Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDick Armey and Post-Partisan Harmony
Numerous people have commented on the deeply repellent behavior from former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey on Hardball yesterday, when he appeared with Salon's Joan Walsh. You can watch the video here. After dismissively cackling every time Walsh spoke, Armey finally spat at her: "I am so damn glad that you could never be my wife, 'cause I surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you every day." I want to focus on two points highlighted by this episode:
First, Dick Armey isn't some obscure, aberrational Republican. He was one of the key leaders of the so-called "Gingrich Revolution" of the 1990s, when the modern incarnation of the Republican Party fully degenerated into the crazed, primitive, regional mess that it is today. He wasn't a back-bencher. He was the Republicans' House Majority Leader for eight years -- from 1995 to 2003 (when he left Congress, failed to have his son elected to his seat, and was replaced as the GOP's House Majority Leader by Tom DeLay).
People like Dick Armey -- and Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity -- are the face of today's GOP, its heart and soul. Armey, who once notoriously referred to Barney Frank as "Barney Fag," comes from a faction -- the Texas Republican Party -- that continues to advocate formally in its 2008 Party Platform (.pdf), among so many wonderful planks, that sex between gay people be criminalized and that all gay citizens be denied the most basic rights, including even the right to adopt children and to have custody over their own children [p.12]:
We also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation by such persons with a minor child should be prohibited [p. 14]. . . .
The Texas GOP wants creationism taught in the public schools alongside evolution and given "equal treatment" [p. 17]; Guantanamo to remain opened [p. 24]; the U.S. military to remain in Iraq with no timetable for withdrawal [p. 24]; and extraordinary medical care to be denied to all prisoners except for those who can pay for it themselves [p. 19].
The party's 2008 Platform also demands that the U.S. -- this is really what it says -- "cease strong arming Israel" by pressuring them "to make future diplomatic concessions, such as giving up land to the Palestinians on the West Bank" [p. 24]. American policy towards Israel, they argue, should be "based on God's biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefit of that promise" [p. 24]. Armey himself, in a 2002 Hardball appearance, advocated that Palestinians should "leave" the West Bank and Gaza (which Armey believes is part of Israel) and go somewhere else. His state party's Platform also wants the U.S. to "immediately rescind our membership in, as well as financial and military contributions to, the United Nations" [p. 25] .
These are the people who have largely been in power for the last two decades and the country is in the shape one would expect it to be in as a result. That's why all of this chatter about post-partisan transcendence and trans-partisan harmony and the like is so inane.
Why would anyone think that "common ground," on any consistent basis, can be found with people like this, or that it would be beneficial to eliminate real differences in order to accommodate their views? People in this country -- like most countries -- have radically different views of things, and politics is about having those ideas compete with one another for persuasive supremacy. This compulsion to eliminate differences and disharmony in pursuit of some feel-good, trans-partisan consensus is not only futile but also destructive. Why would it be a good idea to mold one's beliefs and actions to induce the assent of the Dick Armeys and the Texas GOPs, even if that could be done?
Second, Republicans have made about as clear as possible that even though they'll pay lip service to "bipartisanship," they don't actually want that. The principal criticism Armey was launching at Joan Walsh in that Hardball segment was that she, along with most people, degrade our politics generally, and our economic debates specifically, by turning them into partisan wars. We should rise above that for the good of the country, Armey repeatedly intoned.
But please go read the email that John Cole posted last night about the stimulus package which the very same Dick "Post-Partisan" Armey was sending around on behalf of his group FreedomWorks, on the very day he was on Hardball excoriating those who want to politicize our economic debates. Armey's mass-emailed screed urges opposition to the stimulus package as nothing more than "the Left's Multi-Billion Dollar Handout to Liberal Allies."
As I've documented many times before, Beltway "bipartisanship" means that Democrats adopt as many GOP beliefs as possible so what ultimately is done resembles Republican policies as much as possible (anyone doubting that should simply review these "bipartisan" votes of the last eight years). I'm glad that the stimulus package yesterday -- which Democrats watered down and comprised on as much as possible to please Republicans -- did not attract even a single Republican vote in the House: not one.
Republicans aren't interested in "bipartisanship" except to the extent that they can force Democrats to enact their policies even though they have only a small minority thanks to being so forcefully rejected by the citizenry. And why should they be interested in bipartisanship? Why should they vote for a stimulus package that they don't support and that is anathema to what their most ardent supporters believe? It's very hard to find any virtuous attribute of the contemporary Republican Party, but one thing that can be said for them is that -- unlike Democrats, whose overarching desire in life is to please the needy harmony fetishists by adopting as many GOP views as possible -- Republicans are willing to incur criticisms by opposing what they oppose and supporting what they support.
And that's how it should be. As Atrios wrote yesterday:
If I were advising the Republicans I would've told them to vote against the stimulus package. I would tell them to make the point clearly that if they were in charge, the bill would be a different bill. They're a competing political party and they need to, you know, highlight the fact that their vision for America is actually different. I appreciate that members of both parties don't always toe the line completely, but on a bill as big as this it makes perfect sense for it to play out as it did.
Of course the flip side is that Dems should've pushed the best plan that could pass the Senate instead of pushing some pointless fantasy about bipartisanship.
Some Obama supporters will claim that the whole post-partisan song is nothing more than a political game, a super-shrewd, exotic political tactic Obama is employing in order to cast the GOP as obstructionists. But if so, that's a Beltway tactic almost as old as Obama himself. Media Broderites and The Third Way have been demanding for decades that Democrats move as close as possible to Republicans in the name of overcoming partisanship (for instance, watch as Time's Joe Klein desperately tries to convince Dick Armey himself not to view Klein as a radical who is far away from Armey, but rather, that they're both "playing between the 40-yard-lines here").
Partisan disputes happen because people are very different and have very different views. Partisanship is about advocating for your own beliefs and discrediting the beliefs that you reject and believe are harmful. This doesn't mean that these disagreements must or should break down along Republican/Democratic lines. On so many critical, contentious issues, the leadership of the two parties are in perfect harmony. Many of the worst policies are embraced by the mainstream of both parties, and the real disagreements now break down on other lines, whether it be insider/outsider or diverging socioeconomic interests or rapidly-re-aligning ideological divisions. But politics is and should be about defeating ideas -- and people -- that are discredited and destructive.
To see why that's a good thing, not a bad thing, go watch the Dick Armey video or read the platform of the Texas GOP. Or re-review what has happened over the last eight years. The further away one is from that morass, the better; the closer one is to it, the worse off things will be.
UPDATE: Those claiming that Obama has masterfully depicted the Republicans as arrogant obstructionists by extending the hand of compromise should review this latest Rasmussen Reports poll, which finds the public split almost evenly on whether they support the Obama/Democratic economic recovery package, with a clear trend towards increased opposition.
This is what happens every single time: the Democrats do everything possible to "accommodate" the Republican position and then get attacked anyway (they voted in large numbers for the Iraq War in and then got attacked for being soft on Terror in 2002; they voted for virtually every Bush "Terrorism" policy and the same thing happened, etc.). Here, they did everything possible to change their bill to please Republicans and nothing is happening except full-scale GOP opposition accompanied by a constant barrage of GOP attacks against them as big-spending, reckless, wealth-transferring liberals.
Ultimately, the success of this program will be measured by whether it produces successful results, so why shouldn't Democrats use their majority to enact the policy they think is most likely to achieve that? That's true on this issue and in general.
22 Comments so far
Show Alldeleted by author
Normally Glenn Greenwald is spot on, but this newfound reverence for the Democratic Party baffles me. Gone is last summer when he teamed up with those "repugnant" Republican Ron Paul supporters in the name of supporting the Constitution while Democrats, including Obama, were quite willing to trash our 4th Amendment.
Remember this?
http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/
The Democratic Party is always painted as "making concessions" and "bowing to the GOP." The mythical concept of "liberal victimhood" is complete. Poor Democrats. Even with a new majority and a new president, they are still hoping to capitalize on blaming the GOP for their failure to offer something different. Dems won in 2006, and they sat on their hands for 2 years, lording over the mountain of discontent that could be turned into a landslide. They let it build and tried to hide away real human beings like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel (how embarrasing) who sought change. They let Bush continue to destroy America as they looked on. No substantial opposition to the war in Iraq, no substantial opposition to domestic spying (Yes, Feingold, we were disappointed too.), no alternative cry for a change in foreign policy that has been the exact same through every administration, Democrat or Republican. Nothing.
All so Democrats could herald the coming of their Savior riding into Washington on a donkey this month.
To pass these establishment weasels off as honest movers and shakers who just can't compromise their way past bullheaded Republicans...is naive.
Has Greenwald considered the idea that maybe some Republicans have a genuinely well-thought reason for opposing the Obama stimulus, and aren't doing so simply to draw out concessions or because they "don't want to play nice."
Peter Schiff (Ron Paul's economic advisor) was warning us in the early 2000's about the coming mortgage crisis and the devaluation of the dollar. People were laughing at him. Now this prophet of doom is predicting that Obama's stimulus plan will only not exacerbate massive government debt, but will increase the odds of sparking an inflationary crisis.
If we genuinely believe that such an action could seriously harm our nation, should we simply put our differing judgment aside and put our faith in Jesus...I mean Obama, and cross our fingers?
How American. "Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith." Wasn't that the line from Obama's inaugural speech? Oh wait...that line is from the fascist government in "V for Vendetta!"
What happened to reason and diversity of thought? What happened to questioning authority or spirited debate? What happened to "Look before you leap?" Have we ever rushed such huge monetary decisions through Congress with so little discussion or planning?
Today's Democrats are stuck--maybe permanently--in avoidance mode. I think it started with liberals avoiding looking "weak" in the Cold War and then going to great lengths to avoid looking like liberals in general and spread, gaining momentum, to the rest of the party, to the point now it's a full blown identity crisis where they try to avoid looking like Democrats.
They just don't trust themselves as Democrats. Even in their hour of triumph they're left to dangle from Republican coattails.
gregsdiary January 29th, 2009 9:49 pm, I can only say what I've heard -- many Dems were gobsmacked by Bush squirming into office in 2000, and unprepared to fight back on the nasty, underhanded GOP terms. (You know the old 'they brought a featherduster to a knife fight' thing.) They were also being advised by the Republican-Lite DLC that the country was conservative now and, if they wanted to retain their soft jobs in Congress, they'd better get with the program.
OTOH, I've heard that Karl Rove, like J. Edgar Hoover before him, had secret files on nearly every Dem in Congress and Rove didn't stop at the elected official his or herself -- he kept files on their families, and threatened to expose whatever skeletons were in the closet and ruin them. Of course, if they couldn't find anything juicy enough, they'd just make it up and pipeline it to the Right-Wing Noise Machine for wide distribution, knowing full well the Big Media would pick it up and run with it and by the time the truth caught up, the damage was done. (The ridiculous 'Obama is a Muslim' and 'Obama wasn't born in the US' being two examples of this technique.)
Remember Whitewater? That was an instance of a story blown completely out of proportion by the right, and that the BM obsessed on for years, although the facts were that the Clintons had lost money on the Whitewater deal and there was nothing else to report. Everyone in the BM knew this and pursued the story anyway -- it took on a life of its own.
I agree with you that the Republicans brought dirty pool to a whole new level--especially concerning the use of race in strategy. But I don't think that quite explains everything--or even most of it.
You have to wonder why the Republican ideas like "moral clarity" seem to resonate so strongly across a broad spectrum of people. Maybe it's because there's not a competing moral clarity out there to challenge it.
For the last 40 or so years, Democrats have simply been imitating the Republicans' separation of economic and social issues. The result is that at best, the Democrats appear economically opportunistic--and at worst morally inept.
Either way, they never beat the Republicans at their own game of "free" markets and philanthropy.
So as race (not to mention the Cold War) becomes less effective for Republicans, why the continuing avoidance of economic moral clarity with the retreat to "pragmatism" by Democrats?
Are there any issues today that combine economic fairness and moral clarity?
I think there are such opportunities--like healthcare--but apparently, for the Democrats, old habits die hard.
And here we go again. It simply does not matter how large a majority the Democrats get. The could have all the Senate seats, all the house seats, and the Supreme Court, and they still would be talking about obstructionism. They support the tax cuts and other benefits to big business in the "stimulus" package. This is just a clever ruse to give the Republicans blame for the Democrat's policies. They blamed Bush for the continuation of the War in Iraq, when they needed 41 votes in the Senate or a majority in the House to end it. And the U.S. is still in Iraq. The Republicans of course are playing the role of the "bad cop" perfectly. But there are no real good guys in a game of good cop, bad cop.
A good example of Greenwald's point here is the way Obama sucked up to McCain, very publicly, before and after the inauguration, making sure Republicans understood clearly how willing he was to play ball by their rules. Now, McCain was one of the most outspoken critics of the stimulus package, clearly signalling to Obama what his loyalty to the far right is worth. For them, bipartisanship means they win, like always. That Obama appears to be too dense to see this, or that he's perfectly fine with it, doesn't augur well for progressives. What a surprise!
Glenn Greenwald wrote: "Armey himself, in a 2002 Hardball appearance, advocated that Palestinians should "leave" the West Bank and Gaza (which Armey believes is part of Israel) and go somewhere else."
Why didn't Armey invite them to live in Texas? Plenty of sand, religious nuts, hostility and rampant ignorance -- ingredients that would make the Palestinians feel right at home.
On the other side of that he could have invited the Israelis to go and live in the Mojave desert. Thee has to be a two state solution, and Jerusalem has to be an open city. Not, an undivided one, like Dennis Ross, and aipac are looking for.
The MSM have fueled to Repbulican attack fires by permitting them to dominate the debate (the appearance on one republican after another on networks and cable shows with many fewer Dems to speak in favor to the stimulus/jobs saving and creation pacckage), by permitting falsehoods to gain traction because of their lack of critical analysis, and the focus on silly stories that make headlines.
Politicscorner
I have no issues with Obama trying to build bipartisan support but the time should be short and if no willingness exists, he should respect popular opinion and eviscerate the GOP. Who would support them? These jerks are Republican "Me Firsts" and not Americans.
Obama should take advantage of the current situation and stick it to the Bush Administration for their broad violations of constitutional law among other felonies. Americans deserve to see the full extent of the GOP's criminal destructive actions and every one of the miscreants need to be held to account and no one should have one doubt about what these scumbags stand for. Make it so embarrassing to admit to being a Republican that nobody would want to own it.
He should apply Grover Norquist's position on government to the GOP itself. Shrink it until it is small enough to drown in the bathtub. If they want to fight kick their racist, anti-US, anti-environment, anti-fiscal responsibility, single-minded, single digit IQ asses down the road!
Warning- I am about to make a Politically Incorrect (PI) staement.
So far it seems that, as many here have stated here in CD, there is really only one political party named the Repugocrats(or Demoblicans).
It seems that it makes no difference if the face is white or black, the rich and connected are still in control via the military corporate complex, strongly supported by tax dollars sent to Israel and returned via lobbyists.
In fact, it seems as if there may be a grain of truth in Al-Qaeda comments about 'Uncle Tom'.
In Afghanistan, we are now touting only a military solution by the US. No talk of any other strategy, unless the EU wants it.
Continuing strikes into Pakistan, which was a sovereign country last time I looked.
Ongoing interference in Afghan politics is attrocious. Our upcoming dumping of Karzai(our puppet who is getting a mind of his own) reminds me of our manipulation of South Vietnamese leaders(including assassination) when they wanted us out.
Even stronger support for Israel's policies and spouting of Israeli Zionist propaganda than Bush.
His racist addressing of the 'Muslim World'. (As any intelligent human being, especially Muslims around the world know, there is no such thing-there are many faces to Islam). This defines all Muslims as being identical others - treating them as less than human beings. Objectifying others usually means you are about to attack them.
Just some ugly thoughts that are beginning to fester!!
But I could be wrong !
Rush Limbaugh has become THE conservative archetype: A middle-aged white man, who didn't serve in the military, but has supported every "war" for the past 25 years. A prescription drug addict who supports the "war" on drugs(particularly medical marijuana laws). A tax-dodger who supports strict laws on welfare cheats and finally, a grossly overweight slob who has become a out-front misogynist because women aren't attracted to him anymore. (A friend knew Rush when he was a de facto pimp for the Kansas City Chiefs and says Rush was quite a ladies man in those days.)
The Repugs need a new role model.
"The Repugs need a new role model."
The thrice-divorced spokesmouth revelling in the dough as his primary employer throws 2800 people off ist payroll is the perfect representative for the party.
This is the best article I've read in years!
I've been out for blood since the 2000 election awaiting any Democrat who would take the Republicans to court over that Constitutional crisis. I'm still waiting for any recourse.
Orwell would be proud to see how well his prediction has played out.
The MOST important changes required are the dismantling of the media conglomerates and the reinstatement and enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine and it must be expanded to cover cable.
Until Joe Sixpack is force fed the other point of view Republicans will continue to get away with their distortions of reality.
BTW, Hillary wouldn't have put up with this shit. She'd been there, done that.
Sioux Rose
VINNIE: The media issue is right on! I have friends who STILL blame welfare Mamas but are completely incredulous when I try to tell them about all the corporate welfare that passes under the radar as everyday senate/congress fare.
I am still very amused by this "what's in a name" thing. Dick Armey, a/k/a the ARMEY's dick, the Republican majority leader who pimped for the military industrial complex hiding behind all that End times pabulum about the holy land, it's like he was named for the part. Like Neil KASHKARI (cash & carry) or MADOFF (made off), I mean could Hollywood write a more contrived script?
Very glad to see someone talking good sense about the current national politics instead of the grotesque prattle about the US being a center right nation, about "moderation", about how the voters aren't ready for left wing politics. Some of us who supported and even worked for Obama were nevertheless worried that all his talk about bipartisanship and including everyone in the process would mean either that he like most of the Democrats most of the time would not have the spine to brook the Rethuglicans or that his politics were really DLC Rethuglican Lite anyway. Then came the gaggle of Cabinet and advisor appointments almost all of whom were from the Rethug Lite Clintonistas; somehow from the promised experience and new ideas all the new ideas got eliminated. Then came the low-ball stimulus proposal, touted as the best that could be gotten through Congress despite the Democrats holding a majority in both houses. Then came substitution of tax cuts for direct stimulus to please the Rethugs. Then came soft pedaling criticism of the Rethugs as they blared their standard cant. Then came the voters shifting from 3-1 in favor of the stimulus to voters evenly split. Kinda looks like Obama and the Dems aim to give governing over to the Rethugs since they were still stuck in the end with a slim lead in an election that was theirs to lose.
Obama has made some good moves in his first week by aiming to close Gitmo, restricting interrogations to the Army Field Manual, and limiting government secrecy. The rabid right is of course all up in arms about these moves, claiming that Obama is inviting the terrorist attack Dick and his Dummy prevented by their unconstitutional mode of authoritarian government. So far, so good, but the devil is in the still to be disclosed details, like the CIA, which allegedly did most of the torture anyway, not being subject to the Army Field Manual. The AIPAC crowd have their bowels in a horrendous uproar about Obama's first call being to the quisling Abbas and his first TV interview being with the Saudi's mouthpiece "moderate" Al Arabica. But seems poor underdevelped Israel will still get more foreign aid than any other country and that the US will still be providing them with discount state of the art military goodies. 'Course, poor persecuted Israel has to keep up that 100 enemy death for each Israeli death ratio to keep Hamas' homemade rockets from pushing it into the sea by next Tuesday.
Meanwhile, foreclosures are up, jobs are in free fall, consumer spending is down close to the bone, and bank mergers on our nickels are up. The most exalted deserving rich have mounted a smear campaign against the Card Check bill claiming it tramples "democracy". Well, it does, at least the sort of "democracy" the plutocrats like, the kind where their side has all the money and coercion and is assured that no illegal moves on their part will be punished, sort of like OH in '04 and FL in '00. 'Course what the plutocrats are really upset about is that the bill finally puts some teeth into penalties for election abuses. Still, the Obama folks are hemming and hawing trying to find some "bipartisan" common ground.
As one of those who floated on an euphoric cloud for days after Obama was elected and teared for his inaugural address, I am terribly disappointed to see this man who coulda' been a contenda fritter away his possibilities trying to get the playground bully to pay him some mind. The arrogant right likes to call the left weak kneed. Sadly, they may be right.
Obama has made his promised overtures for bi-partisanship. Let him try it a few more times and see the same results. The time is coming when success for democrats, or public interest, can only happen when they OPPOSE republicans.
Obama needs to forcefully tell America that unless you are a rich bigot, the republicans are not your friends. Obama needs to hammer at the total failure of right wing ideology. He also needs to work on the appeasing corporatist Republicrats of his own party.
And yes, I know Obama is a bit of a corporatist as well. That's something he must change about himself, or he is doomed to failure.
Leadership is about overcoming opposition, not sharing power with them.
Otherwise the Reich Wing will continue their obstruction and destruction of our government and country.
http://davedubya.com
Dave Dubya January 29th, 2009 11:32 am, Obama thinks about two moves ahead of most of the rest of us, including some posters here on this thread -- that's how he got to be president in the first place with the odds stacked against him.
In watching this dust-up over the stimulus package, I'm reminded of his first debate with McCain when he agreed with him 21 or 22 times, incurring the wrath of many on the left. Yet the impression left in the minds of most voters didn't have to do with particular issues, but that Obama came off as a decent, reasonable guy trying to deal with a cranky, out-of-it old man -- exactly the impression he wanted to make.
I have a feeling this, too, is positioning the GOP to look like obstructionists hung by their own 'more of the same' rope, and ceding to them the rural 22 percent of racists, religious fanatics and Dittoheads who will keep the Republicans the minority party well into the future.
Looking at what he has accomplished in his first week as president -- ending torture, closing Gitmo, increasing government transparency and ethics, signing the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, et al -- I have to think he is moving in a progressive direction at his own pace, just as FDR did.
I don't agree with any sort of 'bipartisanship' with the uber-partisan GOP neocons, but I do see the political necessity of employing this tactic in order to smoke the 'real' GOP out, and that has worked brilliantly. They are babbling drivel in public -- more tax cuts for people who don't have jobs? -- and insuring only their dwindling base will vote for them in 2010.
Obama's model is Abraham Lincoln, who was constantly accused by the abolitionist purists of being a compromiser -- after all, he said he had no intent to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed.
But the Confederate traitors knew very well that 'not interfering' meant economic destruction for slavery, which could only expand at the expense of everyone's liberties.
We know the Reptiles will continue to hunker in the bunker, and the more they do, the better Obama will look to those who are persaudable. This is great strategy for 2010, since mid-terms are generally bad for the party in power. Obama is giving the amerifascists all the rope they need to hang themselves.
RSJ, I hope you are right. Obama is a brilliant tactician and this could play out for him eventually.
Still, the far right must be alienated, exposed for who they are, and disconnected from the process of government. So much needs to done to reverse our nation's thirty years of conservative indoctrination.
And the MSM will tend to allow a disproportionate amount of rabid righties air time in order to show they are not the dreaded "liberal media". We can count on them to be harder on Obama than they were on Bush.
I really want to see Obama demonstrate leadership without the usual Clintonian triangulation. He will be under great pressure to emulate Clinton's "success". And this is the threat that comes from within his party.
Like I say, let him reach out a couple more times in order to show the public the Right's true uncompromising nature. Eventually he must proceed with advancing his cause while de-legitimizing the Republicans' agenda.
http://davedubya.com
Dave Dubya January 29th, 2009 7:30 pm: "Still, the far right must be alienated, exposed for who they are, and disconnected from the process of government. So much needs to done to reverse our nation's thirty years of conservative indoctrination."
That's true, Dave, but this is like judo -- using the opponent's weight against them. Just like Junior, the more the right-wing talks, the worse they do. I heard some neocon Congresscreature on TV the other day fulminating against health care for uninsured kids. He was completely unaware of what a mean-spirited Scroogeish jerk he sounded like. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Goofball) was on today questioning the Dems wanting to extend health care to people with long-term illnesses -- I believe he called it a waste of money that wouldn't stimulate the economy. He also was clueless as to his careless cruelty -- the man doesn't want to fund cancer patients and others with life-threatening diseases!
These days, everyone I meet either had a long-term condition where their HMO dropped them, has had a short-term hospital stay where the insurer tried to weasel out of paying part or all of the cost, or know someone in that situation. When they hear Republicans bloviate against health care in this manner, they turn pretty angry.
On top of that, add Rush wishing Obama fails. This doesn't sit well even with some Republicans.
I have some faith that times have changed and Obama is no DLC-Bill Clinton.