Obama Repeatedly Reminds House GOP Of Their Zero Stimulus Votes

In a meeting with House Republicans at the White House Thursday, President Obama reminded the minority that the last time he reached out to them, they reacted with zero votes -- twice -- for his stimulus package. And then he reminded them again. And again. And again.

A GOP source familiar with the meeting said that the president was extremely sensitive -- even "thin-skinned" -- to the fact that the stimulus bill received no GOP votes in the House. He continually brought it up throughout the meeting.

Obama also offered payback for that goose egg. A major overhaul of the health care system, he told the Republican leadership, would be done using a legislative process known as reconciliation, meaning that the GOP won't be able to filibuster it.

Congress has until October 15 to pass health care or student lending reform under the normal process. If it doesn't, reconciliation can be used to eliminate the 60-vote requirement.

Democratic aides said that Obama made clear to the GOP leadership that he would continue to work in a bipartisan way, but that they didn't have veto power over health care policy. GOP aides, however, said that Obama was pretty clear that reconciliation would be used. "From what was told me, it sounded more like he would almost definitely use reconciliation for healthcare. I don't think he hedged much," said one.

Another GOP aide said that Obama and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a back-and-forth about the zero votes. Obama argued that House Republicans had made a "strategic decision" to oppose the stimulus, while Boehner countered that Obama hadn't accepted House Republican input on the bill.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pushed back against the decision to use reconciliation. "As he told the President during a meeting at the White House on Thursday, Senator McConnell and his colleagues want to be part of the solution to reforming our country's health care system and expects the majority party to include Republicans in that process. Sen. McConnell wants a bipartisan solution," said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart.

"Fast-tracking a major legislative overhaul such as health care reform or a new national energy tax without the benefit of a full and transparent debate does a disservice to the American people," said McConnell in a statement. "And it would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis."

Ryan Grim is the author of the forthcoming book This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America

Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Comments

[antifluff]

12:41 PM on 04/28/2009

This from the president that was "going to bring people together"; he is one of the most devisive politicians in our entire history. He was going to have a transparent gov't, that didn't happen either. He is trying to ram legislation thru congress without review, without taxpayers even being able to find out what is being passed, without them knowing what burdens the congress is laying on their necks.
The repubs do not need to be part of this. The dems are running the country into the ground at a pace that is exponetial compared to the rate Pres Bush was doing.
He wants people in this country punished for all the imagined slights the world over, while not bothering to mention one beneficial thing about this country. Ask yourself, why doesn't THIS president ever mention freedom or liberty? At what point will you think this country is worth defending? How far down does the economy have to go before you say 'maybe we should stop spending'?
Final question: when this country is in utter chaos, were will you go to feel safe?

[mrrobinson2u]

01:00 PM on 04/28/2009

blah blah blah....

[dragonlady620]

01:38 PM on 04/28/2009

Where are you getting this crap?

[aybabtu]

12:22 PM on 04/28/2009

No need for reconciliation now that Arlen Specter is a Dem

[Juez]

12:17 PM on 04/28/2009

Republicans better support some of this important legislation or they will return to their constituents without any major achievements. The elections in 2010 will once again become a Democratic win due to stagnant Republican opposition: Just say NO! The crusty old Republican men and women of the Congress need to learn to negotitate and compromise in order to work in a bipartisan manner.

[atexasdem]

11:01 AM on 04/28/2009

The Republicans just don't get it. Their selective memory keeps failing them when confronted by reality. They wanted" bipartisanship" now that they are the minority party but they didn't understand what the new definition is. When they were in power "bipartisan" meant surrender. Now that they are now longer in power "bipartisan" means "make suggestions". They still thought that it meant surrender, Obama proved them wrong. Until the republicans wake up and realize they are no longer the controlling party they will continue to be irrelevant. Frankly I'm surprised he is even considering their opinions, most American people have discounted them. "Fear and smear" worked for the republicans for quite a while. "Just say no" is their latest tactic and it's failing too.
The Republicans have two basic choices which will determine their future. (1) Move further to the right based on ideology. Promote people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin as their leaders and accept regional but "pure" status.(2) Move towards the middle where most Americans are and develop new leadership based on ideas rather than ideological purity.

[KenGirard]

01:01 PM on 04/28/2009

Always, always listen to the ideas of others. Even if 99% of the time they are 100% wrong, that 1% might be the perfect idea for the situation. If nothing else they might give you the seed of the answer.

[dragonlady620]

01:42 PM on 04/28/2009

When Obama made monumental and unprecedented efforts to include Republicans they didn't want to play. He caught a lot of flak from both sides for trying so hard. My reaction was "at least no one can say he didn't try." But guess what! They're saying it anyway.
What short memories some people have.

[flow555]

09:36 AM on 04/28/2009

Fast-tracking on healthcare doesn't serve the American people?!?!?

But fast-tracking to War,does serve us? I am so frustrated by the GOP's selective amnesia. They played a large part in getting us into this mess, through a multitude of decisions and policies, and now they think they are serving the American people by being obstructionists?????

They are acting like a bunch of "bad boys" in the back of the classroom, throwing spit balls and thwarting the teachers efforts. Don't they realize the school-house is on fire???

Hey guys, grow up, wake up and figure out what you can do to help get us out of these dire circumstances..... we need to put partisanship aside and come together to try and solve our steep problems. If you cant stomach that, can you at least shut and get out of the way?

You might consider traveling beyond your fancy lunches inside the beltway, and take a look at how jobloss and skyrocketing halthcare costs are threatening the wellbeing of average, hardworking americans.

[Bill Adkins]

08:35 AM on 04/28/2009

Get with the program or get out of the way, Republicans. 8 + years of your record of blunder and failure does not make your whining anymore acceptable. Democrats are here to clean up the mess you left, the slash and burn damage done to America in the name of your 'values,' as if you had any. People are suffering BECAUSE of Bush and the Republicans. The time to act is past.

FDR said during the depression, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

The Republican version is slightly different, "...the only thing we have to fear is Obama's success-- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance is a tool we will use to block Obama's success."

[drrocketanski]

10:01 AM on 04/28/2009

Nah, you're wrong. Republicans may seem to say only "no", but that is because they are such a minority in gov't now that nothing they say is listened to.

And please folks, stop with the false dichotomy. There are more options than just Bush and Obama. Bush was (fiscally) semi-conservative, semi-liberal - he grew gov't and lowered taxes, two things that don't mix well.

The U.S. has been in ever-deepening debt since FDR decided to act boldly. Obama's reckless spending deserves at least a little fear.

Oh, and wasn't it Obama who pushed his enormous spending plan through with constant reference to "crisis" and "catastrophe" - backing off of the fear tactics and having a little intelligent discussion may have been handy.

[DC Democrat]

10:29 AM on 04/28/2009

"Nah, you're wrong. Republicans may seem to say only "no", but that is because they are such a minority in gov't now that nothing they say is listened to."

Oh, cry me a river.

What alternatives or solutions have been proposed by the Republican leadership? What grand and bold ideas for health care reform, education reform, social security reform, stimulating the economy, financial regulation reform, etc. have been proposed by the Republicans? They aren't viewed as the party of "no" simply by accident; the Republican party seems to think that it exists in a vacuum, and that being the opposition party requires them to do little more than simply negate whatever is proposed by the Democrats.

They say that they want to play the bipartisanship game, then come to the table in either full opposition or armed only with ideas dredged up from the past decade that were discarded by the electorate during the past two elections. Sorry, not interested.

As to the whole "spending" nonsense, go back and look at the last five presidential administrations and show me the last one to present a budget surplus. I'll give you a hint: his name isn't "Reagan" or "Bush".

[madashellvoter]

03:38 PM on 04/28/2009

“Bush was (fiscally) semi-conservative, semi-liberal - he grew gov't and lowered taxes, two things that don't mix well.” It worked in the Clinton years, and I might add very prosperous years.

That all depends on how you look at it. I on the other hand don't see it like that. Bush gave everything to corporate America, took the people rights away, and tried dissolve the Separation of Church and State. That's pretty CONSERVATIVE to me

BUT Cheney is NOT! And we all know who ran the show?

[Kalver26]

03:10 AM on 04/28/2009

Reconciliation is horrible, whoever does it. Our system was set up to make it hard for anything to pass into a law. The reason it is this way is that so only the most important of laws gets passed. I am tired of polititions stepping around the bounds set up, just to get thier way. Most senators/ representative, vote for what they want regardless of how the people of thier districts feel. Our country has been taken away from the people and has been handed to the corrupt. If you want to solve this issue, set it up as a straight vote to the people. That way at least the country will work how it is supposed to. I say fire everyone and hold new elections. Its time to start over.

[DC Democrat]

10:07 AM on 04/28/2009

"The reason it is this way is that so only the most important of laws gets passed. "

That's certainly debateable. I'd argue that tactics such as the filibuster are being used in ways never intended, and thus the only laws getting passed are watered-down, toothless regulations that are either easily circumvented or completely ignored. This process masquerades as "bipartisanship" but in reality does not serve anyone's interest other than those of obstructionists. For Republicans to claim that they were somehow "left out" of the stimulus bill proceedings is ludicrous on its face; that they are now scrambling to call for "bipartisanship" when it's becomign increasingly evident that the health care train is leaving the station smacks of being disingenuous.

Mitch McConnell, for instance, has no interest whatsoever in a truly bipartisan approach to health care reform. Obama's approach is simply to recognize that approach from the outset and proceed accordingly.

[3015551212]

12:36 AM on 04/28/2009

I want health care reform and I want it now. If the GOP can't be constructive, they don't deserve a place at the table. Just saying no to everything isn't governing or representation; it's pure political maneuvering.

The American people clearly elected President Obama for his positions, and if the Republicans want to ignore the will of the American people, they can do so at their political peril... and the President knows it.

[drrocketanski]

01:56 AM on 04/28/2009

Not sure if you knew this, but Obama wasn't the only one elected (did you know the legislative branch is also elected by the people?). Those Repubs are (supposed to be) representing those who elected them. And when Obama presents such a radical agenda, they should continue to represent the people who elected them and say, "no". They may have said more if Obama were actually willing to listen to them.

Oh, nevermind. I forgot, only Obama speaks the truth. Boehner obviously lied when he said Obama didn't listen to GOP input (after all, he's a Repub and so, by definition, a liar).

How nice if the world were so easily explained! It's just like being a young child who knows nothing of the intricacies of life.

[oldcliche]

05:48 PM on 04/28/2009

The last time I checked Congress will be making these political manuevers. You know, those people who were elected by the People. I'm suprised you missed that "radical agenda" being proposed by Congress.

[PhilipTaylor]

05:16 PM on 04/27/2009

Rethugs have ideas!

The Party of N0 taxes on the top 1%
Oi1 and Gas H0gs are the Greatest! We don"t need NO Green!
Keep em d_mb! It is the only way they will v0te for us!
Make the 1nsurance Companies Wea1thy - We don"t need No Health Ref0rm!
The party of Bush! Great 1dea Man!
The party of Corrupt Wall Streeters R_thugs who created "Trick&Trap" Mortgage Derivatives!

WALL STREET ReThugs FAILED CAP1TALISM - TIME TO H0N0R THE PR1NCIPLES!

Definition of Capita1ism: An economic system for producing wea1th ....without f0rce or fraud...private rights are protected by the rule of 1aw of a regulatory framework....legislative action defines and enforces the basic rules of the market. [edited down from Wikipedia]

1. Notice nothing about Taxpayer BAILING OUT the corporations who want wea1th at any cost!
2. Without FRAUD and clearly the corporations did that
3. Rule of L_aw - They should be investigated and prosecuted
4. Regulatory Framework - D!smant1ed by Summers, C1!nton, Gr_mm, and Bush
5. Legislative Action - Wall Street gave Congress $5 Billion to buy V0tes over last ten years-Outrageous

[orlik]

06:13 PM on 04/27/2009

For better or for worse capitalism has made this country a world power. All others have tried their hand at socialism and they are barely making it( the successfull ones) or failing (all the others see: Russia, cuba< Venezuela, Nicaragua and so on.)
That our capilalism went unchecked ? yes. Maybe we failed at checking it. That it failed us? I doubt it.
Going to socialism is being done and is 70 years old in Europe and they depend on us in many many ways, so it is not a solution.

[PhilipTaylor]

06:38 PM on 04/27/2009

Capitalism did not fail us! Wall Street Failed Capitalism!

Washington Failed Capitalism!

Read the post for CS!

By the way the quality of life in most of Western Europe is better than ours! Visit some time its a fantastic set of places and has regulated CAPITALISM!

[dragonlady620]

10:50 AM on 04/28/2009

I don't understand why so may people assume that any objection to the government in its previous incarnation is a cry for socialism. I do not object to capitalism. I object to greed, corruption, inequitable taxes and deregulation of the markets-especially the last, since that is what caused the economic meltdown. Capitalism at its best is a great institution. Unregulated capitalism is a setup for all of the aforementioned transgressions, since there will always be those who will take advantage of the deregulated markets and twist it to their own selfish ends. If the last eight years didn't drive that point home I don't know what will.

[drrocketanski]

01:58 AM on 04/28/2009

"The Party of N0 taxes on the top 1%"

Your post started out with a clear falsehood. Not worth reading the rest.

Hint: Hide lies further into your post, and put them in some convoluted form so they are hard to recognize.

[jefflorida]

03:40 AM on 04/28/2009

actually the post is not that far from accurate. the conservative position is no estate tax with the cost basis of capital assets changed to date of death values thus eliminating capital gains tax for sales in estates, right? not to mention zero or minimal taxes on capital gains and dividends, right? so how do the top 1% get 99% (or some very high number) of their income? that's right, dividends and capital gains (and throw in federally tax free municipal bond interest). so, not literally true but very, very substantially true. back to you.

[darkelflass]

04:38 PM on 04/27/2009

Endersdragon, I can think of nothing scarier than living in a "red" state without the "blue" states to drag them screaming and kicking into the 21st century. If ignorance was a currency, "red" states could bail us out of our debt in no time at all, plus stockpile a surplus for "our kids and our grandkids, and their grandkids."

[Endersdragon]

04:35 AM on 04/28/2009

Then you hate the Constitution. The Constitution was set up so that the national government has very few powers. Presidents have been graudually getting farther and father from that over the past 40 years, and Obama is crushing it. Blue states should not be allowed to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they want to follow.

[darkelflass]

10:03 AM on 04/28/2009

"Then you hate the Constitution."

That's a brilliant rebuttal. Obama is crushing the Constitution how?

"Blue states should not be allowed to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they want to follow."

And neither should red states. Do you have a real argument or just more of the right wing talking points masquerading as facts?

[DC Democrat]

10:14 AM on 04/28/2009

"Presidents have been graudually getting farther and father from that over the past 40 years, and Obama is crushing it."

I understand the urge to rewrite history, but let's step off the crazy train for a moment and regain our perspective. George W. Bush pushed the limits of executive power far beyond what had ever previously been envisioned. Through the use of signing statements, the ceding of unprecedented power to executive agencies and the vast expansion of the powers of the office of the vice president (to name but a few), Bush took the presidency far into uncharted waters. It is, perhaps, the ultimate irony of a presidential administration that was elected largely on the backs of anti-federal, pro-states rights conservatives. Obama is merely following in the wake left by his predecessor. If your complaint is the vast expansion of powers undertaken by the executive branch, your ire is better directed at Bush than our current president.

[darkelflass]

04:26 PM on 04/27/2009

drrocketanski...I think you're confusing bipartanship with rolling over and playing dead. The party that won the election is not (and has never been) the party of ultra conservatism. The election was won because the message brought to the table was with new leadership there would be a change in the direction of the country.

Obama never said (or at least I never heard him say) that bipartanship meant that he was going to throw all of his ideas and policies out the window in order to work with Republicans. I think bipartanship meant that the new president and his administration was going to present a new agenda, and use all their powers of persuasion to get the opposition party to consider new ideas and buy into a new way of doing things. Just because Obama was/is willing to sit down and work with Republicans doesn't mean he's going to let them run the show. And if the only thing Republicans can say is tax cuts and smaller government, then your ideas are going to fall on deaf ears, and that is something Republicans/Conservatives/Teabaggers, whatever-y'all-are-calling-yourselves today need to get used to.

Also, here's a tip for you...insinuating that the president is not honest is not endearing you to people who want the country to pull together and work for the common good.

[drrocketanski]

01:33 AM on 04/28/2009

First: I never said Obama should be bipartisan. I said that he claimed that he was going to get rid of "petty", "tired", "worn out" party politics. I assumed he meant bipartisanship. Obama met with Repubs, but he did not listen to them. Of course, with the nature of his ideas, I doubt there is much middle ground. Some Repubs may have gone along because of the fear tactics - crisis, catastrophe, similar to what the media and Demos attacked Bush for using after 9/11.

"Teabaggers" - a lewd and derogatory epithet applied by an "unbiased" media to blow off people who had/have a legitimate and serious complaint about gov't practices. Hardly self-applied. Imagine if some "unbiased" newscaster (say, Anderson Cooper) referred to people at a liberal demonstration in a similar manner. I think he would have been fired on the spot. As it is, only "loonies" like Limbaugh even cared. I'm glad our media stands for truth and objectivity.

I'm fairly unconcerned with being endearing, or speaking what people will eagerly listen to. Politics (both liberal and conservative) is about bending words, twisting facts and numbers, so as to push your agenda. I, too, want the country to pull together for the common good. I just think Obama's agenda is not good for the country, and furthermore, I think dissent is a necessary part of any nation (after all, dissent was at the heart of women's suffrage, the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, etc.).

[DC Democrat]

10:22 AM on 04/28/2009

""Teabaggers" - a lewd and derogatory epithet applied by an "unbiased" media to blow off people who had/have a legitimate and serious complaint about gov't practices."

"Legitimate and serious" complaints? Not at the protest I witnessed, a few blocks from my office in Lafayette Square. What I saw were a group of angry people--probably the same ones so easily stoked into frenzies at last year's McCain/Palin rallies--waving placards calling for everything from a complete cessation of taxes, to stopping investment of money into fighting global warming, to questionning whether Obama is a native U.S. citizen, to calling for the end of banks, to simply calling attention to the fact that they are "mad" and "angry" at unnamed and indeterminable entities. There was no coherent message or theme to the protests, just a collection of angry sign-wavers. Does that mean that there weren't any protesters in attendance with legitimiate concerns? No, but the protest itself was little more than a circus sideshow, and virtually impossible to take seriously.

[darkelflass]

10:28 AM on 04/28/2009

""Teabaggers" - a lewd and derogatory epithet applied by an "unbiased" media..."

Well, I guess that's one definition of "teabaggers," however, my definition is people running around with all manner of teabag props hanging off hats, signs, etc. Also, it was hard to pick out "legitmate, serious complaints" among all the outrageous signs and banners (e.g. Obama=Hitler, Obama is a Marxist, blah-blah-blah). Do these people have a clue about what Marxism is or what Hitler stood for? Ridiculous comparisons can't be taken seriously, nor should they be. If you have something important to say, say it without dressing up in 16th century duds and trying to dump tons of tea in parks maintained by the same taxes they're bitching about.

"I just think Obama's agenda is not good for the country,"

That is fair enough. I think the Republican agenda has failed this country for years and I want to try something new. I am not willing to see my hard work go unrewarded year after year while the CEOs are make 30 times my salary. I am not willing to have a country falling down around my ears because no one is investing in infrastructure. I'm tired of crazy people at the helm who think there's only one way to deal with any situation...war.

"and furthermore, I think dissent is a necessary part of any nation"

Yes, it is. But it should be civil and it should be based in fact.

[WVP]

03:47 PM on 04/27/2009

"Obama argued that House Republicans had made a "strategic decision" to oppose the stimulus, while Boehner countered that Obama hadn't accepted House Republican input on the bill."

Input? What input? "Go scr*w yourself!" (I'm paraphrasing) is NOT input!

[yhgtup]

03:39 PM on 04/27/2009

So what if he repeated it & repeated it & repeated it!! He's the Leader & he wanted those fools to know that he didn't like it!! Pres Obama really tried to reach out to Rethugs, only to have them smack him in the face. Dang on right, he didn't like it, & he let them know it!! Kudos to you, Pres Obama!!

[Roy49]

03:24 PM on 04/27/2009

President Obama has always "reached across the isle" since the day he took office and all the Republicans could do is say no and not cooperate! Republicans are the minority party now and they should be treated as such! I say bring back Jim Crow on their ass! Toilets and drinking fountains should be marked "Democrats Only" in all public buildings, facilities, and parks! Restaurants, buses, trains and all public conveyences should be segregated by placing Republicans in the back and making them give up their seats for Democrats! That would be lovely! And don't get me started on housing and education! They need to start paying for their hypocracy and they need to start paying now while be have a President of diversity whose government is truly "of the people, by the people, for the people."

[drrocketanski]

01:41 AM on 04/28/2009

"Republicans are the minority party now and they should be treated as such!"

Wow man. I truly hope no one like you ever enters office. We've had enough Hitlers this Millenium.

Hypocrisy?

Did you realize that the economy collapsed due to Democratic ideas pushing for high-risk loans? Part of none other than FDIC. And, of course, with gov't assurance of intervention on their behalf, other businesses could buy these loans. Repubs (including McCain) were shut down when they warned of a coming housing bubble. Barney Frank shut them down, declaring that their claims were nonsense.

Now, where's the hypocrisy? Shall we mete out what you think is just punishment on these hypocrites?

[aofh]

02:38 AM on 04/28/2009

It wasn't those loans that brought the economy to its knees. The loans that have buckled the economy are the loans big banks gave to each other to buy securities composed of the loans you're talking about and others you're probably not aware of while using those same securities as collateral. Worse, they borrowed a lot more than they could cover based on rosie expectations regarding the collateral. Eventually, it became clear to the players that no one really knew what the collateral was worth, and to save their hydes, they stopped lending altogether. The economy is in these straights because credit is not being extended because the people who were lending so freely are trying to cover their overexposure.

[dragonlady620]

04:48 PM on 04/28/2009

The real cause of the meltdown was due to the deregulation of the markets and allowing extremely risky practices, and drastically reducing the agencs that are chargedwith the oversight of them. And nearly all of it is a result of REPUBLICAN policies. Trying to blame the Democrats is a typical rightwing trick and is demonstrably false. Karl Rove 101: "Blame the opposition for what you yourself are guilty of."

[WATCHDOG1]

03:15 PM on 04/27/2009

We gotta do what we gotta do. They lost the election, remember?