|
| |
Joe Lieberman notwithstanding, ObamaCare is not yet a fait accompli. "A moderate Democrat whose vote could be crucial said Thursday an attempted Senate compromise on abortion is unsatisfactory, raising doubts about whether the chamber can pass President Barack Obama's health care overhaul by Christmas," the Associated Press reports from Washington:
"As it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient," Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a key holdout on the health care bill, said in a statement after first making his concerns known to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Nelson said there were positive improvements dealing with teen pregnancy and adoption, and that he was open to further negotiations. But in a radio interview earlier in the day with KLIN in Lincoln, Nebraska, Nelson also said that abortion wasn't his only concern and he didn't see how the Christmas deadline was achievable.
Bringing ObamaCare to the floor requires an affirmative vote from every non-Republican in the Senate, which means that Reid and his men will fail in their efforts unless they persuade Nelson to vote with them. To win over Lieberman, the Dems were willing to give up government-run insurance in the form of both the "public option" and the "Medicare buy-in." It seems that abortion is more dear to them than socialism.
We'd like to take this opportunity to point out that this is an example of how Roe v. Wade distorts American politics. Decided almost 37 years ago, that ruling was supposed to have settled the question of abortion once and for all. Instead, by circumventing the normal political process that produces compromise and consensus, it exacerbated divisions and ensured that disagreements over abortion will scuttle efforts to get other things done.
That said, if Roe ends up aborting ObamaCare, we'll be the first to applaud.
Even if Nelson or pro-abortion Democrats blink, though, there is one other prospective holdout. As Don Surber of Charleston, W.Va.'s Daily Mail notes, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist who caucuses with the Democrats but is not one of them, told Fox News yesterday that the bill is not socialist enough for him: "As of this point, I'm not voting for the bill. . . . I'm going to do my best to make this bill a better bill, a bill that I can vote for, but I've indicated both to the White House and the Democratic leadership that my vote is not secure at this point. And here is the reason. When the public option was withdrawn, because of Lieberman's action, what I worry about is how do you control escalating health care costs?"
No doubt there are liberal Democrats who generally agree with this, but Sanders has more freedom to vote his conscience than they do, because he is not a Democrat and thus does not owe the party his loyalty. True, the Dems tacitly endorsed Sanders, declining to nominate an opponent when he ran for Senate in 2006. They could run someone against him in 2012. But what would be the point? Only partisan Democrats and Obama cultists would regard a Sanders "no" as a betrayal. Unlike, say, Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln, Sanders would not have to worry about losing support on the left, since his vote would be based on "progressive" objections. If his vote ended up killing ObamaCare, he might even get a few votes from grateful conservatives.
So please, Sen. Sanders, stand up for your socialist principles!