Kathleen Sebelius

| Wed Apr. 29, 2009 7:16 AM PDT

Matt Yglesias ruminates on the meaning of yesterday's vote to (finally) confirm a Secretary of Health and Human Services:

It seems to me that if you can only get 65 votes for what should be an uncontroversial HHS appointment, then the odds of a broad bipartisan coalition for big picture health care reform are not so good.

....The prevailing spirit within the GOP is clearly that Obama is a very bad president and so they should vote “no” on his initiatives. Which is fine. But it means that if Obama wants to deliver on his campaign pledges, he needs to use every legal means at his disposal to just pass things over the objections of the minority that opposes him.

I had sort of the same thought yesterday.  I mean, I understand the political/fundraising motivations for voting no on Sebelius as a sop to the pro-life contingent in the GOP, but everyone knew there was no way it would ever make a difference.  It's not as if Obama would have turned around and nominated a pro-lifer to HHS, after all.  It's ridiculous.  But nearly the entire Republican caucus voted against her anyway, which means that their desire to work with Obama even at the most basic level of allowing a president to choose his own cabinet is less important than their desire to prove their absolute fealty to the conservative base.

Not a good sign — although I suppose there's an alternate reading that's less dire: if you know that Sebelius is going to be confirmed anyway, voting no is something of a freebie.  So maybe this doesn't really mean too much after all.  On balance, though, I think I'm with Matt.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

They Are Evil

The Republican Senators forced Sherrod Brown to hurry back from his mother's funeral for the stimulus. There is no reason to pretend that they are humans like us with real thoughts and feelings. If you want to be able to predict what Republican Senators will do at any time, ask yourself: What would I do if I was completely evil? With Sebelius, the final vote tally is not that important. The important thing is that they delayed her confirmation as long as possible just for the sake of making life difficult for Obama. If not for the swine flu, they would still be delaying.

Didn't we already know that?

then the odds of a broad bipartisan coalition for big picture health care reform are not so good. I thought that we already knew that the Republicans as a whole, and most likely all but 2 or 3 (now 1 or 2), were never going to support meaningful health care reform because it would render their small-government philosophy irrelevant to the end of time. Thus the negotiations were going to be between liberal-state RINOs and DLC corporatists, with dissatisfied progressives voting for the reform despite finding it highly unsatisfying. I think Spector's switch will move the final bill fractionally to the left, but it will still be basically a compromise among so-called moderates.

swine flu reminds most everyone they live in a community

Even though most city's monopoly newspapers will not editorially express political opposition to Obama is why Sebelius' nomination was held up, preferring to repeat the conservative theme Sebelius is too liberal regarding reproductive rights, world events have eclipsed their ability to shape public opinion over a trivial matter for what has become a critical governmental position. People, even Republicans, want their governments to protect public welfare, especially from epidemics. The swine flu outbreak reminds most everyone they live in a community that requires good and responsive governance, and that the Republicans are incapable of providing it because of ideology.

Overthinking

I think you're both overanalyzing this. Once they framed it on the abortion issue, all the GOPers were basically required to vote against, as is required by their insane and dogmatic logic. Otherwise, as they see it, they're voting FOR abortions!

An alternative take

Another way to look at the Sebelius vote is that the GOP couldn't hold a quarter of their own votes despite the abortion screed. Reality bites, as they are learning. Health care will be a pitched fight regardless (and who exactly still expected a 'broad bipartisan coalition' on this?). But I don't see Sebelius as an indicator of how things will shake out one way or the other.

Pouting Towards Oblivion

The Republicans are in a bind. As a beleaguered minority that trails the repugnant odor of Bush/Cheney wherever it goes, it has nothing left but the most obstinately ignorant base. If the Republicans were a functioning party instead of a committed cranky minority, its elected representatives would enjoy the privilege of dialogue with their constituents, rather than exchanging professions of faith in tenets that prove daily to be at odds with reality. A senator or representative with an ounce of leadership would find opportunities to weigh votes on the basis of the issues, the common good, and long-term goals beyond holding office. If their constituents insist on being ignorant and loud, these members of Congress can start the educational process by risking their ire and defending their votes and the thinking that led up to it. They can't educate their constituents, however, because education would undermine constituents' allegiance to Republican principles, which have mutated into a series of devices to enrich and empower a minority that is even smaller than the dwindling membership of the party. When examined against reality and the enlightened self-interest of all but the richest and most shortsighted voters, 21st-century Republican principles are nonsense, swinging between vacuous generalities and disastrous specifics that are proved wrong week by week and month by month as we sort through the mess left by the previous administration. The Republicans have posted their ideas here: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/. As long as times are hard domestically and internationally, Republicans won't have the latitude to steal what they need to win. Nonsense, even when crafted to the most machiavellian standards, requires an ignorant constituency, and that constituency will continue to shrink as reality slaps it again and again.

Or could it be that

Or could it be that President Obama is 100 days into the most partisan agenda ever enacted. Almost every initiative he is proposing will get no votes from the Republicans because the proposals go completely against the values of the Republican party. And if I read polls correctly, the issues ( although they may have broad support when phrased in general tems ) do not have firm support as instituted by Obama. It could be that the American electorate has really have become more like Europe and the idea of big government has won the day. I don't think so. If the "tea parties" are any indication there is a large number of people out there who understand they were sold a bill of goods when Obama promised to work in a bi-partisan manner. I will never understand why people vote for more and more government action. The evidence I have seen, is that it only leads to prosperity for the politically connected, and gradual lessening in the real standard of living for all. Oh, and a sacrifice of the most precious thing of all - freedom.

Eric has it right. Once the

Eric has it right. Once the GOP frames anything as being related to abortion then the vote will automatically follow. But I think you miss the larger point. The GOP has no intention of working with Obama and never did. Instead they want to frame the overall point as Obama just not being willing to work with them on 'sensible' solutions for the 'real Americans' that inhabit the 'center-right-right' country of their own imaginations. In doing so they can justify every vote against as being a protest vote. And why not? At this point they will not get any credit by being the minority partner in a successful effort organized by Obama and the Democratic Leadership, all that does is admit that they were wrong all. Rush is an evil clown, which is a different concept than evil dummy. He knows that the Republican Party as it is represented in Congress might not survive Democratic success just as it was marginalized by FDR and the New Deal. They didn't like the first FDR and certainly don't want a second one. which is why they are so intent with dragging Obama down with the Magic Negro and Teleprompter stuff. It is patent nonsense but in their minds necessary to keep him from pulling off another Fireside Chat thing. So of course Rush wants Obama to fail just as the Right wanted FDR to fail. To the point that they have resorted to claiming that FDR DID fail. Reagan brought them out of the wilderness and they built on that until they saw dreams of Permanent Majority. They lost that dream temporarily and are scared stiff that Obama will kill it for another 50 years in the way FDR did. Obama is an existential threat to the Republican Party and particularly its current leadership. This is a blow to the most ambitious (Cantor) and the most venal (Boehner) they are at real risk of getting to that point when buying them off is not even worth the time of K-Street. And they see no reason to provide headlines like 'Sebelius confirmed 87 to 12', it just makes them look that much more marginalized.

Just don't get it

The reason that there is so much principled resistance against Kathleen Sebelius is precisely because she is rabidly pro-abortion. Her nomination is not at all straightforward or uncontroversial. She is a poke in the eye for anyone who has compassion enough to be pro-life. Obama could not have chosen a MORE controversial pick. He didn't even try to be neutral. I am sorry for all of you who just don't get this. It betrays a shocking ignorance on your part - and this will make the future even less intelligible to you. Still, it's not like you couldn't have known.

Republican view of Sebelius

I contacted my Senator, Tom Coburn, urging him to support Sebelius. Below is an excerpt from the form letter I received back. ...[C]urrently, I am in the process of studying Governor Sebelius' political career, as well as the policies that she has endorsed in the past and those that she will uphold if she is elected as HHS Secretary. One of my main concerns in analyzing her background are her close ties with the abortion industry in Kansas and family planning organizations, such as Planned Parenthood. Governor Sebelius has also vetoed several pieces of pro-life legislation in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2008. As a Senator, I have and will continue to champion the pro-life position... Through labyrinths of sophistry, the true point I see.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.
Colombia's first environmental film fest.