How do you define "bipartisan?" Depends on who you ask. Greg Sargent points out that Chuck Grassley -- the leading Republican in senate bipartisan talks -- keeps raising the bar on what qualifies. Speaking to the National Review, Grassley spelled out everything he said that Republicans would need to get a bill passed:So what are the make-or-break issues for Grassley moving forward? Grassley says there are four: no public option, no rationing, no government bureaucrats getting between doctors and patients, and tort reform.
Now there are five. On NPR, Grassley also rules out a "pay or play" provision that required employers to either cover their workers or pitch in to a public fund.
No public option, no pay-or-play, no things that are going to lead to any rationing of health care, no interference with doctor-patient relationships, and tort reform.
Of course, this was after Grassley arbitrarily declared that nothing that got less that 80 votes in the senate could be called "bipartisan," setting the bar way above the 60 required to break a filibuster. And it was also after Grassley declared the end-of-life provision dead, because some idiots out that might "misinterpret" it. Clearly, Grassley defines "bipartisan" as "that which is almost entirely Chuck Grassley's idea."
Meanwhile -- as I pointed out yesterday -- the rest of government and a majority of the people onboard with the public option. This all boils down to the "Gang of Six" and this clown Grassley. For their part, this group of senators on the Finance Committee seem completely oblivious to the reality that surrounds them on all sides. And no one's pouring a bucket of icewater on their heads to snap them out of their bipartisan trance. They are the minority in Washington and their approval is not essential.
"[T]here’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will 'pull the plug on grandma,' and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him," writes Paul Krugman. "It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled."
Obama needs to take bipartisanship out behind the White House and put a bullet in its head. Grassley is so obviously sabotaging negotiations that there really isn't any reason to give a damn what he thinks or says anymore.
