Dumbest MSM Healthcare Platitude of the Weekend
From good ol' Adam Nagorney in the Sunday NYT in a story purporting to analyze the problems, oh the terrible, terrible problems, faced by Obama in getting a health care reform bill passed. :
Should Mr. Obama abandon efforts to reach out to Republicans, he risks damaging his appeal among independent voters, who have a history of being put off by overt partisanship.
Right, Adam. Those independent are so totally oblivious that they're going to blame Obama for being overtly partisan in this thing.
And obviously, the need for holy bipartisanship is crucial.
In addition, the go-it-alone course could cost Mr. Obama and, more important, Congressional Democrats political cover should the health care plan prove ineffective, unpopular or excessively costly before the 2010 or 2012 elections.
It could also set a polarizing pattern for the remaining three years of Mr. Obama's first term, complicating his efforts to get through an ambitious agenda by forcing him to rely only on Democrats for votes.
"Technically he may be able to pass the bill in one of these big complex areas without bipartisan support, but it won't be as good a product, and I suspect he'll lose the support of the country in the process," said Senator Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Republican conference.
"There's a huge price to be paid," he added. "Bipartisanship is absolutely possible and it's absolutely necessary, even when you have a Democratic president with huge majorities."
Heavens, that does sound serious. Clearly, there is no sacrifice too great, no means of paying for it too regressive or irresponsible, no compromise too immoral, no sell out too extremeto assure that this bill is blessed by and consecrated with holy bipartisanship.
Somehow Adam has failed to notice that the leading lights of the Republican Party are making absolutely no effort to even pretend that their plan isn't to kill reform outright. I guess that part of the story is both anathama becuase, hey, the Village Media drinks cocktails with these fellows and they're really not so unreasonable. And, besides, that storyline is tainted because it's being reported by dirty fucking hippy bloggers.
However, the mad elephant rampaging around the room is too noisy and destructive to be completely ignored. Good Christamighty, even Evan Effing Bayh can see it.
"I wouldn't even have hesitated two, four years ago when the numbers were so close: It would have been absolutely yes on bipartisanship," said Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana.
He said he still believed it was important, but added, "The Republicans are reduced to a core, so there aren't that many pragmatists left to work things out."
: Yup. Blind pigs, acorns yada yada.
Read the story and then weep that this banal drivel came from a guy who's supposed to be one of the star reporters at the preeminent journalistic institution in the country. Since Cronkite's death, I've been pondering how bad things have gotten, how truly toothless and coopted journalism has become in just three decades. And I keep circling back to the question of whether they that stupid or is it that think we are? And, sadly, I'm finding it harder and harder to avoid the conclusion that the answers are "yes" and "yes."
It's amazing to me that any journalist who has been paying attention could fail to learn the lessons from the stimulus fight. That was almost as partisan a vote as it could possibly get, but NOBODY blames that on Obama. People by and large understand that Obama was reaching out to the other side and got a slap for his trouble. The fight over health care reform has been more complicated (and there are legitimate questions about how successful it's going to be), but it's still basically playing out the same way. Obama reaches out is reaching out and currently getting slapped down by Republicans (and some Blue Dog enablers). The next move in the Obama playbook is to chide the obstructionists and then move on to do what he was going to do anyway.
Obama has his problems, but his standard strategy is really pretty brilliant. When he makes overtures to Republicans, either they co-operate (in which case Obama looks good for managing to forge bipartisanship in DC) or they collectively obstruct him (in which case he gets to label them as idealogical extremists and proceed to do what he was going to do anyawy). Either way, Obama gets more or less what he wants. It's really the same as just using the huge Democratic majority to ram legislation through Congress except he gets to look bipartisan while doing it. It's pretty astonishing that MSM journalists by and large haven't picked up on it.
July 27, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Xantar - I believe that you, Obama, and the pundits are absolutely right, although the punditry on this issue, while valid, is not very original. Obama must attempt bipartisanship before abandoning it, as a general governing strategy. In the case of health care reform, he absolutely needs at least a few Republican votes in the Senate to avert a filibuster, because in the face of unanimous Republican opposition, at least one or two fairly conservative Democratic senators in fairly conservative states will refuse to go along with the majority. Of the Republicans, Olympia Snowe will be a subject of intense targeting in the coming weeks. I also expect additional pressure on a few other Republicans in the House and Senate, as well as the Blue Dog Democrats in the House.
July 27, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If something is adopted under reconciliation, he doesn't need 60 votes for cloture. That's the real issue: will the Senate push this through under reconciliation, thereby denying Republicans and conservate Democrats the opportunity to derail it?
July 27, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most experts on Senate rules agree that reconciliation is not a viable option for the proposed health care reform legislation, and would be disallowed by the Senate parliamentarian. Under the Byrd rules, reconciliation can only be used for bills predominantly devoted to budgetary issues, and which are intended to be revenue neutral or to reduce the federal deficit. Given these constraints, a bill could be fashioned that would comply, but would lack almost all the critical provisions needed for effective reform.
I don't claim to be an expert on this issue, and I would be delighted if reconciliation proved to be a feasible means of accomplishing reform, but it appears not to be.
July 27, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 27, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's nonsense. Republicans pushed thru trillions of dollars in tax cuts that weren't incidental by any means. Harry Reid has already said he can and will use reconciliation to get a bill passed. The first round won't matter anyway because they have to go to conference with the house. If they have 51 votes and don't use it there will be hell to pay.
July 27, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what part you think is nonsense, Mark, though I don't mean to sound like I know what will happen (I don't think anyone does at this point). The purpose of the post was mainly to show the Republicans used it for whatever they wanted, so they have no standing to complain. I agree with you, and had great hopes for this as a necessary option. But even Reid's threat of using it hasn't slowed Baucus down from appeasing the Republicans. Not to mention the Dems have sixty in the Senate and any who vote against cloture are voting against their party (moderate, conservative, it doesn't matter, they're Democrats or they're not).
Pelosi and Reid have both backed using reconciliation loosely. Still, how often have they said one thing, but when push came to shove, it was out of their hands? Listening to Baucus and others about bipartisanship and crickets lately about reconciliation I just don't think it will be used(just MHO- I'm not hopeful).
The house has watered down the public option as it is (but included the Kucinich amend. for state single payer- go figure). Any bill passed through reconciliation would likely have better reforms than a bipartisan one. What bastard child will come from the Grassley/Baucus marriage?
July 28, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we've already seen it. Keep in mind these guys know they're just staking out positions at this point. Funding mechanisms, co-ops or public plans, cost cutting measures, regs, threshholds, they're all gathering up their chips and getting ready to do some horse trading.
Rural state guys like Baucus, Grassley and Conrad have more in commmon with each other than they do with Schumer, Kennedy or Durban. OTH rural hospitals are just as understaffed and lacking in the tech as poor inner city ones.
The good news is the kind of changes we need to make across the board in how we pay providers will benefit all of their constituents.
July 28, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have the Baucus thing right. It will avoid any reforms that might mess with industry bottom lines. And who knows? Reid might completely ignore it and put up some of the alternatives out of other committees.
But they keep backing up (it'll be the fall now before we see anything) and unless Reid and other leaders have grown a pair and decide to play hardball when it comes down to it (and I hope they have), we may just get a health care "reform" like banking reform, that just tweaks the margins.
I don't buy that Obama is playing rope-a-dope, offering compromise knowing he would pull the rug out later (he's suffering from this being drawn out now). And all of the industry input couldn't be for show (that would raise everyone's hackles).
You could very well be right, but this whole HC "legislative process" has been screwy and as hard to predict as any in a long time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama vetoing his own Democratic HC reform if it's just a toothless sop to reform.
July 28, 2009 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don the Repubs seem to be using the same strategy as they did in 1993. Slow walk it as much possible, claim it's too complicated, it's being rushed thru without their input, and it'll never work in hopes of killing it outright.
First of all there were something like Repub 52 amemdments accepted out of 162 put in overall in the Labor & Education mark up I think it was. That version of the bill, which is 90% unchanged in the Tri-Committee bill has been on the web since June 19th. We taxpayers pay good money to House Reps for them to hire staff to help them read and understand legislation and vote intelligently on it. There's no excuse for any rep to not read the legislation or understand legislative language. If they don't they don't belong in the legislature.
If you see any Repub or Blue Dog using those arguments this is how I refute them.
July 28, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing, isn't it? I'd add that the longer they stall, the longer the HC lobbyists can run their commercials and spread their BS talking points through the media. Seems like the Repubs are born obstructionists, but the Dems have to fight fire with fire. Ignore them like they did us (bipartisanship? Repubs were locking Dems out of meetings a few years ago).
July 28, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS Take a quick look at this article (and photo/caption) from NYT two days ago. Does it not sound like HC industry talking points?
July 28, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, but we have more ammunition and voters on our side this time.
July 28, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
They've publicly stated that they think they can gain seats in congress by killing health care reform. The republicans and media are so used to 'framing' everything i.e. telling us what to think, that they consider the public fairly bought and paid for if they own enough media and spend enough money. But hopefully enough of us have been to the puppet show, seen the strings, and turned off the TV that we can get on with doing our best to change and restore our country.
July 27, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why MSM so stoopid? My brain hurt!
BTW, how is babby formed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll-lia-FEIY
July 27, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just noticed that Steve Benen beat me to it on criticising this story.
July 27, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Steves think alike?
Seriously, Obama and Congressional leadership need to realize that the GOP has no interest in being part of real dialogue in reforming health care. Screw 'em. Don't compromise and compromise, only to find the GOP is not going to support the bill anyway. They want healthcare reform to fail and will do their best to have a bad bill passed so they can say it didn't work and the Democrats are responsible. Put the screws to the Blue Dogs, use some of that presidential capital to pressure them and move forward with real healthcare reform.
July 27, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good Krugman article on the Blue Dogs and healthcare reform.
July 27, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a good rule of thumb is that if most any republican would sign a health-care bill, then it has to be a stinker. With that in mind, I agree with you dijamo; don't give an inch!
(but they are, you know...giving MORE than an inch, I mean)
July 27, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that little matter of Republican hypocrisy -- I can't seem to remember any bippartisan outreach when they had the power!
July 27, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the reached out and slapped the Dems down every time they said anything.
July 28, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read the Nagourney piece and wondered how it was that he failed to mention that Republicans have obstructed and blocked every effort Obama has made.
OK, maybe THAT was a bit partisan, but how could Nagourney not mention the Republican voting patterns on the stimulus package, for instance?
The fact that even Evan Bayh recognizes that maybe "bipartisanship" no longer needs to be "practiced" and that Nagourney completely missed the significance of that is amazing.
Amazing, in the same way a slow-motion trainwreck is amazing.
As for this little piece of nonsense from Alexander: "There's a huge price to be paid," he added. "Bipartisanship is absolutely possible and it's absolutely necessary, even when you have a Democratic president with huge majorities."
Sure, there's hypocrisy there. But where's Mr. Nagourney's understanding of recent history, and the recent behavior of the Republicans in Congress?
Josh Marshall nailed it: the serious people in the mainstream media view every event and comment through a prism of Republican bias. And they're completely unaware of this.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I so loathe Cokie Roberts' "analysis" on Monday mornings during Morning Edition that I no longer listen to NPR on Mondays.
July 27, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT - Nagourney is not writing as an advocate but as an objective reporter of political realities. I haven't read everything he wrote on these issues, but he is correct in stating that Obama must make an attempt at bipartisanship on the major political controversies. Arithmetic also requires that he achieve at least token bipartisanship on health care reform, whether he wishes that the case or not. The first several sets of comments here describe this line of reasoning in more detail.
July 27, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read everything he wrote on these issues,
And the fact that you haven't makes your argument about him not being an advocate but an objective reporter meaningless.
Second, I never said that he was an "advocate". I said that he seems to view politics through a Republican prism.
July 27, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that's wishful thinking, CT. I wasn't analyzing Nagourney's journalism in general, but simply stating that he is right in claiming that Obama needs to seek bipartisanship. It's not a preference but a necessity when it comes to health care reform.
July 27, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what tell us all must Obama do to change the minds of the republicans that see health care as his waterloo, and have come out and told everyone that would listen that they intend to prevent it?
You seem to miss the point that not a single republican appears willing to join the dems in creating any type of genuine reform.
And because some shill hack writes a story not based in reality, Obama and the dems need to bow down and create a useless bill?
Your type of "objective reporting" is dangerous to integrity, and if followed leads to republicanism.
sheeeshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
July 27, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got another candidate. Maria Barteromo and the tough hitting in depth CNBC report on healthcare tonight called "Meeting of the Minds".
This morning on Scarborough, Barteromo was allready so biased and so transfixed on what you could tell were the points that she'd allready wanted to believe. I'll eat my blogpost here if the program has any real insight or equity on the issue at all???
Ron Brownstein had to correct a major flaw in her talking points this morning in continuing to spew the false rumor about "socialized medicine." He corrected Bartaromo by telling her that the Public Option is in now way, shape or form Government Takeover of Healthcare. Which you could tell that the show tonight is going to try its best to support the false notion.
She tried to redeem herself later on by mixing it up with Howard Dean. He said that the Private Sector does a horrible job in Healthcare Insurance because there is no incentive to cut costs. She quickly showed her intellectual prowess on the issue by saying that if the Private sector is so bad, why is all the innovation in drugs and treatment coming from the US Private sector?
Dean then asked her to clean her earpiece by stating again that he said he was talking about Private Sector Healthcare Insurance, not Private Sector Research.
What both segments of her conversation showed is that she's allready well entrenched on a position, and probably has done very little to look at anything other than her own personal pre-conceieved notions.
I've got a saltshare here at my desk. I'll let you know if I have to use it after watching tonight. I clearly see now that you don't have to know a damn thing about what you're talking about to become an Investigative TV Reporter!
July 27, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Nagourney the one who circulated false rumors about Gore and, later, Dean or Edwards? Good post, NCSteve.
July 27, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess he doesn't think DeMint's "break him" or "Waterloo" comments count for anything. Maybe sometime he'll comment upon the Republican Caucus wreaking havoc on the very concept of bipartisanship. Maybe the sun will rise in the west. My breath is not being held.
July 27, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. The LAST thing Democrats should do is use the mandate the voters gave them to pass legislation that the majority wants. Because that would be BAD. Or something.
July 27, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Steve. Everyone in journalism seems to want to pretend they are "fair and balanced" but years and years of the Republican Fascist Party working the Refs in this game has led to a center right kiss ass media that is more concerned with the appearance of balance rather than actually stating facts.
Here is a fact. The more you compromise with people who are dead wrong the more wrong you become.
Another fact. The more you compromise with people who do not have your best interest at heart, the more you end up getting screwed.
The Republicans rammed through every piece of shit law that gave all the money in this country to their filthy rich masters without any tiny hint of bipartisanship. It's time to balance the books and do the same right back at them.
July 27, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink