Progressives should come out AGAINST the HCR bill. Obama can court US with the public option.

[chimpymustgo]

Hell, Medicare for ALL.

Why have Progressives been asked to take a back seat from Day One??

Who died and made the likes of Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman and lynchpins of a democratic agenda?

Obama has got so much invested in a win, he'll sign anything now. He will sign any shit-sandwich served up - and that's exactly what's being proposed. But WE don't have to settle. I know lots of pundits are saying this is now or never, progressives have got to go along.

But why don't we call their BLUFF? At least RE-SET the negotiations FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH. Progressives have got some clout - and public option - behind them.

I was ready to give up, but no - let's keep FIGHTING. FOR HEALTH CARE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Because there's no bluff to call!

They (Republicans + Lieberman) want nothing. If you say we're going to do nothing until they cave to our demands, the response will be "Okay, fine by us."

[chimpymustgo]

3. But Obama MUST get a health care bill now. We have more clout than we are using.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. So you've established that Obama needs to do something.

You said as much when you said he MUST get a health care bill. In order to get that something, he must have 60 votes in the Senate (nuclear option notwithstanding, but considering how against that we were a few years ago, I don't see that happening.) In order to get 60 votes, he needs all 59 Democrats and 1 Republicans or Independent (Lieberman). They seem entirely uninclined to give it to him.

So tell me, where's the clout? We have a need, and they have none. That seems to give them the clout, does it not?

[chimpymustgo]

5. My point: we have clout and public opinion on our side. WE have done ALL the compromising.

What has the other side GIVEN? Obama needs to knock some heads to please US and get OUR votes. Or let's call the whole thing off. Let this bullshit go down in flames.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. If the other side doesn't need or want anything, why would they give anything?

There's no negotation to be had with someone that has no motivation to negotiate.

And as far as public opinion goes, I see town hall meetings, death panels, and bashing of Obama from both the right and the left. What I don't see are the massive rallies in favor of our bill. What I don't see is angry progressives shouting down Republicans (you know, the ones ACTUALLY standing in the way.) I see barely a fraction of the effort from the left in passing the bill as I do on the right in defeating it. So you can toss polls out there all you want, but there's a clear enthusiasm gap involved. There is literally no motivation for Republicans to budge because we are giving them no real reason to do so.

What's insane is that instead of telling REPUBLICANS that they'll go down in flames if health care doesn't pass, we're telling DEMOCRATS that. Not only does it make no sense, it's actually counterproductive to negotiations. It increases the need on our side and decreases what little need there was to pass a bill on theirs. WE have sabotaged health care reform as much as Republicans have.

So again, it comes down to the fact that they have something we need and we have nothing to give them in order to get it. That does not seem to equal clout.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. And when Democratic progressives try it, voting against such

legislation, they are accused ON DU! no less, of 'voting with the republicans'.

[polichick]

2. I agree. Re-setting from a position of strength would be smart...

Seems to me the fix is in and the WH is not on the side of progressives - but that doesn't mean we should fold.

[xchrom]

8. It's certainly worth a try. Nt

[TheKentuckian]

9. I don't get how you negotiate from a position of strength

when the people you must negotiate with don't actually want anything. The premise assumes that these folks have some need to pass a bill themselves. We have no currency to spend that they want and that results in a high beggar with hat in hand factor.

Compromise can only really happen if everyone has something to loose and something to gain but in this situation our gain is their loss and vice versa. I understand the frustration but not the logic. What chips do we have to cash in to the other side? The only thing one can really say is that is the people are being opposed then they'll select new representation but our opposition doesn't seem too terribly concerned about this factor. That being the case, then what leverage is there really?

There is no legitimate threat of putting 60 liberals in the Senate in the short term and if thats not out there then what is going to change in this dynamic that would give us the upperhand?

[chimpymustgo]

10. Then let them fillibuster. On national tv.