The Democrat's pivot

[Guest]

Rahm in WH and leaders on the Hill will adjust all their messaging back to the economy. They must pivot and they know it.

So what happens to HCR? If you're Rahm or congressional leadership what do you do?

- Push something through, no matter what it is, to say you're done, the box is checked, "now let's get to work creating jobs."

- Cut it way down and pass whatever that bill looks like in the future (will take until summer)

- Drop HCR for now (total defeat after losing just one seat? That will look really bad)

If you were advising the Ds on electoral politics, what would you advise them to do with HCR?

[il Padrino Ute]

I would advise them to take their health care bill and stick it. Then I'd remind them that they are supposed to be representing their constituents and to get to work on the economy.

[Goatnapper'96]

Rahm in WH and leaders on the Hill will adjust all their messaging back to the economy. They must pivot and they know it.

So what happens to HCR? If you're Rahm or congressional leadership what do you do?

- Push something through, no matter what it is, to say you're done, the box is checked, "now let's get to work creating jobs."

- Cut it way down and pass whatever that bill looks like in the future (will take until summer)

- Drop HCR for now (total defeat after losing just one seat? That will look really bad)

If you were advising the Ds on electoral politics, what would you advise them to do with HCR?

I think they cut it down and shoot for passing the aspects they can reach bi-partisan agreements. Then in the areas they cannot, they can legitimately blame the Republicans. For the liberals this is great coverage. They can't destroy the economy with their vaunted dreams and thus get themselves voted out of office, but they can continue to promise the appealing aspects of their agenda that precipitated the great change of '08 and then hide behind Senator Brown for their failures. Politically this is great for them. The liberal promises are very appealing and sound so idealistic. The issue is always in the cost. Right now they can promise the American people that they are working as hard as they can for Fantasyland and now they have some cover for not delivering it all.

WRT health care it needs reform but I agree with Sen Snowe who warned that reform of something that is such huge percentage piece of the GDP must have bi-partisan support. It appears that the Dems are left with little choice but to seek that. I also think that the Republicans will be more willing to work with them knowing that they now have some teethe. The only real political choice the Republicans had was to oppose anything this big and put all the blame/glory on the Democrats. Now they have at least some clout and I hope that motivates them to be more engaging.

[statman]

... I also think that the Republicans will be more willing to work with them knowing that they now have some teeth...

Interesting quote. Factually wrong as well. The Democrats didn't need support of Republicans and KEPT THEM OUT of the negotiations of the Senate bill. It's not that the Republicans didn't want to play. It's that they weren't invited to the double-secret-back-room-negotiations in the first place.

Bipartisanship, my ass! No individual has been less bipartisan than BHO. On stimulus, on cap-&-trade, on health care. Republicans have had absolutely zero input in the process.

[SloanHater]

Interesting quote. Factually wrong as well. The Democrats didn't need support of Republicans and KEPT THEM OUT of the negotiations of the Senate bill. It's not that the Republicans didn't want to play. It's that they weren't invited to the double-secret-back-room-negotiations in the first place.

Bipartisanship, my ass! No individual has been less bipartisan than BHO. On stimulus, on cap-&-trade, on health care. Republicans have had absolutely zero input in the process.

Based on the previous 8 years, is that a bad thing?

[byu71]

Based on the previous 8 years, is that a bad thing?

No offense, but what a tired warn out phrase. Do you think the screw up with the banks, wall street, mortgages, 9/11 was all a result of Republican policies.

I blame the republicans for acting like democrats those 8 years and carrying on excesses that began under Clinton, maybe even earlier.

[Guest]

Man, I hate it when I post a new thread and the title has a misspelling or punctuation error. Sorry everyone.

[SloanHater]

No offense, but what a tired warn out phrase. Do you think the screw up with the banks, wall street, mortgages, 9/11 was all a result of Republican policies.

I blame the republicans for acting like democrats those 8 years and carrying on excesses that began under Clinton, maybe even earlier.

Please explain how essentially the same Republican Leadership in Congress with a more extremist agenda would lead to better results than were seen 2001-2008?

If both parties are going to act like Democrats, I'm going to continue to support the ones that are at least honest about it

[il Padrino Ute]

If both parties are going to act like Democrats, I'm going to continue to support the ones that are at least honest about it

And which one is that?

[LA Ute]

We'll never get decent healthcare reform unless a bill is passed that is truly bipartisan and contains provisions that both left and right dislike. Utah's own Senator Bennett teamed up with the very liberal Ron Wyden of Oregon on what has come to be called the "Bennett-Wyden bill." It's the "Healthy Americans Act" and is the kind of bill that could pass and would make a difference. It had provisions that both sides disliked and bipartisan support, too. David Broder wrote about it here.

Excerpt:

Their bill -- in the simplest terms -- would have guaranteed portable, affordable health insurance to every American. It would have required individuals to purchase private health-care policies, with subsidies as needed from employers and government. Most remarkably, the sponsors obtained an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office and independent auditors that their plan would be self-financing after a short transition period and might save a trillion dollars over 10 years.

The bill would have had a chance but the White House conditioned its support on the addition of a "public option" insurance feature. Bennett refused, and so the White House went elsewhere. Of course, the Democrats later abandoned the public option anyway. Things might have been different if the president had not been so committed to that approach.

I kind of wonder if Bennett-Wyden might get revived now that the Democrats probably have to let the Republicans have some influence in order to pass something. It's probably too late but we'll see.

[All-American]

We'll never get decent healthcare reform unless a bill is passed that is truly bipartisan and contains provisions that both left and right dislike. Utah's own Senator Bennett teamed up with the very liberal Ron Wyden of Oregon on what has come to be called the "Bennett-Wyden bill." It's the "Healthy Americans Act" and is the kind of bill that could pass and would make a difference. It had provisions that both sides disliked and bipartisan support, too. David Broder wrote about it here.

Excerpt:

Their bill -- in the simplest terms -- would have guaranteed portable, affordable health insurance to every American. It would have required individuals to purchase private health-care policies, with subsidies as needed from employers and government. Most remarkably, the sponsors obtained an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office and independent auditors that their plan would be self-financing after a short transition period and might save a trillion dollars over 10 years.

The bill would have had a chance but the White House conditioned its support on the addition of a "public option" insurance feature. Bennett refused, and so the White House went elsewhere. Of course, the Democrats later abandoned the public option anyway. Things might have been different if the president had not been so committed to that approach.

I kind of wonder if Bennett-Wyden might get revived now that the Democrats probably have to let the Republicans have some influence in order to pass something. It's probably too late but we'll see.

And THERE it is. They tried to get every last thing they possibly could pull off and it came back to bite them. That's what happens when you play politics at the margins.

[byu71]

Please explain how essentially the same Republican Leadership in Congress with a more extremist agenda would lead to better results than were seen 2001-2008?

If both parties are going to act like Democrats, I'm going to continue to support the ones that are at least honest about it

I am not for extreme agenda's from either side. Therefor, I won't be explaining why an extreme agenda would be better.

[LA Ute]

And THERE it is. They tried to get every last thing they possibly could pull off and it came back to bite them. That's what happens when you play politics at the margins.

I was trying to be non-partisan, but you have it right. The Democrats (Pres. Obama) wanted to swing for the fences. I really think they saw their 60-vote margin as a chance to make history by enacting sweeping reform without having to make any real ideological compromises. Had they played it smarter and taken a more incremental approach they might have gotten just about everything they wanted (and not lost the Massachusetts seat in the bargain). Poli sci profs and historians will probably be analyzing this miscalculation for a long time.