I’ve been giving it some thought, I think that Brown winning in Mass is going to be a good thing in the long run – it’s a wake up call early enough in the year that it will give Dems time to pull themselves together. They’ve spent the last year screwing up, imagining a filibuster proof majority was the answer to their problems. Coakley was a weak candidate, a bad choice, and Brown was a good candidate and ran a great campaign. Barack Obama ran a great campaign in 2008 but he’s done a bad job governing. There’s time to fix it. On the Congressional side, the Dems have blundered repeatedly – maybe for all the right reasons but they’ve still blundered. There’s plenty of time to fix things.
Pass the damn bill. There’s no upside to not passing health care reform at this point and there’s nothing but downside to not passing it. From where I sit, it’s pretty straightforward: pass the Senate bill then use reconciliation to push through a series of separate bills fixing the shortcomings of the Senate bill. Getting the Progressive Caucus in either house to agree is going to be a challenge since they’ve been cut out of the process from day one.
Pass the damn bill.
Steve Benen has a piece at Washington Monthly pointing out what should be obvious: actual information about the health care reform being proposed increases support of the proposal:
So, what we have here is … a failure to communicate. Americans don’t like the proposal, until they learn what the proposal actually entails and realize the scare tactics aren’t true. (”Wait, you mean there are no death panels and this isn’t a government takeover? Well, in that case….”)
Benen refers to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll showing that after a year, Americans actually don’t know what’s being debated in DC. The Republicans have spent a year running an aggressive misinformation campaign and Democrats for some reason were caught flat footed by that. So, party leadership needs to put together a coordinated information campaign – the President, Speaker, Majority leader, various caucus heads working together. The Blue Dogs are actually at biggest risk this year; many of them represent districts that lean Republican and they’ve actually been one of the bigger problems with health care reform this year. They need to be part of a national campaign touting the improvements that will result from the bill and the fixes.
Benen concludes:
. . . what I’m suggesting is that they give success a chance. The polls are far more likely to recover if lawmakers do what they said they would do, pass the most important domestic policy legislation in generations, reap the rewards of a historic victory, and then get out there and sell their handiwork — making clear to the country that the scare tactics were wrong. Once the bill is signed, the media won’t just have a major signing ceremony to cover, but there will be plenty of reports about what the new law does and does not do — “How the new health care law affects you” — which would further help debunk the myths.
Van Hollen thinks the public has soured on the plan. There’s ample evidence to support that. But Americans feel a lot better about the plan when they learn what it is, and they’re far more likely to learn what it is if it passes.
Dems can either deliver or break their promise. They can either help Americans who need support or let them suffer. They can either help turn the polls around or watch them fall further. They can either prove their ability to govern or prove themselves inept. They can either satisfy the expectations of those who elected them or demoralize those who are counting on them. They can either watch the media cover their once-in-a-generation breakthrough or watch the media scrutinize a fiasco for the ages.
Andrew Sullivan has been doing a series of posts making the same point a lot of folks in the blogosphere have been making for a long time: fight for what you believe in.
Sullivan writes:
He must not just rally the House Dems, he must rally the country. He must bring us back in. And we must back him up. This is not just about a centrist comprehensive health reform bill. It is about defeating an entire brand of cowardly, cynical, spin cycle bullshit that has brought this country down and promoting an adult and reasonable discourse that grapples with our problems.
That’s what we elected him for. If he caves now, if he does not mount a huge effort to retain this bill, he will have surrendered on that critical ground. He will have lost his nerve. And if we cave now, all that work we did, all that energy, all that hope, will be squandered as the old politics gets its hands on our collective throats again.
I refuse to believe he has given up; and I refuse to believe we will. This moment is too important as a fulcrum on which this country’s future hangs for him or us to give up now. The polls show a divided country. At this point in the adminstrations of my idols, Reagan and Thatcher, the polls were overwhelmingly against them. They faced them down and won.
Mr President, fight. Show you’re a fighter. And start to enjoy it.
He also makes two interesting historical parallels:
Look: I’m now old enough to remember when both Thatcher and Reagan at this point in their terms of office were being written off as failures. At this point Thatcher’s ratings were much lower than Obama’s and Reagan’s were roughly where Obama’s are and sinking to 39 percent. But that’s exactly the moment when they became the leaders they were.
Reagan made some small adjustments but insisted in retaining his core message of change. Thatcher, embattled by the opposiiton and her own party and massive public opposition, gave her famous “The Lady’s Not For Turning” speech. It seemed madness to many at the time – political suicide.
It was, in fact, political salvation. Obama has been given a gift with the timing of the SOTU. It’s in his hands now. And the position of so many of us who supported his unlikely candidacy from the very beginning is getting be clearer and clearer.
Fight, Mr President. Fight.
Part of the problem is a fundamental question of personal style; most of the Democratic leadership is risk averse. Nancy Pelosi isn’t afraid of a good fight and the White House and Senate have been holding her back. The President is one of the most cautious politicians I think I’ve ever seen on the national stage. Obama’s deliberative nature – dispassionate, controlled, restrained, careful – worked well in the primaries and general election; he seemed to never get upset or worried and it worked well. In the last year, it’s worked against him. While the Republicans and tea baggers have looked crazed, it’s been asymmetric – you don’t want to look crazy but you have to stand up for yourself. The President needs to recalibrate his personal style and do it now – he needs to get aggressive about leading.
And they need to unleash Nancy Pelosi; she’s got a ridiculously safe seat; she can lead the kind of red-meat fight that’ll keep the base fired up (Republicans aren’t going to start hating her any more than they already do). The President has the biggest megaphone in the country; he needs to start using it and using it to beat up the Republicans for standing in the way of helping Americans get access to health care.
The entire Democratic needs to do something they haven’t done in a while: unite against the Republicans and conservatives.



#1 by Richard Warnick - January 24th, 2010 at 11:43
I beg to differ. The Dems have created a situation in which they can either pass a godawful, unpopular health insurance profit protection act or do nothing. The window of opportunity to do actual health care reform apparently has passed.
The Senate bill imposes heavy financial sacrifices on middle class Americans so that Big Insurance and Big Pharma don’t have to make any sacrifices.
It’s not true that the more people know, the more they like the Senate bill. Quite the opposite.
Without a public option, people will be forced to buy crappy insurance they cannot afford. The bill levies an excise tax on the middle class. The bill contains very little federal regulation of health insurance, it leaves regulation to the states (who have done a heckuva job so far). There is no cost containment, no Medicare buy-in, and the insurance companies get to keep their antitrust exemption.
How could any real Democrat vote for this?
#2 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - January 25th, 2010 at 10:07
I agree with Richard. On such a huge issue as health care reform, how could we want to pass a symbolic bill that will definitely be what we don’t want as a final bill. If the only chance to make it what we want is to alter it after the fact with reconciliation that may or may not work, what’s the point? We don’t want a 2,000 page bill with 300 amendments–a health care quagmire that will only worsen our present condition, especially when, as Richard points out, health insurance companies will have every reason in the world to oppose any changes to the bill. I mean, if we’re disturbed by the wheeling and dealing that’s gone on already to satisfy politicians who are in the health insurance industry’s pockets, imagine how much worse it will be to change the bill to favor the people? No, this is a giveaway to health insurance that has little chance of being fixed in any meaningful way. We shouldn’t pass a bill that’s supposed to massively overhaul health care which requires a massive overhaul itself.
I think we’ve become too desperate to pass any bill to think clearly, and we need to back off a bit and rethink things. There’s a legitimate fear that this will just turn into another Clinton presidency, with reform proposed and rejected, but if we have the power to push a bill through over Republican heads, we most certainly have the power to write a new, more reasonable one, and push it through instead.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#3 by cav - January 25th, 2010 at 10:17
Be that as it may, I don’t think what you seem to be saying is any reason to hand the controls over to the repubs.
One only needs to think back little over one year for reasons why that’s a bad idea.
They wingers said it themselves: Bi-partisanship is simply date-rape on a national / political level.
I believe them.
#4 by Richard Warnick - January 25th, 2010 at 10:46
cav–
If you have a source for the “date-rape” quote, that would be good. I can use it.
I’m no expert on Congress, but it sure looks like health care is dead. If they’re going to “unleash” Speaker Pelosi, it will have to be on a fresh issue– maybe re-regulating Wall Street.
#5 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - January 25th, 2010 at 13:05
Cav–
I absolutely do not believe we need to hand controls over to the repubs. Part of the problem here is that we’ve handed too much control to the repubs. Normally that wouldn’t be a bad thing, but repubs have so refused to engage in a healthy debate that handing over any control is like letting the Fox News into the hen house.
I believe the reason that we need to back off a bit and rethink things is because of the very problem you’re talking about–the health care bill has been date-raped (the pharmaceuticals slipped a mickey), and it’s time to get a new boyfriend who respects us when we say “no.”
If we do go on to another issue, like Richard suggests, we should keep on working on health care in the background, being fair but persistent, until we get a clean bill up and running. If that’s even possible at this point.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#6 by Dwight Sheldon Adams - January 25th, 2010 at 13:10
On a side note, I’ve told a few people that I am more afraid of health care reform than most conservatives I know. This is because, unlike them, I don’t see health care reform as a battle in a great war, as something to defeat or die trying. I don’t see its passage as the end of America as we know it, of freedom and democracy, as the kryptonite that will finally bring this country to its knees.
I see health care reform as the first and last big hope of my ideology to inject a new opinion into the country’s politics. As I see it, my fear is two-fold: first, that no health care reform will occur, and second, that health care reform will occur, but that it will be so poorly managed that it will welcome a big “we told ya so” from the right and it’ll be another half-century or so before anyone takes a real crack at it again.
This isn’t a war; it’s a gamble, and we’d better hope the odds are in our favor before we throw the dice.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#7 by cav - January 25th, 2010 at 13:17
Richard, here’s a link:
‘Bipartisanship Equals Date Rape’
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/bivens_outrage/699
#8 by rmwarnick - January 25th, 2010 at 13:42
Dwight–
I know I said health care reform is dead for now, but OTOH health insurance premiums are predicted to double in the next ten years. At that rate, how long can it be before there’s a renewed push for reform?
cav–
That’s a quotable quote from none other than Grover Norquist. I’m surprised I haven’t seen it anywhere. Of course, I think he meant to paint the Republicans as poor innocent victims. Fits in with the normal pattern of indignantly (and often unfairly) accusing Democrats of doing what the GOP does as a matter of course.
#9 by cav - January 25th, 2010 at 14:23
…and dont overlook the context!
Now here’s a peek inside Limbaughs dreams:
http://www.peachstapler.com/the_surrender_18×24.jpg