News Focus
News Focus
icon url

teapeebubbles

09/01/09 1:32 PM

#67565 RE: teapeebubbles #67564

Invariably, when there's talk of Senate Democrats trying to find some Republican support for health care reform, the only two names that come up are the moderates from Maine. Surely there are a couple of others worth reaching out to, right?

Wrong. Grassley and Enzi are obviously out. McCain and Graham aren't interested. Voinovich, Lugar, and Gregg won't engage. Burr seemed mildly interested, before reversing course. Specter was a real possibility, but he gave up on the GOP altogether.

But what about Sen. Bob Bennett (R) of Utah? He's worked with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) on health care policy in the past, suggesting he has a genuine interest in reform. Maybe he's willing to consider honest, constructive, good-faith talks?

Apparently not. At an event last week in Utah alongside Karl Rove, Bennett said, "The No. 1 assignment in 2009 is to kill Obamacare."

It's worth noting why Bennett has moved from being open to bipartisan reform efforts to reflexive, partisan hack. There's no real mystery here -- Bennett is up for re-election next year; he has no credible Democratic opponent; and he's likely to face a primary challenge from the even-further-right wing of his party.

Suzy Khimm explained yesterday:

t looks like the right-wing attack on Bob Bennett is working. [...]

Bennett had been ramping up on his criticism of Obama over the summer, but his recent comments have made it clear that he's shifted into all-out attack mode. While no one expected him to vote in favor of Obama's bill, Bennett had been one of the more sensible and sane critics of reform. He's now made it clear that his prerogative is simply to kill the bill, officially abandoning any vestiges of his moderate Republicanism for the hyperpartisan ranks of his party.... Bennett has apparently decided that he's no longer willing to engage.



It's a very similar dynamic to what we've seen from Iowa's Chuck Grassley -- up for re-election in 2010, no top-tier Democratic opponent, fear of a right-wing primary challenge. And like Grassley, Bennett has decided his smartest move would be to become less reasonable, less sensible, and less open to compromise.

It's one of the reasons Senate Republicans have given up on moderation in general. GOP centrists end up a) leaving the party; b) losing in a "blue" state that tires of Republican antics; or c) shifting to the far-right to stave off intra-party challenges.

Bennett, like Grassley, wants to keep his job. The surest way to make that happen is to satisfy the demands of confused right-wing activists. Helping pass health care reform would help Bennett's country. Helping kill health care reform would help Bennett's career. He's made his choice, making it that much more impossible for Democrats to find someone to talk to on the other side of the aisle.
icon url

teapeebubbles

09/01/09 1:32 PM

#67566 RE: teapeebubbles #67564

The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has a piece this week that's almost hard to believe.

We'd venture that for most people the Obama administration's see-no-evil approach is comforting. After years of fear and vigilance, it's nice to be able to relax and not worry so much about terrorism.

It's nice -- but potentially dangerous. If the Bush administration's policies really did keep us safe for 7 1/2 years, then it stands to reason that the Obama administrations' policies may be endangering us now. Certainly that is how the public would see it in the event of another terrorist attack.

If that happens, heaven forbid, Obama will be seen to have failed in the most basic presidential duty, and the Bush administration will be vindicated. As inconceivable as it may seem today, the 2012 election may end up turning on national security. Republicans would be wise to nominate someone with both toughness and experience. Under such circumstances, it's hard to think of a better candidate -- assuming, of course, that he could be persuaded to run -- than Richard B. Cheney.



It's like reading a dispatch from an alternate reality. Taranto believes the White House isn't taking national security threats seriously. That's crazy. Taranto believes the Bush/Cheney team was effective in combating terrorism. That's wrong. Taranto believes Dick Cheney should be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012. I don't even have a good adjective for that one.

But it's Taranto's point about how he wants the public to react "in the event of another terrorist attack" that's especially odious here. It falls into a tired and offensive pattern among far-right voices -- laying down markers now so they can blame Obama if/when there's another terrorist attack on American soil. This has been happening pretty consistently for months, and it continues to be ridiculous.

As Jason Zengerle noted when this rhetoric started, "You almost get the sense [these conservatives] are hoping for an attack so that they can blame Obama when it happens."

"Almost."

Should tragedy strike, a few too many conservative voices will want to tear this country apart. They're intent on laying the groundwork now.