WaPo's Capehart calls "death panels question" "non-existent"
August 14, 2009 3:41 pm ET
From the August 14 edition of MSNBC Live:
Previously:
Shuster debunks "death panels"
Scarborough on Grassley's fearmongering on euthanasia: "[T]hat's just clearly not true"
Cillizza on "death panels": A "little misinformation ... goes a long way"
Maddow debunks McCaughey on end-of-life care falsehood: "That is not true at all. Not a word of it"
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Is there anything more frustrating that trying to support progressive Democrats? You KNOW it's only a matter of time before they pull the rug out from under you in the name of "bipartisanship."
Charles Grassley condemns nonexistant death panels. Said death panels, which NEVER existed, are "removed," so now Grassley can go on to vote AGAINST the final bill and condemn Obama and the Democrats for even proposing it. Bipartisanship at it's best.
I agree with the most honest members of Congress who say that any "reform" bill which passes with more than a tiny handful of Republican votes is almost certainly not worth the paper it's written on.
In lessons about effective negotiating, I was taught about ZOPA and BATNA. ZOPA is the zone of possible agreement. BATNA is the best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
An easy example is if you're trying to buy a car -- say the most you're willing to pay for a particular make, model and color is $17,000. The least the dealer is willing to accept is $15,000. But of course, neither side knows the other's final position. The ZOPA is the area between $15,000 and $17,000. Maybe the buyer starts at $14,000 and expects to come up, and the dealer starts at $18,000 and expects to come down.
The BATNA is what you're willing to do if you can't get what you want in the negotiation. In the car example, what will you, the buyer, do if you can't get the car for less than $17,000? Go to another dealer, accept a less expensive model, continue driving the same old car, take the car you want from the dealer by force? Whatever it is, you identify that final position in advance, so that you know when it's time to stop negotiating.
The problem with Democrats is that in any negotiation, they have no BATNA -- they're NEVER willing to walk away from the table. In addition, they pretty much announce their final position as their starting point. Republicans never have to search for the ZOPA, because Democrats are always willing to continue bargaining, even though the deal making for them is all give, while for Republicans it's all take.
In short, Democrats need to become better at negotiating -- able to identify in advance the point where they'll walk away without a deal, and able to START by asking for more than they want and slowly giving concessions, rather than giving away everything at the beginning of the process.
"I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee's decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200)," she wrote on her Facebook page. "It's gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress."
Do you see why Democrats were wrong to agree to remove end of life counseling from the bill? By accepting the Republicans' framing and then giving in on the question, they give the Republican argument credibility.
Republicans know how this works, which is why you NEVER see them apologizing or surrendering, or giving in, or accepting the Democrats' framing of an issue. They can even like Grassley, vote FOR a thing one time, and AGAINST it another, because ideological inconsistency and hypocrisy don't look as bad as giving in to the other side.
They should have announced at the very beginning that they wanted single payer, and only single payer, and that they were willing to pass it with all Democratic votes, then they could have made a few concessions in exchange for some Republican concessions, and both sides could have claimed victory.
The Democrats give and give and give on every GOP point in an effort to get their votes. Then the GOP votes no anyway, so why give Republicans what they want in exchange for NOTHING? The obvious presumption is that if I give you what, you'll vote yes. Instead, Obama will end up signing a bill that is perfectly acceptable to the Republicans, which angers the Democratic base, and which still gets NO REPUBLICAN SUPPORT.
I dont know why we need Republican votes anyway. Put the bill Obama wants forward. See if it fails because Blue Dog Dems refuse to support it. Then we know who they are. And they get no visits from the President and no funds from the DNC, ever again. But of course, the Blue Dogs are safe to keep screwing Democrats because at election time, Obama and the DNC will come to their aid, just like always, on the grounds that any Democrat is better than any Republican. That's why needed changes never happen -- the real partisan divide isn't Democrats and Republicans. It's insiders and outsiders, and the insiders want to maintain the status quo.
;)