America’s Grassley Problem

by

by publius

Chuck Grassley — the Democrats' point man on health care — was on Newshour yesterday.  (Best show EV-AH). 

To put it mildly, I didn't get the sense that I was watching a man determined to make reform happened.  I think it was his repeated opposition to "government taking over health care" that made me skeptical.

Anyway, the problem with Grassley is that there's really no reason for him to compromise at all.  He's happy to be the kingmaker, so long as it's a bill that most Democrats hate, and that doesn't do much of anything. 

But if the Dems don't agree with his positions 100%, who cares.  He'll take his ball and go home because he doesn't care if reform collapses.  It's not like he's feeling any heat at home. 

It's not a bad spot to be in — heck, it's probably even fun to pretend to negotiate when you honestly don't care what the outcome is. 

It might be nice, though, if a credible Iowa Democrat at least started to make some noise about running.  Given Obama's Iowa numbers, Grassley shouldn't be allowed to feel this safe.

13 thoughts on “America’s Grassley Problem”

  1. So Bob Krause hasn’t been talking health care, huh? And no other contenders (Culver? Murphy?) have been making noise, jumping along the campaign precipice, and talking the issue?
    As a non-Iowan, I’m seriously asking.

  2. Chuck Grassley — the Democrats’ point man on health care

    You obviously know, and most readers of this blog similarly know, that Grassley is a Republican senator who has been granted a lot of power over the process by the Democrats – but it still might be helpful if you were to label him as “Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)” in case someone less knowledgeable gets the joke.

  4. Jon Stewart’s segment on Grassley the other night, with the good Senator bloviating away about Sir Lancelot doing battle with the Deficit Dragon, was priceless.
    I distinctly remember a Spy magazine piece in the late ’80s listing the dumbest members of Congress, with Grassley way up near the top. He might even have been #1.

  6. You obviously know, and most readers of this blog similarly know, that Grassley is a Republican senator who has been granted a lot of power over the process by the Democrats – but it still might be helpful if you were to label him as “Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)” in case someone less knowledgeable gets the joke.
    Except it’s not a joke.
    With sixty Senate seats on their side, any power that Grassley has is a gift from the Democrats.
    Neither major party wants a real public option. But the Democrats’ base does. So it’s very convenient that they can appoint a Republican to kill it off. It’s a win-win. The Republicans give their base what they want–no reform. The Democrats can blame it on the Republicans and if that doesn’t work they can always use their ultimate argument: “Who ya gonna vote for? The Republicans?”

  7. What made me want to throw a brick at my television was the fact that he was allowed to repeat — unchallenged, yet again — the Republican talking point that a study showed that 120 million Americans would “lose their current coverage” if a public option passed, and that thus a public optioned threatened the ability of Americans to keep what they have if they like it. That study actually said that 120 million Americans would voluntarily opt for the public option if it existed. And in most incarnations currently under discussion, people who currently have employer-sponsored coverage would be prohibited from choosing the public option.
    The only way I could support a health care reform package that lacks a public option is if it has the oft-discussed “trigger option” — i.e., if the private sector fails to bring costs down by X% within Y years, then a public option is created. But even that makes me uncomfortable.

  8. “With sixty Senate seats on their side”
    59 or 58.
    Notice that Ted Kennedy couldn’t make it to the floor to vote for Sotomayor. He simply can’t be counted on to be able to show up for a vote, and that’s just the way it is, and it’s obviously no reflection on his intentions. But it’s a fact.
    To be blunt, if Ted Kennedy dies in office, my understanding of the current law of Massachusetts is that: “[…] the post would remain vacant until a special election is held between 145 and 160 days after […]” the current Senator leaves office. The governor no longer makes an appointment, having been stripped of that power in 2004, due to the possibility of Kerry leaving office before his term was up.
    So unless Ted Kennedy makes a wonderful recovery — and that’s certainly what I’d enthusiastically desire — we’re apt to have, depending upon Robert Byrd’s health, at best only 59 votes for, well, the indefinite future.
    I’m assuming, of course, that no other Democrats get hit by cars, or have heart attacks, or anything.

  10. Gary: Sotomayor had a pretty comfy margin for her confirmation, with the Democrats voting unanimously and a few Republicans stating their approval in advance. Health care probably won’t have it so easy. As long as Kennedy is alive enough to push the Yea button on his desk, they will not allow it fail because of him.

  11. Me bad, me very bad. UserGoogol’s comment conjured up the image of Kennedy dying while pressing the yeah button*. Btw, do they vote that way or by raising hands?
    Procedural question: would the vote count, if the senator dies between the moment of vote and the announcemnet of the result?
    *wouldn’t that be a politician’s dream, a triumphal exit?

Comments are closed.