http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5d87e54e-0...44feabdc0.html

Democrats need to learn the blame game
By James Carville

Published: January 24 2010 20:20 | Last updated: January 24 2010 20:20

The most exciting spectator sport in American politics is in full swing in
Washington following last Tuesdays once-unthinkable election result. And it
is just beginning.

Contrary to what you might think, I am a proud member of the pro
finger-pointing caucus. It wasnt too long ago that my longtime colleague
Paul Begala and I urged our friends on the other side of the aisle to engage
early and often in the blame game.

Now it is the Democrats turn. Point fingers is exactly what Democrats have
done following Republican Scott Browns surprise victory in Massachusetts,
and the subsequent setback for healthcare reform.

The White House, Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney-general, Celinda
Lake, her pollster, congressional Democrats, the Democratic National
Committee, Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, and Harry Reid, the Senate
majority leader, are just a few of the circular firing squad that has sucked
up every last breath in Washington this past week.

I should admit I watched the cataclysmic election and the subsequent war of
words from over 9,000 miles away. As author of 40 More Years, in which I
outline how the Democrats are well positioned for sustained electoral
dominance for the next three decades, I couldnt help but be happy to be
watching the sun set in the Seychelles rather than have to defend my thesis
(which I stick to) Stateside.

Democrats would not be playing the blame game with one another for the loss
or for the healthcare debacle if they had only pointed fingers at those (or
in this case, the one) who put Americans (and most of the world) in the
predicament were in: George€‰W. Bush.

It is under his disastrous tenure in the White House that health insurance
premiums nearly doubled for the average American family and the number of
uninsured skyrocketed. It was under Mr Bush that the deficit spiralled out
of control as we fought an unnecessary and endless $3,000bn war in Iraq and
enacted the largest unfunded entitlement programme in history with the
Medicare prescription drug benefit. It was Mr Bushs economic team that
worshipped at the Church of Deregulation and was asleep at the wheel as
banks and insurance companies became too big to fail.

But Barack Obama, the US president, and his team admirably and eloquently
argued that the US was ready to turn the page on the Bush years, ready to be
united. Rather than look backward we should march forward in a new
post-partisan environment.

Part of the problem is that Mr Obama was refreshingly naive in believing his
own rhetoric. He really believed we could rid Washington of revolving doors
filled with lobbyists or that €œthere is not a liberal America and a
conservative America€�. Mr Obama and his team really believed he could bridge
the partisan divide. Being elected as a change candidate in a change
election does not translate into changing Washington. Nothing can change
Washington.

You cant fault him for believing forward-looking governance is what the
country really wanted. He saved the economy from near collapse and was on
the brink of passing sweeping healthcare reform. But at some point reality
catches up with you. So as the healthcare bill sat in committee for months
waiting for a Republican senator to support it, momentum began to build for
reforms opponents. €œTea parties€� popped up in the unlikeliest places, and
Republican obstructionism set in firmly. No votes for the costly but
necessary bail-outs, no votes for the stimulus package, and virtually no
votes on healthcare.

While Republicans decided that obstructionism would be their winning tool of
choice, Democrats were left trying to explain what happened to the thriving
America they once knew. Democrats were blamed for the recession and 10 per
cent unemployment, while Mr Bush raised millions for his presidential
library in Texas.

In the end, blaming Mr Bush might not have been enough to win in
Massachusetts, or to deflect anger from the governing party, or to get a
healthcare bill signed. Maybe healthcare reform is just hard. Just think, if
the US only spent $4,763 per person on healthcare costs, like Norway (the
second-highest per capita costs of a developed nation), there would be
nearly $750bn less to spread around insurance and drug companies and their
3,000 lobbyists. Theres a reason why Presidents Truman, Nixon, Carter, and
Clinton all failed before.

There is still a chance Mr Obama and congressional Democrats can get some
aspects of reform passed in the coming months. And the shift toward
populism €“ reining in a banking industry which so badly needs it €“ will
appease both allies and tea party critics alike. But Mr Obama now knows that
he and his Democratic majority in Congress are mostly on their own in their
attempt to get the American economy and morale back on track. In the
aftermath of Massachusetts, our country and our political system seem more
divided than ever.

My Republican wife Mary Matalin recently pointed out that: €œIt was once said
of Mike Tyson, he hits you so hard, he changes the way you taste. If we
(Republicans) win a seat in Massachusetts on the signature issue of the
Obama agenda, healthcare, this will change the way politics tastes.€� And
taste differently it does: sweet harmony has turned sour in Washington.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:40:19 -0600, "Burled Frau"
wrote:

You can’t fault him for believing forward-looking governance is what the
country really wanted. He saved the economy from near collapse


ROFLMAO!! The elevator is still dropping and its still a very very
long way to the bottom.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.