Jane Hamsher at Fire Dog Lake has been very vocal in taking the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats to task for the abortion of bill that would purport to "reform" health care. Among other things that she has called for is a strong public option because without one, health insurers will have no real pressure to reign in premium hikes or cease throwing up loop hole to avoid payouts to insured individuals. Now, in the wake of the Massachusetts debacle, she has a post that looks at the need/excuse for a 60 vote in the U.S. Senate. Here are some highlights with which I very much agree:*
One of the ways the administration tried to jam its PhRMA deal/Aetna bailout on the country was forcing a series of false choices onto the debate. Those who opposed this corrupt hijacking of the democratic process were told that the reality was, you gotta have 60 votes in the Senate. And Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson and Lincoln stood firm, so you had to give them what they wanted.
*
It was that or nothing. What can you do? We now hear “If only we didn’t have the filibuster” as frequently as we heard “if only we had 60 votes” when the Democrats didn’t own the war. And now, we find out something that may surprise many (though probably not anyone who has watched politics for more than 6 months): it was all bullshit
*
It was that or nothing. What can you do? We now hear “If only we didn’t have the filibuster” as frequently as we heard “if only we had 60 votes” when the Democrats didn’t own the war. And now, we find out something that may surprise many (though probably not anyone who has watched politics for more than 6 months): it was all bullshit
*
The 60 vote bar was always crap. Now that it only takes 51 votes to pass a public option (which the OpenLeft whip count says they have), they can’t clear that either. It’s all about kabuki — who gets to feign support for publicly popular legislation vs. who gets to take credit for bashing the hippies and killing it. The White House wants what it wants, and the Senate — largely insulated from the electoral consequences of the bill — is totally willing to sacrifice those in the House who are much more vulnerable in order to give it to them.
*
Now the apologists are peddling the “it’s this or nothing” false choice about a bill that won’t even kick in for the next four years, as if their “60 vote” myth didn’t just explode. How is it suddenly Raul Grijalva’s fault if he stands firm and won’t accept a hideous bill crafted on the imperative of getting Joe Lieberman’s vote, which isn’t necessary any more?
*
The 60 vote bar was always crap. Now that it only takes 51 votes to pass a public option (which the OpenLeft whip count says they have), they can’t clear that either. It’s all about kabuki — who gets to feign support for publicly popular legislation vs. who gets to take credit for bashing the hippies and killing it. The White House wants what it wants, and the Senate — largely insulated from the electoral consequences of the bill — is totally willing to sacrifice those in the House who are much more vulnerable in order to give it to them.
*
Now the apologists are peddling the “it’s this or nothing” false choice about a bill that won’t even kick in for the next four years, as if their “60 vote” myth didn’t just explode. How is it suddenly Raul Grijalva’s fault if he stands firm and won’t accept a hideous bill crafted on the imperative of getting Joe Lieberman’s vote, which isn’t necessary any more?
*
I truly become more disgusted with each passing day. Even when they were given all that they needed, the incompetent/corrupt Democrats failed to deliver. Why should anyone believe them any longer?
No comments:
Post a Comment