Hillary for VP, redux

I found Grayson's Medicare jump shot interesting in light of your recent post. You know, all this might be fun if it didn't cut so damn close to the bone.

You're right on the merits, and I think correct on the outcome. What irritates me is why this is so damn hard. The GOP is clearly running scared; passage of any reform turns this issue from a positive to a big fat festering negative in the midterms. But for Stupak and Kucinich, this isn't about votes. It's showboating. C'mon fellas. Pack up your pet peeves and pass the damn bill. You'll live to fight another day.

This debate is exposing the wide-range of values and opinions within this party. It's also exposing those who sign onto a platform only to turn around and serve their own (not even their constituents'!) interests.

Kucinich is in this for what he honestly believes to be the best thing for the american people. He's not after a sweetheart deal for his state. If he is grandstanding (and I don't believe he is), it's only to make certain single-payer gets a voice after close to a year of so many saying, "that's the better solution, but it's impossible." [thank god that sentiment wasn't prevalent when JFK said we needed to put a man on the moon]. Everyone knows what Obama said during the state of the union address about listening to all proposals. It's also clear that that hasn't been the case.

the senate bill was watered down and watered down to serve the narrow interests of all manner of conservatives who will not vote for it anyway. Here's a congressman whose position on healthcare has remained consistent. Here's a congressman who has authored alternatives and amendments instead of just saying no to gain political points or a sweetheart deal for his state. Here's a congressman whose spine could achieve a better bill. We need more like him, not attacks on him.

Consider if the solution being proposed for our environmental, oil dependency, and energy problems were to require everyone to buy a hybrid, and all hybrid car manufacturers were already making obscene profits and all their offerings in the marketplace had the same issues Toyota has. This is, in a nutshell, what the Senate is suggesting for healthcare. Opposing such a solution is not the evil it's made out to be.

Kucinich's principles come with a price: Women's reproductive health and control. Doesn't strike me as particularly progressive, but there it is. Stupak will prevail, abortions will not be paid for, and Kucinich will not succeed in his next presidential bid because he is, without a doubt, the most politically tone-deaf politician I've ever seen.

I assume you're making the connection that because stupak is an ass, if kucinich remains true to his stance, congress will bend to the will of the anti-abortionists rather than giving serious consideration to his position. and that's his fault, how?

Look. There are many paths to an end. Some win. Others don't. Grayson, for example, has chosen a path that actually has a more than even chance of winning. It *depends* on passing the Senate bill, by the way. Instead of being lofty, he's figuring out how to get stuff done. Stupak has too. Kucinich just waves around the principle with no strategic clue for how to accomplish his goal. It's no more or less noble than STupak and the bishops sending a big middle finger our way.

Good grief.

A few points: first, your personal assessment of what may work procedurally and what will not is just that: your opinion. It might be accurate, it might not. But it is not settled law of the universe.

Second, the notion that Kucinich's position is "no more or less noble than Stupak's" is complete nonsense. The "nobility," to use your words, of a particular position is based upon the morality of the position itself...not the likelihood of its success. Even if you're 100% correct about the futility of Kucinich's refusal to vote for this bill on principle in terms of it being able to accomplish what he seeks, that wouldn't say anything about the "nobility" of the position itself. It might just mean that he wasn't able to come up with a more effective strategy.

The morality (or "nobility") of a position and the effectiveness of that position have always been - and remain, despite your attempt to conflate them - entirely separate things. I prefer trying to find ways to get both at the same time: a morally sound (or "noble") act combined with a smart strategy for getting it adopted...but I recognize that it's quite possible to have a very effective strategy for a very un-noble position, just as sometimes, the cards are so stacked that doing the "noble" or morally upright thing is not likely to be effective.

In fact, that's the very definition of "lost cause." Doesn't make it any less noble just because there's no way to (or one can't find a way to) get it to work. And it is an idea which verges on monstrous to suggest that a position's or an act's nobility can be defined by how likely it is to be adopted. That's not even saying that the ends justify the means; it's saying that the means ARE the ends, an idea I reject completely.

I don't know the minds of either Dennis Kucinich or Bart Stupak, so I will stipulate that either or both of them could be doing what they are doing simply to further some ulterior motive. Perhaps Stupak thinks that by exercising his power in this way - to kill a signature piece of legislation - he will become more powerful; I just don't know. Perhaps Kucinich thinks something similar, though I highly doubt it. But, assuming that both of these men are doing what they are doing for the reasons they've consistently stated, then both are acting from what they believe to be principle. But that doesn't make them equivalent acts or positions. Why not? Because you have to - just as I have to, and each of us has to - weigh in ourselves on whether we agree with the stated morality or "nobility" of each of their acts. In my case, it's easy: I agree with Kucinich's commitment to genuine reform of the healthcare system, including a commitment to single-payer, eventually, while I have always disagreed with the draconian and intrusive propositions of the Stupak crowd, going back to the Hyde amendment, etc. I feel that at best Stupak and his crowd (however large it is) are severely misguided, and quite possibly are genuinely anti-woman, which is a position I'd call nothing short of despicable. So I place the "nobility" of Kucinich's position and his actions (quite separate from my views on how smart he's being in going about trying to see them enacted), through my own personal moral lens, as quite "noble" indeed, while I view Stupak's as somewhere between badly misguided and functionally IMmoral; not "noble" at all - again, despite how effectively (or not) he's going about pursuing them.

Lars and Exador23: Thanks for taking the time to comment. I truly do appreciate it. I'm more or less done with this topic altogether. Just left a post up explaining why. Moving on to something else that's been less beaten to death. What will be, will be.

as it stands, provisions for allowing states to implement single payer, if they desire, don't take effect until 2017, and the law would allow insurance companies to sue any state that tried. fix that and you might be able to woo his vote.

Kucinich didn't hide his position when he ran for his seat (or the presidency). His constituents voted for his position on the issues. If President Obama had the same moral fortitude and follow-thru in what he told us when he was a candidate, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. to suggest that kucinich, by holding to ~his~ campaign promises, is ignoring his constituents or giving america the middle finger is not only wrong, but counterproductive to the goal of having a functional government that we can trust, rather than a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate interests.

I don't believe for even a second that it's about single payer. Kucinich has one of the most anti-choice voting records of any Representative, and until he ran for President, was vocally and ardently anti-choice. No, what he is doing is standing on a "principle" while letting Stupak do the dirty work, so he can preserve his "principled politician" facade for the next go-round at the Presidency. Good luck with that.

wow. you're actually suggesting that Dennis Kucinich is more interested in stopping a woman's choice than furthering the cause of a health care proposal he's fought for for years?

meanwhile if someone were to suggest that Obama was more interested in making sure the insurance or pharmaceutical companies don't get in the way of his re-election than in negotiating drug prices as promised, or having all negotiations be in the open as promised, or be open to proposals from all sides as recently promised, you brush them off as counterproductive, idealistic, etc. etc. etc. ugh.

By the way, just got a wierd fundraising e-mail from Dean/DFA about the public option. Aside from its oddly mangled baseball theme, I can't figure out exactly what they're trying to do. It says something about fighting to the death for the p.o., then says he won't rest until everyone has access to Medicare. Looks like the two are getting mashed up in the talking points.

Dems were pissed because the president wasn't leading on healthcare. Now they're smoked that he's pushing too hard. If I can make another prediction, it's that folks will eventually learn not to underestimate him.