home

Hating "the Left"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 10:42:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jon Chait writes:

The left has often played a destructive role in the health care saga, ultimately helping convince many liberals that the health care bill currently fighting for its life is a worthless compromise not worth fighting for.

The other day, Kevin Drum took the same line. Indeed, it is the consensus Village Dem line.

I do not understand the point anymore. Whether you think the Senate bill is the "most progressive legislation since 1965" (the Villagers) or just marginally better than the status quo (me), it simply is not very persuasive or helpful to attack the people you want to help you pass that bill. The irony in all this is that the folks they need to convince - the unions - do not care what "the Left" thinks, or what the Village thinks or any of this. They want the excise tax fixed. And if that does not happen, they will oppose the Senate bill. Why is this political reality never absorbed? Rahm Emanuel said "'There are no liberals left to get' in the Senate[.]" Perhaps so, but he needs to get "liberals" in the House. And that won't happen without union support. That is the political reality.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | The Now Not So Irrelevant President? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hating "the Left" | 28 comments (28 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Don't think the left played a big role (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    in the Senate Finance Committee's delay in getting a bill out of committee so that the Senate could vote on a final bill. Had they not spent months getting approvals from the industries and kissing Republican  a$$, the House and the Senate could have completed the reconciliation process while the Dems had a filibuster proof majority.

    Yeah, it's because of (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by david mizner on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:15:58 AM EST
    Jane Hamsher that a bill with a PO was pretty popular while  a bill without one wasn't. (It's funny: Village Dems go back and forth between mocking the left's smallness and holding it responsible for public opinion.)

    The elitism of the Village Dems has been on full display: Oh, if only the rubes knew what was in the bill, they'd love it!

    Fact is, we on "the left" warned for months that a bill w/o a PO and with an excise tax would be a hard sell to the public and to House members. We were right.

    Jane Hamsher is irrelevant (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    right now is my point.

    Parent
    My point as well. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by david mizner on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:33:44 AM EST
    But Chait and his ilk want to elevate Hamsher and her ilk, so that they can blame then for the failure of a crappy bill.

    Parent
    Sorry I missed your point (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    You are exactly right. This is an exercise in blame placement.

    Parent
    There was snark in there (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by david mizner on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:43:54 AM EST
    I forgot I was in a place where people don't know me.

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    I know you. My head was not in snark mode. My bad.

    Parent
    Oh please (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:36:09 AM EST
    Scott Brown won Mass. because of Jane Hamsher.  <snark>

    Parent
    If the fix is obvious (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Lora on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:36:49 AM EST
    ...and yet if they don't fix it, what will that tell us?

    Answer:  That they don't want it fixed.

    Well a fix would (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by david mizner on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:42:29 AM EST
    mean either shifting some of the costs to the rich and/or creating a bill that is not "deficit-neutral."

    Both are unacceptable to centrist and conservative dems in the Senate.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:37:36 AM EST
    I wonder if on some level the Senate is terrified that the House might pass their bill.

    Parent
    It's Been What -- 25 Years (none / 0) (#2)
    by The Maven on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:03:16 AM EST
    or so since The New Republic made an embrace of the center and open disdain for liberal policy its primary mission?  Not only is Chait's view typically insulting Village "wisdom", but it oozes with contempt for those who dare stand up for principles and refuse to compromise themselves out of any relevancy.

    I just don't get why he (or anyone else not openly affiliated with the Republicans) seems to pine for an eviscerated and demoralized Democratic base.  It's almost as if he longs for the days of an ineffective Dem minority, as he's fully absorbed the concept that responsible governing is hard work, and it just isn't worth the effort, so why not let the other side deal with it?  That's some serious self-loathing going on.

    My thought exactly (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:33:27 AM EST
    someone at the New Republic commenting about how the Left is so very destructive.

    What a surprise.

    And on this subject my position is that the political malpractice we've seen displayed over and over again (most recently here) by the Obama Administration is the problem.  That includes actually pushing for the stupid excise tax.

    Parent

    Chait and TNR (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:38:40 AM EST
    are not alone.

    Drum, Klein, Yglesias, Begala, all the Village Dems are playing the same game.

    Parent

    And losing. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 12:27:24 PM EST


    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#4)
    by MikeDitto on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:16:12 AM EST
    There is a significant contingent on the left who does not want to fix the bill but is spending significant amounts of money to kill it, with Jane Hamsher being the prime example.

    However the majority of the actual money and lobbying effort on the pro-reform side (which I would call the left), which is a coalition of labor, healthcare reformers, groups like AARP, and progressive organizations (of which my employer is part) is committed to passing the Senate bill with the excise tax adjustment.

    I don't think any member of the coalition is drawing any lines in the sand on the excise tax. Obviously labor is (rightly) very opposed to the tax, but there are more opportunities to fix it than in reconciliation on this bill (for instance in the HHS authorization bill) and to date they have not said with certainty that they would oppose the Senate bill on the excise tax alone. It's House Democrats that have taken that position.

    Umm (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    Perhaps you have not been reading the blogs these past weeks, but THIS - "with the excise tax adjustment" is the sticking point.

    Who cares what Jane Hamsher is doing.

    What matter is what Richard Trumka is doing.

    Honestly, your comment is as if you had not read my post.

    In fact that is PRECISELY what my post says.

    Jon Chait and Kevin Drum and none of the Village, nor do you for that matter, deal with the fact that the roadblock right now is the "excise tax adjustment" you so blithely mention in passing.

    You want to pass the bill? Convince the Senate to pass the reconciliation fix to the excise tax.

    It is simply ridiculous to discuss anything or anyone else right now if you really care about passing the bill.

    My gawd, Jane Hamsher. Can folks think of anything else? Amazing.

    Parent

    Point of order question? (none / 0) (#28)
    by pfish on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    And I'm not trying to be gadfly on the subject, but when you say "fix the excise tax" or when the villagers say "fix the excise tax" it's not entirely clear (to me, anyway) what "the fix" is.

    Is it eliminating the excise tax entirely?  If so, how to recover that co$t via reconciliation?  It is, after all, not insubstantial.  Or, if by "fix" what is meant is "eliminate the excise tax for the unions, (but continue to demand the rest of the tax-payers shoulder it)" then how to reconcile this with the special interest/backroom deals stink?

    Parent

    I'm not buying any fix it later proposals (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:23:18 AM EST
    when we were told that taking low cost birth control out of the stimulus was no big deal because they would get to it later how did that go?

    There is a credibility gap for many of us when it comes to the Democratic Party and we are not going to let up on the idea that it needs to be fixed now, not later.

    Parent

    Neither are the unions (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:29:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Hamsher's trying to kill (none / 0) (#7)
    by david mizner on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    the Senate bill, not health reform period.

    As for labor, it's hoping to get an exemption from the excise tax; that what it's supposed to do, fight for its members, but politically am excise tax with a carve out for "special interest" is no better, maybe worse, than an across the board excise tax. "Reform" is starting to look like a parody of Democratic party legislation, a mishmash of gifs to corporations and Democratic constituencies.

    Parent

    The unions actually were asking (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:31:13 AM EST
    for a complete gutting of the excise tax entirely from the bill so if it were to completely disappear they'd be okay with that too.

    Parent
    Let's be honest (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:33:58 AM EST
    the passage of no health bill is not really a problem for the unions.

    They will have protected their members.

    There is nothing in the Senate bill for the unions.

    Parent

    Oh absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    Union members by the large have decent health insurance.

    I'll admit I'm completely biased on this too. My hubby is in a union. We would have the equivalent of what is termed a cadillac plan. Our copays are completely reasonable and allow us to go to the physician when we have a need. We pay nothing for tests that are ordered by a physician. Any hospitalization is covered in entirety. Even our monthly out of pocket is reasonable($200) It's great insurance.

    The only thing that remotely might help us in any of the health care proposals would be removal of a lifetime cap.

    Oh and it would be nice if our 17 year old wouldn't need to worry about coverage in two years(he's only covered until he hits 19).

    Those would be things though that we might need to worry about in the long run though the excise tax would likely hurt us within the year.

    Parent

    All those Free Trade (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    agreements, NAFTA and the WTO, benefited unions in this country, how exactly? At least the Republicans have been somewhat open -- even brazen -- about their commitment to gutting organized labor. While the Dems have, for at least the last couple of the decades, given the impression of being a coterie of landed aristos who patronizingly pet 'those people with rough hands' during election cycles, while making how-many-Teamsters-to-screw-in-a-light-bulb jokes amongst themselves and negotiating the preconditions for the next wave of outsourcing.

    They should consider themselves fortunate if they can convince the unions of anything, at this point.

    Maybe Rahm is just being a little ahead of the realpolitik curve in his open lack of concern over what unions think.

    An important point ti understand (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:32:51 AM EST
    I've made it now a number of times, is that NAFTA passed over overwhelming Democratic opposition in the House.

    The unions lost it is true, but they held most of the Democratic Caucus in the House.

    The unions can not be beaten on the excise tax in the House.

    the Senate bill simply will not be passed unless the unions are on board.

    They won't be unless the senate agrees to an excise tax fix NOw, not later.

    Parent

    Great point (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    But the same strategy won't work this time. No Republican is voting for this bill--period.

    Parent
    So, where's the Senate sidecar? (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 12:18:29 PM EST
    That's really the bottom line....Are there 50 votes in the Senate for the sidecar that axes the excise tax?

    Hating "the Left" | 28 comments (28 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment