Nobody is Buying the Democratic Party Ruse on Reconciliation

Submitted by Connecticut Man1 on February 23, 2010 - 18:26

A little summing up of the sitch from Glenn Greenwald:

Progressives:  We want a public option!

Democrats/WH:  We
agree with you totally!  Unfortunately, while we have 50 votes for it,
we just don't have 60, so we can't have it.  Gosh darn that filibuster
rule.  

Progressives:  But you can use reconciliation like Bush did so often, and then you only need 50 votes.

Filbuster reform advocates/Obama loyalists:  Hey progressives, don't be stupid!  Be pragmatic.  It's not realistic or Serious to use reconciliation to pass health care reform.  None of this their fault.  It's the fault of the filibuster.  The White House wishes so badly that it could pass all these great progressive bills, but they're powerless, and they just can't get 60 votes to do it.  

[Month later]

Progressives:  Hey,
great!  Now that you're going to pass the bill through reconciliation
after all, you can include the public option that both you and we love,
because you only need 50 votes, and you've said all year you have that!

Democrats/WH:
 No.  We don't have 50 votes for that (look at Jay Rockefeller). 
Besides, it's not the right time for the public option.  The public
option only polls at 65%, so it might make our health care bill --
which polls at 35% -- unpopular.  Also, the public option and
reconciliation are too partisan, so we're going to go ahead and pass
our industry-approved bill instead . . . on a strict party line vote.

Just a very serious and pragmatic view of reality. We get it and we aren't gonna just roll over on it. Dems better deal with their problems now or they will pay the price in the voting booth. Because we do get it.


progressives, Filibuster, Health care reform, Public Option, Reconciliation, 60 votes, 50 votes, healthcare lobby, industry-owned
0
No votes yet

Comments

Connecticut Man1

February 23, 2010 - 18:47

vote by phone:

"Do you think the Senate is Broken?

Yes or no?"

Ummm? No. No, it is not. It is working exactly as the corporations that own it want it to. The complete lack of a will to do the right thing for the people on healthcare reform and making any excuse they can to avoid giving us any kind of a public option, never mind a real and honest public option like opening Medicare to anyone that wants it, proves that.

luaptifer

February 23, 2010 - 21:20

to call out Joe Gibbs for the same kind of crap.  It seems that they intend to 'make it so' simply by saying it's so.  WTF is up with that?!

I'm starting to get really angry with the Demcrats, from top to bottom and back up again.

-----
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

susie dow

February 23, 2010 - 22:35

Tried to warn everyone about Obama - that he was really a conservative. But no one wanted to hear it. So, about all that's left for the left to do is laugh at the Democratic Party.

luaptifer

February 23, 2010 - 22:55

cause I remembered my own caution, then. It was an exchange with kfred that I can't locate where I asked that, despite the pretty picture package he could sell to the liberal swooners, what's under the wrapper?

I don't claim to have KNOWN how he'd turn out in the end, but I knew that I wanted more than the nice wrapping job. 

OOoops!

-----
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

Connecticut Man1

February 24, 2010 - 07:29

it wasn't just Obama. There was only one candidate that wasn't hawking the Public Option as their platform in the Dem primaries. That was Kucinich. Every single other one was on board with the PO in their platform.

And I don't doubt that if any other candidate had won that primary we would still be having the same fights. Say Clinton had won, for example, who would be in there running the policies with her? Same team, Rahm et al, same PO and other policies and same shit in the end.

This looks exactly like the bait and switch many have been calling it for a while.

Really, Greenwald's piece should start like this:

Progressives: We want Single Payer!

Democrats/WH: Hey progressives, don't be stupid!  Be pragmatic. We can't do Single Payer, but follow this shiny object we call the Public Option!

Hook, line and sinker. Yum! Can I have another one?

susie dow

February 24, 2010 - 09:55

You need to go back and look at the comparisons between the policies proposed at that time. There were substantial differences between Clinton, Edwards and Obama. My memory was that Edwards and Kucinich weren't that far apart but Kucinich never stood a chance of gaining enough popularity to influence policy proposals. Obama was the most conservative and offered the least.

Connecticut Man1

February 24, 2010 - 15:49

Every single one, except Kucinich, were offering Hacker's Public Option.

Connecticut Man1

February 24, 2010 - 07:44

when interviewing him, that I think that if the Dems fail to pass a Public Option it will be political suicide for all of the Dems. They just don't seem to get that there will be nothing anybody can do for them, in the Blogosphere or in their base and even if they wanted to, if they don't come through on this promise - and some other ones too.

 

susie dow

February 24, 2010 - 09:57

I'm marking it down to hubris and inside the beltway 'conventional wisdom' that they know what's best for America. Meanwhile, the GOP is kidding itself if it thinks it too won't face the ire of the electorate. People are in a very unforgiving mood.

Connecticut Man1

February 24, 2010 - 15:47

an unforgiving mood. Both parties are screwing'em over and telling them they should enjoy it.

luaptifer

February 24, 2010 - 10:56

This promise, IMHO, is about as fundamentally "D" as it gets.

IF they are unable to meet their constituency's core needs on this one, maybe it's time to finally give up playing a game that there are 'two different parties'. 

When it comes down to it, what would the real difference be, between the just say "No" and the "can't do anything but make insurance companies happy" parties?  The "No" party might almost be better.

-----
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

Connecticut Man1

February 24, 2010 - 15:45

This what it is supposed to mean... Standing up for what is right. If they can't do it now there will never be any point in supporting the Democratic party.

luaptifer

February 23, 2010 - 22:44

to the post.

Finally, I think you're about where I am on this issue. I no longer intend to fall for, nor cover Democrats' who sow the seeds of false hope on this. Whether "D" or "R", their pre-owned status says that they're against my interests, that's all I know or care.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama -- while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary -- finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don't have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there's a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does; it's who they are. They're willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there's no chance that they can pass it...

-----
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson