Month: September 2009

Shorter

by tristero

Shorter Norman Podhoretz:

I wrote my new book, Why Are Jews Liberal? because I can’t understand why all Jews aren’t as crazy as I am.

Shorter Leon Wieseltier (reviewing the book today on the highly prestigious front page of the New York Times Book Review):

This is a dreary book. [Wieseltier’s exact words.]

Shorter Sam Tanenhaus, Editor Of The New York Times Book Review:

Think I’ll give old Norm Podhoretz’s new book a really great shout-out. Sure, there are hundreds of more deserving books this week, but he’ll appreciate the publicity.

Shorter Political Ally Of Norman Podhoretz:

We should encourage all the rotten Jews to relocate to rightwing rural areas so they can be politically re-aligned.

The Moral Of The Story

Extreme rightwingers are adept at twisting stupid nonsense like NoPod’s thesis into an opportunity to harm those they hate, then accuse the victims of forcing the right to “suggest” or “encourage” repressive measures for rehabilitation. They’ve done so before.

Not that they need much encouragement. Let’s be clear: Jews, be they liberals, or even the badly deluded NoPod, have done nothing to inspire or trigger the ethnic cleansing proclivities of the right. These are people who jones hate; they seize on the flimsiest rationale to indulge.

The type of cheese you eat, or the way you like your coffee – remember the brie-eating, latte-sipping liberal? To the rightwingers that overrun networks like Fox and to whom even the most “mainstream” media defer, these trivialities are cast as moral issues, but really, they’re just grade A primo excuses to express hate and rage.

And man oh man, do they ever hate liberal Jews.

Shorter tristero

I am goddammed sick of this subject but NoPod’s stupid book keeps getting shoved in my face.

Why Don’t We Hear Bush’s Name Every Single Day?

by digby

Ron Brownstein, the non-DFH of the century, writes:

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially.

The Census’ final report card on Bush’s record presents an intriguing backdrop to today’s economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama’s combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush’s two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn’t always follow the electoral cycle. A president’s economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.

But few would argue that national economic policy is irrelevant to economic outcomes. And rightly or wrongly, voters still judge presidents and their parties largely by the economy’s performance during their watch. In that assessment, few measures do more than the Census data to answer the threshold question of whether a president left the day to day economic conditions of average Americans better than he found it.

If that’s the test, today’s report shows that Bush flunked on every relevant dimension-and not just because of the severe downturn that began last year.

Actually, maybe it’s too late. Unless the administration and the congress does a lot more to publicly take on these miscreants, it really will be the Democrats’ fault. And I don’t think the Republicans will be as polite about not looking in the rear view mirror.

.

Strategic Defiance

by digby

Big Tent Democrat says that I’m an idiot for thinking if the progressive caucus fails to vote no on a final health care bill that doesn’t have a public option, that they can then vote no as a bloc on other issues like war spending. He says they will never be taken seriously again.

Au contraire, mon frere. (I readily agree that I may be an idiot, but not this time.) There are many facets to negotiation but what really matters is what you are willing to to walk away from and what people think you are willing to walk away from. Here’s the real difference between health care reform and war funding: Progressives want to vote for the first and they don’t want to vote for the second. The strategy all flows from that.

A public plan is something they want in the health care legislation, but they also want a whole bunch of other things in the legislation as well, much of which will be of direct benefit to their constituents. Mostly, they want to pass an historic health care reform bill that the Democrats have been fighting for for over 60 years. They want it badly.

The war, on the other hand, gives them nothing. Obama had to twist arms high and hard the last time to get them on board and even had to put in some wacky IMF promise to keep the corporate lackeys in place. And it was only five months into his presidency. It won’t be the same next time he comes to them for money to escalate the war, especially after talking endlessly about controlling costs on health care. They really don’t want it.

This isn’t just about the power of the Progressive Bloc to change, move or obstruct legislation. It’s also about what the Progressive Bloc really cares about and what their ultimate bottom line really is. Issues matter more the simple exercise of power and on health care it’s a far more complicated set of criteria than it is on the war.

What we are asking them to do in these cases is defy their president on a bill they both want very much to pass and I would suggest that isn’t going to happen very often, if ever. But that doesn’t mean that progressives aren’t ever going to defy their president — they are just far more likely to do it on legislation that he wants to pass and they don’t. They can win too, if they argue from the perspective of fundamental principles and values. The war is the logical place for them to make that kind of stand, although it looks like Obama is going to give them quite a few other opportunities as well.

None of this is to say that health care reform hasn’t been aided by the progressives taking their stand. God only knows what Rahm’s corporate lackeys and Blue Dogs would have dealt away if they hadn’t been fighting on the public option. And anyway, you have to start organizing somewhere and there’s no time like the present, so everything that’s been done has established infrastructure and organization which is all to the good. Indeed, if I were a member of congress instead of an obscure blogger, I would be out there proclaiming that I will hold fast to the public option until the last Blue Dog dies. ( I assume that next week, they will be doing just that — and we will have to help them.)

But between you and me and the blogroll, I don’t think they will end up voting against the bill on that basis, for all the reasons I have stated. Don’t tell Rahm.

Update: I see that Big Tent Dem didn’t get that I was teasing him about calling me an idiot. I thought the” au contraire, mon frere” thing would be enough to signal that I wasn’t in attack mode, but it obviously fell flat and I’m very sorry about it. I was just expounding on my theory about the progressive caucus and didn’t mean it personally in the least. His ideas on this are perfectly reasonable. I just see some other avenues going forward. Mea culpa.

(Also the link has been fixed. It was not intentional.)

.

Using Murder As An Excuse To Advance Rightwing Rhetoric

by tristero

The subject: the drive-by murder of a man who spent a great deal of time protesting outside women’s health clinics.

What Operation Rescue said:

Troy Newman, the president of the national anti-abortion group Operation Rescue,* which had condemned Dr. Tiller’s death, said he was saddened by the death Mr. Pouillon, whom he had known for more than 15 years.

“There is very little, if any, common ground between pro-abortion and pro-life people,” Mr. Newman said. “One thing we had in common after Dr. Tiller’s death, there was a unilateral cry against violence.

“Pro-abortion” vs. “Pro-life…” Short, simple, succinct, and appalling. Troy Newman actually used this man’s murder as an excuse to advance the extreme right’s demented rhetoric. Talk about messasge focus!

Now, from “the other side:”

A spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights, Laura MacCleery, said her group, which supports a woman’s right to abortion, was stunned by the “senseless killings.” But Ms. MacCleery said Friday’s shooting did not seem to her to be tied to the abortion debate since the suspect was also charged in the killing of the second man, Mike Fuoss, 61, the owner of a local gravel company, who did not appear to be involved in the abortion issue.

“This is not something any group on either side of this debate would ever contemplate condoning,” Ms. MacCleery said.

Any questions?

That’s right: Carefully constructed rhetorical bullets from extremists are met over and over again by ad hoc, rhetorically unfocused mush. Pro Abortion vs Pro Life. Death panels. Death tax. Pro-terrorist. On and on and on. And in response? Well, uh, you know, our heart’s in the right place, everyone knows that and that’s all that matters, you know?

Nope.

Like it or not, every statement from groups advocating sane public policies have to be well-crafted and articulate. Like it or not, “public option” will never trump “death panels.” Like it or not, the “clear necessity for healthcare reform” will never trump “socialism,” even if those who’re screaming that the president is trying to wreck America were once members of groups that advocate secession.

Now, many of you surely noticed that I did not openly declare how much I deplore and condemn this man’s murder. Surely rightwing nuts are working themselves into a (well-faked) fit, shocked, shocked I say! to discover that tristero rejoices at that poor soul’s death. So let’s say this very, very slowly:

Since I feel no compunction to sign a loyalty oath, ever, to prove I love my country, I feel even less compunction to take a public morality oath and re-state what is patently obvious to everyone. Everyone, that is, except the far right, who can conjure up thousands of rationalizations why it is perfectly ok for them to lie, torture, or shoot someone. Or use a man’s murder as a rhetorical crutch to advance their agenda. And then demand the rest of us prove our own moral integrity.**

—

*An outrageously false description. Describing Operation Rescue without acknowledging their extremism is like quoting Philip Garrido’s opinion of the new soccer uniforms for the girls at the local junior highschol without reminding readers that Garrido kidnapped, repeatedly raped, and held captive an 11 year old girl for 18 years. Operation Rescue is one of the most grotesque, and most extreme, organizations in America. For example, an Operation Rescue staff member’s phone number was found on the dashboard in Scott Roeder’s car – Dr. Tiller’s accused murderer – and the staff member admitted she materially aided Roeder in tracking Dr. Tiller’s movements. The staff member herself was convicted of conspiring to bomb a building.

**I will assume, with good reason, that anyone posting in comments a variation on, “Well, I for one am glad that anti-abortion protestor was killed” is just a cynical rightwing operative paid to plant comments on “leftist” websites in order to create a faux controversy.

[Slightly edited and expanded after original posting.]

That’ll Show ‘Em

by digby

Well, this worked out so well that the Republicans are going to start screaming “Hitler, Hitler Hitler” at him every time he appears before a joint session. He’ll be railing against capital gains taxes and singing about snowflake babies before you know it:

The White House strengthened its stand against health care coverage for illegal immigrants Friday, and a pivotal Senate committee looked ready to follow its lead.

The developments reflected a renewed focus on the issue in the days since a Republican congressman’s outburst during President Barack Obama’s health care speech to Congress on Wednesday night. Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted “You lie!” as Obama said illegal immigrants wouldn’t be covered under his health plan.

Democrats had pointed to provisions in House and Senate legislation that prohibited illegal immigrants from getting federal subsidies that would be offered to lower-income Americans to help them buy insurance.

That didn’t go far enough for Wilson or many other Republicans, who noted the absence of any enforcement mechanism or requirement for verification of legal status. There are some 7 million illegal immigrants in this country who lack health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

The issue has caused heat on talk radio and at congressional town halls, too. So on Friday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sketched a new position that goes even further than some conservative critics had demanded: Obama will oppose letting illegal immigrants buy insurance through new purchasing exchanges the government will set up — even from private companies operating within the exchanges

I knew that Baucus and Conrad had gone scurrying to appease the xenophobes, probably just by reflex, but I honestly can’t figure out why the White House felt it was necessary to appease this lunatic faction. Apparently there isn’t any rightwing lunatic faction so crazy that they won’t try to appease it.

I don’t get it. Wilson was strongly condemned by sane people everywhere. The only people who backed him were people who are never going to vote for health care reform even if we agree to shoot anyone who looks like a Mexican before they ever cross the threshhold of a hospital (although they’d certainly volunteer to do the shooting.) Whose vote does the administration think they will get with this, anyone know?

.

Invade Finland Immediately!

by digby

Did anyone feel the earthquake? Or was that Michael Ledeen’s head exploding?

The United States and five partner countries have accepted Iran’s new offer to hold talks, even though Iran insists it will not negotiate over its disputed nuclear program, the State Department said Friday.

Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters that although Iran’s proposal for international talks — presented to the six powers on Wednesday — was disappointing for sidestepping the nuclear issue, it represented a chance to begin a direct dialogue.

“We are seeking a meeting now based on the Iranian paper to see what Iran is prepared to do,” Crowley said. “And then, as the president has said, you know, if Iran responds to our interest in a meeting, we’ll see when that can occur. We hope that will occur as soon as possible.”

In its proposal, Iran ignored a demand by the six world powers — the U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — for a freeze of its uranium enrichment, which is suspected of leading to production of a nuclear weapon. Iran insists that its nuclear work is strictly for peaceful non-military purposes.

Iran pronounced itself ready to “embark on comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations.”

On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country will neither halt uranium enrichment nor negotiate over its nuclear rights but is ready to sit and talk with world powers over “global challenges.”

So we are talking about sitting down with terrorists? And I’m not talking about Iran. I’m talking about France and Germany.

.

Tragic

by digby

If President Obama wants a public plan, the progressives have his back:

Next week will be gut-check time for the bloc of progressives standing in opposition to any bill that doesn’t include a public health insurance option. The leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus plans a “whip count” for early in the week to gauge the strength of their coalition, caucus members tell the Huffington Post. The whip team will also approach members of the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses. Democrats hold 256 seats in Congress and need 218 to pass a bill, meaning 39 progressives, voting together, could tank the legislation, assuming all Republicans vote nay.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a member of CPC leadership, estimates that eighty to 100 members will make the pledge. The progressive caucus met on Thursday, following the president’s speech, and members repeated their commitment to seeing the public option included in the bill, said Ellison. A senior administration official said Wednesday that killing the bill for not including a public option would be “tragic.” Centrist and conservative Democrats have expressed frustration at the forcefulness of the support for the public option, arguing that it’s a distraction from the broader package. In his address to Congress Wednesday, Obama reiterated that he supports the public option but is not demanding it.

Obama can tell the Blue Dogs and the DLC Corporate lackeys that they have to abandon their opposition to the public plan. After all, they will be killing the bill if they insist that there shouldn’t be one. And as the whining administration official lamented: that would be tragic.

*Note: I think this is a very good thing to do going into this leg of the negotiations, especially since the senate Finance Committee hasn’t yet released its plan. There’s a lot of good that can be done right now by holding firm. Let’s hope that Obama puts this effort to good use and sticks the screws to the Blue Dogs.

.

The Good Trigger?

by dday

The worst part about the Obama Administration’s back room deals with the health industry wasn’t just that they would impose far less cuts on stakeholders than they ought to shoulder, but that there was no mechanism beyond a handshake to ensure that the industry would even bother with those cuts. But in the President’s speech the other night, he talked about imposing “automatic cuts” to reimbursement if the industry didn’t abide by their commitments. It’s basically a trigger – if health care growth fails to slow by the prescribed amount, then a variety of options at government’s disposal would kick in. It’s the brainchild of a health policy wonk named Judy Feder, and she explains the idea here.

How does a fiscal trigger work?

The idea of a trigger is that one establishes in advance a target for savings in the system, agrees on measures that need to be achieved, track that progress as the program is implemented, and if shortfalls are found, then certain actions are automatically triggered in.

What are those actions? What happens when you pull the trigger?

David Cutler and I put forward a range of options and believe a menu should be specified in the legislation. That menu could include further reductions in Medicare or changes in the tax treatment of employer-based efficiency or a strengthening of a public plan to further competition with insurers.

And why do we need this? I thought the plan already had savings in it.

The reason that David Cutler and I have been so supportive of a trigger is that we are firmly behind the cost-saving measures that are in legislative proposals and on which there is enormous agreement to change the health-care delivery system. Payment reform, a value-based purchasing system, moving away from the overprovision of low-value and high-cost procedures, and rewarding providers for better care and management of chronic illness. There’s work and experience showing those measures can achieve huge savings systemwide. David Cutler and Rand’s Melinda Buntin estimated (pdf) the savings at $2 trillion over the next decade.

But CBO is very cautious about scoring those measures. So it’s our belief that for scoring purposes, we can put underneath them a failsafe that guarantees CBO will score the savings.

The basic idea is to force stakeholders to live up to their commitments, because the outcome would be far worse for them. And it would get us past the often arbitrary, almost always conservative scoring mechanism from the CBO (which is actually the bigger deal here, since the fiscal scolds always rely on those numbers to stop reform, but it would be harder to do so with a favorable score).

This is not a substitute for a public plan. It’s a completely different area of the policy. And it can surely be screwed up or watered down in innumerate ways. But a smart legislator could use this tool to basically threaten the health industry with major cuts to their payments or essentially kicking a leg out from the stool that keeps them fat and happy. And they could ratchet up the savings the industry would have to provide year over year to keep them in line. I’m not totally convinced that will be the end result, but if Henry Waxman’s in the room, we’ve got a fighting chance.

…of course, President Olympia Snowe wants to cut the price tag on the bill… because. I think she may have enough cachet inside the Administration that she’s being used as a vehicle by the Republicans to make the bill objectively horrible so the public will blame the Democrats for passing it. Not that they need all that much help, it seems. Paging Rep. Waxman, white courtesy phone.

.

Comparing The Crazies

by digby

I have been traveling the past few days, hence the scant attention to the hysteria over Joe Wilson. I confess that this is the kind of thing I have a really hard time getting too upset about because it just isn’t a federal offense to call the president a liar. The problem is when the press and the party fail to correct the record. Indeed, I wish more people had called Bush a liar when he was actually lying.The world would be a better place today.

But Glenn Greenwald writes today of the utter vapidity of the he said/ she said nonsense coming from the media around this Wilson flap and that does make me want to call for the smelling salts. Dear God, these people are daft:

Needless to say, no establishment media outlet is permitted to write an article that includes criticisms of “one side” without emphasizing that the criticisms apply just the same to “the other side” — regardless of whether that’s actually true. That’s what “balance” means. Thus, Politico publishes an article discussing the fact that the Right is dominated by crackpots and it is therefore required to claim that the Left is, too. Here are their examples to provide the balance needed so as to not upset Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh:

Nor are Democrats strangers to having their crazy uncles take center stage. During the run-up to the Iraq war, for example, Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and David Bonior (D-Mich.) famously flew to Baghdad, where McDermott asserted that he believed the president would “mislead the American public” to justify the war. The trip made it a cakewalk for critics to describe the Democratic Party as chock-a-block with traitorous radicals.

That’s one of the most amazing passages I can recall reading. Even now — when everyone knows that the President did exactly that which Rep. McDermott, in 2002, said he was doing: “misleading the American public to justify the war” — those who pointed out that truth are deemed “crazy.” Here’s what that “crazy traitorous uncle” McDermott actually said, as reported back then by The New York Times

In that one passage they reveal that it’s all about the Miss Manners police to these people, not about the substance of the claims at all. To them it really doesn’t matter at all whether or not the president is lying. It only matters if someone says he’s lying. What kind of journalism is that?

In a political world populated by normal people instead of high school kewl kidz, Wilson’s outburst would have prompted endless stories about whether or not the president was lying. Since he wasn’t that should have been one of those “teachable moments” about how ridiculous the Republican criticisms are, and how health care reform is actually going to work. But no, we are talking about whether it’s appropriate to say that the president is a liar.

The next time a lazy reporter wants to find a “balance” between left and right when it comes to acting crazy, they should look to the obvious: teabaggers like Joe Wilson vs Code Pink. The main difference is that our practitioners of political theatre don’t pack heat and they aren’t members of congress or Democratic candidates for vice president. That certainly doesn’t make the teabagger Reps and Senators any less crazy. The opposite, in fact.

Unfortunately, we can’t even get our own Senate lackeys to put this in the proper perspective since they have decided to further validate Wilson’s ravings. (Why don’t we just bar code ourselves and be done with it? Of course, then the Big Bad Socialists will be able to steal our brains, which in the case of the right wing and Kent Conrad is only petty theft.)

Update:

From Media Matters:

Of course, whenever reporters like Dana Milbank note such boorish behavior by a Republican, they must quickly include something some Democrat did so they seem “balanced,” even if the Democrat’s actions aren’t even remotely comparable. Sure enough, here’s Milbank:

And, in truth, there were provocations from the Democratic side. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), sitting on the Republican side, insisted on making a victory sign with his hand and waving it at Obama.

Yeah. That’s the same. (And “insisted upon”? Really? Was there some effort to prevent Pascrell from doing so?) Milbank, continuing directly:

Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.), also on the GOP side of the aisle, felt the need to pound his fist in the air and make what looked, awkwardly, like a fascist salute.

.

Lines

by digby

I have never been particularly sanguine that congressional Democrats would ultimately vote against Obama on health care if it didn’t contain a public option and I’m not even sure how many people in the progressive coalition would want them to. Unless it was a cave of such massive proportions that it was essentially a Republican wet dream (expanding health savings accounts and nothing else, for instance)I figured they would feel they have to vote for a bill that substantially expanded coverage and regulated the excesses of the insurance industry, even if it was less than what they’d wanted. My feeling has been that for progressives, something like a public plan, while important, doesn’t ground itself in principle enough to trump a serious move to universality — and loyalty to a new president of their own party.

This is not to say that I don’t think it was absolutely necessary to push hard for the public plan, as they have done and continue to do. But contrary to conventional wisdom, in in my mind the calculation was to give cover to Obama with the media and among the centrists to do what he (hopefully) already wanted to do. If Obama actually puts his weight behind a real public plan then we won’t have to find out if I’m right.

But that doesn’t mean that they will never vote to defeat their president. In fact, I believe it could happen on at least two important upcoming issues on the agenda: financial reform and the war. The first will take a huge push from the left, and may very well be unsuccessful because it’s an arcane subject and many of those who should be on the right side are either personally compromised or unmoved by the issue. But this one has the possibility at least of having a sort of inverse NAFTA dynamic in which conservative Republicans vote with progressives and it could be very powerful. But regardless, that’s a fight that should be waged and there are some good leaders on the issue, one of whom is Alan Grayson who could emerge as an important progressive figure if this issue gets the play it should:

The issue of the war is even more clear cut. Nancy Pelosi said that the war supplemental bill was a much harder vote than health care and I believe her. And that’s because for progressives, voting against expanding the war isn’t difficult on the merits at all — the only thing that brings them to the table is the president twisting their arm in a very ruthless way. That’s an entirely different dynamic and could make for a very ugly fight, particularly with the war rapidly losing support even among Republicans.

Pelosi said today:

If President Obama asks for more troops to send to Afghanistan, he could be rebuffed by Democrats in Congress.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signaled Thursday that such a request would not be well received.

“I don’t think there’s much support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in Congress,” Pelosi said.

On the heels of the deadliest month to date for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, liberals lawmakers are bracing for a report being reviewed by top military commanders that is expected to suggest more resources and troops are needed.

Many of the liberal Democratic lawmakers who led the fight against the Iraq war are now opposing the buildup in Afghanistan, and promising to fight funding for it.

I should hope so. And that’s an issue on which I think we can and should expect them to hold the line all the way to a no vote, no matter how much their president tries to get them to hold the line. Ending this constant war escalation is a fundamental progressive imperative on the merits and on the politics. Obama won the nomination largely because he differentiated himself from Clinton on his Iraq vote — and progressives didn’t expect him to start escalating the Afghanistan war like he’s Robert McNamara Jr. This one is going to be a hairy fight and well it should be.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that they shouldn’t continue to agitate for the public plan, I’m just setting forth my own opinion that if it comes down to it, they won’t vote against a health care reform bill simply because it doesn’t contain a public plan. It’s dissonant and odd to think they would be the ones to ultimately tank a big expansion of the safety net, no matter how imperfect, and I think the chances of them doing it are virtually nil. But their strong advocacy for it has undoubtedly extracted a better bill than would have already been there and they are learning how to become a real caucus that works together as a bloc. So, it’s been a worthwhile endeavor.

It’s time for all of us to accept that the president holds the cards at this point — and that the progressives are probably already girding for the next big fight. That fight is likely to be something that is much more clear cut and easily defined than a cost control measure called a “public plan” — and I think the current fight has ensured that the caucus is in a much better position to wage it than they were six months ago.

Update: To those who are going into complete hysterics because they obviously cannot tell the difference between analysis and advocacy — calm down and read very slowly and with comprehension.

I’m for the public plan. I’ve written endless posts agitating for it. I believe in it. This piece is merely an analysis of what I see as the end game, which I still believe may very well contain a public plan! My God, you’d think I just ran up the white flag Little Big Horn.

I just believe that passage of a final bill with a public plan rests on President Barack Obama. I still don’t know what he’s willing to go to the mat for (except refusing to add to the deficit.) But I do know that unless he is willing to go to the mat for the public plan, it isn’t happening no matter how much liberals scream and yell. And that leaves us with the unlikely prospect of them voting against the whole enchilada if it doesn’t contain one. I’m sorry that analysis disturbs some of you, but that doesn’t make me Max Baucus, ferchistsake. Maybe Baucus thinks he can make Obama do what he wants him to do, but I think the president has enough to juice to make this happen if he wants it badly enough.

I’m not endorsing liberals voting for the reform without the public plan. I’m analyzing and observing the situation and telling you what I see. Neither the president or the progressive caucus are waiting for instructions from me about what to do next, so everyone can relax about my “capitulation.” I don’t actually get a vote on this bill.

It’s my view that the content of health care reform has always depended upon what Obama himself was willing to fight for. It’s a decades long liberal dream to expand the social safety net that takes Presidential leadership and political capital to pull off. Believing that liberals will walk away from both him and the reform itself on the basis of this one piece of it isn’t very likely. Better hope Obama wants it as much as they (we) do.

The war and financial reform are different issues with different dynamics entirely, based on different principles. I don’t think they play out the same way.

If you don’t like my analysis, fine. But please refrain from calling me a sellout for merely observing what I see around me, particularly when it’s clear that many of you who are doing it didn’t read the post carefully.

.