I've got to give Harry Reid credit. As political theatre he played this beautifully; as political comedy he delivered his double-take joke with a bamboozling flawlessness that inspires. And as political skulduggery? Let's just say that Shakespearean Democratic treachery is not dead.
As the Times' David Herszenhorn put it in the "Prescriptions" blog, Harry Reid -- "for the moment," anyway -- "is a champion of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party." But that one moment was all he needed. Because, as Herszenhorn went on to mildly puff, "should [Reid] be forced to compromise, presumably liberal lawmakers will be more forgiving, given that he has now shown a willingness to push hard for the public plan."
There's that "the" public option again, rather than "a" public option, which is what Harry proposed -- a bruised, bloodied, essentially d.o.a. substitute whose mere retention of the name has sent wishful liberals into orgiastic awe of Harry's suddenly bold ways.
Herszenhorn, realizing that reality was slipping from his page, then hastened to point this out: "Reid’s willingness only goes so far. He was never prepared to push for a 'robust' public option ... even though many Democrats believe that is the best [read only] way to save money for their constituents."
He was, however, quite "eager to shore up support among major liberal interest groups," given his "tough re-election campaign back home." And then came Herszenhorn's own, knowing punchline: "[T]hat may help explain why, after Mr. Obama went to great lengths in recent weeks to argue that the health care legislation is about so much more than the government-run insurance plan, Mr. Reid went out and held a news conference solely on the public option."
In other words, let the clichés abound: Harry hung the president out to dry, to twist in the wind, to take all the heat for Harry's preceding inability to move the public option along.
You may recall that shortly after the 2008 election Mr. Reid made the almost rudely insistent point that he wouldn't work for the president. He would work with him, but by God Harry Reid would be the Big Capitol Hill Cheese, navigating through the Senate whatever required navigation. You just let me handle things, said Reid, in effect, to the president.
And the president did, which, in part, is why "in recent weeks" Obama has been forced "to argue that the health care legislation is about so much more than the government-run insurance plan."
Harry couldn't deliver. Simple as that. At some unidentified point during the summer, that political reality became uncomfortably apparent to the White House; so then came its not-too-subtle but unavoidable murmurs of "slivers" and "glide paths." What also came was the administration's disproportionate -- but just as unavoidable -- reliance on Republican Olympia Snowe.
Harry still can't deliver. And he knew that before Monday's theatrical announcement, dangling a public option like raw red meat before a disbelief-suspending liberal base.
Harry knew that his opt-out scheme was starting life with a -1 margin -- hello, Joe "I will vote against cloture" Lieberman -- and its political Apgar score would only go down from there. Howdy, Ben Nelson et al.
What's more, perhaps not in procedure but at least in ultimate effect the opt-out is virtually indistinguishable from its moderately less evil twin, the opt-in, which, as The Hill reports this morning, GOP Whip Jon Kyl says he supports. Jon Kyl, and maybe even Tom Coburn. Tom Coburn. And if that fails to give you the GOP-creeps about opting this way or that from the original plan, then you've been watching too many horror movies this Halloween season.
But that's OK. It's all empty prattle -- nothing but posturing and posing and pretending. Even for an opt-out, Harry doesn't have the votes. He never did, he doesn't now, he won't in two weeks or twenty.
But even that, too, is OK with Harry. Because Harry has accomplished precisely what Harry intended to accomplish: "Now that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced he’ll try to push through a health care reform bill with a public option," reports the Politico, getting "a" correct, "liberals are turning their focus -- and their frustrations -- on Barack Obama," whose White House is now confronting what it regards with magnificent justification as "a drumbeat of unfair criticism."
Man, that's beautiful. Sure, it was dirty pool on Reid's part, cynical rug-pulling and classic perfidy and all that; but, come on, we're adult spectators and that's what the major leagues are all about. Reid knifed the White House in the back to save his own skinny butt.
What's even more sublimely aesthetic, from a political black arts point of view, is that the base took the bait. Will it stay hooked? Who knows. But never discount the power of any rank and file's yearning to believe -- to really, really want to believe with nearly religious fervor in the unstained virtue of its secular leaders.
Hence the right's political leadership has thrust with impunity this sort of bait-and-switch ballyhoo on its own base for years; the left is just trying to get up to competitive speed.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
The whole debate is a sham and a fraud
If the superbowl this year pitted the NFL champions against a short-handed high school team, and at the end of the third quarter, it was a 3-3 tie, would you think perhaps they were trying to keep it close for a reason? What if the NFL ball carriers suddenly fell down with nobody around them time after time? The Democrats are trying their best to make it seem like managing a huge majority is a really hard thing to do and they are striving mightily to do the right thing for the American people and just can't do it because they don't have 62 or 65 votes in the Senate. If they had 80 votes, it would still be something. The posturing makes me sick. There are about 5 of them that are worth their salt, and even then you have to reserve something because they play the game and don't blow the whistle on the whole charade.
Greatest democracy my ass!
no wonder there are 12 comments as I add mine.
No one, it seems, is more cynical - and proud of it - in politics or in political coverage than the writer of this blog. Audition for strategist is now complete. If this doesn't win the position, nothing could possibly alienate the base more.
And now I will read what others have said.
Who is this monlithic "base" you refer to?
I'll admit it. I've been all over the place on this issue. First I thought the public option was dead (for several weeks)--then I was amazed by the perserverence of liberals and thought it alive, and even likely--and now, Joe Lieberman (el hypocrito) strikes again and I'm sort of down in the dumps again.
Know what, Carp. You may be right. But you may not be right. The fact is, this thing is so fluid that nobody knows where it's going. People should probably refrain from making any further predictions, and that includes you and me (but of course, we won't).
Yes, some of the base wants to believe Harry, some of the base don't believe Harry, same for Obama. The liberal base is not a monolith, and if you actually read liberal blogs you'd know that.
Some of the willingness to believe the leadership is born of naivety, some of it desperation. But you can't lump everyone together.
As for the public option, Harry could make Joe sit in the well and actually filibuster, but I think it unlikely. So now I think it unlikely that the opt-out will survive the senate. I think an opt-in or trigger is more likely, and that is thin, thin gruel for a liberal to swallow.
In conference, Nancy's already watered-down negotiated rate PO will likely be degraded even further. Still, I see the middle ground between the 2 likely bills as the state opt-out, as I predicted Monday, but am I confident after watching the last 2 days?
In a word, no. I have a very bad feeling about this (treachery, caving, corruption).
But feelings change, and I think it's helpful to take a step back from the day-to-day storm and drang over every little twist and turn. As a political observer it's fascinating to watch.
Carp, do you really see no difference between a state opt-in and opt-out? You really need to read up on it, dude.
Opting out of bait-and-switch Carpy ballyhoo
Carpy, with that kind of pessimistic, cynical attitude, you can take the wind out of a sail in a hurricane. You'll never make it as a motivational speaker.
So far, you're not making it as a progressive blogger either!
Now this is how it's done:
Mobilize to win the public option war
'Throughout the nation, it is time for all hands on deck, for an all-out fight, for the battle of a decade, saying to every Democrat in public office:
You represent us, not the insurance industry, and if you surrender the public option in favor of the dastardly insurance industry windfall profits trigger, you can ask insurers for support, but do not count on us.'
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/65137-mobilize-to-win-the-public-option-war
Blue Dog campaign contributions are off substantially over the past few months. And that is exactly why we will get THE REAL public option!
Filibuster Fraud
It takes 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate, 50 if you can count on Vice President Biden to break a tie. The media myth that is takes 60 is just that, a myth, the same myth used for years to keep blacks from voting well into the 1960s.
If a Senator starts yapping away, make him or her stand there for days on end, and let CSPAN and the CCCP (Corporate Controlled Conservative Press) show it for a few days live. Then have another Senator jump up and yell, "Point of Order," which anyone can do at any time. When the chair asks what the point of order is, say "This asshole is just stalling, not actually debating the issue." The chair then rules in favor of the point of order. Someone will then appeal the ruling of the chair, and a majority of the Senate (51) votes to uphold the ruling of the chair. If the "filibustering" Senator keeps talking, have him arrested and thrown out, and a straight up or down vote on the health care bill takes place. Simple, constitutional, and well within the rules of the Senate.
Jon Inskeep Crofton, Maryland
Throw the bums out!
The corporate-funded Democrats aren't going to give us health care.
They're on the take from the corporations. Notice how 60 votes weren't required to pass the Patriot Acts, or the bailouts, or NAFTA. This is pure corruption.
Q: How can these crooks get away with this?
A: Because YOU let them by continuing to vote for them.
What we need is a party that doesn't accept corporate money and that represents citizens' interests. That party is the Green Party.
Change won't happen overnight, but by continuing to vote for the corporate parties, you guarantee the corruption will continue.
Yes, when you vote Green, your candidate will probably lose. But it's an ELECTION not a HORSE RACE! Your losing vote will send a message to the corporate parties WHY they're losing your vote. Your losing vote will encourage others to vote Green. Finally, your losing vote will enable the Green Party to receive matching Federal funds if they get a mere 5% of the vote.
Pretty good for a "losing" vote. And better than you'd do with a losing ticket at the race track.
VOTE GREEN!
Green who???
A vote for a Green is a vote for a Republican. The only message it sends is that the voter threw away his or her vote.
We voted out the corrupt Republicans over the last two election cycles. Now it's time to vote out the Blue Dog DINOs in the up coming Democratic Primaries.
This is true, unfortunately
Unless and until the Greens, and possibly a new Social Democratic party gain enough membership, they'll be marginalized and excluded from any real debate the same way as Kucinich was shut of the Democratic debates in 2008.
The fact that this crime was permitted with NOBODY speaking out against it is indicative of the corruption throughout our government and popular media. The deck is stacked against us, and unless enough of us through strong third or even forth parties speak out it'll stay that way.
A coalition of two or more new parties may save the day as it has in Europe. The trick here is to get enough of our people energised enough to become politically active. We have a sad history if complacent indifference here.
Why do we need any parties at all?
Representational Democracy has had its day.
Not true
If liberals and progressives stop voting for the corporate owned Democratic Party, we could elect Green candidates. As long as you will vote for a Democrat, any Democrat no matter how bad they are, we will continue to get government that only serves corporations and the super-wealthy and screws US in the process. The corporate owned Democratic Party doesn't give a rats a$$ about you or me and if you need proof, watch the health care debate.
Watching the Democrats roll over every time the Republicans snap their fingers is embarrassing and sad. It is time to end corporate rule and if you vote for Republicans OR Democrats, either way, corporate America is pulling the strings. VOTE GREEN for real change.
Who votes for Greens? Micky Mouse?
You couldn't even get 200,000 votes for president last year.
How can voting for Greens be "real change" when the Greens are not a "real party"? I think the Lieberman Party may have more members.
Oh, and please stop dishonestly lumping true Democrats together with the Blue Dog DINOs and claiming all Democrats are the same. They are not!
Would you like the Green Party to be grouped together with the LaRouche Party? Oh, that's right, they're not a "real party" either.
Oops! I just grouped the Green Party with the LaRouche Party.
Prediction:
By the time Congress finally votes on some sort of sound health care system to replace our tattered jury-rig one, the majority of Americans will be so sick of these shenanigans that a real national program analogous to what every sane state has had for years, will politically be the ONLY OPTION.
That said, such might still be in our far distant future ......... so it goes.
When the Democrats screw this up...
When (not if) the Democrats screw up our only chance for health care reform, they need to be punished. They are little different than the Republicans because they are more concerned about the continued flow of corporate bribes than they are about voter concerns.
We do not have to vote for a Democrat next year. They need to hear that from us now. Your senator or representative may be good but if the Democrats do not have a majority, good Democrats will be even more neutered than they are now.
It is sad that members of Congress no longer fear voters. They get truckloads of cash delivered to their offices and use that cash to scare off competitors and if, by some freak accident, they lose an election they will immediately parachute into a seven or eight figure lobbying job.
We need real change the current Congress is not willing to deliver. It is time to throw ALL of them out.
deke44. The whole health
deke44. The whole health care option has been nothing more than a dog and pony show. Barney Frank had it perfectly right when he questioned the status quo insurance supporter. Barney asked such pointed and pertinent questions such as could the insurance supporter tell us the number of people in France that had to go bankrupt because of medical bills? in Germany? in Sweden? The insurance supporter said "I will have to provide you with those numbers later". Barney said you don't need to provide the numbers because the number is zero.
It wasn't Barney Frank, it was Al Franken...
But other than that, your point's well taken...