Dear Kent
Dear Kent,
Do you mind if I call you Kent? I'm sure it will be okay because, after all, this isn't really a letter to you or one that you'll ever hear of or would even give a tinker's damn about if you did, coming, as it does, from a dirty, angry, foulmouthed person on the blogs. Instead, it's a really just a cheap and rather hackneyed rhetorical device, the "open letter," I believe it's called, where I make an argument by pretending to write to you and pretending you'll read it. And, for good measure, I'll also go ahead and pretend like anything you've done on healthcare has ever been done in good faith or in the best interests of anyone except your well-heeled health care industry donors.
So, anyhoo, Kent, I see the leaks are finally out about what your buddy Max and his pals Sue and Sen. Crankytwitter and that other guy have been working so hard on these many weeks and I'm assuming that either they're so out of touch they need to float trial balloons to see how it will fly with the other Dems or, alternately, they're unauthorized leaks by people who are trying to kill it.
And, well, Kent, pretending, as I am that you've been acting in good faith and looking at how much of the farm you and your friends have already traded away, there's something I really need to ask you. Over the weekend, when you and the other Republicans were doing the Sunday shows, you said something really perplexing to me. You said:
CONRAD: Look, there are not the votes for Democrats to do this just on our side of the aisle. This is going to require...
STEPHANOPOULOS: So it's just not possible to have a Democrat-only bill?
CONRAD: No, it is not possible, and perhaps not desirable either. We're probably going to get a better product if we go through the tough business of debate, consideration, analysis of what we're proposing...
That's what you said, Kent. And the reason I found that perplexing was that I couldn't see how it could be that you need Republican votes because the Democratic votes to get it done aren't there when, at least as I understand it, Democrats control both houses of Congress and there are even 60 Democratic senators.
Clearly, you're saying that you need to troll for Republican votes because there are Democrats who won't vote for it. Got that. But, if that's true, I was wondering if you could tell me which Democrats it is you think won't vote for health care reform, 'cause I have this neat idea. I was thinking maybe that rather than negotiating furiously with three Republicans, you might try negotiating with those Democrats instead. I mean, no matter how far right those Democrats are, they can't be as far right as the Republicans. Surely you and Max could get at least as good a deal from them as you could from the Republicans. I'd like to think you could do even better.
And besides, Kent, you know and I know that in the end, those Republicans are going to screw you and blame you for their having to do it. They are going to screw you because McConnell and Conryn have already made it clear that they'll do the same thing to anyone who doesn't stay in lockstep on this that they did to Jim Bunning--cut off their funds and undermine them. So in the end, you'll give away the farm to get those three Repbulican votes, won't get them anyway (except, just possibly, from Collins), so if the bill is to get past the inevitable filibuster, it will depend on whether those Democrats whose votes you say aren't there will vote for cloture.
So, again, why aren't you negotiating for the votest of those unnamed reluctant Democrats instead of with the rump Rational Republican Caucus, which, as we both know, will screw you in the end? Why not find out what has to be done to the bill to get the reluctant Democrats to at least vote for cloture?
I know you're a very busy and important man and there's some important event you have to get to with some important lobbyists or something, but just a thought, Kent. Noodle on it a bit, kay? Thanks, a load.
There are more than 60 votes for health care reform, but fewer than 60 for a strong public option, with Conrad, Baucus, Nelson, Landrieu, and perhaps others opposed. Hence, the need for negotiation. Realistically then, Conrad is right. Sufficient public pressure might turn this around, but it would be most effective coming from residents in the states of the above senators. What we say here is worthwhile, but at best will be effective only at the margins. Whatever case we make should be forceful, but fact-based rather than characterized by personal attacks. The latter will probably be an invitation to be ignored.
July 27, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've edited since your comment. I think I'm asking a rather important question in light of what's leaking out of Senate Finance.
There are at least 51 votes for reform in the Senate. There are, reportedly, not 60 votes for cloture. Where is the logic in giving away the farm to try to get Sen. Crankytwitter onboard for the final vote--which he'll never cast--rather than negotiating with the Blue Dogs to find out what their price is for voting for cloture.
Possibly, in the case of at least one of the barelydems, the answer to that question is "a bill Sen. Crankytwitter will vote for." It does seem to me, however, that leadership and the grassroots have a few more tools in its bags for extracting cloture votes from even nominal Democrats than it does from Republicans.
Given that logic tree, it's hard for me to avoid the concluding that one of two things are happening. Either, a) Conrad and Baucus are themselves committed to gutting the public option out this bill and are using "bipartisanship" as their cover story or, b) they're laboring under the delusion that "compromise" and "bipartisanship" are good things in and of themselves, the actual objectives they were elected to achieve.
As to the former possibility, follow the money. As to the latter, Conrad went most of the way there with his comments on "This Week." (And the truth is probably some complex mixture of the two in which it is unclear even to them which of the two is the predominant motive.)
Even Evan Bayh gets it. The notion that "bipartisanship" enhances social acceptance of legislation and that the process of achieving "bipartisanship" actually improves legislation has been rendered obsolete by the radicalization of the Republican Party. They are currently institutionally and ideologically incapable of constructive activity.
No compromise that is tolorable to the majority of Democrats can be achieved with them on most substantive issues involving the exercise of government power or the appropriations and revenue process. No compromise that actually improves things can be achieved with them given that they are dogmatically committed to the immutable belief that government is evil.
That's the reality of the hour. It's the way things are until the GOP either collapses completely or a generational shift remakes it from within.
July 28, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'm asking a rather important question in light of what's leaking out of Senate Finance.
I think you're asking an important question regardless of what's leaking out of Senate Finance.
The Republican Party is, indeed, a rump party. The only section of the country that doesn't deeply dislike Republicans is the South (With "South" somewhat loosely defined to include Florida and Texas, but whatever).
Therefore, your question about negotiating with Democrats and not Republicans to get something accomplished is a valid one. Why are Democrats like Conrad and Baucus trying to increase the rapidly diminishing power of Republicans in the Senate at the expense of the larger American public?
July 28, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is telling that the Blue Dogs are asking "what's it going to take to get the democrats off our backs?"
It looks a lot like the same old DLC triangulation - which would make sense considering Rahm's role in all this. Obama selected someone who is aligned with the Blue Dogs, not the progressives, to be his point man with congress. Maxine Waters is right.
July 28, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink