About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Health care, and the return of the media's bipartisan trap

October 27, 2009 1:48 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

Beltway pundits are definitely not happy that Democrats seem to be leaning (slightly) left on health care reform. Reading and listening to the WashPost's Dana Milbank, ABC's The Note, and Time's Mark Halperin today, all three highlight the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday embraced the push for a public option of sorts (encouraged by liberal activists and politicians), and all three are deeply, deeply troubled by the development.

The faux hand-wringing goes back to the bipartisan trap the press set for the Democratic administration last winter. The ground rules were simple: In order to achieve all-mighty bipartisanship, which Village dwellers worship more than anything (unless there's a Republican in the White House), Obama had to secure Republican votes. Conversely, in order to achieve all-might bipartisanship, Republicans didn't have to do anything. In fact they could uniformly oppose White House initiatives and the press would still blame Obama for not building bipartisan consensus.

Now fast-forward to today's health care debate, and specifically the Democrats apparent decision to try to pass landmark legislation without the help of Republican senators. Voilà! The bi-partisan trap is back.

Matt Gertz already detailed the problems with Milbank's health care column in the Post. And on MSNBC this morning, Time's Mark Halperin spoke for many D.C. elites when he said Democrats, "made a mistake not making it bipartisan."

And from The Note [emphasis added]:

Nearly a year after the American people voted to kill it, partisanship not only still lives -- it thrives, and it may never have been healthier than at this moment.

The White House hesitancy to go this route on health care had everything to do with the desire to keep Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, on board. Now that she's gone, this becomes a purely partisan exercise: Every one of those 60 votes in the Senate will have to be Democratic votes, and you can pretty much forget about 61 or 62.

The Note makes it quite clear who is not to blame for the lack of bipartisan cooperation--Republicans, even though yes, it's possible every one of them might vote against health care reform. Only in the Bizarro World of Beltway media could the Republican's uniform refusal to cross party isles be seen as a Democratic failure in terms of achieving bipartisanship.

In fact, The Note announces the Republican's decision to remain purely partisan represents a strategic victory for them:

And, if GOP calculations are even close to correct, and Democrats will fully own something the public doesn't really want, this is a major win for the right as well.

To recap, the Beltway press corps claims bipartisanship is the key to life happiness. But when Republicans refuse to engage in any bipartisanship cooperation, it's not their fault. Instead, the onus on achieving bipartisanship (i.e. two parties working together) rests entirely with Democrats.

And specifically today, the Village claims it's liberals who are to blame for flaming partisan wars on health care. Apparently liberals should have dropped their push for a public option because it ran counter to Republican beliefs.

Good to know.

BTW, public support for public option is now hitting a new high. But don't tell Milbank, Halperin or The Note.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by goesto11 (October 27, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
      3  
      Media definition of "bipartisanship":

      The obligation of the Democratic president to succumb to the myriad outrageous demands of Republicans who offer no rational or factually-based reasons for their opposition nor constructive solutions to our problems.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by classicliberal2 (October 28, 2009 1:08 pm ET)
           
        The press worship of "bipartisanship" is definitely a pet peeve of mine, and Boehlert hits the nail on the head on that one. Still, the obsession with phony "bipartisanship" we've seen since Obama was elected is really the fault of Obama himself, who seems to worship the concept over just about every other consideration. It has been his problem before he was even sworn in, back when he was packing his administration with righties/Clintonites, while leaving the liberals out in the cold. On his first major initiative, the stupid "stimulus" bill, he larded up the proposal with wasteful, less stimulative tax cuts--they made up nearly half of the bill--in order to try to woo Republican votes. At a cost of hundreds of billions, he got two Republicans. The health-care debate has gone the same way. The liberals--and about 60% of the country, for years--wanted single-payer, which Obama had previously advocated himself, but because it would offend Republicans, he dropped it right up front, and opted for yet another industry-friendly plan that not only preserves but props up a failed private insurance industry that has collapsed and is bleeding us dry as it dies. He started backtracking on the public option--one of the only genuine reform measures he's proposed--then reversed himself on the question of mandates, and was soon behaving as if getting the vote of Olympia Snowe was far more important than getting a good bill. His pattern is to repeatedly "compromise" unilaterally, demanding (and receiving) nothing from the other side.

        The problem with the press and "bipartisanship" goes back decades. Obama's problem with it is of his own making.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by all your eyes (October 27, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
      1  
      If the Democrats pass a bill, they lose. If they don't pass a bill, they lose. That is the logic of the beltway establishment. Are they paid by United Health Care or the RNC? What happened to the liberal media?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cannonball (October 27, 2009 2:19 pm ET)
         
      We didn't vote to kill partisanship. Obama promised to reach across the aisle on important issues and let the Congress write the bills. We voted for a liberal administration to further our liberal goals. If the GOP don't want to have a role, they can stay home. Obama has been told now, no bipartisanship from the GOP. No need to ask again.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by themidnightreview.com (October 27, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
      1  
      I would think that Obama gets an A for effort. The Republicans on the other hand get a F...

      ------------------------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Mum Is The Word
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Meremark (October 27, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
         
      Eric: 'aisles' ... cross party aisles.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dmacgregor (October 27, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
         
      I fully believe that no Republican, including Olympia Snowe would have voted for the bill if Reid had included her trigger version of the option.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by National_Insecurity (October 27, 2009 6:07 pm ET)
           
        Look, the Republicans have to vote no, regardless of what's in the bill. Jim DeMint laid out the game - the Republicans can't envision any gain for them in an agreement, but they do see a gain for them if Obama fails - it's a zero sum binary equation in their eyes.

        One doesn't need an economics degree or mastery of game theory to comprehend that zero sum equation dooms Republicans to saying no to everything, even if it is to their benefit, or the benefit of their constituents.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by political_left-religious_right (October 27, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
      1  
      My wife was given the axe from her job a decade ago, and among the nonsensical charges from her morally deficient boss (who has since been dismissed, himself) was that she didn't provide "mutual collegiality."

      She promptly pointed out the impossibility of any one person providing "mutual" anything.

      The same is true in politics. Obama promised to do his part to achieve bipartisanship, and he has done so. If it hasn't been reached, it's not his fault or that of any other Democrat.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Aldo (October 27, 2009 10:31 pm ET)
      1  
      There's no point in even trying to achieve bipartisanship if the loyal opposition is not even loyal to their constituents over the party line. This is a wake up call to all progressives... the republicans are trying to thwart the will of the majority so as to bring down this administration even to the point of fomenting revolution. They are a tiny minority with big mouths threatening us with their big guns trying to intimidate the rest of us into voting against our best interests like their delusional base. I don't think we'll get what we want until after the 2010 elections when the party of no will be thrown to the side of the road and flushed down the sewers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by srichardson (October 28, 2009 11:29 am ET)
         
      I think it is funny that the Republicans had 8 years under Bush to reform healthcare. All of the sudden now, they have ideas. Talk radio hosts (Limbaugh, Boortz) keep talking about reforms such as buying across state lines, tax credits and etc. Then they ask why can't we try these things first. My question is, "Why didn't you already implement those changes?" The reason the WH and democrats don't want to "try" these things first is bc they know that true reform won't happen if they give in now. All the BS about Republican reform is just that, BS.
      Report Abuse