"Yes We Can!" meets "Hell No You Can't!"
Kari Chisholm
In Tuesday's Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen described the health care vote as another step in the march toward progress - a march that conservatives have always opposed, at every turn.
Mitch McConnell is right. The Republican Senate leader, a man whose vision is to deny others theirs, told the New York Times that President Obama's health-care proposal was part of an attempt to "turn us into a Western European country," which, the good Lord willing, is what will now happen. I, for one, could use a dash of Germany, where there are something like 200 private health insurance plans and where everyone is covered and no one goes broke on account of bad health. It's great to be healthy in America, but for too many Americans, it's better to be sick somewhere else. ...This battle was never entirely about health care. The fury of the opposition -- not a single Republican vote -- is as historically significant as the passage of the legislation itself. There is something cleaving this country, something represented by the election of Barack Obama -- the change he either promised or threatened, take your pick -- and the hyper-exaggeration of the ideological threat the man represented. ...
The reason this fight took so long is that the culture is about evenly divided. It's not that the political system is broken. On the contrary, it's not supposed to work without consensus. It did as designed -- marched in place and bided its time until Sunday, when it moved just a bit. Consider how long it has taken. Harry Truman wanted this bill. ...
Ever since the New Deal, the GOP has been the Party of the Past. It said no to the New Deal. It said no to Social Security. Important leaders -- Barry Goldwater, for instance -- said no to civil rights, as they now are saying no to gay rights. The party plays the role of the scold, the finger-wagger who warns of this or that dire outcome -- not all of it wrong -- and then gets bypassed by progress. The GOP then picks itself up and resumes its fight -- against the next innovation. Usually, it wins some battles; usually, it loses the war.
McConnell had his point. Europe is way ahead of us in compassion for the sick. Its systems, though, are hardly perfect, and government debt is always a concern. Still, we know which way we are going. The culture wars will continue, but the outcome, Mitch, is no longer in doubt.
Or, to put it another way, set to music:
Yes, we can.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 25, '10
I think that's a complete mischaracterization of Republicans. Their opposition, while at some level was policy driven, was more about making a statement against a process they believed to be one-sided, and lacking transparency. I'm just making an observation here.
Now, I'm a firm believer in the system and that those in power get to shape legislation. It would've been better for the Republicans to swallow their pride, realize that it's the democrats turn, and been more willing to work with the Left to help shape the bill, even if they disagreed with it in concept.
I do believe that Obama's roundtable discussion was a good idea, and I hope more of that takes place throughout his administration.
Mar 25, '10
Mitch McConnell is happy to be the true face and voice of the Republican Party.
I have just one message for him:
"Repeal and replace"? Hell no.
Try, "Retreat and resign"
Mar 25, '10
Oh no he didn't.
6:34 p.m.
Mar 25, '10
Their opposition, while at some level was policy driven, was more about making a statement against a process they believed to be one-sided, and lacking transparency. I'm just making an observation here.
With respect, when the GOP lost so many Senate and House seats, and the White House, the American people voted for a one-sided process.
I'm not saying this to be flip. It's simply the facts.
Mar 25, '10
"Barry Goldwater, for instance -- said no to civil rights"
A greater percentage of Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If you look at the voting stats from the Civil Rights Act of 1964: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
A greater percentage of Republicans voted for this historic act.
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%) Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
But, keep the propaganda rolling. It's cheap entertainment.
Mar 25, '10
Scahill, as reported on AlterNet today called it like it is today
Half way down:
But let's be clear here: This is a complete and total sellout to the interests of the insurance lobby by the Obama administration. This is, as Michael Moore has said, a complete victory for the ultra-capitalists. Yet, if you look on the liberal blogosphere, people like Jane Hamsher are attacked mercilessly for having the audacity to stand up and say "this is a Democratic sellout."
So you have this blind allegiance to ... what? To Obama as a man? To the Democrats as a party? To me, it's very dangerous when you start going down the road of unquestioning support for any powerful individual or any politician. The moment you cede your conscience to a politician is the moment you stop struggling for a better society.
You betcha. "Yes We Can".
It's actually pretty amazing to see those who pretend to be "Democrats" or at least "progressive" trying to deny the undeniable truth about this bill and distract people from the moral collapse of the Democratic Party it represents.
Mar 25, '10
Dear Joe. If someone took your stats at face value you'd almost believe the republican party was move in favor of Civil Rights than Democrats. (A Glenn Beck kind of non-fact). But you'd be wrong. The Republican and Democratic parties had a much different composition in 1964 than today.
The republican party actually had some moderates and gasp, honest to god liberals in it in those days. The democratic party had considerably more conservatives; especially from the South. (The South was not fond of the Party of Lincoln) They were still sort of nurturing a grudge over that whole Civil War business and freeing of 'their' slaves.
White Southern Democrats who were hostile to Civil Rights after the passage of Civil Rights legislation became republicans and now constitute the backbone of the modern republican party.
When President Johnson signed the bill he remarked that "The Democrats will lose the South for a generation but it's the right thing to do.
And don't forget Tricky Dick Nixon and "The Southern Strategy." Republicans more on the side of Civil Rights? Nobody's buying that.
You're statistics, while they may be, in a narrow sense, technically correct, are cited without placing them in any historical context and fail to tell even a small part of the whole story.
The sick, foaming at the mouth, rabid animal that is the modern republican party of 2010, bears little resemblance, if any, to the republican party I remember from 1964.
They impressed me as serious 'green-eye shade' types who knew how to run things efficiently and balance a budget.
But, keep the propaganda rolling. It's cheap entertainment.
7:45 p.m.
Mar 25, '10
I thought that David Frum offered some pretty good analysis on this subject recently...
10:55 p.m.
Mar 25, '10
YWCW --
Not a perfect bill. Not by a long shot. But is it better than the status quo? Yes.
If for no other reason than:
Would I have preferred single-payer? Of course. Would I have preferred a public option? Of course. Would I have preferred Wyden's proposed abolition of employer-based health care? Of course.
But as the President said:
I've become convinced that there are some folks for whom good is never good enough. If we'd gotten the public option, they'd still be screaming "SELLOUT!" because it didn't include single-payer. If we'd gotten single-payer, but with a multi-year transition period, they'd be screaming "SELLOUT!" because it wasn't immediate.
This reform creates the framework up on which future reforms can be built. "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice..." - MLK Jr.
Mar 25, '10
Just because you DID, doesn't mean it is right. Not in a representative republic, where a majority of the citizens of the nation vehemently and overwhelmingly rejected the idea of "health care reform". What a joke. Mob rule is democracy. The citizens were not fairly represented. Not by a long shot. Showing a "white man" saying "NO YOU CAN'T" is racist.There is a large number of black conservatives that see our Prez. Obummer for the socialist he is playing out to be. This video is divisive at best, racist at it's worst. Stop playing into the hands of those that wish to control your heart and minds. Take the side of what is right in all things. The truth don't take sides!
11:44 p.m.
Mar 25, '10
Kari - I think the biggest concern in this legislation is that it doesn't contain the rising cost of health care.
This legislation creates a revenue stream that will help subsidize the cost of insurance for people who earn less than 350% of the poverty wage. That subsidy makes it feasible to expand coverage to every American, but it also masks the actual cost of insurance which is expected to increase at a faster rate than would occur without the legislation.
So, yes it may be an important step forward, but focusing on the public option or single payer is misleading. The real issue is not whether skeptics are a bunch of irrational lefties or intransigent righties, but whether the failure of this legislation to control rising costs -- as descibed by the CBO -- can be corrected in future sessions of congress.
11:52 p.m.
Mar 25, '10
Just because you DID, doesn't mean it is right. Not in a representative republic, where a majority of the citizens of the nation vehemently and overwhelmingly rejected the idea of "health care reform".
I don't agree that a majority oppose health care reform. A significant percentage of the population supports this legislation -- a plurality, perhaps -- and a significant portion of the population opposed this legislation because it didn't go far enough.
When you add those two groups together, you are left with a vocal but highly agitated minority who have been whipped into a frenzy by propaganda from highly partisan media outlets, particularly cable and talk radio.
The fact that Fox News tells you that you are in the majority doesn't make it so.
Mar 26, '10
LesterPester, yes we do live in a representative democracy, one in which the Democrats won sizable majorities in both houses of congress as well as the White House, with health care reform as one of their major platform issues. In which election exactly did the majority of citizens express their displeasure with health care?
It seems to me that the majority of the American people eloquently expressed their opinion about the Republican Party and its ideology by rendering them the minority. Given the full reins of power, the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court, the Republicans lied us into war, suspended habeas corpus and they drove the economy off a cliff. Instead of bellowing at us, they should be doing penance. What arrogance.
The American people will have a chance to weigh in with their opinions on this health care bill, and the spectacle of Republican obstructionism, this November. Mobs aren't democracy, they're mobs. As Jon Stewart accurately put it, "You may be confusing tyranny with losing."
Mar 26, '10
Dear Unrepentant Liberal,
Here's a little historical context for you:
Of course if you go back to that era, the Democrats almost blew Castro out of the water.
Fast forward to today, the Democrats are in lock step with Castro on Healthcare.
"Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cuban-leader-applauds-US-apf-124808403.html?x=0&.v=1
So after 40 years, the Democratic Party has gone from almost nuking Castro - to embracing his communist ways.
You must be so proud!
8:25 a.m.
Mar 26, '10
What,
No pithy quotes from, Mahmood Ahmedinijad, Bernie Madoff, and Cruella De Ville?
<hr/>Also, quite calling John Boehner a "white guy". He's clearly a lovely shade of orange.
Mar 26, '10
Ron Morgan. Sorry, but that is Representative Republic. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or US Constitution is the word "democracy" written. We are NOT supposed to have a democracy as the founding fathers hated the idea. It is the lovers of 'mob rule' that embrace democracy. The next election the mob will not be a minority, and the rats, republicans and democrats will be out on their ears.
Mar 26, '10
Just so people know: For whatever reason Blue Oregon is blocking IP addresses. Two responses to Kari's comment were submitted and neither has appeared. It's up to Kari whether he wants readers to see those.
Mar 26, '10
The GOP is turning into the party of Tim McVeigh domestic terrorists. A news story coming out of Tenn. from yesterday, a father picks up his ten year old daughter from school and is rammed by a middle age white male in an SUV because of the Obama sticker on the bumper. Are car bombs and assassinations next? http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=12208009
Mar 26, '10
In light of all this violence, maybe Obama should issue an EO and confiscate all guns?
I am sure Castro would approve of this!
Mar 26, '10
If for no other reason than:
OK. Let's talk turkey. That is rhetoric. It doesn't play out that way. Tell me where I miss the boat, here.
The bulk of people taking advantage of pre-existing conditions will be poor and have serious pre-existing conditions. The more you've done without this, the worse shape you're likely to be in. Now, add in the last two, add in the leeway that will be added in hundreds of 'procedural' follow-on bills, and the reasonable assumption is that premiums will very pricey, for those individuals.
This is mandatory. They have to pay up. People that have said, "Fine, I'll just die", are now going to be spending hundreds more, per month, that they simply don't have. That will be padding the bottom line of insurance companies. Right from the pockets of the poor to insurance executives.
On the other hand, it doesn't have to be that way. Or can Europe (and Cuba) manage what we can't? Paulie called the public option, "a small pot". There is so little separating Dems from Reps anymore. You keep quoting all these good liberals that would be pleased to have this bill passed? How many assumed a public option? That's comparing apples to oranges, which would be OK, except the bit you're glossing over is your supposed core constituency. And it just happens to help big business, creates more criminals, extends human domestication...
What I would like you to concede is that the bill is not a bulleted list of "mission accomplished" items, any more than it was when Baby Bush said it. That kind of talk is geared only to the funding cycles and already building the case for this being a tick in the box in the upcoming election cycles.
Mar 27, '10
I sent the "O" the following letter this AM: "A front page story in today's Oregoninan, "Iraq election result just start of difficult process", includes the sentence:
Could someone please invite the Ambassador and the General to speak with Republican Party leaders in this country regarding the integrity of our own elections and American concerns about Republican Party leader's behavior ever since our most recent election."
That sentence pretty much reflects the proper concern over current Republican Party politics in this country.
Apr 10, '10
@Lester Pester: Please brush up on your terminology and history, or at least, use Wikipedia. You're on the Internet, so you might as well use it, after all.
To quote Wikipedia:
"In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy."
So, uhhh, a republic is a type of democracy. Let me ask you, do you even know what a democracy is?
Democracy is a political government carried out either directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy)
<h2>A lot of right-wingers are tossing their own version of "history" around because they think "durrr, republic means Republican, durrr, democracy means Democrat." Please. Look up the meaning of words before you spread more of the far right-wing propaganda, okay?</h2>