November 25, 2013

* A must read from Alex Seitz-Wald recapping all the times that Obama, and the Affordable Care Act, have been pronounced to be doomed:

Without doubt, HealthCare.Gov’s dangers to Obama, Democrats, and the entire liberal agenda are real. But just as real a possibility is that the website gets fixed sooner or later, builds confidence and users, and we all move on to something else by New Year’s Day.

Yes, that is possible. Indeed, Obamacare has already rebounded from certain death a number of times already. Read the whole thing for the details.

* An interesting suggestion from Ed Kilgore: The politics of the Medicaid expansion, if it continues to expand coverage, could force Republicans into the uncomfortable position of revealing their real position on the social safety net. As Ed notes, to make this happen Dems need to remember they can win the argument.

* Joan McCarter with a key point on why Dems should run on the expansion: Even if its primary target is the poor, that money can impact entire red state communities. Worth remembering that during recent races in Virginia and Louisiana, local business interests supported the expansion.

* Paul Krugman takes note of the expansion of coverage happening in Kentucky, California, New York, and elsewhere, and offers succinct advice to anyone tempted to give up on Obamacare: “Stay with it.”

* E.J. Dionne on how the Dems’ decision to go nuclear demonstrates that they are no longer in denial about GOP nullification tactics, and on why this ultimately will prove constructive.

* Ron Kampeas heaps some much needed skepticism on the threat by Senate Dems to impose new sanctions on Iran, which the White House fears could undermine the deal’s long term prospects. The question is whether this threat is just kabuki designed to give Dems cover to allow the deal space to work.

* Indeed, Harry Reid appears to be dialing down the threat to push new sanctions legislation, or at least shifting responsibility for it, which could be a key tell.

* Matt Duss on why a successful Iran deal would amount to a victory for a more progressive approach to foreign policy in general, one centered on an argument with neocons about engagement that goes back to 2008.

* Peter Beinart knocks down the ubiquitous comparisons of the Iran deal to a “Munich style surrender,” recapping that this slur is applied to any compromise neocons don’t like.

* David Ignatius suggests what must not be suggested: What if the deal is good for Iran while also being good for the United States and Israel?

* Like Juliet Lapidos, I find it dispiriting that multiple United States Senators are denouncing the nuclear option and the Iran deal as nothing more than distractions from Obamacare. This whole line says more about the depth of their own obsession with the law than it does about any secret schemes Dems are (or aren’t) harboring.

* And this just says it all: Politifact actually felt the need to fact check the claim that the Iran deal was hatched to distract from Obamacare’s collapse. Again, this came from U.S. Senators, not from demented conspiracy-mongering chain emails.

What else?

 

Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant -- what you might call “opinionated reporting” from the left.
Continue reading