Month: December 2009

Bipartisan Tragedy

by digby

I quoted David Gergen earlier saying that public opinion may cause the final bill to ultimately fail, which I agree may be remotely possible. But that’s the last rational thing he said all night. At the moment of the passage of the cloture vote in the Senate, he blurted this out:

In my judgment it’s a tragedy for the country to have a bill this important, a historic piece of legislation, pass with only one party voting for it.

After droning on irrelevantly about how Earl Warren got all the justices on board for Brown vs Board of Education and saying that this is the first major piece of legislation in 50 years that didn’t have bipartisan support, he added that both parties are equally at fault. (Oh, and everything is toxic and poisonous and tragic, tragic, tragic.)

I think it’s a tragedy that cable gasbags are so predictably fatuous. The last I heard, the president personally had Snowe on the phone for an hour last week and couldn’t get her on board for no discernible reason now that the public option has been jettisoned. Meanwhile the Republicans had been hammering her for weeks to not vote for cloture. How this partisan supermajority vote is the fault of both parties, much less illegitimate, I don’t know.

I heard an Republican say something pretty smart the other day that I’ve been meaning to post and I think it is a good time to throw it out there . It was Craig Shirley a former Reagan advisor who said this:

SHIRLEY: Let me be a voice in the wilderness for polarization. I think it is intellectually dishonest to go out there and present to the American people a party that has liberal Republicans, moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans, a Democratic Party that has conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans, and liberal Republicans—or Democrats—is, that when you have two parties with diametrically opposing views, one organized around the concept of freedom, the other organized around the concept of justice, and they give the American voter an honest choice, I think that that is much more intellectually honest for the American voter, so that they have a clear choice of who and what set of principles they want to lead this country.

Would that really be so bad? I don’t think so. Atrios makes that point often.

The Republicans obstruct this reform for political reasons, to be sure, but its political appeal lies in the philosophy that the government shouldn’t be involved in making it easier for people to get health care. They just don’t think that social insurance programs are a legitimate function of government. They never have. And regardless of whether or not you think this bill is well constructed, there can be no doubt that the Democrats do not agree with that. I see no reason why the parties shouldn’t break down along those philosophical/ideological lines and let the voters decide from election to election whether they approve.

This faith that there can be ideological “consensus” on these big issues is clearly outdated. The country has realigned the parties along some very old ideological and cultural fault lines and the partisan divide is much cleaner. People just disagree and in every battle some not insignificant minority will be unhappy with the outcome. A handful of Senators crossing the aisle doesn’t confer legitimacy. The constitution does.

Gergen and others who are bemoaning the lack of bipartisanship are sounding more and more out of touch. (I can guarantee that nobody in the country gives a damn if Senators are fraying their precious personal friendships to get this bill passed. Boo hoo.) Right now, the biggest problem for the parties is that far too many people see them both as being unresponsive to their constituents’ needs and desires and far too responsive to the needs and desires of the moneyed interests. From their point of view, bipartisanship has never been stronger.

Anyway, the Senate Dems got their cloture vote and barring some shocking development they’ll pass the bill and send it on to conference. And then we’ll see what happens next.

.

Please scroll down for newer posts. Thanks.

Thank You

by digby

Thanks so much for your kind contributions. It’s been a rough couple of weeks in politics and this has been a much needed balm — and inspiration. I very much appreciate it. Happy Hollandaise everyone.

PS: The netroots are not going anywhere.

.

Shadow Inventory

by digby

This can’t be good:

A supply of 1.7 million homes headed for sale because of foreclosure or delinquency looms over the nation’s housing market, which could dampen progress toward recovery should the Obama administration fail in its efforts to aid struggling homeowners, researchers said.

A variety of measures to keep discounted bank-owned properties off the market — including moratoriums on foreclosures by major lenders and federal initiatives aimed at keeping people in their homes with mortgage payments they can afford — has helped increase a backlog of so-called shadow inventory 55% in the year ended Sept. 30, according to a report released Thursday by First American CoreLogic, a Santa Ana-based real estate research firm.

Shadow inventory properties are homes that have not been tallied into official inventory numbers tracked by Realtors and other real estate professionals. They include homes taken back by lenders through foreclosures and similar actions, as well as homes whose owners are at least 90 days delinquent on their mortgage payments.

A year earlier, the pending supply of homes not yet up for sale totaled 1.1 million.

.

Bill Killers

by digby

Jon Walker at FDL makes a very good point about the current dialog on health care reform:

There is a very insidious myth right now that there is a large group of progressive leaders who want to “kill” health care reform in its entirety. While there might be some progressive leaders out there who have advocated for this position, I have yet to hear from them. What I have heard from people like Howard Dean, Markos Moulitsas, Keith Olbermann, Jane Hamsher, etc… is that they simply want to kill the current version of the Senate bill. None of them, to my knowledge, have advocated ending all efforts to pass a health care reform bill.

And those calling for “killing the bill” today are speaking to the members of the House, which is why the Senate is working overtime to cut the House out of the deal:

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said Sunday that it’s the Senate bill, or nothing at all, when it comes to health care reform.

“It is very clear that the final bill that passed in the United States Senate is going have to be very close to the bill that is being negotiated here,” the North Dakota Democrat said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Otherwise you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.”

I would guess that that kind of arrogance has the White House a little bit spooked to the point where they are having the VP make soothing noises:

Writing in Sunday’s New York Times opinion page, Vice President Joe Biden said that “I share the frustration of other progressives that the Senate bill does not include a public option,” but suggested nothing is set in stone just yet.

“If the bill passes the Senate this week,” wrote Biden, “there will be more chances to make changes to it before it becomes law. But if the bill dies this week, there is no second chance to vote yes.”

The Senate running around saying “take it or leave it” in this situation probably isn’t helpful to the holy cause of passage at all costs. The House does have some institutional pride and still has a vote. And for the first time I see a path to failure there.

You know that I think House liberals can probably be browbeaten into voting for almost any bill that contains a generous Medicaid expansion. But the abortion “compromise” could very well be the thing that kills it, regardless of whether Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray signed off on it. That issue isn’t a matter of political positioning, ideological preference or a show of political power like the public option. It’s a matter of fundamental liberal principle they are being asked to sacrifice. And they were all told after Stupak that the Senate would improve it.

Remember this?

“It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time,” she added. “And it is much more pro-choice than the House.”

Boxer’s reading of the political landscape might seem like the hopeful spin of an abortion-rights defender. But it was seconded by a another lawmaker, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

“It would have to be added,” sad the Montana Democrat of an amendment that mirrored that offered Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) in the House. “I doubt it could pass.”

Speaking days after House Democrats helped pass the Stupak provision — which would greatly restrict private insurers from covering abortion — Boxer and Baucus’s proclamations are undoubtedly music to the ears of pro-choice activists. President Obama, likewise, stressed during an interview with ABC News Monday night that he would like to see the Stupak amendment changed before a final version of health care legislation is produced.

Here’s what we got:

Abortion opt-out. State legislatures may pass laws prohibiting their newly created health insurance exchanges from offering abortion coverage. In states where abortion coverage is permitted, no federal funds may be used to pay for abortions; instead, they must be paid for by specially segregated funds derived from private health insurance premiums.

Does allowing all those “pro-life” state legislatures like South Dakota’s to completely opt-out of any requirement to offer coverage for abortion sound like an improvement to you? Do we all relish the inevitable, bloody state-by-state abortion battles?

Stupak and the Bishops are screaming that it’s a sell-out, of course, but that’s because they actually know how to negotiate and people are afraid to criticize them because they are arguing out of “strong moral convictions” (unlike the baby killers.) Nobody in the White House is calling them insane, you’ll notice. And that sets the table for yet another “compromise,” this time in the conference between Stupak and Nelson. And what would that be except something even worse that what the overmatched and outgunned Boxer approved?

Stupak and Nelson have finally given the liberals in the House a serious, principled reason to walk away. The dynamics still argue that they won’t do it for this or any other reason, and that they will simply allow women to get shafted. (There is apparently no limit to the amount of shit the left must be forced to eat to get this bill passed.)

But the stakes are now higher for liberals than they have been. Voting to restrict a woman’s ability to exercize her right to abortion in half the country is as much of a gut check as voting for a bill that doesn’t contain a public option. Some might actually calculate that it’s a bridge too far. And those who were already leaning toward voting against the bill for all those other reasons will now feel much more secure that they are standing up for liberal principles when they do it.

There is such a thing as the straw that broke the camel’s back, even for liberals who desperately want to pass health care reform. This might be it.

.

Public Opinion Option

by digby

David Gergen thinks the final health care bill may not pass — because of the precipitous drop in public opinion:

GERGEN: [Y]ou look at the polls almost everywhere. The last three or four weeks there’s been a pretty sharp drop off in support for the health care bill and an increase in disapproval. People ask why Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the Democrat has been such a staunch hold out against this, not only for abortion.

But if you look at the poll back in Nebraska, a recent poll there found that 67 percent of Nebraskans oppose this health care reform and it is the number one issue in their minds. Even if they get this through the Senate, I have been feeling all along they would get it through the Senate. I’m having questions whether it will ultimately pass next year, if the public sentiment continues to be so strongly against this, it’s going to be very, very hard to get skittish Senators and members of the House to vote for it in the final analysis.

ROMANS: David, why is it do you think that the port is waning? Do you think it is because people are watching all of these deals being cut and they are saying, wait this is starting to feel a little bit like politics as usual on a very big scale, or is it that maybe liberals are saying, wait. This isn’t what we signed on for in the very early going or conservatives who don’t – I mean, why is a port waning?

GERGAN: Well, as you know there is this old axiom that there are two things in the world you never want to see being made. One is sausage and the other is legislation, and the process here I think has been one that has really dismayed a growing number’s people. They don’t understand what’s in the bill anymore. It just seems to be very messy, it’s not clean. Because the White House didn’t have a bill of its own and there wasn’t a strong central argument to begin with, the people who were for this and are passionately for it frankly are losing the message war, and Americans are saying, we’ve had for the first time a poll that says, a national poll that says, there are more people that think we should do nothing than pass this bill. That’s almost shocking considering where we started.

It is shocking. And some of that is out of the control of the White House or the congress. But there are reasons for the drop in public opinion that are directly related to the Democrats’ bad political strategy.

It’s fairly obvious that the administration and the Democrats always saw the public option as a negotiating chip and fully expected to throw it in at the end. There’s a reason why Obama hedged on it for the last six months. In fact,it seems likely to me that Reid put it back on life support just so they could ritually sacrifice it. (He knew he didn’t have 60 and needed something to “compromise” with.)

So, they knew going in that they were going to use the old “if liberals hate it it must be good” marketing ploy, both to get the Senate princes on board as well as sell it to Real American Independents (the new “values voters.”) What they didn’t expect was that the wider public would actually like the damned thing, which made that play a lot more risky. And if public opinion doesn’t come back up pretty quickly now, that’s a risk that may not have paid off.

A lot more people are unhappy than otherwise would have been — the standard liberals, the populist independents and the “hope and change” new voters. That group may overlap some, but I think they are actually distinct. The liberals know that government is a cesspool but believed the public option (and later, the medicare buy-in) gave them an avenue for future change and saw it as a demonstration of progressive power in Obama’s Washington. The independents thought that Obama’s promises to keep lobbyists out of the White House and operate with transparency and accountability meant that he was going to upend the dominance of special interests. The final group thought that by the sheer force of his personality and talent for persuasion the fighting would stop and everyone would sit down at the table and work together. And I would imagine that all of them counted on him using his public popularity, good relationship with the press and superior rhetorical gifts to push for his agenda.

Instead we have seen teabaggers packing heat at town hall meetings, Democrats arguing with each other on cable news 24/7, the public option used as a bargaining chip, secret deals cut with the medical industry and Obama making his last speech on the subject three months ago. It has not just been an ugly spectacle, it has soured a lot of people on the promise that Obama brought to Washington. His own ratings are tanking right along with healthcare reform.

Obviously he can’t be responsible for the Republicans or the teabaggers. They were always going to do what they did and it was inevitable that there would be some disappointment that Obama’s magical powers to make everyone get along did not materialize. And Lord knows that Lieberman and Nelson and the rest of the Senate egomaniacs were going to make it tough (although that’s where strong public support really really helps.) But he and the Dems could have mitigated the rest of it by not planning a strategy based around disappointing the base and cutting deals with industry. It still would have been ugly, but I suspect that if the president and the Democrats had crafted a solid message and he had personally worked harder at keeping public opinion on board they would have had an easier time of it.

And I’m not sure that Gergen is wrong about the precariousness of this bill. It’s still possible that the bill could fail on the vote for final passage for a variety of reasons, the most likely being because Ben or Joe or one of the other Senate Pashas wakes up that morning and declares he owes his allegiance to the majority of Americans who are no longer in favor of passing this bill. I’m not sure what in the hell anyone could do about that.

One thing I am sure of is that they’ll find a way to blame the liberals for the failure.

.

Dazed And Confused

by digby

Can someone explain what this means to me?

The Dean on Democrats failing his president:

The worst came in a news report of the year-end news conference held by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Asked how she would deal with next year’s looming tests of congressional Democratic support for Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more U.S. troops into the Afghanistan struggle, she said that “the president’s going to have to make his case” himself. Reminding reporters that she had told lawmakers in June, when funding was approved for 17,000 additional troops, that it would be the last time she would ever lobby her members to back such a step, she made it absolutely clear that she felt no obligation of party loyalty to support Obama on the most important national security decision he has made.

The liberal legislator from San Francisco could not have been plainer if she had added, “You’re on your own, buster.”

With this as an example from the No. 1 Democrat on Capitol Hill, one has to wonder why liberal Democrats are so furious about senators such as Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson negotiating their own deals with the White House on the health-care bill.

How does Pelosi saying that she can’t whip her Democrats to support another supplemental explain why Nelson and Lieberman are making their own deals on health care? I don’t get it.

It wasn’t Pelosi, by the way, who promised there would be no more war supplementals, it was Obama. And when they went for one anyway last spring Pelosi lost an entire layer of skin in the process trying to get it passed:

Health care is not the hardest vote I’ve had this year. Not by far. That was the [war] supplemental. That was the worst. Energy was a heavy lift. But you’re talking substance. You’re discussing issues with people. But we had never thought we’d have to do another supplemental. Not that we would have to vote for. But then the president brought home the IMF and Republicans all took a hike. Then we were stuck with it. Oh brother! That was the hardest. Budget, stimulus, those were all heavy lifts. None of it is easy. But you get ready for things like energy, health, education, and budget. But the supplemental? That’s where we have to do a heavy lift? We all said we were never ever voting for this again. But in any event, I think the administration knows that that was it.

Now I have a sneaking feeling that the Republicans are going to be looking for something to allow them to run the same game again. They don’t have a lot to gain by supporting the president on this. They’re firmly ensconced in the pro-war camp and the Democrats are evidently constitutionally unable to make a “why do they hate the troops” critique stick. If they can find something to hang their hats on I think they could easily calculate that even on this it would be more to their advantage to force the president to try to get the Democrats to go through another exhausting negotiation with themselves just before the election. (And who knows, Rahm might have some other poison pill he can only pass by shoving it down liberals’ throats.)

But if that doesn’t happen, Pelosi won’t have to whip the caucus. The president will have enough votes to pass the supplemental with Republicans and conservative Democrats. And the base will get screwed again, which is always good. I don’t see what Broder has to complain about.

.

Quick Observation

by digby

I was watching the George Stephanopoulos round table this morning and realized that the Villagers think the health care bill can best be sold to the public by arguing that if everybody hates it, it must be good.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Fear and loathing in New Orleans

By Dennis Hartley

Somewhere on the edge of the 9th Ward, the drugs began to take hold…

Who could have guessed that the man who helmed art house classics like Fitzcarraldo, Woyzeckand Aguirre, the Wrath of God would one day make a film entitled Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call-New Orleans? Then again, one might argue that the iconoclastic Werner Herzog’s career would be nothing, if not perennially unpredictable.

Herzog’s latest film, arguably adorned with the year’s most unwieldy title for squeezing onto a marquee, is a (sort of) sequel to Abel Ferrara’s highly controversial 1992 neo-noir about a drug and gambling-addicted NYC homicide investigator. In that film, Harvey Keitel gave a completely fearless and thoroughly maniacal performance as a “cop on the edge” who made most of the criminals he was paid to apprehend look like choir boys. Not an easy act to follow-but Nicholas Cage proves to be more than up to the task here.

To my observation, Cage has demonstrated two basic personas in his repertoire over the years. First, there is the Slack-Jawed, Dead-eyed Mumbler (Peggy Sue Got Married, Moonstruck , Red Rock West, Leaving Las Vegas). His other character is the Manic, Wild-eyed Loon (Wild At Heart, Vampire’s Kiss, Kiss of Death, Face/Off ). Personally, I get a real kick out of his performances in the latter mode, and it goes without saying that you can now add the role of “bad” Lt. Terence McDonagh to that section of his resume.

As far as I could glean, there is no effort to bridge with Ferrara’s film and explain how Lt. McDonagh transitioned from NYC to New Orleans. Not that it really matters. Anyone who has followed Herzog’s career probably has figured out by now that he is perfectly content to wallow in his own peculiar universe. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing-it’s what makes his work so continually interesting to me. The “plot” ostensibly concerns itself with the murder of a Senegalese family, and the police investigation. Not that the “plot” really matters, either (although Herzog’s post-Katrina milieu is quite atmospheric).

No, if you are going to watch this film (which has “destined to become a midnight cult item” written all over it), I’ll tell you right now that you needn’t concern yourself with trying to follow the (probably deliberately) convoluted and complex murder mystery. You’ll be too busy asking yourself questions like “Did I just see what I think I just saw?” and making exclamations like “Oh no-he DIDN’T!” as Herzog and screenwriter William M. Finkelstein proceed to turn the “cop on the edge” genre on its head with every blackly comic twist and turn. Cage and the rest of the cast (including Val Kilmer, Eva Mendes, Fairuza Balk, Brad Dourif and Jennifer Coolidge) all seem to be in on the director’s joke, and play it to the hilt. By the time you’ve processed Herzog’s use of the “alligator/iguana-cam”, you will have to make a decision to either run for the exit, or go with the flow and say to yourself “Well…I’ve bought the ticket, I’m gonna take the ride.”

This is the most twisted noir I’ve seen since Tough Guys Don’t Dance (which I reviewed here). So do I think you should rush out and see this? That depends. If you are looking for a refreshing alternative to the usual fourth-quarter Hollywood offerings (Oscar-baiting dramas, prestige biopics and bloated, CGI-laden epics in 3-D)-by all means, knock yourself out. But don’t say I didn’t warn you-if you don’t consider an inspired line like “Shoot him again-his soul is still dancing!” to be pure genius, then you’d best keep away.

Noir Orleans: Tightrope, The Big Easy, Angel Heart, Heaven’s Prisoners, In the Electric Mist, Panic in the Streets, No Mercy, The Drowning Pool, JFK – Director’s Cut, Storyville, Down by Law, King Creole, Obsession, Runaway Jury, The Cincinnati Kid, WUSA, Live and Let Die, The Pelican Brief, Hard Target, Undercover Blues, Delta Heat

.

Oh For Crying Out Loud

by digby

Here’s the Nelson abortion compromise:

In the House health care bill, consumers who receive federal premium subsidies would be forbidden from buying any insurance policy that covers abortion. That provision–the so-called Stupak amendment–threatened to blow up health care reform. Originally, it’s the language Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) wanted to see in the Senate health care bill. In the end, he didn’t get that.

But what he did get might still draw the ire of pro-choice activists and legislators. According to a senior Senate leadership aide, under the Nelson compromise, “[i]ndividuals receiving subsidies will have one premium that they pay with two distinct transactions.”

Put another way: If you’re buying insurance with help from the government, and the policy you want to buy covers abortions, you have to write two checks (or authorize two credit card transactions, etc.) for your plan. If the plan costs $1000 a month, and the insurer plans to sequester $50 to put into a pool that covers abortions, you have to make one payment of $950 and a separate payment of $50.

Are anti-abortion zealots really appeased by this silly provision? Is there any point to it at all except to make women prove they are godless little sluts by leaving a paper trail?

I guess not:

“The negotiations, whoever did them, threw unborn babies under the bus,” Coburn said.

God this country is stupid.

Update: Kagro muses on Stupak and Nelson and what it all means.

And this from Ezra Klein:

I liked David Waldman’s response. The problem with leaving the decision up to the states, he says, is that it doesn’t go far enough. “I think states should leave the abortion question up to the counties,” he explains. “Then I think counties should leave the abortion question up to municipalities. Then the neighborhoods should leave the abortion question up to each block.” And each block, as you might have guessed, should leave the abortion question up to each household. var entrycat = ”

Yes. Get the government out of our lives!

.

History

by digby

Ryan Grim has a rundown on the Senate bill if you’d like to see the major provisions as well as the feelings among fellow Senate Democrats according to Al Franken:

Overall, Franken said, his colleagues are happy with the bill. “All of us believe that we need to make basic reforms and that this does that,” he said of the product. “It’s an enormous step forward. It’s something we can build on. Social Security passage was just widows and orphans.” Social Security gradually expanded over time.

“I think it’s a really important, really historic bill, but I’m just worried that we don’t over-promise but at the same time we do tell them all the great things the bill has,” said Franken.

He’s right on the politics but wrong on the facts. There have, of course, been expansions, notably SSI, over the years, but Social Security was not just widows and orphans when it was passed. It had certain exemptions for domestic and farm workers, churches and non-profits. And those who already had pensions from the government and the railroads were not covered. But everybody else went immediately into the system under the same rules. It was very easy for people to understand how it worked.

These Democrats have their work cut out for them.

.