As this marathon health-care bill enters the uncertainty of semifinals tonight, we are left with one question of much broader philosophical scope: What in God's name are the likes of Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln doing in the Senate Democratic caucus?
Don't get me wrong. Only the radically unhinged insist on the contemporary equivalent of Cold War loyalty oaths and few demand that comprehensive ideology tests be rigorously applied to Democratic members of Congress. The oldest political party in the world achieved that status because of its often exasperating diversity of opinion and doctrinaire sloppiness -- fair enough.
But should there not be one issue of paramount public importance each year, or each Congressional session, or, at the very least, each decade or even century that the pertinent pols must sign on to if they plan on calling themselves Democrats or caucusing with same?
And wasn't a health-care reform bill -- inclusive, at the sorriest of minimums, of a vigorous public plan in competition with exploitative private insurance -- such an issue of paramount importance?
Please forgive what seems like -- or rather, what should be -- a rhetorical question. In the absence of even one defining issue around which all party members can or should rally as a matter of core principle, no political party is much of a political party. Just one -- just one measly little defining issue every few years, that's all we ask. Tell us the Democratic Party stands for something -- whatever that something is -- and then stick to it.
Indeed, enforce that something, if necessary. No one can tell Lincoln and Landrieu and Nelson and Lieberman that as a matter of conscience they must vote against it. But the leadership can tell them that if their conscience rebels, well, have a happy political life somewhere else. Because this -- whatever this is -- is one issue on which the leadership cannot and will not budge.
Why? Again, because it defines the party -- and the party cannot afford to allow a mere handful of members to redefine the party downward, to the detriment of all members, not to mention what the party at large believes is to the detriment of the nation.
But, that's all academic. The damage has been done -- "the cause" of a robust public option has been dead for months. In retrospect, it should never have been proposed, since the votes were never there because the non-voters knew the leadership would do nothing to enforce party discipline.
What's worse, no one among the leadership even bothered to canvass the caucus before proposing a robust public plan; even the White House didn't catch what was happening in the Senate until late summer. By then, it was all over, and the administration began quietly deemphasizing the importance of this critically important measure. It had no choice.
The ultimate paradox now is that what's left of the public option isn't worth passing and its original Democratic opponents will likely, blissfully kill it off. Opt out? More like cash in. Observed the director of the Health Policy Research Center at, in the Washington Post's words, "the liberal Urban Institute": "This is an example of a weak version of the public option, and it raises the question: Why are we doing this at all?... [T]his isn't working, and the CBO is telling them that."
What is it the Congressional Budget Office told them? Again, in the Post's words, the CBO said Harry Reid's "dramatically scaled-down public plan ... would have relatively little impact on the current system, would charge 'somewhat higher' premiums than its private competitors and would draw only about 4 million subscribers." The "opt-out" provision isn't entirely to blame, continued the CBO, but it sure helped.
No matter. It's dead anyway, since "Democrat" Joe Lieberman -- for all the wrong reasons -- has vowed to join Republicans in a filibuster. More power to him. To get the larger bill off the Senate floor and on to conference, Mr. Reid will now have to find a way to strip this abomination of an unpublic, optionless plan from the legislation. And that's progress.
After that? Oh, who knows. Maybe Joe will remain an independent Democrat, or maybe he'll formally join the Republicans. Frankly, who cares? To the Democratic Party it will make no difference, since its every intention is to bumble along, hither and yon, on every core principle.
****
P.M. Carpenter will be on vacation until Dec. 1st.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
tired of it al
i am tired of the joke of health reform,tired off all the people who still support the Democratic party. and tired off voting for 2 parties that now both represent big business interest.For those not paying attention the Democratic party has swung far right .they oppose nothing big business is against because they represent big business just like the republicans.They voted against a bill to control interest rates,they voted against a strong public option,they refuse to pass legislation to fix the broken banking industry.congress have become people who sell their favors to the highest bidder and it doesn't matter if they are republican or democrat.After 40 years of support i have stopped giving to the democratic party.To fools who say but this just means the republicans will get in,i say so what.read my lips,both parties represent the corporations
As it is
End Tyranny of Obstructionist GOP Minority With 'Nuke Option'
The time has come to bring an end to the tyranny of the obstructionist Republican minority in the Senate. It is time for Senate Democrats to change Senate rules and do away with the filibuster by invoking the "nuclear option" and force a vote on the health reform bill by a simple majority.
With opinion polls showing a clear majority of Americans favoring a health reform bill with a public option, the obstructionism of the GOP minority in their open defiance of the will of the majority of the American people must be brought to an end -- NOW.
I've written about this before on my blog before (See the URL below), but I'm emphasizing it again.
END THE TYRANNY OF THE SENATE GOP MINORITY! End the filibuster and pass the health reform bill -- with a public option -- NOW!
http://www.skeeterbitesreport.com/2009/10/letter-from-editor-for-public-option-to.html
There has never been a filibuster of anything this session
Because Harry Reid has caved in and withdrawn legislation at the mere threat of a filibuster. And as a result this weak, timid and ineffectual leader is now being rolled by his own caucus whio, like Lieberman and Snowe, see their threat to withhold support as a way to squeeze extra booty out of thier punk-ass "leader" as he begs them not to make him look foolish in front of the whole nation..
Absolutely despicable.
This is the time to force the obstructionists to STAND ON THEIR FEET and let the whole world watch them block even the tiniest sliver of reform. Let the whole world see the Lincolns the Landreaus and the Liebermans serve their corporate masters instead of the people who elect them...
If that happened, I guarantee that at least two of those three senators will go down in flames in their next election cycle.
Diversity and arguments in a caucus are one thing. Members using an important vote to squeeze thier leadership is inexcusable. It makes a mockery of those senators who stand with this bill on principle. The fact that Lieberman was rewarded and not punished for threatening to filibuster the group he caucuses has emboldened other "moderate" Dems to blackmail their leader. To threaten to block their party's bill from even COMING TO A VOTE demonstrates how they have no fear of consequences and how much contempt they feel for Harry Reid.
And don't give me the excuse that somehow Reid's actions are the bidding of the president. Ried himself stood up last winter and boldly proclaimed, "I don't work for Barack Obama." So I'll take him at his word
LBJ is puking in his grave
The too-propagandic Carpy Kool-Aid Party
Carpy carps, "Joe Lieberman -- for all the wrong reasons -- has vowed to join Republicans in a filibuster. More power to him."
Ah, the truth of Carpy, the FAUX Gnus show host wannabe.
Carpy's "every intention is to bumble along, hither and yon", propagandizing on every core principle.
Question
Here is a sincere question.
Why is there a fillibuster?
Really, why in the name of all that is holy, is the fillibuster a good idea for any deliberative body looking to get things done - anywhere? - any time? - any how?
I can understand the original concept, where, you know, everyone gets to have his say. Of course in the original version, having your say meant standing there and saying it. If you couldn't get it all said in one shot of standing there and saying it, well, you need to learn to get to the point. If forty senators want to stand and talk for say 24 hours each for a total of forty days, I could respect that. I might not like it, but I could respect it.
Where else could 41% of a group stop everyone else from even talking about something? Let's take "Where will we have Thanksgiving this year?' as an example. Most families have one or two assholes who will turn the discusssion of this into an anxiety provoking event. You know, the asshole cousin or brother-in-law who will insist that their lives will be destroyed unless Thanksgiving is held at 5:00 a.m. on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. And everyone else sits there gaped mouth while they explain why they want this and that failure to comply means that the rest of the family has always had it in for them. But what family, or any other group, would let those assholes stand up and say, "And you know what? We refuse to let the rest of you even talk about it"??
Only if those assholes had loaded guns and the rest of the family did not would that be possible.
And once a piece of legislation is approved for discussion, why is there a fillibuster option?
I mean the kind of fillibuster that the senate currently has. Again once the family decided to you know talk about Thanksgiving, I would be happy the let my asshole cousins, brother-in-law or whatever plead their case until they were hoarse and exhausted, while the rest of us rolled our eyes. Then the family would decide to have Thanksgiving on Thanksgiving Day at Grandma's.
One more time, why is there a fillibuster? As country, we believe in 50% plus one for everything else. We elect presidents based on that principle. Well, kind of. There is the whole electoral college thing. I guess that is why the American deomcracy is called an "experiment".
But I digress.
The theory (anyway) of democracy is that there will be a full discussion of a subject followed by a majority vote. The theory of the cloture fillibuster is that a distinct minority should be able to suppress discussion.
Why? ... Really, why?
I mean if during the discusssion process it was shown that there was insufficient information to make an informed decision, then someone in the minority could stand up and say something (in 24 hours or less) like, "Hey we really don't have enough information to kinda declare war on Iraq. So let's table the discussion."
Oh never mind.
Intent of the Filibuster
The intent of the filibuster is to facilitate a general consensus in the governing of our country.
But it is now being used to create greater divisions and to stall meaningful legislation. Thus, it must be abolished, along with private campaign contributions as well as corporate personhood.
Throwing all the lobbyists into the ocean would also be a big help. They would become fish food, and so their lives would have meaning.
Sharks
Regarding putting lobbyists in the ocean and the fact that most lobbyists are lawyers.
Q: Why don't sharks eat lawyers?
A: Professional courtesy.
Suggestion
After this dies, the only health care reform bills considered by Congress should be versions of a Single Payer System, as all sane nations have had for years ........ and keep doing that until we get it right too.
Maybe the Democratic Party should be awarded a special Peace Prize, since it will not fight for anything?
Anyone with cognitive capacity greater than a paramecium
KNEW the outcome of this farce from the day it was announced: Field-day (and phenomenal pay-day) for the corpoRats, shit for the people.
Who didn't know that this was gonna be the eventual outcome, no matter the bullshit spread by the Mocha Messiah and his carefully selected, corpoRat henchmen: it was NEVER gonna end any other way.
There was NEVER the least, tiniest, vaguest slightest scintilla of a chance that this theatrical farce would eventuate in any way other than it has proven to go.
And, may I say that, though I am not happy to report it, this was exactly what I have long said anyone with more cognitive competence than a mollusk should have anticipated?
The grip of the enormous financial interests is just too tight. "thePrez" is not the one to loosen their stranglehold. If he posed even the slightest threat to the established order, he would NOT be in the exalted position he now occupies. He'll never nip a finger --much less take a chunk out of the hands-- that curried and cosseted and carried him to this present pre-eminence. Are you 'Ucking kidding me?
It mighta been different if, like the auto industry, the Health Insurance parasites had had a well-cared-for, grateful unionized work-force the Owners needed to bust. But the cubicle drones a re passive, compliant, unresisting, grateful for any suck-ass job. And here's the thing all this tells me, loudly:
The 'sumbitches aren’t gonna do anything useful try to fix the climate, either.
Nagahapun. Hide and watch…
You're a little slow on the take, man
Some of your readers--namely, ME!--have been insisting that democrats need party discipline on procedural votes for literally, I don't know, months. Glad to see you're finally on board with the frakking obvious. Any party that can't (or won't) enforce party discipline on a procedural vote is no party; it's an anarchal amalgamation of self-centered pimp artists.
Yes, LIEberman, Lincoln & Nelson et al are having a field day doing what they do best--using their leverage to shake down the leadership for concessions to get their vote. This senatorial grandstanding due to peak leverage will continue unabated until after the 2010 elections, in which case that "60th vote" leverage will likely have evaporated. (Say goodbye, Joe)
As for your obession--and I do mean OBSESSION--with killing the public option, I say fuck you.
In the interest of moving this thing along, though, (absent reconciliation) Reid may have to strip the PO from the senate bill with the express promise of putting a stronger, more robust one back in during conference. That way we won't need the bluedogs (i.e. LIEberman) to vote for cloture on a bill that contains the PO.
BTW Carp, you are certainly a mass of conflicting impulses aren't you? One moment you say dems ought to have a set of principles and the next you are ready to jettison the PO for expedience. What gives?