A disgrace for the Democrats

[babylonsister]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/11/disgrace-democrats-sabotage-health-bill

A disgrace for the Democrats

Obama's congressmen will sabotage the health bill to keep their seats. It is stomach-churning
Michael Tomasky


In our House of Representatives – "the people's body" – the Democrats at this moment enjoy a gaudy 75-seat majority. Wait. Did I just put "Democrats" and "enjoy" in the same sentence? Scratch that. The Democrats suffer the affliction of a 75-seat majority. That's a joke, except not really. What is going on right now in the lower house vis a vis healthcare reform is a stomach-turning sight to behold – a saga of preening, duplicity, pomposity, self-interest and, most of all, cowardice that is worthy of Holinshed. The players in this drama are participating in the destruction of their own party. They know this. And they persist.

snip//

Here's the situation. Everyone knows that if reform passes, it's a historic accomplishment for the party and the president. Yes, Republicans will attack it as a government takeover of the health sector. But at least Democrats will be able to say that on the matter on which they spent months and months, they finally won. And – this part is more important – everyone knows that if it fails, it's a historic setback for the party and the president. This fall's elections could be a total wipeout for Democrats.

Everyone knows this. And yet, some Democrats will still oppose it. Why? For two reasons. First, some, especially among those aforementioned 49, will face well-financed Grand Old Party opponents and lose. In fairness to them, that's actually a somewhat logical analysis.

But second, we move from logic to the realm of psychology. Passage of a big health reform bill is a classic Rumsfeldian "unknown unknown". Congress hasn't passed a bill like this in, as I said, four decades. What will happen? What spites and furies will be unleashed? It will alter the political landscape for years to come. But how?

Politicians dread these questions. So, far better that there's no vote at all. That's a known. They can go back to their districts and say: "Well, we moved too fast, Obama overreached, and now we'll start again at square one." That, of course, won't happen. Reform will die. But that's what they'll say. And they'll return to their collective 13% (you read that right) job approval rating and their nice important jobs in a body that is a national laughing stock and is institutionally incapable of taking actual steps to fix actual problems in American society.

Or they can take a little risk on what will be for most of them the single most substantively consequential vote of their entire careers, even understanding (horror) that some of them might lose in the election. We can't have that, right? God forbid someone lose a seat in Congress. Life itself will end. I mean, what an unimaginable existence: getting a well-paying job as a lobbyist or corporate rainmaker, being called "congressman" for the rest of your life, drawing a congressional pension – and, by the way, congressional healthcare … Dante himself couldn't have imagined such a savage circle of hell.

I should note that there exists a small handful of Democrats who should fairly be given a pass on the vote. They have no seniority, no long-term relationships with the constituents, and come from deep-red districts. They number around 15 or so.

But the others? Disgraceful. Virtually all of them have tens of thousands, or sometimes more than 100,000, adult constituents with no private insurance. If they're not in Washington to do something about that, then what are they there to do? Please don't answer that question.

[HughMoran]

1. "duplicity, pomposity, self-interest and, most of all, cowardice"

A-fricken-men

[still_one]

2. " a small handful of Democrats who should fairly be given a pass on the vote"

no one should be given a pass on any vote

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Politicians are a petulent batch of people.

The year spent focused on the Senate, and on particular Senators who were being set apart as key votes, surely was not going to help when it finally landed in the House. For months it was as if the House did not exist, just Snowe, Liberman, Bauchus...pettiness, but that is the way it is.
In addition, they are not Obama's Congressmen, they are their districts Congress Members, their representatives. Not Obama's. Obama, he has a Rep as well, from his home district in Chicago, probably can get him on the phone easily. That is his congressperson.
Congressmen? Are the women not voting on this? Reads like a bit of the 1970's.

[Jennicut]

4. I would give a pass to Dems only who legitimately had philosophical differences, like Kucinich.

Do conservative blue dogs have philosophical differences? Perhaps. But then they are barely Dems. Most are simply cowards who will do nothing substantial in their political careers anyway...they won't risk anything so they will do nothing.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Kick...Rec.

If I could plunk down 100 recs on this OP, I would.

"What is going on right now in the lower house vis a vis healthcare reform is a stomach-turning sight to behold..."

Yet I would argue that it's not just Dems in the House. It's all "Dems" everywhere who are doing their damndest to stand in the way of real reform. Screw them all. Fucking serial whining malcontents...

[niceypoo]

6. The Democrats have no choice but to pass it

They ruined the bill with their mindless 'bipartisanship' fantasy, and in the process painted themselves into a corner from which there is only one way out.

Bravo

[Phx_Dem]

7. What's also a disgrace is that this article wasn't written by U.S. reporter

[GeorgeGist]

8. twiddle

[babylonsister]

9. Now there's a righteous argument from Georgie!

:rofl:

[Cha]

10. I called my blue dog today and told his aide

that if he voted no on Health Care Reform that I would vote no on him. Mitch Stewart sent me the email with his number. I called him last week too but he hadn't decided then.

I also told him I wasn't buying Arcuri's excuses.