SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Centrists’ Take on the Speech: Pretty Darn Good

THE TREATMENT SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

The Centrists’ Take on the Speech: Pretty Darn Good

The moderates and centrists critical to ongoing health care negotiations seemed to have found a good deal to their liking in the president’s speech tonight. Senator Olympia Snowe—a central focal point for the TV cameras scanning the chamber—issued a statement tonight that praised the President’s stated desire to bend the cost curve and, just as significantly, to ensure that the bill does not add to the deficit. “I was particularly pleased to hear the President’s proposal will require additional spending cuts if projected savings aren’t realized—as it is vital we maintain budget neutrality as fundamental to any final package,” Snowe said in the statement. Ben Nelson issued a particularly positive statement—one that included no direct criticism of the speech. In it, the Nebraska senator insisted that he was “pleased” that Obama had released the specifics of his plan. “I remain committed to work with the President and my colleagues for a bipartisan bill,” Nelson said, emphasizing the importance of “not bust[ing] the bank” with the bill. Altogether, by prioritizing a budget-neutral plan, Obama provided significant political cover for moderates in the bill, one senior Congressional aide tells me. “He made a pretty powerful case that we’re not going to add to the deficit.”

Moreover, the section of the speech that seemed to draw the most enthusiasm from the Republicans—his discussion of medical tort reform—may have been more than just a throwaway GOP applause line. Congressman Bart Gordon, who had been one of the Blue Dog holdouts in the House, devoted his entire reaction statement to the subject, expressing his pleasure that Obama had “talked about the problem of defensive medicine.” To be sure, Gordon had personally authored a last-minute amendment to the House bill that provided incentive payments to states to “reduce frivolous lawsuits” without capping malpractice awards. But other Blue Dogs (like Mike Ross) and more moderate Republicans (like George Voinovich) share this concern, which had up until now played only a marginal role in the mainstream reform debate. Yes, some leading policy analysts have cast significant doubt on whether tort reform will actually rein in health care costs. But if its inclusion in the bill takes the limited form that Obama suggested, it could be the kind of concession that would help get Obama’s moderate Democratic allies fired up to support the bill.

Of course, even those centrists who went out of their way to praise Obama didn’t let him off scot-free. Snowe, for instance, opened her statement with strongly-worded criticisms of the public plan, indicating that she would have “preferred that the issue were taken off the table” as “any bill with a public option will not pass the Senate.” But she ultimately came around to saying that she feels encouraged that the president has recognized her trigger as a real alternative. So, if Obama’s goal was to ease the concerns of those between the left wing of the Democratic Party and the (nearly monolithic) obstructionist wing of the Republican Party, he succeeded. There was little that such moderates “would feel alienated from,” the Hill aide tells me. “I think [Obama] really cast himself as a centrist.”

 

Cross-posted on The Treatment and The Plank.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show 1 comment

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1 comments

But I repeat myself: It never fails to fascinate folks like me [those still capable of being fascinated by anything reactionaries in lockstep with one or another fully funded fuhrer have to say about the Evil in ObamaCare] how Republicans in Congress, as governmeet employees, slam the "public option" on healthcare while being covered by the public option themselves. Our tax dollars pay for their healthcare coverage and they fight tooth and nail to keep those tax dollars away from all the rest of us. In the context of all the terrible suffering born by the rest of us in the predatory healthcare jungle out there [a few examples of which Obama noted last night] people like this are really just one more species of scum. However civilized the veneer they coat it with, they are more or less indifferent to that suffering. Indeed, they do whatever they can to perpetuate it by hiding behind "principles". Olympia Snowe's fuhrer, one of the kinder, gentler sorts on Wall Street, is cleverer than most, of course. She doesn't snarl unless it is absolutely necessary. But one look at the top five industries that contribute to her campaigns reveals the bite behind whatever bark she manages: From OpenSecrets.org: Retired $427,835....INSURANCE $413,490....HEALTH PROFERSSIONALS $409,264...Lawyers/Law Firms $336,872....Finance/Credit Companies $332,700 Many progressives are preplexed. They don't understand why the Democrats in Congress don't take a page from Drew Weston and slam the Republicans for this...hard. Well, maybe in part because they tap into these fully funded fuhrers on K Street too. Consider the insurance industry in depth. Since 1990, these folks have contributed $320,802,051 to the election campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans. In the 1990, 1992 and 1994 election cycles, the millions were more or less evenly devided betweens the Dems and the Reps. But in 1996 the Delay/Gingrich agenda started to kick in: Dems: 11 million, Reps 23 million 1998: Dems 9 million, Reps 21 million 2000: Dems 14 million, Reps 27 million 2002: Dms 12 million, Rep 26 million 2004: Dems 12 million, Reps 25 million 2006: Dems 11 million, Reps 20 million But the Dems won that election, didn't they? So, in 2008: Dems 21 million, Reps 26 million The gap closes considerably. And in the 2010 election cycle OpenSecrets.org notes that so far the Dems have managed 4.5 million to the Reps 3.5 million. Yet I hear it all the time: George, how come you're still so cynical with the Democrats in power? Well, near as I can figure, I guess I just never learned how handle good news like this like the rest of you. george walton d/a

- iambiguous

September 10, 2009 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close