Max Baucus really needs to be removed from leading the health care reform negotiations

[ProSense]

in the Finance Committee (on edit).

<...>

Enzi, the ranking member on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, isn't without health care knowledge--but he's also not the sort of Republican who comes to mind when Democrats need a few Republicans to pass a major piece of legislation. He probably less in common with Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) than do most Democrats. In fact, he vociferously opposed the HELP Committee's reform bill, and is basically insisting that that bill, and House legislation, be completely scrapped before he and other conservatives hop on board. But despite that distinctly GOP-first outlook, Baucus gave him a seat at the table.

Joining them are Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). (Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)--whose ties to industry are famous--also participated for a while, but ultimately left the negotations on his own.) Left out were public option point man Chuck Schumer (D-NY) health care expert Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), whose commitment to reform rivals that of ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and the liberals leading the effort in the House. All are members of the Finance Committee.

You probably wouldn't expect such a right-tilted group to arrive at a progressive solution to the country's health care crisis--and you'd be correct. But in the end, this all comes down to Baucus. As chairman of the committee, he committed to passing a bipartisan bill. Some viewed that move alone as a concession, but on a committee packed with moderate Democrats, it was arguably necessary. But as vague of a concept as bipartisanship is, it can mean almost anything when it comes time to vote. As with the stimulus, it can mean Democratic unity combined with the support of three moderate Republicans. And it can mean consensus, where members of both parties--in similar numbers, and of roughly balanced ideology--pass a bill at the expense of liberals and conservatives.

For some reason, Baucus went further than that, soliciting the blessing of deeply conservative Republicans, and no liberals. That doesn't surprise his long time critics, but many still want to know, Why? An aide insists that none of the members of the coalition are supposed to fill specific niches--so we can only speculate. But whether it's Enzi's willingness to play along, or Baucus' desire to burnish his bipartisan cred with a truly conservative Republican on board, or whether there's some sympatico between the two western senators, the results have driven liberals to apoplexy.

link

He sucks!

[joeybee12]

1. You are so, so, so wrong!

He's not leading the NEGOTIATIONS...he's leading the SELL-OUT! :evilgrin:

[politicasista]

2. Yep.

He sucks bad.


ABDINO and/or ABDLC.

[old mark]

3. He should be removed from congress completely

and forced to actually get a real job.

Of course he can probably live very well off all the money he got from the insurance folks....



mark

[democracy1st]

4. K & R

[cascadiance]

5. Baucus is like Ensign, Vitter, Craig, etc. is for the Republicans for our party...

How? He's not in any big sexual scandals or anything like that. But consider this:

Many hard-nosed Republicans hold values against marital infidelity, especially getting involved with gay sex as Craig was. They perceive that Democrats aren't as strong in their condemnation of these sorts of behavior and that we didn't care as much when Clinton got caught with his pants down.

In other words they were HYPOCRITES to the values of their party and their constituency's values, even moreso than the rest of the country.

Now, consider the image that Baucus provides in being at the forefront of the Blue Dogs who on one side of their mouth say that they're working for the people but then are so obviously in bed with the corporate lobbyists. Like Republicans feel that we Democrats judge less harshly our politicians for marital affairs or other "out of bounds" sex, we feel that Republicans judge their politicians less harshly and value more their politicans sucking up to corporate lobbies than our party does. In other words, similarly Baucus and those Blue Dogs like him are HYPOCRITES in much the same fashion, and give our party a bad name where they Republicans laugh at us, and feel they will be able to exploit political activities of Baucus much the same way we feel we will be able to exploit the behaviors of Ensign, Vitter, and Craig...

And on the Rethuglican side, you have an organization like "The Family", which worships those that are powerful and through being powerful are allowed and celebrated for being sexual dynamos. In much the same way, the DLC works against the core principles of our party and tries to form a group of consensus for its members to engage in practices that many of the rest of us feel aren't very Democratic.

We really need these jerks out of our party!

[democracy1st]

6. I can't understand it... I'm speechless