Getting to a Vote
Paul Krugman is right about this, I think:
Democrats who probably don’t really want reform have lost what they had in 1993: safety in numbers. It’s one thing to let health care die quietly; it’s another to be one of the, say, two Democratic senators responsible for denying cloture and blocking the party’s most important domestic policy initiative since Medicare, and then to be blamed, rightly or wrongly, for big losses in the midterms.
One thing to remember about 1994: Health-care reform never came to a vote. No one ever had to vote for it or against it. Nor did it ever face down a filibuster. It collapsed long before any procedural impediments were put in its way. This year, something would have to change very drastically for health-care reform to collapse before a vote. That means the few swing votes are going to have to face the pressure of standing in the way of the Democratic Party's top priority since the days of Harry Truman. That's a lot of pressure, and the aftermath of a high-profile collapse -- which would mean both a furious base and a broken party -- would not be good for anyone's reelection chances.
By
Ezra Klein
|
October 8, 2009; 5:22 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: How Do You Cook When You Can't Taste?
Next: Paying for Afghanistan
Posted by: michiganmaine | October 8, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse
Smugman previously said the Public Option was a "line in the sand." The sine qua non of health care reform. Later he seemed to back off of that, but never explained why. Now he calls Obamacare a "huge victory for progressives." But again doesn't explain why. I think it will prove to be an albatross for Democrats and for the country.
Posted by: bmull | October 8, 2009 9:10 PM | Report abuse
and this was obvious to all of us here, and to EVERYONE in the White House, from the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield. And they STILL played nearly everything wrong.
Thinking about different conservadems senators' breaking points: if the opt-out public option gains even more traction and looks like it'll be included in legislation, where should it go? Do Reid and the Chairmen swap it for the PO in HELP, then merge it with Finance? Or should it wait for Conference, on the thinking that you'll only get the Senate to bite once?
Posted by: andrewlong | October 8, 2009 10:39 PM | Report abuse
what krugman forgets (which admittedly most liberals do) is that many Senators "on the fence" of reform and some of its parts (most especially the public option) is that they are not in liberal states which want a liberal house type bill. They're in conservative states.
Examples:
Landrieu (LA) won by only 52-46 in 2008 and was rated by the American conservative Union as 40% conservative in 2007 (which BTW was greater than 2 Republican senators).
Blanche Lincoln (AK)--McCain had 59% of the vote in 2008, enough said.
Ben Nelson (FL)Seniors are adamently against what they believe are reforms most radical aspects.
Liberman (CT)he's already come out against a public option earlier this year.
I'm sorry even if they somehow gain Snowe they'll lose one or all of these. If the finance committee gets through with a solid bipartisan group then they SHOULD model reform 80% after that. Now idiots like Reid (lame duck) and Pelosi will not I expect do this and this may be doomed to failure. I hope not because the right reforms are needed.
Posted by: visionbrkr | October 8, 2009 10:52 PM | Report abuse
as i'm looking at that CT doesn't fit (although Lieberman is against the PO). CT is very liberal. The others do fit, IMO
Posted by: visionbrkr | October 8, 2009 10:54 PM | Report abuse
Not to be pedantic, but biggest legislative priority since the days of Harry Truman? Really?
I think health care is critically important, but this specific bill doesn't even begin to touch the importance of something like the Civil Rights Act. Nor do I think it approaches the significance of Medicare and Medicaid.
Posted by: Matt40 | October 9, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse
Ben Nelson's from Nebraska, but the same principle applies that the electorate there is more conservative. The thing is though, those conservative electorates elected democrats. If they wanted a Republican in office, they would've voted that way. Given the prominence of heath insurance reform as a priority for the D's, I have to believe it played some factor. After all, even Ben Nelson is more liberal than Susan Collins.
Posted by: etdean1 | October 9, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse
Sorry, I think you give the Dem senators too much credit. Many of them only think about campaign contributions, and nothing more.
Posted by: AZProgressive | October 9, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
What I worry about is someone like Nelson not voting to end the filibuster and then switching parties. Is that possible or likely?