Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘massachusetts senate’

Panic After Pelosi

Democrats are still in panic mode as rumors fly about next steps in their marathon attempt to reform health care. The disarray continued after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday that, “In its present form, without change, I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, reacting to the news, proclaims, “We’re probably looking more at a Square One approach, and this time the Obama administration may try to draft key Republicans into the talks in order to get bipartisan cover. Either way, it’s an ignominious defeat for Obama and Pelosi, whose radical approach and ‘I won’ attitude finally caught up with them.”

Josh Marshall, founder of Talking Points Memo and its reporting enterprises, is pessimistic: “In other words, plug pulled. Health care reform over.”

Ezra Klein thinks Pelosi’s comments were taken somewhat out of context, saying, “It reads more like she’s arguing the Senate bill will need to be changed in order to pass, which is a pretty normal stance right now.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein looks at House Majority Whip James Clyburn’s comments after Pelosi, and says, “So it’s unclear from his comments whether it’s still a theoretical possibility that Democrats may try to have the House pass the Senate bill and use reconciliation to modify it.”  Klein notes, however, that “passing a reconciliation bill isn’t as easy as it sounds,” because of the complicated procedures it entails, including writing a whole new bill.

In terms of next steps, Bob Laszewski cautions, “The problem with bipartisanship now is that the Republican base is not about to let any of their own Senators do anything to take the Dems off the political meat hook they are now dangling from.” Laszewski points to one of his posts from the day after the 2008 presidential election and reaffirms that a “modest bipartisan bill” is still possible — if legislators “take the road less traveled.” 

Keith Hennessey says, “Like a famous physics cat, the health care bill is in a state of quantum uncertainty,” and provides a table estimating the chances of various strategies.

NPR’s Julie Rovner asks if Democrats are “drawing the wrong conclusion” from the Massachusetts Senate vote.  She interviews public opinion expert Robert Blendon to make the case: “Thus, he says, what voters reacted to was not what the bills would do, but how they would be paid for. Which doesn’t mean lawmakers in Washington struggling to salvage their health bills don’t still have a problem. It just may be a different problem than the one they think they have.”

Elsewhere, some are blaming President Barack Obama.

The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan is posting emails from readers — who are both giving up on and keeping the faith in Obama.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn laments Obama’s lack of reassurance thus far following Scott Brown’s election to the Senate: “If health care reform is to be salvaged–and, I’ll be honest, I’m not terribly optimistic right now–it will take something more. It’s going to take the president showing the resolve and leadership that got him elected. The last 36 hours have made me doubt that he will. But, lord knows, he’s proven me wrong before. Maybe he’ll do it again.”

The New York Times’ Paul Krugman takes the frustration even further: “But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.”

And The National Journal’s Marilyn Werber-Serafini asks her experts, “should Congress scrap health care reform or work on a skinny bipartisan bill?” Responders so far include Tom Miller, Jason Rosenbaum, Kenneth Thorpe and Grace-Marie Turner.

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

More on Mass

The health blogosphere is spinning out of focus today as its residents and commentators try to intuit what a Republican victory in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race could mean for Democrats’ efforts to overhaul the health care system.

Heritage’s Mike Brownfield thinks President Obama’s domestic agenda has led to dissatisfaction that’s being reflected in the election:

Those anti-big-government sentiments could put the kibosh on President Obama’s hallmark health care legislation if today’s special election for the late Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat doesn’t go the President’s way. Make no mistake, the Massachusetts election is very much about national issues – and President Obama’s liberal agenda. Health care came to dominate the Massachusetts race, and Republican candidate Scott Brown has made no bones about being the deciding vote to block Democrats’ health care reform legislation.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn points out that Republican Candidate Brown has taken a split position on health reform: “Scott Brown is running on a promise to block the health care bill in Washington. But, as you may have heard, he is not running on a promise to roll back the reforms that Massachusetts implemented three years ago. In fact, he says he supports those reforms. …It’s pretty clear why Brown isn’t opposing the Massachusetts reforms: They happen to be popular.”

Several commentators are analyzing ‘Plan Bs’ should Democrat Martha Coakley lose — and throw the Senate’s current 60-votes for health care into question.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait says one option for Democrats to pursue is renewing efforts to persuade Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe to vote for the Senate bill.  Says Chait:

Go back to Olympia Snowe. I have not seen any persuasive reporting, or even conjecture, about what Snowe is actually thinking. Her substantive demands have been met. By the end of the process, her only demand was to delay the bill by some unspecified time period, which is such a vacuous demand that it’s hard to believe it represents her actual beliefs. Did she turn against the bill completely? Did she decide that she couldn’t take the heat for voting yes? Or did she figure that, with sixty Democrats, her voted wouldn’t really be needed so there was no reason for her to take the heat? If options 1 and 2 fail, we may find out about Snowe.

Cato’s Michael Cannon disagrees, arguing that Snowe’s vote isn’t an option — unless Dems are will to make significant sacrifies:

If she were to vote for an individual mandate after declaring that such a law would violate the Constitution, Snowe could reasonably be accused of violating the oath she swore to the Constitution upon joining the Senate.

Yet Democrats are unlikely to support any bill that does not include an individual mandate.  As President Obama told a joint session of Congress, his plan “only works” if lawmakers force everyone to purchase government-designed health insurance.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey notes that even some Democrats are expressing doubt about a health bill’s chances should Brown win: “Republicans have argued that a Scott Brown victory today would stop ObamaCare in its tracks. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi insist that it won’t. On today’s “Morning Joe,” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) agreed with Republicans, saying that he would have a “difficult time” voting for what he sees as an inferior Senate bill.”

Critical Condition’s James Capretta looks at options being discussed and says the idea of a “Plan B is absurd.”  Capretta continues: “If Brown were to win, it would send shock waves through Democratic ranks unlike anything we have seen in recent years. Democratic infighting would intensify. Many more closed-door meetings would be held as members vented and fought over what to do. It would takes weeks, not days, for this process to play out. There would be no health-care bill before the president is forced to deliver a state of the union address.”

Comments like Capretta’s are the likely inspiration for Ezra Klein’s declaration: “The only thing Democrats need to fear is fear itself.” According to Klein, “The bottom line is that it’s health-care reform was a good idea last week, it’s a good idea next week. Brown doesn’t change the politics, the policy, or the feasibility of passing the bill.”

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010