Why it's difficult for the President to make any strategic argument to counter Republicans

Here is what the President said about the health care bill on 60 Minutes



The immediate outcry from some Democrats is: Told you it was a Republican bill.

The President was making a point to the American people (you know, the one's who are underinformed) about the bill to demonstrate why it's ridiculous for Republicans to have opposed it and now want to repeal it. Instead of considering what the President said a strategic argument, some decided it's proof he passed a Republican bill

Every health care bill since Nixon's has included many of the same elements. The President's plan does include elements similar to the MA plan, which was in large part written by a Democratic legislature:


Clinton's health care plan certainly contained elements of Nixon's plan and the 1993 Republican plan



Health care reform was a

My heavens do you really read the things you post sometimes?

Yes, I read it. Now your .

understand that this "insurance reform" is nothing but a give-away to the folks already ruining our health care system.

Anyway, how did that Democratic victory on health care work out last Tuesday?

Most of the Democrats who lost opposed the President's agenda. At least 30 House members who voted against health care reform lost.

It's just as easy to say Dems lost because they failed to support the President's agenda.

A Skirmish Lost, A Great Battle Won



Health Reform And The Midterm Elections — A Historical Perspective

Throwing the Bums Out for 140 Years

Regardless of what happens to us all over the next two years, is that the most important thing? It sounds that way.

What the hell does that have to do with health care reform being a huge victory for Democrats?

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

"I fear you and so many Obama cultists care more about his reelection than you do about the state of the nation"

Just because you're pissed off at the President is no reason to expect everyone to come to consensus in that belief.

I really don't give a shit if people don't support the President. I do.

Having said that, supporting the President has nothing to do with acknowledging that HCR was a big win for Democrats. There are people of all political stripes, including some who support Republicans, who acknowledge this as a fact.

others.

Here's the thing, you never, ever, disagree with anything he does by your postings here -- I would love you to let me know if I am wrong on this -- so I am always wondering if yours is a calling, duty, or something else.

And lots of people of all political stripes, including very loyal Dems -- you are not the only person who actually "knows" people -- acknowledge HIR as a big loss for the party because it had so many things that lots of people could hate for lots of reasons, including the mandates, the fact that things don't really kick in until 2014, the 25 million or so people not covered, etc.

But you are always right, or so the moderators always seem to tell me, so forgive me for being contrary!

"Here's the thing, you never, ever, disagree with anything he does by your postings here "

Here's the thing, why do you give a damn about what I post? If I wanted to do nothing but post photos of Bo, it's none of your damn business.

You want to debate issues and points, debate them and stop focusing on what the hell I post.

lockstep is someting that many of us agreed that we all hated so much about the Bushies!

As for what you post, it is only my damn business when I find such lockstep to be bad for the nation, for the party, for progressive causes in general. Saying that HIR was a major dem victory, after the drubbing the party took, even when so many real time progressives disagree, is to me a bad thing for the future of our nation.

"lockstep is someting that many of us agreed that we all hated so much about the Bushies!"

If Democrats were in lockstep, Republicans would have lost.


"As for what you post, it is only my damn business when I find such lockstep to be bad for the nation"

No, it's still none of your damn business what I choose to post. You are entitled to your opinions, not mine.

displacedvermoter Mon Nov-08-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #10

13. It wasn't a huge victory, but you are the one who post an

article that says that the drubbing that the Dems got, in part because the "Health Care Reform" wasn't what it was advertised to be, positions Obama well for the reelection campaign that you think is so friggin critical.

Admit it, you would prefer any scenario that makes Obama's reelection easier than any real struggle for progrssive legislation. I fear you and so many Obama cultists care more about his reelection than you do about the state of the nation, and your collective responses to last week's terrible beating strengthens this fear.



Please tell me how you would improve 'the state of the union' friend??

Would Sarah make your yearned for course correction or would she just 'git back to you on that'.

What 'progressive legislation' would you have them struggle for and who exactly would be doing this 'struggling'?

Hopefully you are not advocating that another Republican be elected POTUS again.

mmm 'cultists' we be 'cultists' because we encourage people to consider reelecting the current POTUS. Please enlighten me as to how this applies to the current state of affairs?

IMWTK

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Of the 39 House Dems Who Voted Against Health Care

Only 12 Won Nov 2nd

Of the 39 Democrats who voted against health care reform,

20 lost their re-election bids

12 won

6 didn't seek re-election

and one, Parker Griffith, switched parties and still lost.

health care reform or simply blue dogs. Melissa Bean tried to gut the consumer bureau.

Voting against the Democratic agenda was not good for re-election.

I wonder what the outcome would look like if they had been able to vote on the PO.

Yes-being against this "centrist" bill was not enough to get certain DEMS re-elected.

We agree on that much, but I dont see how this means that the "centrist" version of this bill was a good idea in the 1st place.

What Liberals have been trying to tell you for months is that putting up a "centrist" bill (instead of one with a strong PO) would be a lose-lose situation. They were right. The centrists who assured us that moderates would just love mandated insurance were wrong. Dead wrong.

Sighh, AGAIN.

The plan he pushed through was so progressive, he ran against the key elements of the mandate and cadillac taxes, and dumped the key feature he ran UPON, namely the public option.

since Medicare.

Of course, there has been almost no progressive legislation since then, but that doesn't mean it isn't progressive.

In ways, it is similar to Social Security when it first passed.

All progressives hated Social Security as being too weak and accused Roosevelt of being in the pockets of the big banks, because he was a banker before he became President.

But no one is going o win this discussion. In 40 years, progressives will love this legislation, just as they love Social Security and the other progressive reforms passed by Roosevelt.

I think most progressives would agree that it was at least a foot in the door, if nothing else.

Your real problem is with centrists and swing voters, and the elected Democrats who forced Liberals to compromise HCR in way that said "centrists" and swing voters were supposed to like.

Guess what- after all the things we gave up and chipped away to impress the centrists & swing voters, they still hated it. If you ask many of them, it was the whole mandate thing. The mandate was something that "centrist" Democrats in D.C. said they wanted, not Liberals and certainly not swing voters.

DEMS gave up the PO in favor of mandates- something that centrist & moderate voters were supposed to like.

Turns out that voters rejected HCR, at least in it's "centrist" form.

The very "centrist" voters that failed to be impressed by all of our "compromising" are the ones who failed to support DEMS on this issue. They failed to show up for us even after we did all these WONDERFUL things to impress them.

You may recall a few liberals here at DU and other places warning everyone about this. I do.

The very moderates & centrist voters who we were supposed to be impressing are the ones who rejected DEMS. If you cannot acknowledge this, then you have very little credibility.

What part are you going to build upon? More mandates? Higher cadillac taxes? The underlying problem is that the cost of health CARE is rising too fast and there is little to nothing in here to address that. There's not even the structure to address that. This bill placed the insurance companies at the center, and because of the profit limits, the way for them to make the most money is to allow health care costs to rise. They are assured of their 15% cut as it rises. The government is saving money because of the adjustments to the pay structure for doctors. But CHC aren't going to control health care costs. Neither are the exchanges. And, by the by, the penalties for the mandates are too low. And the subsidies for those who qualify are either going to go up fast, or more people are going to be exempt. Neither of those are particularly anything to build upon.

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

That is why our good Blue Dogs & DLCers had to make sure it didnt have too much crazy Liberal stuff in it, or the moderates & swing voters wouldnt vote for them in the midterms.

Centrist & moderate voters demand mandates- and mandates they shall have!

Onward, Centrist soldiers!

A toast, to success!

We needed almost everything in that healthcare bill to make it all work. We didn't get the public option, we didn't get a better deal on pharmaceuticals. But if you really think about it, if we ever get in the position to push another bill through, those few items are all we need to pass in order to have everything we need (short of shutting down all private insurance companies and putting everyone into 1 government ran plan, anyway). I have a feeling Pres. Obama knows this but doesn't want to stir up talk about trying to pass another healthcare bill right now.

That is why they came out so strong for DEMS- b/c they agree with the DLC and the Blue Dogs who drove our agenda.

No no no- what we need to do now is something centrist. The problem is that we were not centrist enough.

I for one am not going to be a quitter when it comes to centrism. Everyone knows that when something does not work, you just keep trying it again and again and again and again, even if it never seems to work.

Sorry- but we dont need to do more Liberal stuff with HCR- Obama tells us that what we relly need is more compromising with the far right.

Someday centrism will work- and when it does, I'll be there to say "I told you so!" ;)

In one form or another.

Without it, we may never get anything.

The private insurance companies would never been able to compete with the public option, and it would have been a direct path to universal coverage. As the public option grew in size, it could have begun to dictate prices, which would have allowed it to actually control the cost of health CARE.

Without it, all that will happen is that the price of health care will continue to rise and it will continue to be unaffordable, and the subsidies won't keep up so more and more folks will be exempt from the mandate, and without insurance.

cartels? With all the toxic landmines inserted by Republicans without a vote? With no price controls? With most Americans never being able to enter the exchanges? With most Americans still mired in the employer based system? With our companies still carrying the responsibility for health care when we already cannot compete with employee expenses?

Perfect is not adding a public program but a largely different structure.

My objective was affordable, quality health care for every American and we aren't even at the beginning of a long road toward that.

The Democratic party was very powerful under FDR, and did quite well in elections.

FDR's Democratic base, along with a majority of voters, elected him more times than any other prez.

Also, I never heard of FDR having the election woes or the party control problems that the centrists are having. Maybe this is b/c not as many Liberals hated FDR's SS stance, as you say?

I dont see how Obama's failing centrist strategy compares to FDR's very popular & successful Liberal presidency.

The HCR bill may be a huge victory for people with preexisting conditions; people who are too "wealthy" for medicaid, but too poor for decent insurance; people with chronic conditions; etc., but I am not so sure the Dems have compelled Americans to accept "Obamacare."

Republicans are awesome with framing issues and catchy labels, and they want Americans to hate the HCR bill. HCR will only be a huge victory for the Dems if we can win the debates through catchy labels and careful framing.

n/t

they lost big and it wasn't because they wanted more progressive legislation.

The progressive caucus retained 95 percent of its members and gained some.

I would love it if the top DEMS in power could acknowledge that Liberals were right and centrists were dead wrong (Sighhh, again.)

However, I appreciate them.

:kick:

when the goal is to portray the President in the worst light.

You're blind if you don't see his actions as despicable, incompetent and naive, but still support him. LOL!

And we all know how difficult that is for him.