It’s pretty sad that even with a public option not tied to Medicare reimbursement rates (i.e., not robust), the House leadership is struggling like hell to prevent 40 Democrats from defecting and voting with John Boehner. You can lay the blame for that in a number of places, including the White House, including Rahm Emanuel’s pattern of recruitment as DCCC chair, including the campaign finance system, including the Senate and their shitty health care plan. But it all comes down to 40 individuals making autonomous decisions. I can tolerate a wide swath of disagreement on most issues, but access to affordable health care isn’t one of them. For me, that’s the bedrock of the whole platform. Tell me why I’m wrong.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
13 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Can’t, because you’re not wrong. This is it, one of two things Democrats ran on for two straight huge election wins: the war and health care. Neither one is done. The teabaggers are never going to vote for you, and the Republicans won’t care whether you voted for it or not. Prime Democrats on the other hand starting with labor will be furious at you. If this goes down, a lot of the freshman class will get primaried, and rightfully so. So save yourself a lot of money or the risk of losing in the primary or the risk of winning the primary and running out of steam for the general, and just do the right thing. What retired politician wants to be the guy or gal who voted against Social Security, against Civil Rights?
The Republican Party has already committed political suicide.
The results of the healthcare vote will show whether Democrats intend to follow them.
You are not wrong, and Steny Hoyer, coddler of Blue Dogs, better start twisting arms–hard.
The saddest case is netroots-supported Larry Kissell. Voted against ACES and says he will vote against healthcare reform because it cuts $400 billion from Medicare and he promised seniors he would defend Medicare. He has already lost a lot of progressive support in NC because of ACES. He is about to lose a lot of ordinary Democratic support if he votes for healthcare reform. It’s like he’s handing the seat back to Robin Hayes.
In our one-degree-of freedom party system where a bad economic problem can put the other party in power, it is a matter of concern to have a political party get so ideologically homogeneous and almost militant. The unified ‘no’ Republican vote on the stimulus package was truly mind-blowing. Nineteen of 20 economists, including a number of very conservative ones, said it needed to be done, but the Republicans stood against the Chamber, the NAM and voted en bloc against it. That’s extreme. I wish I agreed that they have committed suicide. They’re more like zombies – they’re dead now but they’ll be back.
shit dude, I’ve been saying this for weeks, if not months, if not years.
It’s utterly vile, and it’s an abject betrayal of the Democratic Party’s platform.
this intra-party debate shouldn’t even be happening.
If there are 40 no votes, eight to ten of them will be from the left, not the right.
Happened to ACES, which scraped through by 7 votes. You had DiFazio and Boehner, Bachman and Kucinich voting against the bill together.
Jim McfuckingDermott on the “no” list. What the FUCK is going on?
We need a list. Is it available?
Call me thick but, I just don’t get this “evil Rahm who is all knowing and ruling. the puppetmaster of Obama and controller of all democrats.’
I am no fan of the guy but, honestly, progressives give this guy far too much power then he really has.
I know some is coming from a certain mainstream left blog that seems to insinuate that Rahm is the like the godfather of DC. But, he is chief of staff. Obama is his boss and Obama makes up his own mind.
That leads me to the other thing I don’t see. Are we all so use to the chest thumping and preening and bragging by Bush over the last 8 years that we assume the president is totally unengaged because we don’t see him spewing out nifty sound bites and posturing for the camera.
Really.
From everything I’ve read and heard the guy is very behind closed doors. He does his cajoling, arm twisting ect. in the oval and is not going to tell anyone about it.
He is masterful at playing poker in DC.
I also think we are missing something. We lambast the gop for demanding purity but, then are upset with blue dogs and the recruitment of them in order to propel Pelosi to Speaker and gain the majority.
Blues are pains but, they serve a purpose.
The one thing we have not learned yet is how to keep them on the straight line. There is something to be said for loyality and discipline. But, when the whip does crack then we whine about the dems being heavy handed.
We first need to figure out what we want and how far to go and other asst. ways of keeping the dems in line and voting right.
I’d like to add that the best analogy I’ve seen about Obama and the way he conducts business is the one with the Godfather.
We keep thinking Obama is soft because he does not act like Sonny when in fact, Obama is very Michael.
I think many on the left need to watch the Godfather again.
I’ve written many of the same things. But my problem with Rahm isn’t that I think he is the source of all evil. My problem isn’t that he kicked ass and won back the House for Pelosi. My problem is that he could have won back the House with better Democrats in several cases. And we’re paying for that tonight. He also taught these vulnerable Dems to pad their conservative cred by voting against the leadership on meaningless procedural votes (like approving the journal) and gave them bad habits so that now they vote against the rule for a vote when it actually matters.
I can’t go back in time to see if Rahm could have helped elect more progressive candidates than those who eventually won, but I’m skeptical.
I would bet that he worked to elect those people he thought stood the best chance of winning. And I’m in no position to guess that his evaluation was incorrect.
Agree that Evil Rahm, Puppetmaster of Obama gets overblown. The President is responsible for what his Administration does and doesn’t do, whatever advice he receives. It was Obama who chose to make this bill about money saved instead of health care for all. It was Obama who has gone on radio silence for extended periods of time. I think when you have won once-in-a-century successive elections, ruling by polls is stupid, but every time he goes on TV and talks about health care, the polls bump up, even if the egregious talking heads want to talk about the Cambridge Police Department or “overexposure.” Moreover, while it is fair to pin some of the class of 2006′ behavior on Rahm’s recruiting, the class of 2008 is Van Hollen’s baby, and it has character issues too. But absolutely none of this changes Booman’s original point, which is that all of these individuals are responsible for their own behavior.
Sigh. I wish people would stop assessing the White House as if it could control Congress. Obama doesn’t have that power. Nor does Rahm. If anything, the latest flareup in the Democratic caucus should show how difficult a crowd it is to control.
Blame the blue-dogs. Blame the legislators who want to throw women under the bus or sacrifice health care reform over abortion. Don’t blame the White House for that dynamic.