- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Joe Lieberman
- |
- Sarah Palin
- |
- GOP
- |
Baucus Debacle Shows Why Democrats Have to Stop Trying to Woo Republican Lawmakers
Read More:
2000 Election, 2004 Election, 2006 Election, 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Blue Dog Democrats, Charles Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Congress, Death Panels, Democrats, George W. Bush, Health Care, Health Care Bill, Health Care Reform, House Of Representatives, Jim Demint, Jim DeMint Waterloo, Max Baucus, Mike Enzi, Olympia Snowe, Rahm Emanuel, Republicans, Senate, Senate Finance Committee, Stimulus, Stimulus Republicans,
Politics News
What's Your Reaction?
When it comes to policy positions, I certainly agree with the Democrats far more than the Republicans. (Do the Republicans still have policy positions? Does really, really hating the president, making decisions based primarily on hurting the president politically instead of what is good for the American people, and lying about the president's programs in an attempt to scare people qualify as a policy position? I'd say not. But I digress ...)
But when it comes to how to wield power in Washington once you've won an election, give me the Republicans over the Democrats any day of the week. I was reminded of the Democrats' seeming inability to govern when I read about the health care bill that finally emerged from Max Baucus's Senate Finance Committee, after months of negotiations with three Republicans on the committee.
(To be absolutely clear here, so there are no misunderstandings: When I say that Republicans govern better than Democrats do, I am strictly speaking about how effectively they turn their policy positions into law. I am not saying I want the Republicans to retake the House and Senate, and I do not support the Republican positions on issues, which generally look to protect corporations and the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else, and seek to instill an extreme, religion-based morals agenda on the country. What I'm saying is that I wish the Democrats would act like Republicans once they find themselves in power.)
For most of George W. Bush's two terms in office, especially during the key period from 2002 to 2006, he had a solidly Republican Congress with which to work. So, despite a razor-thin win in 2000 (losing the popular vote and, in the minds of many, only winning the electoral vote thanks to a flawed, partisan Supreme Court decision), and another narrow victory in 2004, as president, Bush made no effort to moderate his agenda and pursue bipartisan legislation. His party allies in Congress loyally backed nearly all of his proposals, and Bush gleefully rammed through his far-right conservative agenda (massive tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, etc.), which was well to the right of his campaign rhetoric (remember, he was a "compassionate conservative"), without thinking twice about what Democrats thought of what he was doing. His razor-thin margin of victory (and even the fact that fewer people voted for him than his opponent in 2000) didn't stop him (or his allies in Congress) from moving full-speed ahead with legislation he supported.
Flash forward to 2008. The American people, via their votes, absolutely and unquestionably repudiated the Republican policies of the previous eight years. After giving Democrats narrow advantages in the House and Senate in 2006, voters really "threw the bums out" in 2008, leaving Democrats with a 60-40 majority in the Senate (once Al Franken was seated) and an even more commanding 256-178 lead in the House. The American people also overwhelmingly elected a Democrat to the presidency, handing Barack Obama 365 electoral votes (to 173 for John McCain), with 53 percent of the popular vote going to Obama and only 46 percent to McCain. In two elections, Bush never came close to these kinds of numbers. And Obama managed to win red states like North Carolina and Indiana that few commentators thought the Democrats could even have a chance of taking just a couple of years earlier.
In short, the American people said to the Democrats: We want you to do your thing.
And yet, that isn't what has happened. Instead, the Democrats in Congress have been timid, looking for Republican support (and making concessions to get it) even though they didn't need it. At first, it was an admirable pursuit, an effort to leave partisan bickering behind and concentrate on solving the massive problems the current administration and Congress inherited from the disastrous presidency that preceded them. And it was something the president not only supported, but actively pursued. But in the first big legislative test of the bipartisan approach, the stimulus bill, not a single House member voted for the legislation, and only a pair of Republicans in the Senate signed on (it was three, but Arlen Specter later became a Democrat, leaving just Maine's two senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, as current Republicans who voted for the bill).
The result was weaker stimulus legislation (to try and lure Republicans), but no Republican support. That is a lose-lose for the Democrats (and those suffering from the recession), and a win-win for the Republicans.
The stimulus bill should have been a wake-up call for Democrats in Congress. The way the Republicans stood united in opposition despite Democratic efforts at bipartisanship should have announced loud and clear that the Republicans had no intention of acting reasonably. They had successfully closed ranks, ensuring that not one single Republican in the House voted for the bill and that they didn't help the president succeed on something that might be viewed as a "win" for him. It should have been a "fool me once" moment from which the Democrats emerged wiser, going forward with the knowledge that the Republicans were only out to obstruct (it was the moment of birth for the Party of No). It should have emboldened Democrats to say, "We won 256 House seats, 60 Senate seats and the presidency. We get to make the rules now. Your guy pushed through his agenda after losing the popular vote. We tried to be nice, and you kicked crap in our faces. We're done. Have fun on the sidelines watching us enact our agenda."
But that's not what happened.
Yes, I understand that you need 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture, and yes I know that there is a good size contingent of Blue Dog Democrats in the House and more conservative Democrats in the Senate who would be reluctant to sign off on some of the president's initiatives. Certainly, compromises would have to be made to ensure that enough Democrats supported a given piece of legislation. But those negotiations should have been handled internally. After the stimulus fiasco, the Democrats should have ensured that when they emerged from a caucus meeting on an issue, they had enough votes to pass it without Republican help, just as Bush and his Republican followers did when they were in power.
And yet, instead, the Democrats keep playing the fool.
Which brings us back to the Baucus debacle. He spent months -- months! -- negotiating with three Republicans (Olympia Snowe, Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi) to try and get a bipartisan health care reform bill through his finance committee. Anybody with an IQ above 75 and access to a major daily newspaper knew that there was no meaningful health care reform bill that Enzi and Grassley were going to get behind. Did Baucus listen to and/or read the kinds of things Grassley was saying in interviews and on talk shows? (Two words: death panels.) The Republicans weren't going to give the president a win (remember Jim DeMint's famous health care will be Obama's "Waterloo" remark), and they were too beholden to their corporate interests to support anything that would have any real impact on the status quo. The Republicans were obviously stalling, trying to do anything they could to keep the health care reform process from moving forward. Again, this was all obvious to everyone watching ... except Baucus.
So what ended up happening? Baucus announced today that he was going forward with a bill and ... surprise! ... no Republicans are backing it (not even Snowe). But, thanks to Baucus bending over backwards to try and lure Republicans, the Finance Committee bill is weaker than any of the other versions to get through committees in the House and Senate. Enzi, Grassley and Snowe managed to stall the process for months and ensure a weaker bill emerged from the Finance Committee, and they did so without having to actually do anything or give up anything (or support the legislation). Who won that battle, Baucus or the Republicans? If it was a boxing match, Baucus would be bloody and unconscious, and Enzi, Grassley and Snowe would be dancing around the ring, triumphantly holding their hands up in victory.
What Baucus (and the rest of the Democrats in Congress) have to realize is some exceptionally simple math: 60 seats in the Senate + 256 seats in the House + 365 electoral votes = They get to do what they said they would do during the campaign. It really is that simple. Make the Republicans vote against the bills. Make them filibuster what they oppose. Expose them for what they are: the Party of No that puts political games and corporate interests ahead of what is best for the American people.
But no, to Baucus, 60 + 256 + 365 = He has to get on his knees and kiss Republican butt. Sorry, Senator, you get an F in math.
The Democrats won overwhelmingly last November. Now they have to govern. Especially after the way Republicans played them for fools on the stimulus legislation, Democrats don't have to kowtow to Republicans. They need to get in a room and come up with health care legislation that the 59 Democratic senators (after Ted Kennedy's passing) -- or 51 of them if they go the reconciliation route --and 218 House members can get behind (and that the president will sign) and get it done. If Republicans want to filibuster, vote no, complain, spew lies, hold rallies, go on talk shows, call Obama a socialist, and throw temper tantrums, let them. I am not saying the Democrats shouldn't fight the public relations battle and shoot down the lies slopped to the public by health care reform opponents, I'm just saying they should do it while passing legislation on their own.
To the Democrats I say: Forget Baucus's bill. Don't give the Republicans another victory (one which represents a defeat for the American people). Pass meaningful health care reform, even if not a single Republican votes for it.
60 + 256 + 365. The math is so easy. If only the Democrats could figure it out. I'm happy to email them a link to the election returns every day if it will help.
Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer taught the Democrats how to win elections, which is great. I just wish someone would teach Democrats in Congress how to govern.
Related News On Huffington Post:
Related Blogs On Huffington Post:
Jeremy Rosner: A Pollster's Advice: Don't Trust the Polls on Health Reform's Demise
If polls about policy proposals don't accurately predict legislative outcomes, why do so many people focus on them?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So, call and email your elected offiicials everyday, and demand that they use their majority. USE IT OR LOSE IT! The Public Citizen has a petition to the Congressional Budget office to score H R 676 and include Single payer in all discussions about health care reform. H R 676 would expand Medicare to all. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has a petition to Senate Majority Harry Reid to strip all Democrats of their leadership titles if they vote with the republicans to block a vote on health care reform.. Wendall Potter call the bill currently being discussed " an insurance profit protection and enhancement bill". The National Association of Free clinics with the help of donations will hold free clinics in all the bluedog states to demonstrate the need. Does the saying "America is the greatest country in the world" still mean something,or is it just a corpoNation slogan?
I suspect the reason that the Senate sought a bi partisan bill is because Obama is the party's titular leader.
They were following the White House's directive to "dialogue" with the Republicans to get things done.
It reminds me of a comment made by Bill Clinton in reference to (then candidate) Barack Obama's talents. Clinton said he was a smart, impressive guy but that his inexperience led him to be too naive. I would add, the instinct to preserve courtly manners and civil dialogue is great in a facilitator or community organizers. Even a judge or attorney can sometimes be successful with the Jesus out nice you bit.
But trying to charm and ingratiate yourself with the opposing party whenyou are in power does not usually work with for a political leader of a majority party. That is more a minority party type of position. Is Obama now capable of losing his naivete and realizing there is real evil in the world which will fight him unscrupulously at every turn? Is he capable of changing his cool and detached nature and getting tough, clear and directive? I don't know. Until he does go through such a transformation, we will be left with a listless congress that has no clear idea of where they are heading - neither on Afghanistan, on Iran or any number of other pressing issues.
Not to vcause others to feel insulted, but it has quickly become evident that the Obama campaign has played to
American people for fools.
Everyting the 'apparently' stood for has been abandoned.
1) they have played 'woosey' in advbancilng health care reform
2) they have allowed the bankers to retain their power over each american household.
3) they have refused to develop a policy in Afganistan.
4) they have backed up in protecting the environment.
They LIED....,LIED... LIED
Jack the 'fool'
The whole emphasis for Democrats in health care reform 2009 should be 1) changing the rules so that everyone who applies for health insurance gets accepted and no one who gets sick gets kicked out, and 2) that there be federal subsidies for low-income folks who cannot afford to pay market rates for health insurance premiums. This is the "moral imperative." And, if everyone is insured, health insurance premiums should come down about 10% just because everyone is insured.
The public option is NOT the holy grail. In fact, once we agree that the public option is only for those folks who do not have employee-provided insurance (including federal employees) or are not on Medicare, Medicaid, military or VA coverage, we see that the public option would be one of many options available to no more than 15% of our population. And, of those who will qualify for subsidies, they would be able to buy private insurance at an affordable price, much like those of us on Medicare or under employee-provided insurance do now. (The average discount to employees for health insurance is about 72%!) In short, the low-income people would be in the same boat as the rest of us, relative to access and affordability of health insurance. Again, that is the "moral imperative." That is what we want to accomplish in 2009 with health care reform. The Baucus bill does this and more. Forget the public option for now. Support President Obama.
No. The Baucus bill does nothing but enrich the insurance companies even more. It'staxpayer subsidization of the same people who broke our health care system in the first place. Your assumption that premiums will go down is baseless, because there'd be no reason for the insurance companies to lower them. Just because costs would go down doesn't mean premiums would. Those reduced costs would be turned into increased executive salaries, not reduced insurance premiums. And the money would be guaranteed for the insurance companies, because the Baucus bill makes it ILLEGAL to not buy insurance from them.
What good is 10% when health care costs go up 5-8% a year? This is more then insuring those that dont have it. This is about the middle class who like the poor cant afford their health insurance or are severely underinsured. The Baucus bill is horrible and we all knew from the get go just by following their campaign coffer money trail that any bill they put forward would already be neutered lack the public option or any effective cost controls. Like they are gona slap away the health insurance arm that gets them reelected.
Your guys (the dems) are scared crapless that if they vote everything through they want they will get hammered at the next election and many many more. I, as a repub want you to do everything you ever desired because....... 1. If it does work we (USA) are golden and the economy recovers, everyone has healthcare, a good job, green cars, no terrorism ect. 2. If you fail, you won't see the dems in office for a very very long time. Win win for the repubs. You dems talked a lot of smack during the Bush years. If your people don't have the stones to put the dem name and only the dem name on these bills, it makes you wonder how much they really believe in what they are doing. If the dems are so damn confident that they have all the answers then why in the hell are you even hesitating?
The reason is that we're not monolithic authoritarians like the Republicans. Simple as that. Democrats don't all follow the party leaders in lockstep like good little stormtroopers, unlike members of a certain other political party.
Because of the environmental legislation that I work on to protect pristine wilderness,
most of which is in Max Baucus' Montana, I could have told you the guy is really a Republican.
Bad timing for a courageous President like Obama who is even willing to gett this debate started.
"All those Progressives promising to sit out the next election cycle are not bluffing"
Progressives are not going to sit out the next election cycle they will be protesting and reminding voters
what BLUE DOGS have supported in their past term. Ads will also be run reminding voters too.
True, and we will also change our party affiliation to the Green Party. If the Democratic party cannot appreciate our hard work and the gift we gave them by assuring a full majority, then we will go someplace else. But we will also remind all other voters of how the Democratic party is too weak to be in charge of our lives, our livelihoods, our environment and our health. Green Party here we come, get prepared to become a major player in the political arena!
The arrogance and delusional attitude displayed by the Republicans is almost unbelievable considering they lost the election. They seem to think that they can still control both policy and the national agenda. They've proven that they are NOT going to negotiate on anything in good spirit and they're going to try and have their way. It's time President Obama and the democrats went ahead without them and pushed a GOOD health care reform bill through. The term "good" will only be true if we have a public option to take total control away from the giant insurance companies as well as some form of tort reform to limit in some way absurd malpractice insurance which are many times frivilous and free doctors to practice medicine. Something also needs to be done about exhorbtant drug costs. For those democrats who refuse to be the voice of the people who elected t hem and represent special interests and big money, I say fire them and send them home. its way past time for this.
Well Nomccain, unfortunately the Republican's bravado seems to be paying off, they are still controlling the debate in Congress and the White House, their bully tactics are working and the Democratic majority is caving in against the will of the manjority of the American people. Go figure!
This is why we need to send our members of Congress a very clear message--they continue this game at the expense of the American people, and this will be the last time they will ever be close to a majority in government--we will go to the Green Party and make that party the next major player in the political arena.
They need to know that we did not fight this hard and this long to get them a majority for them to sit curled up in a corner because the Republicans are mean to them. Agh! I am so frustrated with this!
Why does anyone think that Republican delay and obstructionist tactics might work? Obviously, because it will suppress the Democratic base vote. This is not rocket science; the Democratic base is fickle. All those Progressives promising to sit out the next election cycle are not bluffing. The Democrats damn well better live up to their campaign promises.
I theoretically agree with Mr. Bard and his opinions. The real problem is the fact that there are only two viable parties (the Tweedledees and the Tweedledumbs) who then will tell their core supporters what they want to hear while taking diametrically opposite positions on everything up to and including the weather forecast. The purpose is to divide and conquer the general public while lining the pockets of themselves, their cronies and their masters namely their campaign contributors (lobbyists). Until there is both publicly financed campaigns with any other contributions (bribes) made illegal and until there are viable third parties to vote for nothing will change. I would like someone out there in cyberspace to point out the Senator or Representative who has not received any contributions from either the Insurance, Pharmaceutical, or Medical lobbies. Until these circumstances change our country will continue to flounder whether it is healthcare or other important issues.
How may I ask is a fillibuster any different than what is going on right now anyway. What exactly is more disgusting, watching the triumphant democrats grovel and beg to get a SINGLE!!!!!! Republican vote or watching the Republicans rebuff their advances as would a high school senior prom queen being wooed by a 8th grade class clown.
This article contains one major flaw: In it, Mr. Bard accepts without examination the premise that Democrats need sixty votes in the Senate to enact legislation.
When last I checked, the actual number of votes required to get legislation passed in the Senate- as established by the US Constitution- was fifty-one. Not sixty, fifty-one. While I am aware that many people believe to the contrary, I have yet to see any convincing evidence to refute the fifty-one vote standard, and I really think that if Mr. Bard wishes to accept that premise, then he owes his readers some sort of explanation as to why that is to.
To avoid filibuster in the Senate requires 60 votes. Once cloture is achieved by 60 votes the bill can be brought to the floor for vote by the full Senate where only 51 votes are required for passage of the bill.
I think Senate Democrats are looking for any bill that can escape filibustering with a consensus of 60 members. This would allow the bill to be combined with whatever bill comes from the House of Representatives and modified by the proper committees. Once combined and modified, the bill is again presented in it's new form for a vote which only requires 51 affirmative votes for passage. The bill leaving the Senate does not have to resemble the final bill in any way except in title and general intent.
If Obama can get any bill out of the Senate to be combined with the bill passed by the more progressive house then the bar for approval drops to a simple majority. The trick is to present a bill to the more conservative Senate that they can find little to object to. Except for Snowe's complaint that the Bacaus bill is too conservative, it appears to be just such a bill. It will still be a challenge to garner a majority among the members of the Senate for any bill having a public option, but it would allow conservative Democrats to pass a bill they can agree with and then vote against the final bill to satisfy their constituents.
Who cares if they filibuster. Throw so many bills at them at once that they exhaust the country (and them selves) by filibustering. Then the people can see what they are doing and it isn't hidden in committee. The problem here is that the Democrats don't want a bill...and I'm not just talking about the Blue Dogs buttholes.
Massachusetts is poised to change its law to allow the governor to appoint an interim Senator. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not any of this is something other than political power games, the Senate and the nation will be the better for it. The really good news is that Olympia looses the role of gatekeeper. What's not to like about that?
You are correct, but with 60 votes you avoid a fillibuster and can technically pass any bill you want--if the Democratic congress members would just do their job, close rank and get to the business of passing the legislation they promised us they would.
Please tattoo the title of this article on the flesh of every Democrat. We need spine and guts. They have enough support. Public option. Period. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
Amen! One would think they are scared, stupid, can't figure out how to govern and get the job done. They keep trying to "Play Nice." Forget "Nice" and get the job done that the people elected you to do. Let's get a healthcare plan that includes a public option, doesn't cave in to the big Corporate Insurance companies, and will cover everyone in some form or another. Let's hope for affordable and let's quit playing games and trying to appease the other side. Let's just get the job done!
Shame on our President for letting such a bill to be written. He should have been out there before this bill was written. He originally promised us a public option.. Shame on him for letting it get this far. Are there any real Democrats out there anymore?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
