If you could turn that into a routine like Abbot and Costello's (4.00 / 2)

famous, "Who's on first?" bit, you'd have one hell of an ad.

The truth about a tragedy played as comedy. What more do you want?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:54:05 AM CST

The "Party Line" (4.00 / 1)

From Greg Sargent at The Plum Line:

* Here's the message that Obama plans to deliver to Senate Dems during their White House meeting today, White House communications director  Dan Pfeiffer tells  Mike Allen:

   "If President Obama doesn't pass health reform, it's hard to imagine another president ever taking on this Herculean task. For those whose life's work is reforming health care, this may be the last train leaving the station."

Yeah, that'll sway Lieberman.

* Along these lines, Taegan Goddard  flags a pretty great Lieberman quote:

   "My wife said to me, 'Why do you always end up being the point person here?'"

Still more evidence, if you needed it, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with policy.

Doesn't seem to support Nate's thesis, to me.

---

by: bystander @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:11:57 AM CST

Scare tactics, nothing more, nothing less (0.00 / 0)

If President Obama doesn't pass health reform, it's hard to imagine another president ever taking on this Herculean task.

The WH would love for us all to believe this.  Unfortunately for Obama, it isn't true.

Remember, there are TWO motivations behind HCR: Universal Coverage and Affordability.  Yes, there have been efforts, for decades, to institute a universal health care system.  But not until the past 10-20 years, has the cost side grown so out of control.

Guess what?  If Obama doesn't pass HCR this year, he better get his ass in gear next year and the year after that or there will be no re-election in 2012.

It isn't hard to imagine another President tackling this issue.  It's hard to imagine another candidate getting the nomination without promising to tackle it.

Personally, my insurance premiums are out of control.  Guess what I will be voting on in '10, '12, '14, '16, and every election until the issue is addressed.  This problem isn't going away.  If Obama thinks that Democrats can ignore it for another 20 years if they blow it this time, they are in for a rude awakening.

---

by: space @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:30:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Leiberman will go along (4.00 / 1)

Because Snowe will. Only Lieberman has been lying and two-faced as you satirize. Snowe and Nelson have been negotiating in (apparently) good faith. Well, I should say "negotiating" for Snowe because her "negotiations" have basically been "capitulate to my every demand and I'll vote for it". But at this point they have (in the process of grovelling to Lieberman), so I'm expecting her support.

---

by: FairEconomist @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:25:44 AM CST

Why would Snowe not negotiate that way? (0.00 / 0)

To get as much as possible as she wants, she basically has to give in at the point just before Lieberman gives in, which is apparently close to never.  Don't give away freebies if you don't have to.  Progressives should learn to play hardball that way.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 09:59:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Kill the bill. (0.00 / 0)

At this point the bill is a suicide pact for the Democratic Party.  Nothing in this bill is worth losing it all over.

Kill the Senate bill & figure out a way to go on.  We aren't getting any Health Care reform now cause the 5 DINO's in the Senate.  Kill it.  Kill it now.

---

by: kindness @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:48:25 AM CST

Still Doesn't Explain Nate's Cluelessness (0.00 / 0)

Only sharpens what he fails to get.

Excuse me. I should have said: "Only" sharpens what he fails to get.  

My explanation: Nate's caught in the gravitational suckage of the Versailles-O-Sphere.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:49:44 AM CST

Because Nate ... (0.00 / 0)

like Matt Yglesias is a DLC-type Democrat

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:22:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree with Paul (0.00 / 0)

Although, I never got into Buffy the TV series.  Liked the movie too much.  Paul Ruebens was the perfect evil assistant.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

---

by: LeeNYC @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 15:58:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

When did Nate Silver say that Joe Lieberman is negotiating in good faith? (0.00 / 0)

I've been reading through his blog and the opinion seems to be that Lieberman is a "prick" who quite possibly is most interested in seeing liberals suffer.

When he says,

In other words, I don't see the ConservaDems -- with the possible and important exception of Joe Lieberman -- constantly moving the goalposts on the public option or otherwise negotiating in bad faith. Rather, I see them as having staked out a firm stance and sticking to it, and the public option advocates always facing a consequently uphill battle.

it appears to me that he is saying that Lieberman is different from the others.

I've noticed that Nate Silver tends to use qualifying rather than assertive language whenever he talks about non-quantifiable things, such as what a political actor might be thinking.  Others will go ahead and ascribe motives with certainty.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:58:08 AM CST

Great question! (0.00 / 0)

Can the author of this diary point to even one instance over the past couple weeks in which Nate either states or implies that Lieberman is negotiating in good faith? I've seen him state or imply the precise opposite of that premise several times.

---

by: SS451 @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

he is assuming (0.00 / 0)

That now that the Medicare buy-in is stripped from the bill that Lieberman will not filibuster. In other words, he is taking the bait again. What is to stop Lieberman or one of the others to say, tomorrow, or next week, "no, I am still filibustering the bill unless Y is removed." If you say "No, he's told Reid what that he'll support the new compromise bill" then you too are taking the bait.

Republicans+Lieberman intend to kill health care reform entirely and it looks like they will succeed unless Democrats in the Senate and WH grow spines and use tougher tactics. And not just play defense.

---

by: tremayne @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 12:54:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think his assumption... (0.00 / 0)

Is that at some point, Lieberman's goal-post moving crosses with Snowe's actual policy priorities. At that point, he loses his leverage and his spotlight. I think that's probably right, and that Lieberman is aware of that.

I do hope we don't have to find out exactly where that is. I suspect Snowe's policy wants are further to the right than the current bill is. And Lieberman may be feeling satisfied with his big victory over the mean ol' liberals.

---

by: SS451 @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 13:34:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]