McCain Supported Universal Healthcare, Too. What if the Republicans Won Last November?

McCain was only saying that because Obama was. He had no real plan for health care. Heck, McCain said that he'd balance the budget in four years. He said all sorts of things without a clue in the world.

IIRC McCain's plan was to get rid of the tax deduction for benefits, and give everyone a check to help pay for health care. I don't think it would have found much support in Congress.

No john.. the reason we see such opposition from the gop is the state of their party.
we did not used be opposed to things simply cause the other side is opposed.
and incase you missed it most of the uninsured are poor and hence the dems base and they wouldnt fight that.

you might find some dem senators to nitpick at it.. but not the lock step opposition of the gop.. which only the gop can do.

Would he have later backed off these promises to appease the party?
yeha pretty easy with teh state of the economy which probably would have been much much much worse with mccains plan of increasing bush's tax cuts that were sooooo soooo soooo effective at creating jobs during the bush years.

he also ran on cap and trade and now we have palin screaming cap and tax.

dems really arent like that .. we didnt complain when bush gave us a tax rebate.. we didnt complain when bush increased aids funding to african.. we didnt complain when bush set nasa's sites on mars.

and lets look at the big program bush did push through,.,.medicare plan d which was basically written by the industry.. did not get anywhere the opposition we see today with the gop outright lying aboujt everythign and bringing guns to townhalls in an attempt to intimidate people cause they have such tiny penises

Don't put me in the same sheepish followalong category as the Dems. I am not against meaningful reform but I oppose a public option regardless of the party that makes that proposal. It's a dumb idea but the Dems put all their reputations on it and now it is difficult to back away from. Maybe some of you will start to realize how far off center Obama is with many of his ideas.

The GOP is not against reform, just this version of reform. How long will it take you Dems to understand that we are generally against anything that dramatically increases the size of government.

Dems nitpicked every single thing Bush did and the last 8 years of Dem nitpicking has a lot to do with the attitude of some in the GOP today, remember, you reap what you sow. Now that the Dems are in power the GOP is just treating them like they were treated over the past 8 years.

If you really want to get this back on track, the party in power is going to have to accept some meaningful compromise. Obama states that he is for compromise, but then he will not budge on any of his core requirements. Well if there are fundamental ideological diffiences of opinion with respect to one or more of those core requirements, then those need to be on the table or there is no meaningful compromise.

If you really want to get this back on track, the party in power is going to have to accept some meaningful compromise.

Actually, no. There are enough Democrats in both houses to pass healthcare reform without a single Republican vote.

It only requires 51 votes to pass. The 60 vote threshold is to avoid a filibuster.

Nobody knows if Kennedy will be able to vote. In any case, if we assume the Republican filibuster, then Democrats need a single Republican to vote for cloture, and there are at least two likely picks.

Even if a hanful of Democratic senators vote against the bill, I can virtually guarantee none will support a filibuster. It would be political suicide for them to do so.

Moreover even if Democrats cannot summon the votes for cloture, then they will pass it under budget reconciliation rules, which cannot be filibustered.

It will pass the Senate, whether Republicans like it or not.

this is why the two-party does not work well. our representatives need to start thinking what is in the best interest of their constituents rather than for their party. too many devil-advocates, and nobody wants the other side to take credit.

they (Democrats and Republicans) think that they are competing against one-another, but the only ones that are losing are the American people.

jaker I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I see no proof that a multiparty system would fare any better. You'd still have the same partisanship and dealmaking... it would just be much more complicated.

A better way to get politicians to take their constituents' needs more seriously, imo, would be to figure out a way to enact real and meaningful campaign finance reform. Unfortunately the Supreme Court seems to be pretty hostile to any attempt to restrict the flow of money into our congresscritter's coffers.

who said anything about a multi-party system? our representatives are representing their party moreso than their constituents.

true or false?

Dems nitpicked every single thing Bush did and the last 8 years of Dem nitpicking has a lot to do with the attitude of some in the GOP today,

Yet, the Dems' "nitpicking" has proven true. The war in Iraq was gotten into because of lies and manipulation of intel; Bush did use the terror alert system for political gain and to scare voters; his tax cuts for the wealthy hurt the economy.

The GOP of today is nitpicking in some bizarre tit for tat move which will only hurt them with voters, especially as they offer nothing but complaints and obstruction.

McCain is pretty far left, regardless of party affiliation. I think that the leftist cause would have been better served with the election of McCain, who would have gone along with much of the liberal agenda, while giving cover, and bipartisan appeal to the continuing leftward progress of the country.

Instead we have an Obama Administration made up crooks, tax cheats, and general scumbags. More importantly, Obama is attempting to ram his agenda through, and generating huge public opposition. Simply overreach.