My Time to Waste

Congress has passed it.  The President signed it.  It is law.  We still need the reconciliation to be passed, but I am confident that it will get done (may take more effort than one would think, but it will get done).

Seems like a common theme I was hearing in recent weeks was how Obama’s presidency was a failure (from conservatives).  Now I hear that the Obama presidency is an historic success (from liberals).  In both cases it is a bit soon to judge.   It is still too soon to judge George W. Bush’s presidency.

This was not rammed through against the wishes of the American people.  It was passed by normal legislative procedures against the wishes of a minority of the American people.   53% of voters voted for Obama.  Anyone who voted for Obama and did not know he or she was voting for health care reform was not paying attention.   Although there were recent polls showing that a majority were against the health care reform bill, those polls actually showed that a lot of people were against what they believed the health care bill to be, not what it was.  And a few were against it because it was not liberal enough.

Don’t believe it when Republicans claim they had no choice but to oppose the bill at all costs since the Democrats refused to negotiate in good faith.  It was the other way around.  In particular, Senator Baucus spent weeks trying to get a compromise that would garner some Republican support.  Later, the Democrats stuggled to find the ground that would get both the conservative and the liberal Democrats to vote for the bill.  If there were some moderate Republicans there to stand in for the loss of the liberal Democrats…..

This is not the salvation of the Democratic Pary (though it does and will stand as an important achievement).  There are still seats to lose in November.

This is not the Waterloo of the Republican Party.  The Party is not now exiled onto St. Helena to die six years hence.   There are seats to win in November.

Now the lawsuits begin.  Under the heading of  “be careful what you wish for”, if this bill gets thrown out as unconstitutional due to the individual mandate, then the next time around the bill that will be passed will be single payer.  Yes, it might take a few years to get us back to such a point, but it will happen if this gets tossed.

There are plenty of issues to occupy Washington after health care, but my vote for most important issue is the deficit.

As we, supposedly, come down to the final hours before the House vote on Health Care Reform, the Republican National Committee has come out with a poll on the subject.  The timing of this poll is clearly intended to intimidate Democratic congressman into voting no.

From the link:

The RNC poll also holds other good indications of a strong Republican showing in November. Among undecided voters, 46% said that they would prefer a “Republican candidate who would be a check and balance to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress,” compared to 19% who disagreed with the statement. 53% said that the would consider voting for a Republican so as to “send a message to President to President Obama and the Democrats and make them listen to voters like me.”

If the poll shows that 46% would prefer a “Republican candidate who would be a check and balance to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress,” the poll had to have that language in the question.  Ditto with “send a message to President to President Obama and the Democrats and make them listen to voters like me.”

The result is that the poll is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.  But it was guaranteed to give the result the Republicans were looking for.

The Republicans are desperate to prevent the bill from passing because they fear the electorate will like the bill once it is seen for what it is and not through Republican distortions.

Was it really all that long ago that the complaints were “What’s the rush?”

And now the complaint is that the health care reform effort is  “bitter, destructive and endless“.

Instead of hurry up and wait, it’s slow down and finish.

Or something like that.

Obama reminds me of Clinton.  I remember thinking that Clinton would be a liberal Reagan in that he, too, could be a “great communicator.”  I thought that because he seemed to communicate with the public so well as a candidate.  But once he was in office, he stopped.  And the Republicans controlled the message.   Soon Clinton was declaring the era of big government over.

Obama seemed to be able to communicate as a candidate and seems to not be able to do so as a President.  The Republicans control the message and Obama is trying hard to sound more centric in the State of the Union address.

It is interesting that when polled about specific elements that make up (one of?) the health care reform bill, the majority of Americans are in favor of almost all of them.   http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8042-T.pdf

In other words, if people understood what was in the legislation, there would be a lot more support.

I found the poll from a link on Jonathan Chait’s blog at The New Republic.

If only Obama could communicate.

You have one chance.  Pass the senate health care bill.

The public does not differentiate between the house bill and the senate bill.

You already voted for the house bill.

Your republican opponent in the fall is going to pin that vote on you incessantly.

And those who support reform are not going to be all that enthusiastic because you did not pass it.

So you have the worst of both worlds:  blame for the vote, and no credit for passage.

The republicans had one goal:  prevent the passage of health care.

They have almost succeeded.

The only bills (of any consequence) that will pass between now and January 2011 (if not later) are bills through reconciliation.  The republicans have zero incentive to cooperate with anything.  Obstruction has served them very well in the polls.

Health care reform cannot be done solely through reconciliation.

Pass the senate bill and then fix what can be fixed through reconciliation.

That is all.

Somehow it already feels like ancient history, but the reader perhaps remembers the hubbub surrounding the book Game Change when it was published eight days ago.  Harry Reid was quoted talking about Obama’s lack of a Negro dialect.  Sarah Palin is also depicted negatively in the book.

Reid’s response was to stand up and admit he said what he said.  And he apologized.

Palin’s response was to simply state that the book was full of lies.

One might look at the two responses and draw conclusions about who is leadership material.

On the other hand, both of them responded in the way that their politics required of them.  Politics required Reid to man up and apologize.  Politics requires Palin to just declare the book to be lies.   (Maybe they are lies.  I don’t know).

With 63% of precincts reporting, the Republican Brown is defeating the Democrat Coakley in the Massachusetts senate race 53% to 46%.  It is not looking good.

Now the Democrats are faced with the question of what to do with health care reform.  Are they leaders or are they craven cowards to the political breeze.

TPM alerts us to the early leap by Indiana’s Bayh to cowardice.

The irony is that if the Dems listen to the lesson of Massachusetts and fail to pass health care, they will lose a lot more this fall then they will if they stand tall and pass the bill.  They already voted for it.

If Coakley does indeed lose, it probably means the end of Cap and Trade.   With luck the global warming deniers are correct.

Will we get leadership or politicians?

Senator Kennedy has requested that the Massachusetts legislature and governor move to change the law regarding how a vacant Senate seat is filled.  Kennedy’s interest is due to his own serious health issue and the precarious nature of health reform legislation in the US Senate.  Health reform has been one of Kennedy’s top concerns his entire career.

Noam Scheiber over at The New Republic thinks it would be a bad idea for Massachusetts to change the law.

Scheiber thinks that Kennedy’s vacant seat after his death would increase the likelihood that health reform legislation would pass.

… it would be suicidal for the GOP to filibuster the culmination of the last Kennedy brother’s lifelong crusade.

I see two problems here.  I’m not convinced it would be suicidal for the GOP to do that (though possibly).  More importantly, I doubt the GOP would see it that way.

Further, I don’t see what difference it would make if Kennedy’s seat was filled by the governor’s appointment or not.  If the GOP did believe it suicidal to “filibuster the culmination of the last Kennedy brother’s lifelong crusade” why would the seat being filled change that calculation?

Scheiber goes on to say:

I suspect the coverage of Kennedy’s death would silence healthcare reform critics and boost proponents in a way that netted at least a couple of wavering moderates–so clearing the 51-vote threshold wouldn’t be a problem. Heck, you might even see Utah Republican (and longtime Kennedy friend) Orrin Hatch back in the reformist camp.

This may very well be true, but again, I don’t see how the governor naming someone to fill the vacant seat disrupts this all that much.  An addition of a couple of moderate votes would be helpful to get to 60.

Finally, Scheiber is assuming that Kennedy is concerned about what will happen after his death.  It could be that Kennedy is prepared to resign the moment Massachusetts makes the appropriate change in the law.  Kennedy might be at the point where he now knows he will never be on the floor of the Senate again, but also knowing his vote (read:  his replacement’s vote) will be needed.

I can see an argument that Massachusetts should not change the law based on the idea that laws should not be altered for political expediency.  The Massachusetts law used to allow the governor to appoint someone to a vacant Senate seat but the legislature changed it when there was a faint hope that Kerry would vacate the seat to become President and the Massachusetts governor at the time was a Republican.  Not that I would be persuaded in this particular case by such an argument, but it is a good one (and should have been heeded the first time around).

Today seems to feature a short video of Congressman Barney Frank responding to a town hall attendee asking about the Nazi policies in the health care reform.

Frank responds to her with a dismissive insult. It is funny. And, yes, I would not argue with the statement that she deserved the response she got. From what I’ve seen around the internet, lots of Democrats are giddy with delight over Frank’s response.

I’ve been watching the “highlights” from various town meetings for a couple of weeks or so. Lots of shouting from people who are against health care reform. Not discussion, but disruption. I understand how frustrating that can get. People yell out stuff based on lies and no opportunity to explain how they are wrong is allowed.

Frank gets the rare case of a citizen asking a belligerent question in a civil manner. She asks the question and then she stops talking. Frank could actually take a minute and explain why her assumptions are incorrect. He could explain how the Nazi comparison makes no sense. But no, he is dismissive and insulting.

To be clear, I seriously doubt that there is anything that Frank could have said to change how the woman feels about the issue. But it is possible that a few people would see the video of the exchange and learn something.

As it is, the video simply justifies the antics that have taken place previously (with more to come, no doubt). Why not shout down the opponent when the opponent is only going to indulge in insults.

It probably makes no difference, but it would be nice if some Democrat actually explained why health care reform is not leading us down the road to a fascist state (and why there was never any plans for death panels that would pull the plug on grandma….and….)

It is interesting to me how often people I talk to do not believe in “facts”.  Maybe it is true, maybe it isn’t.  Who’s to say?  That there is no shortage of talking heads out there with no more agenda than ratings and a willingness to just make stuff up (or repeat what someone else made up) certainly contributes to this phenomenon.

But there are facts.  Jonathan Chait has a nice post up over at The New Republic talking about some facts.

One example is it is a fact that in England, the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are government employees.  It is also a fact that this kind of arrangment is not even being considered by Obama and the congress.   More at the link.

Increasingly the right side of the political spectrum seems to be spending its time with hands over the ears chanting “no, no, no, no”.

No, we do not accept evolution.

No, we do not accept man caused climate change.

No, we do not accept that the currant health care system is in crisis.

It would be nice if there could be a discussion of facts instead of rants.

It is hard to know just how disruptive the protests have been at various town hall meetings that congressmen and women are having around the country.  Some of the video I’ve seen is edited and it isn’t clear whether a town hall meeting was allowed to go on or not.

The video of Texas Congressman Doggett’s town hall seems to be at the end as he is preparing to leave.  The video could easily have been preceded by a productive town hall meeting.

Still, I suspect there have been some town halls that have never gotten off of the ground due to the disruptive protests.   I think you can see more evidence in the video posted at TPMDC.  I don’t know much about Rachel Maddow, and I believe she is guilty of being strongly biased to the liberal side of things, but I do think that some of the video she shows counts as protests that disrupt the town hall.

Is that a bad thing?  It is not as evil as many commenters are making it out to be.  When the congressman needs a police escort to get safely to his car, that may be over the line a bit.  But from what I’ve seen, I’m betting that there have been many such protests in the history of this country from many different sides of the political spectrum.

The tactic of shouting down the other side in a forum designed for discussion is often used by those who have no good argument to make.