PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
147
options
 
Monday, December 21, 2009

 

 

Now that the Senate Democrats have reportedly secured the requisite 60 votes to foil a GOP filibuster and pass health care reform, the Republicans seem poised to fail in their stalwart attempt to stand athwart history and deny Americans the fundamental rights that are available in every other advanced western democracy. Surely there must be something dramatic that the Republicans can still do - set fire to their Senate desks? call in a bomb scare? hire Joe the Plumber to flood the toilets? - because it's clear at this point that the parliamentary options are dwindling fast.

One such Republican tactic failed badly in the wee hours last Friday morning; the episode is worth recounting, if only to demonstrate the depths to which desperate politicians will sometimes sink. Be forewarned that the hypocrisy detailed here may be enough to make you retch, because there was quite a stench in the Republican trench.

A bit of background is first required. As we all know, Republicans have long considered themselves to be the true friends of our fighting men and women, whereas they often paint Democrats as being "against the troops." This has been a constant refrain for much of the past decade, especially when Democrats have dared to question war strategy.

For instance, Roy Blunt, a Missouri congressman, charged in 2005 that the "Democrats undermine our troops...from the security of their Washington, D.C. offices." Tom Cole, an Oklahoma congressman and high-ranking GOP official, said in 2005 that sending troops to battle while refusing to fund them was an "immoral thing to do." Media ally Sean Hannity complained in 2006 that Democrats have "undermined the troops almost every step of the way." A 2008 McCain campaign ad charged that "congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops," thereby "increasing the risk on their lives."

Yet early last Friday morning, the Republicans tried to block, via filibuster, the Senate's passage of the annual budget bill that funds the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You read that right. The Senate Republicans attempted to obstruct the crucial Pentagon measure that is designed (in the words of Defense Secretary Robert Gates) to "ensure continuity of funding for our troops in combat," and to purchase, among many other things, 1400 new mine-resistant vehicles suited for the rugged Afghanistan terrain.

In fact, Gates (who held the same job under George W. Bush) was so incensed by the Republicans' obstructionist behavior that he sent a stinging letter to Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell: "It is inconceivable to me that such a situation would be permitted to occur with U.S forces actively deployed in combat." Gates just as easily could have quoted Republican Tom Cole's '05 assertion that any refusal to fund combat troops shall be deemed "immoral."

But why were Senate Republicans behaving as if they were "against the troops?" Because they figured that if they could indefinitely stall the Pentagon money bill with a filibuster, that would clog up the legislative pipeline, and if they clogged the pipeline, the Senate would have to adjourn for the holidays without wrapping up action on health care reform.

In other words, the Republicans weren't really "against the troops." Rather, their posture was far more cynical. They were merely trying to use the troops as pawns on their political chessboard. They didn't oppose funding the troops, per se. They just figured that if they succeeded in blocking the war money, they could block health care reform for a while longer, because, after all, as Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback said Thursday night, "I don't want health care."

The move failed, by the way. All 60 Democrats held firm to thwart the filibuster, and they were joined in that vote by three Republicans (the ladies from Maine, plus Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas). So the troops in active combat will get their money, the wars will be funded, and health care reform will move to the Senate floor.

So let us review: Senate Republicans tried to block funding for our fighting men and women (a stance they have long condemned as weak or treasonous)...and they took this action in order to stall a reform bill that will vastly expand the availability of health insurance and bar the insurance companies from screwing sick people.

That was quite a two-fer. Will they be able to top it? Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn is urging Americans to "pray" for a mishap, something that will stop a Democratic senator from showing up, but I'm going out on a limb to question his assumption that God is a partisan Republican. 
 

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 9:38 AM  Permalink | 147 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:48 AM, 12/21/2009
    From th end of last blog: Good morning all, I hope everyone has dug out from the mess. I have 2 feet of snow in my backyard. Nice to look at though:) Gentlemen, as for airline deregulation I agree that the 1st few years were rough as in any new endeavor. But right now you would have to say it was a success. Southwest has been around since 1971, so low cost carriers have been around a long time. Fares are lower, more cities are serviced, it is safer to fly in a plane than to drive a car or take a shower for that matter. In any case, how about Nebraska never having to pay for Medicaid (i think) ever again? In exchange Ben Nelson sold his vote. Now there is a name for that on the streets of Philadelphia:)
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:01 AM, 12/21/2009
    Wow, where do I start with Polman's latest column? I guess this is why I am so jaded by our political process. This writer only wants to tell the reader half the story. The bill that Repubicans wanted to fillibuster was a 636 billion defense bill . Enough to stay in Afghanistan for the next 22 years. So obviosly you could imagine the nonsese that Democrats through into the defense bill. Not to mention we are 12 trillion in debt but since Democrats took over that doesn't seem to matter. When Democrats were not in charge they used to hyperventilate of deficits and debt but now they have no worries whatsoever. Not to mention it was an attemtp to blocking a trillion dollar healthcare bill that insures no one for 5 years and still leavers 24 million uninsured. At this point it is not healtchare bill, it's a mammoth tax bill filled with payoffs to Democratic Senators who were " on the fence ". An of course no one has read the bill.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:44 AM, 12/21/2009
    DP; Could you elaborate on how exactly you come to the conclusion that citizens have the right to health insurance? Are these the same citizens that overwhelmingly oppose Obamacare? (CNN:61% oppose, Fox:57% oppose, Rassmussen:56% opppose) Not one major poll shows a majority of Americans in favor of this monstrosity. Republicans stand with the American people in opposing this bill.
    jmc
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:45 AM, 12/21/2009
    An old adage goes something like this: "What a bikini fails to hides is interesting, however, what it does hide, is so much more interesting!" I guess you're planning on eating lot's of "pork" this holiday season, since you've obviously elected to keep it hidden in order to prove your point.
    lefty
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:48 AM, 12/21/2009
    Mr. Polman, the stench in the trench is the smell of pork rotting its way into this pig of a healthcare bill. Now the stories will come out about what senators slipped what 'goodies/pork' into this unseen, unread bill other than Sen. Nelson's and Sen. Landrieu's payoffs. Let the reporting begin.
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:50 AM, 12/21/2009
    Mr. Polman, the stench in the trench is the smell of pork rotting its way into this p!g of a healthcare bill. Now the stories will come out about what senators slipped what 'goodies/pork' into this unseen, unread bill other than Sen. Nelson's and Sen. Landrieu's payoffs. Let the reporting begin.
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:55 AM, 12/21/2009
    jmc: When a poll asks if people are "pleased" with the bill it means ANYONE who is not 100% satisfied can say "no". In other words, if you're a liberal you can answer "no" to such a poll question because you feel the bill doesn't go far enough. Dont delude yourself into thinking most Americans dont favor major changes to the system. Many liberals are "opposed" to the current bill because its been watered down. Did you think about that? Of course not. swedesboro: The monster defense bill is simply the cost of keeping the military in business. To suggest the bill could fun the war in Afghanistan for 22 years is nonsense because it includes pay for all members of the military and operational expenses for the entire organization. The defense budget has been huge for years, nothing new about this one. In the past Republicans would have been happy to pass a bloated defense bill. We are 12 trillion in debt overall- that debt has been adding up for decades. Why bring it up now within the first year of Obama being in office? We were adding to that 12 trillion dollar figure while Bush was in office.
    MrJones
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:56 AM, 12/21/2009
    NEphillY: Buying off politicians with earmarks and pork is the way things are done in DC. To suggest a bill is good or bad based on programs inserted to get votes is absurd. Savvy politicians know how to get what their districts want when a critical vote is needed. Nothing new or nefarious here with regards to the healthcare bill. You dont think a republican backed bill ever used money to buy votes? Get real.
    MrJones
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:00 AM, 12/21/2009
    NEPhilly: If they conduct a poll and ask "do you feel the status quo in healthcare is acceptable?" I would love to see those results. That is question that will give you a MUCH better idea about how people feel about the state of healthcare in the US. A question asking if you support the current bill is nonsensical because the bill is complex and most have little idea about the specifics of the bill. In addition, people on the left and the right are not happy with what we know to be in the bill which means its easy to get a minority who "support" the bill. Another pol question could be "do you support government action that would expand the availability of healthcare and make it more affordable?". Love to see results if that question was asked.
    MrJones
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:00 AM, 12/21/2009
    They may have already. Tom Coburn called yesterday for Americans to pray for the inability of at least one Democratic member to be unable to make it to the floor to vote. Byrd made it and pumped his fist after he voted.
    anonymous
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:06 AM, 12/21/2009
    Mr Jones- You said "We are 12 trillion in debt overall- that debt has been adding up for decades. Why bring it up now within the first year of Obama being in office? We were adding to that 12 trillion dollar figure while Bush was in office.".......First and foremost, I am a conservative, not a Republican. Your comments are like telling your mom " everyone else is doing it ".... I have no attachment to any politician or political party. Last election I voted for Ron Paul. This President will take the debt that took 230 years to accumulate and double it in 8 years. You don't see a problem with that?
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:09 AM, 12/21/2009
    And to add insult to injury this President went to Copenhagen and pledged to give away 30 billion a year of the US Taxpayers money to countries like Zimbabwe and Somalia. I am thinking that money will be spent on Kalishnakov rifles and not clean energy. Is there no end in sight to the spending of liberals?
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:20 AM, 12/21/2009
    JLJ typifies the liberal elitist who thinks he's smarter than the people and hold the conceited notion that he knows what's good for them better than they do; a comforting excuse when he imposes his programs on them against their will. Every coercive collectivist claims he's acting on behalf of "the common good". We're not fooled.
    MaggieL


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  | 
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.