Comments on: CNBC’s John Harwood To Liberals: “Lay Off Hallucinogenic Drugs”

By: J Baustian

J Baustian — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:12:24 +0000

Harwood does tend toward the left, but I think he at least tries to be impartial. So he’s a better fir for CNBC than either NBC or MSNBC.

Or maybe he just tries to be impartial on CNBC, and he goes full-fledged hard-left loonie on the other networks. I wouldn’t know since I don’t watch them.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:56:52 +0000

Harwood supports anything Obama. It is consistent throughout his opinion pieces and he regularly criticizes anyone who takes on Obama. I don’t watch CNBC as much as I used to since they cowered to the left’s claim that they were too capitalistic. Due to the pressure, they put Howard Dean on on a regular basis so the “left” could have a voice. Journalism is a dying art.

By: adamac

adamac — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:31:22 +0000

Left, right, and center wanted the public option, although it was championed by the left. The poll numbers show that it was the most popular part of the health care bill among the public. Why isn't the media asking our elected officials why so many of them opposed it? That seemed to be an issue more worthy of Mr. Harwood's comments. fish oil

By: ChrisNH

ChrisNH — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:05:13 +0000

“down the middle” journalist is an oxymoron.

By: ChrisNH

ChrisNH — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:03:12 +0000

Obama and Liberals STILL have this delusion that theirs is a ‘highway with no one on it.’

By: Magister

Magister — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:09:41 +0000

I was make a joke about how the KosKids… er… “netroots” must be fuming, but along the way, I thought that I’d point out to @ncoleman that a “mandate” was at the center of all three major Democrat’s primary platforms.

By: ncoleman

ncoleman — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:00:51 +0000

No, John Harwood, what we have seen are the limits of political possibilities that result from a foolish and flawed strategy. That flawed strategy is one of a) negotiating with yourself, (i.e. taking single payer off the table at the begining of the process); b) taking the reconciliation process of the table, (i.e. who was against using reconcilliation? people who had no intention of supporting reform in the first instance, e.g. Lieberman, Conrad, Baccus, Nelson, all Republicans, et al) and c) a lack of nerve, backbone and toughness and most of all leadership (i.e see any statement by Barrack Obama).

The point is that step by step the Democrats Rahmed themselves into a corner by commiting to a process that was at once too cute by half and doomed to fail: deal everything away to insurance and pharmaceutical industries at the outset; negotiate with Republicans until they had mobilized around opposition to death panels; and commit to a legislative process in which the math was always against you. That is, the Democrats must count to sixty to win anything resembling reform, while the insurance industry and other opponents only required one or at best two, to win by blocking reform.

Why is it that progressives are always attacked for standing on principle while wing nuts and other Democratic obstructionists are applauded for standing for theirs, no matter the cost? Why is that this Rahm- hampered administration seems more intent on conceding to its foes and those who dream of its failure while refusing to fight (and attacking) on the side of its friends who dream and work for its success. Maybe it will be a generation before health reform comes back again, but by then, perhaps he Democrats will have learned from this failure that it is smarter to fight for what you want than waffle and run from it.

Why not employ reconciliation? Why not create two bills: A bill encompassing the weak insurance reforms via regular order and a bill encompassing a robust public option proceeding via reconciliation? Why not focus on the objectives we seek rather than the collaborative world we wish for? I am thinking that Howard Dean is correct: We Democrats are simply not tough enough to govern effectively and accomplish our policy goals.

Does anyone really believe that mandating, mandating 30 million new customers for the insurance companies is somehow a stronger health care system for the American people? And what is the value add of insurance companies to health care anyway?

John Harwood has simply taken a long drink from the Rahm-aide being offered by the White House. I have not.

By: ImNotBlue

ImNotBlue — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:38:44 +0000

The issue is that many on the left, very much like the right, are treating this the same… but backwards. Many Republicans want to see this defeated, simply because it will cause Obama to stumble… while many Democrats want to see this succeed, simply because it will help Obama. The consensus at the moment seems to be that this is a bad bill… whether it’s because it’s too expensive and an expansion of government… or because it doesn’t fix all the problems and doesn’t begin the process of universal care quickly enough.

Harwood seems to be expressing the frustration of those Democrats who simply want “something” for Obama to hang his hat upon. The content of the bill isn’t really that important… just the presence of the bill. And frankly, that not the way for a good and responsible government to act… “do something” does is not a responsible platform.

But back to the media angle… why is Harwood commenting on this at all? Is he a pundit now? Isn’t he supposed to be a “down the middle” journalist?