"Should Republicans regain a Senate or House majority, they are quite likely to operate in a similar one-party manner."

and that would be a change, how? Calling out Obama and the dems for partisanship after having reached across the aisle to Collins, Snow, Grassley and any other R senator to negotiate terms for a bipartisan HCR bill only to be played as suckers by the so-called moderates moving the goalposts throughout the process. The Republican party has made ideological purity a touchstone for the past decade, and now even some of the hard liners like Sen Graham of SC are being pushed even farther right by the nutcase teabaggers. When the conservatives have made their demands as ' we compromise by settling on our terms completely or no deal' , it's a poor choice to accept. In the meantime, the spineless democrats compromise in advance by starting off with a compromise position (single payer) and throwing it out in a futile attempt to find 'middle ground', instead of beginning at a real liberal position of single payer. Less compromise with unwilling partners is needed instead of more, but since Van Dyk is a conservative anything that helps his side is what's wanted.

My error, compromise position (government optition) on HCR.

Then perhaps the Senate has outlived its usefulness and should be abolished. Why do old white guys from places where few people live get to decide what healthcare for the entire country will look like?

http://www.google.com/search?q=abolish+senate

Ugh. Is their a CrossCut rss feed without this guy's posts? The angry republicans at your local community college write better op-eds than this. Franken cutting off Lieberman is your example of lack of courtesy in the Senate this year? I suppose it is if you're completely head-up-your-alimentary blind to the antics of your own party. Find a more honest, intelligent conservative, or don't bother. Thanks.

Joolian is right, any opinion contrary to Joolian's should be removed immediately. You and Jlightfoot should get together and determine which opinions are valid and written in such a way that you will find acceptable. We wouldn't want to stray too far from the party line, would we?

It seems that twice now, when control of the House and Senate has changed hands, the new majority has failed to see what got them into power in the first place. Republicans took control in 1994 because voters were tired of the Democrats' free spending and deal making. The GOP came in vowing reform, and it worked for a while, but soon they became what they beheld. So the Democrats swept them out in 2000 on the voters' anger with Republican free spending and deal making. What did the Democrats learn? Astonishingly, that they were shown the door in 94 because they interfered in the people's affairs too little! Ergo the push to pass this health care "reform" monstrosity before the voters kick them out of power again. Maybe the Republicans in 2010 will have finally learned the lesson of 1994. People do not want a huge, overburdening, monolithic, free-spending European-style government. Maybe they've learned that lesson; but they'll probably repeat the Democrats' error of 2000 in thinking that they just didn't oppress the people enough in their own way.

Who stands for personal freedom anymore?

Does not tvd recall that McCain did the same thing to Sens Bird and Dayton that Franken did to Lieberman? Does not tvd recall the goofball doctor Frist invoking the 'nukular option'? How does he overlook the details regarding the passage of medicare part D in the House? Where has the comity gone--when the GOP routinely holds up executive nominations for childish reasons and invokes the filibuster on JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING!!

Oh, yes, but to tvd, it's both parties' fault.

What lickspittle hackery. Shameless. The mere fact that tvd is provided this forum is indeed a sad commentary on our political discourse.

The hyper-partisanship contained in the some of the comments, above,
testifies to the polarization which has overtaken our politics. Rage, apparently, for the sake of rage. I will continue to offer analysis to readers, based on knowledge and experience, which I hope will inform and sometimes enlighten. I counsel those who dislike the approach to turn, instead, to partisan or ideological blogs which will provide them with greater satisfaction. They should be spared the agitation which apparently overcomes them when they read something else.

Hey Ted, were you concerned about the hyperpartisanship when the repubicans were calling out democrats who opposed the war as traitors? Maggie no doubt had friends on both sides of the aisle and would have beened saddened by the current landscape, no doubt. But the man was a proud liberal and a viking, and when the pushing and shoving came came as it has come, if he were here now he'd be an anchor holding firmly the proud partisans on the left against the raging teabagger rightists. You do his memory a disservice.

And what about the bipartisanship the republicans showed when they hounded the Clintons for 8 solid years? No, the the fact is, the republicans have repudiated bipartisanship as a tactic, the good of the country be damned.

Ted,

With all due respect, your comment above is laughable. You are the epitome of hyperpartisanship. Everything is the fault of the Democratic Party. Show us ONE column by you lamenting this loss of comity--say during the period 1992-2008. Just one that casts ANY blame on the GOP. Just one.

Your counsel is self-serving dreck. If you do not like the comments, don't read them. Don't reply to them. I write only to point out the obvious....your stuff may or may not be insightful to some (I find it repugnant), but it certainly is not BALANCED.

Therefore I urge whomever sponsors this blog to either get rid of you (or you can offer your services to any of many right wing whacko blogs--say Michelle Malkin's), or change the banner at the top of this site.

Ted_Van_Dyk, offering his knowledgable and experienced analysis of liberal icon Senator Warren Magnuson of the great state of Washington: http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/219982_vandyk14.html

He was a rough-edged people's Democrat who would have scoffed at today's political correctitude. I always thought of him as the embodiment in his time of the best qualities of our city and state.

Finally, he spoke: "The Republican candidate is Richard Nixon. It's that f------ Nixon. What more do we need to know?"
That ended the meeting.

But it's the modern liberals that are the hyperpartisans. Hey, Ted, did you know that Senator Humphrey, the man you
used to work for, called out his fellow Senator Thurmond of South Carolina for his racism in 1948? I'm sure they had a good laugh about it over dinner the next week. The worst of this kind of nonsense that you're pushing is that some modern Democrats accept it as being the way things used to be and should be.

Mr. Van Dyck claims that health reform legislation "could easily have drawn bipartisan support — with the addition of tort reform provisions and the enabling of health-insurance companies to sell their products across state lines (two provisions that most Democratic legislators would have been willing to concede)."

I'll say it again, Mr. Van Dyck is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts. Obama and Baucus and other Dem leaders avidly courted Republicans all year, seeking at least a few votes. They would have given them the moon. Obama personally offered med mal reform to GOP leaders in the Oval Office in May, as reported by Karen Tumulty in Time. But the Republicans made it crystal clear early on (see comments by Sen. Jim DeMint) that they were determined to block health reform legislation and ride that to mid-term election victory. Where has Mr. Van Dyck been for the past year? Apparently still living in the 1960s and 1970s, when the Republican Party was an entirely different party that still had pragmatic moderates you could negotiate with.

Take the caning of Senator Charles Sumner fer instance. Now there was bipartisanship! And it was done so politely, too.

Harris Meyer is correct,in the same speech that President Obama was called a "liar" on the coverage of illegal aliens. He stated he would start tort reforms right away, along with programs to curtail waste, fraud and abuse that he would then use to pay for healthcare reform and not raise taxes on those making under $250,000 a year.

How is that working out for you?

I regrettably must add Harris Meyer to the category of those who prefer partisan or ideological slants to any kind of objective or professional
coverage of events.

The facts are as follows: Cap-and-trade, economic stimulus, and health-care legislation all began last year with Democratic committee chairs in House and Senate. President Obama and his key White House staff entered substantive dialogue about these bills only after the principal provisions of the legislation had been established by these committee chairs. They did not include their Republican colleagues in consultations about the legislation. GOP amendments were not considered. The cap-and-trade legislation presently is bogged down in the Senate and is unlikely to come to a floor vote. Health legislation was passed in the end on a Democrats-only basis---but barely, since about 50-70 House Democrats and
some 8-10 Senate Democrats had reservations about one or another of the legislation's provisions. Sen. Max Baucus, chair of the Finance Committee, was a notable exception among legislation-framing Democrats.
He tried mightily to develop legislation which could gain bipartisan support, stating (correctly) that important legislation historically
had not fared well unless supported on a bipartisan basis. It would be hard to find any historian or knowledgeable political scientist who would
argue with Baucus' assertion. But, in the end, the Finance Committee bill
included provisions Republicans could not support and omitted those which they could.

The health legislation involves a makeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. A traditional approach to such legislation would have included Republican involvement from the outset. Senior GOP co-sponsors would have been sought and proposals developed which could have commanded support from Republicans and independents, not only in the Congress but in the country. Among these would have been genuine tort reform and the ability of insurers to sell across state lines. (Both of these things have had past support from many Democrats).

Since they had been left out of the game, and opposed key parts of the health legislation, Republicans chose to opt out. Yes, they were asked, after the fact, to support legislation in which they had played no part. No one "offered them the moon." But, understandably, they did not do so. The malpractice reform offered to Republicans by President Obama, to which Meyer refers, was a limited and not serious proposal.

I have no doubt that Democrats, in a comparable situation, would have acted as Republicans have now. I certainly hope they would have---if a Republican majority had frozen them out of a process and then suggested they then accept a GOP-only product.

Now we are at a place where surveys indicate almost all Republicans, and a strong majority of independents, are opposed to the health legislation as it now exists---adding up to majority disapproval. They also are opposed to the President's handling of the issue, contributing to his presently weak approval ratings. The legislation could be in jeopardy if the Republican Senate candidate wins today in Massachusetts--thus changing the numbers in the Senate and, more importantly, the political climate on the Hill. It would not be in jeopardy if, at the outset,
a traditional bipartisan approach had been taken in framing the legislation.

Meyer has stated in the past that the health bill will not add to federal deficits, citing Congrssional Budget Office numbers. What he omits: The CBO issues reports on the basis of the information supplied to it by legislation's sponsors. The sponsors, in this instance,
stated that sufficient tax and fee increases, and cuts in Medicare benefits, would be enacted so as to make the legislation "revenue neutral"---that is, not adding to federal deficits. However, those tax/fee increases and spending cuts are entirely problematic. They have not been enacted. It is extremely unlikely, in fact, that they will be. The Congress will be wary of enacting tax/fee increases in the present economic trough. Medicare benefit cuts are always controversial. The past track record of all post-Medicare health-care reform efforts is that they result in added, unpredicted costs. Most reputable, independent analysts are quite skeptical that the legislation as now drafted will not add substantially to federal deficits. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and Concord Coalition, including senior figures from past Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses, also reach that conclusion.

These views have nothing to do with nostalgia for earlier, bipartisan times. They have everything to do with the fear that the country---and policy process---are being unnecessarily polarized right now to the detriment of the national interest.

Given both historic and present trends, Republicans stand to make substantial gains in this fall's congressional elections, possibly regaining a majority in the House of Representatives. They are unlikely to gain a majority in the Senate but will leave Democrats with fewer than the 60 votes necessary to cutoff debate and bring legislation to a floor vote. If that happens, we at this time next year will be revisiting
the health-care legislation scheduled to be enacted within the next 30 days---if the Massachusetts election results do not sidetrack it in its final stages. It will not be pleasant.

As a lifelong Democrat, I strongly supported the nomination and election of President Obama. I think he overreached in 2009 by trying to deal with financial/economic crises while simultaneously offering big new domestic initiatives. Franklin Roosevelt, in a similar situation (and with far larger electoral and congressional majorities than Obama), did not attempt to pass Social Security until the third year of his term. Lyndon Johnson, also possessing far larger electoral and congressional majorities than Obama, sought and got Republican cooperation at the outset for his Great Society. I think Obama, and Democratic congressional chairs, miscalculated in believing their majorities would enable them to frame and pass controversial domestic initiatives without first trying for bipartisanship---which is what Obama said he would seek, once elected. The American people, in 2008, badly sought healing and an end to polarization. They would welcome it now. If they do not get it, they will punish the party and candidates in power---as they punished incumbent Democrats in 1994 and, later, punished incumbent Republicans.

No one's understanding of these issues is served by repetitive reliance on talking points from partisan websites. The facts are as above. We should recognize them and deal with them.

Once again, Mr. Van Dyck's statements show he's not up to speed on health reform and how his penchant for dismissing his critics as partisan when they legitimately challenge his command of the facts. The Senate Finance Committee was the main game all along, and Sen. Baucus worked tirelessly from the very beginning of 2009, before legislation had been drafted in the Senate or the House, to craft a bipartisan bill with Republicans. I've been covering health reform since the early 1990s. At that time, a few Republicans, like John Chafee and Bob Dole, supported a comprehensive reform bill that looked very much like what the Dems are proposing now. But Dole backed out when he decided to run for president, and since then Republicans have only supported skimpy legislation that most experts agree will not significantly expand coverage or control costs. There was no way Republicans were going to change their position this time -- it goes against their anti-government ideology, and there's absolutely no evidence over the past year that the GOP was open to any viable compromise. As some analysts have pointed out, the Republicans could have badly split the Democrats if they had offered a relatively modest $400 billion health care package that would have changed insuranced rules and offered some insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansions. Many conservative Dems would have signed on to that. But the Republicans decided early on to take a position of absolute opposition. Every serious political analyist has come around to recognizing that, but Mr. Van Dyck for some reason still refuses to.

A couple of other points. I don't know where Mr. Van Dyck gets his information that Obama's offer of med mal reform was "limited and not serious." Karen Tumulty's report in Time was the only account of that, and she didn't say that. But she did say the Republicans walked away without expressing any interest in a deal.

Second, Mr. Van Dyck is wrong in saying that congressional changes in Medicare over the years haven't saved money. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 saved a lot of money. The Medicare payment reforms of the early 1980s saved a ton of money. And there are other examples too. See former Medicare administrator Bruce Vladeck's column in Roll Call on the CBO's track record in seriously underestimating savings from Medicare legislation.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/37284-1.html

BTW, those tax and fee increases are in the current legislation. So I don't understand Mr. Van Dyck's statement that Congress will be reluctant to pass them. If this legislation passes, over his objections, those revenues measures will become law. That's why the CBO said the health reform legislation will reduce the deficit over 10 years. Again, I don't think Mr. Van Dyck grasps what's going on.

So when will the health care reform be implemented and when do they start collecting revenue for it? I believe that is how the CBO scored it as a deficit reduction over 10 years. 10 years of tax collections and 4 years of actual service delivery, isn't that how it's done?

Although Harris Meyer takes Ted Van Dyk to task for falsifying fact, a close read of the objections raised leads one to the conclusion that it is indeed Van Dyk's opinions about the facts, not the facts themselves, that rankle Meyer. Whether one agrees with the analysis or not, the point of an analysis piece is analysis.