Wednesday, March 17, 2010

More on that Bipartisanship Thing....

The water carriers, concern trolls, and whiners are out in force as healthcare reform enters its end game. Not at all surprisingly, you can find every sort on the pages of the Washington Post's editorial pages, consistent with the editorial board's largely anti-reform stance. Tom Scully, a former Bush Administration official, complains,
We are on the verge of an overheated political meltdown over health care that will result in either a partisan, controversial law that polarizes Washington for years or nothing passing, which would spook Congress into another decade of inactivity. It does not have to happen this way.
He then rattles off a series of changes to the bill that he wants the Democrats to implement, then tells us of the net effect of his proposals:
It would not be enough for many Democrats and would be far more than most Republicans could accept.
Translation: If the Democrats did everything he demands in the name of "bipartisanship" the revised bill would have less Democratic support than the current bill, without gaining a single Republican vote. Before writing an editorial on bipartisanship, perhaps Scully should have taken the time to find out what the word means.

Scully lectures the Democrats that only the capitulation to his demands, creating a new healthcare bill that would not pass, "would create a framework for long-term bipartisan reform." Right....

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.