t passed on nearly party lines. I took a look and couldn’t find any.
There wasn’t any, because of the move to block Republicans from the ACA. It’s just like when the Democrats used the nuclear option for judges, it also bit them in the ass the second they were the minority party.
There wasn’t any, because of the move to block Republicans from the ACA.
Wait, are you saying the the GOP only after the ACA passing on Democrat party line vote decided they would vote party line for every substantive legislative action?
Yes that was the original point. The ACA was the beginning of the extreme partisanship we’ve seen. It wouldn’t be sunshine and rainbows if they had got some republicans on board, but it would have been less partisan.
The Dems let the Dems gut it. There wasn’t a Republican that supported it. The massive partisan wall that created is a huge reason why things are so fucked now.
I don’t disagree. The original had more stuff in it that I liked.
True. The GOP rejected it for many stupid reasons.
This statement confuses me. Are you suggesting the Dems should have let the GOP gut it MORE? Are you suggesting the Dems should have dropped the legislation altogether to “keep the peace”? What are you saying the Dems could have done so “things are so fucked now”?
Yes the Dems should have got some gop votes. It may have made the bill slightly worse, but not by much. In return the Democrats would have had far more negotiating power with there own members if there were a couple of the more purple Republicans that they could count on instead. It also would have prevented the bill from being a great campaign piece for Republicans, and it might not have resulted in one of the largest midterm swings ever.
Getting 95% of the ACA and a Congress that wasn’t deadlocked for the next 6 years would have been much better overall. A split government that functioned more like under Clinton or Bush would have been much better than what ended up happening. The decision to stonewall when they had power unsurprisingly backfired.
uhhhh, literally the bill was designed and discussed with the GOP they just refused to support it after they basically got it watered down. then there was the ol’ whats his face dem that refused to vote for it without removing the public option.
…and…
The GOP were looking to deny any Obama passage of positive legislation. Are you not remembering “make him a one term President” message from the GOP?
There was ZERO amount of cooperate the GOP were willing to have on any bill that would give Obama a healthcare win.
“make him a one term President”
There’s always rhetoric, but completely shutting out the opposition for major legislation was just not done.
History doesn’t support your statement.
Feel free to show me legislation that was later signed during the first quarter of the Obama administration that wasn’t passed on nearly party lines. I took a look and couldn’t find any.
There wasn’t any, because of the move to block Republicans from the ACA. It’s just like when the Democrats used the nuclear option for judges, it also bit them in the ass the second they were the minority party.
Wait, are you saying the the GOP only after the ACA passing on Democrat party line vote decided they would vote party line for every substantive legislative action?
Yes that was the original point. The ACA was the beginning of the extreme partisanship we’ve seen. It wouldn’t be sunshine and rainbows if they had got some republicans on board, but it would have been less partisan.