December 18, 2009

Why "Jump?"

Kim Strassel notes that "Barack Obama emerged from his meeting with Senate Democrats this week to claim Congress was on the 'precipice' of something historic." (Roger Kimball suggests "precipice" instead of "threshold" as a Freudian slip.)

The polls are bad and getting worse, but Strassel offers what I fear to be the real reason so many will jump:

So why the stubborn insistence on passing health reform? Think big. The liberal wing of the party -- the Barney Franks, the David Obeys -- are focused beyond November 2010, to the long-term political prize. They want a health-care program that inevitably leads to a value-added tax and a permanent welfare state. Big government then becomes fact, and another Ronald Reagan becomes impossible. See Continental Europe.

The entitlement crazes of the 1930s and 1960s also caused a backlash, but liberal Democrats know the programs of those periods survived. They are more than happy to sacrifice a few Blue Dogs, a Blanche Lincoln, a Michael Bennet, if they can expand government so that in the long run it benefits the party of government.


Should I congratulate them for principle? Strassel compliments my backbencher freshman Senator: "In Colorado, where 55% of voters oppose a health bill, appointed Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet told CNN he'd vote for a bill even if it "cost him his job." Give the freshman credit for honesty."

Yes, Senator, you've got to break some eggs to make an omelet, don't you?

Health Care Posted by John Kranz at December 18, 2009 11:25 AM

Here's hoping the good citizens of Colorado break his eggs next November.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 18, 2009 12:10 PM

Good lord, I hate this ridiculous use of "historic." Every time some politician or spinmeister uses it, it's merely empty rhetoric to imply something is good.

Hitler invading various European countries was "historic." Russia and China starving millions of their people was "historic." Fourteen thousand French dying in a heat wave was "historic." Now hundreds of millions of Americans subjected to rationed socialized medicine will be "historic."

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 18, 2009 12:15 PM

I like to make omelets with the "magic bullet," a small infomercial high speed blender that subjects eggs to 600,000,000 RPM rotating knives until fluffy.

Metaphorical image implanted? Good: Jane Norton 2010!

Posted by: jk at December 18, 2009 12:39 PM

Commenters appear to be missing the point of the article. Sure Bennet will lose his job. Dems expect him to be defeated in 2010. But once the insidious health care entitlement has worked its rotten magic on the will of the electorate the Democrat "party of government" can celebrate an even stronger urge to "vote for thems what took kare of usn's."

This is the looming gambit for 21st century America, and therefore the world: Do a plurality of Americans want to be sheeple, or the last best hope for man on Earth? It's clear what the Democrats think the answer is.

P.S. Here's the Kim Strassel missing link - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574602232786471914.html

Posted by: johngalt at December 19, 2009 5:48 PM


Y'all are missing the point: the Dems are busy making themselves parachutes with D-A-S-C-H-L-E spelled across the tops! Who needs a job in the Senate when you can become a healthcare-civil-servant for life (or better: a lobbyist for same!). I feel verrrry badly for this....

It will take a true conservative landslide and some powerful leadership like we've not seen in a decade, to tear down what's being built into this bill.

Posted by: nanobrewer at December 20, 2009 12:18 AM

No, not missing the point (though I did have the link wrong - thanks, jg (since corrected).

I would prefer a "No" vote to an electoral landslide any day of the week, but a consolation prize is a consolation prize.

Dark. Damn. Days. And I don't mean the Solstice.

Posted by: jk at December 20, 2009 12:02 PM | What do you think? [6]