Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Wednesday, February 10, 2010


Poll: Americans Want Compromise

Nearly two-thirds of Americans want Congress to pass comprehensive health-care reform, stalled since Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts was elected last month, ending Democrats' 60-vote supermajority.

Although Brown's election has been interpreted as a rebuke to Democrats' sweeping health-care legislation, nearly 60 percent of Americans blame Republicans for not doing enough to compromise with President Obama, while 40 percent blame Obama for not forging compromise with the GOP, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Nearly six in 10 in the new poll say the Republicans aren't doing enough to forge compromise with President Obama on important issues; more than four in 10 see Obama as doing too little to get GOP support. Among independents, 56 percent see the Republicans in Congress as too unbending and 50 percent say so of the president; 28 percent of independents say both sides are doing too little to find agreement.

As party leaders tussle over the proposed bipartisan health care summit, nearly two-thirds of Americans say they want Congress to keep working to pass comprehensive health-care reform. Democrats overwhelmingly support continued action on this front, as do 56 percent of independents and 42 percent of Republicans.

The sticky part of widespread desire for compromise is that it's simple to want it from the other side. About three-quarters of Democrats see the congressional Republicans as intransigent, while a similar proportion of Republicans see Obama that way. But even Republicans are critical of their congressional leadership, with 44 percent seeing them as doing too little to strike deals with Obama; that compares with just 13 percent of Democrats worried about inaction on Obama's part.

At the same time, the president does pick up some criticism from the left here: 18 percent of liberal Democrats say Obama is doing too much to compromise with the GOP on big issues.

Read it at The Washington Post


Arthurstone said...

Count me with the 18%.

Who really needs the likes of McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Grassley et. al.? Or the egregious Ben Nelson for that matter?

Obstructionists who bring nothing of substance to any policy debate but demonstrate their endless capacity to whine and say no while never, ever offering constructive alternatives that just might benefit the country.

Bi-partisanship? If the GOP would act in good faith I'd urge the President to reach out.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Sue said...

repubs are reading the polls wrong. The majority wants reform and they want the public option. So when a poll says they are not happy how dems in Congress, and Obama are handling the HC debate its because they are backing off what we want, not because they are going forward.

Jim said...

Hummm, well some polls are just like icing on the cake I suppose.

I like this icing better.

The Griper said...

its not reform that people are against. it is a particular type of reform that they are against.

and maybe I'm wrong but i haven't seen a poll yet that shows that the people want a public option.

and i haven't seen a poll yet that shows that the people approve of the idea of being forced to buy health insurance.

Jim said...

It is fairly easy to go out to a mall and ask:

"Hey buddy, do you think that the health system should be changed?"

Wonder how many yesses you'd get with that question.

Or this: "Hey buddy, do you think the government should pay for all your health care needs?"

But what about this: "Hey buddy, do you think the taxpayer should pay for everyone's health care needs?"

Might not get so many yesses with that question.

This Blog has a better grasp of what all the polls on health care seem to be saying in reality and not just what some want to hear. ;-)

Jim said...

In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's government-run health care bill that funds abortions and has other pro-abortion problems.

Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.

“The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,” Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.

“There's a certain skill, there's a trick, but I think we'll get it done,” he said. Source

And you wonder why Republicans are jittery of attending a "bipartisan" summit at the White House?

Arthurstone said...

Abortion is a perfectly legal medical procedure. Why on earth shouldn't it be covered by insurance private or government?

There are no 'pro-abortion problems'. There does remain the problem of self-styled 'pro-life' crowd's endless attempts at foisting their religious beliefs on the rest of us.

I know why Republicans are jittery. It's because they bring nothing to the discussion beyond a few talking points focusing on 'socialism', 'death panels' and 'killing babies'.

I'd be jittery as well if I had to recite their nonsense with a straight face.

Shaw Kenawe said...


Like Arthurstone, I would ask you why you have a problem with a legal medical procedure that a woman and her doctor decide on?

No one is forcing people who do not believe in abortion to have one.

If you're in favor of having Americans opt out of paying for legal abortions in public health care, then, you have to allow Quakers and other people who are pacifists opt out of paying taxes for war. You have to allow Americans who home school their children or who have no children to opt out of paying taxes for public schools. Abortion is a legal and often necessary medical procedure that a doctor and his patient decide on. If your religion is against it. Don't have one.

Why would you have the government intrude one something as personal and private as a legal medical procedure?

The tea party people are the first ones to howl about having the government intruding on medical decisions, but here you find it perfectly okay for it to do so?

Jim said...

OK, I'm confused. Where did I say anything about abortion? Or the funding of same? Or where I stand on the subject?

SK and Arthur are you trying to set up a smoke screen? Primus is saying that there is a way to trick the Republicans. Pretty straight forward. The minority party was shut out of all the closed door negotiations that the majority party conducted all last year. The votes were all in the hands of the majority and did not need the minority votes. If you have a gripe about not having the vaunted health care bill you should try calling the DNC and Mr. Obama.

As to the argument that the government spends money on issues we all can find fault with is just that, an argument. If you want, try to find in the Constitution where it specifically allows the General Government to do any of the social things (Social Security, FDA, Medicare, DOE, and more) you two so fondly agree to fund with other people's money.

Arthurstone said...


I agree.

You're confused.

Shaw Kenawe said...


You wrote this:

"...Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's government-run health care bill that funds abortions and has other pro-abortion problems."

And that's why I answered you, stating a legal medical procedure should not be "a problem" insofar as it is funded by tax payers. Lots of people fund issues they do not agree with through their taxes. You framed the issued as a "pro-abortion problem."

The Constitution gives the legislative branch the right to enact legislation. The president proposes and the legislative branch enacts. That's where Social Security and Medicare comes from.

The American people knew that Mr. Obama was going to move on reforming health care and find a way to make it universal for all Americans, and THEY VOTED HIM and a Democratic Congress into office, knowing this would be a priority in his administration.

What part of that do the Republicans NOT understand? A majority of Americans voted for Mr. Obama's ideas, NOT for Republican obstruction.

And I can't remember when the Republicans were in complete control of the government for 6 years where they gave a flying donut what the Democrats in Congress wanted or didn't want.

It appears to many of us that the Republicans want to nullify an American election by being obstructionist in everything the president proposes.

That is not a good policy.

Arthurstone said...

If Griper insists he himself would decide these issues on a case by case basis then I am inclined to take him at his word

As for the folks Shaw has quoted in her post and the noise I hear coming from the right-wing echo chamber I can't give most of them the same benefit of the doubt.

I too take this sort of thing on a case by case basis.

Arthurstone said...

As for Jim a quick scan of the thread would show he introduced the topic into the discussion.

And a slightly closer look at certain posts would indicate that my initial response would indicate I side with the minority who feel the Dems are spending far too much time 'reaching out' to the GOP.

As for the Republicans.

Well. They, as ever, bring nothing beyond 'no' to any debate.

Unless it be tax-cuts and attacking or otherwise destabilizing third-world regimes.

Jim said...

Arthur you need glasses.

SK you are stuck on one issue that Primus introduced.

I was pointing out that the Democrats already have a dishonest course to trick the Republicans into giving the majority cover on passing their bills.

Click on "Source" and read the doggone article yourselves!

Jim said...

SK, how can the Republicans be obstructionist when the Democrats had the votes to pass any ole bill they wanted to without one minority party vote!

What's the matter? Scott Brown is throwing a wrench in the works? What happened all last year before he was elected? Huh?

Could it be that the people are waking up to what Mr. Obama is truly trying to do? You had the majority for a year. The majority may just be leaving you behind.

Arthurstone said...

Primus shows some cujones for a change. Of course the word 'trick' sends GOPsters to the fainting couch. But, hey, that's politics. Funny how some folks go all sensitive when politicians play hardball.

Doesn't seem to bother Senator Shelby.

"...Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's government-run health care bill that funds abortions and has other pro-abortion problems."

I can read just fine. That was the introduction of abortion to this discussion and you made it Jim. Although to your credit you tried to make it sound as if Primus himself described the bill as containing 'other pro-abortion problems'.

That little bit of miss-direction is, in my view an actual 'trick'.

What Primus proposes is a legislative strategy based on congressional & senate rules.

Jim said...

You spin well arthur. What is in the article is in the article. I introduced the article to point out the devious strategy of the majority party.

Is it still raining in Seattle?

Arthurstone said...

It always rains here.

You'd hate it.

The 'article' is not much of anything.

Do you really think the poor old GOP is in anyway 'tricked'?

Politics is sometimes hardball.

If you don't believe that, ask Senator Shelby.

w-dervish said...

Jim's article is BS. The "pro-abortion" nonsense was added by the article's author. Pelosi's aide did not describe it that way.

Also, he shouldn't have used the word "trick" (if what is in quotes in the article IS an actual quote). Clearly he did not mean that the Republicans were going to be "tricked" by the use of reconciliation.

The writer of the article (and Jim) implied that Pelosi's aide meant "a crafty or underhanded device, maneuver, stratagem, or the like, intended to deceive or cheat".

When Primus actually meant, "a clever or ingenious device or expedient; adroit technique" or "the art or knack of doing something skillfully".

Was it a "trick" when the Republicans used reconciliation to pass bush's tax cuts for the wealthy? IMO the Democrats DAMN well better use reconciliation to pass the health care bill.