RSS Feed MenuThe premise that there was a compromise that Republicans could make that would improve this bill and provide hope for future more free market changes is unfounded. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi would take Republican votes and give nothing of substance to Republicans. The opposition to the healthcare bill was bipartisan; its passage, partisan. Look at the Stupak Amendment. It got more bipartisan votes than any other part of this bill and yet it is out. What did Stupak, a Democrat get instead? A revocable executive order that no court will say beats the language of the law itself. That is the only compromise possible with this man. He gets the substance and those to his right are left with contingent, meaningless tinsel.
Is there anyway Obama/Pelosi would negotiate on tort reform? They simply will not work in any way to defund the left. Surely the proponent of a view that they would needs evidence? Even the compromises Frum proposes are useless. One of the great jibes at Bob Dole, was Newt Gingrich’s immortal line that he wanted to be “the tax collector for the welfare state.” An argument that is focused around what taxes should fund things the government should not be doing ab initio is a loser for Republicans. That is the fate of “right” parties of Europe. They exist only to clean up Labor messes and then go out to watch and acquiesce meekly to ever more aggrandizement of the state.
As long as Pelosi had a 74 seat majority and Reid had 60 votes in the Senate there could be no compromise to bring in Republicans that would benefit the country, the Republican party or redound to either’s benefit. Who is Obama? That is the crux of the matter. He is not the first George Bush. He does not believe nor come from a background where conservatives or Republicans are part of a governing coalition. He wants to destroy rugged individualism and any source of freedom independent of government control. Frum does not believe that. But there is no evidence in Obama’s past or his governing strategy that supports that view. This health reform bill, a stimulus program that mainly funds state governments and unions, the killing of the D.C. voucher program, the fact that every solution he offers subordinates the individual to the state and diminishes the ability of Americans to keep what they earn belies a view that he can be dealt with other than with strength. A president who wants to compromise meaningfully with Republicans does not appoint Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff.
Frum did not predict the election of Scott Brown (neither did I!). Senator Brown was not propelled to victory by the base Republican vote, or by talk radio supporters. He was propelled to victory by voters who have voted for Democrats before but are appalled by what that party is doing on healthcare and spending. The same is true to a lesser extent for the governors of Virginia and New Jersey. Senator Jim DeMint said that if it fails it will be President Obama’s Waterloo and that offended many. That does not mean that its passage is a Republican Waterloo. It is a bad legislative loss, yes. But opposition to it has united Republicans, more than ten percent of elected congressional Democrats and independents and formed a new movement to control spending. The fact that President Obama did not compromise when Scott Brown was elected shows no compromise was possible. This was a message not from Republicans but from a liberal state that elected him. Obama did nothing to meet that challenge. There was no speech like President Bush made about the “thump’n.” in 2006 which was followed by him terminating Rumsfeld.
Where do the Democrats stand after this famous victory? They own every healthcare problem anybody in the country suffers. Barack Obama is revealed as a nakedly partisan figure. Democrats in conservative states, like Ben Nelson can no longer fly under a false flag. There is nothing on the legislative calendar that can regain them votes and is popular with their base. Will it be entirely repealed? Probably not, but will it be gutted? Will its worst features be neutered? Will Barack Obama spend the next three years getting no more noxious bills through the Senate and House?
In the seventies, a milquetoast Republican Party compromised with a statist Democratic Party and lost again and again while the state grew and we suffered blow after blow abroad. We are living in the 70s again. Job prospects are down, federal agencies are fattened, our enemies grow emboldened abroad, but the Republican Party needs no Reagan. It has rallied.
Matthew Yglesias » GOP Never Took Yes for an Answer // Mar 24, 2010 at 3:16 pm
[...] even keep his own team all on message. John Veccione has a point-missing Frum Forum post up all about how mean ol’ Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were never interested in compromise. I think it’s quite true that Pelosi was never interested in compromise. As I alluded to [...]
balconesfault // Mar 24, 2010 at 3:28 pm
B’fault sneers with yellowed, gnarled teeth glaringly on display: “the Obami. Dork.”
Umm – when I’m sneering and baring my teeth, I come up with much harsher epithets than “Dork”.
That’s the kind of thing I say when I’m mocking someone who is really beneath being sneered at.
Carney // Mar 24, 2010 at 4:08 pm
robottoms said “Damn Obama. Next thing you know he’ll be fixing immigration [...]”
Really? He’ll put up a real border fence along every inch of the border within months or weeks, instead of the fake, useless “virtual fence”? He’ll drastically beef up the Border Patrol and unshackle interior enforcement? He’ll begin neighborhood sweeps, mass roundups, and fast, large scale deportations, including with large chartered transport aircraft depositing the illegals deep in their country of origin rather than keep up the “see you tomorrow night, Migra!” game at the border? He’ll allow or require common sense profiling to stop and focus on possible or likely illegals? He’ll require secure biometric IDs to get a job, open a bank account, get health care, and especially to vote? He’ll destroy the informal trust networks necessary for all ongoing criminal enterprises by offering green cards for any illegal who fingers at least ten other illegals or a violent criminal that has not already been turned in, or one coyote or employer, or amnesty for any employer or coyote who turns in a large number of illegals? He’ll end birth tourism and the anchor baby phenomenon by ending birthright citizenship? He’ll aggressively and relentlessly squeeze every aspect of illegal life and permanently end their smug confidence that nobody cares and they can get away with it indefinitely?
He’ll overhaul legal immigration to end the “diversity lottery” because it insults the core / majority population and the native born by implying they and the groups they belong to are somehow lacking? He’ll focus on ease of assimilation first and foremost (such as English language fluency, proof of acceptance of US and Western cultural norms, etc.), along with likely productivity (being disease-free, able-bodied, and young) and high education? He’ll reduce the overall number admitted substantially in a time of economic downturn so as to help with the unemployment situation?
He’ll mitigate the negative effects of past policies by requiring official English, banning subversive Aztlan-style movements at federally supported schools and other institutions, and aggressively promoting unapologetically pro-American education policies (especially on the Mexican War issue) and assimilation and Americanization at every level?
balconesfault // Mar 24, 2010 at 4:17 pm
He’ll require secure biometric IDs to get a job, open a bank account, get health care, and especially to vote?
Wow. If Obama suddenly called for biometric IDs to do all those things … we would have every Federal Building in Idaho blown up next month. The “black helicopter” crowd, already on edge, would come back with a vengence.
Why not just require everyone to have an RFID chip implanted at birth?
LFC // Mar 24, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Independent #22: Gong! Gong!
Thank you for playing our game.
Nona // Mar 24, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I felt there were several instances when Obama and his administration reached out in the spirit of compromise, though I will say that Pelosi does seem to relish being a polarizing influence at times. It seems to me that cooperation and compromise in Washington have been something of an endangered species since the first Clinton administration but the fact that it’s not quite up to previous levels doesn’t mean it’s completely dead.
As far your opinion that Obama “wants to destroy rugged individualism and any source of freedom independent of government control” and “the fact that every solution he offers subordinates the individual to the state and diminishes the ability of Americans to keep what they earn”, it seems a little strong on the rhetoric but really isn’t that different than the basic objection conservatives have had to liberals since I can remember. It’s a legitimate argument but the problem with leaning so heavily on it in this situation is that it ignores the fact that we already live in an interdependent society; the uninsured already cost Americans far too much both in terms of government spending and skyrocketing health care costs. People don’t just crawl off into the woods to die anymore.
Independent // Mar 24, 2010 at 7:50 pm
LFC, you’re far, far too easy a hit, sweetie.
Of course the White House contends the Obama sCare plan includes all kinds of GOP proposals –the House GOP and Sen GOP leadership said this about that:
“Today, the White House communications office proved it’s still stuck on campaign rhetoric instead of truth with their claims that the President’s bill includes Republican proposals to reform health care.
“Let us be clear, the proposals and names of legislation included in the President’s bill bear no resemblance to the original Republican drafts and legislation contained in those bills.
“For instance… the Republican proposal to allow families and employers to purchase health care insurance across state lines, bringing much needed competition into insurance health care pricing, and breaking the federally protected monopolies for state-based insurers. The President’s plan does nothing remotely like that and, in very small test cases in limited regions, may one day allow specialized lines of insurance for high risk pools to cross some state lines if all state regulators agree.”
LFC at #30 –chicanery is defined as artful subterfuge or sophistry… you and the White House Press Office of DoughBoiGibbs get the Chicanerists’ Blue Ribbon, it seems.
Like I said, you need to bring a better game to the discussion if you want to win. Or more people into your echo-chamber.
Independent // Mar 24, 2010 at 7:57 pm
agent’P as B’fault pines: “Umm – when I’m sneering and baring my teeth, I come up with much harsher epithets than “Dork”. That’s the kind of thing I say when I’m mocking someone who is really beneath being sneered at.”
Well, B’fault, it still violates the FF Comment Policy and you’ve been reported to the proper authorities. I’d advise you tone down the vitriol and take some viagra because the impotency of your arguments are still keeping it flaccid.
I get you’re angry that your beloved Democrats had to commit political suicide to get Obama sCare passed. I get that you’re angry the voters aren’t buying Obama’s pig even with lipstick smeared on the front and back –it would seem.
But personal attacks are unwarranted even if there are flaccid in effect.
nhthinker // Mar 27, 2010 at 3:45 pm
John,
Thank you for being a voice of reason. Frum has yet to mention any importance associated with Pelosi in the Health care debate. Why do you think he does not mention her?
1) because it’s obvious that she secretly would be voluntarily willing to accommodate Republican ideas?
2) because it’s obvious that she could have been easily forced into something by Harry Reed?
3) because Frum’s arguments fall completely apart when Pelosi is considered in the picture.