The writer once again makes statements that are either factually inaccurate, incomplete, and at odds with overwhelming empirical evidence and obvious political reality.
First of all, President Obama today released an entire health reform package, not just new restrictions on insurance rate increases. It was available this morning on the NY Times Web site.
Second, President Obama didn't just return to bipartisan themes. For better or worse, he stressed them during his State of the Union speech. How about his Republican-friendly proposals for business tax cuts, nuclear power plants, new oil and gas production, etc. etc. etc.?
In case the writer didn't notice, Senate Finance chairman Max Baucus, with Obama's encouragement, spent nearly the whole of 2009 trying to reach bipartisan agreement on health care with key Republicans on his committee. And guess what? Baucus got stiffed. Everyone but Mr. Van Dyk knows the Republicans played stallball.
Genuine tort reform? Does the writer mean caps on med mal damage awards? See Jonathan Cohn's good article on the Kaiser Health News site.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2010/February/022210Cohn.aspx
Besides, I'll point out once again that Obama, as reported by Time, offered the Republicans tort reform in a White House meeting last May. Guess what? The Republicans walked out without any indication of willingness to deal on health care.
On selling insurance across state lines, in case the writer didn't notice, the Democratic reform bills would allow that, with regulatory oversight. There are very good reasons to establish strong regulation, to prevent a race to the bottom in the insurance market that will badly hurt consumers.
Once again, Mr. Van Dyk seems to determine to ignore all evidence that the Republicans were never interested in working with Obama and the Democrats to pass comprehensive health reform to greatly expand coverage and seriously control costs (sorry, no serious health policy expert thinks med mal damage caps or selling insurance across state lines will accomplish squat). He still thinks the Republicans are the same party he remembers from the 1960s and 70s.

It is important to distinguish between talking bipartisanship---which Obama did in 2008 and which he periodically has done since---and governing accordingly.

One of the new President's biggest mistakes was leaving the drafting of his stimulus, financial-bailout, cap-and-trade, and health-care proposals to Democratic congressioal committee chairs, entering dialogue himself only after the proposals were well down the road to passage. They were constructed without even token Republican involvement. Obama thus found himself not with his own proposals but with those of senior Hill Democrats. His fresh health-care proposal, released yesterday, was his first attempt to issue a finished White House proposal. (It had not yet been fully released, by the way, when I wrote my article). It turns out to closely resemble the Senate bill.

Given the political realities, partially listed above, Obama took some actions---not just words---last week to demonstrate his willingness toward bipartisanship. But more than words will be needed if the Thursday Summit is not to become a hyper-partisan trainwreck. In such a situation, a President and his senior staff normally would be working hard behind the scenes to strike some deals which would attract GOP support while not
alienating the Democratic majority. There is no sign that this is taking place. Perhaps it will before Thursday. Even though Hill Democrats might not like revisions of the bills already passed by both Houses, they would welcome, believe me, an outcome which would result in final passage of health-care legislation---thus leaving them free to pursue other priorities and put the issue behind them. The last thing they want is to spend more time in 2010 on health care.

As with all politicians, it is important to watch what the President does and not just what he says. The actions and policies must be bi-partisan. Words alone don't pass legislation.

TVD, go have a beer with Bob Strauss at the 70's club. Maybe there's a Republican moderate or two to drink with, but you won't find one in Congress. Bob Dole was 'hard line' Republican when he ran with Ford in 76 but he'd be considered a moderate today, when even a Lindsey Graham is getting grief from his base for the crime of talking with Democrats about making government work. The Hyperpartisanship is coming from the right, as it has been since Newt and his crew took charge and shows no sign of changing for the better. Its completely their way or the hiway for them, and if that's the choice, I'm all for building a modern hispeed rail. And a trolley. Obama's policies would have suited Eisenhauer, which is as bipartisan as you can get without changing sides, which is why people think you have already.

The political system continues to churn out sub-optimal, counter productive solutions, and both parties opt to blame the other--apparently the partisanship directed towards the Bush administration is simply forgotten. I saw the following bumper-sticker recently: Republicansareadisease.com. Of course, this is Seattle where if you don't agree with the liberal agenda, your automatically a fundamentalist, republican, and most likely a racist, white male.

Van Dyk's analysis, on the other hand, largely ignores the fact that whatever the out-come, it will be sub-optimal. On SSI: Van Dyk should examine the CBO's latest report, that shows SSI is already living on borrowed money. In other words, SSI is now taking in less than goes out. The fact is veiled by the interest earned on the SSI "trustfund" which amounts to paying IOU's on IOU's.

On Healthcare: Van Dyk ignores the fact that a decade of financial deregulation has turned insurance and real estate into financial instruments. Health Insurance is driven by profit; "Healthcare" turns your health into a revenue stream. This is accomplished primarily by three mechanisms: diagnostic testing, chemical (pharmaceuticals)and surgical intervention.

The Cancer Industry is a prime example. A growing body of evidence shows that cancer can be prevented through changes in habit--diet, activity, stress reduction, etc. In fact, a host of diseases referred to as "lifestyle" diseases respond quite rapidly to changes in habit. Evidence suggests that diseases that exhibit inflammation, such as cancer and auto-immune diseases, can in part be attributed to diet. On a cellular level, grains--particularly, wheat--sugar (HFCS, included), and processed foods increase inflammation. Symptoms associated with inflammation have been reduced or eliminated by dietary changes alone. More here: coolinginflammation.blogspot.com.

An update for readers as of late afternoon Tuesday:

It now appears that bipartisan compromises will not be struck in advance of the meeting. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, in unusual interviews, told media yesterday that he had lost an argument within the White House for a more modest, incremental health-care plan---the first time, to my collection, that a President's chief of staff let it be publicly known that he disagreed with his boss.

Unless things change in the next 36 hours, Obama and congressional Democrats appear likely to forge ahead with a Democrats-only "reconciliation strategy"---that is, to pass part of the bill (dealing with taxing and spending) with 51 Senate votes and, then, to attempt the rest separately. It is by no means sure that rank-and-file congressional Democrats (i.e., not Pelosi or Reid) will buy into the reconciliation strategy. Those seeking reelection in marginal districts this November will be wary of signing on. We shall just have to see how the story unfolds.

So, TVD, which republican fence sitters have been lost? The Down Easterners? Long talks with them last year failed to get them on board. Who else? It was always going to be a democrat only bill, because the republicans have made a decision as a disiplined party to not agree with the democrats on any health care (and most other) bill. This is not news, Rahm calling out the pres for having disagreed with his ineffective for the past year strategy, that's news. He's likely leaving, which would be great news.

So, TVD, which republican fence sitters have been lost? The Down Easterners? Long talks with them last year failed to get them on board. Who else? It was always going to be a democrat only bill, because the republicans have made a decision as a disiplined party to not agree with the democrats on any health care (and most other) bill. This is not news, Rahm calling out the pres for having disagreed with his ineffective for the past year strategy, that's news. He's likely leaving, which would be great news.

NickBob: Your comment deserves an answer. It reflects a common misperception about how important legislation gets drafted and passed.
It is quite true that Republican legislators could not be found to sign onto the Democratic bills which passed Senate and House. We will never know how many might have signed onto other bills, containing provisions they favored and out of a process in which they were involved. No such landmark legislation ever has been passed on a one-party basis. Not even
the Great Society legislation of 1965, where LBJ and congressional Democrats had far larger majorities than Obama and congressional Democrats today. LBJ, Ted Kennedy and other successful legislators always began
their legislative efforts by recruiting Republican co-sponsors. Even the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a controversial bill, passed with numerous GOP co-sponsors and votes. Bill Clinton, after his 1994 health-care fiasco--in which even congressional Democrats rejected his health proposals---quickly shifted gears and adopted bipartisan strategies thereafter.

You can't draft and pass legislation on a one-party basis and then charge the other party with being "obstructionist" when it does not buy into
what you do. That goes for either political party. If the shoe were on the other foot, and a GOP President and Congress were attempting to draft and jam through vital legislation on a one-party basis, I would hope Democrats would draw the line and make a stand.

The Great Society legislation was equally about escalation in Vietnam, as it was a Social Agenda, explaining away your grand thesis. History often rhymes with Afghanistan.

Thanks for the response, TVD. However, politics have changed since our youth. Teddy Roosevelt, noted Republican president was denounced at CPAC by Glen Beck this week and cheered as he did so. The progressive movement had leaders in the republican party like him and LaFollette, while the Democrats had the large faction of conservative white southern democrats. As you well know, the Civil Rights Bill changed the composition of both parties, resulting in one party that is disiplined, ideologically rigid and getting more so, and focused on winning over every issue; and there are the democrats, the big tent party. When I canvassed for LBJ, we shared a phone line with three other houses, today I'm using my phone to write text on a medium undreamed of then. Politics are just as different, and it's time congressional democrats understand this, because the republicans certainly do.

Once again, Mr. Van Dyk, Senate Finance chairman Baucus brought key Republicans into health reform discussions in early 2009, long before any bills were written. The Republicans had months and months to participate in the drafting, and opted not to. Indeed, Sen. Charles Grassley, who knew better, even started ranting about "death panels" last summer. So much for GOP willingness to participate.
As for your statement that no major legislation has been enacted on a partisan basis, you need to read this article from the nonpartisan Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/28/howard-dean/dean-claims-social-security-and-medicare-were-pass/

According to Politifact.org, no House Republicans supported the original Medicare legislation in 1965 until it reached the House floor for a final vote (when 70 Republicans voted for it). In the Senate, there was some -- though limited -- GOP support, with four of eight Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee backing it in committee, though only 13 Senate Republicans voted for the final bill. So Medicare clearly would never have been created if Democrats had waited for Republican support -- and that was in the days when there were still quite a few Republican liberals.

Mr. Van Dyk needs to get over this fetish about bipartisanship, because at least on health care the Republicans were never interested.

Harris, your examples above demonstrate that people jump on a train that's leaving the station, not one that's going nowhere. If the D's can demonstrate that they have the ability and stones to move legislation, the R's will hop on board; otherwise they will be seen as irrelevant and powerless. Bipartisanship will follow legislative success, not the other way around.

If obstructionism produces stalemate, the R's win; and with their stalemate tactics producing wins to date, I can't figure out why Mr. Van Dyk believes they would do anything else on Thursday or any other day. If the D's produce progress, the D's win. That calculus seems so clear, I don't understand why the geniuses at the White House, Congressional leadership, and the Blue Dogs can't figure it out.

As several posters have pointed out, Mr. Van Dyk seems stuck in an earlier era, along with David Broder, David Brooks, and other pundits who pine for bipartisanship. The reason, I think, is that the independent voter has changed. Once upon a time, I think independent voters were informed voters who could say, "I vote for the candidate, not the party, and believe there's value in compromise." Today's independent voter is either disengaged and ill-informed about politics, or so disgusted at the two parties that they can't stomach identifying with either. "Hope" produced 15 million new voters for Obama, mostly of the disengaged variety; success, or at least a fighting spirit, could have kept them. But when the public sees the President rolled by dim bulbs like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and particularly Joe Lieberman, they see a party with no leverage over its members, and no hope of moving the President's and party's agenda. The D's futility will reap its reward in November, and among Blue Dogs and freshman mostly, although they will take all the wrong lessons from their defeat.

One final point - in searching for this mythical bipartisan center, we should remember that Pres. Obama would be considered a fine representative of the center right in any European country, or Canada. The center is somewhere other than where Mr. Van Dyke, Evan Bayh, David Broder et. al. think it is.

Vince, you said it better than I could. Thanks.

@VinceInSeattle, if Obama was European, he'd be...well, European. Comparing Europe to the U.S. is apples and oranges. PolySci101: Europe's fuedal past resulted in an alternative social compact. It doesn't make it better or worst. It just is. Were Europe nations obliged to pay the full cost of their defense, rather than enjoy the benefits of American might, that social compact would lose much of its luster.

Fly, of course the countries of Europe have histories different from each other and from the United States, but we've ended up in about the same place - multi-party democracies, three branches of government (or four if you count the permanent bureaucracy), mixed economies with free-market bases overlaid by regulation, subsidies of key sectors, and limited government ownership. I don't think you can ignore the fact that the US is sliding down the quality-of-life scales compared to Europe, and health care is one big reason. They have found pragmatic solutions to universal health coverage, transportation, public works etc. while we are stuck discussing whether Obama is a "socialist" or not. As for "defense," I think perhaps OUR social compact would look an awful lot better with a "defense" budget that was half our $1 trillion level.

Harris, thanks for holding TVD honest. I don't know where he and his cousins like Broder think they can find these chimerical bipartisan independents. They don't seem to be at MoveOn.org or Democracy for America. They aren't in the Tea Party or in the town halls last summer. Not calling in to talk radio, not responding to blogs here or at the Seattle Times or The Stranger or anywhere else in the blogosphere. America had a clear choice in Nov 2008: health care reform vs. health care is no problem; green energy vs. drill baby drill; Iraq war was a reckless mistake vs. crush the Islamofascists; tax cuts for the rich vs. tax cuts for the middle class and let the tax cuts for the rich expire. It was a binary choice, the voters made their choice in a high turnout election. Why should these choices be invalidated by this pursuit for bipartisanship, which is bound to fail anyway because the strategy is not to the benefit of the Republican Party? It's like the larger army surrendering before the first shot is fired.

If Obama were American (as he most certainly is), he'd be Eisenhauer, thankfully with Biden instead of Nixon. Modern conservatives don't embrace Ike, preferring the John Birch Society (present at this year's CPAC) who considered Ike an active commie. Why anyone who calls themself a democrat thinks we need Birchers or their friends to agree with us to get anything done is beyond me.