Strategy Queston: Confusion on Why No Middle Class Down Tax Extension Vote BEFORE Election

[HardWorkingDem]

As it has been obvious from especially 2000 and beyond, Democrats have needed big issues to distinguish us from Republicans.
So, why didn't Congressional Democrats put up a Middle Tax Cut extension on down for Americans for a vote prior to the election? Would this have not held a bright light to our differences? Would this have not allowed the Democrats, when it might not have passed, to have been able to yell loud and clear to the American people that the Republicans really were a party of the rich and this would have show it?

I mean, it was pretty clear to all the insiders that the Dems were going to take a drubbing anyway, so why not take a chance?

Am I missing something pretty obvious? Was there something that legally stopped them from doing such a thing?

[polichick]

1. Nancy Pelosi said it was because Republicans would've run on it (oops, edit)...

...as raising taxes on Americans (since the wealthy would be excluded in the cuts).

[HardWorkingDem]

2. So in other words, it would have been sold as...

instead of the right not giving every day Americans relief, taxes were being raised on a relatively few.

It still makes no sense to me and even odder, how a majority party in all three parts of elective office could not figure out how to seize the message machine and drown out the Republicans.

[polichick]

3. They had to know that Fox would "report" it as a tax hike endlessly...

Although, you're right, it seems they could've gotten the message through to Dems and those indies who don't watch Fox.

[Skittles]

4. every considered this?

the rich fuck politicians WANT to keep their rich fuck tax cuts, and all this crap is one big giant dog and pony show. HOW ABOUT THAT?

[polichick]

5. And TV pundits too! nt

[Skittles]

6. BINGO

hilarious how many Americans don't get that WE THE PEOPLE don't mean SHIT anymore

[Jackpine Radical]

10. And the people who own the rich fuck politicians

would be very disappointed in them if they didn't deliver those rich fuck tax cuts that they were paid to deliver.

[Lasher]

7. I read here at DU about a week ago that the blue dogs had demanded it.

That is to say, no vote on taxes before the election. This is all I know about it.

[polichick]

9. That's really interesting - especially since so many blue dogs lost. nt

[tritsofme]

8. Leadership didn't have the votes. More than 40 House Democrats came out for extending all

of the tax cuts. The defeat of the type of bill you describe would have been interpreted as a big GOP victory heading into the election.

[TheKentuckian]

11. That would have been rough

[Jackpine Radical]

12. It's absolutely sickening when 40 Democrats--

DEMOCRATS, mind you! side with the Republicans on delivering goodies to the rich at a time when common people are losing their homes and livelihoods.

Clinton at least had the good grace to push his DLC shit (NAFTA, welfare deform, Glass-Steagall, etc.) at a time when the economy was perking along nicely.

[Lasher]

13. Did these 40 happen to be the blue dogs?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

14. IOW, BEFORE an election, too many Democrats are FOR SALE, and too much cash

is floating around, for Pelosi and Reid to risk a high-profile vote.

Just after an election, the market for politicians temporarily closes, and there's more of a chance of whipping an important vote.