Two things I read in this morning's NYTimes I think are worthy of note:
1. The NYTimes editorial board has a great piece out making the case for reconciliation in a very succinct, reasoned way. It lays out three important arguments:
(a) The Republicans has no moderates, only partisan conservatives who want to see this as Obama's Waterloo.
Mr. Obama should know from sad experience the pitfalls of seeking bipartisan cooperation from a Republican Party that has sloughed off most of its moderates and is dominated by its right wing. His stimulus package was supported by no Republicans in the House and only three Republicans in the Senate, so-called moderates whose support was won by shrinking the package below the size at which it would have done the most good.
[...]
Even if the group reaches an agreement, which is by no means certain, its compromise is unlikely to win support from a Republican Party that seems bent on delay.
(b) Grassley, who I think made his critical mistake when he said he was only interested in a bill that could achieve more than just 3 or 4 Republican votes, is negotiating to a place where not just fundamental reform is untenable- because he wants so many Republicans to sign on that the legislation is weak tea- but where it just ain't going to happen, because too many Republicans will vote against any bill. E.g., it should be clear to the Administration that where Grassley is leading them by the nose is not a place they will be comfortable in, either because the bill is so weak or because there will be no bill at all.
(c) The Democrats should move forward on using reconciliation, and a great statement against the pitfalls of bipartisanship, sacrificing reform for comity.
Clearly the reconciliation approach is a risky and less desirable way to enact comprehensive health care reforms. The only worse approach would be to retreat to modest gestures in an effort to win Republican acquiescence. It is barely possible that the Senate Finance Committee might pull off a miracle and devise a comprehensive solution that could win broad support, or get one or more Republicans to vote to break a filibuster. If not, the Democrats need to push for as much reform as possible through majority vote.
2. Deborah Solomon has her usual Sunday magazine interview, this time with Tom Daschle. Check out the exchange over his advising United Health Group:
It has been reported that you're a paid adviser to the insurance giant UnitedHealth Group, which opposes your belief that health care reform needs to have a public option. Why do you work with them?
On the left there are those who say that you should never talk to people who differ with you on a high-profile issue. My question to the left would be, whom would they advise these insurance companies talk to? Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin? That's the alternative. They can talk to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, or they can talk to me.
There are two points to be made here. First is that I don't know what kind of good Daschle thinks he's doing. dday reported here on OpenLeft just last week that they were encouraging their own employees to speak with "advocacy specialist" to educate them on language to use opposing a public health insurance option, and to attend tea-bagger anti-reform protests. They have, for years, funded the Lewin Group, a front group that is cited by conservatives opposing reform. I don't have doubts they have also dumped money into anti-reform ads and other efforts. Daschle is making the case that we should be happy he's helping keep the leash on them a bit, keeping them from full engaging in the battle, or something. I'm not sure how much worse it could get. What exactly is he keeping them from doing?
Secondly, you could make the same argument Daschle's making about advising any group. I could advise the US Chamber of Commerce or Altria on political strategy. But a lot of their executives will talk to Sarah Palin, or listen to Limbaugh and Beck, or bring in Newt Gingrich to speak at their conferences. Contrary to what Daschle is saying about an either/or choice, my advice will not keep them from listening to such voices. So if Daschle thinks United Health Group is going cold turkey on tuning out those nasty conservative voices, and listening only to the dulcet notes of him pleading with them to support a public option, he's deluding himself.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
