As health care reform comes down to the wire, Dennis Kucinich is the lone progressive holdout. His could be the one vote that derails over a year’s of hard work and hands a huge victory to the Republicans. He appeared last night on Countdown.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
It’s hard to disagree with Dennis. Most of what he says is right on. His description is more applicable to the Senate Bill as passed, and does not take into account the changes proposed for the reconciliation bill. Nevertheless, on this issue, I want everything he wants.
But here’s the rub. We’re not going to get everything we want. We either take what we can get, or we get nothing at all. This is where Kucinich takes leave of his senses. In his absolute, concrete view, he is willing to give up everything we can get, because he cant have it 100% his way. I expect that kind of pig-headedness from Republicans, not progressives.
Robert Creamer explains why we have to move forward.
Over the last several weeks various pundits — and Republican talkers — have fanned out across the airwaves to proclaim that Democrats face grave political danger this fall if they are so bold as to pass health care reform in the face of united Republican opposition.
For Congressional Democrats, the source of this advice should be enough to make it completely suspect. And in fact, history shows that just the opposite is true — and many Republicans know it.
Republicans do not win when Democrats are successful at making fundamental progressive change. They win when they stop Democrats from making fundamental progressive change.
As a progressive Democrat, I would be thrilled if every Republican votes against a health care reform bill that passes Congress and is signed into law by the President, since history shows they will pay a steep price for their united opposition to progressive change.
All you need to do is look at the last century of American politics. When has the modern Democratic Party been most successful? When it delivered on fundamental progressive change.
After Roosevelt delivered Social Security, the right of unions to organize, the regulation of Wall Street through the SEC, the reorganization of the banking system and FDIC, public works programs, and by massively increasing the share of taxes paid by the very rich, Democrats maintained huge margins in Congress and the Presidency for two decades. They also lay the foundation for the most robust period of economic growth in the history of humanity.
When President Johnson and the Democratic Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty – and later the Democratic Congress created the EPA — Democrats had majorities in the House for three and a half decades that outlasted the conservative Reagan revolution of the 1980s by 14 years.
It wasn’t until 1994 – largely because of the failure of Congress to pass the Clinton health care reform plan – that Republicans gained control of the House.
Why do Democrats do so well when they make fundamental progressive change? Because those policies benefit the vast majority of the voters rather than the tiny super-wealthy minority – the top 2% of the population – that are the chief beneficiaries of Republican status quo economic policies.
Ask any senior, or person with a disability, how they feel about Medicare and Social Security – policies that were passed by Democrats and opposed tooth and nail by Republicans. Even some Tea Party activists carry around signs that read: "Hands Off My Medicare." Ask most everyday Americans how they feel about child labor laws, or the minimum wage, or the Food and Drug Administration that protects consumers from unsafe food and medicines. Ask any consumer how she feels about the Federal Trade Commission, or federal laws that protect us from unsafe products. Ask anyone who breathes how they feel about laws that cleaned up our air and water.
Ask virtually anyone in America how they feel about public education – or a woman’s right to vote.
All of these fundamental changes in American society were fought by the conservatives of the time, and once passed they all came to define the high political ground.
Americans are not disgusted with Washington today because of the bold initiatives it is considering. They are disgusted, in considerable measure, because it appears gridlocked and unable to deal with the problems confronting the nation, and their stagnant standard of living. They are tired of politicians who see politics as a "gotcha" game instead of a way to deal with the problems and opportunities that confront their families. They hate the idea that their political leaders are in bed with Wall Street, the oil companies and the insurance giants – that campaign contributors have more sway than the voters.
They want decisive action to make fundamental change every bit as much as they did when they elected Barack Obama a little over a year ago.
When Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said last year that Republicans could make the defeat of health care reform "Obama’s Waterloo," he understood that it was great politics for Republicans to prevent fundamental reform, not the opposite.
If, once it is passed and signed into law, the Republicans want to campaign to repeal health care reform I say, go ahead, make my day.
As a Democrat, I love our odds if we can campaign against Republicans who voted against allowing ordinary Americans to have the right to buy the same kind of health care that is available to Members of Congress.
Something like: "Republican Congressman Mark Kirk is happy to let the government pay for his health care, but Congressman Kirk voted against requiring that ordinary Americans be eligible to buy the same health insurance as Members of Congress.
Congressman Kirk may enjoy being an important Member of Congress, but when it comes to his health care, he should be no better than the rest of us."
When Congressman Roy Blunt runs for the Senate in Missouri this fall, I can’t wait to see ads like:
"When it came to health insurance reform, Congressman Roy Blunt knew which side he was on.
Blunt voted against reining in the power of health insurance companies to raise rates – by thirty nine … fifty… even sixty percent.
He voted to oppose preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
He opposed requiring that insurance companies spend at least 80% of our premiums on medical care instead of CEO salaries, lobbyists, exploding profits, and armies of bureaucrats that do nothing but deny claims.
In fact, Congressman Blunt stood up for the insurance companies every time he had a chance. Isn’t it time we had someone who stands up for us?"
The pundits who are blathering on that passing the health care bill is bad politics for Democrats either don’t know what they’re talking about, or are running a deliberate misinformation campaign to persuade swing Democrats to vote no… [emphasis original]
Inserted from <Huffington Post>
I would like nothing better than to see this bill, flawed as it is, pass. It will serve as a foundation for future reform. It will hand the GOP a huge defeat. And, id the Republicans are stupid enough to run on repealing it, it will help lead to their extinction as a viable political party. I only hope that a few extreme ideologues, like Stupak on the right and Kucinich on the left, who refuse to compromise, do not deprive 30 million Americans of health care, leave Big Insurance free to deny coverage to and cancel coverage of sick people, allow the needless deaths of 47,000 Americans a year, and hand the GOP a huge victory in November.
33 Responses to “Kucinich vs Reality”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thanks for bringing the big picture back into focus. Health-insurance reform is the New Deal of our time, just as gay marriage is the civil-rights struggle of our time. Once it’s enacted (and further improved over time, as all major reforms have been), we’ll wonder how we ever did without it.
And in a decade or two, when it’s time for the next big reform, the teabaggers of the day will carry signs saying “hands off my public option.”
Won’t the next big reform be to get the public option, or better yet, single payer?
TomCat,
You should be at the head of the DCCC. Republican obstinance and obstruction against positions that benefit the overwhelming number of our countrymen should be the obvious tool for Democrats to run on successfully. It is a no-brainer. You have loaded the Democratic campaign gun; all they now need to do is pull the trigger. But it remains to be seen as to whether or not they will. The Democrats can paint a beautiful picture, but for some odd reason, they can’t frame and sell it. The Republicans, though, are experts at framing ugly pictures and then getting the voters to buy it. This defies logic.
I saw Dennis Kucinich, a man I greatly admire, on Countdown last night, and I too saw the logic and common sense in his argument. But, like you, I have now come to support this very imperfect bill as being a starting point we MUST begin at and keep working to improve once it is passed. Why kill the good (or kind of good) by demanding only the perfect? Neither Rome, nor Washington, was built in a day. In the case of the present health care bill, 15% of SOMETHING is a whole lot better than 100% of nothing.
This bill must pass. Failure will embolden and strengthen the conservative Republicans and greatly weaken the Democrats and Obama. It could even snowball and give the GOP victory in 2012 and beyond. If we thought Bush II was bad, wait until we get a whiff of his ideological successor in action! THAT we cannot and MUST not allow, and it’s up to us. Incremental change is better than no change at all. I strongly urge Dennis Kucinich to reconsider and vote for this badly flawed bill as a stepping stone to a future, much better bill!
You should be at the head of the DCCC.
Perhaps you should.
Sorry to disagree, and I understand how much you want to think that this is some type of step forward for progressives, but Dennis is right.
Unless you think that meaningless victories for Dims will move our world in a better direction for those at the bottom (in the next decade, which will be how long it will be before they attempt this again) – and try not to miss the rejoicing on the right when they pass this “reconciliation” (they win both ways here, you understand, as they will be screaming “socialism” from now on about it). I perceive DeMint as being the sly agent of our demise when he said essentially that the Dims had to pass something to prove that they had not suffered a “Waterloo.” (Rove-inspired, no doubt.)
How do those of us not able to afford insurance or even a doctor’s visit see this bill as progress? Did you realize that they are still free to drop you if you get sick, and to raise your payments and deductible any time they can avoid payouts – which they will still not do for many months/years as happens now? Nothing is written in to actually stop the rising costs as far as I’ve seen. If I’m wrong, I apologize, but there is nothing short-sighted or extreme about Dennis’ positions. This bill changes nothing important for the insurance companies, which is why it will pass in reconciliation.
And it looks like a bunch of red tape upcoming for people like me to fight a demanded tax payment on not having insurance. And never to even have the hope of single payer in my lifetime (which Dennis has considered thoughtfully).
But that’s just me (and all my friends with no jobs and no hope of insurance before Medicare age).
S
“We either take what we can get, or we get nothing at all.”
I’m sorry I missed you Suzan.
I think that the GOP celebrating will be far greater if nothing is passed.
Actually, you are wrong on this one. This bill outlaws rescission, and caps rates by age, not illness. It expands medicaid to help the poor. While insurance companies will get about 30 million new customers, the bill mandates an 85% payout ratio, up from about 60% now, forcing insurance companies to pay a greater percentage of premiums on benefits.
There is a lot about this bill that I do not like. But it’s an improvement that will save American lives. It provides a higher plateau from rich to restart the battle… immediately.
As much as I would have like to see a public option in the package, I am going to have to agree with you. Certain Democrats are the main obstacle now.
It’s sad, but true: those at both ends who refuse to compromise.
Defeating Democrats at all cost is the operatng principle of the Right. Defeating Republicans had better become an operating principle for the Dems or they will have brought about their own demise, again.
Well said, Dave.
What Jack said I love Kucinich as much as anyone here, but he can’t vote against this bill; it with be the death knell of the Dems in the midterm.
I agree
Hm. Not disparaging relatives here, but I always thought Dennis Kuchinich was kind of a cool cat, certainly when he made that sprint for President.
Ivan, Dennis’ run for President is what soured me on him. When asked who he would choose as his running mate, he said Ron Paul. Paul has the right idea on foreign policy, but he would dismantle the safety net, overturn women’s reproductive freedom, and destroy the economy by allowing unrestrained predatory corporatism,, in addition to his long term history of racism. It shocked me that Kucinich was so blinded by his own ideology that he could not see past Paul’s foreign policy.
The Democrats have to put their differences aside and all pull together to get this bill passed. The health care reform bill isn’t perfect, in fact it sucks. But it’s a beginning.
If the minority Republicans can defeat this bill, they’ll look like that skinny kid who beat up the bully who kicked sand in his face. That’s the image the Republican spin doctors will be playing up, and millions of voters will fall for it, and Republicans will sail to victory this November. We can’t let that happen.
I agree. It would be a victory for them to ride al;l the way to 2012.
“In his absolute, concrete view, he is willing to give up everything we can get, because he cant have it 100% his way. I expect that kind of pig-headedness from Republicans, not progressives.”
Sadly, it’s not just some Democratic Congressmen who have this kind of attitude. I think we’ve seen it amongst our fellow bloggers.
I agree, Tnlib. However I defend our fellow bloggers right to maintain their own views and count many who disagree with me as friends.
Hello Tom! What an impressive outfit you’ve got here. Very nice. Kudos and best of luck!
Thanks Anna!!
I’m not giving up on the public option just yet. But one thing I learned from my years as a union rep, sometimes you have to take the small victory and move on. This is close to being one of those situations. I admit to have been in question of Reid, Pelosi’s and Rahm’s judgement these last months. I thought they gave up early on much of what was needed. But I’m willing to join you and be patient that with a small victory if need be, the road to real reform that covers everyone and keeps costs down because we all contribute is being paved.
Real good post TomCat.
Thanks Truth. That’s an excellent summation. I like the union rep metaphor.
Someone needs to stand up to Obama and the Insurance Lobby. If Kucinich has the balls to stand up to Obama and the lobbyists good for him.
Obama’s edge in insurance $ was 2 to 1 over McCain. Do you guys really think Obama gives a fuck about any of us? He used the PO to get votes in the same way he uses “Wall St Fat Cats” to stir up his supporters before blocking any needed reform.
Anybody remember his talk about troops out of Iraq ? Still there right? Still gonna be there at the end of his term.
Why are you guys vilifying a good man who stands up for the American people and who has principles instead of that unprincipled lying POS in the White House?
Call me naive, call me stupid – Kucinich will probably yield to the pressure and cave – so you guys will get what you evidently want-30 million new customers for the health insurance industry, no Public Option, no reform, nothing but more taxes. There will be no substantive financial reform.The troops will still be in Iraq.
I hope by 2012 some of you will join me in being naive and stupid and support healthcare reform and financial reform and bringing the troops home instead of supporting Obama.
Oso, I disagree. While Obama’s support from Big Health care far exceeded McCain’s, this did not occur because Obama supported them. It was part of a general trend for business to desert McCain in favor of Obama, when it became clear that McCain could not win. On the troops in Iraq, Obama promised a gradual withdrawal of combat troops. He appears to be on track. There is considerable reform in this package. There is not enough reform, but there is significant reform that can be used as a platform on which to build further reform. If this fails, nobody will have the guts to touch health care again for another generation. This may stink, but it’s an improvement over what is.
Someone once said that the best Presidential election matchup would be Ron Paul versus Dennis Kucinich. While I’ll admit that this matchup of true-believers would certainly make for the best Presidential DEBATES, I’d think I’d stay home on or move to Canada after election day. LOL
I’m stuff hopeful. If the Right can get Jim Bunning to STFU via a good old fashioned beat-down, I’m sure Kucinich can be reached via compromise. If nothing else, maybe President Obama, with his new hands-on approach (where’s THAT been for the past year, BTW?!) will sit him down and make him an offer he can’t refuse.
Eddie, I hope you’re right.
Obama 1,440,723 from HMO’s. McCain 426,978.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=H03
Slightly off topic on 2 points:
1-We just had Sarah Palin speaking up here in Canada. She was in Calgary Alberta. While speaking she mentioned how members of her family used to have to travel to Whitehorse, Yukon for medical care … (you know that public health care that ALL Canadians qualify for and that the vast majority of Canadians LOVE)
2-Tomcat …I like the new digs here! Pretty spiffy. Keep on bloggin!
Read about that too on line.
A bit hypocritical of her to be lambasting the public health care proposal by Obama when in reality she seems to be an admirer of the Canadian health care program.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/alerts/802http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/09/when-sarah-palin-sampled-canadas-health-care-system/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway
Hiya dawg!! Thanks!!
Robert Creamer’s explanation is an eye opener. Repubs should read it.
Anna, I just wish Democrats would read it!