We grasp that he wanted to score some easy points by attacking a body that shares his low poll numbers (the Congress), we grasp that. We also grasp that after Scott Brown's Senate election, he publicly claimed he would be focusing on the economy and, if that means the economics of Claire McCaskill's 2012 re-election campaign, he has. But if that meant the US economy, he hasn't.
ObamaCare is deeply unpopular. Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen wrote a column last Friday for The Washington Post explaining the potential pitfalls as indicated by the polling. [Disclosure, C.I. has known Caddell for years.] Are they right? Are they wrong? Steve Kornacki (Salon) says they're wrong and backs up his belief . . . via character assassination of Pat Caddell. But what about the arguments Caddell and Schoen are making? Refuting them appears to be beyond Kornacki's abilities. Attacks also come from The Huffington Post repeatedly such as this one passed off as analysis.
"It's really cute the way Arianna's site features these attacks," says C.I., "while forgetting to inform readers that Arianna is not only a friend of Pat's, she's also a subscriber of his political beliefs. It was all part of her makeover into a 'left voice.' They've worked on many projects together."
The faux analysis at The Huffington Post is best demonstrated in this passage:
"The battle for public opinion has been lost," they write. Nothing could be further from the truth. When asked how much they know about the health reform proposal, 40% of respondents in a recent Ipsos/McClatchy poll said "not very much" and 17% said "nothing at all." 32% said they knew "a fair amount," which isn't a lot. When 57% of the public indicates little or no understanding of the bill and another 32% knows they don't fully grasp it, the battle isn't "lost." On the contrary - these numbers show that the battle has barely been fought.
What?
That's a misreading -- a deliberate one -- of what was written. Caddell and Schoen were not stating that the public option was or was not popular with the people. You have to lie or be very stupid to read the following passage and come to that conclusion:
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.
Americans don't want comprehensive health care! No, that's not what Caddell and Schoen are saying. They're dealing in the political landscape of Congress. In Congress, the public option is dead. In Congress, comprehensive health care is dead. The writer then wants to accuse Caddell and Schoen of "some extreme cherry-picking of the data." That's laughable coming from you, RJ Eskow. If Eskow and Kornacki are offering counter-'analysis' to Caddell and Schoen, we'd offer Caddell and Schoen's argument stands.
Joe Frolik (Cleveland Plain Dealer) offers a look at obstacles outside of Congress, should the bills become legislation:
As Obama struggles to pass a health bill, opponents prepare their next line of attack. The Virginia legislature has passed a law that says citizens of the Commonwealth cannot be required to buy medical insurance, and new Gov. Bob McDonnell says he'll sign. Similar laws have been proposed in 32 states; Arizona votes on a constitutional ban this November. Virginia alone assures that any law with an individual mandate will end up in court, where anything can happen.
Will it get that far? We'll soon find out whether the bills can be passed or not. If it were up to citizens, they majority wouldn't vote for ObamaCare.
And that's due to the fact that what you have now as an option to purchase or not, ObamaCare forces you to purchase. Listen closely, that's Big Insurance singing, "Wait 'till we get our Haynes on you!"
----------------
Illustration is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack, Corporate, Tauzin and Baucus"