I was about mid-sip last night when MSNBC's Ed Schultz induced the coffee-spraying moment: "What's the holdup?" he abruptly asked a dumbfounded Sherrod Brown about health-care legislation in the Senate. Why aren't all Democrats on board with this yet? he continued, apparently back on board himself with legislation he's derided for weeks.
I understand Mr. Schultz's frustration, as well as his ambivalence. We fought and won the First World War in nearly less time than has been devoted to butchering health-care reform. What I don't understand, however, is how liberals like Schultz can now envision the end zone, just as that zone has receded farther than ever.
First, there's the public-opinion problem, which, I can guarantee you, senators and representatives in fragile seats are far more obsessed with than your bloody health care. Overall, the nation is almost precisely split, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, with 48 percent in favor of the legislative changes proposed, and 49 percent opposed.
That's not the kind of popular groundswell an at-risk pol looks for: a con for every pro. Plus, a critical caveat should have come with the Post's reporting on its poll -- a caveat the pols are well aware of, even if the Post wasn't. "Whatever the outcome of the health-care debate, it will have a powerful influence in shaping the political climate for next year's midterm elections," averred the paper. But increasingly that's no longer the case: Jobs are now king of the electoral conversation, since Congress has dithered as long as it has; plus, even if passed, the legislation won't kick in for years, subtracting from any potential Democratic benefit next year.
It gets even worse. "[T]here has been a small but significant increase in the number (now 37 percent) who anticipate their care deteriorating under a revamped system," reported the Post, "putting that number in line with opinion in July 1994, just before President Bill Clinton's health-care reform efforts fizzled." Even worse, "Looking toward next year's midterm elections, 25 percent say they are more apt to back a candidate who supports the proposed health-care changes; 29 percent are less likely to do so." Nearly half can't see that any of the changes make much of a difference -- an astounding level of public apathy in the midst of what was billed as fundamental reform.
And it gets even worse than that, where it really counts. A plurality of the almighty independents are now opposed to reform (52 percent to 45), and "Almost twice as many independents strongly oppose the measure as strongly support it." Yoo-hoo, you moderate-to-conservative Dems from swing districts and lightly purpled states: Your keepers are calling.
Furthermore, the "anti's" have barely begun to fight. First, there was that "government evaluation released Saturday" that House Republicans will be thundering to midterm-voting seniors about -- the one which "found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether."
Sure, Congress can fix that, said the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is similar to the Congressional Budget Office in its nonpartisan accounting duties. But "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" -- which, translated, means bye-bye to "a big chunk" of the House's financing.
What's more, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an "assortment of national business groups" are just now locking and loading on the deeper politics of this thing, attacking current health-care legislation "as a job killer and threat to the nation's economy," continued the Post in another story this week. That's pure, unrighteous bunk, you say? Well of course it is. But what's your point? It works.
But finally we come to the one Post story -- again, these are just pieces from one paper, and from this week alone -- that answers Ed Schultz's question pretty much in toto: Harry Reid hasn't the votes -- not on the bill he's fashioned.
As proof, this is all one needs to know: "Recent polls suggest that reform is a difficult sell in [Sen. Blanche] Lincoln's home state. The Arkansas Poll, conducted in mid-October by the University of Arkansas's Survey Research Center, found that 39 percent of voters support a public option and 48 percent oppose the idea."
End of story. Among Senate Democrats' irreconcilable quadrumvirate -- Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and the Dem-caususing Joe Lieberman -- Lincoln alone is facing a grim reelection battle this year, and she's not about to put an electoral knife to her throat. Not for Harry, not for Sherrod Brown, not for Ed Schultz, and not for me or you. And if by some miraculous intervention she did? Then Ben, or Mary, or Joe, or all of them combined, would fill her irreconcilable place.
What's the holdup, Ed? Hell, they haven't even started.
Progressives' best tactic at this point is that of a Fabian-socialist maneuver: They've stabbed, and now it's time to withdraw and live to fight another day. Gut the diluted public option and just pass this thing. The electorate cares about jobs -- not this endless melodrama of health-care reform. And if this Democratic Congress would just get to the work of creating jobs, it would have a pro-party argument to make in 2010 and, therefore, it just might find more progressives sitting among its ranks in 2011, randy to pass a genuine public option. Otherwise, it will only slide more to the right.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Nothing short of a strike
The only thing that could save the public option would be a nationwide strike by doctors and nurses. I agree with Carpenter, the progs are victims of that odd liberal conundrum where even those they are trying to help are opposed. They should strip the bill to its bare bones and pass it. The idiots will decide in 2010 whether another attempt can be made in the near future.
British health care and the CON on America
As an Ex pat it is impossible to miss the CON being perpetrated on America in regards to health care. If 97% of Americans had the British National Health Care system they would weep with relief. I can see a Doc in a few hours and receive any health care I need, for free. I could tell you story after story after story. Big changes on the way America. :-( Ex pat, lucky enough to live in the highlands of Scotland. Davy
Carp: King of the cherried poll pickers
Well, well well, Carp, Old Boy, you write one decent column and then predictably revert to form and decide to lay on the corporate lather.
You found a poll than proved your preconceived notions about the public option--ignored the preponderence of the others that refute it--then spread the manure on thick for your audience and expected people to buy it.
What in the name of all that is holy are you smoking?
Damn, dude, can't you at least let this thing play out for a week before proclaiming doom and gloom? Or is it in your DNA?
Face facts--you don't know what Miss Blanche is going to do any more than anybody else. Let Harry have his shot before killing the PO for the 824th time. You'll feel better. I'll feel better. We'll all feel better.
There is indeed such a thing as "a stupid Carpy comment"
Once again, Carpy rants for the far right. He tells us, there is no hope, so stop trying to get Congress to pass a credible health care bill.
Now a true progressive talking head would be inspiring and would encourage us to take action like this:
http://mobilizeforhealthcare.org/
But that does not fit in with Carpy's not well hidden agenda and ulterior motives.
Honestly Buzzflash, did you ever consider that your lack of adequate financial support could be tied to allowing a FAUX Gnus show host wannabe like Carpy to spout his stupidity on your website?
Think about it. But don't think too long, you may just go offline. By the way, going offline is not the best way to get rid of Carpy.
Proof Carpy is wrong, again
New Polls Show Public Demands a Public Option
Link
Bumbling and timid? NO -- CORRUPT!
It's amazing how bumbling and timid the Democrats appear to be when they have corporate donors telling them to be bumbling and timid.
This just in: The Democrats aren't bumbling and timid -- They're on the take!
How many times are you going to keep voting for this corrupt party that's on the same corporate payroll as the Republicans? Are you starting to feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football that Lucy always snatches away?
The Green Party doesn't accept ANY corporate money and has always backed citizens' interests such as single-payer health care, impeaching Bush, prosecuting the torturers, and slashing the bloated military budget.
VOTE GREEN AND START TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THE CORPORATIONS!
The LaRouch Party is more popular than the Greens!
A vote for GREEN is a vote for RED! Vote for progressive Democrats, they are true BLUE!
Don't listen to the Green liar. Not all Democrats are alike as he would dishonestly have you believe. Seriously, A Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean could hardly be placed in the same category as a Max Baucus or Rahmbo Emanuel. The first two are true progressive Democrats. The last two are DINOs on the take from big business sponsored lobbyists.
And how about Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, who
Will Close $50 Trillion Loophole In Derivatives Reform Bills
No one could possibly misake these two progressives for Blue Dog DINO-Fascists like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. So it would be a huge mistake to attempt to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Every vote for a Green would split the Democratic vote and allow a Republican to take office. Think of NY23 in reverse.
There's a reason why no Green serves in Congress, and why very few Greens were ever elected to any office, including dog catcher, unless party affilation is left off of the voting ballots. Their message, what ever it is, just doesn't resonate with the voters.
However, the message of true progressive Democrats does indeed resonate with the voters.
We voted out the Neocon-Fascist Republicans over the past two elections. Now it's time to also vote out the Blue Dog DINO-Fascists in next year's Democratic Primaries. This is the best path to a government that is responsive to WE THE PEOPLE instead of to the upper 1% plutocracy and their multinational corporations.
The Democrats AS A WHOLE are corrupt
You're confused. I never said all the Democrats were alike.
The Democratic Party as a whole generally won't do anything to threaten corporate profits. They saddled us with NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO, which (among other things) export US jobs; let's see you explain that.
The true progressives in the Democratic Party are kept in check by the corrupt, corporate-financed DLC.
Democrats allowed a fascist to run the White House for eight years, declaring impeachment "off the table". This other corporate-funded party as a whole allowed all the outrages of the Bush Administration to happen, and even now are protecting the Bush-Adminstration torturers, and allowing the government to record our phone calls and emails. Let's see you explain that.
Your Democrats as a whole are continuing Bush's two wars, and even expanding one of them. Let's see you explain how progressives could do that. Even now, they've given us a public "option" that's unavailable to most people.
The Green Party has about 200 elected officials in office nationwide at the local level. In the last few years, Greens have won three offices in state houses of representatives, which seems to have shut up the people saying the Greens could only win at the local level. (Before that, they said the Green Party couldn't win any elections.)
The Green Party is growing, as people realize the corporate-funded parties are the source of our problems.
Good luck voting the DINOs out of the Democratic Party. I hope it's eventually transformed into a party worth voting for. Unfortunately this is unlikely since they receive most of their funding from corporate sources.
Please stop lying
Again you are implying that all dems need to be voted out of office, which is dishonest. The truth is, the Blue Dog DINO-Fascists are a minority in the Democratic Party, but many of them hold powerful positions, and when combined with the minority Republicans, there are enough of them to stop the progressive Democratic agenda.
Dream on if you think on a federal level a Green candidate is going to beat out any Democract, including a Blue Dog.
All you do is turn Democrats against you. Meanwhile all of the Republicans already hate the Green Party. No wonder LaRouch is more popular than Greens!
Meanwhile we progressive Democrats will work on getting rid of the Blue Dog DINO-Fascists, instead of tearing the party completely apart like you're trying to do with your nonsense. We already have shut down donations to the DCCC, DNC and Blue Dog incumbents. Now we are going to start fielding progressive candidates to challenge all Blue Dogs up for reelection next year.
Our plan is working, on the other hand, you Greens don't have a plan at all!
Your First Big Mistake Was Attributing
even the most modest intelligence to Schultzie.
This is the man who planned, and strove, and still thinks there's a place for him to become the Rush of the Left.
You're bestowing on him FAR more importance than he deserves...He's just maybe one brain cell smarter than Beck...
Impossible solutions
Like Global Heating, the Health Care system will be talked about, debated on tv, committees will be formed and nothing will happen --- unless it's something the GOP wants.
It is nothing short of incredible. No matter the size of their majority, the Dems cave into Republican moves. They can't bring themselves to even question Bush during his reign of terror, they can't bring themselves to muster enough courage to tell Joe Lieberman to take a hike, they certainly can't manage to show any backbone to the Blue Dogs in their own party. Harry Reid could be dominated by a wet paper towel.
Since NOTHING is going to upset the apple cart of big oil on global heating and big pharma/insurance on health care, why not go for broke? Let's slash the Pentagon budget all the way down to 45% of our total budget and put that money into health care, environmental works and the schools. No need to raise taxes, just curb the "Defense Department" by 6% or so. We the People could demand our tax dollars going to help people instead of killing them for a change.
Impossible to do. Absolutely. Especially with these guys in "charge."
The Difficulty With Having Two Objectives
The fundamental problem with the passage of the proposed healthcare reform is that it has two objectives: (1) cover everyone and (2) a more efficient system. This muddles the message and more than doubles the opponents.
If I must choose one or the other, then I choose cover everyone now, and make the damned system more efficient later. In fact expanding coverage will increase the political leverage for increasing efficiency (lowering costs) in the future. I would make that choice because real lives would be saved or improved during the intervening years while we wait for economic and political perfection.
Carpenter is prescient in identifying "jobs" as the most important and urgent political issue. While I agree the clock is running out, I think Obama is timing things just about right. First of all the public option is a good thing and worth fighting for in this round. It appears that some version will come into exitence. It is always easier to reform something in the future than create it out of whole cloth. Even if all we accomplish is prove that opt-in or opt-out doesn't work, that is a leg up on future reform.
As for "jobs" legislation,the same cold political calculus that carpenter has rightfully applied to healthcare reform applies to jobs legislation. Obama got as much stimulus as he could as fast as could in the first round because that was the political reality. Three months ago, the prospect of an additional stimulus package was politically laughable. Remember August? But as I like to say, "Reality has reared its ugly head." The electorate have begun to realize just how bad this recession will be (not has been) in terms of unemployment. The electorate will spend the Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Year season with most of their family and friends. They will get hands on anecdotal information about how bad and pervasive it is. By January, there will be a real political appetite for jobs legislation.
Realistically, a second jobs (stimulus) package could not have been passed before then. Healthcare reform could not have been passed afterward. So give Obama at least some credit for good political timing.
This Is The Holdup
Obama never got off his bipartisan ass to promote an agenda. He passed to Congress his mandate to lead the nation into the 21st Century and begin to turn the US off the path toward third-world economic status. He ran around the world acting like a Nobel-prize winning big shot attempting to globalize what he's been doing domestically. In the process, he revitalized the opposition into being a viable party and gave it a shot to return to power just two years after they were being buried by the pundits who then wondered what was going to replace them.
True, Obama did nothing to cause the problems he faces. But he's also done nothing to fix them. Heck of a job, Barry! You lost THIS independent!