Yes, it’s easy to understand the influence that industry lobbyists can bring. What’s less easy to grasp is why the Dems (who received resounding approval in the 2008 elections) should hold themselves in thrall to weak, divided Pubs.
Wait, when did the Pubs get weak and divided? I thought they were an unyeilding and uniform wall of NO.
“The Democrats” is a category that includes Obama, naturally. And I fail to see how it isn’t an explanation. The Republicans don’t want UHC, therefore there won’t be any UHC. The Democrats don’t matter because they have zero ability to stand up to the Republicans regardless of the numbers in office. Thanks to the cowardice of the Democrats, the Republicans have veto power over any proposal, and they don’t want UHC under any circumstances, or for the government to succeed at anything whatsoever.
Slight correction: they weren’t as effective in communicating the merits of UHC as the Republicans were in demonizing them… in one sentence or less.
Fact is, Democrats just aren’t good at soundbite politics, while Republicans are brilliant at it. I suppose it might just be that Republican ideals lend themselves better to catchphrasing, but I doubt it.
This is a very anthropic-biased view of politics, akin the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics. Facts on the ground matter much more than supposed character traits of entire organizations. (Bet you think “Apple employees are hip” and “Germans are stodgy.”)
In other words, the “let’s pretend that the members of organizations don’t have anything in common” strategy of excusing bad behavior. Often coupled with a speech about how “one rotten apple doesn’t spoil the barrel” every time yet another a member of the group gets caught doing something outright illegal/scandalous.
The last HC bill gave unions a tax break so it would appear that big unions are just as politically viable as any other group.
It isn’t an explanation until you explain why Dems kowtow to Pubs. Thus far you seem only to assert that this is so without supplying any reason. “Cowardice” is at best simply another name for the behavior, not a reason for it to exist.
When someone calls Republicans reactionary, militaristic, nationalistic, fundamentalist, misogynistic, homophocic, anti-intellectual, greedy, etc., they say back to you, “I don’t care what you call me, I’ll do what I think is right from my POV” and keep pushing their agenda.
When someone calls Democrats radicals, socialists, appeasers, unbelievers, eggheaded, weak, elitist, anti-business, anti-family, spendthrifts, etc., they fall all over themselves saying “NO!!! We’re NOT!!! Let me prove it to you!!” and back off from whatever they were called on.
As to why they fear the electorate will react worse to the latter set of pejoratives than the former, see the Max Cleland v. Saxby Chambliss Senate race.
The reason is that health insurance companies, and those making money off the present screwed up system spent 1.5 million dollars a day fighting reform. Unions are of little consequence in this mess. There are 1500 lobbyists pounding on doors, threatening politicians and putting their faces on news talk shows. Health care reform is in a direct confrontation with big strong self serving companies. Unions have had influence in a long time, nor do unions vote as one. Nurses unions have backed reform. So have many others.
Besides the Dems never had 60 votes. People are including Sanders and independent, Spector a repub in Dems clothing and Lieberman a turncoat . They tries to talk to a couple repubs who are not ultra conservative like Snowe. But the Repub party does not play nice.
Agreed.
We never had a cohesive majority to begin with. Comparing this to, say, German politics–allowing for the fact that their centrists are way to the left of ours–this would be akin to the Social Democrats and Free Democrats forming a coalition with a whisker thin majority. Of course, in our case it wouldn’t have been whisker thin if they could have acted on a simple majority.
I don’t think this is unique to the Dems, btw. Either party is going to have to have a pretty wide tent to get 60 seats in the Senate.
The Dems picked up a lot of former Republican seats in both houses by running some fairly “moderate” candidates. While the Republicans may regain some of those seats, it’s unlikely they will do so with hard right candidates.
Could one of the reasons be that no effort to reform health care was part of the legislation proposed? As far as I could tell the bills that were being discussed would have affected health insurance coverage. I can’t imagine how that would have reformed health care at all, or how it would have helped with rising costs.
I have some hope that Obama’s meetings with congress in an open forum to discuss health care reform will help to really separate the rhetoric from the reality. I almost farted when I started hearing Republicans attacking Democrats for trying to cut medicare, it was like I was in bizarro world. I don’t think you could get away with that sort of bullsh1t in an open forum.
emphasis mine. BS, they’re partners in crime.
For those interested on the latest, the WaPo (reg required) editorial does an interesting job summing up Obama’s latest plan. The upshot: too expensive, and way too optimistic.
I can’t believe I find myself agreeing with the Post on anything.
No, it would be anyway. Getting Olympia Snowe to vote for it doesn’t change that the GOP leadership was opposed.
The oddity is that both sides have agreed the system is broken and needs fixing. The repubs have no plans to fix it. They just have plans to derail the dems attempts to do so. McCain ran on fixing it. That was not so long ago. The repubs think they smell blood and can make political gains off defeating the bill. That is a hell of an indictment for our political system. needed reform is being stopped for political gain. The politicians are not doing the peoples work. Well at least the repubs are not.