Does He Feel Your Pain?

On the other hand, perhaps a Democratic Party that actually stood for something and was prepared to lead with vision rather than cower before the GOP might be useful too.

Re the graph - Correlation does not equal causality.

Re the Geitner appointment, believe it or not, unlike journalism, there are some jobs that require actual skill and experience not just the ability to sling words about.

The problem with the stimulus was not its magnitude but the fact that it was primarily designed slop the troughs of special interests rather than to simulate the economy.

Obama's problem is not his inability to speak to the working class, but rather the more fundamental and insurmountable problem that his policies are an anathema to the working class (and thinking Americans in general).

Despite your desire to portray the opposition to Obama's health care reorganization as some variant on the tired argument of class conflict and struggle, the real opposition was not the the redistributive elements of the program (which in a more transparent form such as a modest expansion of Medicaid, the public would have supported), but rather the public's well founded and empirically justified belief that governmental usurpation of the resource allocation function for health care would have been a disaster leading to worse care and higher costs.

In the end, it was the failure of Obama and Democrats to focus on the real health care issues (excessive cost and lack of insurance), and instead to pursue the purblind and unbelievably hubristic belief that they could remake 15% of the economy by cutting inequitable deals behind closed doors and replacing the market mechanism with a 2000 page sophomoric treatise written by wet behind the ears Congressional aids and paid shills for the Democratic Party posing as health care experts.

Good riddance!!!!

This is a bit hysterical. This entire piece would never have been written had Coakley not been such a remarkably rotten candidate.

Look, I'll always agree that Democrats are second to none in thier lameness, but Obama's numbers are going down because we are a nation of short sighted, entitled cry babies who demand that Presidents be entertaining magicians.

America - if you want a President who is a dopey underwear model type who promises more destructive right wing utopia, have at it. You deserve it.

Wandrey demonstrates why I think Repubs are right to refer to the "Democrat" rather than "Democratic" Party. Aside from better grammar, this underlines the now-traditional excuse of Blame the People (Demos to the Hellenically inclined). If people only weren't such short-sighted, entitled crybabies, they would accept that leftists know what's best for them.

dtohmatsu wraps it up nicely. I'm looking forward to a return of divided government in 2010.

The real lesson, as I have written many times, is that Republicans engage in the most vicious political warfare all day, every day. Any notion of bipartisanship is a fool's errand. The Democrats wasted months negotiating with Olympia Snowe for her support on health care, they gave her what she wanted (as it changed from minute to minute), they got the finger anyway. It ran out the clock and allowed the whole thing to descend into a brawl that made Dems look incompetent and gave cred to Republican lies. Meanwhile, the Republicans could campaign against health care with shameless lies while Dem hands were tied by not wanting to alienate Republican Senate votes by making them the enemy. The entire Republican strategy is to obstruct governance at every turn and then blame the Dems for being unable to govern with the sole purpose of defeating the Dems at whatever cost to the country.

The only way out is to make war on the Republicans, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Make them filibuster in fact by speaking endlessly. Counter their lies with equally hyperbolic claims of Republican hatred for working people and middle class people. Tar then incessantly as the party of big money that is gorging at the public trough. Run against insurance companies and every other interest that Republicans protect. Obama's mistake was political pacifism, thinking that to lead he had to abandon partisan warfare. But that is impossible because the Republicans never do anything else. Let the Republicans defeat legislation, so long as it is legislation that is perceived by the middle class and working people to be for them.

In 1960, we ate six slices of an 8-slice economic pie. Nowadays, India and China are gobbling up six slices of the pie, leaving us with only two slices. No wonder those of us who are not doctors, lawyers or venture capitalists are starving.

This is a tectonic shift. We are sliding toward a nation of moneyed professionals being served by a massive class of waiters, secretaries and hotel night clerks who can't earn enough money to support a household. The only solutions are (i) to invent things the rest of the world is willing to pay us for (or that allow us to stop buying stuff from other nations), or (ii) invade and conquer other nations. I vote for (i).

Where I initially saw a disconnect between Obama and the general public was when Obama had said something to the effect that paying higher taxes was patriotic instead of his saying something like: "to save Social Security," or "to keep us safe." When Obama said that health care reform was needed to help out businesses, I thought it had general appeal. But when that was replaced with something like, "we're going to pay more so 20 + million more will have health care," I thought he moved off into a corner.

A few thoughts on John Judis's latest exercise in hand-wringing:

1. Comparing the results in the MA special election versus results in the 2008 Presidential election is the epitome of an apples-to-oranges comparison. McCain/Palin never even bothered to contest MA and, unless someone tells me otherwise, only spent money on TV ads in MA media markets that also included competitive NH. By the time the 2008 election rolled around, only Republican die-hards in MA were going to turn out and vote for McCain or against Obama. That wasn't the case this time around.

2. The graph showing Obama approval versus the unemployment rate doesn't account for everything, but it accounts for a lot. With a few blips here and there, the fall in his approval ratings correlates to the rise and persistence of 10% unemployment. To the extent that the rising unemployment rate affects the perceptions of voter blocs that were never all that fond of Obama in the first place (whites without college degrees, voters over 55), they are going to be even less fond of him than they were in the first place. This is hardly rocket science.

3. To back up what Roid said, the main lesson to learn here is that if you're going to go down, you've got to go down fighting. The unfortunate public perception in many quarters is that Obama is a Wall Street liberal, who is more interested in accommodating the financial industry and striking deals with health insurance and pharmaceutical companies than in fighting unemployment. Although the Republican brand is in disrepute, individual Republicans have managed a wondrous feat of disassociating themselves from the ineptitude of Republican governance under Bush/Cheney and getting a large portion of the voting public to buy the notion that what our government from 2001 to 2009 was not "conservative". For Obama and the Dems, the main thing to do for the next 9+ months is not to revive a fight against the Bush Administration per se -- that would only hurt those few Republican candidates (like Rob Portman in OH) who were actually part of the Bush Administration. It is to create an effective counter-narrative that our current problems derive from conservatism, and that the best way to restore America's greatness and economic prosperity is to defeat such conservatism at every turn.

4. As to health care, it really doesn't matter what Democratic Senators are saying -- the whole action is in the House. Over the next two days, the President, his staff and the House leadership need to ensure that the Senate bill is passed verbatim. That will rip off the scab of the health care fight again, but would allow the wound to be covered with a fresh bandage and hopefully heal by November. As for preserving some of the compromises that the House struck over the Cadillac tax or Medicare subsidies, just introduce those as stand-alone bills and fight for them as much as possible. If they die in the Senate, at least those Congressmen and Senators who fought for them and needed union votes could say that they tried their best and would continue to fight for them.

5. Rob Powell, your points are always well taken about divided government. The big distinction between 2010 and 1994 seems to be that, for all of their noise, the Gingrich Republicans actually had a policy agenda that they wanted to implement and which permitted some compromise with a Democractic President (welfare reform most notably). It doesn't seem like the current Republican Party really has much of a policy agenda, or at least not one that they are publicizing. Divided government only works if there are agenda items on which to compromise. What are the Republicans offering here?

Yes, the problem is nationwide. It has been since Obama took office, inheriting the worst economic conditions since the Depression. It's derailed all the fair-weather ideas he wanted to implement early. Presidents live and die by approval ratings. Old news.

This election wasn't a message from the American people disapproving of the President as much as it is a message from voters in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey showing their disapproval of Democratic candidates as well as their amazing ability to vote against their own interests. The Coakley thing is its own mess, as was Deeds' and Corzine.

The real lesson to take from this is: People are scared... and stupid. The Republicans' message of forthcoming doom is more effective than the President's message of facts, details, and reality. I don't see this changing any time soon, so Obama better pick up his A-game and make sure his message is clear: If you don't support me, you hate America.

Hey - it worked for Bush. Of course, in the situation we're in, it's almost true now.

-

Whoa, although the comments above don't take on Mr. Judis directly, they address challenges which will require Obama do more than change his style or a policy or two and they speak to limits of the chief's powers.
In short order:
1. "...a Democratic Party that actually stood for something and was prepared to lead with vision rather than cower before the GOP might be useful too."
2. "the Geitner appointment...there are some jobs that require actual skill and experience not just the ability to sling words about.
3. "...we are a nation of short sighted, entitled cry babies who demand that Presidents be entertaining magicians."
4. "We are sliding toward a nation of moneyed professionals being served by a massive class of waiters, secretaries and hotel night clerks who can't earn enough money to support a household."

And while the above statements are more non-partisan than either party would wish to admit, the majority of voters (unaffiliated) would agree but they are a force that can only assemble to vote against incumbents. Further, while it's possible to get elected by running against Washington, the power and interests of state and regional power bases proved that the most secure route is saying no (doing nothing, whining or pointing fingers).
So far, the country still seems willing to accept Obama's lead and the majority in the center is begging for him to tell congress, "follow me or get out of the way.".
A good start would be to tell Nelson and Snowe to "kiss my ass, these are the plans and I'm taking to the country. I can't do any worse without you than I did by pandering to you for the first year.". He doesn't need a new face or a new style as much as he needs to return to the stump and remind people who he is.

-

RP - thanks for the Demos reference in between the Fox boilerplate. Democrats don't need a divided government, they take care of that all by themselves. (I won't go in to your "leftist" box though. JFK called them "suicidal bastards" which is perfect. I'm not a feminist and I have a picture of a Predator drone on my computer. Nice try though).

Do you really think health care works in this country? That it doesn't need reform? That health "insurance" is really a capitalist enterpise? If so, you must be a Republican Senator.

Brown's agenda, such as it was, is the same utopian hooey Republicans have been foisting on us forever. We just got done dealing with twenty years of it (including Clinton) and we're dead broke. Most of our major institutions are at great risk of collapsing because of it.

Unlike to the new Republican Governor of New Jersey, who I disagree with but trust and respect, Brown said nothing at all of substance. Just a promise to destroy a hard fought for bill that will help millions of Americans and businesses. But he was cute, drove a truck and he talked alot about being "angry" whatever that means. Does that mean he promises to personally close Citigroup and lock up Blankenfeld? Go ahead! Make my day Senator!

Brown did show class in his acceptance speech and ran a terrific campaign. I sincerely commend him for that. I will say it will be nice to have a Republican with manners, civility and decency again, its been a long time. Let's hope Brown keeps it up.

But this sudden concern for overspending on the right is a lie and for any American to believe it is absurd. Facts are funny things. The only Presidents who have shown any interest in cutting spending in the last twenty years (and who have actually done it) have been Democrats. Obama has gone out of his way to make the health care bill deficit nuetral. Let's compare that impulse to any major initiative put forth by a Republican President of the last twenty years, shall we?

Say what you will about Steele, he at least acknowledges reality in this. Tea partiers are liars, every last one of them - to themselves most of all.

In between cleaning up the right wing destruction of the economy and running two wars, Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do. He's also doing exactly what the polls told him to do. That Americans might need to wait an month or two before the President waves his wand and soothes their "anger," is just too much to ask for too many people. I'm afraid this does speak to a lack of character seeping through the culture.

Obama cannot go out and find anyone a job or snap his fingers and make the economy boom on command. So yes, I do think we need to grow up and stop expecting the President of the United States to make dealing with our inchoate feelings a top priority...speaking in a strictly Hellenic sense of course.

Nice to hear, Wandrey. Where was that in recent years. This President can't "run the economy" and no POTUS can. We need to lose our child-like faith in politics as the salve for our ills. NO POTUS in the last 20 years has actually cut spending, although Bill/Newt slowed its growth for a time.

Brown ran a very good campaign, and Coakley is a stiff. In MA that rarely matters, but it did this time.

As far as I can see, the Rs don't have much of a policy agenda, but the duty of the opposition is to oppose, and this they have done. By November they need to get an agenda, because "the Ds suck" will not be enough in most places as a governing philosophy. So I'm with RP - we could use some divided gov't, or at least a majority party that seriously considers minority ideas, unlike today.

I'm happy to see that some things never change. Thanks, roid.

Without effective opposition, the Republicans govern too far to the right and the Democrats govern too far to the left. That is why I favor divided government and super majorities to force compromise and gain broad support for legislative agendas. Clinton and Gingrich succeeded for a while even though they despised each other. To give Clinton credit for reining in the budget deficit while ignoring Gingrich's role is ridiculous. On the other hand, Reagan also ran up the deficit with a Democratic Congress, so the Democratic Congress must also share some of that blame.

Bottom line, it appears that a Dem President with an effective opposition has the best chance of producing needed social reform without breaking the bank. That is what the country wants. Now that this appears to be on the horizon, I wish President Obama the best of luck, even though I did not vote for him.

Mr. Judis seems to think that quoting the results of polls coupled with relating his preferred narrative constitutes analysis. Isn't this the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority?" Where is that coalition at present? Pieces like this remind me that social "science" is anything but.

r.ennis, Democrats governing to far from the left? You must be joking.

We have divided government now. The moderate wing of the Democratic Party in Congress has been pulling every initiative to the center since last January.

If you get your wish in November, nothing will happen in the following two years, because the GOP has nothing but the same tired old nostrums that got us into this mess to begin with.

The only major reason I voted Democratic is for Health reform, on FP, abortion, education, nuclear energy I am to the right of the electorate (OK on gay marriage and immigration reform to the left). If the health care bill had passed I would be happy with divided government. But, as Wandrey pointed out, 17% of our GNP and rising compared to 9% in Japan and even less in Europe, and basically next to nothing in China, means we are going to continue to be at a competitive disadvantage from here on out. And I don't even know if triangulation can even work anymore since the Republicans have decided to declare war on Democrats, the Dems will do likewise with the next Republican President (imagine if Pelosi and Reid had acted like DeMint, we would be at 25% unemployment now)

"The moderate wing of the Democratic Party in Congress has been pulling every initiative to the center since last January." If that were true, then Obamacare would have 65% approval now and its passage would be assured despite the Brown victory. You are the one who is joking or, at least, in denial.

We need to reform the system, but until a plan emerges that actually keeps Medicare solvent, the electorate wants no part of entitlements that break the bank. Trillion dollar deficits are not only unsustainable. They are obscene.

There are moderate Republicans as well as moderate Democrats. Plenty of them. Maybe thay should merge and for a majority third party.

If the Democrats were truly governing from the left, there would be a public option in the Senate health care bill, and the stimulus would have been larger.

Is there a place for moderate Republicans in the GOP? Why don't you ask Dede Scozzafava about that one.

I agree with r.ennis in theory about how divided government should work, but the problem is that the Republicans seem interested only in opposing, not in the kind of bipartisan compromise that should make divided government a virtue. Mere obstructionism doesn't improve government, it only cripples it. (I don't see in this sort of bad-faith, knee-jerk opposition any sign of fulfilling a "duty" to the public, as Butchie seems to suggest.)

But in any case the Dems are "big-tent" enough that they can get in their own way.

Currently, I can't see the Republicans working with Obama on anything. They have demonized him so much with their base that it would turn on them if they tried.

roidubouloi is exactly right about the incessant and consistent ranting by the right about anything and everything Obama does or doesn't do. It started immediately after the election and has continued non-stop through the first year of Obama's term. Unfortunately Obama and Democrats in general don't do well against these tirades. Reasonable people find it difficult to believe that rantings by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Palin would have credibility with anyone but wing-nuts. But the independents who are the swing block of voters that really determine elections are also influenced. Add in MSM sentiment that tries to be fair and gives undue credibilty to the likes of tea party folks and its easy to see how conservatives get influence.

That Obama let Congress control the health care issue resulting in a large complex bill that is complex to explain allows Republicans to complain that there is something inherently wrong with the bill because it is large. Throw in constant lies about death panels, government takeovers, etc. and eventually you create doubt in minds of supporters.

Not countering accusations of giving rights to terrorists and claims that saving the banks was necessary allows the Republicans to keep repeating their hollow complaints with the eventual result that independent voters become influenced and change votes. Voter memories are short. Last year people voted against the failed Bush policies, now they are influenced by right wing cries that all that is wrong is due to Obama's failures.

Democrats and the White House need to do much better at promoting and selling their policies and successes. Allowing Republicans to frame all the arguments is a sure fire path to political ruin.

I'm a small business owner and a progressive. When I see how clueless the Democrats often are about the private sector, I unfortunately understand why that is such an unusual combination. The administration's stimulus efforts were designed to save public service jobs, but didn't do anything to address the weakness in the private sector. Its preferred health care reform, rather than providing a cost effective public option financed by the wealthiest individuals and big business, that could provide real cost savings and relief for small and start up businesses and their employees, they chose a welfare model paid for by taxing the middle class and coercing small business and the self-employed.

Absolutely clueless.

Judis, where you you been these past several months as the backlash was building (around health care reform). At least you have the good sense to pivot. For Obama's sake, as well as that of the Democratic Party and the nation, let's hope Obama and the Party leadership pivot with you.

It is not uncommon that I enjoy the comments more than the original article. Many of the comments are better than the article mostly because not all of us wear blinders like Judis. Still, there are so many partisans and so few solutions.

For the past 50 years (and probably longer), government at all levels has continued to grow larger and more intrusive, the national debt has grown larger, government employees and the politically connected rent-seekers (like Goldman, etc.) have consumed a larger portion of resources (except for a couple of the Clinton years when we had beautiful, wonderful gridlock).

If people want jobs and wealth creation, it is easy; get government OUT of the way. Lower taxes, eliminate harmful regulations, fire most of the regulators and government employees. Government sector employees consume wealth; private sector employees create wealth. The unemployed, dead-weight government workers will be more than offset by private employment gains and those former government workers will be forced to figure out how to become productive citizens instead of useless overhead.

This is the libertarian approach to government: Minimum government; minimum taxes; maximum freedom. This philosophy is not limited to the Libertarian Party. There are a few Democrats and Republicans who are libertarian in their approach to government but they do not have the balance of power. As I run for office, I am asked by potentially large money donors: "What will you do for me? What will you give me in return?" I can offer them nothing but freedom. Most of them prefer being able to rig the game in their favor.

Freedom works; let's try it.

Dale Ogden, Libertarian, 2010 Candidate for Governor of California;
http://www.daleogden.org
http://www.daleogden.net

If people want jobs and wealth creation, it is easy; get government OUT of the way. Lower taxes, eliminate harmful regulations, fire most of the regulators and government employees

Yes, we are still enjoying the boom times that Bush gave us, no banking regulations, lower taxes, that works wonderfully.

Lets see, a country with minimal government: Somalia. Yeah, minimum taxes, maximum freedom (hell, you can get away with murder there)

Maximizing personal liberty is another definition for anarchy.

Great comments, y'all. This thread could be used for a civics lesson, and to explain why I love my country, even if I sometimes loathe my government.

Tough call on best comment so far. I'm going with butchie's: "We need to lose our child-like faith in politics as the salve for our ills." I recommend that parents keep a large bottle of misanthropy in the fridge, like cod liver oil, and force little Justin or Brittney to gag down a spoonful every day. By the time the kids are old enough to vote their blood will be colder and wiser than beer in August.

Freedom does work -- but freedom can co-exist quite well with unfreedom as American liberties co-existed with slavery for 80 years.

There are entrenched bureaucracies in Washington to be sure -- I never know why the Dept of Agriculture needs to take up three city blocks or whatever it does in DC -- but government does a whole lot of stuff that people would miss if it stopped doing it. From air traffic control to the CDC to the interstate system to public universities to law enforcement, they are entities in which, and not without which, freedom can actually survive.

Nobody would feel very free if there were a flu epidemic and access to the vaccine were to be determined entirely by the market

Well butchie? That's not what I said.

Mr Yard has a similiar take on this topic as I've understood it (very roughly: feckless Americans swinging wildly demanding their pony now, punishing when they don't get it rather than honestly assessing about what is really possible), but of course trying to paraphrase him would be a fools game. He's so much more articulate its embarrassing.

(I digress, but I think the left does this with the GWOT - I forgot the new name. Whatever it is, Obama is doing his best and I think America mostly sees that).

I didn't say the President can't run the economy, although I think you're right. But they can set competent policies. There simply is no comparison between D's and R's in stewarding the economy responsibly, at least in my lifetime. So the idea that these raging masses care about debt is something I just refuse to take seriously.

I do think the idea that a President should leap around worrying about the inchoate rage of people who don't even bother to make sense is silly. I'm pleased that Obama does not do that.

Republicans have been so dishonest and hateful since Obama came in, I can't even take them seriously at all about anything. Bottom line and what is the most obvious: I'm just so disappointed in losing this seat and knowing how many people will suffer because of it.

I hope the folks looking forward to divided government are right. I apologize if my disappointment was too acute.

Blackton, just great stuff. You're on fire today.

Well butchie? That's not what I said.

Mr Yard has a similiar take on this topic as I've understood it (very roughly: feckless Americans swinging wildly demanding their pony now, punishing when they don't get it rather than honestly assessing what is really possible by a President), but of course trying to paraphrase him would be a fools game. He's so much more articulate its embarrassing.

I didn't say the President can't run the economy, although I think you're right. But they can set competent policies. There simply is no comparison between D's and R's in stewarding the economy responsibly, at least in my lifetime. So the idea that these raging masses care about debt is something I just refuse to take seriously.

I do think the idea that a President should leap around worrying about the inchoate rage of people who don't even bother to make sense is silly. I'm pleased that Obama does not do that. Maybe I'm your basic outof touch Dem that thinks policy and results matter.

Republicans have been so dishonest and hateful since Obama came in, I can't even take them seriously about anything. Bottom line and what is the most obvious: I'm just so disappointed in losing this seat and knowing how many people will suffer because of it.

I hope the folks looking forward to divided government are right. I apologize if my disappointment has been too acute.

Mr Yard, I mentioned you before you commented. Erase what I said and replace it with the beer in August stuff please.

Jill at 3:33: "[Yard's] so much more articulate it's embarrassing."

Jill at 3:35: "[Yard's] so much more articulate it's embarrassing."

Sounds so nice, gotta say it twice!

Meanwhile, some parallels between Brown and Obama occurred to me last night: attractive guys; calling for change; slim CVs; following fading dynasties; voters impatient with complex, uber-expensive initiatives (Iraq; health care); etc.

Brown had once backed what was essentially Obamacare but won by blasting it. Something cooly Zen about the electorate seeing a dichotomy where there is none, and not seeing one where one exists (change = not change), and doing both at the same time and about the same issue.

In my opinion we are in uncharted territory with these here deficits. We're taxing Americans who don't yet exist--we have crippled ourselves, our children and grandchildren are our avatars. We are sending tomorrow's zygotes in to wage sneaky battle against our own financial comeuppance. But not even 3D IMAX will make the future look futuristic, at this point.

James Cameron is pooh-poohing the deleted sex scene between the human and the alien in his movie; move along here, nothing to see. Zoe Saldana, aforementioned alien and one-gal Blue Gal Group, demurs: "[Showing the sex scene] is worth it, especially now that we're living in a time where there's not enough affection and sexuality in movies. I miss the '80s!" I miss the '80s, too, mainly because I had a hell of a lot more liver cells to waste back then. But also because Americans in general seemed less delusional. Perhaps my dying liver cells held the key to our collective sanity; if so, my bad! It's like Richard Brautigan's "The Pill Versus The Springhill Mine Disaster": When you take your pill, it's like a mine disaster. I think of all the people lost inside you. Conversely, we're in the process of fucking our children. If Obama thinks paying taxes is patriotic, then birth control is most certainly not, not when we need armies of tax payers just to get back to square one.

Good luck with that. For, as Mikelawyr2 said, "We are sliding toward a nation of moneyed professionals being served by a massive class of waiters, secretaries and hotel night clerks who can't earn enough money to support a household."

True, but as Bogey would say, "We'll always have Pandora."

Wandrey, you said that Obama can't snap his fingers and make the economy boom on command. I agree. No POTUS can, and we should stop expecting him to.

I understand your disappointment, as many Dem friends at work here feel the same. Take heart. The argument is never over, and November is coming soon.

-
Sorry butchie, I don't agree that "...the duty of the opposition is to oppose...". If so, the process in the Senate allows them to stay home unless they are needed to stop a vote. All districts and states deserve better health care delivery and that won't happen from an opposition that holds a "We win when they lose." attitude.
No one demands the GOP roll over and pass all of Obama's initiatives. But neither party can expect doing the best for the country is contingent upon a sixty seat majority in the senate. Without participation and compromise, republicans are doing more than oppose. They are setting a standard that the minority will rule which is very odd if their goal is to be in the majority. Their duty is to govern and no party can provide evidence of success over the long term if the only goal is to hope the opposition fails.
This may be a tactic, a temporary fix to boost enthusiasm for a party that lacks direction and not much more. If they oppose the process, if they don't believe the minority can take part and be part of solutions they should look for another job.

-

I'm pretty optimistic. I don't like the status quo in healthcare, which is on track to take over the government in reverse of the Republican meme. But the closer this "reform" came to reality, the more it looked like another mess of cutouts for Big Labor, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and most of all Big Government. We can and must do better.

This is gut-check time for the White House. If they do the right thing as Clinton did in a similar situation, we will come out of this thing better off.

I'm sympathetic with roi's call to battle--winning really is the name of the game in politics, and as Huey Long said, "It's good to know who your friends are, but it's vital to know who your enemies are." But to really win in American politics you have to listen to the people, and as ever they profoundly distrust government solutions. It's worth considering why so many career government employees in the military and other areas tend towards Dale Ogden's analysis: they know how the system works from the inside.

President Obama,
It's time to create and lead a PROGESSIVE Party!!!

Am I the only one here that thinks Massachusetts voters did the right thing in electing Brown. They voted their own interests in Washington, not Washington's interests in them. No, Coakley did not lose because Dems (in Axelrod's words) were caught napping, they were in deep delta sleep because they could not believe that voters would not see that their interests were being articulated by Brown and not Coakley.

Health Care reform is dead. As in *D.E.A.D.* Fuss about it, cry about it, self-flagellate about it, rage against the dying of the light about it, we just need to get it and get over it, and move on.

Make no mistake, folks, voters are mad, at Congress, at Obama, and for taking the leadership in healthcare reform (a mostly good thing that it was) at Dems, who also are the party in power. If we act like voters are stupid or ignorant or hysterical now, worst if we pretend they don't even exist (voters mad at us), we have signed our consent to assisted suicide in NOvember.

I've been reflecting on the political/social history of the 20th century and the great strides in social and civil rights advancement for the greatest number. But over the entire span of U.S. history, mostly Americans are conservative, while at the same time generous, big-hearted, patriotic, lovers of democracy. Americans, however, don't trust big government and want as little of government as it takes to keep the boat afloat, the people themselves accomplishing the rest. We're in poor shape in many ways governmentally today but compared to most other societies, not just Western democracies, our citizens have it awfully damn good. I think our citizens have learned that as much by way of this past two years financial meltdown as at other times of challenge *and* crisis. We need to challenge ourselves to do better, not our government to do better by us. If we need to exert more control over health care spending we ought to think about spending less on health care products, drugs procedures etc., and more on living healthier and happier lives, regardless our station in life. The poor are getting poorer, and more and more of our citizens now and to be know what that's like but they didn't come here for government relief, they came to make the best of what this country offers.

As a progressive my feeling is what the Repubs are saying about why Massachusetts voters elected Brown over Coakley, that people want us to slow down so they we can think, and rethink if necessary, our priorities when the nation is in the deepest recession in 50 years (or is it 60 or 70 years. What the hell, take your pick!). Also, Dems need to seriously contemplate what I think is a slam-dunk conclusion about recovery from this recession. Most of us are doing ok, while the very poor get very poorer, but we've lost millions of jobs, many of which will not be returning for a long time still - at least another year and probably longer. And the recovery will not be a snap- back, it will be very slow and gradual if it is to happen at all, let alone successfully. I'm damn well contemplating it because I am out of work again and though I'm confident I will get hired again I have no prediction when or what industry or field it will be in. I think that is true for the majority of folks whose jobs have been lost, less those who are despairing and have given up altogether. This is the new reality. As in R.E.A.L.I.T.Y.!

The elitist in the Obama administration still don't get it. Most Americans want either a public option or single-payer health system and not the hodgepodge plan that includes proposing taxes on so-called health insurance Cadillac plans and through mysterious Medicare savings. They are also having serious problems understanding how Wall Street is paying out record bonuses after receiving billions in aid while simultaneously unemployment is increasing along with home foreclosures.
If Obama wants to save his administration he must force an up-and-down vote in the House and Senate on bills that would place everyone on Medicare or a single-payer system. Obviously neither would pass but we would know very specifically who we would not vote for in the upcoming November elections. This should be done very quickly so the Congress, and especially the Senate, could further express their love of the lobbyist and their disdain for the middle class on other important issues before the elections.

On another topic somewhat related to the defeat of healthcare reform, the biggest regret I have about how things rolled out in Obama's first year as that he didn't take what probably would have seemed at the time the biggest and most insane gamble of his or any Presidency (because it would have been), and nix the bailout of Wall Street, stop it cold in its tracks, and let the chips fall. I wish he'd done it I really do wish it like my next paycheck TBA. What a different place we'd be in by now, maybe just as chaotic but building a new house called responsible banking, in place of the...I'm sorry I can't think of any word bad enough to represent the big banks and insurance companies that supposedly were (are?) too big to fail. That's an untruth I wish Obama had never assented to. The fight for justice and equity for our people in the marketplace is the really biggest battle of our time. I hope we're up to it.

Butchie - I spoke of you at dinner tonight, you are a real class act - you too RP.

As I just commented in Edsall's article thread, I throw my vote to Bob.

PS I just read on Andrew Sullivan that Randall Terry hates Scott Brown because he supports Roe Vs Wade. That and his manners make me have a bit of a crush on Brown now. Tea baggers will swarm any minute though.

Let's see what you're made of Senator Elect.

While it is necessary to "listen to people," as RP says, it is feckless to suppose that health care reform could ever be explained both honestly and in a manner that people would understand. Impossible. The very fact that the Republicans could make headway by declaring that the Dems were proposing "death panels" is as much indication as we need that the PR battle simply cannot be fought on straightforward policy grounds. The policy has to be one thing, the rhetoric something completely different. And it doesn't matter whatsoever if the rhetoric and the reality are at odds. That's just how it is. Until the Dems stop being pansies at politics, they are going to get beaten up.

The headline today that Obama is thinking of trying to appease the Republicans made me ill. If he keeps going down that bipartisanship road, he may very well end up a one-term president. The American people want the president to demonstrate that he has the stones to beat up the opposition and tie them in knots. Otherwise, they don't believe he can be commander-in-chief. Sure, everyone likes to complain about the fighting in Washington. But what they want more than an end to the fighting is a winner. The way to win is to ram this thing through the House, give the Republicans the finger, declare that the Democratic party is going to do everything within its power -- everything -- to prevent the Republicans from obstructing the people's business and then keep putting up bills that the American people love so that the Republicans can vote against them. Make them filibuster by actually debating. Humiliate them, humiliate them, and keep on humiliating them. When they are lying half dead on the floor, THEN it will be possible to govern this country. So long that is as every time they threaten to get up, they get kicked in the head and go down for the count again.

It ain't beanbag.

The disaster for the Democratic party began in the 70s, not because the party was too liberal, but because it was taken over by policy wonks who simply do not seem to understand how to be politicians. They yak, yak, yak about policy and they don't know how to wield a knife. In the days when the party was run by bosses, at least they understood how to fight.

I agree with roi and I think it's particularly unfortunate that the famed Chicago ward politics that everyone yesyes disapproves of but was very useful at times seems to have taken a vacation from this Chicago-rooted White House. What we need is the skill that takes out an opponent before he even realizes someone has done major surgery on him on his front lawn.

My fear about Obama is that he wasn't long enough in the Senate to grasp what a piece of work the GOP has become. He seems to think that, in the final analysis, everyone will sit down at the table and work on solving a problem for the American people.

He doesn't seem to get it that these are people who don't care about that. They (or the folks who pull their strings) have an ideological hatred that goes beyond the rational -- they don't really believe there's anything like a broad "national" interest, because the nation includes too many people whom the GOP base doesn't think belong here anyway.

Anyone with two brain cells to work together knows that we need to sort out problems that are hanging over our future like a shadowy presence: energy security, terrorism, educational standards, health care cost/availability distortions, and most of all a kind of moral disconnection that leads to fairy tales and wish-fantasies being swallowed as if they were facts in the real world.

I'm not a party-label guy. If the Republicans genuinely had a grasp of these challenges (and I think some do) and were prepared to cooperate on real solutions, then one wouldn't be worried too much about a GOP resurgence. But if Sarah Palin or similar is the future of the party, they can't be trusted with anything important.

For all the current accusations of cowardice leveled at Dems, I think it's worth saying that the most astonishing act of wimping-out in recent times is the painful inability/unwillingness of intelligent Republicans to tell the truth to their constituency, and to be fair one should consider the whipping that some of them get when they try (e.g. Graham). But reality doesn't give the United States a special pass. A nation that decides to believe in fantasy and turns its back on the world is not a nation that is on track to recover its leadership role in the world. Sorry.

Respectfully, from my outsider's view, Massachusetts was a big loss for Obama. But he can’t come on strong in response as some urge, including doubling down on health care. He needs effectively to tell America he hears it. He needs to back off trying to pass heath care right now in its present form in a huge, complicated, economy-realigning bill when Americans dislike it. Assertiveness here could doom Obama. And it could deepen and entrench the disaffection shown in Virginia, New Jersey and now Massachusetts.

(Btw, if it were up to me you all would have some type of single payer system. but your political realities make this impossibie right now.)

(Anyway, the Senate and House Bills are both centralized plan and top-down decision-making rooted in bureaucracy. The Wyden-Bennett plan, for an example, was consumer and competition oriented, emphasizing consumer choice and power. Something like that plus tort reform could be, well, a “reset”. Your country seems temperamentally suited to the latter and ill disposed to the former.)

So as just noted, if Democrats act as though Americans have not spoken up, if they were, say, to try to force through such unpopular legislation, it would ramify through the your body politics like shit though a goose.

And it would cut against the presidential rebranding already in the works and starting to peek out and take some baby steps--populism rooted in genuine connection and skilful triangulation. I think a Democratic President set back on his heels successfully did that once before, not so long ago. The Democrats should in due course pick their battles and take their stand, but not now, and not with this legislation.

Mr. Judis has put together a compelling argument and a great read. However I am not completely on board and would like to throw out an alternative read on things.

The Democrats still have 58 seats & Old Joe in the Senate, not a a bad working group. Still a 78 seat edge in the House. They can still craft legislation and let the Republicans in the Senate Fillibuster. But that will get old quickly.

The economy which is not generating jobs at all, is generating returns to their stock holders. The Dow hit 10,700 this week and should be closer to 12,000 come November. Rebuilt 401(k)'s and good news from one side of the economy will blunt a lot of Republican criticism over jobs.

A lot of the middle class concern also regards the foreign policy. With criticism if Irad quickly fading and a stronger Afghan policy the two wars could be winding down come November. Yes one attack could wipe this out, but I think it is more likely that Ayman al-Zawahiri or Bin Laden will be killed before there is another attack on America. If Iran breaks the right way we could be looking at major success in the middle east.

I do not see the doom & gloom that others are forcasting. There are some major things breaking the Obama way. I think the guy could end up like Reagan and coast into reelection and be remembered fondly by many.

I would stick to the plan. Throttle back on healthcare and cap & trade and go to work on the other stuff and see what happens.

CRS9TNR, if Old Joe is to remain an ally will depend on how he's treated by the leadership, with respect. I don't think he deserves it, but I may well be wrong, and he just might have a grip on a way to get some meaningful reform if not the total package. I hope all will go well there, but I retain something of a distrust of Lieberman. Or is my attitude toward him unhealthy and needs reforming? Interesting times.

p.s. I just saw bits of Obama's interview today with Stephanopoulos: exactly the right note, imho.

Let's make it perfectly clear. Voters wanted the government to fix health care not take it over. Judis and the "progressive" Antoinette wing of the Democratic party still haven't figured this out....but it doesn't really matter because

The progressive agenda is Dead. Thank you Massachusetts.

The answer to failure of a Maginot line-building strategy is NOT to build a longer, better fortified Maginot line. The answer to a failure of a compromise, move right, policy by Obama and the Senate Democrats is not more compromise and move further to the right. However, both are unlikely to change. It is unfortunate-- and politically risky-- but to satisfy his primal instinct to compromise, Obama needs a strident, near-intransigent-demanding Progressive movement with a credible candidate to head it. I'd sure give it $ -- I bet millions of others also would.