health care dog and pony show Part II, the Sequel

Michelle Malkin is all over this, so I don't have to be: consider this a non-twitter ReTweet.

Here's and excerpt, it's the roundup of Sen. Obama's quotes about the so-called nuclear option when the R's were in charge:

"CBS Interview 11/2/04

My understanding of the Senate is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question, do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?

Change to Win Convention 9/25/07

The bottom line is that our healthcare plans are similar, the question once again is, who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we’re going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We’re going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk. That is not just a fifty plus one majority.

Obama Interview with the Concord Monitor 10/9/07

You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of fifty plus one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of fifty plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal health care with a fifty plus one strategy.

Center for American Progress Conference 7/12/06

Those big-ticket items: fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives, and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion, is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove where we identify our core base, we throw ’em red meat, we get a fifty plus one victory. See, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizeable majority."

health care dog and pony show, or obakabuki as someone called it

Too much too say, but here's one great piece of info from the Politico:

"Republicans are watching the clock closely as Democrats have talked for nearly twice as long as they have so far this morning. Before Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn started talking, the time of possession was:

Democrats: about 74 minutes
Republicans: about 37 minutes"

so much for bipartisan, eh?

The Washington Times has updated the minutes counted.
"By the end of the televised event, Mr. Obama had spoken for 119 minutes - nine minutes more than the 110 minutes consumed by 17 Republicans. The 21 Democratic lawmakers used 114 minutes, giving the president and his supporters a whopping 233 minutes, according to a "talk clock" kept by GOP aides. "


What a joke, but I think the Rs made their point.