Two recent posts over at FiredUp! strike me as telling. One draws our attention to Kit Bond’s assertion that the actions of our Democratic controlled congress to craft and pass health care insurance reform is comparable to suicide:

I think it may be more accurate to say they [i.e., Democrats] put red bandanas on their head, took a drink of sake, and went out on what I believe to be a Kamikaze mission.

The other posting describes Bond’s and Roy Blunt’s willingness to put their names to a hasty, Republican-sponsored measure designed to repeal the health care reform package lock-stock-and barrel. In view of today’s USAToday/Gallup poll that shows that Americans favor the reform bill 49% to 40% against, they and their buddies may have just blundered onto the Kamikaze plane by mistake – because that margin can only get better as their erstwhile followers begin to notice that the legislation did not bring about the Armageddon these fearless leaders have been frantically predicting.

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.

I was recently visiting in the San Francisco Bay area where I came across this op-ed about the “evils” of the public option in the San Francisco Chronicle.  All I can say is when you are at a loss for words at the stupidity of the wingers, just reduce ad absurdam. One could, of course, try this exercise and substitute fire departments, etc. for libraries.

I’m about to see Gov. Dean in a health care townhall at Netroots Nation. No, I’m not going to liveblog this – I’ll post video when it’s available – but post your questions in comments, and I’ll ask him as long as it’s reasonable.

The Keith Olbermann show on Friday spotlighted the Americans for Prosperity memo that coaches AFP adherents in tactics for disrupting town halls. Guest host Richard Wolffe offered friendly advice to Democratic Congressmen planning to offer town halls during the August recess:

Those angry protestors who will disrupt your attempts to talk with your voters, and trust me, they will, are being coordinated and coached by industry funded rightwing operatives. … And there’s a good chance they don’t even live in your district. One conservative front group is now busing people from all over the country to protest against Democratic members, a strategy endorsed by Republican Congressman Pete Sessions of Texas, who told Politico.com that the days of civil town halls are now over.

After covering the memo, Wolffe interviewed senior Obama aide David Axelrod and asked him a question I want answered: “Have you lost control of the framing of this debate?”

Axelrod’s answer dismayed me. He said they had not–and proceeded not to talk about framing at all.

I’ll tell you why I don’t think we’ve lost control of the debate. Because I think every month people are still paying their health care premiums, and they know that they’ve been going up ten percent a year. Every day, people are dealing with these growing out of pocket costs for their health care. Every day, small businesses are dropping people, large businesses are cutting back what they’re willing to cover for their employees. This is a problem that people live with every single day, and as a result, they want us to do something about it.

Excuse me, Mr. Axelrod. Although high health insurance premiums have certainly made health insurance reform necessary–and changing “health care reform” to “health insurance reform” is effective framing–that regrettable fact does not speak to Woolf’s question about framing. Y’all are doing a slipshod job in that department. Using the phrase health “insurance” reform is not, by itself, going to reverse the sagging poll numbers on the health care issue.

In part, the change is a hard sell because, despite the need for it, too many people–those on Medicare–already got theirs and thus fear change. Balloon Juice cites a study that says:

By a margin of three to one, 36% to 12%, adults 65 and older are more likely to believe healthcare reform will reduce rather than expand their access to healthcare.

John Cole’s comment on those stats is:

I read somewhere that the fact that our seniors are all covered by medicare really makes health care reform difficult. When the most reliable voting bloc already has their coverage paid for by the state, all the Republicans have to do is peel off a few other haves and convince the old folks that Obama wants to euthanize them.

I don’t know what the framing ought to be: “Medicare for those that want it,” maybe? I do know that the issue is crazy complex, and it’s not being sold convincingly–which is exponentially harder when the MSM doesn’t do its job: when it ignores what Americans for Prosperity is up to at town halls and when it fails to call Republicans out on their blatant euthanasia lies.