'Take on'
And do what?
What did Obama do with Lieberman? How did he take Lieberman on when he said Public option has to be removed.
Do elaborate.
Should Obama have resigned after failing to take on Lieberman?
Cornel West, Progressive Scholar, Announces Third-Party Bid for President
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
'Take on'
And do what?
What did Obama do with Lieberman? How did he take Lieberman on when he said Public option has to be removed.
Do elaborate.
Should Obama have resigned after failing to take on Lieberman?
Reform isn't ending it, another disingenuous post by you.
From your link
Support for the talking filibuster isn’t really a new position for Manchin either, as Desiderio points out: In 2011, Manchin backed a similar, unsuccessful measure that would have “required that Senators who wish to filibuster a bill must actually take the floor and make remarks.”
As things stand, the filibuster doesn’t affect all Senate business — judicial nominations, for example, are only subject to a simple 50-vote majority, as are Cabinet appointments — but it does limit most legislation. The one notable exception to that rule is the budget reconciliation process, which Democrats are on the verge of using to pass a $1.9 trillion stimulus package into law this week. But reconciliation is also an arcane, limited process that would be incompatible with many Democratic priorities under current congressional rules.
Despite being the very thing that imposes a 60-vote threshold on much Senate business, the filibuster itself isn’t subject to the same threshold. If the current Democratic caucus majority in the Senate — with its 50 votes, plus Vice President Kamala Harris as the tiebreaker — wanted to eliminate the filibuster altogether, it could do so.
It won’t, unless Manchin and other moderates have a dramatic change of heart — but Manchin’s comments are a reminder that Democrats could still use their majority to find a way around the filibuster if their members aren’t willing to end it outright.
Obama got around and didn't need the public option because the original bill gave medicaid to the poor and middle class with incomes up to a certain amount .People with incomes over that amount could get affordable insurance with pre existing conditions. The public option only became necessary after The SC ruled states could opt out of the medicaid part of the bill.
Nice try though,Obama is not the weak feckless failure Biden is.
Last edited:
You said he outright said no,another disingenuous post by you.
For awhile Manchin was publicly waffling and open to changes to the filibuster,that is not an outright no as you claimed.
Obama dropped the uninsured rate around half,Biden nowhere near that so there is no comparison.
And how would this work if Sinema and Manchin decline to go along with it which they have said already?
That's not relevant to my post, the only health reform left to do is the public option which Obama couldn't pass.
YES
From YOUR ARTICLE
Democrats would need all 50 members of their majority to make it happen, and Manchin’s comments Sunday confirm that he’s still in the “hard no” camp on abolishing the filibuster, as is Arizona Sen. Krysten Sinema, who has staked out an aggressively pro-filibuster position.
You do like Obama did and make every democrat Senator support a significant healthcare bill.Results,not excuses.
Obama got around and didn't need the public option because the original bill gave medicaid to the poor and middle class with incomes up to a certain amount .People with incomes over that amount could get affordable insurance with pre existing conditions. The public option only became necessary after The SC ruled states could opt out of the medicaid part of the bill.
Nice try though,Obama is not the weak feckless failure Biden is.
View attachment 318946
What health care reform do you want Biden to pass?