Yes, the left-most elements like Lieberman, Baucus, Lincoln, Nelson…
I’m guessing Obama’s squandered whatever leverage he might have had to take control of the process in Congress. He done shot his load.
It ain’t gonna happen. Democrats have seen the writing on the wall and are already backing off this disaster of a bill. Anthony Weiner (D) of New York said last night that he will have a “hard time” voting for this bill. Obama has to double down on this and try to push it through since he will have nothing else to run on in 2012, but Dems in Congress are not going to walk off a cliff for him.
I think the lesson learned is that the Democrats have to become more conservative.
(thinking) No, that’s crazy talk! It’s that, to paraphrase Han Solo, “Don’t get cocky, Dems.”
As for that so-called overhaul of the health system, I won’t miss it. An “overhaul” is more than changing the spark plugs and air filter.
The original bill passed the House by – what? Five votes?
We have at least on Rep saying he isn’t on board any more. And is it likely that he’s the only one of the 215ish that thinks this election has some meaning for his own political future? Two more flip, and there may not be the votes to pass it.
There are two schools of thought amongst Democrats right now. The first is summed up by Patrick Kennedy, congressman from Rhode Island who said, “Health care needs to go forward. If it’s a message on anything, it’s that we got the message messed up, not that we got the package messed up.”
The second is summed up by Anthony Weiner, Congressman from New York, who said, “Large numbers of independent voters saying they’re upset about health care, that’s not just their fault, that’s our fault, too. And we have to think about what we’re doing wrong here and to have a conversation as if nothing happened, whether you’re in Massachusetts or not, is being tone deaf.”
So is it the bill, itself, or is it how the bill has been sold? The side that wins the argument will determine the future of health care reform. If the Kennedy side prevails, then Dems will forge ahead with the bill in spite of the Mass. results. My personal opinion is that they will have losses on the scale of 1994 if they do so.
If the other side wins, the best thing they can do is go to the American people and admit they overreached. Then, actually work with Republicans for a more modest, bipartisan bill - say insurance reform AND tort reform. Small steps that are more palatable.
I really don’t have a guess at which direction they will take.
It probably will not pass the house as there is a contingent in the House Dems that won’t pass it without a public option.
Unless the argument is, as it should always have been, that this is a program that is always going to need regular monitoring and adjustment. It would be entirely unrealistic to think that it would be perfect right from the get-go, despite the arguments we’ve seen so often from the partisan rationalizers that any perceived defect at all means there is just no hope of doing anything useful at all.
If the House can be convinced that the next step is to proceed with addressing the inadequacies of the Senate bill (lack of a public option not run by an organization with an interest in denying care in the name of profit, lack of effective cost controls) with a new bill, once its benefits (no denials, greatly expanded coverage) are passed into law, that may be the best art-of-the-possible approach.
Oh, right, the bright spot:
Yep, since Traitor Joe is no longer needed to break a filibuster, I propose he be stripped of his precious Homeland Security chairmanship, ejected from the Democratic caucus, and given a broom closet in the basement for an office.
Won’t happen, of course – unless (a) Reid loses in November (quite likely), (b) the Democrats retain a majority, however slim, in the Senate (possible), and © someone with balls, maybe Chuck Schumer, takes over as Majority Leader. If I recall correctly, chairmanships can’t be reassigned till the next Congress convenes anyway.
It’s possible but really it would be very naive and foolish for anyone to believe that voting against the health bill after voting for it is going to win them votes in November. They are going to get hammered by Republicans for their health vote anyway. More likely it will lose them much of their base without winning over opponents of the health bill. Especially because mid-term elections generally have low turnout and are about rallying your base. Purely from the election angle the best option is probably to pass health care and promote and explain the bill in the next 10 months. Like I said earlier a fair amount of opposition to the bill is coming from the left and many of these people can be won over and be persuaded to vote in November.
Hmm. Any further thoughts on this topic, with the passing day?
Barney Frank said the bill was dead, then backpedaled on that statement before the day was done. Obama said he wouldn’t try to push it through with the intent of locking Brown out before he could be sworn in. Personally, all things considered, I’m not sure everyone’s over the gloom/jubilation enough to think very clearly yet, so who knows what’ll happen.
It’s all rather muddy right now with seemingly no Democrat willing to step up and assert leadership. There has been a vague statement from Obama and a vague statement from Pelosi. However the base is clearly furious with the state of things and that might stiffen spines a little. If the Dems don’t find a way to pass health care it will be an enormous debacle. It will lose them a huge number of votes with much of their base sitting out the mid-term elections. I think a worst-case scenario where they lose the House and Senate and Obama’s presidency is crippled is quite possible. If they do pass health care there will be a short-term PR cost but they will have a huge accomplishment to take to voters and a number of tangible benefits that will be visible by November: lower drug costs for seniors, money for new clinics etc. They will lose some seats but will have an excellent chance of retaining both chambers with reasonable majorities.