Reconciliation

shepherdwong:

Though I'm sure that their follow-up gigs will be even sweeter for having done their masters' bidding to betray the public interest.

See "Daschle, Tom".

...when you say that Reid faces "substantial anger from the left" if and when he drops a trigger-free public option, what you mean is he will shortly be out of a job in the Senate. Same goes for Lincoln.

Yes, Research 2000 polls of Democratic primary voters in AK have her committing political suicide with them if she opposes HCR, but just wait until Obama campaigns for her, like he did Lieberman.
.
We also blew it big-time when we ran our mouths off about the Republican base and "ideological purges" and the "wilderness" and "shrinking the party for right-wing purity".
.
The story in 2010 will be all about us "committing suicide" and "ideological purity" and so forth and so on. We'll be blamed for Dem losses, for sure. We f-ed up.

"The story in 2010 will be all about us "committing suicide" and "ideological purity" and so forth and so on. We'll be blamed for Dem losses, for sure. We f-ed up."
.
Well, let's see what Obama and Reid manage to wrestle out of the process shall we? There's always a chance they'll come to their senses before it's too late (Obama's tepid support for real reform won't buy Blue Dogs enough progressive/liberal votes to save them if it fails) or they already get it and this is just more Kabuki for the corporatists.
.
Anyway, "conservative" "ideological purity" just makes the Republican Party even crazier and less responsive to middle class issues, our purges make the Democratic Party more responsive to average voters and more small "d" democratic. That's no eff-up.

"stage manage a failed cloture vote on the bill with the public option in it in order to go to an immediate substitution bill with a trigger in it (what I'm hearing is the most likely route),"

"Stage manage"?

So what you are hearing as the most likely route is a BS move to placate "the left"?

As dim as Fightin' Harry can be even I have a hard time believing that he'll try that move.

shepherdwong:

Anyway, "conservative" "ideological purity" just makes the Republican Party even crazier and less responsive to middle class issues, our purges make the Democratic Party more responsive to average voters and more small "d" democratic. That's no eff-up.

I respectfully disagree. I think that the Republicans do speak to middle class issues, and very effectively in comparison to most Democrats. It is probably only that they've been such naked, catastrophic failures over the past eight years that they've lost credibility and majority power.
.
I believe that there is a large constituency that is sympathetic to populist conservatism, mostly because liberals have yet to effectively address that population. Liberals haven't had the opportunity to speak, have our ideas debated and prove ourselves through successful governance because the Democratic party is controlled by a centrist faction (the DLC and New Democrats) who are largely hostile to liberalism, liberals and popular accountability in general. We can't get a fair hearing. The people who speak "for us" on Meet The Press are centrists --either politicians or journos-- matched up against movement conservatives.
.
Also, the right has an established messaging infrastructure all to themselves, while we largely depend on institutional media, which are dominated by centrists or their corporatist allies. The left has nothing analogous that's that large and organized...yet. Liberals who do make their way up the establishment ladder do so by appealing to elites, and looking the other way when press corps hierarchy and conventions damage our interests.
.
The whole "crazy Republicans" thing is a way for the centrists who control our discourse to demean populism, period. The only reason they're "crazy" now is because they're accountable to their base, which the political-media establishment despises and fears.
.
We f-ed up because "our purges" will be portrayed by our populism-fearing political press corps as identical to the right's, and indicative of our decline. The whole idea of being "responsive to average voters" in a way that doesn't come from Madison Avenue techniques is alien, and will be denounced as subversive, just like the tea party movement ultimately was --not because it was portrayed as inauthentic astro-turfing, but because it was portrayed as authentic, angry people demanding things from politicians.
.
It's not that the people at the Post and NBC hate the right and believe they're wrong on the merits when they mock the tea partiers, it's that they don't have respect for normal people expressing themselves in an unmanaged way --right or left-- period. When they mock the tea partiers, it's just another version of their contempt for us.
.
You don't really imagine that elites like Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell, or David Gregory and Brian Williams, or Joe Klein and David Ignatius, or Rick Stengel and Ruth Marcus think there's any difference between the "activist, liberal base" of the Democratic party --people who opposed the Iraq war in 2003, for example-- and the firearms-at-rallies popular right, do you, shepherdwong?
.
We f-ed up.
.
When the rightists demanded the Republican party be accountable to the folks who reliably turn up and vote, and who donate their time and effort to elect candidates and spread messages, and who show up across the country and in the capitol at political rallies, we should have cheered, not screamed "Oh my god, look at the crazy people carrying signs and demonstrating!". We should have said "Good for them! That's democracy in action," not "They're crazy to think that politicians should be accountable! They're sure to lose elections!" instead of reciting the anti-populist, centrist CW script about how people "naturally gravitate toward the center."
.
We took our eye off of the ball, and let ourselves be manipulated. Look, how can we call the GOP crazy, and then say that the goal of legislation should be "finding common ground" with their representatives in Congress? Let's not kid ourselves: the Republican Party isn't being called crazy on our behalf --Krauthammer, Gingrich, the Cheneys & co still have platforms, don't they?-- it's that ordinary people are being called crazy again, and this time they're Republicans.
.
We f-ed up because, when it comes right down to it, so many of us just love to hate the right, so much so that we forget about the center who hates us even more. We so predictably love to hate the right so much that we just can't seem to get our minds around the notion that such reactions are being manipulated largely to keep us out of power.
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, shepherdwong.

Somebody hire me an editor.
.
How the crap can I say that in less paragraphs?
.
Where am I repeating myself?
.
God, I must get better at writing.

…stuart, you usually get responses from the commentariat, so something must be working here for you no matter how long posts are. For some others, it's less consistent. I sometimes get answers to my q's from KT and Jay (still working on Amy) and really appreciate their comments, but otherwise it's often off to feeding the crickets again. (today's exchange w/ rusty was an exception) Take asking about how to do italics; I asked but naturally had to go look up the GD solution myself.

"I think that the Republicans do speak to middle class issues, and very effectively in comparison to most Democrats. It is probably only that they've been such naked, catastrophic failures over the past eight years that they've lost credibility and majority power."
.
I'm speaking strictly about policy and strictly not about political rhetoric, though I find "conservative" and Republican rhetoric so inane and hypocritical these days, I'm amazed that it "speaks" to any sentient being and Democrats look even more incompetent and pusillanimous losing ground to it (the blame for which goes from corporate propaganda to a corrupted news media to right-wing-authoritarian-following to Democratic "conservatives"). In other words, Republicans were "such naked, catastrophic failures over the past eight years" because they were so very successful at implementing "conservative" policies (with the help of those "conservative" Democrats). Policy wise, I don't think these last eight years spoke very well to middle class issues by almost every empirical measure.
.
Though if you think George Bush or Sarah Pailin "speak to middle class issues", promising more tax cuts for the rich, more wars and trillion-dollar-a-year debt., waiting to go bankrupt from medical bills or being raped by their credit card company, better than Obama and the Democrats...I'm not sure who you think should be blamed for that. Remember, many of the people who follow Republican leaders have a completely different psychological and rhetorical orientation than the rest of us. Unless you think Obama is a Socialist who aims to destroy the country on behalf of al Qaeda and Jeremiah Wright.

but otherwise it's often off to feeding the crickets again
.
decon: I would suggest using more paragraphs. I don't know about other people, but I often find your posts physically difficult to read.

Stuart: concise is better. Tell me how, other than stoking their fears and resentments, Republicans speak to middle class issues.

Republicans are very VERY good at playing to the "why are things bad for me?" part of the populace.
.
That's why they are so effective as an opposition party and so poor as a governing party.
.
With all due respect I think SZ with his, not unreasonable, frustration with the Democrats overstates the power of the Republican message.

"With all due respect I think SZ with his, not unreasonable, frustration with the Democrats overstates the power of the Republican message."
.
I'm not sure that Stuart overstates the success of Republican rhetoric, especially in light of it's relatively ridiculous hypocrisy and vacuousness. The point is that the critique is value-neutral, just like the corporate press. It doesn't account for the fact that the Republican message is an evil, sometimes seditious lie, spread solely for the benefits of powerful elites, in part or in whole by an insidious array of public information sources, including nearly all corporate media.
.
The trouble is, when you equate the tactical success of that calculated lying and corporate-sponsored media disinformation in corrupting the minds of succeptible people, with speaking "very effectively" to "middle class issues", you've denigrated both public wisdom and morality (not that easy to do these days) and effective public policy to the level of the amoral mercenary conduct of corporate actors.

I've often pondered how different realpolitik would be today if Frist had won his nuclear option …then lose R power in '08. Jay, have you or KT posted detailed stuff on how Reid could do try this? I also wonder if any issue changing “Senate affairs” might win over Ensign. Speaking of Ensign and making out with Landrieu on the Senate floor / not, Jay, have you dug up any more stuff on Coburn's alleged role in dealing with Ensign's “affairs” (the affair wife's hubby is claiming this; Coburn denies)? thx
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1109/Coburn_denies_Hampton_accusation.html?showall

SZ:

I am curious what do you do for a living. Seriously, I don't agree with a lot of what to say but you have deep complete thoughts on a lot of issues and I respect that.

Agree freeinpa. Stuart most definitely keeps his comments in perspective. One could only wish to be near his level of commendable comments.
.
However, his level of discourse is drowned out by the many other variant commenters that go down into the dark recesses of the likes of our 3rd graders, IQ53 and company.

freeinpa:

what do you do for a living

I design and program databases, web applications. mobile applications, web services, cross-platform data exchange middleware, automatic-messaging applications (texting that communicates user choices back to update databases, phone calling with automated menus that record scheduling choices , emailing with data-driven links and forms, etc), and a whole host of specialized custom work-flow apps for corporate customers. I consult on these matters for decision-makers, too, so that they can know when their vendors and bidders are and aren't telling them the truth about what a technology will and won't do in X time for Y dollars. I'm getting into content management systems now, too, but I'm not doing any business, yet.
.
That's some of what I do for a living. My biggest area of expertise involves data modeling and database programming. My card says "Chief Data Architect", but even though I'm drawing up blueprints for a proposed technology house, I'm also sometimes the one going in and fixing the plumbing under the sink in said metaphorical house.
.
I hope that all made sense.

Thank you for your response. It does make sense. You responses follow a very recognizable methodical pattern.

You do have my respect.

This is interesting regarding the nuclear option...

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ballin that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by majority vote. In 1917, Senator John J. Walsh contended the majority of the Senate could revise a procedural rule at any time, despite the requirement of the Senate rules that a two-thirds majority is necessary to approve a rule change. "When the Constitution says, 'Each House may determine its rules of proceedings,' it means that each House may, by a majority vote, a quorum present, determine its rules," Walsh told the Senate. Opponents countered that Walsh's "Constitutional option" would lead to procedural chaos, but his argument was a key factor in the adoption of the first cloture rule later that year. In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon issued an advisory opinion stating that no Senate may constitutionally enact a rule that deprives a future Senate of the right to approve its own rules by the vote of a simple majority. Although legally nonbinding, this opinion has been treated as definitive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Dee:

The most important thing we can do is get a foundation that is permanent and can be built on, Medicare, social security, the VA all sorts of things were not perfect when they started and most are not perfect now, but all have seen improvements from where they started.

What do you mean by that, exactly?
.
How would this health care reform be "built on" in the future?
.
What specific "improvements" are you envisioning?

For example, the public option if there is one, right now is only open to those who are not covered by their employer, maybe someday after it becomes more popular and the public becomes less skeptical they will demand that that it be open to everyone. There's no question in mind that the exchanges will get better, community rating will get better, there's bound to be unintended consequences that will have to be improved. Frankly, I don't understand why you seem to think that this is such an unlikely scenario since its pretty much the history of every single piece of legislation this country has ever produced including the constitution.
.
Once this bill passes it will get better and the GOP knows it that's why they are so afraid of it. They still want to repeal social security and medicare but they know the public would never stand for it. The GOP is most afraid of the bill getting a foot in the door, even through a trigger. And I hope if they go to a trigger, they go to the a trigger that demands the strongest possible public option that will take affect if costs savings doesn't materialize.
.
If you go back to Medicare and look at all the Parts, they weren't all there from the beginning. Social Security, didn't use to cover federal employees, and a number of other categories of employees and didn't have all of the benefits that it has now. It's the way things work in legislation and its better to get a foundation to build on than wait another 20 years to try to get here in this place again.

Actually Landrieu will recieve 300 MILLION for her pro-vote the other night. But, when TRILLIONS are being tossed around who is counting a mere 100 million versus 300 million?
.
I am curious tho Dee. You cite Medicare, Social Security and the VA as bedrock ideals as examples of how the proposed Health Care Insurance Reform can be patterned after.
.
I take it then you believe that they are the examples of how a larger more robust health care system should be patterned after? How familiar are you with any of these 3 entitlement programs? Do you think they are viable entities or failures that are going broke as we speak? Long lasting programs with minimal tax payer subsidies or huge deficit non-sustaining programs?
.
If these three programs survive even, how do you think an even larger entitlement program will survive? How do you keep it going over time, Dee? Fairy dust?

Actually Landrieu will recieve 300 MILLION for her pro-vote the other night.
.
Prove it.

Here you go Cliff. In her own words, Landreiu proudly claims it to NOT be a 100 MILLION dollar "fix", but a 300 MILLION dollar "fix" for Lousianna.
.

"Based on that logic, a fix was needed according Landrieu to counter this artificial government-created wage inflation. But she claimed that aid was not just $100 million, but an astounding $300 million (emphasis added).
.
"And as a result, when we did the calculations, under the law, it made us seem as if we were Connecticut and not Louisiana, like we had sometime overnight become rich," Landrieu continued. "That is not the case, Madame President. Our state is still as poor as it was, if not poorer. I am not going to be defensive about asking for help in this situation and it is not a $100 million fix, it is a $300 million fix."
.
But, she denied that $100 million provision was the reason she had decided to vote in favor of cloture.
.
"I'm proud to have asked for it," Landrieu said. "I'm proud to have fought for it and I will continue to. That is not the reason I am moving to debate. The reason I am moving to the debate, as expressed - in this statement and in hundreds of statements and speeches I've given over the last year or two on this subject, which should be self-explanatory."

.
So it seems there is more to come with PORK for Lousianna, further BRIBES for votes that Lousianna has been historically noted for.
.
Politics as usual for the Democrats, and they are "proud" of the fact that they indeed do it. Not 100 million or even 300 million ear marked for Lousianna due to any health care needs, simply a HUGE influx of pork in this supposed health care bill. Unbelieveable.
.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/11/21/louisiana-purchase-landrieu-blames-abc-report-100-million-buyoff-very-par

Thanks so much for responding to commentary with that helpful information, Jay Newton-Small.

What I get from this, JNS, is that the Senate is an unserious place where playing games and worrying about re-election is more important that actually doing the people's business. And I believe that the MSM are complicit because you spend so much time talking about the games these people play. It is always about their re-election, not about what is good for people - the voters. We have Byrd who can barely get in to vote: but he has served 50 years. The man's vanity is more important that the people's business. That he carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket tells me more about his vanity than about his desire to contribute to the welfare of all Americans as opposed to his pork-laden constituents. He is not the first Senate bull, I know, but he represents everything that is wrong with the Senate. Look at Reid and McConnell: two unappetising characters in charge of the "world's greatest deliberative body", filled with many of the the world's quintessential hypocrites.

I am totally disgusted.

Wow, I feel like an idiot. You know all this time people have been talking about a nuclear option, I really had no idea what they were talking about. After someone explains it, it really doesn't seem nearly as bad as the name makes it sound. I actually prefer this to reconciliation.

alaskanturkey: It's only been a handful of years since the republicans were talking about a permanent (or semi-permanent majority) and look where they are today. The same can happen to the democrats and just as quickly. The nuclear option is a classic case of what goes around comes around. It's MAD all over again. No one wants to use it because the chances are that it would also be used on them.
.
The representatives in D.C. are in there for the long haul and realize better than anyone that the pendulum swings to the right and then the left just like on a grandfather clock. The atmosphere in Washington is bad. The nuclear option would make it toxic. Probably for good.