David Frum, former Bush speechwriter, looks back at failed GOP strategy:
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Credit for not buckling goes to Nancy Pelosi and other gutsy leaders. But it also goes to the GOP. They wouldn’t take “yes” for an answer when lots of people wanted to surrender and settle for something much smaller. Instead, whipped up into a frenzy of ideological fanaticism and overconfidence, they decided to take no prisoners. So nobody surrendered! And that’s how Mitch McConnell brought universal health care to America.
Whether you agree with [criticisms of the bill] or not, the law the Democrats just passed is unpopular. It is a far-reaching, transformative measure that in the end will affect almost everyone; it is opposed by most of the country; and it is now law. I would never have believed this possible in the United States.
Not only an historic day, it seems, but also a histrionic day. Bill Kristol demands a repeal. The National Review Online seems to have crashed altogether. “504 Error,” it reads this morning, which is as good a metaphor for the far right as anything.
Assuming this all goes down tonight like it looks like it will, I have only this to say: I am extremely impressed by the Democratic leadership, and especially Pres. Obama. Jim Fallows says everything else much better than I could.
Parties have passed legislation before that wasn’t broadly publicly supported. But the only substantial instances I can think of in America are budget bills and TARP–bills that the congressmen were basically forced to by emergencies in the markets.
One cannot help but admire Nancy Pelosi’s skill as a legislator. But it’s also pretty worrying. Are we now in a world where there is absolutely no recourse to the tyranny of the majority? Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn’t want this bill. And that mattered basically not at all. If you don’t find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances. Farewell, social security! Au revoir, Medicare! The reason entitlements are hard to repeal is that the Republicans care about getting re-elected. If they didn’t–if they were willing to undertake this sort of suicide mission–then the legislative lock-in you’re counting on wouldn’t exist.
I understand that if you keep telling a lie often enough that makes it true, but I don’t see why people are convinced this bill is so hated. RealClearPolitics’ polling average has it at about 49% against, 40% in favor. These are not “storm the Bastille” numbers, and undermine McArdle’s claim (and those made more broadly by Republicans) that the GOP “persuaded the country that they didn’t want this bill.” For contrast, take a look at the polling forSocial Security reform; now there was clear evidence that Americans didn’t want a piece of legislation. The “tyranny of the majority”? This is Hannity-Limbaugh-Beck (“HanniLimBeck”? “Hambauck”?) territory.
My bet is that when one side is running ads about ending bans on pre-existing conditions and the other side is complaining about Congressional rules of reconciliation and CBO numbers, things will look a little different than they do today. I like Democrats’ odds. Oh, they’ll still lose seats, and probably more than a few of them. That’s the way these cycles work. But if you’re too scared to do what voters elected you for, for fear they won’t elect you again, why should any of us be paying any attention to anything politicians do or say? Today something actually happened, as the result of an election. If Democrats wanted the base to turn out this fall, or to ever believe that Democrats would ever, ever do anything they said they would do, they had to pass this. The real peril, politically, was to do nothing.
UPDATE II: Oh, and maybe the Democrats thought this was the right thing to do. Bonus!
I’m copying some of this over from a facebook discussion I had today.
A friend posted a link to this NPR story, about a panel discussing the relative health risks for women who’ve had a cesarean section birth before. The question is whether such women should be denied the chance to have a vaginal birth (VBAC) the next time they are pregnant, if additional surgical staff is not on hand. Because VBAC had historically been seen as riskier, some doctors feared lawsuits if something were to go wrong.
I found the story to be pretty shady, slanted reporting. Two quotes from the pro-VBAC side, none from any other point of view, and vague, uncited statements like “It’s estimated that up to 75 percent of women would have no problem” with VBAC. Leaves very little doubt what Brenda Wilson thinks about the whole thing.
I’m not disputing the question of whether women should be “forced” to have c/s. Of course, every pregnant woman should ideally have as many options as possible. I support the attempt at a change in policy.
But I have a BIG problem with the assumption that c/s is necessarily bad. This is a problem in what has become dominant discourse about childbirth. Saying that a state has “the worst cesarean rate in the country” (rather than simply the “highest”), and giving no other viewpoint besides the VBAC activists’ claim that the current system “deprives women of the experience of having babies the way women were meant to have babies,” uncritically reinforce the notion that one way is “natural” and another way is “unnatural.” I would think there would be widespread agreement that every mother should be able to reflect on her own birthing story with the same sense of wonder and awe, without having to wonder if she was robbed of something.
The notion that there’s only one way to “naturally” get pregnant or have a baby is offensive to some pretty terrific mothers I know.
Maybe this was already established, and I just hadn’t heard about it. But the big movie news of the week, as far as I’m concerned, is that Christopher Nolan now sounds like he’s on board for the sequel to The Dark Knight. In an interview with Geoff Boucher of the LA Times, Nolan says his brother Jonathan, who wrote the first two screenplays, is currently on the case. And he sounds enthusiastic:
“Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story,” he said. “And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story.”
It’s good news. I had been afraid that Heath Ledger’s untimely death would make it difficult for Nolan to return to the material. But not only is he going to direct Batman III (which will hopefully be called The Caped Crusader), he’s now shepherding the Superman franchise as well, as Warner Bros. hopes to finally bring that series back to prominence.
You know, now that I think about it, I wonder if he’s talked to Leonardo DiCaprio about taking a role in the new movie. I’m certainly not advocating the idea, but he talks in that interview about selling the studio on having big stars in small or medium-sized roles, and there are few bigger stars today than DiCaprio.
As a kid watching ‘Superman,’ it seemed enormous and I realized later by looking at it that a lot of that was actually the casting, just having these incredibly talented people and these characterizations. And Marlon Brando is the first guy up playing Superman’s dad. It’s incredible.”
For the last several days I’ve been sick and without home Internet. Still trying to solve both problems. Hoping some sleep and liquids solve the first problem, and that a new Airport Extreme solves the second. The results have not been encouraging so far for either one.
