Baucuspartisanship

Posted on 09/09/2009 at 1:21 am by admin

by Lee Stranahan

Two thoughts about the Baucus plan…

1) Cluster****. The health care reform that Democrats support is already confusing enough. Add this in. Now, it’s fair game to say that the “Democrats’ want to fine you for not buying health insurance” because apparently some major ones who the President seems friendly with, do.

Thanks for that, Max. Nice job.

2) I’ve been saying for weeks that President Obama getting up on stage and talking about how great Max Baucus was a huge mistake. This is why. Baucus is and was public enemy number one for reform. That’s why I made so many videos about him.

President Obama made a huge tactical error by not using every tool at his disposal to marginalize and isolate Senator Baucus as the perfect example of the problem of corruption. It even would have bolstered Obama’s ‘bipartisan’ thing because he’d be fair and honest by opposing a Democrat.

Instead, the White House coddled Baucus. They told progressive groups to lay off him. They backed his sweetheart deal with Pharma. And then Obama used his political capital to appear with him.

The results are totally predictable and now it’s the day before the President’s speech. This wasn’t brilliant chess. It was bad, dumb politics.

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • El Mystico

    Agreed. You can’t back someone with terrible policy just because he’s on your team. And it is terrible policy. Nothin’ like finin’ folk fer not havin’ enough money to spread that social justice around like… social…justice butter… yeah. Yeah, that works.Mmm…justice butter.

  • kansasdem

    Agreed! Obama owns this now!BTW, how many things were we told to be patient about because of the importance of health care reform??????????????The road show is over!We now have a one term POTUS with nothing to show for it but what a bunch of effing losers we are!Howdy President Sarah!

  • prcleburne

    I suspect the President,in seeking “bipartisan support”, had nowhere to turn but the Senate Finance Committee. All the other committes responsible for producing bills had already given a big Eff You to the Repugnicans. By isolating and marginalizing Baucus, he would have had to abandon this goal (which I think would have been a GOOD thing). Just a thought.

  • http://www.bobcesca.com Bob_Cesca

    Predictable and counterproductive reaction from Stranahan. Two sentences about the crap bill, and five paragraphs about how it’s the president’s fault.This post illustrates why your approach is “bad, dumb politics” Lee. You’re so focused on shitting on the president that you’re neglecting the real Cause here.

  • Eric

    If the president is ultimately going to forgo bipartisanship and push this through with only Democratic votes, he will have needed to have put forth this effort with Baucus and the Finance committee, as distasteful and repugnant as that has been. And that included standing up there with Max on stage in Montana saying nice things about him.I suspect the speech tonight will use the AFL-CIO speech from the weekend as a point of departure. I think Obama is going to blister the Repubs for obstructing and having nothing to offer in return. He said similar things in the weekend speech. Plus, I have a suspicion that the emergence of the Baucus ‘plan’, timed as it was, wasn’t a mistake.Such an attack (if indeed it comes to pass in tonight’s speech) would be groundless and not go down effectively with the middle ground if all of the Max/Finance committee ‘bullshit’ hadn’t transpired.

  • J

    You’re so right, Lee. All the president has done is talk about how he hates everyone on the HELP committee, pretty much everyone in the house–basically everyone except Max Baucus, who he loves and wants to hang out with all the time because they are totes besties.@kansasdem: You are also SO RIGHT. The president has done nothing–ZERO–in the past 10 months, except play golf and go on dates with his wife. He’s totally, like, a complete slacker loser.For the bill to be anything even close to what you want it to be, the Senate Finance committee HAS TO be involved. Has to. So yes, the president could have marginalized Max Baucus. And then there would be no reform. Not bad reform. Not reform “pushed through” with reconciliation. No. Reform.

  • DaBomb

    Again, didn’t I say that the Finance Committee was going to create a craptacular bill. It is truly shitty. But I knew that. Nothing matters until that bill gets to conference and eventually reconciliation.@J- The President has never said anything about hating the HELP committee. He doesn’t hate any of those people and has never said that. You are being dramatic.

  • Eric

    @DaBomb – I’m pretty sure J was being sarcastic in the first two paragraphs of the comment.

  • J

    @Eric, DaBomb: Yes, sarcastic. And, in point of fact, dramatic. :) I debated using the “/sarcasm” tag, but opted out. Clearly a mistake.

  • J

    @DaBomb: Although I will say, the fact that it could be seen as a possible point of view just underscores how out of control this whole thing has become. Like, “death panel” should have just been something a crazy ex-Governor, ex-VP candidate said in passing, and instead it got legitimized both in the news and by the frackin’ Finance Committee–in their taking the advance directive funding out of the bill, Sarah P can now say that she was telling the truth. Dumb asses.

  • likala

    Actually J, Palin’s already said it in her latest ghost written facebook piece. I wonder which special interest shill is doing her writing these days.I just love how Lee comes in late at night and makes this post. Thank goodness for the sane people here who didn’t jump over the cliff with him.

  • DaBomb

    @J- I stand corrected. I have been dealing with teh crazy on this for so long, I can’t tell who’s lost their marbles and who hasn’t. Clearly you are sane!:)

  • Rogect8

    Lee: “it’s fair game to say that…”Even if you think it’s fair game, that doesn’t make it a smart or helpful idea.My gut says this will work out fine (as far as the Baucus plan not resembling what is actually passed). This was the big argument between Obama and Hillary in the debates – individual mandates, or no? I think we all remember which side Obama took. I think, ultimately, he’ll stick w/ that position.Oh….and lol@ “justice butter.”

  • Irish Girl

    The cynical part of me thinks Lee might be right. The hopeful part of me hopes he is really wrong. I’ll reserve judgment once it’s all said and done. But woe betide the politicians (Obama included) that allow a mandate for coverage to pass without a public option. The Democratic party will have lost me for life.

  • J

    @IrishGirl: 10 million points for use of “woe betide”.Prediction: nothing new will be said in the speech, but we’ll hear tons of commentary about the President has “finally clarified” and “taken a stand” and “is still too vague” and “has thrown the public option under the bus.” /cynicism