Axelrod on ObamaCare: Failure is not an option
posted at 7:40 pm on January 20, 2010 by Allahpundit
No? Sure sounds like an option to me. Presumably Ax is clinging to the fantasy of reconciliation as a deus ex machina — Clyburn alluded to it tonight on CNBC, Grijalva talked it up to TPM, and Conrad, the Senate’s budget honcho, says he’s ready and able — but we’ve already been over this. If they’re too afraid of voters’ wrath to even delay seating Scott Brown, where are they going to find the balls needed to ping pong the Senate bill through the House and then do an end-around Brown’s no vote by revising the signed bill in the Senate through reconciliation? The optics of Brown’s win are actually tougher for the Dems than losing the supermajority: With all the national attention on the race and the irresistible meme of having the bluest of blue states essentially vote to veto ObamaCare, anything they do now to try to ram it through makes it look like they’re spitting in the face of the electorate. Which they are.
Not good enough? Here are 10 reasons rattled off this afternoon on Twitter by the estimable Jay Cost why reconciliation ain’t happening:
(1) It will look sketchy to do after Brown wins. Might drive away moderate D’s.
(2) You get a swiss-cheese bill. Anything not related to budget gets dropped.
(3) Bill has to be sunseted if it raises the deficit by even a little bit after 5 years.
(4) You’re going to lose votes in the Senate based on principle.
(5) You drag out [ObamaCare], further depleting whatever political capital the D’s still possess.
(6) You hand GOP another issue for 2010. I guarantee they’ll aruge: “D’s go ‘nuclear’ to get around will of public.”
(7) You give Mitch McConnell an opening to exercise his parliamentary chops in the Battle of the Byrd Bath.
(8) The D’s left flank will say, “Hey…if we’re doing reconciliation, give us the public option!” Is that a battle to revisit in 2010?!?!?!
(9) You make it substantially easier to kill [ObamaCare] in future. If 50 votes created it, 50 can kill it.
(10) You run the risk of getting less than 218 in the House and losing anyway…
Number 9 is especially shrewd. The GOP’s not going to be able to repeal ObamaCare if it passes under normal procedures, but if the Dems use a nuclear strike to get it through, a counterstrike circa 2013 is only fair. The buzzword of the moment: Disarray.
Exit question: Assuming they do decide to commit mass political suicide with reconciliation, do they have 50 votes in the Senate? Lincoln’s polls are now so toxic that they’d be starting with 58. Subtract Nelson, Lieberman, Webb, and Bayh and you’re down to 54. Who else?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I was referring to allah’s silly notion that the dems have some sort of concept of real “fairness”, along with the implication that the way this health scare has been forced on the nation, up to now, doesn’t itself give a clear moral path to repeal it with the simplest and most efficient method possible, no matter how it would have ultimately gotten passed.
The real point is that it would be illegal to run this through reconciliation, as this amazingly un-Constitutional expansion of the federal government into the private sector is NOT a revenue measure, no matter what anyone tries to say – strongly argued so by the very supporters of the bill with their claim of revenue neutrality.
This is why the statement was a joke.
neurosculptor on January 20, 2010 at 8:55 PM
I do not recall voting for Axelrod. Did he run for something? Who is he to make these pronouncements? Or is he just playing “bad cop” to Obama’s gracious “well, uh, well, uh um um um, uh, we might, uh uh uh have to you know well WHAT I DO KNOW is that um uh uh we’re doing okay! we’re okay! Is that uh uh uh healthcare, um, pivot, uh jobs economicals….changgggguuuuhhhe.
citrus on January 20, 2010 at 8:58 PM
What a bunch of malarky Axelrod is spinning: Obama spent two years talking to middle-class Americans about their concerns about health care. Wrong. Obama spent two years churning up an issue that was least on American’s minds but the best way for him to assume federal control of large swaths of the population.
Why don’t these network talking heads point out to Axelrod and Gibbs that polls are markedly continuing to decline in support of any federal health care legislation?
Axelrod must be in charge of training the concern trolls who infect discussion sites.
onlineanalyst on January 20, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Ja. Dealing with Dems is like dealing with a psychotic ex, and hoping for a brutally fair response from the “party of nice” is quite a stretch.
Maquis on January 20, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Showing my age: In the words of Artie Johnson: Vehlly Interesting.
Chewy the Lab on January 20, 2010 at 9:08 PM
I haven’t read the rest of the comments, so forgive me if someone else has brought this up:
Failure is not an option; It is an integral part of Obambicare.
rmgraha on January 20, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Far out!
The Stupid(er) Party is getting back to work.
Popcorn anyone?
Sapwolf on January 20, 2010 at 9:09 PM
I agree, his political obituary just hasn’t been written yet. He was emasculated last night, his power stripped away. He is now radioactive – all those dems that were hoping he’d campaign for them this year are now doing the moonwalk away from the guy. I bet books are being written right now how one guy can screw it up so badly in one year – epic failure is right – these will be good beach reading material this summer.
PatMac on January 20, 2010 at 9:22 PM
That whole post was just a jumble of slogans with no context or analysis. If that’s the best that can be said in favor of ObamaCare, it’s no wonder people aren’t buying it.
Seriously, why would anyone trust Obama to lead any sort of initiative on health care when he thought doctors make $50K per foot amputation? The guy isn’t even living on this planet.
You say the country can’t afford health care as it is because it’s 20% of GDP. So? What SHOULD that 20% of GDP have been spent on? To the extent that there is overconsumption of health care services, it’s much more driven by the presence of 3rd-party payors in general and the lack of consumers directly feeling the impact of costs. But, even when consumers do feel those impacts, e.g. with high-deductible plans combined with HSAs, costs don’t go down that much. This tells you that demand is inelastic and that most of it is driven by actual perceived need for health care services. In that context, the only way to drive down total costs is by rationing, which will lead to higher levels of dissatisfaction than exist with the current set-up.
It takes a special kind of naivete to think that a centralized panel of experts can run 1/6th of the economy better than the millions of people who make up that 1/6th of the economy. What the voters of MA basically said to the Left is “Stop thinking you’re more competent than you actually are”.
venividivici on January 20, 2010 at 9:22 PM
Now there’s a visual!
Speaking of visuals, what’s up with those two mutts sitting on a park bench together?
2ipa on January 20, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Axelrod’s not going to comment on “tactics”. Tactics?? Don’t you use tactics when you’re trying to beat someone at something? Slightly Freudian, no? So much for all that bi-partisan, reaching-across-the-aisle, happy horsesh*t.
Dopenstrange on January 20, 2010 at 9:43 PM
Which terms did you not understand and mistakenly brand as slogans? If you actually read the comment, you’d realize that I wasn’t pushing ObamaCare. I said that reform could come in the form of deregulation- which has nothing to do with a massive healthcare bill.
Did you realize that we have a massive federal debt and equally huge federal deficit? As the population ages, it’s the government that’s absorbing a large percentage of growing healthcare costs. That’s why the current system is NOT affordable. If the system is left as is, it will only lead to much higher federal deficits.
The whole idea behind capitalism is that you nor anyone else should decide how resources are allocated. Let the market decide the most efficient use of those resources, empowering new ideas and companies that create jobs and increase productivity. Throwing more resources into a sinkhole that decreases the nation’s productivity is just about the worst possible outcome.
Is that your idea of context and analysis? Talk about sloganeering. Consumers will respond to proper incentives, regardless of your cryptic reference to 3rd parties. You don’t need to pretend that the rules of a market economy cannot be applied to healthcare. Given the right incentives, patients will reduce unnecessary demand (for example, a patient who demands the latest designer prescription med when a generic med is known by their doctor to be equally effective). Market forces could work in healthcare if you cleared out some of the monopolistic behavior, red tape, and introduced more competition.
bayam on January 21, 2010 at 1:01 AM
Wish in one hand …
Nice work bayam and the the other handed economist. It’s really simple; if it sells, make more. If not, fergeddit. That’s the real take on capitalism.
Ain’t no twenty GD g’ments got the necessary smarts to stay ahead of buyers. The fools that go into Democrat g’ment are too lazy, dumb, foolish or other adjective of your choice. Yet they would presume to make a choice for you from their distant tower high on a spill.
TS folks. Don’t need a nanny. Ma raised me right the first time.
Caststeel on January 21, 2010 at 1:53 AM
Allah, you’re wrong, and Axelrod is right. Failure of ObamaCare isn’t an option.
It’s mandatory. :-)
Greg Q on January 21, 2010 at 3:26 AM
Mark Warner, Virginia: If he’s got ANY political survival instincts and paid ANY attention to the Virginia Sweep by the GOP in November’s state election (by pretty good margins) will probably follow Webb’s lead.
Mike Bennet, Colorado: If the most recent polls for Colorado governor are any indicator (The presumptive GOP nom, McInnis, leads the presumptive Dem nom, Hickenlooper by 3) this guy could flip. He’s an appointee (replaced Salazar) so it’s not like anyone voted him in to begin with and Colorado seems to be trending back to the GOP and unlike Warner, this guy actually has to face re-election THIS YEAR, not in 2014. He could vote for ObamaCare, but he may as well fold up his tent and forget about running for re-election if he does. Figure he switches his vote next time around, in a desperate attempt to save himself.(Even if it won’t.)
Mark Udall, Colorado: Like Warner in Virginia, doesn’t stand for re-election until 2014, BUT, also like Warner, better reconsider in a state that, this year, can turn as red as Virginia did last year.
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana: Yeah, we know what she is, and now we know her price. 300 million just to get her first vote, don’t think Harry can afford seconds.
Kirsten Gillibrand, NY: Another appointee that nobody elected. If Coakley can lose in Mass. Gillibrand can definately lose in NY. Especially if Brown’s big win gets Pataki to reconsider a Senate run…
Babs Boxer, California: Somebody’s been looking at the current polls…and recognizes, now probably better than most, that ALL the states are in play this year (or, at least her’s is) and juuuuust might vote against it on a second attempt.
Sherrod Brown, Ohio: Looking at the Ohio polls and seeing GOP presumptives pulling away in both the Gov. and Senate races. Obama carried Ohio by 5%< of the vote to begin with.
Seven possible drop outs, some more likely than others…but it only takes 5 to kill it.
SuperCool on January 21, 2010 at 6:28 AM
While they are refusing to focus on any real issues the economy continues to freefall. They continue to poison the job market.
dogsoldier on January 21, 2010 at 7:45 AM
While most people agree that there is a problem, you have not convinced many people that yours is the best solution, much less the only solution.
MarkTheGreat on January 21, 2010 at 8:47 AM
I get all the ‘reasons’ this would be toxic for the Dems to pass, but doesn’t the fact they are still talking about passing it, and coming up with all of these possible ways to ram it through, all the proof we need they are going to do this?
I see a lot of people operating under the assumption that the Dems would be crazy to try to pass this, which they would.
But isn’t that the very reason we should worry about it getting rammed through?
The Dems are still in ‘charge’ and this legislation is still dangerous. Until something happens to change that, the passage of Obamacare is probable.
catmman on January 21, 2010 at 9:01 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2