It seems like everyone heard what they wanted to hear on this one. Of course, Ben Nelson's vision of a "good" bill is not going to conform to Jay Rockefeller's or Sherrod Brown's. From an electoral standpoint, what they all need to remember is that 2010, like every non-presidential election year--is going to be about base mobilization and not giving Ben Nelson his dream bill.
Rahm Emanuel commented on "the art of the possible.
Emanuel's comment was made in response to his brother's views, but it ignores something important: The White House has played a key role in determining what is possible.
The Obama Administration is suffering from Distorted Pragmatism Syndrome. A bipartisanship fetish is a lot of things, but especially on health care, "pragmatic" isn't one of them.
About the ever - elusive bipartisanship:
Olympia Snowe voted for the Senate Finance Committee bill.
Rep. Cao voted for the House bill.
Arlen Specter switched parties and will vote for reform.
A majority of the American people, including many Republicans, support real reform.
The notion that Olympia Snowe's vote will insulate Democrats from Republican attacks was always severely flawed. The best defense is an effective bill. But any leading Democrat who thinks a weak bill with Olympia's Snowe vote would play significantly better than the strongest possible bill and the Main Street bipartisanship credentials listed above really needs to remove their Beltway Goggles.
If reform actually delivers, the GOP is going to be in terrible shape. Elected Democrats are losing sight of this.
No Republican votes? Obstructionists obstruct. Hardly a shocker.
Passing legislation that isn't as strong as possible and / or includes the Stupak Amendment, would depress the most active parts of a winning Democratic coalition.
- Progressives, who are very passionate about reform and strongly feel that they're being taken for granted.
- Women, who are rightfully appalled by the Stupak Amendment. (This is on top of the fact that women's organizations like NOW strongly supported Medicare for All to begin with.)
- Labor unions, who know all too well how badly workers need real reform.
- Millennials, who are firmly behind a strong public option, and will only turn out if they're given a good reason too.
- The LGBT community -- not fans of 90's Beltway Goggles in general.
There are other factors... support from small businesses is one, that make real reform achievable. But Team "I Love the 90's" is either unable or unwilling to recognize that the Democrat Party is in a position to deliver... and that in many ways, it must deliver. Instead of making the GOP pay a heavy price for trying to block reform, the 90's Throwback Caucus is heading down a path that will infuriate and depress the base, and could very well inject the Democratic Party with an electoral death virus just in time for 2010.
The DLC / Third Way / Hamilton Project wing of the party is a serious problem. Their record is one long chain of FAIL, both on policy and politics. Deregulation, the war in Iraq, "free trade," etc.
How out of touch and ineffectual are DLC - types? Look no further than one of their biggest champions, Tom Carper.
Only in the Beltway Bubble could a group that has been this spectacularly wrong, on this many major issues, this many times be treated as credible.
And frankly, President Clinton was a big part of the problem.
He was a big booster of Evan Bayh, who now exaggerates the electoral difficulties he faces as an excuse to do favors for special interests. It's hard to tell whether Bayh stands for anything at all besides being repeatedly pushed for VP by the same geniuses who were all for Joe Lieberman in 2000.
And for the record, Democratic voters have clearly spoken on the Clinton era. We respect President Clinton, but we don't want a replay of the 90's.
The "moment in history" argument Clinton uses goes both ways. The moment is being blown by self - proclaimed "centrists" who want to weaken vital legislation for no good reason.
As far as fixing the bill down the road goes... he'll have to excuse my skepticism. If the legislation is weak and Democrats lose seats in 2010, how is the bill going to be fixed? Is the much - hyped Magical Bipartisanship Unicorn going to finally make its debut and save the day?
The stronger the bill is out of the gate, the better.
There are three important differences between the 90's and the present that are being overlooked.
- The make - up of our majorities in Congress.
- The strength of the progressive movement.
- Public opinion in general and demographics.
Leading Democrats won't be able to sneak an unnecessarily weak bill past the grassroots. It's just not going to happen in the era of TPM, Huffington Post, FDL, Ed Shultz, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow. If leading Dems do their best, that is one thing... but the Olympia Snowe strategy is not their best. Sell it somewhere else, because we're not buying it.
Clinton's "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" line is misguided. Progressives aren't refusing to budge on Medicare for All or even opening up Medicare to everyone (that would be "perfect" legislation in my mind). We aren't asking for perfect, we're asking for effective. We're telling our party to live up to its history, its identity, its values, and its promises. With a strong Democratic trifecta in place, we're not asking for too much.
Of course progressives shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but that's not at all what we're doing. President Clinton and those who share his approach can't let the political reality they're used to be the enemy of what is possible now. We've already embraced what we're not exactly comfortable with (many of us are still trying to gauge just how compromised the final product may be). It's their turn to do the same.
I have been an outspoken proponent of health care reform with a strong public option. However, the last-minute Stupak-Pitts anti-choice amendment to the House health care reform bill, adopted late Saturday by a vote of 240-194, is an insult to women and an assault on the right to privacy... [I]t is critically important that America not allow the anti-choice forces to achieve through Congressional legislation what the courts have repeatedly refused - the practical elimination of a woman's right to choose a legal medical procedure.
...
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women, even if they pay for such coverage with their own funds.
...
It is otherwise a good bill, but its passage hinged on denying women services for health care that only women may choose.
This is unconscionable. The Senate must remedy the untenable and inequitable sacrifice that this bill would require of women and children in the United States.
