It's about time: Dems will go it alone on health care (NY Times)

[WI_DEM]

WASHINGTON — Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.

Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed.

“The Republican leadership,” Mr. Emanuel said, “has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/health/policy/19repubs.html

[Union Yes]

1. I(and many DU'ers) coulda told them that 6 months ago. Are we clairvoyant?

[dmallind]

6. ...and probably they knew 12 months ago. This is politics.

It amazes me when people assume that those who have proven themselves to be successful politicians and run a successful campaign are blissfully ignorant of how the game is played and need the "help" of predictable activist types to work out an endgame.

Let's think for a moment....

Obama campaigned promising to be bipartisan (and incidentally NOT on bringing a public option to healthcare)

Republicans staked their political hopes on being able to show no progress was made under this "naive and inexperienced candidate" - that he was just empty rhetoric about hope.

So how might this be a win for team A?

Well publicly and consistently offering more and more compromises to the Republicans, with the howling dismay of their own partisans only to be rebuffed even when the deal is free of any hint of "risky socialism" would set up a nice option to explain why the final result was not really against promises of bipartisanship, and that it would then be less likely to contain as many compromises loathed by the activist end of their own party wouldn't it? Leaving the Republicans a)portrayed in the mind of the electorate as a party of no b) losing many compromises they thought they had a chance of and c) without anything to campaign on that says Obama can't get anything done and of course more importantly d) getting a better final bill (for us - worse for the Reps) than they would have by actually working together.

Now this is a fairly risky gambit, and it's not a done deal yet, but it's a nice slice of political positioning and gamesmanship that appears to have a decent shot of working. And those evil evil "Blue Dogs" will doubtless vote for it in large numbers (some vulnerable ones in the next election will "courageously and independently stand firm against the pressure of their own party" as long as of course the majority is big enough) despite their "principled opposition" initially allowing Republicans cover to be unreasonable.....

[Curtland1015]

2. I really DO wonder, as some suggested, if this was the plan all along.

They had to know that many, many Americans would be wary of changes to the health care system (those prone to fearing ANY kind of change, those scared of 'Commies'). By letting the Repigs literally ADMIT they were only opposing reform for gamesmanship, the Dems now have the green light to push through without the Repigs.

Now it looks like we really did want to "reach across the aisle", and we don't have to at all!

...assuming you believe any of this in the first place.

I personally WANT to believe it, but first I need to see what kind of bill we end up with.

[JaneQPublic]

3. Finally. You can't hope for a "Win-Win" agreement when the other party...

... would rather take a "Lose-Lose" just to keep you from winning.

At least Obama can say he tried to work with the Repukes, but he sacrificed a hell of a lot in time and political capital.

[Lilith Velkor]

4. Which they should have fucking done in the first place

Better late than never, I suppose.

[dmallind]

7. nope

That would have scuppered the bipartisan promises Obama DID make (as opposed to the single payer one he did not make) on the campaign trail while making the Republicans look like the victims and maintaining their ability to run against an "extremist" Obama caricature rather than one who offered them 95% of what they wanted and got shot down time and time again........

[emulatorloo]

5. Call your Dem reps and Senators and give them some support on this. Kick and Rec n/t

[NecklyTyler]

8. We have the votes, the Republicans are irrelevant

I do not want any Republican to be able to claim part of our success