Whatever Happens, Dems Should Pass And Run On Health Reform

[jefferson_dem]

Whatever Happens, Dems Should Pass And Run On Health Reform

The debate is raging in Dem circles: If Martha Coakley goes down tonight, should her loss be interpreted by Dems as a devastating popular verdict on health care reform and the rest of Obama’s agenda, making it near-suicidal for Dems to run on reform in 2010? Or should they pass and run on reform anyway?

David Axelrod stirred the pot today by insisting that Dems should stay the course, as it were, and run on reform, in order to dispel the “charicature” foes have made of it. Josh Marshall is also pushing Dems to forge ahead.

My take: Dems are better off passing reform — and running on it, not from it. If skittish Dems interpret a Coakley loss as a sign they over-read their mandate, and fail to pass a health bill, they’ll be worse off than they would be if they run on reform — even if it’s unpopular at the outset.

This is fairly straightforward. Failure to pass reform will not stop the GOP from attacking Dems over it. Indeed, failure would enhance, rather than weaken, GOP attacks.

<SNIP>

One other thing: Some Republicans privately say they’re better off if no bill passes. Dems are better off doing whatever it takes to pass reform. Then state the case for it as strongly you can and hope for the best.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/whatever-happens-dems-should-pass-and-run-on-health-reform/

[Political Heretic]

1. Heath care isn't a political game for millions of american families.

It's so sick that this is what we're reduced to talking about.

[jefferson_dem]

3. It is.

Politics - "American style" - is sick business. And sometimes it sucks. But what's the alternative?

[Political Heretic]

8. No it isn't. We're just playing semantics.

What you're saying is that its never possible to escape politics when dealing with policy.

What I'm saying is that its sick that health care has prioritized political victory over actually doing what's best for working class families.


Politics may always be a part of policy, but politics is not always made more important than welfare of ordinary Americans - and in this case we have a bill that prioritized the wants and whims of the financial elite ahead of the needs of low income and working class individuals and families from the get-go, and now that even that is is trouble, all that is left is a bunch of political bullshit wrangling over a bill that was an insult to the public in the first place.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Except that it is.

Politics has always been a competitive sport. It will never be different, regardless of the stakes. Any time you have people fighting over limited resources, it will always be a competition.

[DJ13]

2. By October our party wont be running on HCR

They'll be running FROM the HCR they passed.

Its not going to be a popular piece of legislation for millions of Americans.

[Clio the Leo]

4. Kinda like Brown didn't do?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x134161

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. If they're going to pass something without 60 votes...

...shoot the works:

SINGLE-PAYER OR BUST!!!

[Vincardog]

7. +1 SINGLE-PAYER OR BUST!!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Exactly.

They keep telling us, "Pass this bill and we PROMISE it'll get better over the next several election cycles or until I retire, whichever comes first."

Then as soon as the bill founders they tell us, "Well, we need THIS bill so-o-o-o-o bad we can/will pass it with only 51 votes and by gumption once you see it you'll thank us for it!"

Um-m-m...excuse me Mr. political type guy...I know I'm just a silly girl fresh out of college but if you can pass it with 51 votes then how do you explain all of the horse-trading (read: bribes) in the name of "consensus-building"?

To heck with the consensus; I want to do what is best for PEOPLE! And THAT is what the people will thank us for in the next several election cycles.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. We need to push OUR reps the way the tea-parties pushed theirs.

We're the party of Yes. We're the party of health-over-wealth; opening doors instead of starting wars.

How can that NOT be a winning ticket IF IT WERE EVER GENUINELY TRIED?

I understand your frustrations though.

:hug:

[tanyev]

13. Oh, good. Gone in 60 seconds.

To the mods! :toast:

[brentspeak]

12. Is there a reason you are posting threads with links from the same website?

There are at least three current threads, posted by you, from theplumline.whoruns...etc.com

[jefferson_dem]

14. Nope.

I only get a wee bit of commission for linking to Greg's blog. I do like his coverage of politics, though.

Thanks for noticing.

[Vattel]

15. seems right,

and it will be a step in the right direction.

[WCGreen]

16. It's always better to be forceful than feckless...

But they should take it one step further and hammer the GOP's propensity to act like children in a candy store and then wait until the adults come by, the democrats, to clean up their mess...

[depakid]

17. The smart move would have been to pass the bill using reconciliation

Getting 'er done from a position of strength- and then put forth major insurance and PhARMA reforms as a wedge issue to take to the people.

Dare anyone to filibuster. See how popular those entities are to all the tens of millions that they've abused.

Instead you and the Dems have associates yourselves with those very entities, muddying the waters- and looking rather publicly (and with 60 ostensible votes pathetically) weak (if not corrupt and complicit) in the process.

Worst of both worlds. Good luck forging a populist narrative from that.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Agreed. Lets start by actually doing some health care reform so we can run on it

but what we got ain't gonna cut it.

[ibegurpard]

19. I agree

Too bad we haven't seen any yet