For Congressional Democrats, surrender is just the continuation of politics by other means.
That may be an uncanny Clausewitzian twist, but its truth was once clarified by what passes for 21st-century military genius, yes, none other than Rummy himself, who famously observed with an unsettling flourish: Look, you go to war with the army you've got.
That of course explains why Democratic leaders now stand on a stalemated battlefield and at the precipitous lip of surrender: on health care, they went to war with the army they had, which, let's face it, was never much to whoop and hoot and holler about.
Hence the public option is almost certainly a dead man; unquestionably a victim of political war crimes and relentless propagandistic manipulation, but just as unquestionably a sacrificial lamb.
But what, really, has changed since pre-summer recess? Not much. Most everyone even then realized the public option was lingering in perilous territory, and though vigorous calls for its defense boldly went forth, as they still do, things didn't look good. Democratic leaders may not know how to organize and rally the troops, but they sure know how to count.
In the House, a public plan is probably safe, but I've yet to hear any knowledgeable Senate insider sound believably hopeful. There are just too many wicked Ben Nelsons, arm in arm with the wing-nutted monkeys of the GOP, writing "Surrender Dorothy" in the sky.
And, notwithstanding all the hubbub surrounding President Obama's announced health-care speech to Congress next week, nothing much has changed for the White House, either.
What will Obama insist on? Simple. Whatever he thinks will pass -- which has been the largely forgivable executive-branch strategy since the get-go. Writes the NY Times this morning: "White House officials are combing the versions of health care legislation approved by four of the five Congressional committees with jurisdiction on the issue, both to find common ground and to jettison provisions -- some relatively minor -- that have drawn fire from critics on the political right" -- and, it went without saying, have scattered the already disunited Democratic conference.
I therefore dismiss as rather gratuitous hype the Times' subsequent passage: "In scheduling a prime-time speech ... before members of the House and Senate and a national television audience, Mr. Obama chose to put his political standing on the line more directly and dramatically than he has so far on health care."
How's that? While it's true that White House officials have "insisted that Mr. Obama had not given up on ... a proposal for a government-run competitor to private insurers," it's also a bankable bet that he won't draw any lines in those notorious sands.
Why would he, why should he?; indeed, how could he, considering that in so doing he'd be roundly (and correctly) condemned by the chattering class as the most politically inept chief executive since one-termer William Howard Taft.
As knowingly hyperbolic was this observation by Sen. Chuck Schumer: "This level of involvement from the president could well be a game-changer. There is no better way to turn public opinion around than to have someone as popular as President Obama addressing the American people directly, without intermediaries interpreting, or misinterpreting, his ideas."
That's what I thought not long ago. Then Obama hit the town-hall road and his numbers hit the skids. Public doubts soared. For a few minutes, live, he'd tell the truth on stage, then for ruthless days afterward those "intermediaries" would hog the airwaves and thrash his message into a bloody corpse.
The same happened to Bill Clinton, which is why this White House never wanted to take the public lead on health-care reform. It's deadly.
The new hurdle will be mandates. That's the one to keep our eyes on, to watch and see if the Obama administration insists -- as though its insistence would mean much to this pusillanimous Congress -- on universal health-insurance coverage, which, for decades, after all, was progressives' Holy Grail.
So that's hardly a spiritually deflating fallback position: the "Swissification," as Paul Krugman recently and rather approvingly noted, of America's health-care system. A public option -- for that matter single-payer; I never have and simply never will understand why anyone's health should be subject to profit-motive -- would have been a crowning jewel of this reform effort's go-around; but its absence won't mean, as far too many progressives are now melodramatically bugabooing, the failure of substantial reform.
For now. For tomorrow is another day, and all real progress is -- yep, here it comes, that dreaded bête noire of doctrinaire progressives -- incremental. These days, however, all Obama has to forge ahead with is ... gulp ... the Democratic Congressional army he has.
PM seems to be waffling like
PM seems to be waffling like a congressional dem. His last post called out mr. O for his sellout and now he is back at habitual defense of the same. Anyone who thinks there will be any consideration given to the views of any of us is insane. Obama either must be planning to be a 1 term pres, or plans to run as a republican in 2012. He wont even get the democratic nomination after this, and dosnt deserve it. I wonder if he will do tricks for the wingnut minority in congress when he gives his big speech. If he dosnt plain say he will use reconciliation to pass a public plan in the senate, and that he is not going to negotiate with the backstabbing GOP anymore, he is toast. The news media is selling the defeat of the dems like they sold the war in iraq,and mr. O has played right along. Id like to see him win in 2012 without the base who got him elected. If the media showed clips of town halls like this one, the wingnut astroturf would shrivel up in a day, but you wont see this on cnn:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkrW22u7SwU
Did I just read that correctly?
Did I just read that correctly? You're out blaming the conservative Democrats, yet you call Obama's position forgivable to go for "whatever will pass."
We have two problems: 1. Conservative Democrats, 2. A Spineless President who's bargained away everything before we've even sat down to negotiate
Stop being such an Obama apologist - it's getting embarrassing.
Obama AWOL to the people, but not to the industries. Wake up!
This is typical apologist drivel, a refusal to give accountability to where the buck stops. While you guys were sleeping, Congress, under Pelosi's leadership, refused to pass a bill without a public option. That hardly qualifies as surrender. As far as the Senate plan goes, Snowe seems to now be the principal author of the bill and its concessions. Check out yesterday's Firedog Lake on that since links don't go through anymore. Why has the administration been giving their blessings to the Senate Finance Committee's version with its motley crew of opponents like Death Panel Grassley and the sycophant Baucus, who has a blue cross on his forehead?
There has been little leadership coming out of the WH, except for the cautioning voices of Rahm advocating his brother Zeek's insurance coops in July, or Sebelius saying the Public Option was only a sliver of healthcare reform, not an essential element. Most recently, Kerry was saying that if there is one, that bipartisanship compromise would be applied. Unfortunately, the industry sycophants appear to be hardly limited to the GOP . . .
While you were sleeping, Obama had multiple, closed-door meetings with Pharma, which were revealed in June. It turned out to be a sweetheart deal for Pharma, with the government backing off from pricing regulations and a drop in the bucket concession from them in savings compared to the monetary enhancement from avoiding regulations. I can't accurately remember the numbers, but google Greg Palast on that.
I think for me the final clincher was last week when after Kennedy's death, WH officials were saying they didn't want Kennedy's name on any healthcare reform bills because that would conflict with bipartisanship. Incidentally, that's from the AP.
I think what we've been prepared to accept is a substantially watered own Public Option with triggers, similar to the Bush 2003 Medicare legislation. The apologists will tell us it's better than nothing and that either we or our representatives in the house and senate just weren't proactive enough, but never mind the administration. Because I guess by their mediocre standards, we're supposed to continue with the mediocrity and lack of accountability so prevalent with the last administration.
The Commander-in-Chief Is Not The Problem.
Looking at the Democrat Senate, reminds me of the Continental army in 1776. That was a ragtag group of ragamuffins with no real military experience. Virtually all the generals assumed their rank via money and political connections. Almost all the militia had promised to serve for a year or less. Washington wept when he made his first survey of the army.
I am still NOT an Obamaite, but dear Lord, what an army he trying to lead. At least the House Democrats have experience in, and a taste for fighting Republicans. But the majority of the Democrat field generals in the senate only have experience in looking dignified and orderly while surrendering their swords and troops.
I recall a time six years ago when our DC Democrat leaders pronounced Howard Dean a madman because he actually wanted to fight Republicans over the Iraq War. Then, we progressives went out and started a fight anyway. Guess what. We won. So I say let's throw down over the public option. It is as good a place to begin teaching the senate Democrats how to fight.
Shocking!
My goodness, their cowardice is just soooooo shocking in view of the heroic, relentless, courageous Progressive Grass Roots activism since the election. Shocking. Who would have guessed at shuch an outcome? Unbelievable!
It's not the 'progressives" fault!
We elected the politicians to do the work of implementing the policy changes. I haven't had much confidence in the Democrats for years, and seeing the way they have failed to come together and the biggest voices have sold out to the moneyed interest, my lack of confidence has been confirmed. The champions for the cause in the Congress have been virtually silent. So, don't blame the voters and activists! I think we are doing all we can. Most of us have to work, and the only "progressive" voice in the media is Democracy Now! The rest of the media is owned and operated by the same "moneyed interests", so the progressives essentially have no voice. In my region, their are no progressive radio stations (except for the aforementioned Democray Now! on the local NPR station) and the local wing-nut talk radio station is blaring Repug talking points all day long. Unless the Democrats in Congress get busy and get their message out, loud and clear and over and over again, the fight for health care is lost!
Oh, so that whole "Hope" and "Change" thing ....
... was only if there was the Progressive Grass Roots demonstrated "heroic, relentless, courageous activism"? I missed that qualifier during the campaign. I guess you're right, though .....
That would've been much harder to fit on a sign.
I agree Yman
I missed all that too. Of course having a real job and a family to take care of keeps me from hanging out in front of the white house all day with a sign, so I guess I should take the consequences for my bad behavior and shut up and let the leaders not lead.