On wimping out: Toward a more holistic view

A CityLife column I did in June on Harry Reid's health care fecklessness was quoted in the Sun the other day, which is nice but would be nicer still if resorting to quoting me wasn't an obvious reflection on the availability, or lack thereof, of leftists and/or Democrats in Nevada who are willing to criticize Reid publicly and on the record.

Anyway, my new CityLife column includes the requisite observation that "Harry Reid is supposed to be the majority leader, not an innocent bystander." But it also considers whether Dina Titus's "flirtation with her party's Limbaugh-friendly Blue Dog wing" is truly "driven by concern about the impact of a negligent tax increase on the poor rich people in Nevada's 3rd Congressional District." And for that matter...

Complaints from any member of Nevada's congressional delegation about the devastating impact of taxes on the rich would ring less hollow if Nevada wasn't among the seven states that fail to tax personal income at all and one of only three that levies no sort of broad-based tax on businesses, small or large.

See? It's all related.

Comments

[Goldy]

Anyone who criticizes Harry will be ostracized, punished, put down, otherwise sidelined by his posse here in NV. It sucks. Progress Now (who is funded by HR) is mum. PLAN, SEIU, etc, have also been eerily quiet.

[Goldy]

Why has this Goldy stole my name, Goldy? That's not fair. Honestly, is there no justice? P.S. I go by John Holmes on Match...

[atdleft]

Uh oh, the two Goldys aren't getting along with each other. What shall we do? Does Mr. Gleaner need to do his own "beer summit" and get them to sit down, drink some good ale, and resolve their differences?

I mean, they have the same pseudonym for goodness sake! Can't all Goldys get along? ;-)

[atdleft]

And btw, Mr. Gleaner is right on the money when he says:

"Reform would not only be fortunate for the nation but -- albeit a much, much smaller concern -- the political careers of Reid and Titus. Because one way to assure those new voters from 2008 don't show up at the polls in 2010 is if Democrats revert to form, put their tails between their legs, fail to deliver real change and run campaigns based not on swaying voters but merely trying not to offend any of them. Playing it safe has its own political risk."

If health care reform is either killed to neutered to the point of irrelevancy, then not only is Obama at risk of losing it all. Reid and Titus may not fare well, either. That's why it's critical for Democrats to get their act together and pass a strong HR 3200 ASAP! I'm quite sure 2010 will be another great year for us if Dems do the right thing.

[Gus]

Remember back that one time when there was a primary campaign, and everybody made fun of John Edwards for saying that if Congress didn't pass health care he'd introduce legislation to remove their coverage. And everyone laughed and said, why doesn't he just negotiate with Congress like Clinton and Obama would?

Sure he's a cad but he was right.

[mike sloan]

has anyone been reading the polls about the public's view of "health care reform" -- it hasn't really changed much since Clinton tried. Those with insurance fear a change that may adversely impact them while trying to help the uninsured.. The Administration, liberal Democrats and all of those who read and write here and on Kos have done a damn poor job of demonstrating why the average person who has insurance will be better off if this passes. Those folks by and large are the contributors and voters. Until that happens, and the public believes it, elected officals will probably do what they think their constituients want them to do --"like in a representative democracy." And goldy number 1, you are right and we know where you live.

[KidFromVegas]

So Titus gets a positive RJ headline for future use... brilliant (I spit out my coffee when I read it)... she will vote for the final bill, she knows her district, I think the center and required political posturing scares you Mr. Gleaner, still without insurance? Me too.

Very nice column, a must read!

[atdleft]

mike-

Then try to explain the 76% that want the public option, the 56% that favor Obama's plan (over 38% for the Republican no-plan), and the continuing large supermajorities that want health care reform ASAP.

True, I'll agree with you that the Administration has nearly blown it at times. However, you can't blame that on "liberal Democrats". We've been the ones consistently explaining why we need change! No, ask your Blue Dog Buddies why they muddy our message with their parroting of right-wing talking points and attempts to water down the legislation to the point of irrelevancy.

If this were "like a representative democracy", Washington would do what we want, not what the sick care industry tells them to do.

[mike sloan]

I don't know what polls folks are reading, but a quick check today of pollster.com; polling report.com and the always informative Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com will show that the public is almost equally divided on the health care issue, and that the independents are breaking against. Silver scores the effort to examine the need for reform by those of us supporting and gives very poor grades. So don't just "poll your friends" or think your views are shared by others. The President and his supporters have their work cut out for them.

[atdleft]

mike-

Obviously, you're not reading beyond the headlines. Support for the public option has ranged from 72-76%. Democrats always score well above Republicans on who's more trusted on health care. In the WSJ poll, Obama had a 56-38 advantage on which side's health care plan is considered better.

While I don't always agree with him , I do think David Sirota is right on the money today when he points out the Democrats causing this problem. Hint: It isn't the progressives causing confusion.

[Beverlee A. Couillard]

Right! It is the Blue Dogs that are causing the problems. Titus better watch out, my vote for her re-election hangs on whether or not she joins the BDs. Harry has already lost my vote. It amazes me that we vote in Democrats that act like Republicans. Where is the movement for a strong 3rd party, cause this bunch in D.C. need to be tossed on the garbage heap.

[atdleft]

Beverlee-

She hasn't joined the Blue Dogs (at least, not yet), but Dina still isn't quite giving us the answers we need (at least, not yet). Hopefully, she's just holding her cards really close to her and will fall in line behind a good HR 3200. Still, it doesn't hurt for us to keep asking her to do the right thing. :-)

[Rich]

With all the rhetoric on health care, may I remind you all that GLBT issues seemed to have disappeared and are not on anyone's plate that I know of. The bullshit of deserting elected officials may have caused some temporary amnesia; however, I believe now, and in 2010, is the time to hold their feet to the fire. Geez, 2010 and still no equal civil rights...donate to campaigns? I don't think so.

[atdleft]

Rich-

No, they won't... Not if we hold their feet to the fire! Actually, Reid and Titus have been doing good things lately on the civil rights front. Oh yes, and Shelly Berkley's now a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus.

Now dpn't get me wrong, I want for them and Obama to step up and be more active more often on issues like DOMA repeal, DADT repeal, ENDA, and UAFA. It just looks like we are finally starting to see progress thanks to our pressure on Democrats to stand and deliver on their promises.

[Rich]

Atdleft

I've been waiting over fifty years and that's long enough! Actions speak louder than words and I've seen too few actions with an over abundance of words. Hold their feet to the fire till they say uncle and shit or get off the pot. I think one of the problems the GLBT communityu has is losing their focus on the civil right issue while trying to fix all the other problems.

[Nevada_Ned]

The story according to many Democrats and all Republicans is: health care reform is a good idea, but costs additional money. Is it worth it? Democrats say yes, Republicans say no. Then the discussion is: how much will it cost, beyond what we're paying now.

The whole premise is mistaken: If we adopt a single-payer (Canadian) plan, it will cost less money than we're paying now. The US system costs nearly twice what the Canadian system costs, per capita.

So what is the system that's so expensive that we can't afford it? The private system that we have now!!

If Harry Reid and Dina Titus campaigned on THAT platform, it would be very popular, among conservatives and liberals. The public already supports single-payer, despite the media blackout of public discussion of it. The only "slight" problem is that the insurance companies have a lot of clout. And single-payer would eliminate them from the healthcare system.

[A dose of reality]

Good news on the Titus front. She will be giving "Team Titus" talking points this evening on how to explain why she was right to side with the GOP and the Blue Dogs against everyone else on health care.