The Implications of Massachusetts
It’s important to separate the causes of Scott Brown’s win from its possible effects.
I don’t know why Scott Brown won. The causes are hard to identify, mostly because any election like this is massively over-determined. I agree with Jon Chait that structural factors (in this case specifically, the unemployment rate) have an enormous role. Further, people in the business of analyzing politicians have a vested interest in over-emphasizing the importance of rhetoric, campaign tactics and so on. For reasons that I have elaborated at length in other posts, however, I believe that we should be extremely skeptical of the ability of social science to quantify the relative impact of these factors.
In the face of this kind of uncertainty, expert opinion should be given great weight. Unfortunately, all the experts are self-interested. Elected officials are the leading experts in one thing: winning elections. The fact that so many say that they believe that this election indicates that support for health care and other elements of the Obama agenda will matter for them in November is important, but unfortunately, you can’t trust that are speaking objectively. Politicians speak in order to win elections, not to provide expert testimony. We should assume that they are using this analysis as a way of accomplishing other objectives.
What other politicians say about the causes of the election result, however, can provide much more useful clues about the effects of this election. It will obviously become much more operationally difficult for Obama / Pelosi / Reid to get health care reform in its current form passed. The loss of this senate seat matters in and of itself; the information contained in the election result will presumably negatively affect the calculation of self-interest on the part of many politicians (even though we can’t know by how much); and, it will provide cover for those who did not want to go along with this reform for other reasons to come out against it now. It’s possible that there is some inside baseball play, based on information unavailable to me or anybody else who is talking about it, to get health care reform in something close to its current form done. But it sure doesn’t look likely from here.
I didn’t believe on his inauguration day that Obama was either a genius or had an FDR-like opportunity, based on objective conditions, to change the public agenda. I don’t believe that he is somehow incompetent now, nor that – holding the presidency and with large Democratic majorities in both houses of congress – he is somehow not in a position to implement policy now. Just like retrospectively analyzing the causes of the outcome of an election, it is easy to talk about what alternatives he might have followed to: (1) his decision to prioritize health care and climate change versus jobs and the economy, and (2) his tactical approach to advancing his policy goals on the topics that he decided to prioritize. But even in retrospect, with the information available to him at the time, his choices seem defensible.
That Senator Kennedy would die, and that Massachusetts would then elect a Republican senator in a special election that happened to occur just as health care reform seemed to be nearing completion, is a true “black swan” event. What is striking to me, however, is that he has allowed himself to get into a position in which the loss of one senate seat threatens his prioritized domestic policy goal.
I have a pretty unromantic view of politicians. I don’t believe that I can see somebody on TV, and understand them very well. I do think, however, that specific previous very large-scale executive experience is the only correlate I could ever find with subsequent Presidential experience . This is correlation, not an empirical demonstration of causality, but strikes me as sensible.
One practical lesson that I believe operational experience teaches people is that you always need a lot more margin for error in any plan than you would rationally believe. In this light, Obama’s decision to push for a health care reform plan that could be threatened by losing one seat in the senate is what is troubling. You couldn’t predict this specific event, but it was always safe to assume that something would go wrong as the legislative process dragged on. It is my theory that his lack of executive experience is showing here, just as it did on cap-and-trade.
Now, it’s possible that there was no realistic alternative available as he was setting out on this a year ago – in effect, he had to go for broke, because there was no 80-vote alternative that he considered to be in any way worthwhile, and all we’re seeing now is that the coin came up tails for him on a bet that was smart at the time. Or, as I said, it might be that he has some way to pull a rabbit out of the hat now. Events will show us whether or not that is true. But barring these alternatives, it seems to me that Ross Douthat offers good advice: basically, take half a loaf and get on with things.
I say this not as a partisan, but as an American. I don’t know anybody who supports the status quo health care finance system in the U.S. Reform is required, and what is likely more important than the specifics of the first step is that we get underway on what will, if we’re lucky, be iterative reform in which we have a political system that can learn from experience.
Sensing just how much reform is possible, and getting a nation to go along with you is one mark of a statesman. FDR, Churchill and Reagan all had this mysterious ability (and good luck) – they were each able to reconcile the eternal tensions of a society, as manifest in the specifics of their time and place, inside one mind. I believe that Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were able to do this only in productive tension with one another; in combination, they produced pretty good governance. As per Ross’s comments, I suspect that we will discover during 2010 whether Obama is able to do this, or will require tension with a more conservative congress.
There was only a “filibuster-proof” majority for Democrats in the Senate for three months. The loss of the Senate seats just means things are back to normal – you know, the conditions under which Obama passed his most successful policies to date.
Obama’s got a SOTU speech in a week. I had totally forgotten about that, but it’s his chance to capitalize on his absolute strength – rallying his base in the face of an apparently stronger opponent. Absolutely nobody’s talking about his support for Coakely, so the loss of face some were worried about is nil. The narrative has turned to HCR.
Scott Brown earned his seat and I hope he serves it well. But it puts all the blame for obstructionism back on Republicans, just like it was at the beginning of 2009, and I think in the long term – which is where Obama operates – conservatives are going to see this election as the moment when they traded their movement’s future political chances to elect a pro-choice liberal Republican who supports universal health care to a two-year term. Advantage: Obama, as always.
— Chet · Jan 20, 07:25 PM · #
“I don’t know anybody who supports the status quo health care finance system in the U.S.”
Really? How about the entire Republican congressional delegation? They don’t seem to have any significant concerns about the status quo health care finance system, including future Medicare funding, since they are opposed to making any cuts to Medicare. Or should we all just chuckle and realize that they are unserious political hacks and will revert to prior form once The Palin becomes president.
— Steven Donegal · Jan 20, 07:25 PM · #
<i>In this light, Obama’s decision to push for a health care reform plan that could be threatened by losing one seat in the senate is what is troubling.</i>
Everything Obama does is threatened by losing one seat in the Senate. That’s what happens when the minority is committed to blocking literally everything. Take half a loaf? Who is there to split the loaf with? As long as the GOP continues to go scorched-earth, they can stop any bill – any bill at all – from every reaching the President’s desk. Ditto with any executive branch appointments, court nominations, etc.
The Village Voice nailed it – “GOP Wins 41-59 Majority In Senate.” Unless the Democrats are willing to do what the Republicans threatened and blow up the filibuster, nothing moves for three more years. Which is the way the Repubs want it. Well, they got it.
— jlm · Jan 20, 07:49 PM · #
As a democrat even I have to admit that the health care reform bill passed by the senate landed like a big ol turd in the swimming pool. It was ugly and it stunk.
Now that Dems don’t have a phoney supermajority to protect maybe they can get some stuff done.
— luko · Jan 20, 08:25 PM · #
The Democrats are weak. I disagree with a lot of their policies.
But Republicans have adopted a scorched-earth policy. I see no effort at all to get anything done. I think their only goal is to see the Obama administration in ruins. It’s disgusting.
Democrats are embarrassing, yes, but the Republicans are scum.
— Socrates · Jan 20, 08:27 PM · #
I have to echo the comments that you can’t leave out the irrational and/or irresponsible behavior of the GOP when discussing where we go from here. Even Clinton didn’t have to deal with this level of unceasing, unthinking opposition from the very beginning of his administration.
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 20, 08:36 PM · #
There are so many ways in which the Dems legistlative plan could be said to have been hanging by a thread:
The House barely passed it’s version of a bill – everyone has forgotten this already, and there’s all this talk about 59 Senators representing the vast majority of the population being foiled by a minority, but representation in the House is proportional to population and even there the bill was barely squeaking by. Instead of celebrating victory, the Dems should have seen warning lights flashing;
Ben Nelson, Lieberman, Landrieu and others among the 60 only got there through bribery and arm-twisting. They caused negotiations to drag on for months, giving more time for public opinion to shift and for other surprise events to occur;
Robert Byrd could have become incapacitated any day;
There wouldn’t have been 60 in the first place if Specter hadn’t switched parties. Note that that was in April – recall that as of the ’08 election, the public had not in fact given Dems 60 seats in the Senate. The Franken win was by a hair, too;
Kennedy’s seat should never have been presumed to be a lock – and Kennedy should have retired rather than hanging on – he could have campaigned for his replacement;
There was no guarantee of a conference agreement between the Senate and the House even if Coakley won. People acted like it was a done deal, but it wasn’t – as can be seen from how quickly the House has dismissed the idea of passing the Senate’s version;
If nothing else, I wish people would stop trying to argue that a small number of voters in Mass have just ruined everything for the country. There’s a Senate bill on the table for the House to consider. If it can’t get 218 votes there, then there is no reason to assume the will of the American people is somehow being thwarted.
The Dems need to scale back and find something that can get the support of 50 Senate Ds and 10 Rs or 40 and 20 – and something that doesn’t scrape by in the house by just a couple of votes. I’d suggest focusing on portability and pre-existing conditions first. Then look at vouchers or tax credits to address affordability.
— andrew · Jan 20, 08:45 PM · #
“The Dems need to scale back and find something that can get the support of 50 Senate Ds and 10 Rs or 40 and 20 – and something that doesn’t scrape by in the house by just a couple of votes.”
In all seriously, what makes you think that there are 10 GOP votes for anything coming from the Dems or the Obama administration? What 10 R Senators will risk the wrath of Rush, Beck, Palin and the Tea Party hordes?
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 20, 09:01 PM · #
Obama has been trying to do two things. Expand coverage which is popular. Control costs which is unpopular.
I think he is likely to copy Bush and expand coverage and forget about controlling costs. There are many ways to expand coverage using the reconciliation process. Letting people under 65 buy into Medicare is one option.
I think anyone who expects any GOP members outside of Maine to offer any support has not been paying attention to last years Senate negotiations and the current state of the GOP.
— Mercer · Jan 20, 10:05 PM · #
Mike, I think the whole “all Republicans are mindless obstructionists” is a terrible misinterpretation of what has happened over the last year. Yes, they all held as block to stop a HCR package that overreached and, lo and behold, is not in fact that broadly supported by the populace. There are a bunch of jerks among the Republicans, I don’t dispute that. But Ben Nelson was just as big a jerk as anyone on the other side of the aisle. Reid and Pelosi are clowns, too.
I voted for Obama and I can’t stand Palin, Beck, or Limbaugh but the Dems made themselves easy pickings by doing what parties with too much control always do: overreaching. Clinton did it, Newt did it, Bush did it, now these guys did it. They set the tone by larding up the stimulus bill with all kinds of garbage. But the stimulus bill did pass – so doesn’t that undermine the “pure obstructionist” argument at least a little bit?
You can’t walk in to a negotiation and expect it to be productive when you say “here’s what we are going to do, and I am very respectful of your views so that makes me bipartisan and – as long as your views are not in conflict with mine – then we will even go so far as to incorporate your views into the bill!”
I think there would be broad popular support in the country for legislation to improve portability and deal with pre-existing conditions. Get that done without getting into an argument about abortion coverage(!) and a public option and death panels, and then take it a step at a time from there.
The people that are represented by those “obstructionists” are real people whose opinions matter even if you don’t like them.
— andrew · Jan 20, 10:31 PM · #
“You can’t walk in to a negotiation and expect it to be productive when you say “here’s what we are going to do, and I am very respectful of your views so that makes me bipartisan and – as long as your views are not in conflict with mine – then we will even go so far as to incorporate your views into the bill!””
Who exactly did that? Can you name names because that really would have been dumb if some live person had actually done it?
“Get that done without getting into an argument about abortion coverage(!) and a public option and death panels,..”
You were almost making sense, and then death panels. I’ll give you the asterisk after abortion coverage, but with death panels, it’s hard to take the rest seriously.
— Steven Donegal · Jan 20, 11:14 PM · #
The fact that the result in Massachusetts is being waved aside and the progressives are going forward with their agenda actually clarifies our choices going forward. I admire the progressives’ willingly to stick with their vision, although I will fight against their vision. There’s little room left for intellectual gymnastics in the middle — it’s a choice between the progressive vision of statism, central planning and social engineering or the libertarian/conservative vision of a more limited government and free enterprise. The only question with the libertarian/conservative vision is to what extent we limit government — the only question with the progressive vision is how quickly and to what extent they implement statism, central planning and social engineering — but the choices regarding direction are clear.
— mike farmer · Jan 21, 02:29 AM · #
Well, except for the part that they filibustered every single bill. I mean, they filibustered so often we’re talking about 60 votes in the Senate like that’s ever been the requirement to pass legislation.
Why do you think it got into an argument about abortion coverage, andrew? In order to obstruct the bill.
— Chet · Jan 21, 02:31 AM · #
“libertarian/conservative vision of a more limited government and free enterprise. The only question with the libertarian/conservative vision is to what extent we limit government”
One question I have is why you believe this when the last time conservatives were in charge they did nothing to limit government? They gave seniors drugs without paying for it. Except for a few people like Bruce Bartlett most conservatives enthusiastically reelected them after their government expansion of healthcare.
Now that they are in opposition their rallying cry is that any attempt to limit Medicare growth amounts to death panels. Your statements have no relationship to what conservative politicians actually do.
— Mercer · Jan 21, 03:09 AM · #
Mercer, I agree that some conservatives are statists, but I believe there is a faction which is true to little l libertarian thought. I think this facton is growing and they are more fiscally conservative than socially conservative, more classically liberal, actually, than conservative.
— mike farmer · Jan 21, 04:03 AM · #
Mercer, I also think the new opposition to statism/progressivism transcends the policial realm of Republican/Democrat — that it’s a private realm movement acting politically to empower the private realm. It’s conservative in the private sense of preserving the American tradition of free markets, individual rights and limited government.
— mike farmer · Jan 21, 04:09 AM · #
“ I believe there is a faction which is true to little l libertarian thought.”
this is dumb on two levels. The first is that there is no factions in the Republican party. It’s all party discipline all the time. And the idological pressure on republicans comes from the idiot right, the “Obama is trying to take away our way of life,” the “deficitis too large cut taxes” right.
Secondly, libertarians, big L or little l, have been livinging a fantasy world for ever. They are not a valid political ideology because they are (un)grounded in utopian fantasy. You want limited government, go to Haiti or Afganistan or Liberia. That’s where you have real limited government and a true free market.
— cw · Jan 21, 05:36 AM · #
Steven: I guess you don’t remember that there were arguments about death panels? There were. It was stupid, but why could it happen? Because extra junk was being larded into a bill that was supposed to be about health care reform. I guess you also missed the multiple times that the dems and obama said “we won” as a rationale for why health care would get done their way. They said it, they really did. They thought they had a mandate that they didn’t have. Happens all the time.
Chet: is it wrong to want to “obstruct” a bill you don’t think should pass? How could abortion become an issue? Because Dems wanted to pass a much bigger restructuring of health care than the public was ready for. If you focused on portability and pre-existing conditions, there would be no abortion discussion to be had. I trust it would have been ok with you for the dems to have obstructed, say, the bush tax cut?
— andrew · Jan 21, 06:47 AM · #
Also, Chet, let me point out again that a Senate that got past the obstructionists is right now being “obstructed” by the House – where there is no filibuster and dems hold a massive majority. How can it be so wrong for Senate Rs to oppose something that House D’s won’t pass?
Even the bill that the House produced barely made it out of the House. Are all those House members who voted no just mindless obstructionists too? Or is it just possible that some of them honestly think the bill is a bad idea that deserves a no vote?
— andrew · Jan 21, 07:04 AM · #
cw, I suspect it’s a waste of typing to argue with you, and I know how difficult it is for those with a split political mind to think outside the confines of the two parties and their faithful followers, but there is a movement which is basically apolitical and it’s becoming very influential — plus, if any group is living a naive, utopian fantasy, it’s the progressives — they have stirred a nest of resistance, though, which will likely marginalize the progressive agenda for decades — good luck with your project, comrade.
— mike farmer · Jan 21, 07:34 AM · #
Let them vote against it on the floor if they don’t like it. Up or down vote. How is the filibuster defensible? Abortion was in the bill because The Family told Stupak to put it there – to obstruct its passage.
Uh, yeah. Zero Republican votes even after the concessions they demanded were made? Obstructionism is exactly what I’d call that. The sole purpose is to dilute and obstruct the Obama agenda to any degree possible.
A conservative myth. Even in Rasumussen’s polling majorities of Americans support the substantive measures in the Democrats’ health care reform platform. They largely oppose the bills before Congress because they don’t do enough. It’s not about overreach, it’s about underreach. Why would Americans have elected “big government” Democrats and not expected government action? You’re not making sense.
Because the leaders of the Republican party are mendacious liars. Duh! “Death panels” didn’t materialize out of the ether; Republican liars like Sarah Palin made them up.
— Chet · Jan 21, 07:35 AM · #
I’d like to take this time to allow Chet to revise his statement that Republicans have filibustered every single bill. Not because I give a shit about Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, but because I want Chet to live a life of lexiphanic legitimacy.
Btw, the debate about whether one party is yuckier schmuckier and truckier than the other is really dumb. The Republicans are acting the way they are because they think it’s a good way to regain power: it jives with the opinion of angry constituents, it seems to be winning independents, it has moderate career benefits and low career costs, and maybe way down at the bottom they also think this obstructionism is really really good for the country.
Democrats seem to believe that they were elected for their drafting, spending, meddling and moral acumen, rather than for the less exciting truth that they were merely the logical beneficiaries of our collective disgust with Republicans in general and Bush in particular. They thought they were leading a leftward charge. Now they’re whining about the stiff resistance in the middle.
It’s kind of like Revenge of the Sith, no? Anakin is red eyed, screaming, “You’ve turned her against me!” Obi Wan… well, we all know what he says.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 21, 03:36 PM · #
Chet: Because the leaders of the Republican party are mendacious liars. Duh!
That’s like saying so-and-so is a child-fucking pederast. Be smarter please.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 21, 03:47 PM · #
“…good luck with your project, comrade.”
Mike, Mike, Mike…. Just because I think libertarinaism is silly, I’m a communist?
— cw · Jan 21, 04:27 PM · #
don’t get upset, cw — a sense of humor is important to your mental and emotional health,
— mike farmer · Jan 21, 04:41 PM · #
Chet, I’m not interested in defending the Republicans (or anyone else). My only point is that the Dems overreached, and had they not done so there would have been a much better chance of getting something rather than nothing.
Death panels was made up – but not out of the ether. It came up because the bill got larded with, among other things, a provision ensuring that end-of-life counseling would be covered. Hey, that’s a swell thing I guess, but is it really necessary to incorporate that into a bill whose main purpose was supposed to be broadening access to health care coverage? It’s not something that maybe we could talk about later instead of allowing ourselves to get dragged into a debate about the moral implications and perils of end-of-life counseling?
I must remind you of some facts about the House vote. In addition to 176 Rs voting no, there were 39 apparently “obstructionist” Ds who also voted no. There was, not that it matters, 1 R who voted yes.
The abortion provision was passed in the house on a vote of 240-194. Plenty of dems in that 240. And you seem to be saying that the reps who brought up abortion did so only to obstruct the larger bill – you think they don’t actually care about blocking women’s access to abortion? They seem pretty sincere about that to me.
One last time: there is a Senate bill that got past the “obstructionists”. It is sitting there for the House to pass. If they pass it, Obama will sign it, and HCR will be a done deal. It will give you everything you seem to want, but THE HOUSE is not going to pass it. The problem right now is not in the Senate. Filibustering is irrelevant now – the bill is done. BARNEY FRANK (a Democrat, you realize that, right?) will not vote for it. NANCY PELOSI (another Democrat, right?) is not going to push for it. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND THEY CAN PASS HEALTH CARE REFORM TODAY IF THEY WANT TO. So who are the “obstructionists” at this instant?
Why won’t House Dems pass it? Because they are obstructionist? Or is it because they have figured out that – Rasmussen polls notwithstanding – there is not enough popular support for it as it stands now?
The Rasmussen poll you cite supports what I am saying. 70% of the public supports TWO particular reforms: 78% favor creating a national insurance exchange (a version of what I have referred to as “portability”), and 74% favor requiring health insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions.
Yes, there is also 57% majority support for subsidies to low-income people. But there is also 53% majority support for a ban on abortion coverage for those people. The overlap between the 57 and 53 is significantly less than 50, I think it is safe to say.
So I argue that if the Dems had built a bill that just focused on portability and pre-existing conditions – things favored by over 70% of the population – they’d have had a much better chance of passing something with bipartisan support. And I think that’s the direction they should go now.
— andrew · Jan 21, 05:10 PM · #
Which so-and-so? If the so-and-so is, say, Tom Reeves, the founder of NAMBLA, wouldn’t that characterization be apt? I’m aware it’s an inflammatory charge, but it’s a matter of objective fact that they’ve earned it.
— Chet · Jan 21, 05:17 PM · #
The problem with andrew’s argument is this…where were the GOP alternatives to ANY of the stuff Obama and the Dems have done or are trying to do?
Is there a credible GOP alternative out there on HCR? No.
Was there a credible GOP alternative offered to the stimulus? No.
I have absolutely no problem with the minority in the Senate incessently fillibustering if the majority won’t allow their alternative proposals to come up for a vote. That’s not what is happening here.
And this doesn’t get into the fact that the GOP ran the government for most of the last decade and either did nothing to address the long-standing problems Obama and the Dems are trying to deal with or did things to actually make those problems worse.
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 21, 05:17 PM · #
“So I argue that if the Dems had built a bill that just focused on portability and pre-existing conditions – things favored by over 70% of the population – they’d have had a much better chance of passing something with bipartisan support.”
Uh, do you know what the practical effect of doing those two reforms on their own would be? It would massively incentivize people to NEVER get health insurance until AFTER they get seriously ill. Which would make it virtually impossible for health insurance to survive as private enterprise.
So, congratulations! You’ve become an advocate for single-payer government health care!
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 21, 05:26 PM · #
I think what this whole HCR thing has reminded me is that the constituentcy that makes up a political party determines tactics and strategies of that party. It’s not like party leaders are sitting in a smoke filled room deciding what they WANT to do, they are deciding what the CAN do considering thier constituency. The republicans main core of voter support is white, older, less educated, christians. The democrats core voters are a bunch of disparate and often conflicting interest groups. Having one homogunous base is a political advantage to republicans because republican politicians only have to satisfy one one group. Democrats have to satisfy abunch of different groups. This means it is easy for republicans to have party discipline. The problem for republicans though, is that thier base, while homogonous, is reletively small and getting smaller by the minute. Plus their base is basically reactionary. Their world is changing around them and they are not flexible enough to change. The world is not going to stop changing so eventually (soon, now) the actions acceptable to this base are going to be completely inadaquate (the deficit is too big so we need to cut taxes). The democratic base is much more accepting of change, in many instances they are the one forcing the change. Gay people are in the democratic base. Immigrants are in the democratic base.
So both sides are hamstrung by their constituencies. I think either Obama is going to figure out that he has to unite the democrats, or we are just going to have gridlock for the next 3 years. I think if the Democrats had been more united and Health Care process would have been less ugly and we wouldn’t have seen the backlash in Mass (of course the bill would have been passed long before and Mass wouldn’t have mattered). I hope this is a wake up call for him, becasue I don’t think we can afford 3 years of gridlock. Sometimes doing nothing or acting slowely and cautiously is the correct paty, but sometimes you have to risk bold action. I believe we are in a time for bold action, on many fronts.
As for the republicans, their course is set. Their core is not flexible. If they abandon their core and modernize (for instance, is this is really the era for a religious party?) they lose for a long time. The best they can do is field stealth candidates, like that dude in virginia (is that the right state?). But, once in office the stealth has to come off.
So I’m hoping that Obama can unite Gondor and Rohan and defeat Sauron. Forget about uniting the country. Just unite his side (in this analogy Sauron is the crisis in health care, entitlements, banking, islamic terrorists, global warming. The republicans are more like Dentenor, the mad steward of Gondor who instead of fighting Sauron tried to comit suicide by burning himself and his unconscious son on a funeral pyre. The Republicans wish they were Sauron).
— cw · Jan 21, 05:27 PM · #
Yes, just like it is in private insurance. How is “end-of-life counseling” – which involves a patient being informed of their options by a trained counselor – anything like a “death panel”, sitting in judgement of the moral and economic worth of patients to determine if they’re “worth saving”?
No, “death panels” didn’t cone out of nowhere. It came from Sarah Palin, who simply made it up and lied that it was in the HCR bill. And the rest of the Republicans ran with it.
The fact that there is one political party whose rhetoric is absolutely unconstrained by objective reality is a critical feature of American political discourse, and until you understand that you won’t accurately apprehend events in modern American politics.
Because they know Scott Brown doesn’t want to vote for it. Hey, it makes no sense to me, either, but it’s a function of how Republican obstructionism has been so unwavering that we’ve simply accepted it as a feature of the Senate – we treat any bill that can’t get a supermajority in the Senate has having been voted down, even when it’s already passed cloture. I’d prefer it if the Democrats would get over their learned helplessness. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that Republicans have been so successful in their obstructionist tactics that we’ve simply accepted that as a feature of the Senate, and come to believe that only Democrats can legislate – any seat held by a Republican might as well not exist.
Portability and pre-existing condition exclusion, on their own, will make health insurance astronomically expensive – too expensive for anyone to actually buy it – as a result of adverse selection. (Who would ever buy insurance except when they got sick? You’d sign the papers as they wheeled you into the emergency room.) The HCR passed by the Senate is literally the absolute minimum HCR that could possibly work. In fact it might even be too little. The failure of HCR has been one of underreach.
— Chet · Jan 21, 05:29 PM · #
You said: “I don’t know anybody who supports the status quo health care finance system in the U.S. “
The GOP wants the status quo. John Boehner says ‘no’ to scaled back health bill.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31796.html
— dtr · Jan 21, 06:39 PM · #
Mike, you will have to explain how allowing me to take my health care coverage with me when I change jobs would incentivize me to never get health insurance – if I never get it in the first place, then what is it I expect to take with me?
I personally am not opposed to single payer, by the way. I am just realistic that it is not going to happen in 2010.
Your point is well-taken that dealing with pre-existing conditions comes with certain moral hazard problems. But there is 70%+ support for dealing with pre-existing conditions. I am not a health insurance expert but there seem to be various ways of dealing with those problems, ranging from government subsidies to risk pools to universal coverage mandates (and probably other possibilities as well). If we want to have a chance to deal with pre-existing conditions, though, how does it help to get sidetracked with debates about abortion coverage, end-of-life counseling, public options, Nebraska subsidies, etc? Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a good public discussion about the challenges of dealing with pre-existing coverage that nearly 80% of the public wants addressed?
I don’t know if the R’s have an alternative plan, but what possible incentive would there be for them to bring one up for discussion when from day 1 the dems are saying we won the election, we have a mandate, we will be writing the bill? If you have this big monster bill with all kinds of stuff in it, and the minority is saying wait wait wait we don’t like it, it’s too big, it reaches too far, it’s too much change, let’s scrap this and start over -aren’t they telling you that their “plan” is to scale it back? And if you just plow ahead anyway, on the premise that you have 60 votes in the Senate (as long as you dish out enough bribes to your own party members), is it really surprising that the response to that is first and foremost to try to stop you from ramming something down their throats? It didn’t appear to me during the past year that there were a lot of instances of Reid going to the Repubs and saying what parts of this COULD we agree on IF we were willing to scale back. It seemed to me like it was mostly Reid going to the Ben Nelson’s of the party and saying how big a bribe do you need to get on board with your own party?
As much as you are dismissing the idea of the feasibility of doing something scaled back, that’s what all the discussion is about today in DC. Obama himself seems to think there’s a core that can get done.
I don’t know what relevance your critique of the Repubs behavior over the last decade has to do with anything. You are trying to convince me they are a bunch of bozos? I already thought that. So is Ben Nelson, so is Harry Reid, so is Joe Lieberman, so is Nancy Pelosi. I already think the Bush presidency was one of the most disastrous failures in the nation’s history. Strangely, that does not lead me to conclude that the Dems pursued a productive course over the past year of trying to get something done on health care. Go figure.
— andrew · Jan 21, 06:42 PM · #
All of you Democrats who are raging about Republicans being “obstructionist” and “The party of No” and having no alternative plans? Can I talk to you for a brief moment? Ok then, listen:
Let’s presume for a moment that you’re at home with your spouse and kids and eating dinner and watching your favorite show on the tube and the show isn’t perfect, the dinner’s a little overcooked, the kids are being brats, you’re quarrelling with your honey, and today at work was not your favorite day on earth. OK? A day like many others, right? Right.
Now there is somebody coming through your door—not even knocking—who says “I’m going to ‘transform’ your life! And you’ll like it, or else!” and that guy’s idea is to (a) lock your TV on HIS favorite channel, and (b) make you eat HIS brand of TV dinners exclusively, and © put your kids in HIS reeducation camps where the “village” of shrinks and “experts” will raise them regardless of your views, and (d) replace your spouse with HIS idea of your perfect match, and (e) not only make you work more hours at your job for less pay and satisfaction, but tax all that effort higher in order to pay for this “transformation” and, by the way, have zero interest in any of your ideas to the contrary and deny you access to the back room where he and his pals decided all this for you in their benevolent superiority over your feeble-minded, nay, “Palinesque” simplicity. OH, and along the way he calls you names based on obscurely obscene sex acts and think’s it is funny to make elitist jokes about your pickup truck.
Now tell me: Are you an “obstructionist” if, rather than presenting a detailed alternative concept to this un-listening wall-of-domination of an intruder who’s bent on permanently changing your entire way of life…..you punch the sucker in the nose FIRST and make ‘alternative’ suggestions AFTERwards?
Hmm? Because, to paraphrase the original patriots: “If this be obstructionism, let us make the most of it.”
— Dan · Jan 21, 06:49 PM · #
Chet, end of life care is NOT like a death panel. I don’t know why you are even asking me that question. Private insurance may or may not cover it, I have no idea. My point is simply that if you want HCR reform, it’s not productive to put a provision specific to Medicare’s end-of-life care coverage in the same bill. I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming on that point. We were supposed to be talking about broadening coverage, covering the uninsured, dealing with pre-existing conditions in this bill – big stuff! – so why are we introducing into the discussion a fairly trivial change to Medicare coverage?
There is ONE party whose rhetoric is not constrained by reality? Seriously? One of us may be having trouble apprehending modern politics, but this comment makes me pretty sure it’s you.
You think the failure of HCR has been due to underreach? Do tell, what additional provisions do you think would have attracted MORE votes?
— andrew · Jan 21, 07:03 PM · #
Dan – Obama didn’t intrude into the White House. He didn’t barge in. He was elected to it, by an overwhelming majority of American voters.
That’s called “democratic rule.” Maybe you don’t like the idea of being subject to the will of the majority, but that’s the American way, which Republicans certainly embraced when they were in power. Republicans used to say “elections mattered.” Remember that?
“Tea baggers” was the name your movement chose for yourselves. Don’t blame us if you didn’t Google it, first.
Exactly, Andrew. So wouldn’t someone who knows it’s not at all like a “death panel”, but nonetheless calls it a “death panel” for transient political gain, be a mendacious liar? I mean, what else would you call someone who is saying something they know is not true in order to mislead for their own gain?
“Death panels”, Andrew. You’ve already admitted that the “death panels” claim had no connection to reality. Which party was it, again, that was saying “death panels” were in the bill? Which party has it been that has asserted that the President was born in Kenya? Which party keeps saying Obama hasn’t shown his birth certificate? These are matters of objective fact, andrew. Which party has been lying about them?
More votes in Congress? Or more support with the American people? The problem is that these are not at all the same thing. The American people want much, much more from HCR than Congress is prepared to give them. Stupidly, they seem prepared to turn to the Republicans in response, who have openly promised to give them absolutely nothing at all.
— Chet · Jan 21, 07:19 PM · #
The game is for independents, and I think it’s pretty clear that these people prefer the Republicans’ “nothing at all” to the Democrats’ “everything right now.” A lot of that has to do with the characteristics of “right now” — Manzi and Chait’s ‘structural factors’.
Democrats outpaced the moderate members of their coalition because the latter had stopped to smell the economy. And as McArdle points out, when you lose independents you lose two votes per voter rather than one.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 21, 07:40 PM · #
As someone who lives in Mass and worked hard here and NH. to get President Obama elected I think I can help you understand why so few people were fired up for this important seat going to Coakley…
After the election we were excited by the Dem majority and thought now we will have some real change in this country.Then I saw Obama fill his cabinet with corporate Clinton hacks..Rahm Emanuel,Larry summer,Robert Rubins…the same ones who gave us the republican majority last time.The same Larry Summers who talked clinton into signing the repeal of Glass-Stegall and NAFTA.The same Summers whos mentor was St Ronnies top economic advisor.The same Summers and Rubins team who both went and profited big time from that repeal.Real change huh?
Then came the big healthcare reform bill only to find out single payer and the public option were never really part of the plan and Rahm worked hard behind the scenes to make sure that happened.Even though BOTH options are very popular with the voters….Then we finally get the bill and its Romneycare.We have Romney care…and its a boondoggle for private insurance..it doesnt cut costs or creat competition.Funny but somehow we imagined a Dem majority might just do better than a republican plan…silly us.
The Dem majority couldnt even change the anti- trust laws to protect americans.
Now lets turn to the banks…we know Obama didnt cause this so why put the people who did in charge?Geithner should have been fired after it was disclosed what he did as the head of the FED in NY….why is he still there?
Im an independent but never voted republican and I didnt this election either but I just didnt vote for anyone on the ticket.I voted for FDR because thats who we need right now and I thought that was the sort of Dem I voted for…not these corporate shills with a majority for the first time in a decade, bending over for republicans every chance they get.
They deserved to lose this…sending Coakley would have been a seal of approval from those liberals the whitehouse has shown nothing but contempt for.If they dont wake up the next election will be a wipeout and not for dems.People voted for real change not the same old crap.
— Jean · Jan 21, 08:19 PM · #
“Can I talk to you for a brief moment?”
You wasted your moment with ignorosity.
— cw · Jan 21, 08:35 PM · #
Yes, Chet, Sarah Palin is a mendacious liar. So are a number of other Republicans. Do any Democrats ever lie mendaciously? No?? Oh, then I guess you are right, only one party ever lies. How fascinating that there is such a perfect correlation between truthfulness and political affiliation.
If Americans want so much more HCR than Congress has been willing to give them, then I suppose they will elect even more Dems this November, right? I mean, that’s the way we express our preferences, is it not? By voting for representative government? But no, you say they instead will act “stupidly” come November, and vote against their own interests.
What alternative process to express policy preferences would you propose for the people you say are acting “stupidly” when they don’t agree with you but are the “American people” when they do?
Perhaps we should all just listen to what Chet tells us we really want? Do we get to elect you to that position or do you just appoint yourself?
In any event, my entire discussion has been about how the D’s could get something done IN CONGRESS, because that is, after all, how laws get made. You are now just saying well, even if they did something, it wouldn’t be what Americans really want because what happens in Congress doesn’t reflect the will of the people (or at least your assessment of it) anyway. I’m not going to chase you down that rabbit hole. My view is that the opinions of the Americans represented by Boehner deserve as much weight as the those of the Americans represented by Pelosi. Call me crazy, I guess.
— andrew · Jan 21, 08:46 PM · #
Chet, promiscuous whore, warm-blooded human, moist wetness, three-quark baryon, child-fucking pederast, mendacious liar. Get it?
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jan 21, 08:51 PM · #
That was not particularly brief, Dan. A more succinct version of what you said might be: “When Republicans are in charge, it’s majority rules. When Democrats are in charge, it’s breaking and entering.”
Or even shorter: “IOKIYAR”
— Obliterati · Jan 21, 09:00 PM · #
“Mike, you will have to explain how allowing me to take my health care coverage with me when I change jobs would incentivize me to never get health insurance – if I never get it in the first place, then what is it I expect to take with me?”
It’s in combination with the no pre-existing conditions thing. If you know you can’t be denied insurance AND you know that once you get it, you can take it with you wherever you go…the need to get insurance is massively reduced. The only time people would ever get health insurance at work is after they’re sick or when they fear losing their jobs.
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 21, 09:43 PM · #
Mike-
Yes, that would be a foolish way to structure things, allowing people to buy insurance only if and when they need care. I think adverse selection is a problem that could conceivably be solved without getting into whether abortion should be covered in government provided plans and whether Medicare ought to cover end-of-life counseling and whether Nebraskans ought to get extra Medicaid subsidies. Don’t you?
— andrew · Jan 21, 10:05 PM · #
Sure, but significantly less frequently. What’s the Democratic equivalent of “death panels”? What’s the Democratic equivalent of the birthers, which even Republican congressmen have gotten on board with? “Trutherism”? The only national Democrat even associated with Trutherism was drummed out of office the minute it was discovered.
The starkest difference is that the Democratic platform is about addressing problems that really exist – ballooning health care costs, climate change, CEO’s treating our banks like their own personal casinos. The Republican platform is about ignoring all those or pretending they don’t exist, in favor of “solutions” to problems that don’t even exist – “the President is a secret Muslim/Marxist”, “malpractice tort reform”, “America will become a Muslim caliphate”, “Social Security is going bankrupt”, and so on.
Like I said, there’s one political party completely based on denying objective reality.
More than a fucking 18 vote majority? More than any number of Republicans have simultaneously held congressional office in American history?
How many more fucking Democrats should they need to elect before we stop running things the Republican way? What an amazing political culture we have; no matter how many times voters announce that they prefer Democrats, that’s always to be taken as a mandate for Republican rule.
They could get something done the same way Republicans do – by counting on the minority party to uphold its constitutional obligation to participate in the legislative process in partner with the majority – not by banking on a political strategy to block efforts to make the nation better, and then rise to power amid dissatisfaction with the incumbents.
We used to use the term “loyal opposition”. Republicans used to say it a lot. Don’t hear it from them these days, though.
Agreed. The way it works now is, the Americans represented by Boehner get total veto over the twice-as-large number of Americans represented by Pelosi. 100,000 MA voters got to veto national health care reform because they already had theirs. Does that strike you as fair? Barack Obama had to run a national campaign, costing billions of dollars and taking a year and half, in order to convince 70 million Americans to allow him to take office to enact his agenda. Scott Brown ran for a few weeks in 15 counties, convinced no more than 1.1 million people, and gets to derail it. Does that strike you as fair? Does that strike you as representative of the will of the American people?
— Chet · Jan 21, 10:28 PM · #
“I think adverse selection is a problem that could conceivably be solved without getting into whether abortion should be covered in government provided plans and whether Medicare ought to cover end-of-life counseling and whether Nebraskans ought to get extra Medicaid subsidies. Don’t you?”
No, not really. The things you’re complaining about go on in every other piece of legislation on every other issue Congress takes up. Why should you think, expect or insist health care to be any different?
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 21, 10:28 PM · #
No, in fact I don’t even begin to understand what the fuck you mean.
— Chet · Jan 21, 10:32 PM · #
Oh, good grief, Chet, Kristoffer wasn’t criticizing your “inflammatory” rhetoric. He was criticizing the clumsiness of your phrasing. “Mendacious liars” is a redundancy. That’s all. Carry on.
— Kate Marie · Jan 21, 10:59 PM · #
Chet, no matter how many times you say that a tiny majority is blocking health care, the fact remains that there is a bill right now that got a full 60 votes in the Senate that the House could pass if it wants to. In the House the Dem majority is overwhelming. The House has no filibuster. And yet that is where your bill is stuck at this instant. Face the fact: it is the House Democrats now, not the Senate Republicans or Scott Brown, who are blocking HCR. The Dems control nearly 60% of the House votes and they are choosing not to pass HCR. From the sound of it, the bill would not only fail but would garner FAR less than 50% if brought to a vote right now.
You are making the same mistake the Dems made, you think there was a HCR mandate that wasn’t really there – even with what you describe as a “f-ing” 18 seat majority. It’s the current action in the House that tells you that the mandate is not as strong as you thought it was.
As an aside, I don’t have the slightest idea how you calculate that Pelosi represents twice the number of people that Boehner does. You do understand that in the House each person represents the same number of citizens, right?
And finally, using “f-” repeatedly only makes you sound angry and bully-ish and emotional. It adds nothing to your persuasive power.
— andrew · Jan 21, 11:13 PM · #
Redundancy connotes emphasis.
But they don’t want to. Why don’t they want to? Because the Senate bill is significantly worse than the House bill. Why is it worse? Because 40 Senate Republicans basically checked out of the process rather than constructively participate.
Why should the House enact the Senate bill? Just because Republicans have given them only two options? That’s your case against Republican obstructionism?
No, but the Senate does, and that’s who would have to vote on any changes the House would make to the bill. Do you think such a vote would ever be allowed to pass cloture?
But there is, as I’ve proved. The 2008 presidential election was a mandate on HCR.
It’s the overwhelming strength of the mandate for HCR, including a public option, that’s going to prevent the House from voting for the Senate bill. That’s the sick consequence of our political culture – the more the American people want something, the more Republicans see it in their interest not to give it to them.
Bohener represents the Ohio 8th, which contains 630,000 people. They represent 1/17th of Ohio, which has one Republican senator. Pelosi’s 8th contains 690,000 people, or 1/57th of the population of California, which has two Democratic senators.
It’s the Senate we were talking about.
I don’t believe that you have the capacity to be persuaded. You’re simply seizing on my language as an excuse to avoid grappling with my argument.
— Chet · Jan 21, 11:35 PM · #
“Chet, no matter how many times you say that a tiny majority is blocking health care, the fact remains that there is a bill right now that got a full 60 votes in the Senate that the House could pass if it wants to.”
Yes, if you completely ignore how the need to get around mindless GOP opposition has shaped the bill and completely ignore how that complicates the process of getting enough Democrats to vote for it.
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 22, 12:36 AM · #
Mike and Chet, you guys are too funny. Obama says the bills are 95% identical. You assert there is a giant mandate, but apparently only for the House version of the bill – which barely squeaked by the House to begin with! That’s some mandate! The Senate version of the bill, which got a supermajority? Oh, that’s a big piece of garbage not worthy of passing – unless it had passed with a Coakley victory and a conference report, then I guess you’d be satisfied.
Chet, it’s the Senate YOU are talking about, but it’s the House that I am talking about, as I’ve said repeatedly and as I’ve indicated by my choice of Pelosi and Boehner for examples, rather than, say, Reid and MccConnell. You say you’ve proved there was a mandate. I guess you are referring to your crazy math as proof (“Obama convinced 70 million Americans” – convinced them of what, exactly? That he had the perfect health plan and that the presidential election voids the need for a legislative process?), but it proves nothing. The entire House was elected at the same time as Obama was elected, and they face re-election in a few months whereas he does not. I think the House vote is at least as strong a reflection of the will of the people on HCR as is Obama’s election – which, you might recall, hinged on a few other things besides HCR. If you are barely squeaking by the House, you should question whether you have a big mandate.
Look, you can continue to assert all you want that it was unfair and the republicans are a bunch of meanies and that there is no potential to pass anything. Maybe you are right, but what are you going to do now? Accept nothing or try for something? I say try for something.
— andrew · Jan 22, 01:21 AM · #
The Senate version had to get a supermajority, that’s the point.
No, I was referring to Rasmussen’s polling as proof. Look, I don’t see why it’s necessary to pretend that this or that election is a mandate for this or that specific provision of any legislation, when the American people can be, and have been, asked directly how they’d like to reform health care.
Hang it around their goddamn necks. Make them pay the political price for obstructionism. Change the filibuster rules so they can’t do it again.
— Chet · Jan 22, 02:53 AM · #
I don’t think this article is rational. The Republican party chose a strategy of opposition to any sort of effective health care reform. This strategy has been effective, any reform can now be killed by Republican fillibuster.
The policy is completely rational. Any true reform would make things better for Americans and thus be a political gain for the party that passed it, which would be the Democrats. Why should Republicans hand a political benefit to their opposition? That would be stupid.
They simply cannot rationally support any bill that would make things better. They only bill they could rationally support would be one that makes things objectively worse.
But in this case, isn’t the status quo preferable? Of course it is! Republicans are not malevolent, they just aren’t complete idiots.
— Mike Alexander · Jan 22, 04:43 PM · #
“Accept nothing or try for something? I say try for something.”
I’d just as soon they try for something, but you’re just blithely passing over the important thing here.
The American system of government CANNOT function if the minority party is going to essentially refuse to participate in the legislative process but still insist a supermajority is needed for anything to be accomplished. That is not the way Democrats behaved Reagan or Bush II. It’s not the way Republicans behaved under Carter or Clinton.
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 22, 04:52 PM · #
“But in this case, isn’t the status quo preferable? Of course it is! Republicans are not malevolent, they just aren’t complete idiots.”
I don’t think you understand what the word “malevolent” means.
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 22, 04:54 PM · #
Mike, for most of my and probably your adult life, the American people have elected a split government in which the presidency and control of congress are held by different parties. There were some brief periods when this wasn’t the case, but only 10 times (20 years) since 1945 have both branches of Congress and the presidency been controlled by the same party.
When control is split that way, you don’t hear about filibusters and minority obstructionism so much. Why? Because of the president’s veto power. If you are the minority in Congress, but you hold the presidency, the majority needs to have not just 60 but 67 votes in the Senate, and 2/3 of the House to get anything done. You don’t have to filibuster.
Right now we have congress and the presidency in the hands of the Democrats, so it is not surprising that the minority party is using the filibuster in a way they wouldn’t if, say, McCain were president instead of Obama.
You mention Reagan, Bush II, Carter, and Clinton eras, so let’s look:
At least one house of Congress was Democratic for the entire Reagan administration, so you don’t know how the Dems would have behaved if they had been the minority party.
Clinton had Democratic control of Congress for his first two years – during which, guess what, health care reform was defeated. For a time, filibuster was part of the opposition strategy but if I remember right there was ultimately so little support that no one needed to filibuster.
Carter had a Democratic congress but I don’t remember what the Republicans did or did not do, nor what significant legislation anyone attempted to pass.
Bush II had a Republican congress for his middle 4 years. You may not remember it, but there was an enormous amount of outrage from the Republicans about those darn obstructionist Democrats who were filibustering every goshdarn one of Bush’s appointees. The Dems were happy to filibuster the trivial things. Back then the criticism was that filibustering was supposed to be reserved for the really big things!
Alas, would that the Dems had been more effective in their role as the opposition party on the things that mattered, eh? Why weren’t they? I suppose you could contend that it was because they thought Bush’s election meant that he should get what he wanted (and therefore, by extension, the Rs should do the same now). More likely is that they agreed with him on the things he wanted (Medicare Part D, for example)…or that they were a bunch of pathetic chickens whose cowardice and cravenness did great harm to the country (you pick an illustration).
I am not defending (or attacking) the filibuster, just suggesting that what seems like very extraordinary legislative tactics may seem more extraordinary than they are if you take a careful look at history with an eye toward what the utility of any particular tactic was at a given time.
This too shall pass – perhaps as soon as this November, the way the Dems in Congress are performing – and we will go back to the regular form of “gridlock” that we always used to complain about before.
(My source for the historical data on control of congress is: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
— andrew · Jan 22, 09:45 PM · #
Learn to use the Wiki, moron.
In the 1960s, no Senate term ever had more than 7 fillibusters.
In the past decade, every Senate term had at least 49 fillibusters.
I can’t find any specific number for 2009 but in the 110th Congress, Senate Republicans invoked the fillibuster 112 times (which they did to prevent their having to vote up or down or President Bush having to veto Democratic proposals).
Maybe you should try and actually educate yourself on subjects, instead of just relying on memories that remarkably support whatever point you’re trying to make.
Mike
— MBunge · Jan 22, 10:26 PM · #
Mike, I am well aware that the number of filibusters has steadily increased, and I did not argue the opposite. I was attempting (civilly – you might want to give it a try) to discuss the extraordinariness of the use of the filibuster to thwart the will of the majority on major issues.
If you want to just look at it as a trend, you will see that pretty much every congress can be accused of using it more than it was ever used before. It has been used more and more because the cost of doing so has gone down. Lots of those uses are on things like judicial nominees, to which I referred. But its use becomes most controversial at a time like this – when it has you in hysterics about the collapse of the American system of government, for example.
— andrew · Jan 22, 10:34 PM · #
I wasn’t talking about the use of the fillibuster per se. That’s just a tool. What I was talking about was the idea that there was some form of HCR that would be acceptable to Republicans. Any successful bill will give points to the Democrats. Why should Republicans help their enemies, unless other political benefits for them outweigh it.
So when faced with a Democratic attempt to do something that they believe is necessary, they will allow the Democrats to pass it and then demonize them afterward for doing so. When the Democrats want to do something that can successfully be portrayed in a negative light, like HCR, they would be crazy to hand them a winner, so they block it.
That other minority parties in the past were not 100% obstructive is irrelevant if the political terrain today favors obstructionism. Today’s GOP believes what they are doing is a winning political strategy. If they are wrong; they will find out this fall.
Does anyone think the GOP is going to lose seats because of their obstructionism? If not, then isn’t what they are doing the correct strategy to return to power?
— Mike Alexander · Jan 24, 07:19 PM · #