Was it ever WORTH trying to appease the Blue Dogs on healthcare?

[Ken Burch]

We cut the bill down to nothing, made it just barely not the status quo, and they STILL said no.

Is there any good reason to do anything for them again?

And is there any good reason for anyone at the White House or the DCCC to object to trying to send the Dogs to the pound in '10?

[saracat]

1. No. But many on DU Love them.

[Ken Burch]

3. As the silent conservative unrec'ers are demonstrating.

This should be the last year we EVER say "It's enough that they'll organize as Dems". Organization without progressivism is worthless.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. A very good reason not to. Obama never really wanted a public option. It was a barganing chip.

To be bargained away.

So he likes the blue dogs. They kept the lefties in line.

[Cha]

20. You must think stupid lying gets you some place ..

you poor pitiful thing.

[demwing]

4. There is ALWAYS value in trying to reach out

even if you fail. If nothing else, you claim the higher moral ground, just for having made the effort.

Thankfully, we did not fail, despite the opposing view points heard on DU tonight, we certainly did not fail. The log jam has been broken, and the future is open.

[Oregone]

5. Yes. They are a cover for those true blues who really aren't so true

Maybe the watering down was never intended to get the "Blue Dogs" on board, but rather the rank and file who also sold out but hide it better.

Who really knows. Thats what you get. Nothing is going to change it.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Well frankly I kind of like being the majority party so that's a reason to keep the conservadems

Some of them who represent Democratic constituencies (Joe Lieberman) can be primaried. But many of them simply represent districts where primaries could not possibly do any good.

Building coalitions is a dirty business and often you don't like many of the people in your coalition. Unfortunately that's how politics works.

[Ken Burch]

7. After tonight, you can't still believe the conservadems are even part of the coalition

This was the only thing that mattered. There's nothing they can vote with us on after this that isn't meaningless window dressing.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. It's a numbers game

It doesn't matter so much that they vote for us as it does that they make it far more difficult for the Republicans to regain a majority. Incumbents raise more money than challengers and when they have 40 additional Democratic incumbents they need to defeat that spreads their resources a lot thinner. Ultimately that prevents the Republicans from being able to put all of their resources into defeating more progressive Democrats.

Stalin didn't share a whole lot of our core values either, but he was a very necessary part of our coalition during World War II.

I should add that if it had been necessary Pelosi likely could've twisted some more arms among the 39 NAY votes to get the bill. But there is no difference when a bill passes with 218 or with 230 thus there was no reason for her to buy more people off.

[The Magistrate]

11. Important Points, Sir

But there need to be some primary challenges, and less coddling of these splinterists.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I'm all for strategic primary challenges

One of the big picture things that I think the number crunchers at the DCCC miss sometimes is that if you can't govern then you can't hold a coalition together. And in order to be able to govern you need enough Democrats who are actually willing to vote for your agenda, not just people with a D after their name. In certain districts a D after their name is the best we can do. In others, we could do better and we should do better.

Also, a primary challenger doesn't necessarily have to beat the incumbent in order to be useful. Case and point, when Arlen Specter became a Democrat he said he was going to continue to be a centrist in terms of voting. But now that Joe Sestak is scaring the shit out of him, he is frantically sprinting to the left.

Fact is that these people will triangulate as much as they can because doing so increases their odds of winning. But if we pressure them from the left we can force them to vote in a manner that will decrease their odds of winning but not to an unacceptable level.

[The Magistrate]

13. Exactly, Sir

Many of these people need primary challenges from the left to force them to move left, by demonstrating, even if they prevail in the primary, that the portion of votes they must rely on from the left is likely larger than what they can pick up from the right in a red or purple district.

And you are absolutely right that the national campaign planners do not place sufficient weight on electing people who will meld well into a coalition that is center-left at the least. In the House it would not trouble me to give up twenty seats if everyone remaining could be relied on to vote right when it counted.

[Birthmark]

8. In answer to your questions: No, no, and no.

Appeasement is generally a bad idea.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. The question should be is it worth saving thousands of human lives.

The bill passed in the house, if it passes in the Senate it will expand coverage and save thousands of lives.

It isn't perfect.

But even saving just one life would make the compromise worth it.

[Clio the Leo]

14. No Blue Dogs = No Gavel.

Pick your poison.

[Ken Burch]

15. Is the gavel without progressivism worth anything?

Were you one of those "it's enough that we'll be able to hold hearings" types in 2006?

[Clio the Leo]

16. No, but I am one of the people....

.... who remembers what happened ... and didn't happen ... when the other party had control of both houses of Congress.

If that's the alternative you prefer that's your prerogative.

[Ken Burch]

17. We don't have to settle for just power in name.

n/t.

[Clio the Leo]

19. You're a smart man Ken....

.... you understand the importance of committee chairmanships and how those chairmen and women determine which bills are given the chance at a floor vote.

Yesterday's "I OBJECT!" temper tantrum and how Mr. Dingle handled it is proof of what someone who LITERALLY has the gavel can do with it.

Again, if you are happy with the GOP having those responsibilities, that's on you.

But the mere thought of that gives me NIGHTMARES.

[kath]

18. oh, yeah! Hey, what ever happened to those hearings?

:banghead: :banghead: