home

Baucus: Fool Or Knave?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:04:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

And that's Ezra, feeling the prevailing breeze and trying to remain relevant:

[Grassley]has made Baucus look like a weak, ineffectual fool. . . . He let Baucus end the process with a compromised bill and not a single vote of confidence from his Republican colleagues. He made Baucus look like a knave.

Later Ezra writes "Baucus [was left] with little evident power at this juncture. . . . That means the White House and the Senate leadership are going to play the primary role in both offering concessions and guaranteeing their preservation in the process. The bill remains in Max Baucus's committee, but at this point, it's largely out of his hands."

Ezra is a bit of a mouthpiece for the White House these days so this is a harbinger that Baucus has been thrown under the bus by the White House. Yesterday was a big day.

Speaking for me only

< Pelosi: House HCR Bill Will Include Public Option | Thursday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Baucus: Fool Or Knave? | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Baucus is a manipulative SOB. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:06:22 PM EST
    See the source of the writing of this bill:  all former insurance industry execs. now on Baucus's staff.  

    I think it's a mistake to blame... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Romberry on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 04:05:20 AM EST
    ...Baucus for the health care bill much in the same way that it's a mistake to blame White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for Obama's actions (or lack thereof.)

    Baucus has, until now, had the support of the White House. Anyone who thinks that Baucus was doing anything in that committee or with the Gang of Six without the White House both knowing and approving (as they continue their Quixotic quest to implement Obama's PPUS -- short for Post-Partisan Unity Shtick) would be well served to review much of what has been reported over these last few months as Baucus has worked to deliver what this White House in reality seems to want.

    From  Slate yesterday:

    When the chairman of the Finance committee announced his long-awaited health care reform legislation Wednesday, the opposition from left and right was so consistent that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's communications director forwarded a list of about 20 articles chronicling the discontent. "The only thing bipartisan is the opposition," it read.

    And the strongest abuse has come from inside the Democratic Party. When President Obama mentioned the Baucus bill on Thursday, he received scattered boos. Howard Dean said it was "the worst piece of health care legislation I've seen in 30 years."

    ...

    In recent private meetings with senators, the president has been selling the Baucus bill. No, the bill doesn't include the public option, which Obama has advocated in public. But in private meetings, Obama isn't pushing the public option, according to Senate Democratic aides. "The public option is dead," said one. Instead, the president is emphasizing other fixes in the legislation.

    And from The Hill a few days back:

    (Senator Jay) Rockefeller emerged from the Senate Democrats' weekly luncheon Tuesday afternoon, which featured an appearance by President Barack Obama's communications guru David Axelrod, wondering aloud (perhaps rhetorically) whether the White House's get-it-done message to Congress wasn't bold enough.

    "David's in there -- Axelrod -- saying we've got to try to get `something.' So, the new benchmark is, `Well, if we can do something, if we can do anything, then we can say we did healthcare reform,'" Rockefeller said.

    "Are we getting to the point where, if we do anything, we've achieved our purpose?" he said...

    Baucus may be getting thrown under the bus by this White House, but at least he has company there. (Max should say hello to Van Jones.)

    The Baucus bill is awful, no doubt. But the Baucus bill is 100 percent the result of this administrations bi-partisan PPUS fetish...and also I think a fair representation of just what sort of "progressive" and "fighter" Barack Obama (marketing slogans of "Hope and Change" notwithstanding) really is.

    Parent

    Why is it a choice? (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:10:02 PM EST
    Can't he be both--with a good helping a BigInsurance wh*re thrown in for good measure?

    I vote for your third description (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    as being the most accurate.

    Parent
    Hope we can add ex-senator to that list soon (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:25:32 PM EST
    I would really rather have a Republican than a Dem that can get punked by Chuck Grassley.

    Parent
    Excuse Me (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    Why in the hell are the WH and Senate leadership offering any further concessions let alone guaranteeing their preservation in the process?

    Too many concessions have already been given to the point that the bill is counterproductive to anything remotely related to health care reform.  

    Grassley (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:16:52 PM EST
    only made Baucus look like a knave? I would say this is mighty embarrassing to Obama and he looks like a fool too.

    This whole HCR continues to have one botched moment after another. The GOP just ran another truck over Obama it looks like.

    I was tempted to ask: Ezra: fool or knave? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:18:01 PM EST


    Now, now. Is Ezra here? (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:30:06 PM EST


    Parent
    He's probably lurking (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    BTD is such a jerk :)  Hasn't Ezra referenced BTD's jerkiness?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    Smart of him. Better to not respond.

    It's not my goal to get him to respond anyway.

    Really to expose.

    As I have written, Ezra is a smart guy headed to the top of the Media.

    To get there, he's doing what he thinks he has to do. Sort of like a pol.

    I'm so glad I do not have to play those games.

    Parent

    Me too cuz I'd have no place to blog (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    that I wouldn't get kicked out of for refusing to be politically correctly, keeping a civil tongue in my head, screwed over :)  Miss Laura hates me.  It's my badge of honor.

    Parent
    Arguably (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:18:24 PM EST
    one might postulate an intentional, perhaps 11-dimensional strategy which involves the creation of a bill with the maximum amount of watered-down centrism and compromise, just to make the point that not a single Republican will accept it anyway and thus the opposition party has no good-faith interest in reform.

    Perhaps Bob Woodward will even write the Official Hagiography this way.  It strikes me as a strategy that would go way, way over the heads of the public at large, who are not hovering by their polling machines waiting to see if the President's efforts at bipartisanship are genuine - only the Beltway media cares about that - but who knows.  Either way it's not looking good for the Baucus Bill, so we may get to keep the Republic after all.

    Woodword and Obama both (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    The White House has long believed that the average voter is less concerned about whether large numbers of Republicans support the Administration's priorities than whether the President is making an honest effort to attract GOP support.

    from yesterday

    Even so, the strategy is still "let Congress figure it out."  Is what Baucus does also the President's honest effort to attract GOP support?

    I mean, as far as I can see our President has been as powerful as a kitten in shaping the public debate.  Assigning him a lot of agency here is questionable.

    Parent

    The many roles of Baucus (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:12:18 PM EST
    I'm not sure if the play here is 11 dimensional...or something more obvious. I do believe that Sen. Baucus is a survivor, a longtime Democrat in Montana weaving through all kinds of winds and always maneuvering along the trails.  He can look temperate to the center, supportive to a timid White House (in terms of bringing the bill in under the highest $ projections) and friendly to whatever corporate insurance donors may be involved...and, then, he can decide to vote with the majority Dems for the bill that emerges from the eventual conference. (By then, he can paint himself however he wants.) And, of course, the news media can now write the story that the Republicans balk at everything because the Baucus "bipartisan" effort failed.  Fascinating.  I wonder who the conferees will be???

    Parent
    Neither fool nor knave, but slug trying to play (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    us for suckers.

    AS I noted in a comment on the open thread, one of the commenters over at Emptywheel's place got into the .pdf of the plan (right after it was released) and found not only that it had been drafted by the former healthcare lobbyist (a VP at Wellpoint) recently hired by Baucus, but also that it had been drafted in June.  That news and the identity of the author broke at noon Pacific time on September 8 - nine days ago.

    And it was circulating around K street for weeks.  Literally.

    So, all that time Baucus spent on "negotiating" and "working to build consensus" with the Gang of Six was ... kabuki theater.  He had a plan in his pocket and was milking the illusion of working it to delay health care.

    To what he hoped would be the ultimate benefit of his true constituents - the insurance industry.

    The idea, I suppose, was to stall and string out the process and then give us a bum's rush and ram this crap bill down our throats much like the so-called PATRIOT Act and most of the other abominations we've seen this decade.  P*ss away months, then give us 800 pages and demand an upordownvote rightnow.

    When I look at the pdf (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:27:10 PM EST
    it says the document was created on 9/6/09.

    Are you sure this particular "revelation" wasn't uncovered by one of our European friends who reads dates backwards, perhaps?  Because I frankly find it very hard to believe that the document has remained in unaltered form since June.

    Parent

    Well, that is a possibility, but (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:41:27 PM EST
    you also have to look at what Mike Ross (an Arkansas Blue Dog congressman) submitted as "his" plan, back at the end of July.  (Read the timeline in there - PhARMA got its side deals in with the WH back on May 11 - and those are in the Baucus bill.)

    Ross' plan matched Baucus' almost exactly, despite being more than a month "older" (if you accept the 9/6/09 as Septe,mber 6, 2009) than Baucus'.  

    The fact remains that Baucus released his plan first to K Street and the lobbyists, and only later to the WH and his senatorial colleagues.

    Basically, he sandbagged everyone except his real constituents - the insurance industry.

    Parent

    There are clear similarities (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:56:53 PM EST
    but I still think it is implausible that Fowler's document was created and circulated back in June.

    I also think it is a drastic overstatement to say that Baucus' proposal and Ross' amendment "match almost exactly."  Yes, the co-op portion of Baucus' proposal (1 page of an 18-page document) appears to closely track the language of Ross' amendment (3 pages of a 28-page document).  This doesn't strike me as scandalous or even particularly surprising.  If the "Gang of Six" decided that they liked the icky co-op idea, why would they reinvent the wheel as opposed to adopting the detailed co-op proposal already on the table in the House?

    Parent

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    the idea of a random congressman and the Senate Finance chair collaborating in that way is something from another planet.  Baucus ain't known for gracefully letting others take the lead on his turf, and he's very well known for cheerfully taking others' ideas he likes and presenting them as his own.

    Plus which, not a single one of these guys is a good enough actor to carry off such a scam for months.

    Parent

    I am more inclinned to believe (none / 0) (#25)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:44:00 PM EST
    it was a "Feeney Amendment" type of approach, only this time it was the insurance industry (as opposed to Cheney and Ashcroft) telling its friends in the House and Senate what they wanted to have introduced, having previously drafted it themselves.

    Parent
    The .pdf may have been created in September, (none / 0) (#32)
    by cwolf on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:18:50 PM EST
    ...but it would have been written with a different program than Adobe Acrobat - which is difficult to use as a word processor,  most *likely M$ WORD.

    That Word .doc is what would have been created in June.

    * There are many other word processors in addition to WORD that may have been the source application.

    Parent

    What evidence (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:23:09 PM EST
    that the original Word document was created in June?  I am aware of none.

    Parent
    This could get technical so - hold on (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by cwolf on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:47:06 PM EST
    1 -I didn't say it was created in WORD. I said it (the writing as opposed to the pdf file) was written in a different application (app) than Adobe Acrobat - which is the Primary app for creating pdf files.
    2 - Someone else said it was written in June, I said it is what "would have been written in june", leaving to the reader to understand that it could have been written another time,( but not later than Sep. 6.)
    PDF means Protable Document Format. The virtue of pdf is that documents (usually) look and print like they should on any computer with a PDF Reader. Writings offered in pdf are almost always prepare in a different app - and converted to pdf for distribution.
    3 - The Bill is long, complicated and was obviously not written in a day. It could not have been prepared on the  9/6/09 so-called creation date.
    4 - On the other hand, It was created on a computer that belongs to or was shared with the Fowler operator.

    In my mind's eye, the name of the Creator is of much greater significance that the arbitrary date of Creation,,,
    and for this PDF the creator is Wellpoint's old VP Fowler

    Parent

    The allegation (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    was that the document was written and distributed to lobbyists in June, but not disclosed to us until last week.

    As far as I can tell, the only evidence for this theory was that the pdf document was dated in June, which it wasn't.

    I am not attempting to disprove the theory altogether, which strikes me as an impossible task.  I am simply pointing out that the one and only piece of affirmative evidence is invalid.  If people want to believe the document was written in June anyway, I'm not exactly sure what the point is, but knock yourselves out.

    Parent

    For me, it matters less when the plan (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:58:13 PM EST
    was written than who wrote it.

    And, I am more than annoyed at how little attention has been paid by the media to this aspect of the reform process - not just the health industry associations of the staffs involved in writing plans, proposals or bills, but the associations our elected representatives' family members have with the industry.

    When the thing was written is just a bright, shiny object that is so easy to dismiss that it is makes it much, much easier to walk away from the elements of the process that should be of concern to all of us.

    Where's the transparency?  The accountability?  I don't see any, and that's one reason we are where we are.

    Parent

    The document could have been Created any time. (none / 0) (#66)
    by cwolf on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 06:17:38 PM EST
    Whether it started out as Backups original White Paper from late 2008 or was created somewhere else any time before or since, the thing you do not want to see is that Fowler Created the PDF file.

    That means Former Wellpoint VP Fowler is the last person in the world who possessed the editable working version of the Finance Committee Health Care Reform Bill before it was frozen by converting it to a PDF file for distribution to a waiting world.

    Fowler swirls within the Axis of Illness. She's one of them. She does its bidding regardless of her title, position or current rung on the ladder.

    Parent

    Not Trying To Be Too Nitpicky Here (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by The Maven on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 07:06:06 PM EST
    but the document in question here wasn't a draft of the actual proposed reform bill, but Sen. Baucus's "framework" for Group of Six consideration:
    This document constitutes a framework of a plan for consideration by the Bipartisan Six. The policies outlined here represent many of the policies discussed with Finance Committee members and described in previous options papers. In addition, the policies also reflect the group's conversations and the group's work throughout the summer, including throughout the August recess. Chairman Baucus proposes this framework for consideration and response by the next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 8, 2009.

    That such a document would have as its principal compiler/editor a senior staffer should surprise no one, and Fowler's revolving-door history (from gov't to private industry and back again) was hardly unknown before this disclosure.  What made this especially embarrassing was that neither Fowler nor anyone else on the staff made sure that there was no identifying metadata associated with the document at the time of its conversion from Word to a PDF file.  For whatever it's worth, the Nov. 2008 White Paper shows SAA (whoever that might be) as its "author".

    But, like Capt. Renault, I have to think that we're all shocked, shocked! to discover (once and future) industry flacks on congressional staffs, drafting vital chunks of legislation.  Or maybe I'm just so cynical that I'm resigned to it being part of the natural order of things in DC.

    Parent

    You got it.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by cwolf on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 07:38:44 PM EST
    ...the natural order of things in DC.


    Parent
    Epitaphs to avoid: (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    Chuck Grassley made me look weak and ineffectual.

    Boy, that is saying something.

    I hope the corrupt Baucus bill dies a slow death, as it deserves. Time for the proponents of the HELP Bill and House Bill to rush into the void, and lets get this thing to conference already.

    ezra (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Turkana on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    surprised by the obvious? did i mention that i think he's a perfect fit for the wapo?

    Speaking of fools or knaves (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    Another Senator who runs as a D qualifies big time for both descriptions.

    Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, typically one of the hardest votes for Democratic leaders to corral, is looming as a particularly tough sell [on health care]. "At the end of the day, I want to see everything before I commit to anything," said Mr. Nelson, who added that he would have trouble backing a bill that did not have some Republican support. (emphasis added)

    This is stunning, really. It's one thing for a legislator to talk in platitudes about pursuing policies that could create bipartisanship. It's quite another thing for a legislator to openly say his vote will be explicitly contingent on the votes of the other party irrespective of the policy he's voting on. The latter takes bipartisanship from a mere fetish to an obsessive compulsive fixation, as if the legislator was elected not to judge policy, write legislation or represent constituents, but to only hand out his vote if the other party hands out theirs. Open Left
    HC reform is still in the ICU. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    I wouldn't bet the farm on a good outcome.  Hell, I wouldn't even bet the barn.

    I'd like to be surprised, tho.  We have the votes.  All it takes is leadership.

    Hello?

    I think health care reform (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 06:03:28 PM EST
    hasn't even made it to the ICU because it's still sitting in the ER at the end of the triage line, and since it can't be turfed - no other ER wants to take on the train wreck - will probably die with no dignity on the cold linoleum floor.

     

    Parent

    Cheery. Think I'll have a drink. (none / 0) (#69)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 07:15:41 PM EST


    Parent
    "Concessions", it should be clear... (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by mike in dc on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:39:15 PM EST
    ...are actually being offered not to placate Republicans, but conservative Democrats, and the only way I'd even support that is if we got a) a public option without triggers, and b) an absolutely unified party-line vote in favor of the bill (with absolutely zero defectors).

    Absent that, do what it takes to get 50-51 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House, and screw everyone else.

    Not his fault (3.50 / 2) (#16)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    It's all Rahm's fault!! Because Rahm is a Clintonite, and no blame can attach to Obama, and when in doubt, blame a Clinton. Just yesterday Jane Hamsher was raving about Rahm as the killer of real health care reform and couldn't bring herself to mention Obama by name.

    She did the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Pacific John on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    in her veal pen post. With her, the White House is tremendously destructive, but never Obama.

    Parent
    Does it never (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    occur to people like Hamsher that if Obama is so inept that he's bum rushed by his own staff that he's also too inept to be President.  That if Rahm doesn't carry the President's water that the President can and should fire him.

    I have a real problem with the 'bad apples' theory.

    What comes out of the White House is what Obama wants to come out of the White House.

    Parent

    She is trying to do something (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    regarding the public option.

    Bashing Obama directly NOW would not be productive for what she is trying to do.

    Parent

    I think this is wrong (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Pacific John on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:20:09 PM EST
    The only time I can remember when Obama changed course in the right direction was when his volunteers threatened to go nuclear over his attempt to pack his CA DNC delegation with big donors.

    I suggest that Obama will only choose voters over money when his own supporters hold a gun to his head.

    Parent

    Hamsher is aiming at the CPC (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:24:00 PM EST
    not Obama.

    Parent
    The problem is the same (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Pacific John on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:50:04 PM EST
    Unless people talk about this coherently, health care reform will fail. Obama will not budge until people illuminate his responsibilities and hold him accountable. The CPC can't do it on their own or their members will be punished by the Obama operation, but they can step into the space created by a very angry base. It will take teamwork unobscured by illusions of clothed emperors.

    I still think that Obama will only be successful if his base treats him with the same skepticism they would have applied to Pres. Hillary, which is to say, 360 degree s*** storms anytime he betrays core Dem ideals.

    Parent

    I agree it would not be productive (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:32:04 PM EST
    now for two reasons.

    1. She is trying to influence Democratic members of Congress to support her position. This is best accomplished from a position of helping Obama and the Dems reach the most political benefit from the legislation.

    2. By mainly concentrating on the issue, it prevents the threads from completely deteriorating into a discussion of personalities rather than the issue at hand. No benefit in losing the main talking points on the issue.


    Parent
    That makes sense, but (none / 0) (#43)
    by Left of the Left on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:39:06 PM EST
    By referring to him as President Rahm and blaming him, isnt it making it a bit of a personality thing. She picks a target that isnt exactly popular. That goes against the second point, no?

    I understand what you're saying, but if that was the case, that's not exactly sticking to the issues, and if you're going to single someone out, why kill the messenger?

    I'm completely ok with her taking on Rahm, but the defense of why not Obama is a bit tortured and undercut by her picking on Rahm.

    Parent

    Rahm has a lot fewer supporters (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:49:56 PM EST
    on the blogs than Obama (does he have any?). Her threads do not get blog swarms for taking on Rahm. She normally gets agreement and then discussion of the issue.

    I agree the fact that she does weakens my second argument somewhat but to me it has more to do with the degree of deterioration. Hope you get my drift.

    Parent

    I do. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Left of the Left on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:12:35 PM EST
    I just think a discussion ignoring, or better yet, excluding Obamas part in what is happening isnt as honest or effective as can be. If he keeps being able to avoid criticism, whats to stop him from just getting another Rahm when this one is all worn out.

    Parent
    Not sure I agree that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:52:24 PM EST
    is not being criticized when bloggers refer to President Rahm or the TL version  President Snowe. It is just a less direct.

    If you are Obama, would you enjoy hearing that people are implying that Rahm or Snowe have more presidential power than you do?

    When trying to win your position, you use the tools that you believe will be the most effective to garner a win. As long as you are honest on the actual issues, presentation is a matter of individual choice on how to be effective, IMO you are not being dishonest by  omitting items not relevant to the actual issue that might be counterproductive. Plenty of time to place the blame squarely on Obama when and if bad legislation is passed.

    Parent

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Left of the Left on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 06:07:48 PM EST
    I think we largely agree, just degrees of accountability is all.

    Parent
    As far as I'm concerned, we agree (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 06:19:10 PM EST
    entirely on who has the responsibility for the eventual outcome of HCR. We just have different ideas on how to get what we both want. Style differences - more than one way to skin a horse.  

    Parent
    Is that (none / 0) (#73)
    by Spamlet on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:46:41 PM EST
    right from the cat's mouth? :-)

    more than one way to skin a horse


    Parent
    Oh, dopey me (none / 0) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:03:40 PM EST
    When I screw up I do a good job. Normally rather funny though.

    Since HCR has become such a hugh debacle, it takes something bigger than just skinning a cat. Hows that for trying to rebound from my mistake? Come to think about it, I sound just like a politician with that one.

    Parent

    You mean (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Spamlet on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:16:26 PM EST
    like a cat's @ss?

    I sound just like a politician

    (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

    Parent

    You are good (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 09:19:42 PM EST


    Parent
    I very much doubt (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by SGITR on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    that Jane Hamsher bashing Obama instead of a surrogate is going to kill the public option.

    If she wants a public option then Obama is exactly who she should be bashing because she wants it and Obama obviously doesn't.

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Left of the Left on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:23:57 PM EST
    Isnt it that pols only respond to criticism? If it wouldnt be beneficial now, when he is (by action or inaction) having the WH impede the public option, then when would it be, once it's dead? Or once it's passed? I'm not looking to criticize you on this, I'm honestly curious as to your thinking on this. If not now, when?

    Parent
    Obama supports the public option (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:24:49 PM EST
    Ar least publically.

    The important thing is to have the CPC hold the line.

    Parent

    And then what? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Pacific John on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:53:11 PM EST
    This is s serious question.

    Is there any chance CPC line items will make it past the Senate and into law unless Obama draws a line in the sand? Isn't it necessary to have both the CPC and the WH firmly behind the public option, and without either one, it will fail?

    Parent

    If the CPC holds the line (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:07:03 PM EST
    and the public option makes it in, and Obama "supports" it like he says in all of his wonderful speeches that he delivers to all of us......how can Obama risk trying to undermine the public option?  A leak, and he is a great big speechifying liar.  I think it would very hard for Obama to give up his speechifying credibility, and the GOP would love to make him into a speechifying liar because they've had it with these beautiful stunning speeches.  I think his credibility means something to him.  I know it means something to people who despise him.

    Parent
    How can he risk going against (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 06:07:49 PM EST
    his public stance?

    The same way he always does: by telling us we really didn't understand or know everything that he did, and that he made the best decision he could under the circumstances.

    Shoot, he doesn't even need the teleprompter for that one.

    Parent

    But Tracey, (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Pacific John on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:56:01 PM EST
    he lies about everything from FISA to Wall St regulation to transparancy to Bush's torture policies to the Unitary Executive.

    The way I see it, there will be so much noise if the House passes a bill, anything substantial Obama does not dig in over will be corrupted by the process.

    And precisely what is the public option Obama suggests he's for? Because everything is nuanced and unclear, there is a lot of room for evasion.

    He can say he's for it, but if he doesn't produce some robust (tm) leadership, it won't mean anything when the bill somehow gets gutted or fails in the Senate.

    Parent

    I have to win one fight at a time man :) (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:25:20 PM EST
    It's how I live :)

    Parent
    Um, you're (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Pacific John on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 08:38:40 PM EST
    Superwoman. Nothing is too much for you. :)

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Left of the Left on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:07:24 PM EST
    I think this,

    Ar least publically.

    is the problem with that. The CPC can hold the line all it wants, with no back up they are just the fringe left. If at the end of the day they're the only ones holding the line, we've lost.

    Parent

    Not so (none / 0) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    They, with the "help" of Republicans, can kill the bill.  Without the progressive caucus there aren't enough votes to pass the bill.

    Parent
    Well yes, (none / 0) (#56)
    by Left of the Left on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:18:53 PM EST
    I was talking more about getting the public option. CPC is the only ones keeping it alive. But CPC alone wont get us there.

    Parent
    There are Senators stating that (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 05:56:12 PM EST
    a public option is necessary and that they would have trouble voting for a bill without it. Not as many as I would like and maybe not enough, but they are there.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    what comes out of the administration is what Obama wants, or maybe the problem really is terminal ineptitude.

    Parent
    Opossum (4.33 / 6) (#24)
    by cal1942 on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    sher's on the loose again giving cheap shot ratings for anything negative about the precious, truth be damned.

    Parent
    Yes Obama is Rahm's Boss (none / 0) (#30)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    Since the Nineties jerk off Democrats from both Arkansas and Illinois have found Rahm useful.  Obama certainly can't get enough of him.  Rahm sitting out the primary fight last year must've been like the U.S. on the sidelines watching Poland and the Ukraine fight a war against each other.

    Why is he so useful?  Rahm is highly skilled at implementing a Republican agenda. Rahm knows how to intimidate Congressional Democrats into voting for things like NAFTA, the WTO and Welfare Reform.  Rahm knows how to quietly condemn pro-union bills like anti-scab laws and EFCA by simply not lifting a finger to support them -- a kind of pro-business "dog whistle" among Democrats.  Rahm knows the code of honor that governs what promises an adminstration actually has to keep to corporations after taking their money.  And Rahm knows how to intimidate and silence veal pen organizations like Move On.

    The real issue is why jerk off Democrats -- be they from Arkansas or Illinois -- make it a priority to enact a Republican agenda while killing their own.  

    That and why we Democrats continue to nominate jerk offs to be our candidate.

    Parent

    Baucus... (3.50 / 2) (#79)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:51:03 AM EST
    Here's a good article about Baucus by Joshua Frank, who describes meeting him as a teenager, how excited he was, and how quickly he realized that Baucus is one of the most corrupt, bought-and-sold for members of Congress (I know, I know, it's from Counterpunch, but it's a good read):

    People continue to believe it's only the Republicans who have undermined everything progressives have fought for. I once believed this to be the case. I hated conservatives for their outright disregard for the little guy. But my short voyage out east as a teenager turned into a life lesson, teaching me that political affiliation means little when talking about real life consequences of compromising ideals. I think this is a lesson we must all keep in mind as many look to the Democrats, naively hoping that they can save us from the strangle of Glenn Beck's chock hold. Let's not allow fancy rhetoric or party loyalty derail our need for real change or our push for single-payer health care.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09172009.html

    And cal1942, thanks for the heads-up about the sher drive-bys. I must admit I don't pay much attention to ratings and am also bad about uprating people when they deserve it. But thanks!

    Knave (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    definitely

    this sounds good (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    to me

    Parent
    The President's Address (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:38:09 PM EST
    to the Joint Session of Congress was quite Baucusian.  So, it seems to me that the good Montana senator has become the canary in the mineshaft.

    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by cal1942 on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 03:58:06 PM EST
    you're right.  The last thing the country or the Democratic Party needs is for the Baucus bill to pass.

    Parent
    Baucus has been thrown under the bus by the White (none / 0) (#29)
    by cwolf on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:09:19 PM EST
    That "Baucus has been thrown under the bus by the White House" would seem to be born out by the WH meeting with
    Sens. Wyden & Bennett, cosponsors of a competing Health Insurance Bill.
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/17/783494/-Wyden,-Competition,-and-the-Public-Option

    Good news? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Left of the Left on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:32:24 PM EST
    I dont think so, when you read this:


    but senior administration officials confirmed it took place and characterized it as being part of Obama's ongoing effort to reach out to lawmakers in both parties.

    So it's like changing drivers when the problem is your destination, not who's taking you there.

    Parent

    You're going to go nuts (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 01:10:10 AM EST
    over the next years if you take every notice of meeting as meaning Obama is allied with the people he's meeting with.  For better or worse, that's not how Mr. PPUS operates.

    Parent
    Baucus Made his Own Bed (none / 0) (#50)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 04:58:44 PM EST


    Baucus: Fool Or Knave? | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment