The day Obama got elected, Ari and I talked about his plans for office. There was EFCA and civil liberties and closure of Guantanamo and financial regulation and a properly Keynesian New Deal and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and ponies and unicorns.
And I said, “Dude”—in my usually articulate way—“dude, if he can get me healthcare, all that other stuff can slide.”
So, that’s our bumper sticker up there, from summer 2008. It’s not as if we didn’t see this coming. But I mean to say, is there no spine? is there no message discipline?
We are, a smart man once said, “at a breaking point.” We are, that smart man said, “We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people.”
And, that smart man added,
Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.
So all that was apparently baloney, there’s no breaking point after all, the millions of uninsured can go suffer, because there are only 59 D votes in the Senate now, and because the notoriously pugnacious Barney Frank has decided those people aren’t worth a fight.
The Edge of the American West 
37 comments
January 20, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Silbey
“The Democrats: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since…oh, hell, since forever.”
January 20, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Vance
I can’t find words to express how disappointed I am. Even looking at the bumper sticker again (and I have mine somewhere) is painful.
January 20, 2010 at 2:15 pm
politicalfootball
I am yet again reminded of the words of Lily Tomlin: “No matter how cynical I get, I can’t keep up.”
January 20, 2010 at 2:22 pm
ben
Laying it all on Barney Frank seems a little unjust.
January 20, 2010 at 2:25 pm
eric
ben, do you not understand the meaning of the word “and”? or of rhetorical excess? The title of the post pretty much says, “Expect rhetorical excess.”
January 20, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Ben Alpers
As I indicated throughout the 2008 campaign and afterward (including on comment threads on this website, I think), I never thought there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Obama would get real HCR passed. His plan was far too timid. And he and his party are far too dependent on insurance and pharmaceutical industry money.
Only two things have surprised me about how this is turning out:
1) At some point last summer we were closer to getting real HCR than I thought we’d be.
2) I never dreamed that so much political capital would be wasted in a failed attempt to pass an inadequate bill. I foolishly thought the one thing that the Obama White House would be sure to avoid was giving us 1994 all over again. About this I turned out to be very much mistaken.
Now let’s see if we can go for a two-fer. With a little help from the party’s (pseudo-)fiscal conservatives (remember: spending on guns and killing/torturing people doesn’t count!), 2009-10 might not only be a replay of 1993-94, but also of 1937-38.
Whether or not they pull this off, I fear that Obama and the Congressional Democrats have yet to hit bottom.
January 20, 2010 at 2:38 pm
eric
I never dreamed that so much political capital would be wasted in a failed attempt to pass an inadequate bill
I think in this we are of the same mind.
January 20, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Ben Alpers
Erp….that should read: “I never thought there was a snowball’s chance in hell that Obama would get real healthcare reform passed.”
That’ll teach me to rely on clichés.
And to post comments on sites with no preview button ;-)
January 20, 2010 at 2:44 pm
davenoon
I haven’t had time to go back and comb the entire history of the US Senate, but my own shrill impression is that we’ve just witnessed the end of the MOST USELESS SUPERMAJORITY IN THE HISTORY OF EVERYTHING.
God bless. What a worthless bunch. And Gibbs today saying that everyone in the WH was “surprised” by this? Do they not have the intertubes at the White House yet? Are they still using NetZero dial-up?
W
T
F?
January 20, 2010 at 2:47 pm
eric
the end of the MOST USELESS SUPERMAJORITY IN THE HISTORY OF EVERYTHING.
That would be a good post title.
January 20, 2010 at 2:55 pm
elizardbreath
Not buying the bumpersticker back in ’08 was a mistake, wasn’t it.
January 20, 2010 at 2:56 pm
andrew
It could be worse – at least there’s no liberum veto. (Can’t forget Poland-Lithuania.)
January 20, 2010 at 3:04 pm
mr earl
And laying so much on Obama may be a tad unfair, given that “the best ideas of both parties” approach was impossible because one of them refused to have any ideas beyond “No,” which is not really an idea, and they were unanimous about it, and there’s that 60-vote thing in the Senate to add a premium to their unanimity.
But there you omitted another point on which Obama can be faulted: Not going after the Senate over the archaic, nay silly, 60-vote requirement. Given that even with 60 votes the Democrats don’t have enough to abolish that anachronism, Obama could have, without appearing to be whacking his own party, taken the Senate to the woodshed publicly on the near insanity of adding a super majority stricture to a body already sufficiently designed (and deliberately, thoughtfully so) to impede majority rule.
Is there another legislative chamber in the country–or heck, the planet–where 58% isn’t a majority sufficient to a decision on most questions?
While the traditionalist in me shrinks from the prospect, the pragmatist on my other shoulder is suggesting that if the Senate won’t consider abolishing the 60-vote rule, perhaps we should consider abolishing . . . the Senate.
January 20, 2010 at 3:06 pm
eric
Not buying the bumpersticker back in ‘08 was a mistake, wasn’t it.
Apparently it’s still available, if you click the image.
January 20, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Vance
Apparently the papal conclave requires a 2/3 majority.
January 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Ben Alpers
And don’t miss this e-mail from a longtime Dem Senate staffer to Josh Marshall over on TPM.
The nut graph:
The worst is that I can’t help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done. While I always thought we had the better ideas but the weaker messaging, it feels like somewhere along the line Members internalized a belief that we actually have weaker ideas. They’re afraid to actually implement them and face the judgement of the voters. That’s the scariest dynamic and what makes me think this will all come crashing down around us in November.
January 20, 2010 at 3:28 pm
rja
Apparently the papal conclave requires a 2/3 majority.
So, when we see white smoke, health care reform will have passed?
January 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm
silbey
Barney Frank seems to have reacquired his balls:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/u-turn-frank-says-with-assurances-hell-vote-for-the-senate-health-care-bill.php
January 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Vance
I was just going to post that link, silbey. His loss thereof had been one of the more depressing details of the party reaction.
January 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Tom
I don’t want to say, “We’re doomed,” as it will only encourage the pessimism and the naysayers, but….
We’re doomed.
January 20, 2010 at 4:47 pm
kevin
I don’t want to say, “We’re doomed,” as it will only encourage the pessimism and the naysayers, but….
I have a hard time understanding how the current make-up of Congress, where Democrats have 59 in the Senate and 256 in the House, is dramatically worse than where we were exactly one year ago, when Democrats had 58 in the Senate and 257 in the House.
Not only is the current situation a little better than it was a year ago, I’d argue that it’s better than it was a week ago too. This dispells the illusion of the supermajority and forces Democrats back to where they were before Franken was finally sworn in and Joe Lieberman became the center of the universe.
The Senate has passed a HCR bill which, as Steve Benen notes, does an incredible amount and would prove to be incredibly popular if the House passed it as well. The remaining points of quibbling can be fixed through reconciliation, as they’re budget issues.
If the Democrats don’t pass the Senate bill, not only will they have wasted nine months of work, but the public will never have a chance to see the real bill in action and be left to believe that all the lies they were told about the bill — death panels and all — were actually true.
One simple vote in the House, where Democrats still hold a huge majority, and health care reform is law. A staggering achievement, something that eluded FDR and Truman and LBJ and Clinton, but not Obama. One vote, and it’s done.
So no, we’re not doomed. At all.
January 20, 2010 at 5:05 pm
eric
One simple vote in the House … So no, we’re not doomed. At all.
And yet the president and various Democrats appear to be telling us we won’t be having that simple vote in the House. Hence the post.
January 20, 2010 at 5:24 pm
kevin
Eh. Frank’s dialed back the initial pessimism and says he could vote for it, Hoyer said they could get the votes, and Pelosi insists they’re “moving forward.”
Anyone worried about it — and that should be all of us — should stop kvetching and start calling their representative. The House switchboard is (202) 224-3121.
January 20, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Tom
And yet the president and various Democrats appear to be telling us we won’t be having that simple vote in the House. Hence the post.
Yeah, exactly. I don’t think we’re doomed because Brown was elected. That’s obviously ridiculous, because in a functioning democratic system a 59% majority is large. I think we’re doomed because we don’t have a functioning democratic system, but rather a system where no one cares about governing and the vast majority of political opinion is filtered through the inanities of cable news. Hence the unnecessary freak-out.
And even if health care squeaks by, say goodbye to cap-and-trade, financial regulatory reform, or anything else you think you want to see passed. The Republicans’ “No” strategy works, so they’re going to keep it up.
January 20, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Ahistoricality
Apparently the papal conclave requires a 2/3 majority.
Yeah, but: a) they only have one meeting every few decades and b) they have the authority to limit food and drink until a “consensus” is reached.
I say we try that in California first: nothing but vitamin water and sourdough until they come out with a balanced budget.
January 20, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Kieran
I think if the Democrats had 99 Senate seats we’d still be hearing that the guy from Montana retained a lot of leverage thanks to his Seniority, the Senate’s rules, its unspoken conventions, its tradition of bipartisanship, and the deep respect Senators have for one another; and these forces were together preventing any further progress on Health Care Reform at this time.
January 20, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Mr. Sidetable
Candidates need an 80% vote from the selection committee to get into the NFL Hall of Fame. Take that, papal conclave!
January 20, 2010 at 7:35 pm
E. Litella
What’s all this fuss I hear about PayPal conclaves! There are already enough problems with that website without requiring a 2/3 majority for anything!
January 20, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Anderson
It could be worse – at least there’s no liberum veto.
Lieberman-veto was not obviously superior.
January 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm
dana
What I can’t figure out is how a 59-41 majority in the Senate entails a minority in the House.
January 21, 2010 at 6:12 am
Tom
Dana,
It’s like golf. Whoever has the lowest score wins.
January 21, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Charlieford
The whole thing’s absurd. When polled and asked, “do you want portability?” or “do you think everyone should be assured?” or “should you be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions?” a clear majority of Americans say “Yes!”
Most of the opposition to the HCR bill we saw this summer was from older Americans fearful that their socialized medicine (Medicare) would be reduced.
Much of the rest of the opposition is from all those Birkenstock wearin’, Volvo-drivin’, patchouli smellin’, brie eatin’, TEoTAW readin’, pinko-fellow-travellin’, soft-on-everything, un-real-Americans who want a stronger bill, not no bill at all.
As Larison points out, even Brown was smart enough to run on defending Medicare and the Mass. plan.
So, we’re handing the country over to the tea-partyers? This makes any kind of sense?
January 21, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Charlieford
Umm. That should be “should you be unable to be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions?”
January 21, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Bitchphd
I have faith that Pelosi will frogmarch the House into line. Which still bums me out, bc the Senate bill is pretty crappy.
I keep telling myself that part of the Dem’s problem is being the true party of the big tent, and that it’s easy to be the spoiler party if you enforce rigidly narrow ideological purity. But it’s not really making me feel any better.
January 21, 2010 at 4:05 pm
eric
TEoTAW readin’
Wait a minute, there. I think you’ve got the wrong blog, pardner.
January 21, 2010 at 9:11 pm
andrew
Maybe the readers don’t support you in email.
January 22, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Barry
Note – I just called my rep and Pelosi.
eric: “I have a hard time understanding how the current make-up of Congress, where Democrats have 59 in the Senate and 256 in the House, is dramatically worse than where we were exactly one year ago, when Democrats had 58 in the Senate and 257 in the House. ”
Eric, think of it this way – the GOP has taken the measure of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Even with sooooooooooooooooo much going for them, they were able to pass a screwed up version of HCR, whose best argument was that it could be improved.
And now they stopped even that.
They’ve also *proven* that at least a half-dozen of the Democratic Senators are happier with the GOP than with the Democratic Party, which is really good news to them.
They’ve proven that they can run a better media campaign (with the help, of course, of the corporate MSM).
They’ve proven that they can get enough Americans out protesting, scared sh*tless that the poor, poor insurance companies might be fwighted by the big, bad ol’ pussy cat. That’s always good to know, and rather important after breaking the world’s financial system. This will also come in handy in the GOP War to Save Wall St Scum, starting any day now.
And right now, not only have they taken the measure of Obama, but Obama doesn’t seem to be reacting well. I’m actually thinking that he has no clue.
Imagine that you’re running a football team, facing your rivals after a disasterous last season. They’ve got better recruiting (a stronger bench), moral, etc. Some of the things which always favored you (e.g., cheating corrupt corporate refs) might not, due to the disaster of your last season.
After the end of the first quarter, you’ve stopped their drives, and the field goal they kicked was recalled due to a penalty (Kennedy dying). You’ve found out that their coach doesn’t really know what he’s doing (he thinks that you won’t cheat, or take advantage of any unsportsmanlike trick that’s legal, if scorned). The refs are even more crookeded and more biased than before – they’ve decided that no matter how much you f*ck things up, the earnings from their bets will make up for it.
A number of the first-string (senate) players are frankly and openly working on your side, so long as they can beat the point spread and get paid by the bookies.
The league judges (SCOTUS) have just ‘corrected’ the rules, so that your bookies can pay off you and the refs in far larger amounts than ever before, with even less deniability.
At least half of the fans (and the majority of the sportswriters) have frankly forgotten the debacle of your past couple of seasons, and are rooting for you.
That situation would look far better than it did before the kick-off.