At this hour, the Democratic caucus in the House is scheduled to meet in a mandatory meeting to take up the health care bill. By the end of that session, we should know where the caucus is at as far as what kind of bill – and what kind of public option – they will bring to the floor. Leadership has been whip counting for three days, and there have been conflicting reports over how many firm yes votes there are for a so-called “robust” public option, one tied to Medicare +5% rates. The best guess is that leadership came up a bit short, but that’s really premature at this point.
When we know, we’ll know. It looks like Nancy Pelosi made the best possible effort to get those votes, and if something less sweeping gets to the floor, the fault will lie with individual members of the House.
Then there’s the question of what happened at that evening meeting between Senate leaders and the President. Anonymous sources are throwing around conflicting reports about whether the President expressed support for Olympia Snowe’s trigger or made no statement of preference at all. You’ve seen the links, you know where to get them.
Here’s my basic feeling on this. There has been demonstrated value in going apeshit on every unsubstantiated rumor with regard to health care. It has made Democratic politicians, from the House to the White House, “work the yo-yo” and immediately deny their comments. But this intense focus on one comment or another does to a certain extent serve powerful interests.
Whether consciously or unconsciously, the media and politicians figured out during the 2008 campaign that leaking anonymous tips or highlighting “X said Y” didn’t just rouse traditional media. It kept its consumers in the blogosphere busy as well. And that model has survived to this health care debate. A White House source leaks something to Politico or some other outlet, and everybody chases the soccer ball. This government by trial balloon is very seductive, it’s easy to get people talking about them and it fills up the day. But it’s a sad example of the cautiousness of this White House, as well as the link-chasing and traffic-chasing that has started to define at least a corner of new media.
They can work the yo-yo all they want, but sooner or later, someone in government will have to make a decision on all this. And when they do, they cannot hide behind an anonymous source. House and Senate leaders and the President should know by now that they will be judged by their actions, and people will respond accordingly. In the meantime, those activists who have prospered by backing their representatives into a corner based on anonymous leaks and tips should probably keep doing it. That’s a vital part of activism in this digital era, and without it a real crappy health care bill would probably be on its way to the President for signage. There’s a balance, however. And everybody chasing the soccer ball often leaves the goal mouth uncovered.
31 Comments
Spotlight



Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Advanced search
*cheer*
Oh, watch this!
*Dems try an “Around the World” and smash fishtank*
About right.
Gee, anyone care to hazard a few guesses? /s
Democratic politicians should learn to follow the successful Republican strategy that has only become feasible in the last 10-20 years of media consolidation and corporatization:
1. Make bold, black-and-white, this-is-a-moral-issue-and-big-surprise-I’m-on-the-good-guy’s-side statements.
2. When called on to apologize, go on the counterattack. NEVER back down or apologize for your exaggeration or hyperbole or smackdown.
3. Repeat / profit.
Rep. Alan Grayson has learned that lesson. He’s learned you can be as declarative and absolutist in your langauge as Republicans can *without* being hateful, separatist or bigoted.
If more Democrats learned how to use the socially-acceptable exaggeration that occurs in such areas as satirical humor and apply it to attacks of the Republicans’ policies and ideology (which should be easy — look at Colbert & Stewart, etc.), the Republicans would go from 20% identification to 2%.
David, I hear what you’re saying about the link-chasing being good for cornering some folks. But, the filling up the day aspect has me wondering. Since the cable news outlets went 24 hours, I think the reporting has steadily declined. That’s when we started getting merely sound bites, reported over and over and less serious and in depth news coverage.
Frankly, watching this yo-yoing is making me a little dizzy.
Or, should I say dizzier?
Excellent point.
If the Congress does pass a bill with a strong public option based on Medicare + 5% and a substantial part of what is in the House bill, the goal mouth is the comment and review period on the regulations, which will include any changes in rates as well as the details about how the provisions forbidding exclusion, rescission, and caps will be enforced. What we gain in a bill can be taken back through poor regulations.
And Congress is tossing out two more soccer balls on the field – Kerry-Boxer climate change bill and the Frank committee’s financial industry regulations. Neither of which have received much strategic definition and blogosphere pressure yet.
And then there is DADT repeal, which could be slipped into the Defense Appropriations bill, now hamstrung because Inouye opposes the Franken Amendment. And the Employee Free Choice Act (or more broadly, better support for collective bargaining rights). And DOMA repeal.
There is going to have to be some well publicized division of labor in the progressive blogosphere in order to deal with this and the yo-yoing associated with it. Especially in deciding what is the point at which a bill is not worth passing and getting progressives in Congress to backstop that. For every one of those bills is going to be sent through with some sort of compromise. And we need to learn for the strategic mistake in sitting idly by while single-payer was taken off the table.
The unprotected “Goal” in this analogy is the Life and Liberties of Americans. Seems every interest is represented in this equation, except the American people in the Senate. As for the people’s house, the people do a little better? People are not property. The perpetuation of a health insurance ponzi scheme, run by corporations which discriminate under the color of law is reprehensible. It is segregation, monopolies by design for lustful profit which undercuts the general welfare of the nation by usurping constitutional protections and rights, under the color of law.
Jefferson and Madison wanted restrictions on monopolistic corporations whose identities would consume the rights and liberties of Americans, with good reason! Look at all the corporate lobbyist, working against the American people, just like slave owners leveraged the slaves! Gross!
Excellent point. How do we not be driven to distraction by the fact that there is a lot bluffing going on in the negotiations and trying to move public opinion (including ours) with leaks.
Jane has a new cross-post up: “Obama Wants a Trigger, So Keep Calling Reid”
I am astonished at the Democrats’ inability to grasp that anything less than what amounts to Medicare for all is and will be perceived as a sellout to greedy insurance companies that will torpedo them in the next elections. The current Democratic majority and all the leadership are therefore toast and won’t be around next time. That is actually as it should be. In the meantime, however, people are dying, lives are being ruined, and the dollar is collapsing.
It’s just astounding that so few Democratic pols see the incredible opportunity for positive transformation that true universal, single-payer health care would bring to this country. It’s appallingly ignorant. There isn’t any solution, apparently, except for our whole system to come crashing down and corporatism to be utterly, thoroughly discredited.
Yes, exactly, I’ve been writing on financial regulation and have found there is virtually no progressive infrastructure to really spark the kind of outrage needed to break the power of the banks. A Goldman Sachs Vice-Chair says “you have to tolerate the inequality” and NOTHING? Really? Nobody said a word about it? Big exemptions in the House FinSrvcs bill for the CFPA and, crickets? It’s a little maddening, in the midst of all the soccer ball chasing. Rahm must be happy.
Incidentally, it’s the hate crimes bill that is in the defense bill, and that’ll probably be signed. I wrote about it this morning.
dday, you’re saying here that chasing links is good, and it’s bad. Or, to put it another way, it’s X, and it’s Y.
I would argue it’s more good than bad. And even if it were not, it has become a long term investment of time and effort. Whatever it is, it is–and it can’t and won’t change at this point.
How not to be driven to distraction? Fortunately, we have Jane Hamsher who doggedly sticks to specifics. Tracks facts. Points her readers towards the goal and gives them tools for speaking out.
As I am a person who has always jumped around a lot in my interests, I admire people who can pick a subject of passion and stay with it.
This source is saying “Jarrett rejected Joe Scarborough’s suggestion that President Obama is pushing for the so-called ‘trigger’.”
And the yo-yo keeps spinning . . .
Yes, and the eyes in my head are spinning around–which I guess is the point, isn’t it? C-o-n-f-u-s-i-o-n.
But the real problem here isn’t us. It’s government-by-anonymous-trial-balloon. I don’t know exactly how to prevent that, but it’s become insidious.
I thought the Defense Appropriations were still being debated. But yes, you are right, the hate crimes bill made it and DADT repeal didn’t.
Wanted: a few new “Profiles in Courage” at the top levels of the Democratic Party.
My best idea. Ignore the trial balloons and focus on pressure for better than the backstop position. Not bringing single payer forward as the House bill was a strategic error. And we let it happen because we were depending on Obama’s OFA infrastructure to do the field work. Now we know. Let’s not make that mistake again.
thank you D-Day – most excellent
Professor Slinkerwink sets a great example. suggest those of you who don’t stray over to her Big Orange diaries go over and skim just a few of her threads – look at all the oh so groovily worded temptations and attacks – and how she moves just enough to get out of the path.
that is what not taking your eye off the ball looks like.
damn that is funny. and spot on
David, what exactly do you mean by “leaving the goal mouth uncovered?” What do you think the danger is in reacting too strongly to whatever the trial balloons of the day are?
it passed the Senate yesterday. Conf. committee and then a final vote, passage next wk.
Rocket J. Squirrel: “That trick never works.”
Bullwinkle Moose: “This time for sure!”
In general, a lot happens in government. And with unlimited capacity we could agitate about all of it. But we don’t have unlimited capacity. And channeling that capacity into trial balloon pound-downs does allow other things to continue unimpeded. The auto dealer exemption in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, for ex. Or the biologics patent extension in this very health care bill. All I’m saying is that progressives need a multi-pronged attack, and soccer-ball chasing can serve certain malign interests.
What digby said:
they are Barcelona, we are Rubin Kazan!
Fair enough. I do worry that we get entirely too focused at times, particularly when the corporate forces are so hydra-headed. One reason I’m incredibly please with how forcefully the WH is calling out Fox News is that it’s very hard for grassroots to make an impact at withering the media memes at a national level. As such, it’s an aspect of resistance that’s often overlooked, usually to our regret.
Government by trial balloon may be attractive to the weak, the indecisive, and the timid, but to me, it looks like the worst of both worlds politically speaking. This Congress and, especially, this administration have not covered themselves with glory. At this point, after all the bickering, scheming, and two-faced speechifying, they are unlikely to get full credit even if they finally deliver.
If the Democratic leadership yo-yos through the healthcare debate and ultimately gives reluctant assent to a decent proposal, they are still going to have to bear the blame for dragging matters out so long and making us work so hard for it. They may have achieved something but, in the process, will also ahve shown themselves to be untrustworthy and venal, ready to work against the overwhelming majority of the voters. That can’t bode well for a re-election campaign. My so-called “centrist” Democratic senators and congresswoman recently changed tack and said that they’d support some watered-down sort of public option while calling for an up-or-down vote on the public option. But the dmage is largely done. Any plausible primary challenger will be atttractive–and we’ve got one that is very attractive by comparison.
If, on the other hand, the Democrats labor mightily and come up with a travesty, then they will have to take the blame AND face the special fury that comes when you lead people on and encourage false hopes.
So how, exacgtly, is this smart politics? I don’t get it.