Those South Carolina elected officials, when not galavanting off to the Appalachian Trail Argentina or trying to shout down the President, sure have Obama's best interests in mind.
"I was incredibly disappointed in the tone of his speech,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).”At times, I found his tone to be overly combative and believe he behaved in a manner beneath the dignity of the office. I fear his speech tonight has made it more difficult — not less — to find common ground.
"He appeared to be angry at his critics and disappointed the American people were not buying the proposals he has been selling. ... If the Obama administration and congressional Democrats go down this path and push a bill on the American people they do not want, it could be the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency."
Presumably, Lindsey was directing his anger at moments like this, when President Obama called out "scare tactics" and said "now is the season for action" by both parties:
Do you see what Graham saw? Not that reality has any bearing on what Republicans say. It's laughable to claim that the American people aren't buying his proposals. The polling begs to differ. But after years of trying to create their own reality with Bush at the helm, old habits are hard to break.
Then there's the concern trolling -- "Oh noes!", says Graham, "We just want you to have a successful presidency and be reelected with Democratic congressional majorities intact, so I give this advice in that spirit -- don't pass a popular fix to one of our nation's most pressing problems!" Laughable, of course, but an understandable tactic since Democrats fell for it year after year. Remember how Democrats would suffer oh so much at the polls if they turned against the war in Iraq?
Here's the thing -- if Graham really thought this was the path to Democratic electoral disaster, he'd be cheering on Obama and this health plan. But he doesn't. It all goes back to that famous 1993 Kristol memo:
[T]he long-term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse--much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for "security" on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.
Republicans fear this like nothing else, save for perhaps EFCA. They have no interest in compromising or "being at the table". Max Baucus tried that -- in good faith or not -- and got laughed at and mocked by the Republicans at the negotiating table. In the end, all those negotiations accomplished was delaying reform to give opponents a chance to amp up their campaign of disruption, fear, and lies.