Tag Archives: Washington Monthly

For me but not for thee

Instead of crafting legislation to create jobs (remember that?), the Senate Republicans are offering up their first bill of this new Congress, “The State Health Care Choice Act.” It’s a repeal effort of course, and it allows States to opt out of not just the ‘onorous’ parts of the bill but stuff like protections for pre-existing conditions. Allows them to opt out of the whole dangburn thing.

I’ve noticed lately an increasing sentiment among Washington (and State) Republicans that this ‘Union’ thing is becoming a bit bothersome. Secession  language for instance has really escalated, along with respect for the Constitutional principle of             .

From Steve Benen at the excellent Washington Monthly blog Political Animal, a good post on the subject and this – from commenter KurtRex1453:

Remember, memorize and repeat….

Health insurance companies want to pay doctors as little as possible and charge customers as much as possible while providing the minimum health care possible. This adversarial relationship hurts everyone but health co execs and the Republicans who support them. When the Republicans scream death panels, socialism or try to scare you with horror stories of malfeasance in government run health care systems, they are only protecting the Heath Insurance Execs excessive profits, Hermes handbags, and overpriced sports cars.

 

Haven’t heard any fat lady yet

I agree the anti-incumbent sentiment building up is real. That being said though, I am not sure Arlen Specter’s primary loss in Pennsylvania is that predictive of what’s to come. Spector is nearly 80. He’s switched parties twice. Sestak ran a brilliant campaign to come from behind in the last weeks – a campaign strategy, by the way, that I expect to see copied. Sestak was a very appealing candidate. He was NOT an anti-anything. He wa a young buck challenging the old stag while he was weak.

The Ron Paul victory in Kentucky was somewhat predictive, but the Democrats primary drew out twice as many voters. So Paul may by the new face of the Republican party, that’s doesn’t assure that his will be the new face of Washington.

Time. Will. Tell.

UPDATE: Steve Benen at Washington Monthly makes the point that the most important election yesterday was the actual one – not a primary – in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District for the late John Murtha’s old seat. And Murtha’s former chief of staff won it against the GOP candidate who boasted of his Tea Party cred.

He notes “This is the only district in the country that backed Kerry in 2004, but McCain in 2008, suggesting it was trending heavily in the GOP’s direction. If there’s going to be a backlash against Dems right now, this should be the place to find it. Indeed, it was the bulk of Burns’ platform — he specifically ran against Washington, Speaker Pelosi, and the Obama presidency, a pitch Republicans intend to duplicate in other competitive districts through the fall.”

UPDATE II: A post from Balloon Juice captures my point exactly.

Another Clear Case of Anti-Incumbent Fervor

Only irrational “throw the bums out” anger could explain why Democrats would reject an 80-year-old, yet newly minted, member of their party. Stuff like this could have nothing to do with it.

A legend in his own mind

Our old friend, Newt Gingrich, was, remember?, forced out of the House leadership by his own caucus in the 90’s after his strategic move to ‘shut down’ the Federal Goverment ended up exploding in the Republicans faces. Probably one of the most bizaarre and unsucessful of all Newt’s odd endeavors. (Let us neither forget his unique public itterations = remember ‘women having thier periods in foxholes will be how we’d lose wars’? Tell it to Joan of Arc!)

Well, Steve Benen at Washington Monthy, who does real reporting (unlike what I do here which is selective cutting and pasting) notes that Newt is back at it. He seems to have a short memory, Newt does. I think most people do remember their personal humiliations, but I guess that norm can’t stop a disgraced one. Even so, this one is hard to fathom.

“”When we win control of the House and Senate this fall, stage one of the end of Obamaism will be a new Republican Congress in January that simply refuses to fund anymore,” he said. “The Congress doesn’t have to pass the money. If EPA gets no money, it can’t enforce cap and trade.”

Benen goes on: That’s been the new line since the healthcare reform bill passed and Republicans realized they probably wouldn’t be able to repeal it. Gingrich, and some lawmakers, have instead been talking about simply not paying for it. But what Gingrich proposed Thursday went beyond just that — to refusing to pay for anything the (hypothetical) GOP Congress didn’t want to let President Obama do.”

So – let’s do it again. Because it’s bound to work out differently this time. Apparently this line got the biggest applause of the speech. So Newt does not forget alone.