I agree with the notion that the wingers gambled and lost-- but the alternative was negotiating with Obama. You know, the Kenyan, the teleprompter-reader, the Dijon mustard-eater. That one. Just wasn't going to happen.

I'm curious, Steve, which "responsible" leaders in the Republican party you think would have been willing to work with the Dems? They all - Senate and House - seemed to be incredibly hard lined and determined not to give an inch.

Two things are still concerning me.

First, that the Senate can still fumble the ball on the one-yard line. I don't think they will, but I expect a little nail-biting this week until they pass it. One tiny change and it has to go back to the house. I am assuming Reid has vetted all the changes with the Parliamentarian and hasn't included anything that won't pass muster. Also, I'm guessing the GOP is a little demoralized this week and might pull a couple of punches.

Second, I'm still concerned at the federal suit several AGs are planning to push, to challenge the whole notion of a mandate in court. I think they will get thrown out of a few lower courts but I also think they will get a very sympathetic ear at SCOTUS. I can *easily* see SCOTUS declaring the mandate unconstitutional and setting a wide-ranging precedent that the Federal Government does not have the right to dictate anyone purchase health insurance, which bolloxes up the whole thing. (They might reach further and knock down other aspects of the plan that they declare is unconstitutional federal interference). What happens if we're two years into the plan and SCOTUS says it has to be rolled back?

Bipartisanship does not work because it does not win elections. Especially on the conservative side. Their constituents are about winning at all cost and not taking any prisoners.

Alot of this also can be traced to the fact that memebers of congress do not spend alot of time in DC. When not in session congress members beat a blazing path home ASAP. This leads to a lack of friendships and cross isle understanding that is absolutly necessary for "bipartisanship".

Oh wait, now it's Fox's fault? I don't get it! Is there anyone with a disease that I can throw dollars at and insult? Sarah Palin? 2012? Anyone?!

Excellent post, Steve. In addition to Frum's "Waterloo" analysis, I'd add a 20th century French military disaster---the Maignot Line---to the military metaphors being tossed around. It's especially apt with all the references to Bill Kristol's 1993 strategy memo. The Republicans figuratively (but only because this is politics and not actual military combat) fought the last war.

#phoebes-in-santa-fe, good question. But why have the Republicans been so unanimously obstructionist? I'd expect it from Boehner, McConnell, et al. I still haven't seen a good explanation for why Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, Cao, etc. decided to make this a party line vote. Anyone know? Or have a good theory?

One more comment. I'm really surprised that Democrats haven't done more to argue that the notion of "Employer-provided" health insurance is a serious part of the problem. Probably because they wanted to argue "if you like the insurance you have, you'll be able to keep it."

But there are a lot of good "market-based" arguments to make:

* It's an administrative burden on employers to choose, cost out, and provide health insurance
* It's a huge business expense that drags down profits and stagnates wages; if employers could get out of that business, wages would rise and costs would be significantly lowered
* There would be more entrepeneurship if people felt they could leave their jobs and not lose their "good" health insurance
* People would be more likely to leave a job for a better one if they didn't have anxiety about "keeping their health insurance"

Some of this is addressed a bit by the current bill, but I wish this argument would be front and center.

And they have not been pushing the argument that most people like their insurance because they haven't gotten sick. Your insurance "feels great" when you are paying a lot for a "good plan" but you don't know how good it is until you need the big benefits to kick in -- and find out that there's a lot not covered.

Maginot failed because it was under funded . The reasoning used to make up for the loss of capital was to skimp on its infrastructure in the most difficult terrain . In a large degree Maginot was successful . Where it failed was where it employed contempt rather than honest work or investment .

Personally, I'm not anxious to see the repugs smarten up and do the rational thing regarding legislation. Let them continue to accept the guidance of the nutbags and teabaggers, that way leads to their demise.

This also adds another quirk in the campaign planning for GOP primaries. As a Republican candidate, do you campaign with the post that 100% repeal is the only solution, even though you know that stance will commonly mean you will lose in the general election? How do you continue to appeal to voters who are blinded by their rage? Do you get into office, then lose it in two years, because, duh, you didn't repeal anything? Do you have to openly flirt with the birthers? Even for the far right-wing candidates, I see some hard questions coming up.

I don't have any answers for them. Honestly, I expect the national GOP to turn even more into the California GOP -- crazy, a permanent minority in the state, and intent on enforcing their shibboleths like "no taxes increases, ever." It will take a while, but their current path doesn't lead one towards hope.

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

Which is shocking, of course, because that outcome hasn't happened at all in the last four years!

Chess? You give the GOP too much credit. They were playing Checkers and with only half the pieces because they lost them each time they threw a hissy fit and tossed the board.

For as long as I can remember the acceptance of and delight in the most extreme candidates in the primary system was unchallenged . This has brought us to the - bachman ryan demint - or until the cows come home , purity tests .
No depth of character imagined , only a litmus over at best inscrutable metaphysical questions . The level of competence sinks while the ability to reason with the simplest relationship is measured in biblical language .
How many cubits are presently required to pass the brooks brothers test ?

This defeat, too, ought to have real consequences for self-styled "moderates" like Snowe and Collings. The Democrats know now that the GOP always stood for lockstep opposition and that they were never operating in good faith. Now that the Democrats realize 1) that they need to implement their agenda over lockstep GOP opposition and b) that they can, what value is negotiating with Snowe?

And the campaign ads questioning her credibility as a moderate when she rubber-stamps the agenda of radical Republicans simply write themselves. I hope the Democrats have the sense, and the moxie, to run them.

massappeal, your selection of the Maginot Line is apt. The French military command was infamous for, always, attempting to fight the last war. The Maginot Line was conceived to re-fight WW1, and it failed, as the Germans reverted to the war plans of 1870, only with very modern weapon systems. The RepuGs usage of Kristol's '93 mantras is the same as trying to fight the last war. They went to the well, once too often.

If Scotus declares the mandate unconstitutional, the only way to do universal coverage is medicare for all -- doing the work through the thoroughly constitutional taxing power of the federal government. One could only hope to be tossed into that particular briar patch. It would be best to wait for such a happy day until the current system has a chance to get started and for the people to become acclimated to the radical notion that everyone ought to have access to affordable and quality health care.

Actually, the Maginot line succeeded in WW2 exactly as planned. The Germans slid around it rather than blasting through it. As pointed out upthread the problem was funding - and not just of the line itself. France didn't sufficiently fund the mobile forces that were supposed to back the line in case of break throughs and prevent the end-around.

They should have made sure the Paris taxi companies were in better shape. :)

Gregory, William F. Pewen, who was Snowe's senior health care advisor had an op-ed in the Oregonian, yesterday, complaining that "misteps (by the Democrats) eroded bipartisanship, undermined efforts". He ends his attack by saying, "What's more, the core of the Senate's legislation closely resembles the very bill the Republicans offered in 1993 as an alternative to the Clinton plan. This makes clear that bipartisan reform was achievable and indicts Congress for its failure to realize that goal with broad public support.". Just love the "spin" they're in.

Having wagered all their chips on one roll of the dice and lost, the republicans, god bless 'em, are going to try for double or nothing by running on repeal. Maybe they're right, maybe that's a winning message. But it looks to me like compounding their original error.

Ah, all this historical references makes me miss Steve Gilliard all the more. He could have done a wonderful job putting all the pieces together.

I sure hope that Steve is "looking down" and seeing how his Dems have come together - finally! - with Obama at the helm. Damn, Steve would've been proud.

Butch , thank you .

But when the dust settles, here's hoping some Republicans realize they could have driven a wedge into the Democratic Party and forced the White House to accept a smaller, bipartisan reform package -- if only they'd placed a smarter bet.

—Steve Benen 8:55 AM

Why? I love having second rate opponents. Don't you? I hope they double down and run hard on repeal. That is what Rush and Glenn are going to counsel.

"GOP leaders knew there was a risk -- if they lost, they'd be stuck with a far more ambitious reform law than a scaled back, bipartisan deal many Dems would have accepted -- but they genuinely believed their combination of obstructionism, lies, and obstinacy would prevail. They gambled."

Fortunately, Obama and the Democrats were more than willing to offer concessions and compromises which ultimately resulted in bipartisan bill anyway. Let's be real, here. There is a TON of republican shit in this bill and there as absent a LOT of progressive ideas left on the cutting room floor. All of it without any compromise from the GOP.

I'm glad the bill passed, but it could have been a lot better with a little more nerve and party discipline.

I don't think the current Republican party is capable of compromising; their radicalized base won't allow it. Unfortunately the Dems may be hornswoggled into trying once again on bipartisanship, on the theory that it would be the logical thing for the goopers to do (it would be, but they just can't).

I'm also doubtful that the upcoming elections will be the 1994 replay that all the children in DC are expecting. Repeal won't be a huge general election draw, and telling the wingnut base to work their hearts out after this massive failure may not work as well as they think.

I get the Conservative Alerts email (out of curiosity, mostly), and they've been furiously spamming all year with Obamacare scare stuff, coming to a crescendo yesterday. Now with the loss, nothing. I'm eagerly awaiting their next missive.

The party should be considering the replacement of its leadership, but they have a problem-there is no one among the Congressional Republicans with any real leadership quality. They have no bench at all.

Hate to turn this modern thread into a fight over the Maginot Line, but, the French command only put the Line in place where the Germans had come across in WW1. They did not fund it to extend it to where the Germans had crossed in 1870. They never considered any flanking movements by the Germans. In addition, their lack of funding was evident in the types of aircraft and tanks built in the '30s. They cheapened on developing the types of modern systems which the Germans were building. For example their tank was not only no match for those of the Germans, but, their tactics were flawed, as well. The Germans had developed a new system of tanks moving by themselves as a unit, rather than, merely, being deployed in support of the infantry. Add the ridiculous all-purpose aircraft of the French and the non-automatic weapons for their infantry, and this "lack of funding" extended to "lack of proper intelligent thought" by the French command. The French troops fought with elan, while, their leadership with no brains sipped wine far behind the lines. Now, may we return to the great victory of the present?

What's more, the core of the Senate's legislation closely resembles the very bill the Republicans offered in 1993 as an alternative to the Clinton plan. This makes clear that bipartisan reform was achievable

...except that Pewen's boss sided against ideas she should have supported and with the wingnuts.

I'm not in Maine, but I can smell the flop sweat from here. This op-ed indicates Snowe is worried. I hope the Democrats give her more reason to be come campaign season.

That said, I wonder if this defeat might convey the message to the likes of Snowe and Lugar that lockstep support of the unreconstructed Southern radical rump of their party is no good thing. I hope Nate Silver takes up the question...

The problem with Frum's analysis is that, as a conservative actually concerned about public policy, he sees it as a defeat when large-scale progressive legislation is permanently enacted. But the Republican political leadership doesn't care about policy; they are all about politics. If their strategy results in gaining ground in the mid-terms, saddling the country with (what they see as) terrible legislation is a small price to pay. Now it's likely that had the Republicans stopped health care reform they would have done even better in the mid-terms, but I think the Republican leadership's calculation--that obstruction rather than compromise would lead to more a more favorable political climate for Republicans whatever the outcome--was probably correct. In other words, this can only be seen as a "bat bet" for Republicans if you believe they had some policy, as opposed to political, objective.

Lakoff explains why conservative will not compromise because for them it's a moral issue. I don't understand it, but it's the only explanation that seems to make sense to me.

"I hope they double down and run hard on repeal. That is what Rush and Glenn are going to counsel."

My god - they will do this, won't they? There is absolutely not one shred of evidence to make me think they won't. If we can't take down people fighting for insurance companies' Right To Screw You Over, we don't deserve to win.

Regarding SCOTUS, I don't think the unconstitutionality argument holds much water given that the auto insurance mandate has been ruled constitutional.

The constitution gives the government fairly wide latitude to impose fees & taxes on citizens through the legislative process.

"But when the dust settles, here's hoping some Republicans realize they could have driven a wedge into the Democratic Party and forced the White House to accept a smaller, bipartisan reform package -- if only they'd placed a smarter bet."
Dude. You WANT them to realize that?

@ mfw13

While I think there is no real constitutional basis for the Supremes to even accept a case, I wouldn't put anything past the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas bunch.

And auto insurance is a state-by state mandate. There is no federal requirement for you to insure your car. The challenge, if it actually takes shape, will be on tenth-amendment grounds.

Not only is auto insurance not Federally mandated, but it is an option. You choose to buy a car and drive it, therefore you need insurance. The mandate on health care is saying that by being born, you will need health care and in so doing, you Must have insurance or face federal fines. With this court especially, the government will be walking a fine line as to whether it would be found constitutional or not.
Looks like we might find out with the AG conference call last night and 12 state AG's willing to sign onto a lawsuit against the federal government.

If health care reform gains traction with the American people, the Republicans can point to not one supporter.

An astonishing lack of sophistication.

Once they knew they were going to lose, they should have let their moderate block vote for passage. A litlle playacting never hurts on the national stage.

Benen artfully skips the key paragraph in Republican Frum's piece:

"... the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to [REPUBLICAN] Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the [FAR RIGHT-WING] Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994."

Even Ezra Klein conceded last month that this bill is a REPUBLICAN bill.

Republicans got a bill that they would have been ecstatic over had they managed to push it through: Forced buy of their Corporate cronies' shoddy insurance, REGRESSIVE taxes, and extreme restrictions on women's rights.

The bill certainly takes two steps forward, and as long as you ignore the three steps BACKWARDS, certainly has the appearance of being 'progressive' even when it is NOT.

If you delve into the details this bill is extremely regressive and will NOT produce the Unicorns that folks (that unfortunately include Benen and Klein) have been selling.