What's The Matter With Dionne?
E. J. Dionne has always struck me as a guy who doesn't get the whole picture. Look at his latest, "What's holding the Democratic Party down." He says right now the Dems are losing and the Repubs are winning. Why?
The two immediate causes for this state of affairs are a single election result in Massachusetts and the way the United States Senate operates. [...] Pause to consider where we would be if a Democrat had won the Massachusetts Senate race last month. In all likelihood, health reform would be law, Democrats could have moved on to economic matters, and Obama would be seen as shrewd and successful.
Did Scott Brown really make the difference? His election was a wakeup call (as were a few that preceded him), but it's not entirely the Senate that's holding the Dems back--in fact, they passed the bill. Right now they don't seem to have enough votes for a smple majority in the House, which they still need. Scott Brown got their attention, but it's certainly possible even if he lost, health reform would be in trouble.
But if the Dems had passed it, I don't think the country would have simply moved on. Probably the anger would be boiling over. The reason the Dems have had so much trouble is the bill is unpopular. Passing it in the face of so much opposition would be the final straw. If the people supported the bill, it would have been law last August, like the White House wanted.
As to moving on to economic matters, there's never been anything stopping the Dems from doing so. They run Congress. It's always been their choice what to consider.
Dionne continues:
The Obama administration argues that both the stimulus and the health bill are better than people think. That's entirely true, and this is actually an indictment -- it means that on the two big issues of the moment, Republicans and conservatives are winning an argument they should be losing.
This is the ultimate problem with Dionne, and so many political columnists. It's a given their side is right, so the question becomes why is everyone so stupid not to see it.
By the way, it may be true the stimulus and/or health bill are better than people think. That doesn't mean they're good ideas.
Economists agree that the stimulus worked to create jobs...
Well, I'm glad that's settled.
On health care, months of delay in a futile quest for Republican support got the Democrats the worst of all worlds. The media gave them no credit for reaching out to the other side but did blame them for an ugly, gridlocked process.
I didn't see any serious reaching out to Republicans--in fact, they were shut out of the process. Most of the dealmaking was to get skittish Dems on board. There were some minor attempts at deals with a few moderate Repubs, but it seemed the only reason the Dems even tried this was because they had a bill the public hated and they didn't want to take all the heat. (Not only in the Senate. Even with a massive lead, Nancy Pelosi had to strongarm a bunch of Dems to vote yes.) In a way, this is a good thing. It's probably better not to pass gamechanging bills without bipartisan support.
If the Dems really wanted a health bill, they could have offered true compromise, some of which, I admit, they wouldn't like too much. Politics isn't about getting everything. But they figured they had Congress and could force their bill through. Not necessarily a bad strategy. Could still work. But it's high risk, as we can now see. (I admit with the huge Dem lead, it's possible any significant compromise would have been stopped by the progressives. What can I say--major bills are tricky.)
While liberals were arguing about public plans and this or that, and while Obama was deep into inside dealmaking, the conservatives relentlessly made a straightforward public case...
And Obama didn't relentlessly make a straightforward public case? He made countless speeches on the subject, with a simple premise--you'll be getting better and cheaper health care. He also bought off the special interests, which meant Republicans had no one to appeal to but the public.
...based on a syllogism: The economy is a mess. Obama and the Democrats are for big government. Big government is responsible for the mess. Therefore the mess is the fault of Obama and the Big Government Democrats.
Simplistic and misleading? Absolutely.
Yes it is. Just like most of the stuff Obama said about Bush and the economy. If you're in charge, you get blamed. It may not be fair, but that's democracy.
Actually, the public still mostly blames Bush. The problem is Bush is no longer in office, and blaming the last guy over and over has diminishing returns. Obama was in the right place at the right time to get elected. It may turn out he's now in the wrong place at the wrong time.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:02 AM
6 Comments:
I didn't see any serious reaching out to Republicans--in fact, they were shut out of the process.
My recollection is that much of the early bill-crafting was done by a group of moderate senators from both parties who worked on a bill together for several months, but at the end all of the republicans backed away from it. Whether the republican senators had good cause to do so is speculation, but there is no doubt they were included in the process until they quit it.
The early crafting of the bill was done by Nancy Pelosi and her cronies, not allowing the Republicans any say. Ever since then, it's been a Democrat bill with, at best, minor adjustments from Republicans.
The Senate bill is a bit different, but it's responding to the House bill and is still essentially the Democrat's wish list. Why do you think even the moderate Republicans backed away?
Obama's problem is that he was elected not to get bogged down in health care (you didn't see anything but the most token appeals to this issue in the campaign) but to change things including the culture of Washington- by picking up health care as his signature issue (on which he overreacted to the prior Clinton failure and let the Congress create some really ugly sausage that no one even its supporters really understand) he tripped up
As they say, "Payback is a bitch." I find it amazing that the far left crowd is now calling for the end of filibuster rules in the Senate, after blowing a gasket when the Republicans just 4 years ago even mentioned the "nuclear option." They make this call, without a hint of recognizing the hypocrisy.
6 years ago, the Bush administration touched the third rail of politics - Social Security - and tried to forge a bipartisan approach to addressing a collapse that everyone acknowledges is looming. The Democrats shot it to pieces and it went down in flames. So they are surprised when the Republicans take the same approach to Health Care reform?
Yet, the Bush adminsitration did accomplish some bipartisan objectives. Not that i agree with them, but No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Part D were forged with Democrats and Republicans working together. I believe after the 2010 elections, a chastened Democratic Party, with a smaller majority, will find a way to address some of the matters pressing on the nation (which should be good enough to win President Obama another term).
P.S. Verification Word = Mulan - now we're doing animated films.
I think I went on ad nauseum about the filibuster last time it was in the news. Its pretty obvious when people talk about process, they are not talking about process. The filibuster is bad when it stops something you want and good when it stops something you hate. Motor Voter registration, states rights, etc...
As DG and NEG point out, all the standard cries of the minority ("the majority is running roughshod over us") and the cries of the majority ("the minority is filibustering, and is not supporting our wonderful bills") are identical to 2004 except that the two parties have switched sides, and now are quoting their opponenents' rhetoric from six years ago.
What I find especially funny is that if you turn on Fox News, they will show you video of what Democrats said in 2004 and what they say now, and use this to prove that Democrats are hypocrites. If you change the channel to MSNBC, they will show you video of what Republicans said in 2004 and what they say now, and use this to prove that Republicans are hypocrites.
Post a Comment
<< Home