So will the landslide for Brown convince the Democratic Party leadership to drop their spectacularly unpopular health-care bill? No, they're bound and determined to auger in. A "senior White House official" tells The Politico that "This is not a moment that causes the president or anybody who works for him to express any doubt."
Sounds like a true modern intellectual: an encounter with the facts is never a good reason to doubt your theories.
Thus, the Democrats are already planning to put the Senate bill up for a vote in the House without any changes, eliminating the necessity of sending the bill back to the Senate—even though numerous House Democrats have come out against important provisions of the Senate bill.
And then the administration intends to plow right into selling Congress on cap-and-trade energy rationing. An article in The New Republic advocates pursuing this goal precisely because the Democrats are doomed in November: "Democrats are likely to lose at least a few seats in November—and with them, their chances of overcoming a GOP filibuster—so this may be their last chance for some time to set limits on greenhouse gases. The White House seems to recognize this and has so far committed to a major push on carbon-capping legislation in the spring."
This is a key to the real meaning of the left's agenda. They are on a suicide mission motivated by hatred of capitalism—and they are willing to destroy themselves so long as they can take capitalism down with them.
But after today—if the Massachusetts elections goes anything like we think it will—all of this is a delusional fantasy, because it presumes that the remaining Democratic congressmen whose votes are needed in the House are equally willing to sacrifice their political careers for this nihilistic crusade.
At one of the very first tea party events—way back in February of last year—I saw a young lady with a very amusing sign. It read: "Tea Party Now, Tar and Feathers Later." If the Democrats try to push through the health care bill after it has failed a referendum in Massachusetts, of all places, then it will definitely be time to start warming up the tar wagons.
But I think we will start to see a faction of Democrats moving in the opposite direction. The article below asks, rhetorically, why Democrats should be more afraid of the argument "Candidate X is an out-of-touch liberal who voted for the horrible health care reform bill that passed" than they are of the argument "Candidate X is an out-of-touch liberal who voted for the horrible health care reform bill that almost passed."
But a few Democratic congressmen will have in mind a different story line for their re-election campaigns: "Candidate X voted for the awful health-care bill, but when he realized how much the people hated it, he listened to them and had the courage to oppose his own party's leadership and kill the bill." Let's see which congressman steps forward to be the first to claim this distinction.
"How to Pass the Bill—Whatever Happens Tuesday," Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, January 17
[H]ave both houses vote on the bill quickly, before Scott [Brown takes] his seat in the Senate, so that the man he'd be replacing—interim Senator Paul Kirk—could cast the 60th vote to break that Republican filibuster. It would require very quick scoring by the CBO, which seems possible. And Kirk has said he'd vote "yes," whatever the outcome of Tuesday's election.
It could work—but it'd be difficult. Republicans would attack the move as illegitimate. And…a lot of people would listen. Even if the Democratic leadership was willing to risk that backlash, there's no guarantee that the entire caucus would stay in line. And it'd take just one defection to make the GOP filibuster stick.
That's why (slightly) preferred option, at least among those who I interviewed, was to have the House simply approve the Senate bill, as it was written….
Would House Democrats go along? It's hardly a given. Centrists, many of them as ambivalent about reform as their Senate counterparts, would be tempted to use Coakley's defeat as an excuse for voting "no." Liberals, meanwhile, would chafe at supporting a bill that includes so many unpleasant compromises….
Democrats from both ideological sides ought to consider whether voting against it now really spares them political blow-back. All of them have already voted for a health care bill. And that means they can expect one of the following two advertisements this fall:
Candidate X is an out-of-touch liberal who voted for the horrible health care reform bill that passed.
Candidate X is an out-of-touch liberal who voted for the horrible health care reform bill that almost passed.
It seems to me the two ads would be equally effective, unless Democrats can counter it by touting the benefits of reform….. ut the only way to make that argument is to pass health care reform. No matter what happens on Tuesday.
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal
Sounds like a true modern intellectual: an encounter with the facts is never a good reason to doubt your theories.
Thus, the Democrats are already planning to put the Senate bill up for a vote in the House without any changes, eliminating the necessity of sending the bill back to the Senate—even though numerous House Democrats have come out against important provisions of the Senate bill.
And then the administration intends to plow right into selling Congress on cap-and-trade energy rationing. An article in The New Republic advocates pursuing this goal precisely because the Democrats are doomed in November: "Democrats are likely to lose at least a few seats in November—and with them, their chances of overcoming a GOP filibuster—so this may be their last chance for some time to set limits on greenhouse gases. The White House seems to recognize this and has so far committed to a major push on carbon-capping legislation in the spring."
This is a key to the real meaning of the left's agenda. They are on a suicide mission motivated by hatred of capitalism—and they are willing to destroy themselves so long as they can take capitalism down with them.
But after today—if the Massachusetts elections goes anything like we think it will—all of this is a delusional fantasy, because it presumes that the remaining Democratic congressmen whose votes are needed in the House are equally willing to sacrifice their political careers for this nihilistic crusade.
At one of the very first tea party events—way back in February of last year—I saw a young lady with a very amusing sign. It read: "Tea Party Now, Tar and Feathers Later." If the Democrats try to push through the health care bill after it has failed a referendum in Massachusetts, of all places, then it will definitely be time to start warming up the tar wagons.
But I think we will start to see a faction of Democrats moving in the opposite direction. The article below asks, rhetorically, why Democrats should be more afraid of the argument "Candidate X is an out-of-touch liberal who voted for the horrible health care reform bill that passed" than they are of the argument "Candidate X is an out-of-touch liberal who voted for the horrible health care reform bill that almost passed."
But a few Democratic congressmen will have in mind a different story line for their re-election campaigns: "Candidate X voted for the awful health-care bill, but when he realized how much the people hated it, he listened to them and had the courage to oppose his own party's leadership and kill the bill." Let's see which congressman steps forward to be the first to claim this distinction.
"How to Pass the Bill—Whatever Happens Tuesday," Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, January 17
[H]ave both houses vote on the bill quickly, before Scott [Brown takes] his seat in the Senate, so that the man he'd be replacing—interim Senator Paul Kirk—could cast the 60th vote to break that Republican filibuster. It would require very quick scoring by the CBO, which seems possible. And Kirk has said he'd vote "yes," whatever the outcome of Tuesday's election.
It could work—but it'd be difficult. Republicans would attack the move as illegitimate. And…a lot of people would listen. Even if the Democratic leadership was willing to risk that backlash, there's no guarantee that the entire caucus would stay in line. And it'd take just one defection to make the GOP filibuster stick.
That's why (slightly) preferred option, at least among those who I interviewed, was to have the House simply approve the Senate bill, as it was written….
Would House Democrats go along? It's hardly a given. Centrists, many of them as ambivalent about reform as their Senate counterparts, would be tempted to use Coakley's defeat as an excuse for voting "no." Liberals, meanwhile, would chafe at supporting a bill that includes so many unpleasant compromises….
Democrats from both ideological sides ought to consider whether voting against it now really spares them political blow-back. All of them have already voted for a health care bill. And that means they can expect one of the following two advertisements this fall:
Candidate X is an out-of-touch liberal who voted for the horrible health care reform bill that passed.
Candidate X is an out-of-touch liberal who voted for the horrible health care reform bill that almost passed.
It seems to me the two ads would be equally effective, unless Democrats can counter it by touting the benefits of reform….. ut the only way to make that argument is to pass health care reform. No matter what happens on Tuesday.
Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal
0 comments:
Post a Comment