Obama should also explain why bipartisanship ain't what it used to be. This is a party out to cripple or kill reform, and with it the future success of Obama's Presidency. As the eminent Roosevelt scholar Jean Edward Smith recently argued, "This fixation on securing bipartisan support for healthcare reform suggests that the Democratic party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead."
The president should challenge the Blue Dogs. Place the burden on them to get out of the way of the majority in favor of a comprehensive plan. The question isn't whether the progressive majority is unreasonably resisting reform to save the public option. The question is whether a small minority of conservative Democrats will sabotage reform simply to stop the public option. Do the Blue Dogs wish to cripple their own President in his first year in office for seeking an objective that has been the stated goal of their party since the Truman administration?
Obama must lead the charge and rally the people who swept him into the White House. And challenge the Democrats. Make it clear to the Democratic Caucus in general, and to the Blue Dogs in particular, that for the sake of the country they must vote for cloture so that a bill that will accomplish substantive reform can have an up-or-down vote on the floor. Don't heed those who counsel incrementalism or bipartisanship at all cost. The art of the possible is not the same as the art of incrementalism. And healthcare reform enacted by a Democratic majority is still meaningful reform. Read it all at The Nation.
Markos nails it:
I know the Beltway and people like Baucus have an unhealthy obsession with process, but no one gives a damn how good legislation got passed, but that good legislation gets passed.
Before cashing their social security or unemployment checks, do people wonder, "I wonder if this government program passed with bipartisan support?" Of course not.
Before using Medicare or Medicaid, do people wonder, "I wonder if this government program passed with bipartisan support?" Of course not.
Before taking part in the Cash for Clunkers program, do people wonder, "I wonder if this government program passed with bipartisan support?" Of course not.
Before taking public transportation, or driving a road, do people wonder, "I wonder if this government project passed with bipartisan support?" Of course not.
Before spending time at a national or state park, do people wonder, "I wonder if this funding for the forest service passed with bipartisan support?" Of course not.
Before sending their children to public schools, do people wonder, "I wonder if this school's funding passed with bipartisan support?" Of course not.
People want stuff that works. They don't give a damn how you get there. Too bad Harry Reid and Max Baucus and far too many Dems fail to understand this.
Or maybe they understand it all too well -- Republicans have a vested interest in killing health care support, as do the industry patrons of Baucus, Conrad, and far too many corporatist Dems. Thus the issue isn't really about "bipartisanship" for the sake of bipartisanship, but a handy excuse to make common cause with Republicans to destroy reform efforts. Read it all at Daily Kos
If at this remarkable juncture Obama and the Democrats cannot enact a robust health care reform -- with a strong nationwide public option, cost controls, and nearly universal coverage -- I would not want to be in charge of fundraising and mobilization for them in the 2010 and 2012 elections! Most of us who supported them last time will of course not vote for a Republican.. But if Obama and the Democrats cannot act now on a once in a half century challenge and opportunity, they are not worthy of extra energy. And those of us who wrote big checks last time will tell the Democrats -- especially in the Senate -- to hold pharmaceutical fundraisers instead.
Key leaps forward for U.S. public social provision -- Social Security, Medicare, etc. -- have NEVER happened through "bipartisan" compromises and they always happen in close votes. They have always sqweaked through after gargantuan effort, strong presidential pressure, and refusal to allow eviscerating compromises. Think of Social Security if the Clark amendment -- allowing corporate opt-out -- had passed in 1935. We would not have it. And conservatives and the medical and insurance establishments cried "socialism" in 1965, too. We would not have Medicare if we had listened. Because let's not kid ourselves: WHATEVER passes this year will make the Democrats owners of the health care mess going forward. If they just throw more subsidies and piecemeal regulations into the current system, they will ensure galloping public costs for residual arrangements and for subsidies to private insurers who will easily find ways to avoid sick or costly patients. Businesses and citizens will grow more and more irritated as time passes, and will blame the Democrats. Rightly so.
And to return to my theme at the start: no matter if Senate Democrats still think they are operating in the world of the 1980s or 1993, they are not. Activist Democrats -- mobilizers, volunteers, bloggers, analysts, and donors -- are watching them. We will know exactly who blocks or eviscerates real reform here. We WILL blame the Senate and the responsible individual Senators. And many of us will blame the Obama adminsitration if it does not take a strong stand on the public option and real reform, starting right now. Whatever he says in public, Obama needs to draw lines in the sand with Democrats in private -- and get tough. If he does not, and this fizzles into no legislation or reform in appeance only, energy will dissipate from the Demorats and the Obama movement. There will be the wrong kind of turning point for them -- and for America. Amen! Read more at the TPMCafe
|
