Grassley: The One Who Got Away

Karen, I'd like it if you answered your own question: "Was getting Grassley on board ever a realistic proposition?" I don't see that Grassley has EVER negotiated seriously on any of the real issues on the table. How many months have we seen him refusing to actually make any move to compromise, and then lying and demagoguing the issue? If Iowans trust Grassley, one must assume that there are plenty of them who invest in bridges offered by random strangers. As for a little action on SCHIP - children always play well with the electorate, so this isn't much of a monument to Grassley's courage or capacity for independent thought. Overall, this was a disappointingly toothless piece from you.

I have to say that it is amazing to me that while you woud be hard pressed to find an encouraging word about the public option on this blog since it was introduced as a concept earlier this year, we now have a whole article devoted to giving Chuck Grassley the benefit of the doubt on health care reform when all evidence points to him not being worthy of any. From almost day one he stated forcefully that he would never support a bill that had a public option. He never, not even once, explained what it would take to gain his support. He BRAGGED that it was almost solely because of him that nothing was brought out of the Finance committee before the August break thereby enabling the town hall ambushes, and he endorsed the "death panel" cannard even though he voted for a very similar provision in the Medicare bill in 2003.
.
As a matter of fact I have read and read read the article and I can't find even one sentence that explains anything Grassley has said or done this year with regards to health care reform that would give anybody the impression that he was ever negotiating in good faith other than him saying so repeatedly. And of course his take on the townhalls isn't at all challeged by the fact that many if not most townhalls were actually civil and the ones that weren't were verifiably astroturfed with proponents of the health insurance industry. His words are just offered up as the god's honest truth. The truth is Grassley himself said that even if he negotiated what he thought was a good bill, unless more than a handful of Republicans committed to voting for it he wouldn't vote for it either. That should tell any rational person that his vote was never in play from the get go.
.
Hey I know its the age of "balanced" reporting but I just wish that we ever saw that same "balance" when it came to the prospects of a public option or the actual reasons why liberals and progressives are so wedded to a public option or at the very least an acknolwedgement that it was a part of President Obama's plan on the campaign trail last year and not a minor issue in the election. But I guess at some point I will learn not to set my expectations so high.

It's a real shame. Grassley has, in the past, seemed relatively sane and moderate on some issues, but on this one, it looks like he's just another obstructionist playing Republican "sack the quarterback" politics, with more interest in sending an Obama idea to defeat than in actually helping the country.
.
It's clear now, at long last, that Grassley was never negotiating in good faith, just as the entirety of the Republican senate (outside of Maine) was never negotiating in good faith. Obama and the progressive Democrats might still be able to craft a bill with conservative help from the "Blue Dog" Democrats, but it's time to write off the idea that the Republicans are going to be part of the solution rather than just another part of the problem.
.
I hope that Obama makes a mass appeal both to congress and the country, using the highly successful and efficient programs in countries like Japan and Switzerland as models for our healthcare reform. Yes, it's socialized health care, but capitalism isn't the cure to all iills, and every other industrialized nation on the planet is now on a socialized health care system, and they enjoy the rewards of it quite a bit. It's time we shared in that..

The Republican faith that Capitalism can cure all ills doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny. It's delusional thinking, and we should stop coddling such craziness.

But, as always, Republicans would rather worship Mammon than follow the ideas of Jesus, who surely would want us to heal the sick.

It's increasingly clear that one of the major mistakes was to frame this as "health care" reform, rather than insurance reform. Who wouldn't be nervous about people wanting to changing my "health care?" This led to all the crazy killing Gramma death panel accusations, and took the focus away from the private insurance agencies which are the major locus of the problem. In fact, it has allowed the Republicans to continue to work for plans that will simply enrich private insurers more.

I'd like to think the Democrats will now find themselves able to say that the Republicans have made it clear they have no interest if approving any real reforms, so we can move forward.

"Grassley believes the raucous town meetings of August made it clear that Obama now faces something far larger than mere doubts about health-care reform. "I was expecting a lot of anger, but what really surprised me about the town meetings was the fear that people were expressing — afraid for the country. Health care was a big issue, yes, and it took up most of the questions at the town meetings. But it seemed to me it was the straw that broke the camel's back. People were bringing up the stimulus bill not doing any good and [costing] $800 billion. Or the Federal Reserve shoveling $2 trillion out of an airplane and not seeing it does any good. And the nationalization of banks and [General Motors]."

Earth to liberals, earth to liberals. It is not a situation that the Republicans are not willing to negotiate on reform for Healthcare. It is simply the FACT that when they went back to their various districts and States, people have let it be known exactly how they feel about the current trends in Washington, and the programs that have come before Healthcare have not worked in their minds.

The stimulus bill, over 800 BILLION dollars spent and we remain well entrenched in a recession. Many economists and the average Joe knew that the Government throwing money at the problem would not fix it, but instead make things worse.

800 BILLION now gone.

All the bailout money spent. What has it done? Over 2 TRILLION dollars spent on Bailouts, Stimulus and Clunkers, and the only thing that has been close to positive was 1,000 cars sold. That's it.

Now you want us to "trust" you with our Healthcare. I think not. No way, no how.

Grassley was nothing more than a perfect GOP decoy to stall reform and embarrass the president.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

So the guy who said "pull the plug on Grandma" is a serious negotiator now? I think framing this healthcare debate as a debate is the problem, these guys aren't negotiating in good faith but yet the media continues to report as if they're doing so.

"If there had ever been any hope for real GOP support for President Obama's health care plan, it came in the form of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley..."

Let me tighten that up for you, KT...

There was never any hope for real GOP support for President Obama's health care plan.

You're welcome.

But was getting Grassley on board ever a realistic proposition?
.
No. And that's all the discussion that question needs.
.
Here's an article that Exile posted yesterday.
.
K.T., I wonder why there hasn't been more reporting about the other countries that achieve better results with less money than we do here. I'd think reporting on the health systems in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would be relatively easy (at least compared to say, are there WMDs in Iraq...at least there's no language barrier).
.
Instead we hear Republicans slamming our long time allies as socialists and commies...but the press isn't interested in reporting the facts?
.
It seems like a case of the dog who wouldn't bark.
~

I never had faith in Grassley and his jumping on the "Kill Grandma" bandwagon only confirmed my good judgement.

Many economists and the average Joe knew that the Government throwing money at the problem would not fix it, but instead make things worse.
.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
.
Indeed KT missed an opportunity. While now comfortable with calling the 'death panel' canard ludicrous, she allowed the wider notion that the bailouts haven't accomplished anything to stand uncorrected.
.
She's willing to point out that people are afraid. She's unfortunately unwilling to also mention that they are mistaken.

And let us not begin to discuss how many Iowans can thank Federal Ag -price support for their livelihoods.

KT-Wow. After reading that I simply don't know who Chuck is. I'm not from Iowa so, is he cantankerous, quirky, independent, a free spirit, stubborn or all of the above?

Amy pointed out earlier that Chuck actually voted for the same death panels in 2003 under Bush that he now opposes under Obama. Does that make him cantankerous, quirky, independent, a free spirit, stubborn or all of the above? Maybe he's just thrifty.

Is Chuck working for health care reform, just opposing Obama or just trying to survive another reelection within a party that has clearly demostrated that their main complaint is that Oama is president?

You write that Chuck has brought things to the table, but its apparently the democrats who have been able to find a fit for Chuck. Has Chuck still refused a deal even when the democrats have tried to incorporate his demands or have the democrats just not really tried? I'm not an expert in negotations and compromise, but is only making demands doing either? And far as his demands what the hell is no rationing of health care? Was somebody proposing rationing?

Finally, it looks to me that there is no down side for Chuck if does nothing but opposes. There is however, a downside for the democrats even if they pass a good bill on their own.

KT:

[Obama] must spell out...precisely what he means by a public option, an issue that has grown to outsize proportion as an ideological flash point.

Really?
.
For whom?
.
Oh! You mean for conservatives!

Among the demands that Grassley says he has made that reflect his commitment to conservative orthodoxy: no rationing of health care, no government-run public option to compete with private insurance, no requirement that employers provide health coverage and an insistence that malpractice lawsuits be curbed.

I'm glad I found that description, KT, because it would be ludicrous to simply parrot the idea that both sides in the debate over the public option are speaking from ideological orthodoxy. I mean, if that were so, Democrats would be insisting on single-payer or nothing, right?
.
I just love how you had to sneak in that a public option is is an issue "grown to outsize proportion", KT. It's good to see you throw in a personal judgment call there. These sorts of calls are necessary to good reporting.
.
I just wish that you'd make it clear to whom this issue has disproportionately grown. Is it to policy morons who are purely ideological, who never give a damn about policy anyway? Is it to power political people, who only care about partisan advantage?
.
If the issue doesn't really matter so much to good policy, and is only an "ideological flash point", why are so many knowledgeable people making and issue out of it? Is it possible that some people are making a big deal out of it because it is a big deal, and others are making a big deal out of it because for them it's all about "orthodoxy" and that's what they do?
.
...And finally, if the public option really isn't as important to the policy debate as proponents and opponents are making it to be, why is the insurance industry so dead set against it? Surely the sober, bottom line-oriented business executives in the high pay of the insurers aren't just happy to wave the ideological flags of policies they don't understand, right, KT?
.
If it was just about ideology, KT, then why would the industry drawing a line in the sand over the public option?

The one moment of truth from liberals in this debate came at a town hall meeting with a Demo congressman from Kentucky.

Question was asked: How are we going to pay for this bill?

Response: I HAVE NO IDEA!

And that blog whiners is the problem not greedy insurance companies and unwilling Republicans. Under the "public option" the price tag is limitless, unless you ration care or cut services. Add that to asking a government to administer a $3 trillion program and it has failed miserably in paying dealers for a total of 690,114 transactions. What happens when it 10s of millions? FAILURE!

One glimmer of hope for the public option crazies on the left.
.
Olympia Snowe, the self-described Republican, but in all actuality a Democrat is still "negotiating" with Obama.
.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/02/health.care.compromise/index.html
.
It remains to be seen, and I think we shall see in next weeks "Plea to the American People" joint session of Congress for Healthcare Reform, if the negotiations with Snowe proved to be successful. If we do not hear of any "Public Option or Cooperative", then I would say it failed.
.
Karen, did Olympia hold any townhall meetings in Maine? What kind of reaction did she get, if so?

Among the demands that Grassley says he has made that reflect his commitment to conservative orthodoxy: no rationing of health care,
_
since when is not rationing health care part of "conservative orthodoxy", Karen? Seriously -- why are you simply making crap up to make Grassley look good here? Restricting access to health care to those who can afford it (and restricting access to only the procedures individuals can afford) is rationing -- and THAT is conservative orthodoxy.
_
as to the question of whether Grassley was ever sincere, face it Karen, Dems were willing to do what the GOP wanted on three of four of Grassley's so-called principles, and were watering down the fourth one (the public option) and Grassley still would not compromise.
_
A real reporter would REPORT the fact that Grassley demonstrated NO interest in compromise instead of writing a couple of hundred that are an inadequate substitute for a picture of your lips planted firmly on Grassley's posterior.

Graasley is not trusted by the lunatic Christian fringe of the Iowa Republican party...unfortunately, they have virtually taken over the party in Iowa...they would not even issue credentials to him to be a delegate to the national convention.

What he's doing now is running to the right to placate those mouth-breathing retards. Rumors are going around that he may even dump his senate seat and run for governor. When seen in that context, his actions, while despicable, can at least be accounted for as rational for political survival.

Never mind Karen, I found a reference to Snowe's committment to her constituents. She was a NO SHOW for her Townhalls
.
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/117746.html
.
No Show Snowe along with her partner in crime, Sen Susan Collins, both snubbed their noses at their voting constituents over the summer recess.
.
When will Maine citizens wake-up and elect people who will represent them?
.
Its time to VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!!!

Karen this is a piss poor excuse for journalism. No it's not the fact that you indulge your usual negative perspective, arguing against that is like tilting at windmills because you are obviously incapable of looking through any other other lens. No, it is piss poor journalism because you say things like falling polling numbers...did you actually read the polls, any of them, or do you just report things like a parrot without any real understanding.
.
The internals of any of these polls will clearly demonstrate that much of the most recent fluctuation is the result of dissatisfied Democrats mad at the recent turn not less supportive of health care reform. What will you say to this obvious failure on your part? No doubt you will point me to some other journalistic attempt at analysis you found on lexis-nexsis that is just as wrong as yours. If there is one thing journos love is polls and is there anything they understand less? No! Of course recognizing that the poll numbers, reflecting of a snap shot in time, was really more about Liberals being angry with Obama's signal that he might drop the public option or their not understanding that his ode to bipartisanship was a means to give cover while shoring up Democratic support, really gets in the way of the story you wanted to write. Personally, I feel if you're not going to really discuss what the polling means, then stop pretending that this is journalism and call it what it is stenography. Of course, this is pretty much the way the media handled the entire campaign, I guess old habits die hard
.
You've done nothing here but waste everyone's time, because you failed to explore the corporate sponsorship of many of these town halls or that industry flooded these town halls with their own employees, you failed to really explore the impact of the lies and the media's failure to challenge any of them in essence becoming a megaphone for Grassley's deception. And despite painting him as a heroic figure instead of the weak-kneed coward who folded like a two-dollar bill after industry and his own party's bullies cowed him in the corner like Baby -- you want to paint this all as somehow an administration failure from which they can never recover. You don't even bother to mention the fact that very shortly that 59 vote might be to 60. or that Democrats can use that 60 to prevent the filibuster so fewer can vote for the actual bill. It's one thing to be pessimistic, and another to leave out anything that would call into question why someone would draw those conclusion.

Thanks so much for responding to commentary, KT.

You can write reams about whatever nuance there may be to Grassley, but the bottom line is that...

... this is a 76-year-old man, financially set for life, who thinks getting to keep his prestigious job into his 80s is more important than the health & well-being of millions of Americans.

He is beyond contempt.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com