US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

fact: most Americans don't even know or care what the CBO is. really all that matters is how the bill is spun in the press (which is currently "HCR WILL COST $40 BILLION!"). But again, this stuff is secondary - I think its a foregone conclusion that this will pass the House. But if the Senate GOP presents enough procedural challenges to the bill that require it going back to the House for yet another vote... I mean, this is a war of attrition. the GOP knows the longer this drags on, the harder it will be to get passed, so all arguments pro/con aside, this is now more a game of legal and procedural maneuvering.

My mom totally knows what the CBO is and so do her friends. After my interview I have to call her to spill the Weir guts and I am anticipating an earful of something, certainly, but I'm not sure what.

Scaring old people about their entitlements is generally GOP way to go and they're good at ignoring what reasonable people consider a warm cup of STFU . If people cavil about such things it is worth pointing out that it is also *their* entitlement.

fact: most Americans don't even know or care what the CBO is. really all that matters is how the bill is spun in the press

well--the other thing that matters is pelosi/clyburn/hoyer/obamas ability to convince scared conservative democrats that they will be able to spin their votes positively. and if the CBO says it cuts the deficit, thats powerful ammo.

people don't need to know what CBO is (tho i think the profile of CBO is much higher now than i've ever seen before). people just need to hear that a nonpartisan agency -- relied upon by both parties for years -- has concluded this bill reduces the deficit.

that resonates.

maybe ... but it seems to me that the more likely pool of "yes" votes that Pelosi needs is the liberal left, not conservative dems.

xp

meh. i'm not sure that's true at all.

she needs to sway those who listen to charlie cook (i.e., the way to be reelected is to run against this bill, and the white house, just like some lucky democrats did in 1994)

ie, the "conservative" Dems are just trying to save their political asses. you can't argue with self-preservation. whereas the liberal left is opposed to the bill on largely on policy/principle grounds, and is thus more susceptible to persuasion.

xp

like I don't think Kucinich is in danger of losing his seat no matter which way he votes on this bill, knowhutimean

Kucinich is actively trying to court naysayers, sez TPM – an unprecedented move on his part, according to the story.

Kucinich is a done deal, Shakey xpost

There is a segment though who will be suspicious the CBO because of the 'C'. Its government therefore it must be bad and you can guess exactly which commentators are going play on those suspicions.

maybe ... but it seems to me that the more likely pool of "yes" votes that Pelosi needs is the liberal left, not conservative dems.

xp

― famous for hating everything (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:04 PM (45 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

iirc theres a handful of lefty holdouts at best vs. a couple dozen conservative dems? gutierrez is the only one i can think of off the top of my head, and im betting hell fold. kucinich and oberstar switched.

i think, given the math, pelosi has to sway some conservative democrats.

but maybe i've misread the blog/news posts on the politics of this.

Kucinich is a done deal, Shakey xpost

right I know that was just an example cuz I can't immediately recall any other the names of the lefty Reps that voted "no" previously

ie, the "conservative" Dems are just trying to save their political asses. you can't argue with self-preservation. whereas the liberal left is opposed to the bill on largely on policy/principle grounds, and is thus more susceptible to persuasion.

xp

― famous for hating everything (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:05 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

haha i think the opposite is true!! its a lot easier to get someone to capitulate by saying, "we will pump money into your campaign and give you tons of ammo saying this is a budget-reducing bill" than it is by saying "i know you disagree with the premises of this bill but vote for it anyway!"

oberstar switched

wau i'm not paying attention, didn't know he was ever anti. wtf.

oberstar was more complicated than just being a lefty, iirc he was a possibly stupak 12 member

Stupak 12 is that like the Stalag 13

would happily put Bart Stupak in a fucking labor camp, personally

its like blink 182

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff269/GangstaJim/Cute.jpg

Stupak 12 shortly before embarking on their first regional tour

HOTTT

Oberstar switched, WTG MN!

Ah, here's the GOP line of argument forming:

these projections assume:

– 10 years of taxes
– 6 years of program implementation
– $500B in medicare cuts that will not happen

Which means, they are meaningless

Sounds remarkably like the basis for the bush tax cuts.

The GOP will definitely demagogue the cbo numbers, make shit up, cable news will have hacks from both sides make points and yell at each other and the circle of life will continue

Hi, guys: read The Corner this morning.

To quote The Man Who Fell to Earth, “If I stay here (The Corner), I shall die.”

they seem to be getting nervous, details beyond that i don't think i can stomach

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/health_care_overhaul_to_get_fr.html

Framing of the issue is what's important here. Prochoice people will live to rue all the ideological concessions being made to get votes on this bill. The ground that's being given is important.

not disputing your point or trying to fight at all i promise, genuinely wondering what ground you think is being given? the idea that its OK to oppose abortion?

the idea that abortion is a health care procedure needed by many women rather than some moral third rail separate from health care

don't really care about ideological concessions so much as legal concessions tbh

...

you realize that there isn't really a distinction between the two in this case, right

like, ideology and framing is malleable and constantly changing, I'm not worried about the terminology of debate shifting. what would be worrisome is actual legal precedent for outlawing abortion/making it prohibitively expensive to obtain

x-post

i.e.: oppose abortion all you like, but it's a health care procedure, just as family planning & mental health (including substance abuse) are part of the health care spectrum - these are all issues on which the right has successfully lobbied to get ground given in order to further their own positions (i.e., that there's something wrong with abortion, that there's something shameful about family planning, that addiction is a moral weakness). letting these guys control the spin on this question is catastrophic for real people who need these health care services. read Carole Joffe's new book, it'll take you an afternoon -- she's nakedly "biased" (i.e. sane on the issue of settled law in re: abortion) but spells out what the real human costs of abandoning the dialogue to the other side have been.

im just not sure anything is being give up in this specific legal battle.

hasnt this framing of abortion been the case for a decade at least? isnt that how we ended up with the hyde amendment? is it really being "given up" here? and given that pelosi and hoyer are refusing to negotiate with stupak, who is giving up the concession?

again this is an issue were all passionate about, and im not trying to turn on anyones self-righteousness buttons. but i have a hard time thinking that the way abortion rights have been treated throughout this process represents a new way that its being framed vs. the last decade-plus

I don't think anyone is saying it's new, I think people are saying it's wrong, stupid, short-sighted and should stop.

c'mon, we have bishops and nuns fighting about this, as abortion battles go that's at least funny.

i.e.: oppose abortion all you like, but it's a health care procedure, just as family planning & mental health

I'm not sure a majority of dems even *believe* that abortion should qualify as just a standard health care procedure, and I'm very sure that a majority of americans don't. you're asking us not to give up ground that we don't have.

why – did Armond White wish bishops and nums had been aborted?

xpost

I don't think anyone is saying it's new, I think people are saying it's wrong, stupid, short-sighted and should stop.

― smoking cigarette shades? it doesn't even make any sense. (HI DERE), Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:31 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

sorry i thought j0hn was saying that ideological concessions were being given up in this bill--im thinking that the concessions were given up in 1976 when the hyde amendment first went into effect

im just not sure anything is being give up in this specific legal battle.

it has to do w/availability of services to the very people who'll benefit most from insurance they presently don't have. abortion should be something any woman can get at her local hospital - there's no need for any special clinics, but there are all kinds of politics that prevent hospitals from receiving funding from various places if they provide abortions, or even refer a patient for one. ceding rhetorical ground has the direct effect of furthering this sort of nonsense approach to basic medicine. poor women who rely on public transportation, and sometimes can't tell others that they need an abortion (or just don't want to - it's nobody's business) can't just call in sick and travel 200 miles to get an abortion; they need the service from county medical. the movement afoot, seen here in Obama's overtures toward anti-choice politicians, is toward characterizing abortion services as "special," and encouraging hospitals to allow objections of conscience extending across all staff, etc - the effect is limitation of access. increasing access begins with talking sanely about abortion services and characterizing them not as some special field but as part of health care.

i agree with that! but im saying: what is congress, or obama, doing, that the democrats havent been doing since 1976? please understand its not a "this bill is good on choice" (its not) or "who cares" (i do), its more--i just dont think "were giving up ideological ground" is a great take on HCR, or on its attitude toward abortion rights.

I'm not sure a majority of dems even *believe* that abortion should qualify as just a standard health care procedure, and I'm very sure that a majority of americans don't..

iatee it's a little troubling how happy you are to concede basic rights to majorities

'Obama's overtures towards anti-choice politicans' vs.

'Obama did what it took to get the votes for this bill to pass (and yes, it did require votes from people who are anti-choice) and now some of these women might get health insurance'

i agree with that! but im saying: what is congress, or obama, doing, that the democrats havent been doing since 1976?

haha nothing I gotta concede - they sucked then and they sucked now! just 'cause they've always sucked doesn't mean you don't gotta keep asking for better