The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : ABC: Top Dems Say Health Care Won't Get Done This Year

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

ABC: Top Dems Say Health Care Won't Get Done This Year

By Philip Klein on 11.3.09 @ 6:25PM

Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today it is highly unlikely that a health care reform bill will be completed this year, just a week after President Barack Obama declared he was "absolutely confident" he'll be able to sign one by then.

"Getting this done by the by the end of the year is a no-go," a senior Democratic leadership aide told ABC News. Two other key Congressional Democrats also told ABC News the same thing.

The item also notes:

Asked directly by ABC News, "Will you pass health care reform this year?" Reid pointedly did not answer "yes."

Instead, he replied, "We are not going to be bound by any timetables," adding, "We are going to do this as quickly as we can."

If true, this raises several problems for Democrats. For one, if lawmakers go home for December recess, there will be more opportunities for constituents to express their disapproval, raising the chances that moderate Democrats get cold feet. Also, the more it stretches into next year, the more the 2010 midterm elections start becoming a factor.

View all comments (16) | Leave a comment

Nick| 11.3.09 @ 7:22PM

Buh-Bye ObamaCare!

Na-na-na-nah!
Na-na-na-nah!
Hey-hey-hey!

Goood Bye!

Liberal Reader| 11.3.09 @ 7:53PM

If ABC says it, it can't be true. ABC is "main stream," therefore liberal, therefore communist, therefore fascist, therefore determined to destroy America.

If you listen to ABC, if you believe what they say, it means you're a fascist, and a Muslim, and an illegal alien, and a traitor, and a liberal, and it means you want to destroy America, commie.

Nick| 11.3.09 @ 8:11PM

Marxist Reader,

Take your lithium, stat!

And read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg, stat!
You might just learn something.

By the way, ABC didn't SAY anything. "Senior Congressional Democrats" told ABC what to say. As reported by Mr. Klein.

I know it's a tough night for you bleeding hearts, just don't shoot at Lou Dobbs' house again, okay?

Liberal Reader| 11.3.09 @ 8:27PM

Goldberg's thesis is absolutely dunder-headed.

Nick| 11.3.09 @ 8:45PM

Mr. Goldberg has pages of end-notes.

Do you?

Remember, stay away from grassy knolls tonight.

Angel| 11.3.09 @ 9:46PM

Poor LibReader/Jeremiah, bet you're busting out the F-Bombs big time tonight.

We told you so, loser.

Liberal Reader| 11.3.09 @ 10:27PM

Nick --

The Kennedy assassination jokes are really classy, Nick. You must be that guy in the family who gets drunk at funerals and tries to seduce second cousins.

Now: you're right. I don't put endnotes on my posts on the internet, and neither do you.

The world is FULL of books with endnotes, Nick. Just because a book has end-notes doesn't mean it is a good book, a truthful book, or a persuasive book.

Just to choose one crackpot notion at random from that silly book:

Goldberg argues (if you can call it that) the work corps like the CCC were somehow related to organized brownshirt organizations in Germany.

This type of claim -- call it arguing by structural homology -- could lead you to argue that a can of Campbell's Cream of Asparagus Soup is a form of a hand-grenade.

Think about it. Both can be carried in the hand easily; both can be transported in a rucksack; both can be thrown with relative precision.

But the INTENTION is entirely different, and in the end, intention guides how we interpret something's moral status.

The CCC employed hundreds of thousands and pumped millions of dollars into an economy in which no one was spending money; it averted the social unrest that was threatening to turn into a socialist revolution in many parts of the country; it avoided the terrible opportunity costs of long term unemployment for young men.

The intention was NOT to create gangs of loyal thugs to intimidate political opponents.

Goldberg is a fool. There are better books out there, Nick. Try a library next time.

Liberal Reader| 11.3.09 @ 10:37PM

Correction: just checked, and Goldberg compares the CCC to the Hitler Youth, not the SA.

But my point remains. The intention behind the two organizations, and the things they actually, really, historically did -- you know, the facts of the matter -- are comPLETELY different. Comparing them is just stupid.

I also recall how Goldberg talks about these so-called expansions in government power under Democrats but completely ignores:

a) 1920s prohibition, which lasted through -- I believe -- two or three Republican presidents' terms;

b) McCarthyism is the 1950s;

c) Nixon's attempt to co-opt the FBI, CIA, and other agencies to spy on over 40,000 Americans citizens whom he considered political enemies; Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia; Nixon's plan to BOMB the Brookings' Institute -- and so on. Not even MENTIONED by Goldberg.

And you know what? Rightly so. As bad as Nixon was, he wasn't a fascist. But neither were Wilson, Roosevelt, JFK, and Clinton (all compared to or named as fascists in this stupid, shallow book).

Nick| 11.3.09 @ 11:53PM

Marxist Reader,

You checked? With whom? Media Matters?

How many times did you fail history?

Prohibition happened because of the 18th amendment, ratified in 1919. It was enforced with legislation passed by the democrat congress, also in 1919 (the Volstead Act.)

Although Wilson did veto the legislation, the democrat congress overoad him, the same day. Prohibition was pushed by PROGRESSIVES.

So-called "McCarthyism" was started by liberal democrats in the late '30s with the House Committee on un-American Activities.

Are you liberals still spewing these Nixon mythologies?

Now, on what page does Mr. Goldberg compare the CCC to the Hitler Youth?

Liberal Reader| 11.4.09 @ 12:56AM

I'm not going to check the PAGE Nick. You're a fan of the book; reread it and find out.

My point was the Prohibition happened in an era of REPUBLICAN presidents, whom Goldberg seems to think are incapable of over-reaching.

It's ridiculous.

McCarthyism was carried out by SENATOR McCarthy. True, lots of Democrats -- including the very young RFK -- joined in. And true, there was red-baiting and red-scares a-plenty before him, and after him.

Fail history? The Liberal Reader?

Really, Nick. You must be joking.

Now -- what "myths" about Nixon did I "spew"? Please. Let me know which one of the things I allude to are "myths."

Nick| 11.4.09 @ 1:14AM

Marxist Reader,

Thus proving you didn't read the book, you read what other liberal twits wrote about the book and dutifully regurgitate their propaganda here.

Your point is stupefyingly wrong!
Prohibition was an amendment, it had nothing to do with Republican presidents or their "era". And, again, the Progressives pushed prohibition.

I'm sick of giving you history lessons. You need to start paying me. Okay, one more. Nixon did not "illegally" bomb Cambodia. He didn't "plan" on bombing Brookings either.

Try getting your history from books, not Oliver Stone movies.
You know...like...oh...I...don't...know...JFK.