"Bipartisanship" to the GOP means that Democrats come to them on their terms!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 8, 2010 - 11:59pm.
Rapid Response
Hello Everyone:
It has got to be articulated to the country that the definition of "bipartisanship" to GOP leaders really means how Democrats will come to them on their terms to find something in common. This kind of "Bipartisanship" works only one way to them where Democrats are doing all of the giving while Republicans do not give anything back in return. In other words, Democrats have to accept as much Republican agenda as they can while the Republicans will not vote for any Democratic legislation.
I was absolutely thrilled to see Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) articulate what the Republican view of "bipartisanship" really is on CNN last Sunday. I completely agree with him and this is exactly what the entire country needs to be made aware of as soon as possible:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1003/07/sotu.01.html
STATE OF THE UNION WITH CANDY CROWLEY
Interview With Congressman Van Hollen, Congressman Baird; Interview With Tom DeLay
Aired March 7, 2010 - 09:00 ET
CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: "Let me ask you, if you are both comfortable with the notion that a bill which encompasses one sixth of the economy is going to e passed or may be passed out of Congress and signed by the president that is all Democratic, that not a single Republican vote, a Democratic president, is that a comfortable place for you all to be?
REP. BRIAN BAIRD (D-WA): Let me put a mark on that. I oppose the House procedure. When the bill came up before the House, I felt we should have allowed the Republicans to offer amendments, we did not. And I think that was a mistake. It's part of why I voted no on the rule.
Having said that, you know, when you watch the president's summit, time after time after time he said to the Republicans is there anything in this you would agree with, and they dodge the question. You know if you don't have -- Tom DeLay was on "Dancing with the Stars," we don't have a dance partner. We don't have someone on the other side who is seriously willing to say if you do these things, you will have our support. And the reason is they see it as such a potent political weapon. And so they're taking the health care --
CROWLEY: No Republican in the Senate or the House has any interest in getting health care to the uninsured or in getting --
BAIRD: No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is I think at this point they are not willing to even come a little bit of distance to try to find common ground because they are so eager to have this as a political weapon in the fall. And that's terribly unfortunate. If that's the case, and if a handful of people in the Senate can tie things up with record numbers of filibusters, you are left relatively no choice. But let's be clear about two things. One, the choice you're left with is a majority vote which I think most people think is how we ought to do things anyway, and secondly the Republicans used reconciliation multiple times including for the mother of all deficit increases, the Bush tax cuts..."
Here is the CNN video link to watch this very informative dialogue:
March 8, 2010
Retiring Democrat unsure on health care
Posted: March 8th, 2010 07:44 AM ET
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/brian-baird/?fbid=-7haR7N_KDM
Filed under: Brian Baird • Health care • State of the Union
Here are four credibly documented examples of this where Sarah Palin, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) who is the number three House Republican, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) all agree that they will not give anything to the Democrats and that if anything "bipartisan" is going to get done, then it means that Democrats have to come to the Republicans on their terms:
1) Sarah Palin very openly admitted to this GOP definition of "bipartisanship" in her tea party speech (see my point number 4 in this post):
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18356
Palin tried to sugar coat and sell Limbaugh's ideology in her tea party speech!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 10, 2010 - 7:55am.
"Bipartisanship" to Sarah Palin is when more conservative Democrats like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) are coming to her on her terms on an issue which is the reason why they have something in common:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1002/06/cnr.09.html
CNN NEWSROOM
Sarah Palin Speaks at Tea Party Convention
Aired February 6, 2010 - 21:00 ET
SARAH PALIN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: "When people are willing to meet halfway and stand up for common sense solutions and values, then we want to work with them. And in that spirit, I applaud Independents and Democrats like Bart Stupak who stood up to tough partisan pressure and he wanted to protect the sanctity of life and the rights of the soon to be born. I applaud him for that..."
Sarah Palin openly admitted that she does not have any "intention to work with the other party on a specific issue" which means that she is not willing to give anything on an issue in order to get something which is what serious bipartisanship really is:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1002/06/cnr.10.html
CNN NEWSROOM
Sarah Palin Speaking at the National Tea Party Convention; One Weather System, Two Different Results; Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu Elected Mayor of New Orleans
Aired February 6, 2010 - 22:00 ET
QUESTION: "If you are president tomorrow, you had everything in place, what three problems would be the first problems you tackle?
SARAH PALIN, FORMER REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, we talked about the energy projects that have got to be introduced and progressed so that they actually come to fruition, and we're not just talking about them. And we talked a little bit about the spending cuts that have to take place and this growing debt that we have to get our arms around.
I think that I'm all for the bipartisan work effort that is needed in Washington, D.C., but I think one of the issues that has to be tackled in D.C. -- and if I were ever in a position to help with this is -- is not make the promises about the bipartisanship if the promise can't be fulfilled, if truly there is not an intention to work with the other party on a specific issue.
Because say they are so fundamentally disagreeable to something like the takeover of the private sector health care -- one-sixth of our economy -- then don't tell the American people, don't fake it, don't pretend like you want to work with the other party on that because that distrust that is built -- and this is what I would work on if I were in a position -- the distrust that is built makes us distrust all the decisions that are made coming out of Washington and that makes us a less secure nation..."
2) House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) told David Gregory on Meet The Press back on Feb. 28 that he could not accept even one of Obama's health care proposals when he was asked about that twice:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35624901/ns/meet_the_press/page/4/
'Meet the Press' transcript for Feb. 28, 2010
MR. DAVID GREGORY: "Congressman, I want this very narrow point. What would be in a revised bill that you could vote for? What, out of all the president's ideas, could you support now?
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA): Well, we, we could start with implementing real medical malpractice reform. We could start by creating universal access programs at the state level to allow those who are being denied coverage by their insurance company right now the ability to access insurance. We could put in place the ability, real ability, for people to purchase insurance across state lines for real competition that would help bring down costs.
MR. GREGORY: And if those elements--for instance, those three elements, you could vote for it under those circumstances?
REP. CANTOR: If, if you listen to my discussion and my comments with the president on--at the Blair House, when he asked that, I said, "Look, it is the construct of the bill." It goes back to the level of mandate from Washington, And the president and I had an exchange about why is it that we need the secretary of Health and Human Services here in Washington telling people what benefits should look like..."
3) Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) answered "we'll never compromise our principles" when he was asked "Will you compromise with Democrats?" He also made it clear that "bipartisanship" is Obama coming to him on his terms:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1002/24/acd.02.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Killer Whale, Deadly Attack; Broken Government: Health Care; Haiti Cashing In?; Toyota Chief Grilled; President Obama's Health Care Summit
Aired February 24, 2010 - 23:00 ET
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN GUEST ANCHOR: "Congressman Pence, let me put that to you. At a recent Republican conference, the CPAC conference, you said no is underrated, sometimes no is what this town needs. When Democrats are offering to compromise just like your colleague did there, can you ever take yes for an answer? Will you compromise with Democrats?
REP. MIKE PENCE (R), INDIANA: Look, I think Republicans will always be willing to compromise for our principles, but we'll never compromise our principles. And to the point of your first question, though, I really do believe that while, like any American, you know, we hope that we can have a fresh start tomorrow at the White House. That we begin with a clean sheet of paper, scrap the bills that have passed the House and the Senate.
The fact that the administration has unveiled a massive new bill which is just some changes in the 2,000-page bill that passed the Senate and they've unveiled that before sitting down for this open discussion tomorrow is a bit discouraging to many of us who know that -- and I'll give you a piece of agreement here -- Chris and I both know we've got to do something to lower the cost of health insurance in this country. We have to do something to lower the long term costs of health care.
But the president even before tomorrow's so-called summit, has thrown his arms around a big government takeover approach that passed the House and the Senate and has dropped that in the middle of the table. And I can't help but think that that is going to make it very, very difficult for tomorrow to be any much more than a six-hour infomercial.
YELLIN: Congressman Pence, are you at all worried that your party will be cast as obstructionist come November?
PENCE: Look. As I said last week and you quoted me, I think no is way underrated here in Washington, D.C. When it comes to more borrowing, more spending, more taxes, more bailouts, more government takeovers, I think the majority of Americans want us to say no..."
4) Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made it very clear that there is nothing Obama can do with his health care bill that he could support and he also made it clear that Obama has to come to him on his terms if anything is going to get done with health care:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1002/28/sotu.01.html
STATE OF THE UNION WITH CANDY CROWLEY
Interview With Nancy Pelosi; Interview With Mitch McConnell
Aired February 28, 2010 - 09:00 ET
CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: "Let me start with your ending position after the summit. And that is, start over again.
CROWLEY: Short of that, is there any way the president can reconfigure this bill that would get your support?
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I don't think so, Candy. I mean, this is a massive overhaul of one-sixth of the economy. Republicans just don't believe that half-a-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts and a half-a-trillion dollars in new taxes and possibly higher insurance premiums for all of those on the individual market is the definition of reform.
We -- we had a chance Thursday actually to display some of our brightest, most knowledgeable Republicans. I thought it was actually very good for us because it certainly refuted the notion that Republicans are not interested in this subject and not knowledgeable about it and don't have alternatives.
And we laid out a number of different things that we think will make a lot more sense, to go step by step to fix the cost problem..."
Sen. Mitch McConnell fears Rush Limbaugh so much that his aides literally report to him what McConnell is doing to obstruct Obama's health care agenda:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18215
Mitch McConnell's aides called Rush Limbaugh "to explain their tactics" to him!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 16, 2009 - 5:08am.
In conclusion, it is very clear that Obama has absolutely nothing to work with when it comes to seriously negotiating with the Republicans when "bipartisanship" to them means Democrats coming to them on their terms while getting nothing in return that they want from the Republicans. That in my opinion is sheer arrogance, it is acting like they did know that they lost an election, and it is why any kind of serious bipartisanship is NOT possible with them:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17338
ANALYSIS: Why Bipartisanship is NOT possible with far right wing GOP ideologues!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 17, 2009 - 6:21pm.
Obama only has three choices which are to do nothing with health care, pass a health care bill on the Republican's terms, or cram a Democratic health care bill right down the Republican's throats any legal way that he can. Options one and two will show that Obama is weak, that he will not stand for what he thinks is right, and that he cannot govern. Option three is the "least bad" choice in my opinion which is why I think that Obama and Democrats should risk using reconciliation:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18353
Obama must say "No" to the GOP's request of not using reconciliation to meet!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 9, 2010 - 7:22am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17957
ANALYSIS: The benefits and risks if health care is passed using reconciliation
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 23, 2009 - 7:28am.
Obama in my opinion has already been as bipartisan as possible and it has gotten him absolutely nowhere:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/17823
Why John McCain was dead wrong to say Obama has failed the bipartisan test!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 8, 2009 - 10:19am.
My hopes are that Obama realizes that he cannot seriously negotiate with the Republicans as long as they fear Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and their tea party activists so much (because they know that they will be primaried by them the next time that they are on the ballot if they do anything to seriously work with Obama) and that Obama uses the budget reconciliation process in as thoughtful and responsible of a manner as possible. That in my opinion is Obama's best solution to resolve the health care issue and to show the country that he can govern!
Mitch Dworkin
http://mitchdworkin.com/
Check out my political website!
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
when it came to the health care debate. The Republicans got just what they deserved for their not being willing to participate in serious bipartisan negotiations in my opinion!
Here is the YouTube video to watch former Bush speechwriter David Frum talking about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7jRjkVc5tc&feature=player_embedded
Frum: GOP's Health Care Loss Not Worth Potential Midterm Gains (1:48)
tpmtv
March 21, 2010
"more at msnbc.com"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7jRjkVc5tc&feature=player_embedded
Here is Favid Frum's article titled "Waterloo" where he honestly criticized the GOP about how they handled health care by saying "we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles:"
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
Waterloo
March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum | 126 Comments | Share
Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
by automatically overruling any technicalities that the parliamentarian may give to the Republicans!
If the GOP tries to obstruct health care in the Senate by using technicalities that will only delay the inevitable and are a waste of the people's time, then I think that Joe Biden should just go down there and overrule the parliamentarian whenever he needs to which everybody agrees that he has the authority to do:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/biden-can-single-handedly_n_481031.html
Sam Stein
| HuffPost Reporting
Biden Can Single-Handedly Run The Reconciliation Process: Parliamentarian Experts (VIDEO)
First Posted: 03- 1-10 01:51 PM | Updated: 03- 1-10 02:53 PM
"Should passing health care reform come down to the use of reconciliation -- and all signs point that way -- Vice President Joseph Biden could play a hugely influential role in determining not only what's in the bill but whether or not it passes.
Two experts in the arcane rules of the Senate said on Monday that, as president of the Senate, Biden has the capacity not just to overrule any ruling that the parliamentarian may make but also to cut off efforts by Republicans to offer unlimited amendments.
"Ultimately it's the Vice President of the United States [who has the power over the reconciliation process]," Robert Dove, who served as Senate parliamentarian on and off from 1981-2001, told MSNBC this morning. "It is the decision of the Vice President whether or not to play a role here... And I have seen Vice Presidents play that role in other very important situations... The parliamentarian can only advise. It is the vice president who rules."
March 1, 2010 | 11:12 AM ET
VP Biden Could Blow Up Senate on Healthcare
"Most people think all the Vice President does is break ties, but a former Senate parliamentarian has just delineated a job that could be FAR more controversial and important: the Vice President can override the Senate's nonpartisan arbiter of the chamber's rules, the parliamentarian.
Talk about the real nuclear, heck - kamikaze, option, the specter of Vice President Joe Biden (former long time senator) overruling the current parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, during the upcoming healthcare debate, as Democrats work to get around a GOP filibuster.
"It is the decision of the Vice President whether or not to play a role here," former Senate parliamentarian Robert "Bob" Dove told MSNBC. Dove said the parliamentarian is merely dispensing advice, and the Vice President can overrule that advice, even though "not since Hubert Humphrey" has this happened..."
Biden Can Overrule Senate Parliamentarian On Healthcare Vote, Says Expert
Posted by University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service on March 15, 2010
"Cheryl D. Block J.D., a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, says the Vice President has the authority to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian during reconciliation if he does not agree with his/her vote. (0:20)
Standard Podcast [0:20m]: Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download"
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/Biden_can_overrule_parliamentarian.html
March 01, 2010
Categories:Senate ,White House
"Former Senate parliamentarian Robert Dove, a guy who's been getting a lot of exposure lately, says that the vice president, in his role as president of the Senate, can overrule the parliamentarian's calls on what provisions fit under reconciliation rules and which don't -- a fact that could fundamentally alter the floor debate should Democrats use the maneuver to bypass Republicans' filibuster threat..."
If the GOP is going to play hardball such as in a clearly lost basketball game by trying to indefinitely foul on purpose in order to stop the clock just to delay their eventually losing, then I think that Democrats have to get equally as tough with them. Democrats need to finish this process as soon as possible and then get focused on the economy. Democrats do not have time to waste on Republican stall tactics which they are only using to energize their hard core activist base and very few people in middle America (if any) will remember Biden doing this in November if the Republicans leave him no choice but to do it now!
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4067121/obamas-health-care-plan-is-it-right
March 4, 2010
Obamacare: Is It 'Right'?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4067121/obamas-health-care-plan-is-it-right
An inside look at the president's final reform push and his mindset after Wednesday's speech
• Read Greta's Interview
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587943,00.html
Will Democrats Stand By Obama's Health Care Plan?
Thursday, March 04, 2010
FNC
President Obama
This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," March 3, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tonight: President Obama says that is it, no more debate. He tells Congress, Vote. In other words, reconciliation is fine with him. Meanwhile, Republicans are gearing up. Can the Republicans do anything to stop this health care bill?
Republican senator Jim DeMint joins us live. Senator, seems like the ball is now in your court. I know you don't like this bill. Are you stuck with it, or can you do something?
SEN. JIM DEMINT, R - S.C.: Well, I've actually been encouraged. And the battle is not going to be in the Senate. While the president's distracting us with one hand with this new bill, he was meeting with Democrats at the White House tonight, from the House, trying to convince them to vote for the Senate version of the bill, which they said they couldn't vote for. What he's trying to do now, Greta, is get the House to pass the Senate version of the health bill and promising to fix it later with reconciliation in the Senate. It's a very confusing process that he's talking about.
VAN SUSTEREN: So basically, are you telling me that what your hope is, in terms of fighting the bill, is you're hoping that the House just falls apart and they can't -- that it will not accept it. Do you have anything other than your wish or hope that the Senate -- or that the House falls apart?
DEMINT: Yes, I don't think the Blue Dogs in the House are going to go back on what they've said. They said they would not vote for this. And Bart Stupak and some other social conservatives are concerned about the abortion language.
VAN SUSTEREN: But so you're depending on them?
DEMINT: I'm dependent on the Democrats in the House not to be fooled by what the president's saying. What the president's saying, Greta, is if they vote on this and pass it, then all of this -- this problem with the health care will be behind them and then they can move on to the election. But we want to make sure they know, first of all, it's not going to get fixed in the Senate because we have 41 senators who will stop what they're trying do. They will go into the election with this albatross around their neck, and most Republicans will campaign on repealing it.
VAN SUSTEREN: But do they need 41 -- what do they need in the Senate?
DEMINT: Yes, there are points of order against what they're trying to do, which requires 60 votes to overcome.
VAN SUSTEREN: So you get it that way. But OK, so are you doing anything to convince the Bart Stupak Democrats and the Blue Dog Democrats (INAUDIBLE)
DEMINT: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: Are you, like, calling them up and saying, If you -- you're out of your mind if you think we're going to do this?
DEMINT: Well, I have talked to a few of them. And they're smarter than this. I think the whole supposition of the president is that we're all stupid and that he can keep saying it's one thing and -- while it really is another. I think he wants to -- he's willing to sacrifice a lot of Democrats. I don't think the Blue Dogs and the Bart Stupaks of the world are going to go back on their word.
VAN SUSTEREN: So are you actually calling them?
DEMINT: Well, I've talked to a few of them.
VAN SUSTEREN: What does that mean? You pick up the phone and you say...
DEMINT: No, I bump into them a lot and...
VAN SUSTEREN: Purposely?
DEMINT: Yes. I mean...
VAN SUSTEREN: So you're hustling them!
DEMINT: No, I'm -- they don't listen to what I say. I'm trying to find out what they're thinking. And the inclination I've gotten from them is that, certainly, they want to help the president, but they feel like he's leading them off a cliff on this. And I may be wrong, Greta, but I think the Democrats in the House will not vote for this Senate bill and they will not believe this idea, Oh, let's make this law and we'll fix it later.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did President Obama say anything today that you think, OK, I can live with that portion, so that you're at least moving close to agreement on some things?
DEMINT: No, what he did today, Greta, was like pouring one clean glass of water in a polluted lake. And so he took a few ideas and said, We'll try these in a kind of a limited form. But he kept his 2,700 pages of nonsense. So...
VAN SUSTEREN: Did he give you anything?
DEMINT: No -- I think -- I'm afraid something that sounded close to arrogance, that he knows he's right. He's going to go ahead. I don't think he did himself any favors today.
But we're very close to the final showdown on this health care. I think it's going to be in the next week or two. And a lot depends on the American people. If they have lost interest in this, it could pass the House. But if they call their Democrat congressmen all over the country, I think you'll see that the House will not pass the Senate version.
VAN SUSTEREN: Are the Senate Republicans sort of gathering in the last day or so, talking about sort of your strategy? I mean, do you have some sort of even strategy to reach out to the House Democrats to tell them that, Look, you know, we're not going to go your way?
DEMINT: Yes. We are. We're going to show them 41 names of Republicans who are not going to allow any changes if they put this thing into law. So if the House Democrats pass the Senate version, they're going to own it because this idea...
VAN SUSTEREN: So there's going to be nothing in -- basically, they won't get anything -- anything out of any later fix-up?
DEMINT: If the president's promising they're going to fix it later in the Senate, that promise is not going to come true. And we've got 41 Republicans who will say it isn't going to come true.
VAN SUSTEREN: When are you going to show the House that?
DEMINT: We'll probably show it to them this week. I mean...
VAN SUSTEREN: How do you actually show it to them, send them over a letter and say, Here it is?
DEMINT: We probably will, or do a press release, or whatever. But they'll know. And most of them have been around long enough to know. I was told so many times when we were in the majority, DeMint, vote for this bill and we'll fix it when it gets to conference. It never gets fixed. So if they pass this and the president signs it, they're going to be stuck with it in November. And so will the American people.
And this really is a bad bill, Greta, and we need to get on to doing some things that are step-by-step that make our system better. The president has not been willing to listen to it. He wants a big FDR-type health care takeover, and I hope the Democrats in the House won't give it to him.
VAN SUSTEREN: Senator, thank you, sir.
DEMINT: Thank you, Greta.