Friday, March 12, 2010

Advice From Reality-Based Democrats

Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen -- pollsters for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively -- combine on a refreshing op-ed in today's Washington Post:
Bluntly put, this is the political reality:

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.

However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week, while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.

The White House document released Thursday arguing that reform is becoming more popular is in large part fighting the last war. This isn't 1994; it's 2010. And the bottom line is that the American public is overwhelmingly against this bill in its totality even if they like some of its parts.

The notion that once enactment is forced, the public will suddenly embrace health-care reform could not be further from the truth -- and is likely to become a rallying cry for disaffected Republicans, independents and, yes, Democrats.

Second, the country is moving away from big government, with distrust growing more generally toward the role of government in our lives. Scott Rasmussen asked last month whose decisions people feared more in health care: that of the federal government or of insurance companies. By 51 percent to 39 percent, respondents feared the decisions of federal government more. This is astounding given the generally negative perception of insurance companies.

CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, as was also reported last month, we face an alarming crisis.

Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters' minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.

Voters are hardly enthralled with the GOP, but the Democrats are pursuing policies that are out of step with the way ordinary Americans think and feel about politics and government. Barring some change of approach, they will be punished severely at the polls.
Agreed--and I still think the current House and Senate bills are dead.

(via reader Doug J.)


OBloodyHell said...

> I still think the current House and Senate bills are dead.

I certainly hope so, but don't believe we dare assume that until the @#%#$^#$^#^ bastards concede it themselves. This thing is some kind of invulnerable zombie, and it's clearly been thoroughly fed by unused Democrat brains.

Geoffrey Britain said...

It is my understanding that a Senate parliamentary ruling is not binding. If true, they can just ignore it.

Then, there's the 'Slaughter Option';

"The Slaughter Option is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill.

... Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House – without an actual vote by members of the House."

The House would send it on to the President and he'd sign it and they'd just insist it was all legal.

Carl said...

GB: Yes, parliamentary rulings are not binding. But the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 2) is:

"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it. . . But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively."

See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 958 (1983) ("the express procedures of the Constitution's prescription for legislative action [require] passage by a majority of both Houses and presentment to the President.").

Anonymous said...

Let the unhealthy people die. Medical care should be for those who can afford it. There are probably too many poor people on earth anyway. Lack of health insurance is a good way to rid the earth of so many poor people. Life should just be for rich people. They have nicer clothes and nicer cars. So what if they are insensitive, self-centered, selfish people.