TPMDC
Reid: It Was A Waste Of Time Dealing With Olympia Snowe
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV).
Share
Send to a friend!
Hindsight's 20-20, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid now thinks he and leading Democrats, at the behest of the White House, flushed months down the toilet courting Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) support for health care reform.
"As I look back it was a waste of time dealing with [Snowe]," Reid is quoted as saying about the White House in a forthcoming New York Times Magazine piece, "because she had no intention of ever working anything out."
That's a harsh but understandable assessment. The White House was banking on Snowe's support for months, both as a means of securing conservative Democrats' support for the bill, and as a failsafe, in case Reid came up short on votes in the Democratic caucus. But after supporting the Senate Finance Committee's reform proposal, Snowe was hesitant to support major changes to the legislation, which Reid needed to make to keep the progressive wing of his caucus from defecting.
Still, that's unusually blunt language. It could easily raise eyebrows.
Comments (147) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
i said GOOD DAY sir
January 13, 2010 1:25 PM
I guess they're giving up on trying to get her to switch parties. Not that she should.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 13, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to i said GOOD DAY sir
NO MORE TURNCOATS.......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonigo
January 13, 2010 4:26 PM in reply to dem4life
Why not? I have to say Arlen is a much better Democrat than I thought he'd be. Might change after 2010 but for now I'm enjoying it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 13, 2010 4:44 PM in reply to tonigo
Arlen Specter is now a better Democrat than some long-time Democrats!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
btbradley86
January 13, 2010 5:08 PM in reply to slb
Wait until after the election. IF he wins, its very likely we'll see the same old Arlen. Self-serving as ever. But I'll take the gimme vote until Joe Sestak is done pressuring him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jkenney
January 13, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to btbradley86
I have no illusions that Arlen Specter is out for anything but himself. But that's always been true. He only became a Republican because it was easier to get the GOP nomination in Philly as an outsider than to get the Democratic one, given the powerful Dem machine.
It's easy to see Specter's current pose as a liberal Democrat as kind of absurd, and it's obviously a response to Sestak. At the same time, though, his previous pose as a moderately conservative Republican was just as insincere. There's no reason to think that his positions as a Republican express his real views any better than his positions as a Democrat.
So yeah, maybe after the primary he'll get more conservative again. But, really, who knows? At this point, that would probably make him look even less sincere than before, which might negate any potential benefits of moving right. In general, party switchers tend to become pretty reliable members of their new party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 13, 2010 6:06 PM in reply to jkenney
Very nteresting comment, and I didn't know about the last sentence, but I'm willing to accept that you know what you're talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
btbradley86
January 13, 2010 6:07 PM in reply to jkenney
Good point, Richard Shelby has been an exceptionaly reliable vote for the republicans since he switched in the 90's
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 13, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to tonigo
I not much of a Specter guy, but just on a human level, I appreciate your acknowledging that, if just as a contrast to the omnipresent "See I was right all along!" mentality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
January 13, 2010 1:26 PM
A waste of time? Never! There is a reason every commentor on every blog unanimously agreed that sniffing Snowe Queen's ass and effectively giving away the farm was the only sensible thing to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
January 13, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to tiowally
And, now we have MA, where the Dems could lose Kennedy's seat- KENNEDY'S seat; she achieved her goal!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fremon
January 13, 2010 10:00 PM in reply to tiowally
The think apparently was that Snowe being from a NE state which is basically Democrat save he collegue Collins would come under state constituent pressure to support the healthcare bill. I believe the state wants the public option in some form. However, she is holding firm and it will be interesting if she can hold onto her seat should a viable Democrat candidate makes a play. Other NE states have gotten rid of more moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chaffee (worth more that all the other Retards put together) so a race will be interesting. We know that other Senators will vote against the bill even though a majority of their voters want the option (I am thinking of Grassely in particular). we will wait to see if voters put their own interests first instead of ideology.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 13, 2010 1:32 PM
DFH's in the blogosphere were right after all, huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
i said GOOD DAY sir
January 13, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to CT Voter
What does DFH mean? I've seen that term bandied about a lot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 13, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to i said GOOD DAY sir
Dirty Fuckin' Hippies
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
January 13, 2010 7:36 PM in reply to Schmed
S'up?
Oh - you were explaining, sorry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 13, 2010 1:34 PM
Go, Harry!
This quote along with the fact that he refused to back away from calling Greenspan a hack and Bush a liar, explains why he is majority leader. It also makes me believe that news of his pending demise are greatly exaggerated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 13, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to FreeRider
Hi FreeRider. I have donated to many of Harry Reid's re-election campaigns and each time he was "in trouble" or in a "tight race". He's still here and I have a feeling he will be here in 2011.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
btbradley86
January 13, 2010 5:12 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Harry Reid is a smart campaigner...dirty, but smart. I've been in Nevada long enough to at least remember the Ensign campaign. He's never about trying to make voters like him more, he's about making voters hate the other guy more than they hate him. Just wait until the Repubs actually have a candidate picked and watch the earth start getting scortched.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 13, 2010 5:38 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Harry Reid looks like a lackluster wimp but he's managed to survive all these years and become majority leader. Probably because so many people underestimated him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 13, 2010 6:09 PM in reply to FreeRider
I agree. I am not counting him out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 13, 2010 7:33 PM in reply to FreeRider
I gather that Harry operates in the background and not so much in the media.
The media members won't like that. They want to feel needed, not ignored.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jolly ranchero
January 13, 2010 1:35 PM
"because she had no intention of ever working anything out."
What took Harry MONTHS to figure out took the liberal blogosphere about 3 minutes to ascertain. Literally every lefty blog knew and commented on this, right from the start.
Methinks Harry is way, way too slow to be majority leader.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RuperttheBear
January 13, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to jolly ranchero
This. So true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapdogs
January 13, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to jolly ranchero
Ya Think??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
concerned parent
January 13, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to jolly ranchero
Frankly I hope he loses in November, the senate needs a real leader. Dems just do not seem to know how to lead, and I include Obama in that as well. As a liberal I am tired of the lack luster performance of a party with 60 votes in the senate and still cannot vote their way out of a paper bag. It might serve as a nice wake-up call to have a few senators knocked off of their perch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kararay
January 13, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to concerned parent
Please remember that Sen. Reid single handedly stoped the Bush folks from making SS private.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
btbradley86
January 13, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to concerned parent
Frankly, I think youll be far more disappointed if you should get Sue Lowden or Danny Tarkanian as the new junior Senator from Nevada. Even worse that would make John Ensign the senior member of the Nevada Delegation....NOOOOOO!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CN
January 13, 2010 3:28 PM in reply to jolly ranchero
"As I look back, it was a waste of time banging my head against that brick wall, because the wall had no intention of ever yielding to my head."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
randomname
January 13, 2010 3:57 PM in reply to CN
Yes
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dndobson
January 13, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to jolly ranchero
Yes - and recognizing a mistake is NOT LEARNING from a mistake, something Reid has proven he is incapable of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 13, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to jolly ranchero
Jolly,
I think that Harry fits real well with the Obama administration. Neither of them operate primarily in the media. They operate behind the scenes and find the real power, and only go to the media at the last minute to bring the public on board.
Contrast that with the Republicans who try to run the government according to the media sound-bytes they used to get elected.
Republicans are better at sound-bytes and Democrats are better at running government. Harry and Barack simply don't bother to try to compete head to head with the Republicans in the media except at election time.
The public has a better idea of what the Republicans want them to know than they do what the Democrats want them to know. Except at election time, perhaps. We should see a very interesting nine-and-a-half months this year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 8:22 PM in reply to Richardxx
I think you might be giving him more cred than he deserves. LBJ tended to work behind the scenes in just the way you described. Let's hope Obama takes a leaf out of his book regarding government programs and completely ignores what he did with the war.
If he isn't bending ears in favor of a PUBLIC OPTION, he and his Congress are going down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 13, 2010 8:50 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Yes, I might be giving him more credit than he deserves. But his history shows effective results, and I saw no one else (except TCfKasNCSteve) presenting the other side of the case.
Besides, I DON'T think I am giving him more credit than he deserves. I just think that the successful politicians in Washington have learned to play the media like a cheap fiddle. Just because we don't know what happens behind the scenes doesn't mean it isn't there, and I watched Obama win both the nomination and the election with the active opposition of much of the media.
There's a lot of stuff going on we don't know. We are getting only hints wrapped in lies with garbage shredded on top of it through the media.
When there is as much certainty and agreement that Harry Reid has been wrong as I see in this thread, the thread is wrong.
Ever sat down to play poker with someone who looked like an easy mark and then walked out broke at the end of the night? I have. I suspect that Harry Reid could remind me of those nights. From what I can see that's a better bet than thinking Harry as been taken for a fool.
There's some good reasons why Harry Reid is still in the Senate and more reasons why he was elected Majority Leader and remains in that job.
Don't ask me what those reasons are. I can't even tell you why Nevada is anything more than a decrepit gas station in the middle of the desert.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to Richardxx
seniority?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
January 14, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to jolly ranchero
I believe that Harry was being pushed hard to negotiate with Snowe, pushed hard by the self-proclaimed legislative genius, Rahm Emanuel, all in the interest of a display of bipartisanship for the ignorant voting democratic masses. I believe that had Reid had some real help, and I mean real help, as in real effort by the orator in chief, in forcing the hands of the traitorous blue dogs, Reid would have ignored the rich bitch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
January 13, 2010 1:36 PM
Hey how come there is no reporting on this site about Karen Ignagni laundering over 10 million dollars of AHIP members money through the Chamber of Commerce to pay for anti-reform ads, while she went to the White House to say she supported reform?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 13, 2010 1:36 PM
He finally get's it.
Olympia Snowe...an idiot
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 13, 2010 1:42 PM in reply to dem4life
Which is worse -- the turd or the flies that are drawn to and feed off it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
January 13, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to dem4life
not so much idiot as whore to the party fascists
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 13, 2010 1:37 PM
The whole gop is a waste of time
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 13, 2010 1:39 PM
duh
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 1:45 PM
DUH!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 13, 2010 8:13 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
DUH!!
(Top that!)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 8:14 PM in reply to Richardxx
You win. Doubt Harry will see any of this, but makes me feel better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 1:46 PM
Sorry Indie! Didn't mean to upstage you. Guess independents think more alike than I'd like to believe???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 13, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
no worries at all. it's an obvious response when a dullard like Reid finally crosses the finish line, when the race ended months ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
January 13, 2010 1:49 PM
Gee! Why is HReid Senate Majority leader again ?
blowhard Ed Shultz was on his perch going "berserk" over the WH and Senate"wasting" time courting Grassley,Snowe & Collins.
Anyone in leadership should show more intuition than what has come forth from the Dem leadership including the Prez who seems to think up is down.
On the whole it has been a pitiful example of leadership from the Dem party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to Juble
Yeah, they look just like the Republitards, don't they.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 13, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to Juble
Better than not having a leader... 1 year later the REPUBLIPIGS HAVE NO LEADER.
TOO MANY DEMISIONS TO THE REPUBLIPIGS....SORRY YOU RESLUGS CAN'T GET IT TOGETHER
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to dem4life
REPOlicans have a leader don't they? I thought it was Rahm Limbaugh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 13, 2010 1:49 PM
Credit where credit is due. Max Baucus wasted more time than anyone else, trying to get Enzi and Grassley on board.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 13, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to agio
He wasn't trying. He was stalling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 13, 2010 1:57 PM
SNOW IS A manican doll
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to dem4life
you mean MAN doll?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 13, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Monster would be a better choice of wording
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to dem4life
Not sure why the Repubs keep harping on about Barney Frank being gay, when they have the first drag queen in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 13, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
LOG CABIN REPUBLIPIGS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to dem4life
Ha, ha! Forgot she was a member of that self-loathing crowd!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
January 13, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
The outpatients are out in force today, I see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geazer
January 13, 2010 1:57 PM
Ah, a message from the Leader of Planet No-Sh*t Sherlock!
Why is Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lucieann
January 13, 2010 1:59 PM
Gee, Reid finally realizes this fact??!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bill E Pilgrim
January 13, 2010 2:02 PM
Oh gosh let's not raise eyebrows.
Well what do you know? Harry Reid sees what the progressives have been saying for months, you know all of us shrill ones who doubted that Snowe or any of the others were worth wasting time and effort on.
Worse than that, it pulled the bill to the right just courting her, and now we're stuck with it.
I'm glad to see that Harry isn't afraid to "raise eyebrows" finally by showing the disgust warranted by people like Snowe who were never going to do anything but vote in GOP lockstep. He's about six months and one eyebrow short though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapdogs
January 13, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to Bill E Pilgrim
Obama has to tell The Senate to shove everything through with a 51 vote margin from now on.
The Republicans are not going to vote for one damn Bill that the Democrats want.
With just 51 votes needed through reconciliation, start leaning to the left to support OUR PARTY and make sure any legislation is not the type that takes effect in 3 or 4 years. Make it all effective immediately so the people can get use to it, like it and make it difficult for the Republicans to do away with it in the future.
Democrats have to remember that they didn't see Bush twittling his thumbs with the tax cuts by trying to get the Democrats on board. He wanted them and went the route of a 51 vote majority to ram it through.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ronik
January 13, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to lapdogs
That's it in a nutshell, isn't it.
The Dems try to "play nice" so they can say they got "bi-partisan support".
The Repukes just decide what they want and then ram it through.
The Dems always seem to forget this when the Repukes start crying that the Dems aren't playing fair, and then once again the Dems bend over backwards trying to prove they are so playing fair.
Its like watching the schoolyard bully beat up the littler kid day after day, taking his lunch money amd walking away laughing. Until the Dems stand up for themselves (and us, actually), nothing will change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
January 13, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to ronik
Bear in mind - they can honestly say "We tried - we bent over backwards and pissed off OUR base to include you. So you can go take a flying %#@& at a rolling donut - you don't get a damn thing you want out of this."
Whether they will is a different question.
But it was a good faith effort, and the other side cannot say that.
9.5 months until the mid-terms. I hope stories like this become more common and frequent, because I think there's a chance that the mushy middle will dislike bad faith. And that could be imputed to several areas - Congressional Republicans, big banks, health insurers, defense contractors, Bush Administration hold-overs, off the top of my head.
Chance, hope, could. Rose-colored, but what are we gonna do, curl up and get drunk?
The key is being able to back it up with facts, and being able to refute presented-as-facts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 8:13 PM in reply to kenga
But you're assuming that the bipartisan bit was anything more than just cover for what the FT's Buiter would call cognitive regulatory capture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ronik
January 13, 2010 11:44 PM in reply to kenga
That might work, but only if the Dems actually got their message out and their point across.
In the meantime, we lose true Health Care Reform, the Bush bunch are still not held accountable, appointments remain unconfirmed, etc., etc.
I'm afraid that, once again, most people will have already formed an opinion of the Dems as unable to do anything of value long before the Dems get around to presenting the "facts" that prove they're not to blame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
druncan
January 13, 2010 2:03 PM
if it took reid this long to figure that out, we should probably look forward to a strong push towards his re-election by 2011.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 13, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to druncan
Not.....we need a new leader...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
January 13, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to dem4life
I believe you missed druncan's joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 13, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to druncan
HAH!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 13, 2010 2:05 PM
Yes, we're all geniuses. Yay for us. We were able to see the obvious before Harry admitted to seeing the obvious.
Unfortunately, our Beltway MSM is staffed by dullards and cowards to whom these things have to be painstakingly shown and then Sen. Plainspoken R. Gaffer has actually say it in Blunt, Plainspoken terms before "GOP cannot be worked with and has no intention of working anything out" has a chance of becoing part of the the CW narrative, thereby allowing them to cut short the pursuit of Holy Bipartisanship after making the obligatory prefunctory gestures in the future.
Did they think she was actually gettable for far too long? Probably. Did they continue going through the motions by way of Kabuki morality play for the edification of the Village idiots longer than they really needed to? No idea. Based upon the way the Village idiots were talking, probably not.
But is a man who's been in the Senate for twenty four years and in public life for even longer just now, just this minute, figuring out that Snowe wasn't operating in good faith? Please.
So help me out. How exactly, is it that we're actually smarter than the Village idiots if we treat the Kabuki as if it was reality because doing so suits our preconceptions, just like the Village idiots do?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 13, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
It's a fair question.
The Village idiots can hold the political process hostage by the constant pushing of memes that are inconsistent with reality. E.g., bipartisanship should be the goal of Democratic politicians (but never Republicans). Why not just say screw it to this kind of kidnapping of the process? The short term fallout might wind up being less of an issue than feared.
Or not. I don't know. I do know that the final version of healthcare reform is probably significantly weaker than what might have been had Democrats refused to participate in Kabuki, and this weakened version is going to get the exact same amount of Republican support as a commie-socialistic takeover of the government would.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
January 13, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to CT Voter
How did the Kabuki play a bigger role in weakening the health bill than the simple math of the Senate and the demands of Nelson+Lieberman+Conrad?
The most damage Snowe, abetted by Baucus, did to health care was bleed the process dry so now time is the enemy. That doesn't necessarily weaken the bill, but it does kill public support and threaten passage of the entire package. Some folks around here would cheer that outcome.
By refusing to play Kabuki, do you mean reconciliation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 13, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to fbacon2
I mean the pursuit of bipartisanship in the development of the various versions of the Senate bill.
If they hadn't done this, Washington would be tsk tsking over how Dems were running roughshod over Republicans, and, as NCSteve indirectly pointed out, this would have meant Dems would need to spend more time in the future burnishing their bipartisan creds--so by ostensibly pursuing bipartisanship in the process of developing healthcare reform, Dems were probably just saving themselves time in the future while simultaneously starting to plant the seed in the media that maybe Republicans aren't ever going to support Democrats, in anything. Except war.
I'm wondering why Reid NOW chose to point out how fruitless the process ultimately wound up being---
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MASON
January 13, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to CT Voter
Dems were probably just saving themselves time in the future while simultaneously starting to plant the seed in the media that maybe Republicans aren't ever going to support Democrats, in anything.
The only problem is that in the future, the Dems may actually need Republican support to get things passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
January 13, 2010 4:06 PM in reply to CT Voter
Probably because we're near the end and he doesn't have to exercise the normal fake senatorial courtesy. He might have thought/made these comments in December or November before the Senate vote, and it would have been just as true then, only now someone's putting it on the record.
Honestly, the aim for bipartisanship as kabuki made more sense in the context of earlier in the year, but lately I'm starting to believe that it's really senatorial strategy. Bipartisanship helps assure the toughest votes (Nelson or Conrad) cover while diminishing leverage from people like Lieberman. Trouble is even the token bipartisanship that led to the stimulus bill is probably extinct, so it's better not to linger. When the history of the bill's passage is written, I think Max Baucus missing his first deadline last summer will be seen as a key pivot point, and less so the Lieberman wrangling, the Blue Dogs, and the Stupak idiocy. Delaying the process cost us at least three months, fed right into the tea party brigades, shed popular support for the bill, and pushed economic bills down the line. Obama can take some heat for this, but my eyes are still trained on Chairman Baucus for the mess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 13, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Ah yes, the old "Kabuki" theory. Touche', touche'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 13, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Seeing nuance, and in effect, pooping on a perfectly good "I told you so" Party...That is just so you, Steve!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdh
January 13, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Also, just because Reid offers this in an NYT interview after the fact doesn't mean it's always been as simple as he portrays it now. It's very possible Snowe wasn't always a lost cause. Maybe this public statement is simply Reid taking a jab at Snowe because she ultimately went the other way. Other reasons might be: 1) Reid woke up one morning with the irresistable urge to give people who don't like him and/or Snowe a moment of gleeful self-satisfaction (the popular winner on this thread), 2) Reid just felt like talkin' about shit (my sentimental favorite, but probably not), or 3) this is a strategic delayed recognition (as you reasonably suggest). Regardless, I agree that the theory Reid is merely a naive simpleton is more than a little ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
This is the most turturous and tortuous defense of what happened that I've yet read.
Can we admit that the real kabuki isn't based in partisanship, but based in regulatory capture?
It is with health care as it is with banking. And the people in charge (that would be us) are so thoroughly compromised it is practically inconceivable.
The issue is covered more responsibly in Mother Jones this month. (And as always on baselinescenario.com.) It has also been consistently covered by Bill Moyers' Journal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 13, 2010 4:54 PM in reply to again
What, is "regulatory capture" your new phrase for the day? Are you inserting it into every message as an exercise in committing it to memory or something?
Stop being such a Johnny One Note!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 13, 2010 4:57 PM in reply to slb
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 13, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to slb
Arrrrgh! Who knew the blockquote tag would screw up the formatting?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to slb
No, it's not the word of the day. It's the description of what's been going on under the guise of "bipartisanship" for these past three decades.
Ask Thomas Frank. Ask Luke Mitchell. Ask David Corn. As Simon Johnson. Ask Willem Buiter. Ask Bill Moyers. Ask Elizabeth Warren. And so on...
But don't ask: Tim Geithner or Larry Summers. Because they're part of the problem. And they are what's undermining our confidence in this administration. If Obama cleans house, we'll come back and rally hard in 2010 and 2012.
Here's a start for you to educate yourself, so you don't have to cling to calling people "Johnny One-Note" who are simply pointing out the obvious.
Thomas Frank on "Obama and Regulatory Capture"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124580461065744913.html
Luke Mitchell on "Understanding Obamacare"
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082740
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 13, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Dude! You are one of the very wisest commenters on these boards. Consistently. Keep it up, unappreciated though it may often seem.
Best,
O.T.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 13, 2010 8:27 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Personally, I think Harry was letting the Republicans think that he was focused on Snowe and letting them focus everything on her. Meanwhile Harry was setting up to get past the rest of the roadblocks that he saw ahead.
There's a reason why no Democratic administration has ever successfully come this close to getting health care reform. Just to get this far Harry Reid has had to do a lot right, and if he had tried to do it in public it would not have happened.
Getting hcr from here to the President's desk may require as much politics, guile and leadership as everything done this far. If it didn't then it would be sitting on Obama's desk, signed, already.
The Republicans must be feeling really frustrated right now. For the Democrats to get this far they are failing badly. But they only have to win once to kill the whole thing. The Democrats have to do everything successfully.
The latter may include redefining "success."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 8:58 PM in reply to Richardxx
"There's a reason why no Democratic administration has ever successfully come this close to getting health care reform."
Indeed, It's because it's not actually reform, but the opposite of reform: cognitive regulatory capture.
"Just to get this far Harry Reid has had to do a lot right, and if he had tried to do it in public it would not have happened."
I like Harry Reid personally - but I don't think he got anything right for the American people on this.
"Getting hcr from here to the President's desk may require as much politics, guile and leadership as everything done this far. If it didn't then it would be sitting on Obama's desk, signed, already."
If we're lucky, this thing will die. There's a reason Eric Massa wasn't supporting even HR 3200. I had issues with him on that - now I'm grateful.
"The Republicans must be feeling really frustrated right now. For the Democrats to get this far they are failing badly."
The Republicans are laughing, singing and peeing their fucking pants over this. To me that's a crisis, but you can call it whatever you want to call it. Free country and all.
"But they only have to win once to kill the whole thing."
We Dems should be so lucky - to pass this garbage would be the death knell for our party.
"The latter may include redefining "success."
Yeah, I think you're pretty into defining failure as success. Doesn't work for all of us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 14, 2010 10:34 AM in reply to again
You could have made much the same arguments in 1965 against Medicare. It was a partial and very incomplete solution to the massive problem that the insurance companies were selling insurance to healthy younger individuals and simply cut off insurance to anyone who attained age 65.
Insurance to the elderly was too expensive for the insurance companies to even attempt. Of course, there weren't that many people reaching that age, but it was clear that lifespans were getting longer. The private insurance companies simply wouldn't touch the market.
Medicare was a ramshackle solution that basically had the government take over the costs of health care to those over age 64 and charge the cost to every employee paying FICA (Hospital Insurance) and to a combination of the insured and general tax revenue (Part B - the Doctor's Insurance.)
This time around there is a lot less room for such kludges, so that the trade-offs get really uncomfortable. But the rising costs of health care together with the growing numbers not covered has to be solved, and delay is worse than a bad solution.
It doesn't help that the Republicans are desperate to stop anything because they will lose political power as soon as this bill (or anything like it) passes. There's a reason why this is being fought out largely in the
Senate. That's because the Senate is designed to stop legislation that the wealthy don't like.
With the filibuster as the rule of the day and the Republicans holding 40 Senate seats the remaining 60 Senators have to act unanimously to accomplish anything, so there are no messy compromises, just very public trade-offs with individuals who don't like them getting a lot of political room to kill the whole thing. But after 8 months something is still moving forward.
That tells me that there is a lot of pent up political need for this bill to succeed. Of course it now looks a lot like Bruce Willis towards the end of a Die Hard movie. It is wounded, bleeding badly, battered and in danger of getting killed at every turn - yet it keeps moving forward.
Once the insurance reforms are passed and there is administrative movement towards solving some of the worst problems of the health care system there is going to be great public demand for more improvement. But that doesn't happen until after change gets started.
I'm reasonably familiar with insurance and with government and big company administration. As bad as the present health care reform proposals seem to look, they are possible. I see no possible way to move from the current absence of a system to single payer. None. Zero. Zip. Right now two thirds of Americans have at least adequate health coverage. Trying to go to single payer would throw them into health care chaos for years, five to ten. That's simply not politically sustainable.
What we are seeing is the only alternative, and it is one the Republicans will fight to their grave because it threatens conservatism to its core. So the Republicans will not help. They are a perpetual roadblock. The result is that only something that can get unanimous consent in the Senate 60 will pass. That is a recipe for every Senator go out and get what he can personally. The demand for unanimity makes each Senator capable of vetoing the whole thing.
That's where we are, and it's not pretty. But it has to go forward now because the problems are rapidly getting worse, and finding a solution will be harder in the future. There is no "Quit this one now and start over." Because the only changes that happen then are that health care in America gets worse.
Sorry it's not elegant and pretty. Sorry the bad guys are getting rewarded in the process. Sorry you don't seem to understand what is at stake here. And none of that really matters because there are over 300 million Americans who need for the government to start the change process, and they needed it back in 1993.
The health care bill, rotten as it is, has to pass this time. It is just the down payment on the final set of solutions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barryashe
January 14, 2010 7:49 AM in reply to Richardxx
I'm with you 100%! Your analysis of Reid is the most thoughtful and detailed I've seen here yet. Keep up the good work!
On a related front, the comparison of Reid's supposed electoral woes with Daschle's defeat usually neglects the difference between dyed-in-the-wool Republican SD and leaning Democratic NV.
And one more point, I saw a comment by Ben Nelson on TPM recently in which he was good-humoredly kidding Reid about one of his quirks. Nelson seemed genuinely affectionate toward Harry and also seemed settled in comfortably in the Democratic Caucus and proud of the work they were doing together to get effective saleable HCR passed. Nelson even referred to Harry as the Leader. It reminded me of how Dem senators referred to LBJ as Leader or even Mr. Leader when they spoke to him. Harry is much more low-key than LBJ ever dreamed of being, but I think he is doing what we need him to be doing in this present situation and doing it well.
I think he is drawing the line between Snowe, the most liberal and compromising Republican left standing, and the most conservative Democrats, Nelson, Lincoln, and Lieberman, who were willing to bargain in good faith for their votes and give those votes if they got what they wanted. You can call this selling their votes, if you must, but I call it compromising; that is what good politicians do in a democratic system. It's called coalition building and it works. Idle, strident uber-idealistic posing is called fascism or its close cousin teabagging.
Thank you Ben Nelson for selling your vote at a reasonable price in a good cause, thank you Blanche Lincoln, and, yes, thank you Joe Lieberman. God bless you one and all for showing that the Democratic Party can come together and settle its differences in a reasonable fashion and get something important done for the national welfare. I won't even mention Bayh, Baucus, Conrad, even Landrieu, etc., who seemed in the end to be party stalwarts who did what they needed to do with minimum complaining.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 14, 2010 1:32 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Thank you
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 13, 2010 2:22 PM
So we see Inside The Beltway versus Outside The Beltway.
Those of us on the outside knew months ago that this was not only a waste of time, but pointlessly giving away the farm.
Now some clueless insider says, "Well gosh, the sun does rise in the east. Water is wet. All Republican are America-hating obstructionists," and it is treated like news.
The worst part is that Snowe could not have done a better job of ruining the reform bill by any means, including outright opposition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 13, 2010 2:33 PM
The repubs have some ugly woman representing....little more face lifts.
coltergeist, laura ingrah is a man replica
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 13, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to dem4life
Can't we stick to substance? You sound about 14 yrs old with this shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 13, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to Dorn76
Amen. I am sick and tired of this practice of trashing a woman's appearance every time someone has an argument with her politics. And the left is just as bad as the right in this regard.
Grow up, boys!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
randomname
January 13, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to dem4life
Seriously? That's your response? Grow up
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
January 13, 2010 2:34 PM
I think the bigger thing in the delays was President Obama not coming out in favor of either capping the employer exclusion or imposing the excise tax. I think had the President backed such a proposal sooner, Max Baucus would have had a little easier time selling his proposal to Senate Finance Committee Democrats, and House Democrats would have been a little bit less resistant than they currently are to the excise tax.
That said, health care reform was always going to be hard to do, and it never was going to be popular by the time members of Congress voted on in. That's just because any form of universal health insurance requires taking a significant amount of money out of one person's pockets, and putting it into someone else's pockets. There's no two ways about this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 13, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to jimbomoron
I think another problem may have been the willingness to take single payer off the table. I know that the conventional wisdom is that it was a total non-starter, but imagine how different the discussion might have been had the starting point been a single payer system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 13, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to CT Voter
I have been saying this all along.
Not trying to be self-congratulatory, instead trying to figure out why the foolish Democrats gave away a bargaining chip for nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 13, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to CT Voter
Or Obama would be being attacked even more than he is now for being willing to accomodate something less than perfect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to CT Voter
Gee, who took single payer off the table?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 13, 2010 8:33 PM in reply to CT Voter
Put single payer on the table and the table and the entire game would have been over by August. There are too many politically powerful players who would have banded together to kill the whole thing.
Surely you don't think that hcr has gotten this far because the public wants it, do you? The public has been in favor of hcr for half a century or more!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 9:01 PM in reply to Richardxx
Either that or you would have compromised to a public option.
Can't say, because it wasn't tried.
But no way to put lipstick on this pig, although I'm sure they'll try a full-pig makeover to sell it to us Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barryashe
January 14, 2010 8:05 AM in reply to jimbomoron
And remember that the pockets where the money was being taken out of were the pockets of the rich. Protecting those pockets at all costs is one of the very most sacred ideals of the Republican Party, possibly the most sacred although controlling other people's personal lives is certainly important also.
The endless problem down through the ages for the GOP is that there are more poor people than there are rich people and they all only have one vote. It reminds me of Catch 22 when the Texan is startled, then outraged, to find out that rich people don't have more votes than poor people. It's downright Unamerican! The GOP couldn't agree more, but is at least cunning enough to never, ever, admit that this is their real belief.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
delia
January 13, 2010 2:35 PM
why would his blunt language raise eyebrows?
its about freakin time our politicians started telling the damn truth.
it was a waste of time - progressives had been telling him that from the beginning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
January 13, 2010 2:45 PM
What a f'ng moron. This clown is the majority leader of the Democrats in the Senate? He shoudl resign for being so ignorant and stupid, not for saying "negro".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
January 13, 2010 2:45 PM
Harry Reid: Master of the Obvious. Hard to believe the center-right CW was wrong on this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
January 13, 2010 2:46 PM
That's why she goes by snow job. Either repukes get on board or they get run over. Simple as that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
January 13, 2010 2:49 PM
The Senate tries to claim it is genteel in a world of all out extremism. It's time for it to reflect the crudeness and roughness that drives politics in this country, apparently. Snowe played them for suckers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 13, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to MyMy
I'm sorry, what has she won?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 3:03 PM
Kabuki theater?
This was merely regulatory capture masquerading as bipartisanship.
The R and the D were largely irrelevant. They usually are in the face of massive lobbying by massive vested interests.
That's the real story that TPM chooses to ignore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
January 13, 2010 3:08 PM
Gee, the White House and Congress are now, 6-8 months later, catching up with those pajama-clad, mom-basement-dwelling, "far-left", "radical" bloggers. Funny, that. Happened with Iraq. Happened with Guantanamo. Now it's happening with Health Care.
Be nice if they actually listened and followed what their progressive wing suggests before it's too late. But then, that would put us in Fantasyland, wouldn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
January 13, 2010 3:20 PM
YOU wasted our time, Harriet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
January 13, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to CranialRectalLoopback
He had two choices. Publicly oppose Obama or accommodate the White House in regards to Snowe (et. al). Obama came through for Nevada on Yucca and Reid is a very loyal democrat. No way Harry would kneecap him like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bruno2
January 13, 2010 3:22 PM
Confirmation bias makes geniuses of us all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
January 13, 2010 3:22 PM
No, really?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
January 13, 2010 3:25 PM
Maybe Harry knows he's going to lose in November and has decided to go down swinging?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
January 13, 2010 3:26 PM
Gee, those of us who followed it knew it was a waste of time.
How depressing to see all the hope we had a year ago down the drain. I've been in polics a long time and even I thought we would have a good year. I never dreamed that Obama would sell us out. How does he expect to govern if his base is gone?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to DownriverDem
You just don't get it, Down. It was "kabuki theater" - part of the multi-dimensional chess game that people like Rahm and Obama and Reid play - but that YOU can't understand, because YOU'RE TOO RATIONAL.
Either that, or "kabuki theater" and the claims of multi-dimensional chess are just garbage excuses for a congress and an administration that can't find its way out of a freaking paper bag.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
January 13, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to again
I disagree.
I am no subscriber to the 37 dimension chess theory of Obama governance. Nor am I a subscriber of the "Rahm Emmanuel is really running the show" line of thinking.
The kabuki theater referred to upthread is the public dance that Democrats always have to go through in order to assure the village idiots that Democrats are remaining true to the holy grail of bipartisanship, because that's more important (to people like David Broder) than good legislation.
Maybe the Democrats would have been better off simply saying "Eff it", and pursuing their own goals (assuming that there was consensus among Democrats about what those goals were--and there wasn't). Most people in this thread seem to think that Harry Reid was a moron for not locking Republicans out of the Capitol. One could think about an alternative explanation (the nearsightedness and stupidity of the Washington press "Why can't you, Robert Gibbs, explain why Ronald REagan didn't ever win the Nobel Peace Prize??? WHY???") and not be guilty of thinking that Reid/Emmanual/Obama are playing some sort of 67 dimension chess...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 4:40 PM in reply to CT Voter
I thought Bill Moyers' guests last week (David Corn and Kevin Drum) made a strong argument for what seemed like an obvious strategy to most of us "non-insiders" from the start.
The average loser in America doesn't care what David Broder thinks. They don't care about "bipartisanship" - they need relief from the corporate interests like banks and health insurers and pharmaceutical companies that are strangling them.
They voted for change - they voted for change through a significant mandate.
I would even argue that the mandate was even stronger given how many conservative voters actually turned out for the first biracial Presidential candidate. I know - I was on those phone lines during the campaign. I got an earful from GOP'ers sick of Bush.
Corn and Drum argue that Obama has not used his considerable base to enact what he promised. Ironically, by trying to be "bipartisan" (and I think a lot of us see through that "bipartisan" sell for what it is - cover for corporate interests getting their way) he lost the mandate.
Is it too late to reclaim it? I don't think so, otherwise I wouldn't be agitating for him to reclaim his base. We're still here for him if he stands up for what's right. But supporting Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and the idiocy that was HCR, well, it ain't right, and we all know it.
Look at how Obama treated Eric Massa. All the smackdown was on Democrats who supported real reform vs. a corporate giveaway.
We know a lot of Presidents take some time to "get there." Look at FDR. But they don't do that because people just shut up and invoke multi-dimensional chess (I appreciate that you don't invoke that.) Roosevelt had real pressure on him from the left. It worked. Just not right away, and not because the people bowed to the David Broder of the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 13, 2010 5:10 PM in reply to again
you, or they, are spot on:
Corn and Drum argue that Obama has not used his considerable base to enact what he promised. Ironically, by trying to be "bipartisan" (and I think a lot of us see through that "bipartisan" sell for what it is - cover for corporate interests getting their way) he lost the mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to Indie Pro
You really need - every Dem and every former Dem and every independent - really needs to listen to Bill Moyers from last week with the Mother Jones writers.
It was mindblowing in its laying out more specifically how reg capture manifests itself within our party.
They also point out how this makes us vulnerable to Republicans.
We need to get on this NOW. There is less than a year to the next congressional elections.
Enough with the tea party stories - this is more urgent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
January 13, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to again
again, I agree with your point but I want to ask you a question. What do you think would happen if Obama dumped Geitner and Summers now? How do you think the Republicans would react with all that blood in the water? Please don't ask me to take off my partisan hat because we are talking about political realities here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to expat46
Hallelujah for asking that question.
I agree with Corn and Drum - I don't think it would matter what "the Republicans" thought.
I think the people would recognize a smart move.
I say this as someone who is a life-long Democrat but who has long done outreach with my conservative relatives (outside of immediate family) friends and neighbors.
It would make him unpopular with the banks. That would be the concern - retaliation.
But go to a a few tea parties and talk to people - there would be substantial support for cleaning house - despite what you see on Glenn Beck.
It's his best move. Listen to Corn and Drum on Moyers this past week. It's worth it, strategically speaking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JraSquared
January 13, 2010 3:29 PM
When will they ever learn that when something smells, looks, and acts like total "bullpucky" not to try to call it anything else?
This can be seen as a reason why Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. Greed of power and greed of money have now completely farked a pretty good section of the population.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdtex
January 13, 2010 3:58 PM
That's not exactly true. Until Sen. Coakley was sworn in Dems never had 60 actual votes in the Senate. The Coleman/Franken recount didn't end until late June of last year and both Sen. Byrd and Sen. Kennedy missed all Senate business for several months last year due to illness. Before Sen. Coakley was sworn in,there was no way to get anything through the Senate without at least one GOP Senator's vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 13, 2010 4:23 PM in reply to bdtex
Pssst. Coakley's still running. Paul Kirk is the acting senator from MA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
January 13, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to Schmed
And another political expert bites the dust.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bdtex
January 13, 2010 7:24 PM in reply to Schmed
You know what I meant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ottis
January 13, 2010 4:23 PM
I guess after all this theater, we can look for a strongly worded letter from the leader of the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
January 13, 2010 4:28 PM
"Still, that's unusually blunt language."
Yeah, and a radical weather forecast calls for beginning light early on, increasing throughout the day, and gradually decreasing by nightfall.
Since 1980, 12 years of Republican leadership based on the theory that government is bad, and doing everything they could to prove it. Followed by years of Clinton that in a lot of ways could be defined as smarter, pre-Reagan republicanism or corporate democracy. Followed by 8 years of a moron with puppetmasters from the Nixon administration.
The Democratic primaries demonstrated that there is a great and strong undercurrent desiring change. Too bad too few are standing up and actually leading the charge for change, rather than kowtowing to "centrists" who spend their time feeding from the corporate trough, defending the status quo only because they're at the top of it, and jumping from their own shadows.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sbv
January 13, 2010 5:38 PM
the amount of time wasted not just on snowe, but on grassley - remember him, the entire august debacle due to baucus' delay, the nelsons two, landreau, conrad; the list goes on and on.
first this intelligent and politically astute president listened to his advisers and began the stimulus debate by giving away tax cuts, at the expense of infrastructure and help for the states, to attract gop support and none voted for it; not having learned from this, he gave away more concessions to the health care industry supposedly to win their support for reform, only now to know they are backing the chamber of commerce's attack ads. then to add more injury, he is turning against his strongest supporters, both in time and money and votes, to tax the middle class of which he said he would not do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MikeE
January 13, 2010 6:00 PM
But, Lucy's holding that football again, I gotta run really fast and KICK IT!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
manyamile
January 13, 2010 7:48 PM
i know this has been said before but, duh/.
just get an effing strong bill up for a vote , one you can stand behind, and vote on the sucker. and hold evert single effing democrats feet to the fire to vote aye.
warn them about the consequences, as in they will lose, LOSE their constituents if they don't. This is beyond petty politics.
no exceptions. period, over with.
Let this be a lesson to so called 'progressive ' legislators. next time fight harder and stand strong. Why the hell else did anypne elect you for in the first place?
with all that,
at least on a floor vote, the worst of the lot, the Republicans who refused to participate honorably in this whole debacle, who have sold out everyday Americans for shallow politics, will be shown for who they are. a bunch of bloviating hypocrites and crooks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
manyamile
January 13, 2010 7:53 PM
i need to find the moyers interview online so i can supplant some of my frustration with some nuggets of rational thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 13, 2010 8:18 PM in reply to manyamile
Here's the link:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01082010/profile.html
There's a silver lining in this, I swear.
It's that toward the end of the interview, they do propose something Obama could do to unite the country.
It would be a bold move. I think it's his only move if he wants his presidency to mean anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
January 13, 2010 8:37 PM
Timing of the NYT Article ??
Doesn't the timing -- before the last 60-vote threshhold needed for the health bill -- invite/provoke Lieberman to vote No out of spite and retaliation upon Reid?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Isepick
January 13, 2010 9:14 PM in reply to RhodaA
I almost wish Lieberman would vote no, just so they could finally strip him of his gavels. But then so much time and effort has been spent accomodating him, that I doubt they have the stones to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
January 13, 2010 9:52 PM in reply to Isepick
It doesn't make sense that Reid would let the NYT article go out before the vote, unless there is something else up his sleeve. How else could he take the chance that the snake would bite him again? It's really puzzling me. Any theories?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ratfood
January 13, 2010 9:43 PM
and the... last... horse... crosses... the... finish... line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
January 13, 2010 9:53 PM
how does someone of such stature become so clueless?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
January 13, 2010 10:14 PM
no shit, sherlock...now he catches on!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stevelaudig
January 14, 2010 5:23 AM
Running the clock was always their tactic. Every year the party of bigots stalls reform 14,000 poor people die and McConnell smiles a little more broadly. Snowe is the picture of bad faith. But Reid took the bait so he is not faultless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 14, 2010 9:53 AM
The WH wanted to work with Snowe.
Reid thought he could work with Lieberman.
Both were wrong, since both are untrustworthy assholes.
So any of the comments above claiming "we were right all along" are deeply unwise.
The WH was pilloried for wanting to work with Snowe on her trigger, which was basically punting the PO away.
Instead we got Lieberman who killed the PO altogether.
Which is better? They both suck. At least we should have gotten to this sucky solution quicker, but for the record, Reid & WH gave it the old college try. IF they hadn't, people would be screaming about a betrayal, when really what it is is not having 60 votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 7:42 PM
Bear in mind - they can honestly say "We tried - we bent over backwards and pissed off OUR base to include you. So you can go take a flying %#@& at a rolling donut - you don't get a damn thing you want out of this."
Whether they will is a different question.
But it was a good faith effort, and the other side cannot say that.
9.5 months until the mid-terms. I hope stories like this become more common and frequent, because I think there's a chance that the mushy middle will dislike bad faith. And that could be imputed to several areas - Congressional Republicans, big banks, health insurers, defense contractors, Bush Administration hold-overs, off the top of my head.
Chance, hope, could. Rose-colored, but what are we gonna do, curl up and get drunk?
The key is being able to back it up with facts, and being able to refute presented-as-facts.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?