American Politics 20 - Halloween Edition

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

I fully agree... the crazies have taken over the party and the reasonable Republicans like Bob Dole are few and far between, and are mocked by the crazies as RINOs.

I'm not sure that Bob Dole is terribly different than the current Republican leadership. He went along with the budget showdown that shut down the government in 1995. During the 1994 health care debate, Dole was notorious for dangling compromises before the Democratic leadership and then abandoning them once the Democrats had made the painful concessions, which led to him voting against two bills to which he was a named co-sponsor. I understand that the CW is that Dole was less abrasive than other Republicans and would have adopted a more conciliatory approach had he not been running for President, but the fact remains that he helped to create the same kind of tactics that Republicans are using now on health care and the stimulus package to wide criticism from the left. What he would have done in different circumstances is immaterial.

I don't want to give the impression that I begrudge Dole for this reason--politics ain't bean bag, as the saying goes--but I don't think that he should be remembered as a reasonable Republican just because he says nice things about health care reform now that it doesn't matter any more.

Speaking of, I was just reading an excerpt from Taylor Branch's The Clinton Tapes, which includes Clinton's view of Dole:

The president treated posturing as a natural element. He remarked, for instance, that he had no idea what Senate Republican leader Bob Dole of Kansas thought about the merits of gays in the military. "He may genuinely be for it or against it," said Clinton. "All our discussions have been about the politics." He said Dole advised him quite candidly that he intended to keep the issue alive as long as he could to trap Clinton on weak ground, where he would "take a pretty good beating." Similarly, the president said Dole consistently advised that budgets were the most partisan matters between Congress and the White House, and that Clinton could expect to get few if any Republican votes for his omnibus bill on taxes and spending. Clinton said Dole spoke of the opposition's job not as making deals but rather making the president fail, so he could be replaced as quickly as possible. In fact, he said Dole himself started running for president within ten days of Clinton's inauguration. "Every time he goes to Kansas," remarked the president, "he stops off in New Hampshire on the way."

(Clinton is of course biased, but this story actually made me like Dole a little bit, if only because I can't imagine a Rick Santorum or a Sarah Palin being that candid. But I still think that his record speaks for itself.)

[Shryke]

I'm not sure that Bob Dole is terribly different than the current Republican leadership. He went along with the budget showdown that shut down the government in 1995. During the 1994 health care debate, Dole was notorious for dangling compromises before the Democratic leadership and then abandoning them once the Democrats had made the painful concessions, which led to him voting against two bills to which he was a named co-sponsor. I understand that the CW is that Dole was less abrasive than other Republicans and would have adopted a more conciliatory approach had he not been running for President, but the fact remains that he helped to create the same kind of tactics that Republicans are using now on health care and the stimulus package to wide criticism from the left. What he would have done in different circumstances is immaterial.

I don't want to give the impression that I begrudge Dole for this reason--politics ain't bean bag, as the saying goes--but I don't think that he should be remembered as a reasonable Republican just because he says nice things about health care reform now that it doesn't matter any more.

Aye. Don't forget that it was the 70s/80s/90s GOP that pioneered the tactics we see today. They built the party machine you hate so much.

Don't go soft on these cock-suckers just cause they are retired. When it actually counted, they were no better then what you see today.

[Peter Irving]

Dole was by no means a moderate but his type at least can reason.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Dole was by no means a moderate but his type at least can reason.

It's not a moderate/conservative thing. He had ample opportunity to do something about the health care crisis, either in late 1994 (when Clinton certainly would have accepted a face-saving compromise that supported many conservative principles) or after the Republicans took over Congress. But when it mattered, he was saying that there was "no health care crisis."

Besides, Bob Dole isn't saying anything that Bill Frist hasn't also said. Are we going to see a bunch of Frist nostalgia too?

[Watcher]

American's are smarter then some people think. According to this new poll 47% of Americans realize that Fox News has a Conservative bias. The poll found that more people believe has more of a ideologically of all networks.

[Lord O' Bones]

American's are smarter then some people think.

Oh, I don't know about that. If I'm reading those numbers correctly, the leaves 42% of Americans are at best, not paying attention, and 25% of Americans who are batshit crazy.

[DanteGabriel]

Maybe Bachmann's attack on Dole is part of the GOP's new strategy to turn the AARP into their new ACORN-style whipping boy.

Republican leaders say AARP is supporting changes to the Medicare system included in Democratic health care reform bills because they would result in more sales of AARP-branded insurance. They claim that "backroom deals" between executives of the AARP and Democratic leadership -- deals the GOP say are designed to protect the executives' high salaries -- led to the group's pro-Medicare reform stance.

Yesterday, the message gained traction among the right wing commentariat. AARP flatly denies the claims and says it's beginning to feel a little like the GOP's new ACORN.

"Oh, absolutely," an AARP official told TPMDC. "They're using their standard methods to target us."

Yesterday, right wing blogs and publications picked up the story. Michelle Malkin retweeted the House GOP talking points on the topic and Human Events published a story echoing the GOP claims. Malkin and the conservative magazine focused on the corruption message, highlighting the "back-room" dealing.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10...n.php?ref=fpblg

[Peter Irving]

wow taking on the AARP that's quite low.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Don't go soft on these cock-suckers just cause they are retired. When it actually counted, they were no better then what you see today.

The difference between the Republicans of today and the Republicans of yester-year is that the Old Mob just cynically did and said stuff without actually believing it - the point being to pay just enough lip-service to keep the Base in line. The likes of Bachmann and Palin on the other hand genuinely do believe in what they say - with interesting results.

Dole, Gingrich, and company are, like Dr Frankenstein before them, now realising what a monster they've created. It couldn't happen to nicer people...

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Maybe Bachmann's attack on Dole is part of the GOP's new strategy to turn the AARP into their new ACORN-style whipping boy.

What an oddly self-destructive strategy. Why actively antagonize a famous, well-funded political organization with thirty million members?

[DanteGabriel]

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic was comparing this (while admitting it was not a perfect comparison) to something that happened in Argentina where they just didn't do anything until the day the system broke.

I feel like that's what happened with the financial collapse last year.

[TrackerNeil]

What an oddly self-destructive strategy. Why actively antagonize a famous, well-funded political organization with thirty million members?

I know. I wish the GOP would pick fights with more organizations whose members vote regularly.

Like Triskele, I also think it's funny the way the Republicans have become the Staunch Defenders of Medicare, while at the same time assuring Americans that the last thing the US government can do is run a health insurance system. Kind of like Emperor Palpatine issuing a fatwa against the Dark Side of the Force.

[awesome possum]

Haha, gotta love the GOP. The elderly are one of the main groups who have stuck beside them through the whole town hall mess and health care fight. That's sort of like them trying to "win" latino voters while vowing to kick all illegals out of the country.

Basically, Lieberman said that most of the support for the Public Option is from people who think it will be free, but it has to be paid for somehow, and that it will end up being paid for by taxpayers

As opposed to the current "public option" which involves people going to the emergency room for treatments or problems that aren't emergencies rather than the doctor or specialists? And, hmmm, who covers those bills? That's right, the taxpayers.

I love how opponents of the public option constantly forget or ignore the fact that we already have a public option that is several times more expensive than the actual option would be if it were law.

[TrackerNeil]

As opposed to the current "public option" which involves people going to the emergency room for treatments or problems that aren't emergencies rather than the doctor or specialists? And, hmmm, who covers those bills? That's right, the taxpayers.

Yup. Too many Americans just don't understand that with health care (as with many things) there is no free lunch. As long as we as a society are determined not to simply let people die in the street, we're going to pay for the health care of others. That's fact like Earth = round and two+two = four. Personally, I'd prefer to pay smart instead of paying stupid, as we do now.

[mcbigski]

wow taking on the AARP that's quite low.

The AARP is seen by an increasing number of conservatives, both retired and not, as having an institutional bias towards the left side of the political spectrum. Attacking an organization that claims to stand for retired people is not necessarily the same thing as attacking retired people.

That's not true. The CBO has been pretty consistent in saying that the public option (as envisioned by the Senate or the House) would be revenue positive, and the more like the Medicare+5 version it is, the bigger the savings.

The cost issue comes (primarily) from subsidies for people under a certain income threshold who are purchasing insurance on the health care exchange, as well as additional spending in Medicaid and SCHIP. Those subsidies aren't tied to the public option. If you lived in South Dakota, and South Dakota decided to opt out of the public option, you would still be eligible for the same amount of subsidies that you were before.

If their best massaged numbers still come out with a $900 billion price tag, then it's quite likely that however they account for the revenue effect of the Public Option component, taxpayers are still on the hook for a huge chunk of money, and the Opt Out is an obvious sham choice, because taxpayers in states opting out still get to foot the bill. I doubt the government will run health care effectively, but even it only delivers 50 cents of value for every dollar spent, if every bit as much of your state's tax dollars are going to go into the black hole of Washington anyway, you'd be irrational to opt out.

I don't really pay that much attention to the details they are using to try to sell the Public Option, because it whatever the stated reason is for it, the actual purpose and effect will be to undercut individual choice and make everyone's coverage converge on the government option.

[Slyfinger]

The AARP is seen by an increasing number of conservatives, both retired and not, as having an institutional bias towards the left side of the political spectrum. Attacking an organization that claims to stand for retired people is not necessarily the same thing as attacking retired people.

Political fail. AARP members are, for the most part, very patriotic, socially conservative, older white surbabanites, and WASPy. I'd be willing to bet 65% of them voted Republican. Decisions like this tend to keep parties from winning elections.

[alguien]

I don't really pay that much attention to the details they are using to try to sell the Public Option, because it whatever the stated reason is for it, the actual purpose and effect will be to undercut individual choice and make everyone's coverage converge on the government option.

That right. Pay no attention to those pesky little details and "facts." Listen to what your gut tells you.

Go truthiness!

[awesome possum]

That right. Pay no attention to those pesky little details and "facts." Listen to what Rush Limbaugh tells you.

Go truthiness!

fixed to become more truthy

[TrackerNeil]

I don't really pay that much attention to the details they are using to try to sell the Public Option, because it whatever the stated reason is for it, the actual purpose and effect will be to undercut individual choice and make everyone's coverage converge on the government option.

I don't really pay that much attention to the details McBigski uses to oppose the public option, because whatever his stated reasons, the actual purpose and effect will be to maintain a dysfunctional system in which care is rationed according to state of residence and ability to pay.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

If their best massaged numbers still come out with a $900 billion price tag, then it's quite likely that however they account for the revenue effect of the Public Option component, taxpayers are still on the hook for a huge chunk of money, and the Opt Out is an obvious sham choice, because taxpayers in states opting out still get to foot the bill.

You're confused. The revenue effect of the public option will have to cover the cost of the public option. Under the terms of both health care bills, the public option is required to compete on an even playing field with private insurance companies in the health insurance exchanges, on the same terms as private insurance companies. As the AHCAA summary puts it (pdf), "the public option must survive on its premiums. ... The public health insurance option is provided startup administrative funding, but it is required to amortize these costs into future premiums to ensure it operates on a level playing field with private insurers."

The reason the health care reform bill costs upwards of $900 billion over ten years is because there are components to the bill besides the public option. So you're right in saying that premiums from the public option don't pay for things that aren't part of the public option, like the expansion of SCHIP or the war in Afghanistan or my student loans, but that's a far cry from saying that the public option doesn't pay for itself.