Where I come from, it's considered very impolite to say uncharitable things about a man after he dies, but in the case of Ted Kennedy, I'm having a hard time finding anything good to say. So I will just say that I agree with a reader on the overall symbolic timing of Senator Kennedy's death:
Teddy's death couldn't have come at a more opportune time, in terms of political allegory—he died at a time in American history where it's becoming more and more obvious to even the most hardcore liberals, that liberalism is being rejected and discredited—that liberalism itself is dying, philosophically.
I only have two quibbles. The first is that Ted Kennedy did not represent the "liberals"; he represented the far left—a group that is too far from any advocacy of liberty to merit the use of the word "liberal." Second, the left has made one heck of an attempt to resurrect itself in the past year—a far better attempt than I thought it was capable of. But the tea party movement offers us increasing hope that this re-animation of the undead left is failing.
Kennedy's passing will give the left one last burst of energy in pushing their agenda. Already, Senator Robert Byrd is trying to exploit Kennedy's death to promote the health-care bill, declaring, "In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American."
This is predictable, and I was afraid it might actually work with some people. But check out the comments field in the report I just linked to, and it's pretty clear that Byrd's gambit isn't going over.
And Kennedy's death turns the numbers against the Democrats. Chris Matthews correctly points out that Kennedy's absence (and the time it will take to select a replacement) leaves the Democrats with only 59 votes in the Senate, not the 60 they needed to steamroller Republicans and eliminate the threat of a filibuster. Matthews is also right about how devastating a failure will be for the left: "the message people will remember is that you tried to create socialism and you failed."
And they are failing. First it was liberal Republican Chuck Grassley who declared the health-care bill dead. Now it's far-left Democrat Russ Feingold. TIA Daily reader Wayne Kline brought my attention to an article about Feingold's statement at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin.
US Sen. Russ Feingold told a large crowd gathered for a listening session in Iron County last week there would likely be no health care bill before the end of the year—and perhaps not at all.
It was an assessment Feingold said he didn't like, but the prospect of no health care legislation brought a burst of applause from a packed house of nearly 150 citizens at the Mercer Community Center.
"Nobody is going to bring a bill before Christmas, and maybe not even then, if this ever happens," Feingold said. "The divisions are so deep. I never seen anything like that."
And now Joe Lieberman is sounding a retreat from the health-care bill. Below, Dick Morris describes how Lieberman's complaints about runaway deficits will provide the cover under which a lot of moderate Democrats will excuse their abandonment of Obama's unpopular health-care plan.
No, we haven't won yet; don't get complacent. But the dominos are beginning to fall.
"Joe's Critique May Turn Tide," Dick Morris, New York Post, August 26
Senator Joseph Lieberman's criticism of the Obama health-care initiative may prove to be a pivotal turning point.
Others have focused exclusively on the Obama plan's impact on health care. The elderly worry about bearing the brunt of the inevitable rationing; others look with alarm at the de facto socialization of one-sixth of our economy.
But Lieberman's critique doesn't center on the program's health-care aspects or even on its ultimate desirability. Rather, he questions the wisdom of attempting so radical a transformation and so extensive—and expensive—an extension of government's role in our economy during a major recession attended by a huge budget deficit….
The elderly may worry about the reform bill's cuts of $500 billion in Medicare and Medicaid over the ensuing decade; conservatives may fret over socialization of health care. But the average American can relate most easily to the concerns over the size of the debt and the deficit that Lieberman articulates.
This also gives moderates a place to go in the health-care debate. Caught in the tug between the liberals who dominate Democratic primaries and the more conservative voices that may prevail in November, centrist Democrats can rally easily around Joe Lieberman's "not now" approach.
Teddy's death couldn't have come at a more opportune time, in terms of political allegory—he died at a time in American history where it's becoming more and more obvious to even the most hardcore liberals, that liberalism is being rejected and discredited—that liberalism itself is dying, philosophically.
I only have two quibbles. The first is that Ted Kennedy did not represent the "liberals"; he represented the far left—a group that is too far from any advocacy of liberty to merit the use of the word "liberal." Second, the left has made one heck of an attempt to resurrect itself in the past year—a far better attempt than I thought it was capable of. But the tea party movement offers us increasing hope that this re-animation of the undead left is failing.
Kennedy's passing will give the left one last burst of energy in pushing their agenda. Already, Senator Robert Byrd is trying to exploit Kennedy's death to promote the health-care bill, declaring, "In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American."
This is predictable, and I was afraid it might actually work with some people. But check out the comments field in the report I just linked to, and it's pretty clear that Byrd's gambit isn't going over.
And Kennedy's death turns the numbers against the Democrats. Chris Matthews correctly points out that Kennedy's absence (and the time it will take to select a replacement) leaves the Democrats with only 59 votes in the Senate, not the 60 they needed to steamroller Republicans and eliminate the threat of a filibuster. Matthews is also right about how devastating a failure will be for the left: "the message people will remember is that you tried to create socialism and you failed."
And they are failing. First it was liberal Republican Chuck Grassley who declared the health-care bill dead. Now it's far-left Democrat Russ Feingold. TIA Daily reader Wayne Kline brought my attention to an article about Feingold's statement at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin.
US Sen. Russ Feingold told a large crowd gathered for a listening session in Iron County last week there would likely be no health care bill before the end of the year—and perhaps not at all.
It was an assessment Feingold said he didn't like, but the prospect of no health care legislation brought a burst of applause from a packed house of nearly 150 citizens at the Mercer Community Center.
"Nobody is going to bring a bill before Christmas, and maybe not even then, if this ever happens," Feingold said. "The divisions are so deep. I never seen anything like that."
And now Joe Lieberman is sounding a retreat from the health-care bill. Below, Dick Morris describes how Lieberman's complaints about runaway deficits will provide the cover under which a lot of moderate Democrats will excuse their abandonment of Obama's unpopular health-care plan.
No, we haven't won yet; don't get complacent. But the dominos are beginning to fall.
"Joe's Critique May Turn Tide," Dick Morris, New York Post, August 26
Senator Joseph Lieberman's criticism of the Obama health-care initiative may prove to be a pivotal turning point.
Others have focused exclusively on the Obama plan's impact on health care. The elderly worry about bearing the brunt of the inevitable rationing; others look with alarm at the de facto socialization of one-sixth of our economy.
But Lieberman's critique doesn't center on the program's health-care aspects or even on its ultimate desirability. Rather, he questions the wisdom of attempting so radical a transformation and so extensive—and expensive—an extension of government's role in our economy during a major recession attended by a huge budget deficit….
The elderly may worry about the reform bill's cuts of $500 billion in Medicare and Medicaid over the ensuing decade; conservatives may fret over socialization of health care. But the average American can relate most easily to the concerns over the size of the debt and the deficit that Lieberman articulates.
This also gives moderates a place to go in the health-care debate. Caught in the tug between the liberals who dominate Democratic primaries and the more conservative voices that may prevail in November, centrist Democrats can rally easily around Joe Lieberman's "not now" approach.
0 comments:
Post a Comment