Does Brown’s Senate Win Mean End of Health Reform?

This was the actual title.

And it’s not like Time pulled this out of the blue. Many Democrats and other sources before the election, had been wondering the same thing. Maloney: Health Care Dies if Coakley Loses.  Here are a few more examples of this. And our favorite of them all “If Coakley loses, I don’t see how we can get this done.”

We thought this was all a big gag played simultaneously by both google’s search engines and all the major publications and spokespeople, since, obviously one random person’s vote is pretty much inconsequential.

And then it dawned on us. If they lose this election, they lose their “majority”!

Of course, in the world of Democratic politics, majority for them means 60 percent of the votes, not, as one would quite sensibly imagine, 51%; while for their opponents, a majority means only 41%, once again, instead of the 51% that one would expect.

Of course, here’s a commenter on the hot political insider blog “The Note” at ABC who obviously must be smoking crack, or has received their math training at the George Bush School of math and deficit reduction.  Because, while we don’t know that a better bill has to be more “progressive,” they make the seemingly insane suggestion that “maybe if Coakley loses, the Dems will decide that 51 votes are a winning number.”

Yes, of course, in a world where 51 is larger than 49.  But in Democrat Politics world, 51 is smaller than 49, and 59 is smaller than 41, when those 41 are the big, bad, huff and puff and blow your house down Republicans, who will “keep the bill from passing,” mainly, because, well, they want to.

We’re not saying that the ability of the minority to sometimes serve as a check upon the will of the majority in our Congress is not a critical part of our basic system of government.  It is.  We are saying, however, that this new millennium, it only seems to go one way, as Democrats repeatedly both allow, and play right into, their opponent’s framing, and often control, of the issues.

Also consider, throughout most of this decade, when Democrats had an actual minority in the Senate and faced an opposition party president (much like the situation is now for Republicans), how many times did the Democrats nevertheless control the Senate?

Zero.

Yet Democrats are allowing Republicans to do it to them, now.

Why is that?

Here’s the worst part. Instead of getting the point of this rhetorical question, Democrats will actually provide what are, to them, “answers” to it. That’s apparently what makes them Democrats.

As for the health care bill itself, if it does get waylaid –and we don’t buy passionately made, but we think incredibly lame and defeatist, arguments that waylaying it means the issue is done, and suggest instead that the issue be covered and sold more accurately, along with writing a much better bill — we’re not sure this is the negative that Democrats seem to think that it is.

That is, this bill seems to do more for health insurance companies — the source of most of the problem (and source of the incredible amounts wasted on health care in this country) — than it does to address the problem itself.

Let’s put the core of the problem in blockquotes here to emphasize it:

We’re spending almost one fifth of our total GDP on health care in this country.  While at the same time, many people don’t have access to good health care, many others experience poor care, and insurance companies are routinely coming between patients and their doctors. And we’re spending well over half a trillion dollars a year in government funds on health care as part of that total spending. Democrats changed this bill to make it more “passable” and in so doing gave some of the very few legitimate right wing complaints against it more meaning while of course serving as yet another example of the influence of big industry lobbying power on capitol hill, to the detriment of taxpayers. And Democrats can’t get one single Republican on board by simply making it a better bill? Or, with a solid majority in both houses without Martha Coakley and the support of the White House, pass a decent bill that a majority of Americans would understand and appreciate?

Heck, even if Democrats took off that last clause (because they have decided that unlike their opponents, they can’t sell or explain anything other than to their “base,” which keeps telling them how brilliant their explanations are, and how “obvious” it all is) do they really think a majority of Americans understand and appreciate the current bill?

Here’s the bottom line:  Instead of focusing on random Senator, write a better bill that addresses the root problems, lowers costs, and does not mandate or dictate to people what to do, and stop allowing Republicans to control them, for once.

Whatever one thinks of his politics (or his recent “debate” with Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald) Krugman has numerous accolades, and is an accomplished economist.  He has even won a Nobel prize. Often his opionions are characterized as “Liberal,” when what that really means is that he sensibly takes issue with the unofficial position of the Fox advocacy channel that masquerades under the clever guise of “Fox News.”

Whether Krugman is spot on much of the time, or often spouting knee jerk partisan positions, when it comes to Democrats and importance of framing and understanding what the national debate is imparting, he may follow the same mold as other Democrats. That is, the application of what seem to be intellectual, rationale (sometimes subjective, sometimes not) standards to the analysis of why things are the way that they are in American politics.

This is a huge, and typical, Donkey Party mistake. Krugman makes it here, yesterday:

Lately many people have been second-guessing the Obama administration’s political strategy….

The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments.

This is not the place to go into the conditions that the Obama Administration inherited when it took office, or the mistakes it has made, or the things that it has done, good and bad.  That has been debated elsewhere.

The Obama Administration’s troubles, politically, are a result of the fact that once again, the Right has controlled the debate, and done far more to define the Obama Administration, than Democrats have.

The analysis essentially starts, and stops, there.  Yet Democrats seem to live in a different world, and hold Obama to some standard of their own disappointment, rather than how Obama is being characterized to, and perceived by, the country.

The latter defines the administration. The former only defines it to a core of Democrats.  The former is not the country. Democrats often confuse it, for the country.

Yes, part of what Krugman suggests might be correct. The Obama administration has made political misjudgments. But to the extent relevant here, all of those  go to how the Obama Administration has framed and controlled (or failed to control) the debate, and thus, ultimately, the same issue. Here is a stunning example, rendered even more stunning by the response to it, from what is a mostly (but not all) Liberal site.

How come you knew that the way to beat these guys was to put em on defense.

The common sense mind boggles. It reels.  Very uncharacteristically, it grasps for air.  Truly, Democrats did not know this. And this is what, more than anything else, defines the past nine years.  The story behind the story — as always, more important than the one that is commonly “known,” or maintained.

How come you knew that the way to beat these guys was to put em on defense.

Mind you, Matthews is not talking about just Republicans here, or even the “Right,” but the far right (as he illustrates by way of example at the outset), which has come to take over, and largely define the Republican Party today.

Largely because Democrats did not know. Among other things, not so known.

Update: Matthews says something else pretty interesting on that video.  Minute 2:00

Why did the Democrats spend the last year or so attacking the way things are, as  a way of getting them fixed.

There are some things wrong with this statement; it plays to right wing framing, and it is somewhat misleading.  But there is also a great deal of truth in it. Or, more accurately a great deal of truth, in terms of how things are perceived. Democrats spend an unfailingly small amount of time defining the issues, and an even unfailingly smaller amount of time, defining their opponents.

Matthews, bad as he is, is not making these statements in a totalvacuum.  Democrats have spent a lot of time telling Americans what their opponents are, concluding what there opponents are, noting how “obvious” it is what there opponents are, but they have spent precious little time defining their opponents. Or even defining the issues, for that matter.

They usually play defense. It’s almost as if the Right is paying them. But it’s not. Democrats really seem to ofteh think that everyone knows what they “know” and so engage accordingly.  And this gets wildly self reinforced online, where the phenomenon is even worse.

Grayson — a pretty bright guy, self made, wildly rich, grew up dirt poor, put himself through Harvard and Harvard Law — may also think a lot of this stuff is obvious. But at least he shows what this stuff is.  And he does not play unnecessary defense.

As we noted earlier, Republicans fear him, because, as he put it;

The Republicans are serious about getting rid of me, because they are scared.  They have already set up a site to attack me. And the reason is simple; they don’t want my tough attitude to rub off on other Democrats.

No doubt. Whether Republicans  realize it, or not; they don’t.

By the way, it is important  to note — particularly given the level of vitriol on the web — that tough attitude is not defined by getting mad and calling people names.  It is defined by showing the case to the American people, breaking it down into terms that they — and not just the self reinforcing choir — can understand, and by turning their opponents miscues and misrepresentations into defining stories about them; not playing into them, and, as Matthews put it, “playing defense.”

Update II: We heard Matthews’ statement incorrectly.  Which lead to a fairly interesting analysis of how Democrats are often perceived to be “complaining.”  It turns out that we had it backward, and heard “did” when Matthews said “did not.”  Matthews: Why didnt the Democrats spend the last year or so attacking the way things are, as  a way of getting them fixed.

Well, interestingly, before agreeing with Matthews (well, agreeing with the opposite of what he was saying) we first noted “There are several things wrong with this statement” (the statement that was, in fact, the opposite of what Matthews was saying.)  Frankly, we don’t like the new “correct” statement either, but this is in some measure a function of framing. If Matthews simply meant “Why didn’t Democrats make the case as to what the issues are,” and then of course tie those into their opponents’ leadership and constant rhetoric, then it works.

Full Disclosure:  We are not fans of Michael Moore.  Some on the left may likely get angry with that statement, and dismiss what we are trying to do (somewhat comically, since there are millions of blogs out here and few see this one).

But what is important to point out — and even more important to understand (aside from the fact that people can have different perspectives over the same set of facts) is that the fact that a website like this that actually supports a number of positions that the left happens to support, carries far more credibility, because it can not be simply dismissed by or attributed to irrelevant but typically common assertions of “well, that’s just the left talking,” and a presumption of bias and spin immediately read right in. Because, here, it is not, and there is none. Rather, we are looking at the issue objectively, and dispassionately, trying to share facts as reasonably as possible, and when our perspective intermingles (which is not often the case), we try to give the reason why, when it is relevant.

That is what gets people to listen, and to bridge divides. Not necessarily in changing positions or even “compromising” things that don’t need to be or even should not be compromised on, but in helping open up actual debate, improving the level of information,and making disinformation into a much bigger issue that it currently is.

Now back to that disinformation, and the intense media bias that continues to play into the framing of the right. Part of the reason the media does this is because — well, for reasons discussed in other posts, and on more serious, lengthy sites, this is what the media does. And part of the reason why is because Democrats allow them to do it, Democrats do not use the often misleading framing of the far right to define the far right, Democrats allow the far right to define Democrats, and Democrats often play into the framing of the far right. This makes it easier — no offense media — for the media to do the lousy job that they do. (Many reporters have privately acknowledged that the wish Democrats would sometimes just freakin’ make an effective case, so they could cover it without immediately being accused by the far right of bias simply by virtue of covering the facts — but this seems to be a notion that, when shared, many active Democrats online scoff at. Which is too bad.)

Briefly, with the Michael Moore example:  Here is the news headline, on its user account home page, that greeted millions of Americans today (emphasis added):

Michael Moore Defends Beliefs. Filmmaker reacts to suggestions he leave the country:  Why he won’t go

This is rather incredible in its presentation.  Moore had to “defend” rather than simply “express” his beliefs?  Then there is the absurd suggestion that Michael Moore leave the country.  Why is AOL even parroting this?   For quick headline appeal, most likely. But the effect is the same.

“Jim” is famous.  Jim doesn’t think the way we are doing things is the best way, so Jim complains about what he thinks is not the best way.  He might spin his facts, as many do, and exaggerate a bit, but he doesn’t even wildly mislead, as some very promiment commentators in America do. And we say “Jim should just leave the country.”  Because our country is not founded upon the notion of the right to disagree, but instead, the idea that those whose perspectives we don’t like (not those who continually, and repeatedly, wildly mislead — and even they have a right to be here) should just leave.

Ha ha. We were just kidding. Of course our country is founded upon the right to disagree — and in fact the necessity for it. But maybe a few other people take up our call for Jim to leave the country.  “Jim, just get the hell out.” It has a nice, real emotionally base, and very easily appealing (and pithy!) ring to it. It’s even fun to say.

It is absurd, of course.  But AOL in its news feed, to millions, decides to run a headline;  ”Jim responds to suggestions that he leave the country.” The idea, even if Jim’s response is wonderful, is now legitimized.

But AOL,here, does something much worse. AOL now actually gives credence not just to the idea that the suggestion is at least reasonable, but to the idea that Jim “should get the hell out” itself, by telling its readers and account holders “Why Jim Won’t Go” is reasonable.

This is sensationalism at its worse.  We may dislike Moore, but at the moment we dislike AOL “more.”  Maybe AOL should “get the hell out!”

Heck, that is appealing!!  And it is fine, we are not castigating those who make this very misguided (and darest we say, perhaps on some absrtract level, “unAmerican”? suggestion), BUT WE ARE CASTIGATING AOL FOR BLATANTLY LEGITIMIZING IT, AND PLAYING RIGHT INTO IT.

It’s shameless. It’s clueless. And it is extremely biased.  And it’s being manipulated by the far right.  But as we noted above, Democrats are not helping, either.

From this morning’s fundraising email from the NRCC, signed by [Joe] Wilson:

There has been a lot of debate on what is true in the debate over government-run healthcare. But Democrats continue to spin and mislead the public in an attempt to stifle honest and open debate …..If we can raise more money than the Democrats, we’ll send a message .

From the DCCC’s fundraising email, signed by Paul Begala:

“You Lie!” That was one Republican Congressclown’s response to President Obama’s call for action on health insurance reform…Classy….But now the very liars who heckled President Obama for calling them out are raising millions of dollars off of their rude, dishonest attack — and even claiming victory in the media for it!

We think this sets up the Republicans perfectly for not just a fundraising email, but a full blown TV ad, that should say something like this:

Can you believe it America?  Congressman Wilson helped point out the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration’s push, as Democrats continue to continue to spin and mislead the public. We need to raise money to correct this stifling of open and honest debate by those dastardly Democrats, and now those same Democrats are actually, scandalously, trying to raise more money off of our fundraising that was pointing this out!

“We’ll see your two lies, and raise you one hypocrisy, a misrepresentation, and two government social workers thrown in.”

But the Democrats should then re-raise, with an ad that goes something like this:

Can you believe those absolutely classless, ”classy” Republicans, America!!  First they tried to raise money off of Joe Wilson’s outrageous attack upon the President, and did so by trying to project their own constant dissembling on the health care bill onto us, just like they always do!  Then, when we pointed this out – to raise funds to show these vicious lie — they used this against us to fund raise some more; by re-spinning those same lies! (And calling us “dastardly.”  America, make them apologize).  Even signed once again by “Classy” Joe Wilson.  Help us raise money now to defeat these lies about the truth we were telling about the lies they were telling about the truth!!!!

Of course the Republican camp will then run another ad, which will say something like this:

Hey, would somebody simply explain to the American people what this is all about so that we Republicans can stop lying so easily about it and actually have an informed discussion over the issue and see what we can do about these outrageously spiraling taxpayer funded medicare and medicaid expenses, which eat up more government funds than anything save perhaps national defense?

Yeah, Right.

Opponents of Beck have made a big deal out of this. Why is beyond  us. Sure, it’s far from the greatest statement. But the fact is, it’s subjective.   It seems preposterous, but still, it’s an opinion. And a lot of people are racist.  Maybe the President is a little bit. We don’t see it at all.  But had President Bush been called a racist who hates Black people, would this same uproar of protest have occurred?

But what makes this so troubling,  is really two things.

The first thing is that it does not crack the top 100 ridiculous, inflammatory, misleading, blatantly erroneous, wildly hypocritical, dangerously deceptive, and profoundly ignorant things that Beck has asserted in recent years; and which the media, and his opponents, continue to allow him to assert without thoroughly undermining any credibility whatsoever even with his own viewers.  These are things that those who oppose Beck would be right to make a bigger issue –and national story – out of, than this mildly out of control ”racist remark.”

The second thing, is a bit funnier. It turns out (as per usual) Beck was wrong.   It’s not Whites the President is prejudiced against, or hates. It’s Gay Fish.   Which just seems, well, wrong.   [For those who don't know the Southpark episode in question, it centered on how the Kanye West character did not get the "fish sticks" joke because he was, well, a gay fish, which in the minimal interests of good taste that can be salvaged after this column, we will not repeat, um, here, either.]

If the President is prejudiced against anybody (and we don’t think he is), it is, clearly, gay fish.  Not White people as the insane, Obama hating, venom spewing, Glenn Beck asserts.

An email from the Donkasaurus Post to Kingsley, attempted to answer the question:

Dear Michael Kingsley:

To answer your question from yesterday’s column:  Because while their political opponents are busy defining Democrats, defining the issues, defining the debate, and selling their case and their stories, Democrats are all about extracting apologies.  They seem to think that in the world of politics, it proves points, or somehow proves they are in control. 

Democrats — rather than make a bigger story out of the fact that something was misrepresented so that it not only undermines the original falsity and the party engaging in the falisty – Democrats are always asking media sources and the more extreme of their political opponents for “apologies.” Perhaps, if there is a case to be made against Joe Wilson, they should simply make it, and turn his act into a positive, rather than a negative, for them. 

They seem to confuse the constant quest for apologies, with precisely this.

Hope this helps.

Doubtful.

Update:  Former George Bush, and John McCain strategist Mark McKinnon, offered this perspective.  And McKinnon certainly has one– the Republican strategist donated $1,000 to Wilson’s Democratic opponent, in order to try and defeat Wilson.