It’s happening…

Two final holdouts, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced in speeches a few hours apart on the Senate floor they would vote to clear the way for what is expected to be a bruising, full-scale health care debate after Thanksgiving.

At a 10-year cost approaching $1 trillion, the measure is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny benefits, and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.

“It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option,” said Landrieu, who noted the legislation includes $100 million to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor.

Lincoln, (pictured above) who faces a tough re-election next year, said the evening vote will “mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the U.S. Senate, not the end.”

My bet is the final bill will have co-ops (not the public option), cost around $900B and have some sort of modified abortion provision that’s less restrictive than the Stupak amendment.

What say you?

And it’ll achieve 94% coverage.

And it costs $849B.

CNN has more about some of the key points in the new bill…

Among other things, they’ve agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

They’ve also agreed to expand Medicaid and create health insurance exchanges to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage.

They also would limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Insurers under the Democratic plans would be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person’s gender or medical history.

But can Dems avoid a filibuster?

I think so, and here’s how that could be accomplished…

Reid met Wednesday afternoon with Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, three moderate Democrats who have expressed concerns about the cost and scope of health care reform proposals. [...]

Landrieu said she has concerns relating to the bill’s costs to small businesses and individuals. She also expressed opposition to a public health insurance option “that will undermine the private insurance market.” If that’s included in the measure, she said, “it needs to come out at some point.” [...]

Nelson released a statement Wednesday noting that the likely weekend vote represents an opportunity “to commence debate and an opportunity to make changes” to improve the bill.

So the public option and the cost are the two big sticking points.

What’s new?

One last note…about the Stupak amendment…it’s being changed slightly…

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who supports abortion rights, said Reid’s new provisions would preserve the Hyde amendment while enabling people to buy insurance plans with abortion coverage on the exchange.

More as it develops…

Check it out…

Hmmm, what happened in 2008…I can’t really think of anything.

Republicans can not like Obama all the want, but this smacks of “Soreloserism.”

Why, just look at how this drop has effected the overall opinion on this topic…

So in 2007 nearly 70% of the population thought government be responsible for health care, but now that a Democrat is in office we’re sub 50%?

Come on people…don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.

First, the numbers…

The bigger news here? Independents are swinging wildly in favor of the generic Republicans.

There’s about a year to go before the 2010 elections, but this shift does not bode well for Dems. I still don’t think that Repubs can regain any majorities, but if we start seeing more Independents breaking right, it could be a very bad night for the donkeys.

More as it develops…

And yet today the media is grabbing it hook, line and sinker.

But why?

Let’s look at the facts…

Republicans won the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. And hey, good for them. They ran good races. But Governors have little effect on the national agenda when it comes to policy. So while it may be a nice night for the GOP at the state level, it doesn’t really do much for their counterparts in Washington. Well, except give them a false meme to spread.

But let’s dig in more…

Virginians voted for Obama in 2008, but before that you have to go back to 1964 to find the last time the voted for a Dem for prez. And while they’ve had Dem governors in the past 8 years, that hasn’t been a hard and fast rule. Also, anybody watching that race knows that Creigh Deeds didn’t run a very impressive race, while Bob McDonnell ran an incredible campaign and could be poised for bigger things in 8 years if Dems are still in power on the national level (Although he could do with a little charisma injection).

In New Jersey, while many think it’s a Democratic stronghold, Christine Todd Whitman was Governor for 7 years (until she foolishly left to join the Bush administration in 2001). Plus, Corzine has been an ineffectual Governor (he bought his way in with his Goldman Sachs war chest), his approval rating has been low for quite some time now and there has been some pretty bad corruption scandals in NJ. So the fact that this swung back red isn’t a huge shock.

However, in the two Congressional races, Dems won BOTH and actually added to the number of Dems that are in the House.

Let me repeat that…Dems added to their majority in the House last night.

In California the seat was already Democratic, but in New York the Dems gained one.

Didn’t hear that particular nugget in today’s news? Only hearing about how Dems are nervous? How conservatives are rejoicing? How curious! It couldn’t be because the media wants something to talk about, could it? Nawww…

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…the only people that voters like less than Congressional Dems are Congressional Repubs. The gubernatorial pick ups were fine, but they mean very little when put in proper context.

So I ask again…what Republican resurgence?

Just watch…

Here’s the thing, the reason these folks can get away with nonsense like this is because congressional districts have been so gerrymandered as to be almost completely red or blue. And given that Rep. Foxx is from North Carolina’s 5th district (very safely Republican) she can keep on talking like this till she’s blue (or red) in the face. And it’ll get her famous, quick.

Just look at Michele Bachmann, a virtual nobody before she started talking crazy on shows like Hardball and Glenn Beck’s cavalcade of crazy. Now she’s being favorably profiled by George Will? And let’s not forget Foxx’s South Carolina cousin Rep Joe Wilson. He jumps so far over the line that even his fellow Republicans chide him, and yet he becomes a folk hero and raises $1M in donations online in short order.

And trust me, this isn’t limited to just Republicans. Dems have said their fair share of nonsense too. But why are these folks being applauded, promoted and revered? Why aren’t they seen as the sideshows they really are?

Yes, yes, I know I’m posting this video and so I’m part of the promotion of this meme, but I point this out to raise the broader topic question….How in the hell did we get here? And is there any way back?

Well, at least the opt out version.

Here’s Joe…

“We’re trying to do too much at once,” Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now.”

And guess what? They don’t have the votes in the House either…

The House Dem leadership has conducted its preliminary whip count and has tallied up less than 200 likely Yes votes in support of a health care reform bill with a robust public option, well short of the 218 needed for passage, according to an internal whip count document I’ve obtained.

The document — compiled by the office of House leader James Clyburn — was distributed privately at a meeting between Clyburn and House progressives today where the fate of the public option was the subject of some contentious debate, with liberals demanding that House leaders push harder to win over votes.

Clyburn spokesperson Kristie Greco would only say: “We currently do not have the votes for a robust public option.”

So Harry Reid, who ignored all of the warnings, is now set to put forth a bill that will most likely get filibustered?

I don’t think so.

My guess was that this was one last public push to show liberal interests group that there isn’t enough support.

Back to the co-ops…

Despite the election of Barack Obama and the continuing misfortunes of the GOP, the United States is still a center-right country:

PRINCETON, NJ — Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

The 2009 data are based on 16 separate Gallup surveys conducted from January through September, encompassing more than 5,000 national adults per quarter. Conservatives have been the dominant ideological group each quarter, with between 39% and 41% of Americans identifying themselves as either “very conservative” or “conservative.” Between 35% and 37% of Americans call themselves “moderate,” while the percentage calling themselves “very liberal” or “liberal” has consistently registered between 20% and 21% — making liberals the smallest of the three groups.

Changes among political independents appear to be the main reason the percentage of conservatives has increased nationally over the past year: the 35% of independents describing their views as conservative in 2009 is up from 29% in 2008. By contrast, among Republicans and Democrats, the percentage who are “conservative” has increased by one point each.

As is typical in recent years, Republicans are far more unified in their political outlook than are either independents or Democrats. While 72% of Republicans in 2009 call their views conservative, independents are closely split between the moderate and conservative labels (43% and 35%, respectively). Democrats are about evenly divided between moderates (39%) and liberals (37%).

This isn’t really a surprise, it’s pretty similar to what we’ve seen from the public before, and it sends a signal to the GOP:

As I have noted repeatedly, data from the 2008 exit polling showed that more people considered themselves “conservative” than “liberal.” This new Gallup poll is in accord with that.

This goes straight to NY-23, where both the DCCC and NRCC are attacking Doug Hoffman, the conservative candidate. Apparently, unlike the NRCC, the DCCC sees a path to victory for Doug Hoffman.

When the GOP paints a clearly distinct picture of ideas and issues from the Democrats, they win. Voters do not want to vote for Democrat-lite when they get have the real thing. Instead, the GOP should present and alternative, better vision of moving this country forward.

I agree that far, but that strategy has to recognize that the “alternative, better vision of moving this country forward” may not be the same in, say, New Jersey as it is in Alabama.

The mistake that most on the right will make upon seeing a poll like this is to believe that it confirms that America is, mostly, just like them and that what the GOP needs to do is become more conservative. Past results, and other polls, however, would clearly indicate that isn’t the case.

In Virginia, for example, Bob McDonnell is succeeding not because he has run on a hard-right platform, but because he’s done a much better job of communicating alternative Republican solutions to the problems that Virginians are facing. Those ideas can largely be described as “conservative,” but they aren’t ideologically extreme in any respect, and they are packaged in a way is attractive to the generally center-right voters in areas like Northern Virginia. Except for the amazingly unsuccessful negative campaign that Democrat Creigh Deeds has been running, here’s been no talk of issues like abortion or gay marriage, and it’s pretty darn significant that the McDonnell campaign didn’t both to request a visit from conservative icon Sarah Palin — largely because they know that her presence would do as much to turn off the moderate voters McDonnell needs as it would to fire up the conservatives he already has.

There’s a lesson for the left here as well, but it can be seen in the declining poll numbers for the President, and the increasing sense that he’s been governing as something other than the moderate he campaign as in 2008.

Personally, I doubt either side will learn the right lesson from these numbers.

I suppose it’s possible, but more and more evidence is pointing to the contrary.

Here’s some telling info from a Washington Post/ABC News poll out yesterday…

Poll respondents are evenly divided when asked whether they have confidence in Obama to make the right decisions for the country’s future, but just 19 percent express confidence in the Republicans in Congress to do so. Even among Republicans, only 40 percent express confidence in the GOP congressional leadership to make good choices.

Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats.

The wide gap in partisan leanings and the lack of confidence in the GOP carries into early assessments of the November 2010 midterm elections: Fifty-one percent say they would back the Democratic candidate in their congressional district if the elections were held now, while 39 percent would vote for the Republican. Independents split 45 percent for the Democrat, 41 percent for the Republican.

There’s some pretty startling numbers in there and the GOP should definitely be concerned.

• When less than 20% of the voting population has confidence in your leadership abilities and only 40% of your own diehards trust your opinion, you know something’s wrong. I’ve been saying this time and time again over the past 9 months, but the Republicans can’t just be the opposition party. They need a new Contract With America…and fast.
• Only 20% of voters ID as Repubs. 13% more ID as Dems. That’s a huge gap. And if Dems pass health care reform with some key Repub votes, expect the gap to get bigger since Indys will view the legislation as bipartisan as was possible.
• On a generic ballot, voters go for Dems by 12%. That’s landslide territory. And Indys would have to break for Repubs almost two to one to make up the gap. We all know that won’t happen.

Now, do I think the GOP may gain a few seats next Fall? Quite possibly. But the balance of power should remain roughly where it is right now.

More as it develops…

Yep. That’s right. A group of economic forecasters are projecting that we’ll see growth in the next quarter, so the recession is technically over. And hey, we can all be thankful for that.

However, the pain will linger for years to come.

The problem is that all of the lagging indicators of true economic health (rising employment, wages, spending, etc.) probably won’t start turning around until sometime next year…and even then it’s going to take a while for things to get back to normal.

Here’s more from BizJournal:

The association is expecting the nation’s inflation-adjusted Gross Domestic Product will grow at a rate of roughly 3 percent in the second half of this year. That’s after a sharp 6.4 percent contraction in the first quarter and a 0.7 percent drop in the second quarter.

The association also said the three-year downturn in the housing market appears close to coming to an end, with growth expected next year.

While the unemployment rate is forecast to rise to 10 percent in the first quarter, it is expected to slip to 9.5 percent by the end of 2010.

“The good news is that this deep and long recession appears to be over and, with improving credit markets, the U.S. economy can return to solid growth next year without worry about rising inflation,” Lynn Reaser, the association’s president-elect, said in a release.

And to the point about lagging indicators…here’s a sobering fact about unemployment…

Fewer than 8 percent of the panelists expect lost jobs will be regained before 2012.

If Obama doesn’t actually create a job in the positive direction, that could become a political hot potato for the 2012 election. And, realistically, jobs and spending will probably be the two issues on the GOP’s dart board anyway.

More as it develops…

Regardless of what you think about the current health care legislation being debated on Capitol Hill, being able to read it before it goes to the floor for a vote is the right thing to do and I’m glad to see a Senator from Missouri calling for it.

But will the Dems listen?

From Politico:

As the health care reform bill moves to the Senate floor, a key bloc of moderate Senate Democrats and an independent called on Senate Majority Leader Reid to increase the process’ transparency.

Specifically, the senators called on Reid to post legislative text and CBO scores online 72 hours before the first floor vote. They asked that all amendments be posted before debate begins. And the amended bill and CBO score should be posted three days before a final Senate vote and before the Senate votes on a conference committee report.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman signed the letter.

“As their democratically-elected representatives in Washington, D.C., it is our duty to listen to their concerns and to provide them with the chance to respond to proposals that will impact their lives,” the senators wrote. “At a time when trust in Congress and the U.S. government is unprecedentedly low, we can begin to rebuild the American people’s faith in their federal government through transparency and by actively inviting Americans to participate in the legislative process.”

Simply put, this administration promised transparency and they should push the Congress to deliver…especially with legislation this contentious. Because it’ll expose anything truly controversial and save a lot of headaches in the long run.

Anybody disagree?

Gallup has some numbers that might surprise.

Basically, the folks who decide the elections (the indys) are starting to consider the Republicans more and Dems better pay attention. Because the only reason they made such historic gains in 2006 is because the DNC targeted districts that wanted more moderate leadership and took seats from the GOP.

More from Gallup:

The last time Republicans were this close to Democrats in terms of total party support — during the second quarter of 2005 — George W. Bush was in the early months of his second term as president. But the Bush administration suffered a series of setbacks that year, including ongoing difficulty in stabilizing Iraq, a slow response to Hurricane Katrina, and the ultimately withdrawn nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, to name a few. Rising gas prices and a struggling economy only added to the problems plaguing the Bush administration during Bush’s second term in office.

Still, Dems don’t have to worry about a President’s approval rating dragging them down. At least not yet.

More numbers…

Bush’s job approval rating sank over the course of 2005, from 52% at the start of the year to 43% by late December, including several sub-40% ratings in the fall. By the end of 2006, it had fallen to 35%, and it never again exceeded 38%.

During this time, an increasing number of Americans began to align themselves with the Democratic Party. The Democratic advantage in leaned party ID grew to as large as 14 percentage points in the fourth quarter of 2006 and again in the first quarter of 2008 — the largest gap in favor of either party since Gallup began regularly measuring leaned party identification in 1991. Democrats maintained a double-digit lead for 11 of 12 quarters between the second quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2009. This solid edge in party support helped propel the Democratic Party to major victories in the 2006 and 2008 federal elections.

No doubt the GOP will be hard pressed to gain seats next Fall, but could they gain a few?

I welcome your thoughts.

More from Reuters:

Analysts polled by Reuters had expected non-farm payrolls to drop 180,000 in September and the unemployment rate to rise to 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent the prior month. The poll was conducted before reports, including regional manufacturing surveys, showed some deterioration in employment measures.

The government revised job losses for July and August to show 13,000 more jobs lost than previously reported. Preliminary annual benchmark revisions, released together with September’s employment report showed that total non-farm payroll employment for March would have to be revised down about 824,000. [...]

Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed people has risen by 7.6 million to 15.1 million, the department said. While the decline in payrolls has moderated from early this year, companies are still not hiring on a wide scale, likely waiting for a signal that the economic recovery is sustainable.

This can kind of be a chicken and an egg problem. Companies won’t start hiring until they see signs of recovery, but recovery won’t happen until companies start hiring. Yikes!

That’s where the solvency of the banking industry comes into play, and while we have seen some of the TARP money paid back, money is still hard to come by. My continued belief is employment is always a lagging indicator of economic recovery and that we’ll start to see job growth by Q1 2010.

Tick tock…

Stepping out of the shadows and into the spotlight today is Dem Senator Tom Carper from Delaware. He’s offering a third way on health care that could garner enough bipartisan support to pass.

Essentially, it gives states the option to choose between private co-ops or a public option. Pretty easy.

Here’s more…

Carper wants to allow states to individually decide whether to create a private-insurance competitor such as a government plan and a nonprofit insurance cooperative, or to open up state-based insurance pools for government workers to every resident.

It could appeal to Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who has endorsed a similar trigger approach, while bringing in progressives who may not see a way – at this point – to pass a bill through the Senate with a public option.

All while publicly proclaiming to be agnostic on the government option, Carper has buttonholed President Barack Obama several times, shopped a one-page explainer to his Finance Committee colleagues, and huddled with Snowe. He began formulating his plan several weeks ago, and has been quietly talking it up since then.

“One thing I have focused on is to get Democrats and Republicans to work together on thorny divisive issues,” Carper said Wednesday. “And this is an area where we need to get a consensus.”

Folks, this is the ONLY way the public option can live on and the idea that it offers states more choices should be compelling for the red states

Still, my guess is that anything containing a public option, even if it’s not mandated, will be rejected by Republicans because that’s now been positioned as some stealth single payer and therefore is untenable on the right.

We shall see…

First Drudge tried to make it seem like Obama is forcing a news station to not report a story about people who don’t want the Olympics to come to the Chicago…

…and now John Boehner jumps on the pile…

House Minority Leader John Boehner torched President Barack Obama Wednesday for his European trip to pitch the Chicago Olympics bid, criticizing the president for “going to go off to Copenhagen when we’ve got serious issues here at home that need to be debated.”

Yeah John, debate which serious issues?

How you’re not going to agree to any health care reforms?

Or any energy reforms?

Or education reforms?

Or market reforms?

This is getting ridiculous.

I’m starting to notice some poll numbers that suggest an interesting trend. Basically, Americans aren’t necessarily happy with Obama’s health care plans, but they trust Republicans a LOT less.

Take a recent CBS/NY Times poll as an example:

• 52% of Americans trust Obama to make the right decisions for health, while only 27% feel Republicans are more trustworthy.
• 60% think Obama is trying to work with Republicans. Only 30% think Republicans are trying to do the same.
• just 30% have a good view of Congressional Repubs. 47% have a favorable view of Dems.

Next, Pew Research polls on the tone of the debate and finds that the majority thinks it’s rude, disrespectful and the GOP’s fault…

Then, a WSJ/NBC poll finds that if the health care bill fails…voters will blame Republicans:

More than one in three Americans, 37%, said congressional Republicans will be “most to blame” if the bill fails.

That’s almost four times the 10% of respondents who said President Barack Obama will be to blame, and nearly three times the 16% of respondents who said congressional Democrats will be to blame. Nearly a quarter, 23%, said all three will be to blame.

So why is this happening?

• First, Republicans don’t have viable alternatives and Americans aren’t buying the whole “loyal opposition” schtick. They want real ideas and they’re seeing nothing from the right.
• Second, the “Tea Party/birther/Glenn Beck/Obama is a socialist/racist/nazi/anti-christ” nonsense is wearing out the independents. And it’s not that the Indys think anybody who opposes Obama’s plan are racist. Far from it. But some of the folks in the opposition are CLEARLY prejudiced and Congressional Republicans aren’t calling them out. So voters think they’re cowards.
• Last, Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” scream may have turned him into folk hero on the right, but those two words encapsulated everything that Americans don’t like about the current GOP. That’s not to say that there aren’t genuine, thoughtful conservative voices, but they’re being drowned out by the Joe Wilsons of the world. And after a near cataclysmic economic meltdown last year, voters are having none of it from the Repubs. They want the GOP to play nice, compromise and have a little humility.

That’s my take…what do you think?

It’s pretty easy…the only people that voters like less than Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans.

Add in the facts that Republicans have no coherent plan, no definitive leadership and are allowing right wing pundits to organize and promote this Tea Party movement and you have a reality where Dems might actually pick up seats next year.

Personally I think it’ll be a wash, but let’s take a look at what the Independents in a recent Research 2000 poll had to say about Dems and Repubs.

• Nancy Pelosi
  22 Favorable, 71 Unfavorable
• Harry Reid
  27 Fav, 65 Un
• Mitch McConnell
  10 Fav, 73 Un
• John Boehner
  3 Fav, 70 Un
• Congressional Dems
  32 Fav, 65 Un
• Congressional Repubs
  9 Fav, 76 Un

And before you say this is just one poll…here’s another one from Gallup…

Last, and I think this fact sometimes gets lost in the shuffle, Americans remember who was at the helm when the train derailed. Also, it’s not like Dems are running Congress in some woefully inept manner. Are they bipartisan? For the most part, no. But, again, the only people voters think are less bipartisan than Congressional Dems are…you guessed it.

So to all of my fellow politicos who claim that Dems are in for historic defeats next year…you might want to pay less attention to the Tea Partiers and more attention to the swing voters.

I write one, Jason writes one, I write another, and Jason writes another.

And so I write this…

I don’t accept the premise that because the conversation isn’t less strident in the extreme left blogosphere that it creates a “disincentive” for Republicans to back health care reform. In fact, there are many more reasons for Republicans to support the Baucus legislation than to not…so let’s get in to those now…

Most hardcore liberals, especially the blogosphere variety, are completely against the Baucus bill. What this means is that the legislation will probably appeal to most independents, moderate Dems and moderate Repubs. Who decides elections? Every pollster alive will tell you it’s the swing voters. What do swing voters look for? Politicians who compromise. It’s not a difficult electoral calculation.

So, actually, the left railing against the bipartisan legislation as not pure enough should be an incentive for Republicans to support it so they can show independents that they’re learning from their historic defeat last fall.

Here’s another incentive for the Rs…their ideas get into the most important health care reform legislation in the past 50 years. Listen, they had the opportunity FOR DECADES to do something about health care and yet they sat on their hands and let millions go without health insurance, go bankrupt as a result of skyrocketing costs or simply were refused insurance because of pre-existing condition clauses. Well, now Repubs are seriously outnumbered and they’re in danger of not having a say if they don’t back the Baucus bill…which absolutely gives them a serious seat at the table. And, by the way, Dems don’t have to do that. And yet they are.

Want another incentive? How about containing health care costs? Baucus’ bill makes significant cuts in Medicare and CHIP and replaces it with private insurance. It doesn’t have an employer mandate. And the CBO actually said it’ll reduce the budget deficit after a decade. So they could actually make a very strong case to their base that this bill represents fiscal conservatism in action since Medicare is KILLING us and driving up the budget deficits.

So there are some of the incentives to sign on. I’m sure there could be some more, but those are all the high level, apparent ones.

Now then…what about the incentives not to?

First, it’ll piss off their base. But at this point do they really think the base won’t show up if they’re extreme enough to question whether or not Obama is a citizen? Again, let’s reference the swing voter logic. Any support they lose from their base will be offset by independent support due to their bipartisan nature. I think we all agree that the politicians that fall more in the middle are those who have more electoral success. Still…they could piss off their base.

Second, it’s a smart political move to oppose this because they can demagogue health care in 2010/2012. This is the only real reason I can think that makes any sense why they’d be against it, especially after they signed EVERYTHING Bush put in front of them (including that drug prescription bill). So all of sudden they’re finding fiscal conservative religion after Obama gets elected? Consider me unconvinced that this sudden turnaround is prompted by a bunch of left wing bloggers.

(At this point you’ll have to read Jason’s post to gain greater context for the next part, but he calls me naive. I take this with a grain of salt because I know Jason, I consider him a friend and I know he’s prone to hyperbole. Nonetheless…)

As far as naive, well, I’ll take the bait.

Who’s more naive…

• The guy who’s telling Republicans they better wise up, play fair and sign on to a bill (that liberals are professing they hate) so they can have some say in the legislation and possibly win independents in 2010?

OR


• The guy who’s basing the entire premise of his argument on the idea that leftist bloggers who demand ideological purity are somehow shaping the debate and moderate Dem bloggers have to answer them to such a degree that we reshape the debate or Republicans will not have incentive enough to play bipartisan ball?

Also, and let’s just get this out of the way now…hyper partisanship was started by the right wing shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh back in the 80s, was picked up by Newt Gingrich and Richard Mellon Scaife in the 90s and only until blogging started did Dems fight back in any demonstrable way. That certainly doesn’t excuse the truly moon-battiest of them all, but Republicans authored this playbook and have been using it for decades to flood the media with misinfo to shape the debate and win elections. Long story short, if hyperpartisanship is really creating the mood for Repubs to oppose health care, well, isn’t that a convenient whipping boy.

One last point and then I’m ready to bury this topic and move on since it’s pretty obvious that Jason and simply aren’t going to agree…Moderate Dems like myself do not own the tone and tenor of the debate on the left, nor are we responsible for monitoring it and calling people out. I, and my reasonable blogging friends, started this mid-o-sphere as a place where real debate can happen. That’s our contribution. It’s not sexy and it takes a lot of work, but I think we do a decent job at it. Sure, on occasion I’ll call somebody out on here, as I did with Pelosi earlier this summer, but when I’m arguing policy and intentions (as I’m doing in this health care debate) I don’t think I need to take into account the effect that some bloggers on the left are having on the mindset and motivations of Republican politicians. There will ALWAYS be people yelling on both sides, and, as I mentioned above, that should be incentive for politicians to move towards the middle, not further left or right.

As always, thanks for reading and I welcome your thoughts.

“We finally have a bipartisan health-care bill, the Baucus bill–both sides hate it equally.”
- Huckabee talking to Values Voters conference (via @thenote)

I think he meant it as a slight, but when neither side is getting what they want…that’s a pretty good sign to me that you’ve found something that both sides should be agreeing on.

We shall see…

This is partially in response to Jason’s post over at Poligazette that the Baucus bill doesn’t represent bipartisan compromise and the lion’s share of blame shouldn’t fall on Republicans to accept it. In fact, he states that the tenor of this debate (which he claims liberals are equally responsible for) is the real reason why compromise can’t be reached.

Obviously I disagree with that for many reasons, but I especially don’t think that the left blogosphere has driven the debate. Especially since nearly ALL of the coverage about workable health care legislation has been on the Baucus bill. If the left blogosphere was driving the debate, there wouldn’t be such a focus on this bill…which they hate.

However, my point in a previous post is that if Repubs don’t want to come to the table for legislation that’s a genuine attempt at bipartisanship, well, they probably never wanted to play ball in the first place. At least not play ball as the minority party, which brings with it the reality that the legislation is going to be written by the opposition and include a fair share of their ideas.

And I’ll repeat again what I said over there…the Baucus bill has ZERO publicly run options, the CBO says it’ll reduce the budget deficit, has a clause to allow these new privately run, not-for-profit co-ops the chance to phase out and no employer mandates. These are all things that Republicans said they wanted, but now they’re calling the bill purely partisan?

Yeah right…

Here’s more from Wash Post:

Within minutes of the release of the Senate Finance Committee chairman’s long-awaited health-care reform bill Wednesday, the attacks started flying. Liberal Democrats and allies, particularly labor unions, fumed. Republicans, after being courted for months, denounced the work as pure partisanship.

But behind the rhetorical fireworks was a sense that the fragile coalition of major industry leaders and interest groups central to refashioning the nation’s $2.5 trillion health-care system remains intact. As they scoured the 223-page document, many of the most influential players found elements to dislike, but not necessarily reasons to kill the effort. Most enticing was the prospect of 30 million new customers.

Folks, this is the best Republicans can hope for. If they don’t like it, fine, but what do they want? What does realistic compromise look like to them? I have NO idea and neither does anybody in the moderate Republicans blogosphere…which should tell you all you need to know. Sure, the tenor of bloggers could be better, but that isn’t making Republicans not accept this legislation.

Meanwhile, all the signs point to Obama getting behind this…

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), who is upset that Baucus did not include a public health insurance option, tempered his criticism after a private meeting with Obama, signaling that he hopes to work out a compromise.

“Nothing is clearer than the president’s commitment to providing affordable and effective health care for all Americans, and he and I are united in our efforts to deliver on this promise,” he said.

Long story short, it seems as if Obama doesn’t care if a “public” option is run by the government or not. That’s heartening to me because that’s the type of compromise Republicans should be excited about. But they’re not. Again…why?

Do know that I think it’s fair to point out that agreeing to this legislation may not be politically smart for Republicans, but they shouldn’t have strung Baucus along and feigned interest for compromise. That’s why I blamed Republicans for walking away…because Baucus (and the President by extension) has come towards them quite a bit when they could have just passed something with a 1 vote majority and been done with it.