December 2009 Archives
Liberal and conservative bloggers are unitied at last! Well, at least some liberal and conservative bloggers. They aren't happy with the health care bill (for different reasons, of course) and are calling for it to be killed (while acknowledging that isn't likely to happen at this point). Bloggers on the left and the right also agree that the individual mandate needs to be taken out, calling it "unconstitutional." Plus, both sides are fuming over Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-NE) kickback. Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Gee. I guess President Obama really is unifying the country. Against him."
What else is going on in the blogosphere?
- Some bloggers (Singiser, Bink) aren't surprised that ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani is bowing out of the NY SEN race, other bloggers (Singer) are "shocked" and still others (Attaturk) are sure he'll be back. And conservative bloggers (Wolf,Allahpundit) are devastated over the loss. Daily Kos' Steve Singiser: "This is an enormous blow to the New York Republican Party, which now has to recruit a remotely viable candidate for the Senate despite a weak bench."
- Liberal bloggers (Singer) say GOP "efforts to drum up a wave" of Dem retirements haven't succeeded and have actually backfired by forcing incumbents to affirm they're running for reelection.
- Conservative bloggers (Richardson, Malkin) are fuming about the Obama admin. "quietly" sending 12 Gitmo detainees back to their home countries.
HEALTH CARE: No Woman, No Cry
A lot of complaints about the health care bill:
- TPM's John Marshall :"From a political and policy perspective, this is actually the thing that worries me most -- the fact that a lot of the reforms won't go into effect for five years. A lot of it, it turns out, isn't just because big reforms take a long time to enact but largely because the delay is helping keep the cost down within the president's promise of a deficit neutral bill. That strikes me as a potentially disastrous tradeoff since that will leave Dems running in 2010 and 2012 on reform legislation that hardly anyone's got any benefit from."
- Firedoglake's Jon Walker: "This Senate bill is bad and there are many ways to improve it. Right now, it is not real reform–it is only a corporate giveaway that might trickle down to help a few Americans."
- MyDD's Scarecrow: "To every Democrat who created and now defends this monster of a bill, 'you are an idiot.' You blew the best chance we’ve had in decades, you protected the abusive industries instead of their victims, and by enriching the corrupters, you’ve made it harder to fix this mess in the future. You betrayed those who put you in office. If you don’t fix this, we will watch/help you lose next November and again in 2012. Trust us."
- Firedoglake's sharkfu: "I oppose the Senate health care reform bill because,at the very least, it should not leave women worse off that we were before reform began. ...I am disgusted...disappointed...not surprised but not defeated either."
- Open Left's Chris Bowers:"We may never have found 51 votes for reconciliation, and there may have been the same, long, slow fold on Medicare expansion as there was on the public option. Still, as we look to the future, I hope any path progressives follow on health care focuses on reconciliation and expanding existing public options, rather than creating new ones."
- The Corner's Veronique de Rugy, on the cost of health care reform: "I have to say, this whole mess makes me incredibly sad. Especially considering that it's not as if the billions of dollars that we and the future generations will have to pay for this reform will fix the problems the current health-care system does have."
The bill does get some love from a couple liberal bloggers:
- MyDD's Jonathan Singer:"This isn't a perfect bill. But it's also not a bad bill, either. And the American public, particularly Democrats, appear to be warming to the proposal. ...as the public sees that the legislation nearly through the Senate expands healthcare coverage for 31 million Americans while greatly reducing the deficit, it's understandable that more would come around to supporting the bill."
- Ezra Klein, on the partisanship of the health care vote: "Tonight's vote was a moment of enormous progress for social justice, but evidence of enormous regression in our political system."
- Open Left's Mike Lux: "The divide between progressives on whether to support the health care bill is one of the most striking things I have seen in all my years in politics. ...Beyond the well and passionately argued opinions on both sides, though, there are two facts which are undeniable: for better or worse, this bill passing the Senate keeps the process moving forward; and, for better or worse, the Senate bill is simply unpassable in the House."
HEALTH CARE II: You Can't Tell Me What To Do
Conservatives never wanted the individual mandate in health care legislation, and now that the public option and/or Medicare buy-in aren't in there, liberals have also turned against the mandate:
- MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "It's painfully obvious that there are no talking points available to Democrats to attempting to defend the mandate. Its maddening to attempt to figure out why Democrats are intent on imposing a mandate now, enforceable by IRS penalties, that doesn't go into effect for 5 years, only to get clubbed with it for the next three cycles."
- Daily Kos' mcjoan, arguing against the individual mandate: "Holding some of the cards in this against the insurance companies wouldn't be bad politics, either. Make them demonstrate in the next four years that they will comply with reform, that they will make an effort to hold down costs to consumers, and then give them their mandate. It'd be a lot more popular than forcing people to buy junk insurance and telling them that you're 'providing' it."
- Hot Air's Ed Morrissey, on the employer and individual mandates: "The mandates will both increase the participation in the pool of higher-risk patients and increase demand for services from providers. That will have the same effect nationally as we have seen in Massachusetts and Maine, which is to make insurance premiums much more costly, wait times for services lengthen, and eventually put providers and insurers out of business if they can’t raise prices to meet those conditions."
- American Spectator's Quin Hillyer, on the individual mandate: "It is unconstitutional. And it is the ground on which our senators should have been fighting all along, because it is incredibly unpopular as well."
- Klein: "There is, of course, a big difference between forcing people to purchase a private product and forcing people to purchase a public product. But not, I think, as big a difference as some have implied."
HEALTH CARE III: Not Winning A Popularity Contest This Decade
Liberals and conservatives are disgusted with Nelson for demanding earmarks for NE in exchange for his vote and with the Dem leadership for giving in to his demands:
- Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Whoo-doggie, that's an interesting contrast to his 'I just can't support his budget-busting bill' prior to getting his $100 million for the state. I guess that's the going price for principle these days. But he could teach progressives a thing or two about how to negotiate. Hold your breath long enough and they give you everything you want."
- MyDD's Scarecrow: "The tribute Senator Nelson received for his vote is particularly noteworthy for its level of cynicism and corruption, even if you ignore his assault of women’s rights."
- Matthew Yglesias: "I think this reminds us that Nelson’s concession is totally politically unsustainable. ...The only real question becomes whether we’ll 'level down' by having Nebraska treated the same way other states are treated by the bill, or whether we’ll 'level up' by having the federal government pick up a larger share of the tab for the other 49 states."
- Michelle Malkin: "The backlash against Nelson’s sellout is building. And more Nebraskans are calling the Cornhuckster out."
- Townhall's Liebau: "Really, did the Democrats just pay off almost every member of their caucus to support this awful thing?"
- Klein: "For all the flak Ben Nelson gets, the process of pulling him onto the bill was a lot more straightforward than what Joe Lieberman required. Nelson, for better or worse, compromised. ...The compromises weren't all pretty, but they were all compromises, both for the Democrats and for Nelson. And all of the compromises made sense given where Nelson is coming from, and who he represents."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Great Expectations
Yglesias, on health care reform according to candidate Obama vs. Pres. Obama:
"I think that most people vastly overrate the President’s ability to influence this kind of thing. But one reason that people overrate it is that presidential candidates encourage unrealistic expectations. Obama didn’t canvass the country saying 'I will use my agenda-setting powers to encourage congress to take up comprehensive health reform and then meekly accept whatever the 60th-most-liberal senator is willing to agree to.' Primary candidates competed with one another to offer the most aggressively sound climate change plans instead of acknowledge that this was all wishful thinking and congress would constrain the limits of the possible. Obama in particular encouraged the idea that he could and would deploy his undeniable skills at set-piece speech delivery to cause legislative action. I don’t think we should reject a good bill in order to get revenge on a candidate for raising false expectations or breaking promises, but I think it’s easy to see why people are upset with Obama."
LEST WE FORGET: To Sum It Up
Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:
"Between now and New Year's, gas-bags of every stripe will be offering their bloated reviews of the decade about to end. Since I believe that all human thought can be compressed into 140 characters or less, I offer instead this tweet:
The decade began with Bush fucking the voters and ended with Tiger fucking everyone else."
Liberal bloggers are donning their black clothing and mourning the death of the public option. Was this the public option's one great chance or can it come back in the future? If it didn't survive this year, with a Dem in the WH and Dem majorities in the House and the Senate, coming off the high of '08, then under what conditions could it survive?
What else is going on in the blogosphere?
- Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Geraghty) wonder if FL Gov. Charlie Crist (R) will, for the good of the GOP, drop out of the SEN primary.
- Liberals (Lewison) and conservatives (Geraghty) take a look at Pres. Obama's latest approval ratings. Lewison: "Even though Americans disapprove of President Obama's record on many domestic policy issues, they do not see the Republican Party as a viable alternative. At some point, that may change, because the GOP is also the only alternative, but for now, the country is not looking for President Obama to be more like Republicans -- they are looking for him (and the Democratic Congress) to deliver on the change they voted for in 2008."
- Liberal bloggers (Dayen, Sirota) see a "huge problem" with Sen. Byron Dorgan's (D-ND) allegiations that the WH politicized the FDA, a supposedly "insulated" agency, to kill his drug reimportation amendment.
- Liberal bloggers (Yglesias,Lewison, Dayen) give Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) a virtual high five for telling Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) "STFU," while conservative bloggers (Malkin,Richardson,
Allahpundit, Hengler, Foster) call Franken's behavior "outrageous."
- Conservatives (Malkin, Kudlow) and liberals (Dayen, Sirota) alike can't understand why the Senate Banking Cmte passed Fed Chair Ben Bernanke's reconfirmation through to the floor.
HEALTH CARE: Grey Skies Are Gonna Clear Up, Put On A Happy Face
Liberal bloggers muse about the public option's cause of death and the future of health care:
- Open Left's Chris Bowers, on all of the "post-mortems" being written for the public option: "Before this line of writing becomes too widespread, we all need to remember that the only reason we didn't win the public option campaign was because a few Senators lied to us. Unless someone can think of ways to have prevented them from lying, then these post-mortems will be useless."
- MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The most important point here, and the point Bill Clinton can say better than anyone else, is that if healthcare reform doesn't make it through now it may be years until it comes up again. This bill isn't perfect, but it may be the best chance at reforming the system that there will be for a long, long time."
- Ezra Klein: "Would public insurance be better? It would. I'd be happier arguing for it right now. But that's not the choice before us. The people this bill will affect aren't facing divergent futures with public and private insurance. They're facing divergent futures with private insurance or no insurance."
- TPM's Josh Marshall, on the centrality of the public option being "overstated": "Assuming the bill passes stripped of a Public Option and Medicare Buy-In, just what's left? My own sense is that the Public Option has been so heavily debated and politicized that most people just don't have a very clear idea what's in the rest of the bill."
- Open Left's Adam Bink, in response to Pelosi's call for holiday messages to Obama: "Dear President Obama, Thanks for...no real support for the public option, hiring folks like Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina to push Congressional leaders to cave to Joe Lieberman and Blue Dogs, and caving on core Democratic initiatives of late, such as re-importation of cheaper prescription drugs."
Conservative bloggers focus on what's left in the bill:
The Corner's Rich Lowry, on liberal calls to get rid of the individual mandate without providing a public option or Medicare buy-in: "Now, finally, we can all agree on something — the individual mandate should be killed."
Power Line's Paul: "Now that the Medicare expansion has been stripped from the Democrats' health care legislation, we would do well to focus on the Medicaid expansion. ...Where will the money for the expansion come from? Not from the federal government. ...The drip-drip of the consequences of Obamacare will feel like torture to state governors and, quite possibly, to many of the politicians responsible for enacting it."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Sacrificial Lamb
Washington Post's Klein:
"My sense is that the Obama administration attempted a low-risk political strategy for itself. By eschewing any strong commitment to the public option, they made it easier to sacrifice something that they always figured they'd probably have to lose. It's telling that in all the coverage of the death of the public option, you haven't seen stories saying 'Obama administration dealt huge defeat in Senate.'
But in doing so, they betrayed a bond that the left thought it had with the young administration. And that's made this a much higher-risk strategy for the bill, and thus for the White House, too. If the Obama administration had been firmer on the public option and only let it go after grueling negotiations that ended with a concrete agreement on the bill, it's possible the administration would have had a better case to make to progressives. On the other hand, there are a lot of 'ifs' in this debate, and there are plenty of ways that could have backfired, too."
LEST WE FORGET: Refreshments
From Overheard In The Office:
Peon #1: There's sperm on the President's head!
Peon #2: I'm really glad that I know you're talking about your Obama Chia Pet.
Employee #1: It's 5 O'clock somewhere!
Employee #2: It's 5 O'clock at my desk. What do you think this water in my bottle here is?
It's becoming clear that until a health care bill passes (or doesn't), liberal bloggers will continue to disagree on what a bare bones bill must include, while conservative bloggers will continue the call to fight. After roiling the blogosphere with his opposition to the current bill, Markos Moulitsas says he can see how "reasonable people" could support the health care bill without a public option, and even concedes he could "rethink" his opposition, but only if the bill were changed to include some hefty restrictions on the insurance companies that the bill lacks. So can the liberal bloggers be harmonious by the new year? Well, that depends on what goes down on Capitol Hill before Christmas.
What else is going on in the blogosphere?
- Jim Geraghty questions why the DCCC would publicize a "I'm not retiring" list and points out some names conspicuously missing from it: Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), Rep. John Spratt (D-SC), Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN), Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR), Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL), Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV).
- After Hotline On Call wrote about the NRSC refusing to meet with Assemb. Chuck DeVore (R-CA), conservatives (Wolf, Hillyer) blasted the NRSC for "making poor and unwise choices" in SEN races. Hillyer, on the NRSC: "They always pick the wrong candidates, do the wrong things, promote the wrong strategies and tactics. They are a plague on Republicanism and on conservatism. They are a disaster. And they should cease and desist."
- Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Klein) give Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) props for his leadership, acknowledging how difficult it is to get 60 votes when you can't spare a single Dem vote, plus you have to "pick up one or two from the other side."
- Bloggers (desmoinesdem, Yglesias, Jessup) laugh off Time's pick of Fed Chair Ben Bernanke as "Person of the Year." Desmoinesdem: "He shouldn't even get another term at the Fed, let alone 'Person of the Year.'"
HEALTH CARE: All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth
Liberals continue the in-fight over whether it's time to stop supporting Dem efforts to get a bill passed soon:
- Moulitsas: "In short, there appears to be a divide between those who think the insurance industry will play nice, even with little incentive to do so, and people like me who don't. They believe that government will enforce the new regulations, people like me have seen entire industries employ armies of lawyers and lobbyists with the sole intent of undermining and avoiding such regulations."
- Ezra Klein"The bill is winding its way through Congress. The awful compromises have begun, the unconscionable omissions glare angrily, and some of the participants are both incoherent and disingenuous. ...I still believe health care will look more similar than different when the day is done. A good bill will pass, if not a sufficient one."
- Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "Given the centrality of those subsidies to the expansion of coverage, one of the biggest questions about this reform effort is whether the subsidies are politically sustainable. Unfortunately, history suggests they may not be. ...Because the mechanism for making coverage affordable is subsidies for low-income Americans rather than systemic reform that would apply across the board, the subsidies will constantly be on the chopping block -- and the expanded coverage that is the goal of this bill will always be at risk."
- MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "What I don't understand, is why the Senate Democrats would endure so much political damage as has been self-inflicted over the past 8 months, only to come up with so little reform. They could have passed those good things back in June easily; they could probably have co-signed McCain to introduce his bill and attach those things on it with a bipartisan stamp of approval. I'll betcha there will be no more partisan attempts at getting 60 next year. If McCain (or some other Republican like him) and Lieberman are not on board, anything in mind of passing is not going anywhere in the Senate."
- MyDD's Charles Lemos: "The best kept secret in the country is the healthcare provided by the Veterans Administration, a single payer system. So extending a successful program that saves lives and cuts costs is a naturally an object of GOP disdain simply because it is government-run. Their love of free markets will kill us all."
- Firedoglake's Jon Walker: "The greatest myth being told in Washington right now is that reconciliation could not produce a good health care bill. That is pure nonsense. ...Don’t buy Democrats’ lame excuses for not doing everything they can to get the best bill possible. Just because they don’t want to pass a good health care reform bill using reconciliation doesn’t mean they couldn’t."
- John Marshall, frustrated with a slew of e-mails from readers proclaiming they feel betrayed by Dems on health care and are done with "pragmatic political action": "I'm not sure where the idea got started that any of this stuff was easy."
- Open Left's David Sirota, praising Howard Dean's calls to kill the bill: "I want to take a moment just to recognize what has been recognized before, but needs to be recognized right here and now one more time: Howard Dean is a genuine hero. ...Here is a guy taking on the same obsequious Professional Democratic Elites in DC that are saying we must pass any bill, no matter how destructive, just to give Democrats a political win."
And conservatives weigh in:
- Geraghty, on what Dean's opposition means for the left: "Dean's style was never 'yeah, okay' - it was always more 'YEAAARRGH' - but the fact that he can't bring himself to call the bill an improvement over the status quo will trigger all of the anger points of the libral grassroots - cries of betrayal, paranoia about special interests, distrust of their leaders, attribution of sinister occult powers to Joe Lieberman, etc."
- Geraghty: "I could understand a senator voting for legislation that is unpopular, but that one thinks either is necessary (to make a bad situation better), or will become more popular over time. But this plan is likely to get much, much more unpopular over time."
- Power Line's Paul, suggesting that Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) is the one to watch on health care: "The best hope for derailing it now lies with center-left Senators from Red States because these members (a) may face electoral constraints and (b) may not be preoccupied with expanding government power."
HEALTH CARE II: You Went On A Man Date?
Without a public option or Medicare buy-in to make insurance affordable for the masses, some liberal bloggers wonder why the individual mandate is still part of the bill, while other liberal bloggers defend its inclusion:
- Daily Kos' David Waldman, on the "ridiculous" individual mandate: "What if we 'provided' millions of American families with homes of their own... provided they buy themselves one... or else face a penalty under federal law?"
- Moulisas: "The mandate puts the government in the untenable position of forcing everyone to buy a shitty product from private companies enjoying ant-monopoly protections. Funny how all the measures that helped people in this reform bill were stripped out, but the one that screws over many people and bails out a failed industry (that doesn't even need a bailout) somehow has no problem staying in."
- Matthew Yglesias: "But assuming you’re not going to have default enrollment, which has never been on the table throughout this process, you need an individual mandate to make the insurance function work."
- Klein: "Kill the individual mandate and you make it easy for Congress to let the country backslide to its current condition. In a world with an individual mandate, insurance has to be affordable. If it's not, there's a huge political backlash. ...The individual mandate controls average premium costs, but more than that, it is the political mechanism for cost control. Kill it, and you've killed our best hope of making the next reform better than this one."
HEALTH CARE III: Bernie, Bernie, He's Our Man!
While conservative bloggers thank Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) for being the GOPer to "finally" decide to fight by forcing a reading of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (D-VT) single-payer amendment, liberal bloggers are OK with Sanders saying he won't vote for the bill because they would rather give into his demands than Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT).
- Erick Erickson, on Sanders pulling his amendment mid-reading: "In short, the Democrats have now crossed the rubicon. ...Hopefully the Senate Republicans now realize they are dealing with third world kleptocrats, not American legislators. Mitch McConnell’s 'messaging' strategy bought the Democrats time to cut a deal and now the Democrats are willing to throw away over 200 years of Senate tradition and order to confiscate 1/6th of the American economy from the private sector."
- Town Hall's Jillian Bandes, on Coburn's request for the clerk to read Sanders' amendment: "It could be a precursor to full-out war, where Republicans invoke every procedural hang-up in the books and invoke the wrath of the entire Democratic Party."
- MyDD's Charles Lemos, on Bernie Sanders: "Personally, I see this as a welcomed development. I'd rather have the leadership placate Bernie than appease Joe."
- Daily Kos' Lewison, on Sanders: "This is a big deal. Bernie Sanders has got to be facing incredible pressure, the likes of which Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson have never seen. If he manages to hold firm to his position and improve this bill, he'll have shown that you can't always count on the left to cave to the right. That would be huge."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Deja Vu All Over Again
Daily Kos' Jake McIntyre:
"Has anyone else noticed that the split in the progressive blogosphere between those who are saying 'it's a good bill in spite of everything'...and those who just can't bring themselves to support Liebercare...is eerily similar to the split between those who grudgingly backed the invasion of Iraq and those who fought against the war seven years ago?
To a large degree, it's the same cast of characters, with the same tone to the arguments. It's the policy wonks versus the activists. On the wonky side, there is (and was, in 2003) a resigned sense that this isn't an ideal action, but that we don't live in an ideal world, and that consequently we should suck it up and support an imperfect initiative. On the other, there is (and was, in 2003) a resistance born of an awareness that Congressional Democrats will more often than not -- and often unintentionally -- screw themselves and the country, out of a misguided belief that powerful forces with agendas very different from that of the Democratic Party can be managed and trusted.
It's been long enough since the invasion of Iraq that the two camps - the credulous wonks and dirty fucking hippies - have reconciled (and even interbred), but the dynamic that separated us in 2003 is the same. The fundamental difference in approach is still there. When all is said and done, the wonks trust Democratic politicians to protect our interests. The activists don't. That doesn't mean that we don't like certain Democratic politicians, or that we don't cherish our wonky brethren. It just means that we're not willing to get fooled again."
LEST WE FORGET: And A Happy New Year!
From FMyLife.com, in the holiday spirit:
- Today, I felt like too much of a loser to go to a Christmas party, since I'd be the only one going without a date. I had to invent imaginary friends who were 'coming into town for the holidays' to feel like less of a loser. FML
- Today, my colleague rushed off to the hospital for the birth of his first son. Having met his wife at the Christmas party a couple of years ago, I called to congratulate her. Shame I didn't realize it was his mistress having the baby. Guess who broke the news to the wife? FML
- Today, we had our annual office Christmas party. The theme of the party was 'Ugliest Sweater'. The winner was a sweater that I have an exact replica of in my closet. It's my favorite 'special occasion', 'family portrait' and 'holiday' sweater. FML
- Today, I received an early Christmas gift from my boyfriend of ten months. It was soap. In a few days he will be receiving his very expensive specialized car horn he has wanted for years, while I will be enjoying my new bar of Walmart brand soap, which has already begun to give me a rash. FML
As Greg Sargent and Steve Benen have both observed, the liberal blogosophere is currently embroiled in a debate between the "activists" (who generally oppose the Senate health care bill) and the "wonks" (who generally support the bill). Now, it's important not to overstate the distinction between these two groups, since many of the activists are well-versed in the policy details and many of the wonks are cognizant of the political considerations. But it's fair to say that the bloggers who focus more on political organizing (such as Jane Hamsher and Markos Moulitsas) are lining up against the bill, while the policy-oriented bloggers (such as Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias) are supporting it. The former group sees the bill as a massive giveaway to "poorly regulated, massive, for-profit health insurance corporations," while the latter group sees the bill as "the most important social policy achievement since the Great Society." It remains to be seen which group will win the day...
What else is happening in the blogosphere?
- Liberal bloggers (Benen, BooMan, Bink, Bowers, Black, Coates, Fang) are disgusted but not surprised that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) apparently decided to reverse his position on the Medicare buy-in provision after witnessing "the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals."
- Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Mirengoff, Malkin) are buzzing about Michael Goldfarb's claim that "the [WH] is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list" if Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) filibusters the health care reform bill. Meanwhile, righty bloggers (Perrin, Allahpundit) are excited that some of their lefty counterparts are now opposed to the bill.
- Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Lopez, Lowry, Geraghty, O'Connell) are excited about the new Rasmussen poll showing ex-FL House Speaker Marco Rubio tied with FL Gov. Charlie Crist in the GOP SEN primary. Allahpundit predicts that Crist will soon "switch to the Democrats a la [PA SEN Arlen] Specter."
- RedState editor Erick Erickson declares that IL SEN candidate Mark Kirk (R) "is not a conservative" and urges his readers "to take one more look at Patrick Hughes before getting into bed with a man they all admit will knife them in the chest with a smile once he gets to D.C."
- Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Johnson, Rubin) are criticizing the Obama admin.'s decision to transfer a limited number of Guantanamo detainees to an empty "supermax" facility in IL. On the left side of the blogosphere, Glenn Greenwald thinks it's a purely cosmetic gesture, since the detainees "[will] have exactly the same rights -- or lack thereof -- as they have now at Guantanamo."
HEALTH CARE REFORM: A Bridge Too Far
Now that the public option and Medicare buy-in provisions are gone, liberal bloggers are pouring criticism on the Senate health care bill:
- MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "I can't imagine a worse development than mandating private insurance alone and calling that reform; what a political and PR nightmare."
- Balloon Juice's John Cole: "The bill does nothing to curb costs, allows insurance companies to place caps on payments, bans drug re-importation, does nothing to foster competition. Basically, unless I am missing something, this is basically the gift of 30 million or more customers at the cost of, well, very little. Maybe Dean is right."
- AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Progressives keep seeing provisions they support removed from the health care bill. Yet, the drug industry's deal remains intact. So, consumers get screwed again as a big industry with money and lobbying clout wins. That's not exactly change."
- digby: "What this huge electoral mandate and congressional majority have gotten us, then, is basically a deal with the insurance industry to accept 30 million coerced customers in exchange for ending their practice of failing to cover their customers when they get sick --- unless they go beyond a 'reasonable cap,' of course."
- Open Left's David Sirota: "[I]f this passes and Republicans start working their toxic magic (with of course little or no organized effort by Dems to counter their lies and sell it to the public) I expect this will be as unppular as [George W.] Bush's bailout of the big financial firms, which the Republicans have largely engineered the public into thinking was Obama's, just as they did with the Bush deficits. So I think that when all these factors come into play for the next election, passing this will turn out to be suicide for the Democrats who hold office."
- BooMan: "I think the current Senate bill is the political equivalent of self-injury. People will hate being mandated to buy insurance from for-profit corporations that have an anti-trust exemption. If you want to give people something really worthwhile and get absolutely no credit for it (actually, be hated for it) then the Senate bill is a good way to go."
HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Kill It And Start Over
Several liberal bloggers are going beyond merely criticizing the Senate bill; they're actively opposing it:
- Firedoglake's Hamsher: "From what we know about the bill, it is worse than passing nothing. [...] If I wanted Joe Lieberman writing a health care bill, I would've voted for John McCain. Howard Dean is right. Kill LieberCare."
- Firedoglake's Jon Walker: "Without the public option (or similar powerful tools to guarantee access to decent affordable insurance) passing a bill with any type of an individual mandate would be a moral and political tragedy for Democrats. Progressives should fight with any means available to stop Democrats from imposing a private tax that would use the IRS to steal huge amounts of money from the pockets of hard working middle class Americans, and force them to hand it over to poorly regulated, massive, for-profit health insurance corporations in exchange for near-worthless junk insurance."
- AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "If you don't want Democrats to ever keep their promises, if you want Barack Obama to sell out your constituency from the git-go and undercut your effort to hold him to his promises every step of the way, then please do heartily endorse this health care reform 'compromise.' I'm sure the bill helps some small fraction of Americans somewhere, maybe. But I know that it's going to screw my people when our issue comes up for a vote, and it'll screw yours too."
- Open Left's Mike Lux: "I understand all the reasons the White House and [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid don't want to go to reconciliation at this late date, and have been inclined to support them on that up until now. But at this point I think House progressives simply need to say hell no to this deal. If Lieberman was willing to negotiate at all, I would be inclined to try to negotiate in good faith, but with him saying taking it or leave it, I say progressives should leave it."
Daily Kos' Moulitsas opposes the bill unless the mandate is removed: "My take is that it's unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status. [...] It would effectively be a tax -- and a huge one -- paid directly to a private industry. [...] Strip out the mandate, and the rest of the bill is palatable. It's not reform, but it's progress in the right direction. And you can still go back and tinker with it at a later time."
HEALTH CARE REFORM III: If Not Now, When?
Other liberal bloggers argue that the bill is worth supporting despite its flaws:
- The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "On its own terms, the bill is the most important social policy achievement since the Great Society. It will save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of suffering. But moving forward, it also makes future improvements and expansions easier. A lot of the hard work of health-care reform -- in particular, the money for subsidies -- will finish this year. If reformers want to come back for the public option or more subsidies in a future year, they won't be doing it atop a $900 billion price tag that's being battered by tea parties and industry and everyone else. This bill doesn't have all the good stuff it should have, but reformers can stand atop what good stuff it does have and focus their energies on what good stuff is left to achieve."
- Think Progress' Yglesias: "The tax increases in the bill fall overwhelmingly on richer-than-average people and it also includes important reforms to the delivery system, promising ideas to reduce the growth in health care costs, curbs overpayments to Medicare Advantage, etc. Personally, I'd be happier with Swedish health care or what have you. But politics is about real impacts on the lives of real people, and measures that make things better are very good measures."
- Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I think the Senate bill in its present state is well worth passing. [...] If you don't like the Senate bill, fine. Don't support it. But in what universe will healthcare reform get revived anytime soon if it dies this year? 2010? With the legislative plate already jammed, healthcare reform probably polling in the mid 30s, and midterms coming up? 2011? After Republicans have gained a bunch of seats in both the House and Senate thanks to public disgust with Democratic disarray? 2012? A presidential election year? 2013? 2014? [...] If healthcare reform dies this year, it dies for a good long time."
Open Left's Chris Bowers dislikes the bill but discourages progressives from trying to kill it: "Despite the bill's unpopularity, Democrats don't get to escape from it if they defeat it now. There is historical precedent for this: an unpopular health care reform didn't pass in 1994, and that defeat did not save Democrats at the ballot box that year. Quite the opposite, really. [...] The primary rank and file is behind this bill. As such, if Progressive / progressive candidates break with the rank and file of the party on this, it will make our efforts to help those candidates win primary challenges much, much harder. [...] Finally, I don't even think we can defeat this bill. And, after apparently losing the public option fight, I am not particularly eager to immediately turn around and lose another health care fight."
Bowers continues: "I don't intend to help this bill pass. If progressives get backstabbed by Lieberman and then ordered to cave at the finish line, then as far as I am concerned the White House has made its own bed with this. They can try and pass the bill, but they are going to have to do it on their own. I'm not helping. [...] I am also not going to begrudge any progressive organization that works against this bill. Nor will I begrudge any member of Congress who is a co-sponsor of HR 676 and who votes against this bill. The last thing I am going to do is join in with the browbeating of Progressives. Again, if the White House wants Progressive votes and progressive support, then they have to do it on their own."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Was The Public Option Campaign A Success?
Yglesias:
"Probably not that many people feel this way this morning, but I think part of what we're seeing at the moment is that the organizing campaign around the public option has been an enormous success that did a lot to improve health care policy. [...M]y gut tells me that 'centrist' Senators weren't going to vote for health reform until they extracted a pound of flesh and did something to make progressives squeal. Initially I think people thought the center was semi-corruptly aiming for a substantive payoff, which is why the public option was quickly neutered to become the industry-friendly 'level-playing field' public option. Then they thought the center was maybe suffering electoral fear, so we got the various permutations of opt-in and opt-out. But even though an opt-in, level-playing field public option would do no real harm to the insurance industry, even that wasn't good enough. They wanted to win. And so they have.
But had the left taken the advice of the wonks and surrendered earlier -- in particular, had Harry Reid not included a public option in his merged version of the health care bill -- then I think Lieberman et. al. might well have dreamed up something else to oppose. As it stands, the level-playing field public option took a bullet for the team. And consequently, millions of currently uninsured Americans are closer than ever to having insurance and the rest of us are closer than ever to having a sense of security that if our own insurance goes away we won’t be left high and dry."
LEST WE FORGET: Captain Blackbeard's College Of Piracy -- Ye Olde Course Catalogue, Spring '10
McSweeney's contributor Christopher Robinson:
- ECON 212: Fluctuations in the Buillon market
- ENGL 442: Post-structuralist Decay and the Hermeneutics of Land-lubbing
- ENGL 515: Lawless Scallywags and Counter-hegemonic Narratives
- LING 224: Sign and signifier: Chomsky on Arrrrr
- LING 310: Semiotics of the Jolly Roger
- MED 458: Extemporaneous Prosthetics: Pegs and Hooks
- SOC 212: All Hands on Deck: a Marxist Approach to Piracy and Leadership
- SOC 469: Captain Jack and Captain Jim: Heteronormativity and the Modern Pirate
Liberal bloggers are very upset over the apparent decision by the Senate Dem leadership to appease Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) by removing the Medicare buy-in provision from the health care reform bill. "I don't really know what to think right now," writes Chris Bowers. "Too angry to think straight." Kevin Drum laments: "I always figured we'd at least be able to get a public option trigger included, but if this report is right we're not even getting that." Armando Llorens declares: "It's not clear what will be in the final bill that President Obama signs before the State of the Union, but it surely will not be health care, or even health insurance, reform."
Liberal bloggers are divided over whether or not to support the Senate bill now that it won't include a public option or a Medicare buy-in. Markos Moulitsas thinks it's "time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate." However, Nate Silver thinks that progressives would be foolish to oppose this bill.
Finally, we noted yesterday that liberal bloggers were accusing Lieberman of opposing the Medicare buy-in provision because of spite rather than principle. Well, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent dug up a video of Lieberman expressing support for the Medicare buy-in idea only three months ago during an interview with the Connecticut Post. Lefty bloggers are pointing to this video as proof that their hypothesis about Lieberman was correct -- that his flip-flop has nothing to do with principle.
What else is happening in the blogosphere?
- RedState editor Erick Erickson slams the NRSC for forming a joint fundraising committee with CA SEN candidate Carly Fiorina (R) even though the NRSC claims that it's not endorsing her. Erickson adds: "Fiorina, [NH SEN candidate Kelly] Ayotte, and [KY SEN candidate Trey] Grayson [have] become establishment candidates. That means they must all three be beaten."
- Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Liebau, Hanson) are criticizing Pres. Obama for referring to Wall Street executives as "fat-cat bankers."
HEALTH CARE REFORM: The Dream Is Over
Liberal bloggers are pretty upset over the apparent decision by the Senate Dem leadership to appease Lieberman by removing the Medicare buy-in provision from the bill:
- digby: "There you have it. Everyone knows that liberals must lose, so down goes the public option and the Medicare Buy-in. The question remains whether King Joseph will allow the government to help older people with long term care needs or any of the other things that anyone could possibly construe as liberal policies. I think we have a way to go before this bill is bad enough for him and his cronies to allow the Democrats to commit political suicide with it."
- Open Left's Bowers: "I don't really know what to think right now. Too angry to think straight. After a very long campaign, we had appeared to secure a deal that I thought was acceptable. We promptly get stabbed in the back by none other than Joe Lieberman (and the CBO, btw), and then just as promptly told by the White House to accept it all."
- Mother Jones' Drum: "[I]n the space of a few days we seem to have gone from more than I expected to less than I expected. I always figured we'd at least be able to get a public option trigger included, but if this report is right we're not even getting that. Sic transit etc."
- TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Well, health care reform failed yet again. It's not clear what will be in the final bill that President Obama signs before the State of the Union, but it surely will not be health care, or even health insurance, reform."
- MyDD's desmoinesdem: "We have a 'health insurance reform' bill with no public option, no trigger, no Medicare buy-in. And it will probably continue to get worse from here. There is no point in pretending that President Obama wanted any comprehensive bill to pass. There was zero pressure on Lieberman to cave, no talk of using the budget reconciliation process -- only pressure on [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid to give Lieberman everything. Organizing for America will get a rude awakening when they try to round up canvassers and phone bankers."
- Firedoglake's watertiger: "Wherever you are, Senator [Ted] Kennedy, I hope you're not watching this desecration of your life's work. It is absolutely shameful."
BooMan accuses Reid of making tactical errors: "I don't think it was inevitable that Lieberman would take this position. But Harry Reid empowered him when he decided to put the public option in the base bill (and why did Reid feel that was necessary?). Lieberman was freed to oppose anything in the bill he doesn't like without actually being responsible for killing health care reform. Had Reid just used the [Olympia] Snowe-trigger, the bill would have passed rather easily, and Lieberman wouldn't be able to fight for changes in the Conference Report because there are no amendments allowed to a Conference Report. Now you know why I argued against going for a public option in the Senate's base bill."
Many liberal bloggers believe that Reid has destroyed his re-election prospects by removing the Medicare buy-in provision:
- Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Bye bye, Reid. You weren't a bad MINORITY leader."
- Big Tent Democrat: "I think [Reid] just signed his own political death warrant. As did [CT Sen.] Chris Dodd and others."
HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Should Liberals Kill The Bill?
Several liberal bloggers think the health care reform bill has become so flawed that it's no longer worth passing:
- Moulitsas: "Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate."
- Open Left's Darcy Burner: "The first rule of medicine is, 'Do no harm.' The post-Joe Lieberman version of the Senate healthcare bill fails that basic criterion. Unless Democratic leadership steps up to fix this misguided proposal, our only recourse will be to kill it."
- AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Democratic leaders are going to have to explain how forcing a mandate on people to buy private health insurance, without controlling the insurance industry, makes sense. That concept might appeal to Joe Lieberman, but it doesn't sit well with everyone else."
- desmoinesdem: "The new spin is that this bill will still save lives despite its flaws. If this were about saving lives, Congress could adopt a few simple reforms without creating this elaborate structure to transmit taxpayer dollars to profitable corporations."
Daily Kos' mcjoan thinks Dems should give up on comprehensive health care reform and instead pass only certain elements of the legislation: "At this point, the assistance to the people who need it most is the critical moral and policy decision. Would it be a band-aid? Yes, but even a band-aid can staunch bleeding, and right now that's what we desperately need. [...] Now that Medicare buy-in and the public option have been sacrificed at the altar of Joe, there's still the problem of [NE Sen. Ben] Nelson and [MI Rep. Bart] Stupak hanging out there, a proposal that could do more long-term harm to the nation's women than those market reforms could bring. Stripping this bill down to the core assistance to the uninsured might be the last saving grace it could have."
Meanwhile, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver thinks liberals are "batshit crazy to oppose the Senate bill": "I understand that most of the liberal skepticism over the Senate bill is well intentioned. But it has become way, way off the mark. Where do you think the $800 billion goes? It goes to low-income families just like these. Where do you think it comes from? We won't know for sure until the Senate and House produce their conference bill, but it comes substantially from corporations and high-income earners, plus some efficiency gains. [...] For any 'progressive' who is concerned about the inequality of wealth, income and opportunity in America, this bill would be an absolutely monumental achievement."
LIEBERMAN: "A Flip-Flop Of Shameless Proportions"
Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the video of Lieberman expressing support for the Medicare buy-in idea only three months ago:
- TPM's Josh Marshall: "[I]t turns out that not only did Lieberman run in 2000 on the Medicare Buy-In he now says he'll filibuster. He supported it just three months ago. Shamelessness is the most devalued word in politics. But I'm not sure I've ever seen a better example of it."
- Big Tent Democrat: "On September 9, 2009, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), supported Medicare buy in for persons aged 55-64. The Last Honest Man has been a bald faced liar forever."
- The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "I'm still awaiting an explanation of how it's principled for Lieberman to threaten to derail a bill that will save more than a hundred thousand lives because it includes a policy he supported as recently as three months ago."
- digby: "People need to send the link to this to all the press and the villagers they can think of to show just how perfidious their favorite 'man of integrity' is being on this. [...] Something like this can really destroy a sanctimonious jackass."
- MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The Beltway press is beginning to take note that Lieberman's position isn't really principled, and this video evidence isn't likely to help the Connecticut Senator convince anyone otherwise. Given that Lieberman's power stems from his cachet with the establishment, the potential that he will lose this cachet as more realize that his positions are less about principle than politics might actually be the way to get him to back down."
- Daily Kos' Jed Lewison: "By now, everybody should realize that what Joe Lieberman says has nothing to do with principle -- it's all about exacting revenge on the Democratic Party base that voted him out of the party in 2006. Every single time he's flip-flopped on a position related to health care reform, he's done so in a fashion designed to cause maximal harm to Democratic Party leadership and the administration. The only kind of health care bill he wants to see pass is the kind of health care bill that will disappoint the Democratic Party base and depress Democratic turnout in 2010. Simply put, enabling Joe Lieberman is enabling a political opponent of the Democratic Party, and anyone who tries to make a deal with him is going to end up looking foolish in the end."
Lieberman denies that he flip-flopped, but liberal bloggers (Kurtz, Klein, Benen) don't buy his explanation.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Dispirited Dem Base
Hot Air's Allahpundit thinks it's significant that Moulitsas wants to kill the Senate health care bill:
"Remember, the overwhelming nutroots CW to this point has been that something must be passed. What, precisely, gets passed is important but ultimately secondary to the task of passing something and thereby avoiding a reprise of the left's 1994 post-HillaryCare nightmare. I never bought that CW for reasons articulated here by Karl, but it was a fact of life. Maybe no longer, though. If Kos's thinking is representative of other progressives, then the lefty base may be so dispirited by the public-option meltdown that the anticipated turnout boost next year from passing a bill never materializes. Which, if so, would be catastrophic for Dems: It was Kos's own poll, after all, that showed a giant 25-point enthusiasm gap between Republican and Democratic voters last month. If Obama signs a bad bill into law, conservatives will be even more energized and liberals will be enervated. The reckoning is coming, albeit a year too late to derail this clusterfark."
LEST WE FORGET: Ah, Technology These Days...
From Overheard in the Office:
Young female cashier to coworker: I saw this sign at Caribou Coffee that said "fire sprinkler." I really want to see one of those. I mean, what is it? Does it shoot out fire or something?
Just when you thought Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) couldn't possibly anger liberal bloggers more than he has already, he went and announced his opposition to the latest health care reform compromise. Lefty bloggers are irate. Ezra Klein declares that Lieberman "appears driven more by a pathological dislike of the liberals who dogged him in 2006 than by any remotely rational policy judgment." Other liberal bloggers are calling Lieberman "a sanctimonious, petty, vindictive egomaniac" who is "pledged to his own grievance and insatiable need to settle scores". Even the mild-mannered Josh Marshall observes that Lieberman "just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith."
Many lefty bloggers have become convinced that Lieberman will never accept a health care compromise that liberals can support. Joan McCarter predicts: "Lieberman is just going to keep moving goalposts -- he will not agree to a compromise on any bill that will satisfy liberals -- the majority of his caucus." Consequently, lefty bloggers are urging Senate Dems to give up on trying to get 60 votes and instead use the budget reconciliation process to pass the more controversial aspects of health care reform.
What else is happening in the blogosphere?
- Liberal bloggers (desmoinesdem, Benen, Madrak, Yglesias) are pleased that Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) is thinking about reintroducing his '95 bill that would abolish the filibuster.
- Matt Taibbi's scathing attack on Obama's economic team is generating a lot of commentary in the lefty blogosphere, with some criticizing it (Yglesias, Fernholz, Klein)
but most praising it (Drum, Armstrong, Cole, digby, Brad).
LIEBERMAN: It Was Lieberman All Along
Liberal bloggers are accusing Lieberman of obstructing health care reform out of spite rather than principle:
- AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "After Barack Obama saved his butt -- and his chairmanship, Lieberman is trying to destroy Obama's top agenda item. Classy guy. And, what's clear is that there is no real policy reason for Lieberman's actions. It's spite. He's doing it because he can. Oh well. They can't say they weren't warned."
- digby: "When [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid said 'Joe Lieberman is the least of my problems' he was waving a red flag in his face. It's all about him. And he will not be ignored. And he will not vote for anything that liberals want, period. I don't know why they thought it would be any different. He's a sanctimonious, petty, vindictive egomaniac. But then, he always has been. [...] If Obama and Reid actually formed their strategy around the idea that 'Lieberman will come around,' if the bill fails it's their fault."
- TPM's Marshall: "Lieberman just doesn't seem to be negotiating in good faith. He keeps pulling his caucus to some new compromise, waiting a few days and then saying he can't agree to that either. It's coming to a breaking point."
- The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "Lieberman, once celebrated as an iconoclast, is now (regarding health care) an ideologue of the worst order -- one pledged to his own grievance and insatiable need to settle scores."
- The Washington Post's Klein: "To put this in context, Lieberman was invited to participate in the process that led to the Medicare buy-in. His opposition would have killed it before liberals invested in the idea. Instead, he skipped the meetings and is forcing liberals to give up yet another compromise. Each time he does that, he increases the chances of the bill's failure that much more. And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him. At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score."
Balloon Juice's John Cole quips: "Now that Lieberman clinched the Monday morning headlines and will get the most attention on Morning Joe, what will drama queens John McCain and Ben Nelson do to get back in the news?"
Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers (Coates, Drum) are criticizing Reid for telling reporters back in October: "Joe Lieberman is the least of Harry Reid's problems."
LIEBERMAN II: Seriously, People, It's Time For Reconciliation
Many liberal bloggers are arguing that Lieberman and Nelson will never support health care reform and that Senate Dems should instead use the budget reconciliation process:
- Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Lieberman is just going to keep moving goalposts -- he will not agree to a compromise on any bill that will satisfy liberals -- the majority of his caucus. And by doing so, he gives cover to Ben Nelson (still resisting an abortion solution), [LA Sen. Mary] Landrieu, and [AR Sen. Blanche] Lincoln to continue to whittle the bill down to meaninglessness, or worse."
- Think progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I agree with Chris Bowers that in a lot of ways the real story here is that the Senate leadership has, at every step of this process, underscored that a 'reconciliation' path to a health care bill is off the table. That means Lieberman has unlimited control over what happens, and no incentive to compromise, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's being uncompromising. [...] If reconciliation could be revived, things might look different. There's a good case for not doing this legislation through reconciliation. The product that emerged from the parliamentarian's wringer could be sub-optimal in various ways. But the product that emerges from Lieberman's wringer will also be sub-optimal. So given a viable threat of reconciliation, it seems to me that both sides would have some incentive to compromise."
- Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "The only thing preventing the enactment of the bill is the Democratic leadership's unwillingness to use procedures on the democratic and Constitutional principles of majority rule. And refusing to use those principles means that unprincipled opportunists like Joe Lieberman have veto power over any bill to reform our inhumane health care system. [...] And make no mistake: if the issue wasn't the public option, or the Medicare buy-in, these unprincipled opportunists would find some other excuse to be the scoundrels they are. This is not about specific features of health reform; it's all about them."
- BooMan: "If Joe Lieberman won't vote for a reasonable health care bill, it really makes more sense to just use the budget reconciliation process, even though that will mean that we can't move on to other things like jobs and climate legislation. You can only appease so much before you look ridiculous. And passing Lieberman's version of health care reform would be impossible to sell to the Democratic base. So, don't worry about it and just change the strategy. Pass a package of insurance reforms, and then do the rest under reconciliation rules. Make sure to blame Lieberman. And take away his chairs and kick him out of the caucus after next year's elections. He's a Republican now."
- TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "What now? As if 'now' was different than 6 months ago. Here's the dirty little secret the Village Bloggers won't tell you -- there were never 60 votes for 'health care reform.' This ridiculous dance that began when [Finance Cmte Chair] Max Baucus did not deliver his crappy proposal on time was just part of the process to try and kill any health insurance bill. [...] In the end, the question was always about reconciliation and what could pass under reconciliation. Or do you REALLY think if you capitulated on 'everything,' they would not dream up new objections?"
Cole: "Repeat After Me: They are never going to vote for any health care bill. They are never going to vote for any health care bill. They are never going to vote for any health care bill. [...I]f you ditch the compromise and the public option, they will find something else to grandstand about. For Nelson, he'll be back to abortion. Who knows what Lieberman will start whining about, but I am sure [Lieberman comm. dir.] Marshall Wittmann is, as we speak, cooking up some fatuous bullshit. They are both in the pockets of insurance and other industries who do not want this bill passed in any shape or form, so they will keep making excuses. They are not going to vote for any health care bill. Period. You might as well be taking input and courting votes from [SC Sen.] Jim DeMint and [OK Sen.] Tom Coburn."
An exception is Nate Silver, who thinks that liberal Dems should give up on the public option in order to secure Lieberman's vote.
HEALTH CARE REFORM: Is The Tide Turning?
Conservative bloggers are starting to believe that health care reform could actually fail:
- Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[A]ll this just goes to show how quickly ReidCare is unraveling."
- RedState's Dan Perrin: "[I]t appears that the ObamaCare implosion is imminent. ObamaCare is a political failure. Its political failure will lead to its legislative failure. It is just a matter of when."
- Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Despite the Democratic attempts to paint the health care bill as an inevitability, the signs of life for the bill are looking ever more faint."
- AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Either Reid will have to pull a new compromise out of his hat like magic or get liberals to accept all of Nelson and Lieberman's demands, or this thing is going to spill over into next year, and the whole effort may collapse altogether."
- Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "It sounds as if this entire bill has become an abortion. Reid gave up the public option and still got no closer to cloture. If the CBO comes back with the obvious conclusion -- that expanding Medicare will make it more costly, explode the deficit, and make those $500 billion in cuts disappear -- Reid may never get back to any government expansion."
Other righty bloggers (Erickson, Johnson, McCain) are urging GOP senators to use various parliamentary tactics to obstruct the health care reform legislation.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: "The Looming Murder/Suicide Of The Democratic Majority"
Yglesias chastises "demoralized [Dem] voters who are considering staying home" on Election Day:
"Greg Sargent offers us a fascinating polling tidbit: 'A new national poll finds that fully one third of Democratic voters say that they're 'less likely' to vote in 2010 if Congress doesn't pass a public option, underscoring the possibility that dropping the provision seriously risks dampening the Dem base's enthusiasm.' I'm sure you'll read other progressive blogs today saying this illustrates why 'Democrats' shouldn't sell out on the public option. But realistically 'Democrats' have been trying very hard to get a decent public option compromise. Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson are the roadblocks, and they probably don't have any particular desire to see progressive electoral victories in the midterms.
So it's also worth sparing a few words for the potentially demoralized voters who are considering staying home. To wit: Grow up. Nobody ever accomplished anything in politics by not participating. Going to vote on Election Day is not a monumental demand on your time, and there is not a single problem in American public policy that will be made easier to solve if liberal stay home on Election Day. If you contribute money or time to political campaigns and you’re disappointed with people you've given to or volunteered for in the past, you should of course feel free to decline to offer your cash and services in the future. But you shouldn't just get depressed and stay home, you should probably write a note and send it in the mail explaining exactly why you won't be donating this time and laying out which other, more progressive member you're choosing to support instead. And on Election Day you should go vote for the better candidate and hope he or she wins. Successful from-the-left primary challenges can do good, but letting the worse candidate win a general election isn't going to make anything better."
LEST WE FORGET: Holiday Music Aficionado Urges Friends To Check Out 'Frosty The Snowman'
From The Onion:
"SAN DIEGO -- Calling it one of the 'true overlooked gems' in the American Christmas-song canon, holiday music aficionado Steve Robinson strongly recommended this week that his friends 'do themselves a favor' and listen to 'Frosty The Snowman.' 'Oh man, "Frosty" is unreal, you got to check it out,' said Robinson, adding that the song's innovative fusion of jazz and lullaby conventions was 'peerless' and 'way ahead of its time.' 'Great concept, tight arrangement, and the lyrics are just incredible. Love that line about the "two eyes made out of coal." Classic.' Robinson also maintained that, with its unorthodox repetitive structure, dramatic build, and 'mind-blowing' imagery, 'The 12 Days Of Christmas' is about as good as it gets."
Throughout this year's health care debate, lawmakers have pushed for a bill to go to Pres. Obama's desk by Christmas, dreading the thought of the fight continuing into '10. But as early as last summer, the pundits were forecasting that the debate would bleed into the mid-term election year, and now that their prediction is all but true, the bloggers are predicting just how the policy fights of '09 will impact the politics of '10. Ezra Klein:"The first year of the Obama presidency has been a long tutorial on the difference between liberal ends and liberal means." Dan Perrin: "ObamaCare is a political failure." Of course, how, exactly, the bloggers are reacting politically to health care policy ranges from pledging to campaign against any lawmaker who votes for a health care bill that doesn't include a public option to imploring lawmakers to pass any type of reform to thanking Dems for ensuring a GOP takeover.
What else is going on in the blogosphere?
- Some conservatives (Malkin, Hengler) are still rolling their eyes about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, while others (Ledeen) found "neoconnish" ideas in his acceptance speech. Klein bills the speech as "a theory of how a military superpower that wants peace should view war."
- Liberals (Walker, mcjoan) cringe at the thought of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) controlling a potential alternative to the public option, an OPM-run non-profit exchange, because of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs Cmte.
- Conservative blogger Jim Geraghty is "surprised" by a PPP poll giving Ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) 45% to Obama's 46% in a hypothetical '12 match-up, which makes it look like the Maurice Clemmons controversy hasn't impacted Huckabee's popularity as expected.
- Conservatives (Malkin, Lane, Hanlon) slam Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for planning to hold a fundraiser in New Orleans this weekend instead of continuing work on the Hill on health care reform, even though he's now canceled it. Malkin: "Turns out History will pause for Democrat money-grubbing, but not for Republican debate on market-based health care reform alternatives."
- Conservative blogger John Miller feels confident about the five GOP "ladies" running for SEN, but doubts they will be "celebrated" by "the media" like the four new Dem female senators were in '92.
HEALTH CARE: Man Is A Political Animal
Liberal bloggers continue to have mixed reactions to the ideological and political challenges of health care reform:
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Curious George
TPM's Josh Marshall:
"I can't say that I really have any sophisticated understanding of the science of climate change. I don't think that most people I know who are pro-cap and trade do either. For me, the fact that the vast majority of people with specialized knowledge in the field think there's a problem is good enough for me.
Put baldly like that, perhaps it suggests a certain incuriousness. But I can't be knowledgeable about everything. And I'm comfortable with the modern system in which the opinions of really knowledgeable people with expertise counts more in cases like this than people who know nothing at all.
I would not be terribly shocked if the predictions we're getting today about the climate turned out to be dramatically off. (Of course, it could be dramatically worse as well as dramatically better.) For political reasons, because there's so much nonsense in the air, you're not supposed to say that I guess. But there's inevitable uncertainty about how such a complex system as the global climate functions. But in our own lives, in the real world, we live in a science based world. It's the premise on which almost everything rests. And pretty much everyone assumes that cell phones will work, bombs will go off, medical treatments will give us the best chance of survival. Only this one example is different."
LEST WE FORGET: This Is Why They Call It The Garden State
From Texts From Last Night, on MTV's best new show:
- (732): I'm playing the Jersey Shore drinking game by myself at my mom's house. Things like this are not okay after college.
- (646): jersey shore drinking game rules must be edited. almost died. how is it possible for a person to say guido that many times
- (615): jersey shore has given me a vivid depiction of what things will be like for me once i get to hell
Here at the Blogometer, we tend to make a lot of statements to the effect of "liberal bloggers support X" or "conservative bloggers oppose Y." However, the blogosphere is a diverse place, and certain topics elude such generalizations. A recent example is the health care reform compromise reached by a group of ten Dem senators, which would remove the opt-out public option but (among other things) "would allow some people ages 55 to 64 to buy coverage through Medicare." Liberal bloggers appear to be split on this agreement, with some supporting it, some opposing it, and others ambivalent.
In related news, several liberal bloggers are criticizing the proposal to legalize reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada, calling the idea "odd", "ridiculous", and "pernicious". However, other lefty bloggers support the proposal and are criticizing the Obama admin. for opposing it. So, on issues related to health care reform, it appears that liberal bloggers are divided in more ways than one.
HEALTH CARE REFORM: Obama FAIL
Two prominent liberal bloggers unloaded on the health care reform bill after Obama sent out an email urging Dems to donate money to the DNC to "support our campaign for reform":
- Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I can't tell you the number of people who have contacted me furious about the OFA fundraising email that went out yesterday. [The health care reform bill is] so far from what Obama promised when he announced his health care plan in 2007 it's not even funny."
- Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "This is so freakin' obnoxious I can hardly stand it. We are about to get a turd of a 'reform' package, potentially worse than the status quo. We have the insurance industry declaring victory, Republicans cackling with glee, and the administration is using that piece of shit to raise money? Obama spent all year enabling [MT Sen.] Max Baucus and [ME Sen.] Olympia Snowe, and he thinks we're supposed to get excited about whatever end result we're about to get, so much so that we're going to fork over money? Well, it might work with some of you guys, but I'm certainly not biting. In fact, this is insulting, betraying a lack of understanding of just how pissed the base is at this so-called reform. The administration may be happy to declare victory with a mandate that enriches insurance companies, yet creates little incentive to control costs or change the very business practices that have screwed so many people. But I'll pass."
Moulitsas continues: "Democrats are demoralized, and have little incentive to turn out next year. The teabaggers will turn out. If this is how the Obama camp thinks we can energize the base -- by promising them a health care pony for $5 to the same Democratic Party that is home to the likes of Baucus, [NE Sen. Ben] Nelson, [AR Sen. Blanche] Lincoln, [CT Sen. Joe] Lieberman, and the rest of the obstructionist gang -- then we're in for a world of hurt in 2010."
Meanwhile, Hamsher is urging House progressives to vote against any bill that doesn't include a public option. She's also asking readers to sign a petition asserting that "the failure to establish a public option to control medical costs and increase competition is President Obama's failure alone."
HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Don't Throw Out The Baby With The Bath Water
Not every liberal blogger shares Hamsher's view that progressive Dems should kill any bill that doesn't include a public option. BooMan writes: "Throughout this year I have watched Hamsher's efforts on health care with a mixture of admiration and alarm. Her indefatigable efforts for a progressive bill have been amazing to watch, but her rhetoric and strategy have been questionable at best. I am not surprised that, as this effort approaches the end, she's left out there alone still railing against strawmen. In the end, her greatest accomplishment may have been to convince Harry Reid to include a triggerless public option in the base Senate bill. Ironically, for supporters of the public option, that was the worst possible procedural move. It allowed the moderates to pick it to pieces at the point of their maximum leverage. And, yet, smart progressives seem to be happy with this deal." [Hamsher responds to BooMan here]
Similarly, Mark Kleiman criticizes MoveOn for urging progressive Dems to "unravel this deal": "MoveOn has decided that since the health care bill coming out of the Senate doesn't have the label 'public option,' the best thing to do would be to kill it, or threaten to kill it. [...] I'm not sure whether the Move-On leadership thinks this is really smart tactics, or whether they figure that stirring up trouble keeps their membership active and happy. In either case, it seems to me that killing the bill would be terminally stupid, and encouraging the Democratic netroots base to regard what would in fact be a great progressive coup -- something that ought to energize them as we go into the coming election year -- as instead a defeat wouldn't be much smarter."
Conservative blogger Allahpundit doesn't understand why so many liberals oppose the new compromise: "If the compromise is a relatively sweet deal for the left, why are nutroots activists opposing it? Would they really rather have an age-unlimited public option [than] a Medicare expansion that might lead to the progressive dream of single-payer?"
HEALTH CARE REFORM III: To Compromise Or Not To Compromise...
The liberal blogosophere is split on the latest health care reform compromise. Some lefty bloggers are arguing in favor of the compromise:
- Open Left's Chris Bowers: "At its fundamental core, the goal of the public option campaign was to get more people onto public health insurance plans. The Senate compromise will result in 16-17 million more people entering public health insurance plans than current law. This is down from 21 million in the bill that passed House committees in July, but it isn't zero. How can a campaign that was designed entirely to get more people on public health insurance be a failure if it resulted in 16-17 million more people receiving public health insurance? [...] Covering 16-17 million more people on public health insurance than current law, among an overall decline in the uninsured population by 30-35 million, with a cut in health insurance industry waste and profits from 30% to 10%, is, in my estimation, much better than the status quo."
- TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "If the reporting is correct, the last six months have taken us from letting three or four million people buy into a public health insurance option -- a technocratic, public-private scheme that uses market incentives to save money -- to allowing approximately three million people to buy-in to Medicare, a rock-solid heirloom of Great Society liberalism. [...] Should liberals pretend to hate it -- and, given my druthers, I would probably prefer the public option! -- so that the moderates don't figure out what they've done? It's safe to say that of the two options that could (but probably won't) lead to a single-payer system, Medicare expansion is a much bigger step than the public option."
However, other lefty bloggers are more ambivalent:
- Daily Kos' mcjoan: "While the Medicare buy-in is getting accolades from progressives like [ex-DNC Chair] Howard Dean, it's important to keep in mind that we don't know that's what we're even go to be getting (and just watch ConservaDem opposition line up to it, now that they know Howard Dean likes it). What looks like a relatively decent idea now could just be a ghost of its former self by the time it becomes sausage. [...] Until some of these details are made clearer and these problems resolved, there is one thing that cannot happen. The House cannot agree to forego conference and allow this bill to be ping-ponged."
- Matt Taibbi: "I get that some people think this is a good idea, and it's hard to argue that any kind of expansion of Medicare is a bad thing, given that the program has been popular and successful throughout its history. But this move just smacks of the bass-ackwards Solomonesque bargaining that has marked this whole health care effort from the start. If expanding Medicare is good for people aged 55 and up, why isn't it good for everybody? Why isn't it a good idea to provide cheaper insurance for people in their preventive care years, so that they cost Medicare less as they do get older?"
- Open Left's Mike Lux: "I am not going to sugarcoat this for you: [the demise of the public option] is a bitter disappointment. The result is a deeply flawed bill that will not control costs or provide a check on insurance company power the way it could or should have. I also think the politics of this are going to be very tough for the Democratic Party in both 2010 and 2012: people mandated to buy insurance without a public option they can go to will result in a lot of heartache for Democrats with middle class voters, and the disappointment the base feels on this issue will mean it will be much tougher for Democrats to recruit volunteers, raise money online, and turn out the base vote. They have just screwed themselves politically with this deal. Joe Lieberman, the conservative Democrat who absolutely refused to compromise or bargain in good faith, has just leveled a tough blow to his entire party."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dems Will Own All Of Health Care
Duncan Black:
"I hope Dems in Congress take a moment or two to think about the politics of health care reform. Once it passes they will own all of it, not just the reforms. Republicans will turn every health insurance horror story in a story about how the Dems' HCR is a tremendous awful horrible failure, whether or not it has anything to do with specific reforms enacted.
All of this is my subtle way of suggesting they'd better pass something that people like and that works, because otherwise every insurance company dick move will be their fault."
LEST WE FORGET: You Had A Bad Day
From FMyLife.com:
- Today, I learned when you're babysitting a 5 year old, and you hear the toilet flush and then the words "uh oh", it's already too late. FML.
- Today, I was hanging out with a group of friends when I got into a conversation with this really attractive girl who I've liked for months. She asked me what school I go to. I sit to her left in biology. FML.
- Today, my landlord asked to borrow my truck to move some furniture. When she returned it, I noticed she had filled the gas tank up. I thanked her for doing so, and she handed me the receipt and said "just add it to next month's rent". FML.
- Today, my dad met my boyfriend. The first words out of my dad's mouth were "If my daughter sees your penis, I'll cut it off". FML.
- Today, I had a stressful day at work and decided to go in the jacuzzi. I hadn't used it for a year, so it was a little dirty. After I cleaned it, filled it up, and jumped in, I pressed the jets. Immediately, thousands of dead moths shot out at full speed towards me. FML.
The netroots are divided in their reactions to the public option compromise reached by Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid and 10 other Senate Dems. Some lefty bloggers are angry that the opt-out public option appears to have been dropped, and they're urging House progressives to "vote this deal down." Others are pleasantly surprised about the concessions won by progressive Dems in exchange for dropping the public option -- especially the proposed Medicare expansion. Chris Bowers writes: "It is not the scope of victory we aimed for, but it is hard to call a significant expansion of public health insurance a total defeat for a campaign that was designed to expand public health insurance."
What else is happening in the blogosphere?
- Liberal bloggers (Cole, Willis) are criticizing Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) for trying to attach an anti-abortion amendment to the health care reform bill. Lefty bloggers (Benen, Black, Cole) are also criticizing Nelson for introducing a bill that would finance the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with war bonds.
- Most liberal bloggers (Singiser, Lemos, BooMan, Schaller) didn't have a strong preference among the candidates competing in the MA SEN Dem primary, so they're not saying much about AG Martha Coakley's victory.
- Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Malkin, Hoft) are targeting Education Dept. official Kevin Jennings.
- Michelle Malkin met with ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) during her book tour and thanked her "for her strong conservative voice, for her relentless optimism in the face of unrelenting attacks, and for her public service as a defender of life and advocate of the American dream." Meanwhile, Palin trounces all of the other GOP WH '12 candidates in John Hawkins' latest reader poll.
HEALTH CARE REFORM: Public Option, R.I.P.
Some liberal bloggers are criticizing the public option compromise announced by Reid:
- MyDD's desmoinesdem: "An individual mandate to buy private health insurance would be terrible policy and terrible politics and wouldn't solve the big problems of our current health care system. I'm hoping (but not optimistic) that House Progressives will vote this deal down."
- AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Well, no surprise, but it looks like a real public option is gone from the Senate health care bill. I'm not calling it a 'health insurance reform' bill anymore. When the insurance industry can crow 'We WIN,' they're not being reformed. Now, we'll be told that the public option is still in the bill -- but, we're not stupid. Let's see if those progressives in the House know how to flex their muscle."
Most liberal bloggers are blaming Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for the removal of the opt-out public option:
- Atrios: "AP says public option dropped, in exchange we will all get to bask in the glory of Joe Lieberman's jowls."
- digby: "I believe that had [Pres.] Obama and Reid really been committed to the public option they probably could have found a way to finesse Lieberman long before now. There is no doubt that the only reason Lieberman did this was to fuck the liberals. Hard. It's obviously become his life's purpose."
Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher blames Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): "Remember when Blanche said she won't vote for cloture on a bill with a public option? I guess she's getting her way. [...] So despite the fact that the country wants a public option, the President campaigned on one and [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both promised there would be one in the final bill, the woman who took $763,000 from health care interests for her upcoming Senate race is allowed to dictate what happens. And Obama gives his seal of approval, desperate for anything he can call a 'win' in time for the State of the Union address. What a hideous, rudderless mess."
Meanwhile, Daily Kos' mcjoan writes: "The House should absolutely reject the effort to drop the conference of the bill and ping-pong it. Remember all those promises about 'we'll fix it in conference'? Yeah. We need to go to conference on this, however much the White House wants to have this passed by the State of the Union."
HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Don't Make Perfect The Enemy Of The Good
Other liberal bloggers are offering mild praise for the Senate compromise:
- Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "So: an OPM-administered national plan, a weak triggered public option, a limited Medicare buy-in between 55-64, and some new insurance regs. If this sticks, it's actually better than I expected. I always figured we'd get a triggered public option and nothing more."
- Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Call me overly optimistic, but lowering the medicare age, opening up the same options as federal workers have, stricter regulations, and a trigger should these fail seems to be a pretty good deal. [...] Hell, the medicare thing alone I thought would never happen."
- BooMan: "It's too early to say whether the bill will be good at expanding access to affordable health care or help the budget deficit. But it will be a very good bill for health insurance reform. And that is something."
Even though Senate Dems appear to have dropped the opt-out public option, Open Left's Bowers thinks progressives gained a lot by pushing so hard for it: "The expansion of Medicaid was included in the bill as an attempt to mollify progressives who wanted a new public option program. The Medicare buy-in was done to do exactly the same. This means that even if there is no new public option, the campaign for the public option still will have resulted in millions more Americans receiving public health insurance. It is not the scope of victory we aimed for, but it is hard to call a significant expansion of public health insurance a total defeat for a campaign that was designed to expand public health insurance. While it was not expanded in the way we envisioned, it was expanded nonetheless."
Meanwhile, conservative blogger Philip Klein argues that GOP senators have made it harder for themselves to oppose the proposed Medicare expansion: "I've been frustrated by the decision of Republicans to focus their attacks on the Senate health care bill on the fact that it would cut Medicare benefits. [...] After spending the first week of debate offering amendment after amendment reinforcing the idea of Medicare as a sacred institution, will Republicans be able to pivot and suddenly argue that those aged 55 to 64 cannot have access to this awesome program? Is the new GOP position that the government should provide individuals with unlimited health care benefits once they reach age 65, but not the option to buy in if they're 55 to 64?"
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dick Cheney's Not-So-Big Prediction
NRO's Jim Geraghty:
"CNN headlines its story 'Cheney makes big 2010 prediction,' and I waited to see whether he was willing to predict the GOP winning the House next year, or any upset special in any particular race. But Cheney merely said, 'I think we'll pick up a lot of seats ... Prospects for the Republicans in 2010 are very good.'
That's a big prediction? I think at this point, it's conventional wisdom. Obviously, it's still early, but folks in the know think that the 'winnable' House seats come in bunches of 10 to 12; an 'average' year would mean the GOP picks up 10-12 of the lowest-hanging fruit; a good year puts it up to 20-24 seats, a really good year puts it around 30 to 36 seats, and the wild, look-out-here-comes-the-tsunami scenario is 40 to 48 seats. Keep in mind Republicans need 41 seats to retake the House.
In the Senate, Republicans have a lot of good candidates up against incumbents or appointees with relatively weak numbers in places like Delaware, Illinois, Colorado, and Connecticut. They've got a good shot at keeping their seat in Ohio and a near-lock at keeping Florida. Incumbents in North Carolina and Louisiana look pretty solid, surprisingly solid in the case of [David] Vitter. I don't know if I would bet the house on the GOP challengers quite yet, but the approval numbers for Reid in Nevada and [Barbara] Boxer in California look pretty miserable. [...O]verall, the GOP is getting good candidates against Democrats with vulnerabilities, in an environment that, for the moment, is good for challengers and good for conservatives. If anything, Cheney's being cautious..."
LEST WE FORGET: Uninformed Buffoon Barely Comprehends Conversation About Taylor Swift
From The Onion:
"PHILADELPHIA -- According to sources, local dullard Peter Merriam, 34, struggled pitifully Saturday evening to keep up with a simple conversation regarding popular international singing sensation Taylor Swift. 'I was aghast at his ignorance of even the most basic works of her oeuvre,' said partygoer Amy Singer, who remarked that the incurious Merriam 'didn't know or appear to care' about Swift's childhood in small-town Pennsylvania or that she's the youngest person ever to win Entertainer of the Year at the CMAs. 'He flailed around like some kind of caveman for something to say about the Kanye West incident, and then tried to steer the conversation toward the health care debate. I would have pitied the man were he not so unapologetically obtuse.' Sources reported that the unlearned Merriam almost redeemed his intellectual credentials by knowing the name of one of the contestants on Top Chef."
Liberal bloggers are responding favorably to reports that Senate Dems are considering a proposal to expand Medicare as a means of mollifying progressives who are angry about the weakening of the public option. "Medicare for Some?" Armando Llorens writes. "That's a start towards Medicare for All." digby thinks the proposal "would go a long way to alleviating [the] concerns" of baby boomers who aren't sure that they'll benefit from the health care reform bill. Meanwhile, Joan McCarter thinks "it's good to see an actual progressive policy in the mix in these negotiations," even if she isn't convinced that the proposal would be "an acceptable substitute for a real public option."
However, some lefty bloggers are skeptical that the proposal will make it into the final bill. "Until I hear at least one conservative Democratic senator says something positive about the idea, I will remain fairly pessimistic that the idea has traction," Jon Walker writes. "Right now, my recommendation to progressives is don't hold your breath."
What else is happening in the blogosphere?
- Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Lane, Murray, Morrissey, Mirengoff) are criticizing the EPA for announcing "that greenhouse gases posed a danger to human health and the environment, paving the way for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories, refineries and other major sources." Liberal bloggers are praising the EPA's decision (Chris, Benen) and hitting back at critics (Yglesias, Empsall).
- Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hinderaker, Allahpundit, Liebau, Hawkins) are blasting Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D) for comparing opponents of health care reform to opponents of women's suffrage and the emancipation of slaves.
- RedState editor Erick Erickson has followed up his endorsement of CA SEN candidate Chuck DeVore (R) with an endorsement of SC GOV candidate Nikki Haley (R). Erickson writes: "[I]f the federalist experiment is to survive, it must be supported inside the states, not just at the federal level. Supporting Nikki Haley does just that."
- Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas is excited that House Financial Services Cmte Chair Barney Frank (D) has endorsed fellow House Dem Joe Sestak (D) in the PA SEN race. Moulitsas adds: "Specter isn't the only suspect Democrat inside our caucus. [...] A few more primary challenges might convince recalcitrant Democrats to support their party's top priorities, and a culture that encourages such challenges, even if it angers the DSCC and DCCC, would certainly be welcome, and clearly help Democrats advance their now-stymied policy goals."
HEALTH CARE REFORM: An Acceptable Substitute?
Liberal bloggers are responding favorably to reports that Senate Dems are considering a proposal to expand Medicare:
- digby: "From a personal perspective, this would be a godsend. The huge group of baby boomers in my age group (the second wave) are facing an unbelievable squeeze and the latest versions of the public option aren't going to help us much, especially in high cost states, unless we are really doing badly financially. [...] As a good progressive I'm not basing my support for the public option on my own personal situation. But I do worry about the political ramifications with respect to this huge demographic between 50 and 65 that's likely to have very mixed results in this health care reform just as they are dealing with aging parents, college aged kids, lower pensions, loss of housing equity, insecure employment and deteriorating health. If they are nervous about health care reform it's going to cost the Democrats. The seniors are already falling away. This would go a long way to alleviating their concerns."
- Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Would this be an acceptable substitute for a real public option? It doesn't reform the healthcare system by providing real competition to private insurers. But it would provide a model to grow on, bringing with it the possibility of eventually getting to Medicare for all, the model that many progressives have been advocating for years. Incremental? Yes, but whatever we're going to get out of this Congress will be just that. At any rate, it's good to see an actual progressive policy in the mix in these negotiations."
- TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Medicare for Some? That's a start towards Medicare for All. Take out the mandates, increase Medicare eligibility, use the House funding model and I can support this health insurance premium assistance bill."
- Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I think it's a great idea, though I have a hard time believing it's going to be suddenly resurrected at the 11th hour like this. Still -- and with the caveat that I'm a lukewarm supporter of the public option in the first place -- I'd probably take this over the public option as a straight-up trade any time. Not only does it do a lot of good, but it sets the stage for possible future age reductions."
- The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "The best use of the 'public option' is as a bargaining chip. Looks as if the Senate liberals are driving a pretty hard bargain [...] If this works out as well as it seems it might, a bunch of people are going to owe Harry Reid an apology."
On the other hand, Firedoglake's Walker is skeptical that the proposal will make it into the final bill: "Until details are known, it is impossible to judge whether there is any policy merits to the proposal. Unless Reid finally decides to use reconciliation or the nuclear option, any idea will need 60 votes. [...] Until I hear at least one conservative Democratic senator says something positive about the idea, I will remain fairly pessimistic that the idea has traction. Right now, my recommendation to progressives is don't hold your breath."
Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher is even more blunt: "After 30 years in the movie business, I don't dance around like somebody's pet monkey and respond to offers nobody has made, and I don't negotiate with myself."
Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Klein, Ace, Allahpundit) are arguing that it would be fiscally irresponsible to lower the age of Medicare eligibility to 55.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: TCU Vs. Boise State
Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias:
"Having TCU play Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl strikes me as a cop-out. The world deserves an opportunity to put to the test the issue of whether these unbeaten teams from the unprestigious conferences are or are not in fact better than squads like Florida and Cincinnati. It's fine if you want to dismiss one of these teams based on their relatively weak schedules, but then you've got to let them have the chance to play a tougher schedule. Barack Obama said a year ago that he wanted to see a college football playoff and he was right! I think the White House needs to get back involved in this issue."
LEST WE FORGET: Time Is On My Side
From Overheard in the Office:
Female program manager: You got a sec?
Male program manager: I have lots of secs.
(pause)
Engineer: He means he has a lot of time.
Liberal bloggers are remaining relatively quiet about the UN climate change conference starting today in Copenhagen, perhaps to minimize expectations and perhaps because Pres. Obama won't show up until next week. But conservative bloggers are already on the attack, keeping up the talk about "Climategate" by saying the conference is discredited by the e-mail scandal and pointing to the number of limos and private jets being used by conference attendees. Michelle Malkin says the conference is just adding to the "hysteria over the issue in the face of massive data manipulation, suppression, and bullying of dissenters."
What else is going on in the blogosphere?
- Conservative bloggers (Jessup) let the GOP know that "traditional small-government conservatives are fed up with them," citing a Rasmussen generic ballot poll that puts a "Tea Party" candidate ahead of a GOP one (and both behind the Dem candidate).
- Daily Kos' Steve Singiser takes a shot at the "conventional wisdom" that is pointing to a "Democrats are doomed" narrative for '10. "There is likely to be a lot of tumult and unexpected outcomes, given some unique dynamics to this cycle (the schism in the GOP, for example). A lot of assumptions being made now (about candidates and momentum, in particular) are going to be challenged as time goes on."
- Erick Erickson endorses Assemb. Chuck DeVore (R) for CA SEN, saying the NRSC, which has all but endorsed ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R), is ignoring the truly conservative candidates. "Where the establishment goes, we should all be worried. Just as they led us from 55 seats to 40 seats in the Senate and just as they are leading us off a cliff in the Senate through failed messaging tactics, the establishment is going to lead us off a cliff in 2010."
- Liberal bloggers (Armstrong, Joyner) muse about the DNC's review of rules governing certain party practices, including the delegate system and primary calendar.
- Liberals (mcjoan, Walker, Aravosis) say the latest public option compromise floating around, a not-for-profit exchange administered by OPM, is "worthless," and Ezra Klein is concerned that two-thirds of Americans don't understand the concept of the public option. Klein also gives a run-down of the "five possible points of compromise." Meanwhile, conservatives (Perrin) point to public option and abortion language negotiations as proof that the bill will soon die.
COPENHAGEN: C Is For Climate/Change/Copenhagen/Conference/Cookie
Conservative bloggers show their skepticism about the conference and climate change in general:
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: To Infinity And Beyond
American Spectator's Doug Bandow:
"Almost certainly, the [health care] industry is being short-sighted. Even if the deals hold today, in a few years, as costs skyrocket, everyone will be looking for money to save. No one on the left will feel the need to respect past promises to guarantee industry profits. Whatever the Democrats fail to achieve today they will get tomorrow.
So Republicans should vote to give the providers supporting Obamacare their just desserts today. Rather than fighting to protect doctors, insurers, and drugmakers from increased regulation, the GOP should support any proposed restrictions. If industry wants the American people to suffer under government health care rationing, then the pain should be shared. Industry should give up its pound of flesh in the name of 'reform' as well.
American health care is a mess and needs real reform. But not a government takeover. If industry is going to support rationing for the rest of us, it should be made to feel the full consequences of its policies."
LEST WE FORGET: All I Want For Christmas Is You
From The Onion:
"During an unexpected visit Thursday to an organizational meeting for this year's White House Christmas party, Vice President Joe Biden winked mischievously as he offered to 'handle' the eggnog supply for the upcoming annual event. 'Uncle Joe's got the nog under control,' said Biden, briefly flashing a metal flask protruding from the inside pocket of his suit jacket. 'Old family recipe.'"
Between Pres. Obama's job summit, ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R-GA) "Real Jobs Summit" and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke's testimony to the Senate Banking Cmte, 12/3 was a big day for asking economic questions, and bloggers on the right and left were unsatisfied with the answers. This a.m.'s announcement of a drop in unemployment just brought more criticism from some bloggers, while others expressed unenthusiastic optimism. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Porkulus has done nothing for those fields that Obama claimed to be stimulating: long-term jobs, construction, and manufacturing. The only jobs increasing this year are temp jobs, health care, and government sector jobs, the latter only occasionally." Firedoglake's David Dayen: "Regardless, this is a picture of an economy that still needs some help in job creation. A better decline is still a decline."
What else is going on in the blogosphere?
- Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Armstrong, Dayen, Bowers) picked up on a poll showing Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) trailing several potential GOPers and connected her "extremely weak" prospects to her opposition of the public option. Daily Kos' Kos: "This poll shows that Lincoln's obstructionism, rather than bolster her standing in Arkansas, is actually hurting her more. ...If [LG Bill] Halter runs, we'll have a barn burner of a primary, and a real opportunity for progressives to strike back against one of the biggest obstructionists in the Senate, not just on health care, but on practically every issue we care about." Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Paul) say it's her vote to bring the health care bill to the floor that has her in trouble.
- Conservative bloggers (Lewis, Erickson) think Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) "bad day" -- focusing on "E-mail-theft-gate" instead of "Climategate", opposing the troop increase in Afghanistan because "there are only 100 terrorists in the country" and "tripping over a key figure relating to the expansion of Medicaid" -- may lead to a tough reelection.
- In a classic example of strange bedfellows, liberals (Dayen, Lemos) give props to Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Jim Bunning (R-KY) for joining Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in placing a hold on the renomination of Bernanke. Lemos: "I have a new found respect for Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky. To call Chairman Bernanke the living definition of a moral hazard is long overdue."
- Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hogan) lament the Senate Judiciary Cmte's vote to send the nomination of "liberal activist" ex-WI Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler for a federal judgeship to the floor. Hogan: "This is the latest of an increasingly distinguished line of completely-out-of-the-mainstream, leftists who have absolutely no respect for, much less use for, the Constitution. If it weren’t so damaging to our nation’s well being, it would almost be comical how uniquely unqualified and crazy these nominees are."
- Liberals (Marshall, Blue Texan) are jeering Lou Dobbs for being dropped by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC for "not being anti-immigrant enough."
- Liberal debate (mcjoan, Walker) about the public option continues, while conservative bloggers (Erickson) wonder why GOP leadership is allowing the amendment process to continue instead of killing the bill.
ECONOMY: You're Up And You're Down
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Can't Touch This
Washington Post's Ezra Klein:
"Additionally, health-care reform is going to great lengths to avoid touching providers. Hospitals and doctors are simply too powerful to seriously anger. Insurers aren't. That's why the original public option was so important. Armed with -- and adding to -- Medicare's bargaining power, it was a policy that you could justify because insurers were evil, but that was actually directed at providers. When it lost its attachment to Medicare, it still had good arguments for its existence, but its potential as a gamechanger ended.
My somewhat pessimistic view is that the politics of this aren't likely to change until workers are closer to their health-care spending. You'll get public will to rein in provider spending when the public realizes how much it's actually paying for health-care coverage. As it is, employers pay more than 70 percent of the average worker's cost, and Medicare and Medicaid are no better, so there's no support for solutions proportionate to the problem because the overwhelming majority of the country is insulated from the full pain of the problem."
LEST WE FORGET: Everybody Loves Comcast
Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:
"In the first example of the kind of synergy viewers can come to expect in the wake of Comcast's acquisition of NBC, the cable giant warned viewers today that if they do not start watching The Jay Leno Show immediately they can expect their cable service to be shut off.
'If you want to watch The Closer, Burn Notice and all the other shows you enjoy on cable, you better start holding your nose and watching Leno,' said Comcast spokesperson Carol Foyler. 'If that sounds like a threat, that's because it is.'
Ms. Foyler said that Comcast customers who do not 'cooperate' with the Leno edict can expect their cable service to be interrupted, 'and a Comcast service representative will be at your house to fix it between the hours of twelve and never.'"
The blogosphere is buzzing with talk about a public option compromise. Liberal bloggers pipe in on what the public option must look like politically vs. ideologically, while conservative bloggers are tired of hearing about negotiations on the public option and are upset with GOPers who are offering amendments that would help the bill pass. Erick Erickson wonders: "Why would we help the Democrats pretend to fix their unfixable bill?"
What else is happening in the blogosphere?
- As expected, liberal bloggers (desmoinesdem, Yglesias, Bink) are deeply disappointed by the NY state Senate voting against a marriage equality bill, while conservative bloggers (Duncan, Bass) lauded the vote as good news for a traditional marriage definition.
- Conservatives (Geraghty, Morrissey) question the validity of the WH's jobs summit, noting that only "yes men" are attending the summit and hundreds of WH jobs remain unfilled. National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez suggests that someone with some job creating experience, like Mitt Romney, should be at the summit.
- MyDD's Jerome Armstrong notes the number of Dem candidates in open primaries who are opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan, saying "the candidates have their ears much closer to the ground of Democratic voters than those in DC currently do." Armstrong: "I expect that we will see plenty of primary opportunities develop against incumbents whom are in Democratic strongholds that go along with support of the surge."
- Liberal bloggers are upset about Sen. Judd Gregg's (R-NH) health care obstruction manual (Dayen, Kurtz, mcjoan).
- Liberals (Sirota, Nichols) thank Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for placing a hold on Fed Chair Ben Bernanke's reconfirmation.
- Conservative bloggers (Chesser, AllahPundit) criticize Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) for focusing on "E-mail-theft-gate" instead of "Climategate."
PUBLIC OPTION: One Way Or Another
Following news that Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) is cooking up a new plan for the public option, which may take the form of an opt-in trigger, liberals are split on whether it's time to go with any compromise available on the public option, and conservatives are fed up with talk of compromise.
- Ezra Klein, on the need to pass a bill, no matter what the public option looks like: "If [health care] passes, however, then health-care reform develops its constituency, which has the power to protect its important provisions and expand where necessary. On the other hand, if health-care reform doesn't pass, the issue is probably dead for a decade, and if history is any indication, the next effort will be less ambitious, and less progressive. This bill, when it's finished, is not going to be very good. But it's going to be a lot better than what we have, and almost more importantly, a lot easier to improve in the future."
- Open Left's Chris Bowers: "In the past, I had previously defined success as increasing the power of the Progressive Block and passing a nationally-available public option tied to Medicare rates. My thinking on the matter started to change when Representative Alan Grayson started talking about the number of people who die each year from health insurance. ...When faced with a choice between the status-quo, and providing subsidies to make it easier for low-income people to purchase private health insurance, I choose the subsidies."
- Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Reid's and Carper's Plan B isn't a compromise. It's a capitulation. And it's no solution to providing the necessary competition to the industry that our Dem leaders, from Obama on down, have been touting for all these months. It's a fig leaf that is unlikely even to appease the members it's supposedly geared toward."
- Firedoglake's David Dayen: "Fluid is one way of putting [Carper's plan]. Another way is water vapor, because that’s about how valuable it would be as a tool to challenge insurance companies to compete. ...To serve the needs of four recalcitrant Senators at the expense of 56, Carper has devised a Frankenstein’s monster of a plan that probably won’t even make sense to those administering it, let alone the public.
- Rick Scott of Conservatives for Patients' Rights: "What are we up to now, six different names for the public option? Let us count the ways desperate Democrats have tried to re-brand, re-tool, re-name or re-invent what is, by all accounts, a plot that will ultimately force millions of Americans into the waiting arms of government health care bureaucrats."
- American Spectator's Philip Klein, on the individual mandate: "While proponents of a mandate try to portray those who are uninsured by choice as deadbeats, in reality many people with low annual health care costs make the rational decision to save money on monthly premiums, and simply pay out of pocket for whatever small costs they do incur."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Hide And Go Seek
Daily Kos' David Waldman:
"It's beyond disingenuous for Republicans to object to [posting all amendments on the Internet], but no one's really surprised by it. While latching on to the politically potent 'Read the Bill!' rallying cry of the non-partisan transparency movement, the truth is that when it comes to transparency for their own legislative language, the idea's suddenly not all that exciting. Again, this comes as no surprise. Republicans have been grousing about transparency all along, even while hiding the ball on their amendments and motions to recommit.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lincoln for some reason thinks she's got a political winner on her hands with [posting amendments on her own official Web site if the amendments' sponsors will not]. ...What would be of more interest, both politically as well as for non-partisan transparency advocates, is for Democratic Senators to continue to make such unanimous consent requests, and in the absence of an agreement, to pledge as a caucus that as matter of policy during this debate, they'll vote to table amendments not offered for public review."
LEST WE FORGET: We'll Be Fashionably Late
After the party-crashing Salahis said they won't show up to the House Homeland Security Cmte hearing in their honor, TPM's John Marshall suggested: "Perhaps not inviting them would be a better way to get them to show up?"
Pres. Obama is really getting hit from all sides today in the blogosphere, as liberals and conservatives alike had very negative reactions to his speech on Afghanistan. Liberal bloggers were not at all convinced by the speech, calling it "his least inspiring speech ever." Chris Bowers echoed the views of many in the netroots when he wrote: "Sound as technocratic as you like Mr. President, but this decision will kill far more people than it will save." Conservative bloggers also blasted Obama's speech, accusing him of "Bush-bashing" and complaining that "he did not once mention the word 'victory'". Righty bloggers were particularly upset about Obama's statement that "after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home." Erick Erickson fumes: "This is akin to announcing to burglars exactly the time at which you intend to depart your house and also announcing you intend to turn off the burglar alarm. Al Qaeda will just wait us out."
What else is happening in the blogosphere?
- Ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) wrote a post on RedState defending his decision to commute the sentence of WA murder suspect Maurice Clemmons. However, conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Allahpundit) believe that Huckabee's WH '12 chances are doomed.
- Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Dayen, Cole, Black) are ridiculing Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-NE) proposal to fund the Afghanistan war with "war bonds."
OBAMA SPEECH: His Least Inspiring Speech Ever?
Most liberal bloggers were very critical of Obama's speech:
- The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I went into last night's presidential speech on U.S. policy in Afghanistan feeling skeptical. I came out of last night's presidential speech on U.S. policy in Afghanistan feeling skeptical. That's probably not a good sign about the effectiveness of the presentation."
- Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "There are two possible reasons for the speech being so unconvincing: either Obama doesn't know how to deliver a good speech or else Obama isn't really convinced himself. But we know the former isn't true, don't we? You can fill in the rest yourself."
- Firedoglake's David Dayen: "I've re-read Obama's Afghanistan speech, and I think it was perhaps designed to displease everyone -- hawks, doves, Democrats, Republicans. Afghanistan and Pakistan is really a least-worst scenario after eight years of war, and so we got an unsatisfying 'get in to get out' strategy without any tactical information and based on an extremely shaky premise. [...] He said that he owed it to the public to provide a real strategy after eight years of drift, and then offered no strategy other than what he said during the first escalation in March -- a 'civilian surge,' a strategic partnership with Pakistan, and... that's it."
- TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "It was perhaps his least inspiring speech ever -- Obama has been at his most inspiring when he reconciles lofty American aspirations with the reality of American accomplishments and American failures. This speech was [George W.] Bush-like in its embrace of platitudes and vagueries, it was often the least convincing where once it might have been the most inspiring. It was a speech that reflected the president deciding on what is maybe the least crappy of a number of crappy options -- without convincingly explaining how it would work. [...] So the speech won't satisfy his party, which is skeptical that the objective of destroying Al Qaeda is served by escalation, it won't satisfy the opposition, which for the most part is ultimately concerned with defeating him by any means, and I doubt it will persuade other people like me who are generally on the fence."
- Open Left's Bowers: "Sound as technocratic as you like Mr. President, but this decision will kill far more people than it will save."
Most liberal bloggers remain strongly opposed to Obama's troop escalation in Afghanistan:
- Open Left's David Sirota: "Which is worse -- a stupid person like George W. Bush starting a dumb occupation, or a smart person like Barack Obama following the lead of that stupid person, but actually escalating that occupation?"
- MyDD's Charles Lemos: "This is a disheartening moment, one where words truly fail to capture the enormity to which the President is committing the nation and its resources. Perhaps there will be a political price to pay but that is irrelevant compared to the cost we are about to pay in blood and coin. May history forgive our errors."
- digby: "To those who insist that I have no right to feel betrayed, please be advised that I don't. I am not even surprised. All the Democrats but [OH Rep. Dennis] Kucinich ran on the platform of winning 'The Good War' just as [MA Sen. John] Kerry did in 2004. Unfortunately, there wasn't anyone on the ballot last November who wasn't promising to escalate to one degree or another, so I had to make my choice based on other criteria. [...] But I was never going to support this. I think it's a terrible waste of life and money and will do nothing to enhance our security or the well being of the Afghan people. I have no faith that it will be over by the time Obama leaves office. These things have a life of their own. It's about politics --- geo and national and the fact that he declined to push the war tax tells us pretty clearly where he comes down."
That said, some liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Klein, BooMan, Aravosis) had more nuanced reactions to Obama's speech. Furthermore, the Daily Kos community appears split -- 40% support Obama's decision to send more troops, while 41% support it and 17% haven't made up their mind.
OBAMA SPEECH II: Horrible. Just Horrible.
Conservative bloggers were very critical of Obama's speech:
- Michelle Malkin: "Bush-bashing? Check. Noxious complaining about the cost of fighting a necessary war? Check. Disingenuous denial that he dithered? Check. [...] Way to restore America's standing in the world, eh? Pray for our troops tonight and every night. They need 'em now more than ever."
- Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Shorter Obama: I blame Bush for all the problems! I'm sending 30,000 troops. This is a war of necessity and my commitment is unwavering -- but, here's a timeline for when we're leaving, win or lose. [...] If you're the Taliban, you're greatly encouraged after hearing this speech. If you care about winning and a Commander-In-Chief who's committed to victory, you're greatly discouraged."
- RedState's Erickson: "In 4608 words, he did not once mention the word 'victory' and the closest he came to using the word 'win' was those three letters appearing in the word 'withdrawing.' [...] The historic record shows that Barack Obama is not even granting McChrystal the General's preferred troop level. McChrystal wanted 40,000 troops to 80,000 troops. So Bush gave the Generals in Afghanistan everything they wanted, despite Obama saying he did not, and Obama is not giving his General what was requested, despite claiming he is. [...] Since taking office, Barack Obama's casualty count is nearly DOUBLE that of George Bush's worst year as Commander in Chief. God help our troops. It's amateur hour still at the White House."
Conservative bloggers were particularly upset about Obama's statement that "after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home":
- Ace of Spades: "Basically, when you tell your ally you're bugging out in a couple of years, and they know when you do bug out they lose, you have incentivized them to begin defecting to the enemy early."
- Erickson: "Proving yet again that he is a rank amateur, Obama intends to have a surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, but concurrently announce the timeline for their withdrawal. This is akin to announcing to burglars exactly the time at which you intend to depart your house and also announcing you intend to turn off the burglar alarm. Al Qaeda will just wait us out. They'll only need to wait a year."
- RedState's Dan Spencer: "How can the Commander-in-Chief put a time limit on fighting for our national security? I do not know if I can continue to support a war effort that Obama previously referred to as a 'necessary war' and now calls a 'vital national interest,' but is nevertheless only willing to continue for 18 more months. If it is necessary and vital should we not be willing to carry on until we are victorious?"
- Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Obama's timetable threatens to undermine not just the first prong of his strategy (military) but also second and third prongs (civilian and Pakistan). With only a short-term commitment, we're not likely to exert much influence on civilian behavior. Nor are the Pakistanis likely to be impressed by an America that's more interested in a prompt exit, so it can save money and focus on domestic issues (points Obama emphasized near the end of his speech), than in defeating its enemies."
- Hot air's Ed Morrissey: "In defining our mission's expiration date as 18 months, Obama has undermined whatever good the counterinsurgency strategy will do. [...] No one will cooperate with American troops if they know we're bugging out in 18 months. They're going to decide to cut the best deals they can with the Taliban, who will simply decide to outlast us. [...] Under these circumstances, it would be better to start the evacuation now, rather than have any more of our ground troops targeted by the Taliban for a country they'll soon be running again anyway."
- Glenn Reynolds: "[I]f he were dealing with a real enemy -- like, say, Fox News -- he wouldn't tip his hand so easily..."
Still, a few conservative bloggers (Klein, Miller, Lowry) offered Obama mild praise for deciding to deploy more troops to Afghanistan in the first place. John J. Miller writes: "If it's a choice between a good speech and a good policy, I'll take the good policy."
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Speech Isn't The Story
FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver:
"I feel underqualified to talk about this one because I don't claim any expertise in the area of foreign policy and have rather ambivalent feelings toward American involvement in Afghanistan. But Obama's speech tonight, whether or not it produces some near-term move in Obama's approval ratings (and it could), is really not the big news of the day. Rather, it's the commitment the White House announced earlier to beginning to withdraw forces by July, 2011 as a condition of the surge.
Politically, this seems very risky: in the long run, there's much more downside to breaking the promise than there would be upside to keeping it. If nothing much has changed in Afghanistan and our troops aren't getting out 20 months hence, we can presumably expect some major blowback, especially from liberals -- a primary challenge from Obama's left flank would not be entirely out of the question.
Of course, it may be precisely because the withdraw timetable is so risky politically that it is in fact credible; a credible withdraw deadline is almost certainly better than a non-credible one, but whether or not it's better than not setting a deadline at all, I don't know. I certainly do hope that Obama set the deadline to achieve policy goals and not to quiesce liberals -- if this was intended purely as a political move, it was probably short-sighted."
LEST WE FORGET: Afghanistan Could Distract Media From Tiger, Experts Fear
The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:
"WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- The morning after President Obama laid out his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, media critics are expressing concern that the focus on Afghanistan could distract the media from getting to the bottom of the Tiger Woods story.
With the budgets of media companies stretched to the limit, there are worries that most outlets do not have the capacity to cover both a major war and an alleged scandal involving a prominent golfer and slutty nightclub employees.
Davis Logsdon, the director of the Media Studies Institute at the University of Minnesota, says the simultaneity of the Afghanistan and Tiger Woods stories will mean a 'gut check' for the 24-hour news channels.
'Most news outlets will be forced to choose between analyzing the President's new troop deployment or airing Tiger's alleged voicemails,' he said. 'For the good of the Republic, I hope they will go with the voicemails.'"
Liberal bloggers are deeply disappointed that Pres. Obama has ordered about 30K additional troops to Afghanistan. The netroots have long been skeptical about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, but the complaints grew much louder in the past 24 hours as word got out about Obama's substantial troop buildup. "This will not end well," one lefty blogger predicts. Another writes: "I have nothing but bad feelings about the addition of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan...we've been down this road before." Another lefty blogger warns: "[G]oing down this path led by Obama is going to drive a deep division into the Democratic Party."
Andrew Sullivan -- a staunch Obama supporter and a vocal proponent of the Iraq war -- is also skeptical about Obama's plans. Sullivan writes that "Obama's middle way, I fear, is deeper and deeper into a trap, and the abandonment of a historic opportunity to get out."
Meanwhile, most conservative bloggers support Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan. However, that's not stopping them from accusing Obama of "dithering", engaging in "public agonizing", and sending "conflicting messages" about Afghanistan.
What else is happening in the blogosphere?
- Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Hillyer, Mirengoff, Malkin, McCain, Erickson) continue to criticize ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) for granting clemency to Maurice Clemmons, the man suspected of killing four police officers in WA. However, one righty blogger is defending Huckabee.
- Conservative bloggers (Klein, Foster, Morrissey, Andrews) are buzzing about the CBO's prediction that the Senate health care reform bill "would increase premiums in the individual market," although "purchasers would get better coverage than under current law and six in 10 would see their premium payments reduced by new federal subsidies."
- Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Klein) are annoyed that the first GOP amendment to the health care bill -- which was introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) -- was an amendment to remove cuts to Medicare. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Stein, Volsky, Benen) are accusing McCain of contradicting himself, since he proposed cutting Medicare and Medicaid as a way to pay for his health plan during his WH '08 campaign.
- Liberal bloggers (Singiser, Lux, Lewison) and conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Bandes) are still buzzing about the new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll which found that 40% of Dem voters are either "not likely [to] vote" or "definitely will not vote" in '10.
OBAMA: I've Got A Bad Feeling About This
Liberal bloggers are disappointed that Obama has ordered about 30K additional troops to Afghanistan:
- Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "This will not end well."
- Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I have nothing but bad feelings about the addition of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Watching Michael O'Hanlon on the evening news was like a punch to the gut -- we've been down this road before."
- Salon's Glenn Greenwald: [T]his pretense that Obama spent months carefully deliberating in order to devise some new and exotic thought pattern about the war seems absurd on its face. At least if his top aides are to believed, what he intends to say tonight should sound extremely familiar."
- Howie Klein: "The big multimedia sales pitch isn't until tonight but Obama has already issued the orders to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending over at least thirty-thousand more troops (at a million dollars per soldier per year). Even if he didn't stumble arrogantly into a decision, Obama didn't make a decision any different, in substance, than [George W.] Bush's decision. It was a decision to let the Military-Industrial-(Intelligence) Complex -- yeah, the ones President [Dwight] Eisenhower warned us about -- push the country into an unwinnable, disastrous war."
- Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I haven't seen anyone even really attempt to persuade me that this policy makes sense in cost-benefit terms. And I think the reaction to [House Approps Cmte Chair] David Obey's 'war tax' idea is telling -- nobody seems to really think there are national interests at stake that are critical enough to be worth paying slightly higher taxes for. But if a war's not worth paying for, how can it be worth fighting?"
- MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "[G]oing down this path led by Obama is going to drive a deep division into the Democratic Party. I have a feeling that this is a Humpty-Dumpty into pieces sort of moment for the Democratic Party: A '10-'12 primary split within the Democratic Party over the escalation of the US occupation in Afghanistan that could make the current healthcare reform debate look like patty-cake play."
The Atlantic's Sullivan -- a staunch Obama supporter and a vocal proponent of the Iraq war -- is also skeptical about sending more troops to Afghanistan: "As Obama appears to be intensifying the lost war in Afghanistan, with the same benchmark rubric that meant next-to-nothing in the end in Iraq, he does not seem to understand that he will either have to withdraw US troops from Iraq as it slides into new chaos, or he will have to keep the troops there for ever, as the neocons always intended. Or he will have to finance and run two hot wars simultaneously. If he ramps up Afghanistan and delays Iraq withdrawal, he will lose his base. If he does the full metal neocon as he is being urged to, he should not be deluded in believing the GOP will in any way support him. They will oppose him every step of every initiative. They will call him incompetent if Afghanistan deteriorates, they will call him a terrorist-lover if he withdraws, they will call him a traitor if he does not do everything they want, and they will eventually turn on him and demand withdrawal, just as they did in the Balkans with [Bill] Clinton. Obama's middle way, I fear, is deeper and deeper into a trap, and the abandonment of a historic opportunity to get out."
Sullivan continues: "I fear Bush's wars will destroy Obama as they destroyed Bush. Because they are unwinnable; and because the US is bankrupt; and because neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will ever be normal functioning societies in our lifetimes. You want empire? Then say so and get on with it -- with far more forces, and massive cuts in domestic spending to rebuild thankless Muslim population centers thousands of miles from home for decades into the future. You do not want empire? Then leave. Those are the presidential level choices. And neither Bush nor, it seems, Obama has the strength to make them."
Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Salam) support Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, but some are complaining that Obama is "dithering", engaging in "public agonizing", and sending "conflicting messages".
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Why Don't Politicians Fear Unemployment?
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein:
"Brad DeLong wonders why good macroeconomic policies make for bad politics. That's the wrong question, I think. Insofar as Barack Obama is not operating amidst 20 percent unemployment and riots, the economic interventions have worked pretty well to preserve the president's high numbers. Barack Obama's ambient popularity can hang above 50 percent because the economy hasn't totally fallen apart. Jack unemployment up five points and Obama isn't so popular.
But just because the situation isn't as bad as it could be, doesn't mean it isn't pretty bad. Bad and unpopular, in fact. So it's easy to see why voters aren't terribly impressed by policies that they thought would make it not bad. The fact that we avoided an economic collapse the electorate couldn't really imagine doesn't mean we've settled at an equilibrium they can support.
What confuses me is why politicians aren't as afraid of unpopular conditions as unpopular votes. It seems far safer to be running for reelection in a world with 9 percent unemployment that's clearly trending downward even if you have to defend a 2009 vote for another stimulus package than to run for reelection in a world where unemployment is holding steady around 12 percent. But they don't seem to see it that way. The best explanation I can come up with is that they don't fundamentally believe another stimulus will work quickly enough or clearly enough for them to derive any benefit from it, and they further think that it will look worse to try and be perceived to fail than to not try at all."
LEST WE FORGET: Roman Bumper Stickers
McSweeney's contributor Kathleen Johnson:
- My other chariot is a Ferrari.
- Proud parent of a terrific gladiator.
- Vesuvius is for Lovers.
- Christians -- The Other White Meat.
- I Brake For Baths.
- Hang up and annex Egypt!
- Jupiter is coming. Look busy.
- Nero in LXIV.
|
|
