Paul Krugman wrote this afternoon:
It sounds as if House Democrats — or at least their leadership — are prepared to pass the Senate bill if, as expected, they lose today’s special election.
That’s a shame: the House was in the process of making the bill better. But as Ezra Klein says, they should do what’s necessary — not as a matter of political advantage, although it’s probably better for them even in that sense, but because it’s the right thing to do. Imperfect as it is, the Senate bill would save tens of thousands of lives, save many Americans from financial catastrophe, and partially redeem us from the shame of being the only advanced nation without some kind of universal care.
I hope all the leftie activists who think punishing Dems at polls will push them to the left are paying attention.
…I have said before, and I will continue to say until I decide – after 35 years of obsession with and involvement in politics – to finally walk away from the sad, cruel joke that it has become, that The One Thing that True Blue Progressives need to do is to stop making any sort of disparaging reference at all to the Tea Baggers. People have been disparaged, hammered, repudiated, and banned at various lefty sites out in blogtopia for saying that there seems to be spare difference between the tactics and commentary of Tea Baggers and True Blue Progressives, but the fact is that both groups seek to punish members of their respective parties for being insufficiently ideological. For all the brave Republican talk about Victory and a New Age of Republican ascendancy after a couple of Governor races, the fact remains that the Tea Baggers have had to deal with the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District and True Blue Progressives now have to deal with a Massachusetts special election to fill a seat that any sane person would have wasted good money as little as a month or so ago betting that it would stay in Democratic hands…
It’s all Rahmbama’s fault, doncha know. Apparently Howard Dean would have personally scheduled 50 more public appearances over the last 3 weeks for Coakley, and physically dragged her to Fenway Park to shake hands with literally every citizen of Boston.
Also Tim Kaine fucked up somehow. Although apparently he didn’t do anything especially right when a Democrat won in NY-23 for the first time since Senators were still elected by state legislatures.
You’ll hear the MSM (the mis-informers that they are) say the exact opposite tomorrow, but here’s the REAL lesson:
This is what happens to Dems when they punch hippies in the teeth.
Now, how will they react?
If they pull to the right, they may as well stick the barrel of a gun in their mouths and pull the trigger.
As for what happens in Congress now, well, can’ say we didn’t warn ya!
I’m about as far left as you can be and I don’t understand the self-destructive impulses of thse around me.
Oh what fools these mortals be…
As much as I hate to admit it, Tweety had the best analysis of the causes of Coakley’s defeat. Even worse was that no one else had put their finger on it up to that point at which there had been assessments of “malpractice”, thinking the race won after the primary, less than vigorous campaigning in the general election and the fact that MA has a history of not voting women into office. All true, but not pivotal factors in this election.
Mathews observed that women in business and in government tend to, by necessity to adaopt a more professional, no-nonsense demeanor or “get-the-job-done”. Coakley had been a civil servant and attorney most of her life. She simply was unable to work a rooomful of strangers witht he kind of faux familarity and empathy that her opponent was. This did not mean she was not better equipped to serve. It was that old “who would you rather have a beer with” rationale.
I was it from the start. If the two of them were in a room she was the cold fish and he was the one most would have been drawn too.
Elections aren’t science and one should never assume that all the voters are making their decisions based upon issues…
To be clear, I’m not advocating her opponent but rather suggesting reasons for her loss.
I apologized to you at my blog, and I apologize here. I do not know how one internet ad I never saw cost us everything, but obviously you were right and all us progressives were wrong.
We were wrong to think that the only way to beat Fox News was to stand up to them (Obama never did in any meaningful way). We were wrong to think we were entitled to a healthcare bill that would make things better (obviously Wall Street still owns our Congress). We were wrong to think good things could be achieved by promoting the truth and challenging lies (the liars just won again last night).
In fact, I feel like such an utter failure I feel as though I should quit the Democratic party altogether. Not because of you Maha, but because of the movement you’ve decided to join. The movement that says a quarter full glass is better than nothing, the movement that blames the constructive left for engaging with our destructive enemy, the movement that believes incrementalism gets you somewhere when we’ll probably never have this many votes again.
Welcome to Rupert Murdoch’s world. Votes mean nothing when liars own the airwaves and the left fights with itself. The twenty percent of Democrats who voted for Brown were not FDL readers. Or Mahablog readers. We were beaten by lying liars, and fighting for a compromised bill only strengthens them.
Again, I obviously need to quit this argument as I am not apologizing very graciously because I’m having trouble understanding why I’m to blame but that’s probably just because I’m too far left to figure things out.
But congratulations on your “win.” That FDL commercial obviously changed everything. The lesson to be learned is that obviously Obama needs to move further to the right now. Maybe do some more appearances on O’Reilly….
Mark, please get your meds adjusted. I don’t like people who lie about and distort my point of view so they can ridicule me, and that’s what you are doing. Stop it right now.
The FDL ad and the Massachusetts election were two separate issues. I never said we shouldn’t stand up to Fox News. I never said the Dems should not fight harder to be more progressive. I argue all the time that we should promote the truth and challenge lies. In fact, that was my objection to the FDL ad — it was deceitful, as in factually incorrect. We’re better than that.
I never fail to be amazed at those who rush to abandon the principles of our form of government in the name of expediency, in the name of getting done that which they believe to be “the right thing” by “the right people.” Have the House pass the Senate version of “health care reform” so that the “good Democrats” can pass the bill.
I want health care reform passed, and I would rather have half of a loaf than none at all. I also want to preserve the integrity of a bicameral Congress, and if one house of that Congress is going to be rendered irrelevant, I don’t want it to be the “peoples house,” I would rather have it be the stinking Senate.
Allowing the elitist Senate to run roughshod over the House of Representatives would take our government one more step toward oligarchy by rendering irrelevant that legislative body which is, by its elective nature, most required to be responsive to the will of the people.
Bill H — the reason people are talking about having the House pass the Senate bill is that the Senate could then vote on it without going through the procedural nonsense that requires 60 votes. Instead, it could just go right to a full Senate vote and would need only 51 votes. In other words, because of the Senate’s procedural rules, that’s probably the only hope we have that any bill will be passed at all.
Maha, I’m afraid you misunderstand reconciliation. If the House passed the Senate version of the bill it would promptly go to the President’s desk and be signed into law.
The full term for “reconciliation” is actually “tax and spending reconciliation,” and it is a method created to prevent the country’s operations from being halted by deadlock in the Senate. It is limited to matters of taxes and spending only, and items being passed are subject to 60 votes to assure that they are not matters other than taxes and spending. There are procedural matters within the process that require 60 votes before it reaches the actual vote where only 50 votes are required, and the majority of the health care reform bill would not make it through that process. No matter that is not a tax or a specifically a spending matter would make it through that process, and anything that does get passed by “reconciliation” is limited to five years duration, after which it has to be done all over again.
My opinion is th@t we @re losing these elections bec@use we @re @llowing the repugs to shift the bl@me for the current st@te of @ff@irs onto the dems. Toss in news medi@ f@iling in it’s duties to the public @nd you h@ve fuel for the fire.
c@n you tell my @ key is not working?…ple@se fix this if you c@n @nd delete this line…
I guess the south (where I @m from), is not the only pl@ce mucking up the future of out country.
If the House passed the Senate version of the bill it would promptly go to the President’s desk and be signed into law.
OK, well, then that’s why people are talking about the House passing the Senate bill, and it’s also why I think your hand-wringing over the elitist Senate running roughshod over the House is a tad overwrought.
“I think your hand-wringing over the elitist Senate running roughshod over the House is a tad overwrought.”
I respect your opinion that process is less important than results. I don’t agree with it, but I respect it sufficiently not to express my disagreement with it quite as condescendingly as you do.
I respect your opinion that process is less important than results.
I don’t think that at all. I’m saying that letting the Senate bill become law probably is the only process left to us. I think it would be a miracle to get a hcr bill any other way.