Byron York just doesn’t believe we’re going to get a health-care vote in the Senate, let alone a final bill, this year “for three reasons: the calendar, the Senate’s other business, and, most importantly, growing public opposition to the health bill itself.” There seem to be only a couple of work weeks left for the Senate, which will have to entertain a zillion amendments from both sides before a vote to cut off debate. He notes: “GOP lawmakers will introduce amendments to challenge some of the bill’s fundamentals: the giant cuts in Medicare spending, the array of new and higher taxes, the coerciveness of the bill’s mandates, and the intimidating new powers given to health care bureaucrats.”
Once again, one can only marvel at the Democratic leadership, which will be intent on finding 60 votes for “the giant cuts in Medicare spending, the array of new and higher taxes, the coerciveness of the bill’s mandates, and the intimidating new powers given to health care bureaucrats.” Really, an affirmative vote on any one of these toxic provisions will make for a killer campaign ad; certainly votes on all of them will be hard for Democrats to explain to incredulous voters in all but the safest seats. And time is not on the Democrats’ side. With each vote and each passing month, support for this monstrous bill and for the president (who’s going to have to come to the aid of politically at-risk Democrats) declines.
York is right that it may be near impossible to get health care done this year. The only thing tougher will be getting it done in an election year.
“The Democratic debate suggested a number of fruitful avenues for him to explore in the general election.”
I have just visited the Corner. Once again, I found someone who simply doesn’t get it:
“Stephen’s overwhelming takeaway from the debate last night is she-didn’t-even-try. Read his report from Austin here.
Ambinder agrees:
The puzzler of the night, to me, is why Clinton refused to answer a simple question that she clearly has an answer to: And that is: Is Barack Obama ready to be commander in chief? Clearly — the answer, for Clinton, is “yes.” It’s her best argument against him. But twice she avoided it and instead recapitulated her own resume.”
http://tinyurl.com/297wqr
Sigh, let’s try this one more time. There is no way, shape, or form—that a Democratic presidential candidate can win the election in 2008 if the role of the commander-in-chief dominates the minds of the voters! Hillary Clinton legitimately senses that traveling down this road will lead to disaster. She only hurts herself if she strongly puts this question to Obama. It would only open the proverbial can of worms. Soon thereafter, the same question will be asked of her.
Perhaps Senator McCain could answer well some of the questions asked his fellow senators, but he won’t be. I am certain he will be asked questions like “Have you stopped scr***ng lobbyists you favored?” and “Will your vile temper cause you to nuke any country that pi**es you off?” only.
Get set for a reprise of the “Little Girl with Daisies” commercial used against Senator Goldwater. That’ll be the cleanest part of this year’s general election.
Ted,
I think you’re right. Unfortunately, McCain will agree to enter debates moderated by Establishment Media shills for the Democrat party because he believes they tend to like him. They tend not to hate him, which is a completely different thing–not that anything will stop them from leveling all the calumny they can muster. Hopefully he’ll try to choose reliable venues for debate like Fox News after he gets burned a few times.