As if anyone, other than Democrats in the Senate, is surprised? Today, at the Washington Monthly:

GOP TELLS MEMBERS: DON’T WORK WITH VULNERABLE DEMS….

….There are some other ways to achieve the intended policy goals, and if the mandate were replaced by something similar, it’d likely resolve some of the lingering constitutional questions. Republicans should be thrilled, right? After all, if they’re sincere about their deep-seated disgust for the mandate — which they consider some kind of outrageous abuse, despite having come up with the idea in the first place — GOP officials should welcome the chance to get rid of it. If the mandate is an affront to American freedom — it’s not, but just for the sake of conversation — it stands to reason Republicans would want to hasten its demise.

But they’re not. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) threw cold water on the idea of a compromise last week….

….The GOP is effectively responding, “No, we’d rather help try to defeat you than govern alongside you, even if the efforts advance our interests.”

This is especially striking when it comes to the health care mandate. Here we have Republicans claiming that the mandate represents some kind of catastrophic assault on American liberty, and then deliberately blowing off an opportunity to work with Dems to get rid of the provision the GOP considers a disaster…..

On January 8, 2011, Senator Claire McCaskill (D) and the individual mandate in health care reform:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) at a town hall in Concordia, Missouri on August 10, 2010:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability

….Question: You like the individual mandate?

Senator McCaskill: Uh, I mean, the mandate obviously is the most unpopular part, but, um, when you ask people if they want to do away with preexisting conditions they say, well of course, that’s so unfair. Well, who’s gonna buy insurance before they’re sick. You can’t do away with preexisting conditions unless you set up an environment where everyone has insurance. The nice thing about this is it’s not gonna be government run, it’s not gonna be government policies. People are gonna be able to shop, make choices. And if they can’t afford it we’re gonna help ’em by making it more affordable with some help from the government. So I think it’s, is it a perfect solution? No. But it’s the best solution I think that anybody’s come up with to an untenable spiral of healthcare costs in this country….

In today’s Kansas City Star:

McCaskill looks for alternatives to health care mandate

By STEVE KRASKE

The Kansas City Star

Sen. Claire McCaskill’s once rock-solid support for a key component of President Barack Obama’s national health care reform law appears to be wavering.

While saying she still backs the individual mandate portion of the law – the controversial section requiring that virtually every individual carry health insurance or pay a penalty – the Missouri Democrat said Thursday that she is searching for alternatives.

“I think there are different things we could look at to see if they would work, and I’m open to that,” she said….

….

You think there’s a lesson to be learned in there somewhere?

I recently wrote to Claire McCaskill to ask her to support a strong public option in the pending health care reform legislation; I was not too surprised when she responded with a one size fits all form letter which was clearly intended to reassure everyone from teapartier to progressive that good old Mom has their best interests at heart.  I didn’t even hold it against her at the time – I have learned that she is nothing if not cautious.

McCaskill was remarkably careful to avoid specifics in her response – particularly in regard to anything controversial like the public option.  How, for example, would you interpret this declaration which was the most substantive part of her letter?

There are still many tough issues to resolve in the health care debate, including insurance coverage mandates, whether a public program will compete with private insurers, and how to pay for it.  I welcomed the President’s speech to Congress which outlined his view of how Congress should resolve the health care reform debate and offered room for compromise and pragmatism.  … the highest priorities for Congress and health industry leaders remain protecting patient choice of care, curbing skyrocketing health costs, and expanding coverage for the uninsured. [Italics added]

If you can figure out what this boilerplate says about where Cagey McCaskill comes down on the important details, you are better than I at interpreting subtext.  Of course, the fact that  she now speaks for “health industry leaders” might be a clue.

The most ominous note, however, was the closing which summoned up what I had assumed to be the entirely discredited spectre of bipartisanship:

I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to find a fiscally responsible solution for the health of Americans and our nation’s economy …

Not a good sign.  McCaskill always bangs the fiscally responsible drum, which is not necessarily a bad schtick, but, bipartisanship? How many times can the Republicans kick these fools in the behind anyway?

Turns out as many times as they want. And this is what makes me so retroactively angry about the pablum in McCaskill’s form letter: Today I learn that she has become a charter member of a brand spanking new bipartisan “gang,” as if it weren’t bad enough that Max Baucus and his gangsters wasted weeks trying to give the shop away to Republicans – who never once stopped turning up their noses at all this socialism run amok.  

Really all you need to know about this new group is that many of the other members are prominent among the regular cast of Democratic quislings, e.g., Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson. And lest you think I am condemning their efforts prematurely, it seems that one of the reasons it was formed is that the members are really worried that Harry Reid and other congressional Democrats might show some backbone:

Group members have grown more alarmed at the prospect of Democratic leaders using a procedural maneuver [i.e. reconciliation] to push healthcare reform through the Senate with a simple majority.

Somebody ought to tell McCaskill that bipartisan in this day and age and in the context of health care is code for stupid or industry shill – just in case she doesn’t already know.

Is new House Speaker, Republican Ron Richard, less partisan than Rod Jetton? Hell, yeah. A raging bull would probably be less partisan than Jetton. Less devious, for starters.

Take the “special committee” issue, for example. The difference between standing committees and special committees is that standing committees work on issues that need attention every year, whereas special committees deal with one-time topics. Usually, a House Speaker appoints one or two special committees per session. For example, a special committee was formed in 2005 when the school funding formula had to be decided.

And the rules specify that the Speaker appoints all the members to a special committee. Standing committees are different: each party decides which of its own members will serve on them. When it came to creating special committees, Jetton was a sailor on a drunken spree. He had 26, almost all of them converted from standing committees. Those moves allowed him to shuffle Democrats off of any committees where he thought they might prove inconvenient.  

Ron Richard has reduced those 26 to 8. Much better, don’t you know. But even so, six of those used to be standing committees. Democrats tried to get those six changed back, to no avail. But Richard did allow Minority Leader Paul LeVota to choose his own appointments to the special committees, subject to Richard’s approval. And in “subject to his approval” lay the rub. He ousted Democratic members off five of what used to be standing committees and substituted other Dems.

For example, one low profile committee regulates professional registration. It deals with licensure for doctors, lawyers, anybody that needs to be licensed. Big deal, you might say. But actually it is, because the members get to know a lot of professional people around the state and that makes it easier for them to raise campaign money. Jason Kander and Vicki Englund, both freshman legislators who are on the House Democratic Campaign Committee, were blocked from the professional licensing and registration committee. They were replaced by Democrats Charlie Norr and Michael Spreng, who is term limited out in 2010. Finish Richard’s line of reasoning for yourself, then: Kander and Englund will work to raise money for House Democrats, therefore ….

Richard also knocked LeVota’s choice off The Special Standing Committee on Emerging Issues in Agriculture (read: Committee on CAFOs). Tom Shively, who opposes CAFOs, was replaced with Rachel Bringer, who supports them.

The Special Standing Committee on Workforce Development and Workplace Safety (formerly the Labor Committee) lost its union Democrat, Mike Frame, in favor of Democrat Terry Swinger from Caruthersville. Not exactly a hotbed of union sentiment, Caruthersville.

Richard took T.D. El-Amin, from the city of St. Louis, off the Special Standing Committee on Urban Issues and replaced him with Vicki Englund from South St. Louis County.

And finally, Jeanette Mott Oxford, of St. Louis City, was removed from the Children and Families Committee. Oxford has twenty years experience addressing childhood poverty and public health issues. She is being replaced by Belinda Harris, who doesn’t want to be on the committee, because it’s not her area of interest and her plate is full already. In fact none of the other Democrats on the committee have served there before, so institutional memory will be sacrificed.

Oxford is appealing that decision. We’ll see. But let me just ask, what is the point of keeping someone with experience and interest in children’s issues off that committee?

Look, Ron Richard and Charlie Shields got bent out of shape–like the press–about Nixon banning cell phones in his office.

Richard told reporters he doesn’t like Nixon’s rule but will respect it — for now.

“But I didn’t stage a walkout like the press” was going to do [when asked to leave their cell phones outside], Richard said. “I’ll stand by this. I’ll work with anybody until I can’t work anymore, and then I can be a pretty bad actor. But I haven’t gotten there yet. I’m still pretty open-minded.”

Could we have a little perspective here? Speaker Richard, if you’re going to profess your interest in bipartisanship, then quit already with the power plays on special committees that shouldn’t be special. Or if you won’t go that far, at least ease up on the tough talk over cell phones. It’s a non-issue.