Democrats won the vote, lost the debate

 

 

So let’s turn now to the aftermath of the vote. Unlike another columnist who, for the first time in memory, is quoting the opposition to pretend his point is made, I will use someone who is actually respected and knowledgable. Charlie Cook. The New York Times has called Cook, “…one of the best political handicappers in the nation”. The Wall Street Journal’s Al Hunt once referred to Cook as “the Picasso of election analysis,” while David Broder of The Washington Post has written that Charlie Cook is “perhaps the best non-partisan tracker of Congressional races.”

“Their choice was to pass bad legislation or prove they’re incapable of governing,”

The Democrats are in full damage control. And they will be for the next seven months. They have lost the health care debate for the last year, and there is no reason to think they can change it in the next seven months. The public has seen how the sausage is made, and they will never want to swallow. The bi-partisanship was all on the “NO” side of the argument. All Republicans and 37 Democrats said so.

For Democrats, the next several months will be spent trying to hold down their losses, which makes passage of the gargantuan healthcare bill all the more audacious — especially when the chief animating force in politics today is a profound mistrust of Washington and anger over the expansive growth of government, embodied by the rise of the “tea party” movement.

The Democrats are hanging their hopes on people being handed the goodies and forgetting all about the mess in the kitchen. The “benefits” so laudibly showered upon the masses by their Progressive leaders will be enough to turn the rabble into cake-eaters. Or so they hope. But it’s hard to benefit politically just because things don’t turn out as bad voters feared.

Consider last year’s economic stimulus package, which experts say prevented a steep economic downturn from being a whole lot worse. Obama and Democrats have received little credit for their rescue effort; to the contrary, the stimulus and serial bailouts that began under President George W. Bush have only fueled populist anger. – Charlie Cook

Health Insurance may, no, should prove as sacrasanct as Social Security and Civil Rights, over time. Certainly being prevented from getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition makes little sense. Losing your health insurance because you get expensive treatment is wrong too. But the butter on that bread comes with mandates, controls, government bureaucracy and unnecessary and insulting freebies to every left wing special interest the Obama administration could find. And when people find out the government they’ve looked to for solace drops them faster than their private company, and wastes their money easier, they are really going to be angry.

Not to mention when it finally sinks in that Health Insurance doesn’t equal medical care… or that preventive care equals more expensive care… or that the only thing that government can control is spending, not cost…

Oh, and not since the Great Depression have we had such rudderless leadership give us a full year of unemployment greater than 9 percent. And while during the 2001 recession (courtesy of the Clinton Administration) , just 9 percent of job losses came from small business, 45 percent of job losses have come from the current one.  These small-business owners have felt the brunt of this recession and are exceedingly reluctant to bring on new people during such uncertainty. So Obama has lost just the people he needed to rely on for new hiring.

When all that education sinks in, it will take a generation to undo the damage for Democrats. And the Democrats will lose a whole generation of middle class and small business voters, just like they lost the South. And they still haven’t gotten that back, 46 years later.


About Terry Crowley