Mild-Mannered or Lily-Livered?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:56 AM

Are Democrats wimping out?

I'm too, ah, civil, to make such a charge, but we're starting to hear such complaints.

The conservative side has cranked up the decibel level, fueled by the town-hall shouters, the talk-show ranters and the just-say-no Republicans who want to derail the health-care plan.

And the president's party?

Well, the Democrats are famously fractious, but Barack Obama sets the tone. And despite his threat to "call out" critics who distort his policies, he's maintained a law professor's tone. He still talks about bipartisanship, even though the Dems are down to maybe, possibly getting Olympia Snowe on the health bill.

Of course, it's easier being in opposition. Downside: You have no power. Upside: You don't have to actually pass anything. You don't even have to put forth a plausible alternative. You just have to stop things from happening. When the Dems stopped Bush's Social Security plan, they didn't try to push through their own. They celebrated having killed the thing.

Does the liberal side have to punch back harder in the Beck era? Or would that just make voters blame both parties for endless Beltway bickering?

In the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Frank argues for a stiffer spine:

"There has been no better time for a vindication of activist, Rooseveltian government since the 1930s. The laissez-faire faith lies in pieces around us. Conservative dogmatism lay behind many of the Bush administration's worst blunders, including some of the monumental screw-ups to which conservative pundits point when denouncing government generally.

"But that is not how the Democrats have chosen to respond. Instead, they pine for civility, pretending that the argument comes down to the scary rhetoric issuing from the right. 'I have concerns about some of the language that is being used, because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco,' said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week. 'This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place.'

"I have concerns about the rhetoric being used as well, and about the louts and the bullies who use it. But it seems clear that Mrs. Pelosi's aim is to avoid debate when she ought to be wading into the thick of it. Her team has the arguments; it has the facts; it has gale-force historical winds at its back: Why not give back as good as you get? Why not simply beat the other side instead of complaining tearfully that they play too rough? . . .

"Their opponents, meanwhile, have responded to the economic crisis by doubling down on the bad ideas that got us here in the first place. Their most prominent representative is the conspiracy-minded TV weeper Glenn Beck.

"The health-care showdown should have been a one-sided blowout. And yet it is the Democrats who are running to the playground monitor and watching their support drain away."

If any further evidence were needed that the GOP doesn't want to play, this WSJ news story on a health insurance mandate provides it:

"Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the Finance Committee's senior Republican, said the mandate is among the reasons that he couldn't support the bill despite months of negotiations with Mr. Baucus. 'Individuals should maintain their freedom to chose health-care coverage, or not,' he said. 'This bill is a stunning assault on liberty,' said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's second-ranking Republican."

Talk about moving the goalposts. Let's go to the videotape, courtesy of HuffPost's Sam Stein:

"For months it was presumed that a relatively ironclad deal was in place: in exchange for the government mandating coverage, private insurance companies would agree to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions. The arrangement was all but blessed by prominent figures from within the GOP ranks. In mid-August, the ranking member of the finance committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), announced that the way to get universal coverage is 'through an individual mandate.' 'That's individual responsibility,' the senator told Nightly Business Report. 'And even Republicans believe in individual responsibility.' . . .

"Months earlier, Grassley told Fox News that there wasn't 'anything wrong' with mandates even if some may view them 'as an infringement upon individual freedom.' 'But when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance,' Grassley added. 'Because everybody has some health insurance cost and if you aren't insured there aren't free lunches.' "

Steve Benen drips disdain at the Washington Monthly:

"Congressional Republicans could probably save themselves a lot of trouble by simply saying, 'Whatever Democrats are for, we're against,' in response to every question."

I'm not taking sides, but let's be clear. There is no health insurance reform without a mandate. Everybody wants to stop the insurance companies from barring people for preexisting conditions. Without a mandate, healthy people would get a free ride with no insurance and sign up the moment they get sick. Massachusetts has a mandate, passed under a Republican governor, Mitt Romney. So when exactly did this become a lousy idea?

In the New Republic, Jonathan Chait argues that the GOP should have played a role:

"I really wonder if the Republican party is making a long-term policy blunder here.

"The proposal unveiled by Max Baucus is actually a fairly conservative thing. As I noted, it reduces the budget deficit by a not-insignificant sum, has no public plan, and contains some extremely stingy benefits . . .

"Now, I understand the reasons for the GOP's behavior. Republicans are acting in their individual and collective political self-interest. Individually, Republicans realize that their base is convinced that Obamacare equals socialism plus death panels, and thus any Republican who signs on would kiss away his political future and quite likely face a primary challenge. Collectively, the party has put all its chips on defeating health care reform, or, as a fallback, withholding support and rendering reform a 'partisan' exercise that can be used against red state Democrats in 2010.

"It's a smart political strategy. But the health care plan that Obama signs is going to be around for a very long time. Republicans might one day come to wonder if picking up some seats in 2010 were worth forgoing a chance to help put their imprint on the U.S. health care system."

Obamarama

What's interesting about this Roger Simon column is that he says what Obama is doing is "the new normal," and every president will have to step up his game:

"If you follow politics, you no longer watch television. You watch Obamavision.

"This has unsettled some who feel a president should hold something in reserve. George W. Bush certainly did. He was a 'CEO-style' president. He delegated. Policies, decisions, invasions.

"Obama sells. Wall to wall. He takes the stage, and he fills it. And he is on stage a lot.

"Telling him to stop -- suggesting, as some have, that a president can't have this much exposure without fatiguing the public -- is to miss the point.

"He is suited for what he is selling. He is an activist selling an activist agenda and an activist government. And it takes an activist public schedule to do that. . . .

"The White House abhors a vacuum. Members of Obama's team know that either they fill the air or somebody else will fill it for them. You drive the news, or somebody else will drive it at you."

That is true. But you can also drive it into the ditch.

Kennedy's Successor

The Boston Globe gives the odds for the Ted seat:

"Governor Deval Patrick huddled with a small group of trusted advisers last night to finalize his choice for an interim U.S. senator, with indications pointing to former Democratic National Committee chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr., who has the strong backing of the immediate family of the late Edward M. Kennedy, as the overwhelming favorite.

"A person with knowledge of the process said last night that former governor Michael S. Dukakis, considered a leading candidate for the appointment, was unlikely to be chosen."

But the NYT goes with a harder story: "Senior Democrats in Washington said Wednesday that they expected Gov. Deval Patrick to name Paul G. Kirk Jr., a former aide and longtime confidant of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, to Mr. Kennedy's seat on Thursday."

The job lasts only a few months -- long enough to give the Democrats a 60th vote on health care.

No Bailout

Despite a vague remark by the president that he's open to a bill that would give newspapers tax breaks to turn into nonprofits, much of the public isn't buying, Editor & Publisher reports:

"Nearly 8 out of 10 Americans would oppose any plan to spend tax dollars to aid failing newspapers, according to a poll on news media trustworthiness released Wednesday.

"That reluctance might have something to do with the fact that 38.1% of respondents to the poll by Sacred Heart University said they are reading newspapers less often than five years ago. Or the fact that nearly half, 45%, said they think the Internet is 'adequately covering for failing newspapers.' Just 35.6% disagreed with that statement."

Rules for Horndogs

I'm surprised John Edwards and his Dave Matthews scenario hasn't drawn more commentary, but Time's Amy Sullivan steps up to the plate:

"If Edwards failed to learn from Clinton's example, he's at least providing a textbook example for future politicians of how not to handle a scandal:

" 1. Don't have an affair while you're running for president. Especially not if your wife is a beloved cancer survivor.

"2. If you do have an affair, for God's sake, use protection.

"3. If you don't use protection, and your mistress gets pregnant, do not ask a friend of yours to take the fall and claim the baby is his. Friend or not, he will write a book someday.

"4. If you do ask a friend of yours to take the fall, do not also enlist campaign supporters to pay off your mistress so that she'll stay quiet. She won't.

"5. If you do convince supporters to pay hush money, do not go visit your mistress (who you have publicly denied you were involved with) and your child (who you have publicly denied is yours) at a hotel in Los Angeles.

"6. And if you ignore all of this and do make that visit and get caught by the National Enquirer and decide to finally confess the affair, do not take your cue from 1980s pop songs and continue to insist that the 'kid is not my [daughter].' That will only seriously piss off your mistress. Not to mention your wife, when you eventually have to admit the truth to her, because this is the 21st century and we have tests that can establish paternity and even though your magical silver tongue made you rich and famous, you will not be able to talk your way out of that. Plus, the kid looks exactly like you."

Fencing with Beck

Katie Couric's plan to do online interviews sounds like a fine idea to me, but St. Petersburg Times critic Eric Deggans turns thumbs down on her maiden effort:

"Watching CBS anchor Katie Couric's highly hyped 44-minute Webcast sit-down with Glenn Beck, I was more amazed by what she accepted from him.

"-- Beck says he's an equal-opportunity offender; he slams both the right and the left. But watch one of his shows nowadays, and you won't hear much criticism of Republicans. Couric didn't challenge his assertion.

"-- Beck says it's important to note that Osama bin Laden praised Jimmy Carter's statements about racism among critics of President Barack Obama. Couric didn't note that bin Laden delights in pushing America's buttons by remote -- why should we pay attention to anything he says or take it at face value?

"-- Beck says 'in my real life, I don't want to do this (obsess over politics) . . . look how much politics is sucking up our lives.' But this struggle over politics has made him a very rich man with a highly rated TV show and radio program. Is he serious? Politics has made his fortune and career . . .

"Couric did spend a fair amount of time pressing Beck on what he meant by white culture when he said President Obama has a deep-seated hatred of white people and white culture. His answer to her: 'I can't think of a way to answer that that isn't a trap.' But isn't it a trap of his own making?"

The Rush to Publish

Many journalists are racing these days to post everything in real time, which brought this apology yesterday from Politico's Glenn Thrush :

"A couple of days ago I ran an item on Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who appeared on MSNBC to talk about the town halls -- and commented that he had witnessed some racist comments over the summer.

"The video, which had gone viral among conservatives, was sent to me by a tipster. I watched it, thought it was interesting, and began to transcribe the key parts. As I was transcribing, I got an email from a NRCC spokesman Andy Sere, who wanted to comment on it, appending what appeared to be a full a transcript of the exchange.

"A time saver, I thought, so I cut-and-pasted. What I didn't immediately realize was that Sere had replaced key words -- that provided important context --with elipses. When the error was pointed out, I quickly fixed it."

That's called getting spun silly.

Howard Kurtz also works for CNN and hosts its weekly media program, "Reliable Sources."