Skip to main content

The uncanny resemblance between the strategy being employed to defeat health care and Obama's Presidency and the campaign that killed Clintoncare and turned congress red in 1994 is palpable.

The first time I ever felt maniacal enough to become someone who would call my congressman was in 1994, right after the news stories started flooding the national consciousness with proclamations of a republican revolution. nothing could have been further from the truth.

Jim Walsh, my Republican representative from Syracuse, as many northeastern Republicans were, was not an evangelical Newt follower and so I had no one to argue with on that phone. I won't begrudge him the fact that he didn't do anything to stop the illusion of a Republican Revolution but, as we discussed on the phone that day, it was an illusion indeed.

This is a cumbersome and clumsy history of Republican certitude. There is nothing revelatory, but I feel a need to connect these dots. This is not a center-right country. It can look that way by emphasizing the results of elections and not being honest about the ingredients of those results, but it is so egregiously false that I thread these events together to try to help solidify resistance to the claims that republicans are or ever were the soul of this nation.

This was a pretty sorry country in the times leading to the great depression. The popularity of The New Deal was not some lark. It was time to begin addressing real problems. It was an answer to absurdities in labor conditions, food supply conditions, health care conditions, poverty conditions: we were growing up at long last. It was a sorry time for Republicans and rightly so because their philosophies had been painfully proved worthless. Yet still today, they continue to sell their myths and rally with rhetoric of the late great Ronald Reagan.

"Government is not the answer to our problems. Government is the problem"

What did Ronald Reagan do? He proceeded to begin dismantling the New Deal. Deregulation, tax cuts for rich people and corporations and unprecedented deficit spending on defense.

A cute economic theory was the wink and smile that justified the lost revenues and a wall in Berlin was used to justify the deficit spending on pipe-dream weapons. The word trillion first entered mainstream discussion but only as an absurdity. Not many people were ready to believe any of the devils in our government would be that irresponsible. Certainly no one would have called Reagan a big government rube.

The last four years Reagan was, quite literally, an empty suit. The thieves had already gotten everything they wanted and so the snowball of irresponsibility rolled on down the hill.

George H. Bush, managed to eke out a victory by convincing everyone that the looming payback was just a blip and that Reaganomics would soon bear fruit. The trees never blossomed and he found himself unable to read his own lips. He even got himself a nice, clean, no muss no fuss military victory to rally the jingoists, but as it turned out, those post war polling coups were quick to fade.

As the Reagan Hangover settled in during the early 90s, the nation was screaming for aspirin, So Bush was a dead man walking. The Democrat, whoever he would be, had no credibilty either, because we saw them doing shots with Reagan for the past 11 years (If you can't beat em... and so the Dems spent that decade trying to pork up on military contracts).

The mood of populist revolt was so tenacious (if low-key, due to the hangover), that one of the most successful (and arguably the most successful) third party candidate in American Presidential history was able to garner nearly 20% of the popular vote. He had some interesting things to say:

"Keep in mind our Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution. Our founders did not know about electricity, the train, telephones, radio, television, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, nuclear weapons, satellites, or space exploration. There's a lot they didn't know about. It would be interesting to see what kind of document they'd draft today. Just keeping it frozen in time won't hack it."

He was no Ron Paul.

Out of the false-starts and scandal stories of the Democratic primaries in that interesting year of 1992 emerged (like puss from a zit) a man we've all come to know and love as a saviour of journalists and a master politician. But Bill Clinton was no Slick Willy back then. His best quality was that as a governor he had clean hands from the Reagan Democrat taint.

In 1993 he became president by default with a whopping 43% of the popular vote. He quickly proved to be timid and perhaps incompetent and by 1994 there were a lot of people who wished they'd voted for Ross Perot.

By 1994 a remarkable malaise had enveloped the nation and there were ghost campaigns that generated little (read no) interest and of course voter turnout was pathetically low. 36% of registered voters bothered to get ink on their finger. There was a dearth of new voter enrollment. There were also Reagan Democrats who still hadn't gotten tossed on their ear.

The first time that most people became aware that a Republican Revolution had occurred was when they read it in the papers in November of that year.

Yes, so 36% of eligible voters voted. Generally the elections were all relatively close (52% for the Republican 48% for the other guy). That means 19-20% of registered voters barely made their voices heard and it became the Republican Revolution.

It wouldn't be long before Newt overplayed this mythical mandate and we had our nation's preferred stalemate with no health care reform but also no prayer in school.

We plodded along in apathy for another 6 years with no way out, and having no idea how much worse it could get.

All those years of carelessness in our voting choices had one cancer that had yet to rear its head: An activist and political conservative supreme court. In 2000 we got punched in the back of the head as that court appointed George W. Bush to the presidency. Nobody was in love with wooden Al Gore, but looking back, There are a lot of us who think we ought to have had more of a bite-the-bullet motivated fortitude about imperfect candidates, Especially any Ralph Nader supporters with ink on their fingers.

But anyway, the point is: the Republican Revolution is about as real as Santa Claus. The ramifications of the hype are remarkable. Newt Gingrich should be a laughing stock, but he still gets credence as some sort of political genius despite a record that shows unprecedented political incompetence. Joe Scarborough should be a clerk in a basement somewhere but instead he mouths off with some air of credibility as a veteran of a better and more American time. The political capital that weaves its way from this Republican Revolution as some sort of last hurrah of a Golden Age of Reagan is dangerous. It must be destroyed at the knees before it proceeds as a campaign cry for Republicans.

"The nation is having doubts about Obama and the radical policies he wants to pursue." Random Republican Pundit

"We're sobering up from our turn to the left" Random Republican Pundit

What this means as we forge into health care legislation battles and a 2010 election is essentially this:

Do not waver. Most Republican victories come not from a new zeal and support for Republican ideas, but from a Vacuum of progressive energy.

True health care reform and at least a draw in 2010 is ours to lose.

From a show I loath on so many levels comes the only talk of how Congress ought to fight the health care battle.

Strategically this would be the most opportune time to march. Marches have a sometimes dubious political value, so marching for health care reform in some general way as I've heard proposed by some, in an attempt to get us progressives flexing our muscle, is not wowing many right now.

In contrast, I think a commitment to be in attendance at the second vote for cloture (i.e. the day after the Senate showed it's true colors) along with a media frenzy of theatrical leg-thrilling for Chris Matthews, "loon" calling by Bill O'Reilly and some well articulated explanations of this Democracy Denied by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann would be too much for a few isolated and ignominious Senators to rationalize.

They would inevitably have to explain why they won't let them vote.

Any poll proves that the majority are expecting some major health care fixin'.

After they've tweaked it for the last time it will have an impatient endorsement from a massive majority in the House of Representatives and a 51-56 vote commitment in the Senate and a left hand in a white house.

All that would be needed is what any simple democracy expects: a time and place to..... vote.

Why won't you let them vote, Senator Conrad?

Originally posted to jack23 on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:19 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  BIG DIFFERENCE-No Central Repub Media Figure (0+ / 0-)

      Who can command face time while nationalizing the off-year Elections...

      IF the Repubs come up with this (Mike Pence??), we could be screwed...

    •  Massive fail (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, Ahianne, elmo, kayfromsouth, Pragmaticus

      Almost nothing is the same, especially a self-destroyed Republican party that isn't poised for anything more than temper tantrums. And you can't even spell "Nader."

      It astonishes me to see so many people here so addled that they are pushing the idea that failure to dramatically reform health care will lead to an overwhelming landslide takeover by those who have made it clear that they don't want any reform at all – and that they are crazy to boot.

      Get over it and get to work.

      Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate http://www.jenniferbrunner.com/

      by anastasia p on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:56:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why would Democrats turn out? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        littlebird33

        If there was no healthcare reform?  

      •  you're an idiot (0+ / 0-)

        who didn't bother reading everything before you commented.

        try again, or shut up.

        •  jacky boy, do you think (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RunawayRose

          ..anastasia will pay any attention to you a week later? Reply in a more timely fashion, and you might actually get some conversation. And you have no business calling her an idiot, or telling her to shut up. I would suggest you read the FAQ, and learn some manners.

          Veni, vidi, farinuxi.

          by Ahianne on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:55:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  what exactly did she say (0+ / 0-)

            "massive fail"

            and

            "you can't spell" which is such an idiotic critique.

            She implied idiocy. I said idiot.

            Your adherence to decorum is boring.

            Also, you say she won't pay attention a week later? wow. Good to see our conversations on Kos are so durable. I guess I'll post at McDonald's web site next time. of course, it begs the question, what are you doing here a week later?

            I'm tired of people posting comments without reading. This Diary was an attempt (I quote)to try to help solidify resistance to the claims that republicans are or ever were the soul of this nation. And Anastasia came through and carpet bombed me with comments after obviously only reading the title.

            Manners? I consider her actions more rude than my words.

            (not to mention, calling me "Jacky boy", though you don't know me, is surreptitiously more rude than any words).

            •  Having rethought that, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RunawayRose

              ..I will no longer address you in that way. However, you have no evidence that anastasia did not read your diary. Nor any of the other people you accused of that.

              As to what I'm doing here at this late date, I told you already that I checked my hotlist. Having seen your response to me, I thought I'd see what else you'd been saying lately. Found that you were shouting in an empty room. I don't see any evidence that anyone else has noticed.

              You do realize that an enormous volume of material is posted on this site every day, don't you? Most people just check their comments list to see if anyone is talking to them. They won't see your replies because, at a normal comment rate, their comments to which you are replying will be several pages back. Why should they revisit a week-old conversation, when they are engaged in more current ones?

              Veni, vidi, farinuxi.

              by Ahianne on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:01:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i know (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ahianne

                i understand what your saying. ultimately i don't want to fight with you: I'm glad you're here. Yes, I'm shouting in an empty room. I did put a lot of effort into this post, though, and I'm pretty sure (though not officially sure) that Anastasia didn't read my post in entirety - did you read the things she said?

                We, together, have to get to a better place, and I felt my effort was, as i said, carpet-bombed, without comprehension, and i'm glad you're making such a fuss.

                Indeed an emormous volume of material is posted here, but that shouldn't intimidate us from adding depth to our dialogue.

                Thanx for bothering to answer the shouts in this empty room.

    •  This bit gets a donut for your diary. (3+ / 0-)

      Out of the false-starts and scandal stories of the Democratic primaries in that interesting year of 1992 emerged (like puss from a zit) a man we've all come to know and love as a saviour of journalists and a master politician. But Bill Clinton was no Slick Willy back then. His best quality was that as a governor he had clean hands from the Reagan Democrat taint.

      "like puss(sic) from a zit"?!? For all his faults and failings, comparing Bill Clinton to pus (correct spellimg, jacky boy, with one s) is over the line.

      Veni, vidi, farinuxi.

      by Ahianne on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:36:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'll rec. the diary but I don't (0+ / 0-)

      fully buy into the argument.

      Elections are by their very nature unpredictable, especially when voters may be discouraged, resentful, or apathetic. 2010 will be both an interesting and a challenging year.

      I expect there may be some losses, and possibly in significant numbers, for the Democrats in the House. I expect that not to be the case in the Senate.

  •  I look forward to us (0+ / 0-)

    losing a few Senators.

    What killed health care? 59/60 Senators.

    If we had 55 it would be a total different discussion.

    As far as Congressmen, I will be overjoyed to see Mike Ross, Jim Cooper and a couple of other sell outs and RAHMBots lose their jobs.

    Go ahead, give the public what they want. A moderate Republican.
    But if they get a wingnut, it should be hard for a young progressive to challenge him in 2012, the year of Obama Pt2.

    The fact still remains, Obama hired Rahm to crush the blue dog leadership, and force loyalty to keep this renegade faction at bay.

    I commend Rahm for not letting Obama push him around, but to exact a campaign of vengence all year is too much.

    If the conservatives can get Van Jones fired, it shows weakness that we can't do the same for Rahm, who has not one solitary defined accomplisment or metric to show he is a competent Chief of Staff.

    PCCC: http://boldprogressives.org
    TYT: http://www.theyoungturks.com

    by George Pirpiris on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:28:46 AM PDT

    •  Could You Expound on This? (6+ / 0-)

      What killed health care? 59/60 Senators.

      If we had 55 it would be a total different discussion.

      I think the main difference would be instead of the potential of having a public option with a trigger, we'd be talking about maybe putting some restrictions on the private insurance people are required to by.

      How do you suppose meaningful reform would have been easier with fewere Democratic Senators?  All it means is we'd have to give up more to buy more cloture votes.

      ---- Don't mind me, I'm just here trolling for James Inhofe. [Note to Complete Idiots: I'm Not Really Trolling for James Inhofe]

      by TooFolkGR on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:30:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whoops, Im sorry I forget we are Democrats (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nippersdad, jack23

        And we are just too pussy to fight a fillibuster.

        You know how mean those republicans are when they slap on those fake southern accents.

        Thats my point.  Give Democrats a chance to be weak and lazy and they will raise their hands and ask if they can get extra credit after they are done.

        PCCC: http://boldprogressives.org
        TYT: http://www.theyoungturks.com

        by George Pirpiris on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:35:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So You Can't Expound On It? (4+ / 0-)

          I was serious, I was wondering what you meant by 55 would be better than 59.  If your point is, "This would be easier if we had 55 Senators AND the will to change the rules of the Senate to get this bill passed," then I would agree with you, I just didn't understand that's what you meant.

          You could have just answered the question.

          ---- Don't mind me, I'm just here trolling for James Inhofe. [Note to Complete Idiots: I'm Not Really Trolling for James Inhofe]

          by TooFolkGR on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:36:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TooFolkGR, jack23

            My point is centered around filibusters.

            As we got closer to 60 the fight wasn't "how do we unite to defeat the filibuster" to "will ben nelson vote FOR a Republican filibuster" strait to "We going to reconciliation.

            What is it about fighting a filibuster so scary?

            PCCC: http://boldprogressives.org
            TYT: http://www.theyoungturks.com

            by George Pirpiris on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:43:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Don't Think It's Scary So Much As (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aexia, littlebird33

              The one question I'd like an answer to is, "Why is it wrong to make people who want to fillibuster fillibuster?"  I know they have a gentleman's agreement whereby you only have to PRETEND you're fillibustering (cloture) but on something as important as this, I'd like to at least see some Republican up there reading the phone book becuse they love insurance company money so much.

              My point about the weaker bill is that I believe if we only had 55 the Fillibuster would be built even more strongly into the equation and we wouldn't even be seriously discussing a triggered public option, but that's just my take.  I suppose it depends on which 55 we had (or more importantly, which four we didn't have).

              ---- Don't mind me, I'm just here trolling for James Inhofe. [Note to Complete Idiots: I'm Not Really Trolling for James Inhofe]

              by TooFolkGR on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:45:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So much as difficult (0+ / 0-)

                I never finished the sentence in my subject line sorry.

                ---- Don't mind me, I'm just here trolling for James Inhofe. [Note to Complete Idiots: I'm Not Really Trolling for James Inhofe]

                by TooFolkGR on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:46:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Were on the same level. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TooFolkGR

                  But for me I focus on the media and polls, and politicans love to use both the media memes and teh polls as excuses.

                  I saw in our media as Dems got close to 60, the whole 60 line was created.
                  Its a terrible meme that Obama and Reid failed at stopping.

                  And in this session we need to test out the filibuster.

                  And what would be nice is if every young kid at school (who I hope has a piqued interest in politcs now) knows what cloture is, as 99% of American's dont.

                  Sometimes pundits need it rexplained to them.

                  PCCC: http://boldprogressives.org
                  TYT: http://www.theyoungturks.com

                  by George Pirpiris on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:52:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I thought he answered the point beautifully. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            George Pirpiris, jack23

            Give Democrats a chance to be weak and lazy and they will raise their hands and ask if they can get extra credit after they are done.

            The excuse for keeping the powder dry for years is "we don't have the votes." Now they potentially have the votes and are actually expected to do something, they are coming up with new and exciting excuses ofr not getting the job done.

            If the Democratic Party cannot come up with the votes to overcome a filibuster right now and let everyone vote their consciences later, they never will. The bar created by Democrats to achieve their stated own Party Platform objectives is parently getting artificially high.

            A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

            by nippersdad on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:32:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

              Should read:

              The bar created by Democrats to achieve their own stated Party Platform objectives is patently getting artificially high.

              I really need to start proofreading my comments better.

              A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

              by nippersdad on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:36:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well said, my point exactly, and until the MSM (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jack23

              reports this (Chris Mathews did for one day) their comfortable meme will continue.

              I will never forget how on day 1 they pulled out their 6 shooters and proclaimed that Obama's victory proved we were a center right country.

              God I hope the leadership in our party (who I guess now is Dean and various bloggers) harp on the value and power of the media.

              I think folks like Keith and Rachel should start trying to work in a segment going after Dems on their weakness, and the MSM failing to report it.

              PCCC: http://boldprogressives.org
              TYT: http://www.theyoungturks.com

              by George Pirpiris on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:15:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I wil also say in hypothetical (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TooFolkGR, jack23

        that say we removed the most egregious members of our caucus, Nelson, Landrieu and Lieberman, and Baucus,  and on the house side we were done with Ross and a few of the other clowns that bite at his ankles we wouldn't have these fake stories of some epic civil war in the Democratic party.

        This is why I call for the firing of Rahm Emanuel so vociferously.
        I believe Obama hired him to crush the blue dog coalition, but also to force Rahm to controll his boys.
        Instead Rahm shrugs his shoulders everytime they humiliate Obama and our party.

        Also have you read this headline yet about ross, see how HP delights in putting this top of the page even though his vote is not relevant anymore
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        PCCC: http://boldprogressives.org
        TYT: http://www.theyoungturks.com

        by George Pirpiris on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:42:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hate to interrupt the wrist-slitting party (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia, askew, Ahianne

          But NONE of the senators you mention are up for re-election in 2010. We can't touch Landrieu until 2014. Oh well. And we're picking up Ohio — Voinie's seat. That's one. It doesn't matter what happens with health care. We're just taking it. Suck eggs, Rob Portman.

          Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate http://www.jenniferbrunner.com/

          by anastasia p on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:03:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But any effort to Primary these Senators (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jack23

            needs to start now, right? It is not as though Louisiana, for example, has a really deep bench from which to choose. And none will be forthcoming if we wait until 2014 to start publicizing their problematic votes.

            A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

            by nippersdad on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:39:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Unfortunatly we can't edit comments here (0+ / 0-)

            I know I meant to type in Blanche Lincoln.
            Yea yea, Im sexist for mixing up one southern conservative with another.  

            And Nelson and Baucus, epic fail on me.

            Reid and Conrad are still up, I don't want reid to lose, but I don't want him as Senate leader another session.

            We are losing for one reason and one reason only, the fact that Obama thought he could crush the BlueDog/DLC coalitions by removing their leaders from power and bribing them with white house power. (Rahm and Salazar)

            If you are blind to that, and don't see the intrinsic value of punishing any politician who takes their orders from Rahm and the DLC and not Obama and the base then we are lost.

            But I got to hand to Rahm and Al From, they said they would beat Obama and Dean and the DNC and they were right.

            Rahm has embarrassed Obama to no end gaining him no political advantages, no Rahm's own DLC good ole boys are probably going to run against the party platform.

            We need a petition to fire Rahm, like Rumsfield, it is impossible to move forward while he is still there.

            PCCC: http://boldprogressives.org
            TYT: http://www.theyoungturks.com

            by George Pirpiris on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:10:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Health care is dead after 2010 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike

      Its gonna be a bloodbath if we dont get it done by then and we wont have the votes for it after 2010.  

      •  Huh? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vlajos, askew, Ahianne, Bronxist

        It will be a "bloodbath" (no, that's virtually impossble) BECAUSE of failure to pass health care, so voters will elect people violently opposed to even the smallest health-care fix. Honestly, I feel like either I've fallen through  the looking glass, or DailyKos is suffering from major epidemic dementia.

        Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate http://www.jenniferbrunner.com/

        by anastasia p on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:59:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It happened in 1994 (4+ / 0-)

          Republicans were energized by their defeating Democrats on healthcare and Democrats were discouraged and depressed and sat home.  That is what will happen.  No reform=not an option.  

        •  It would be a reactionary response to perceived (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nippersdad, jack23

          Democratic "failures" and "inability to govern," and the momentum would swing to the other side - that's the theory. I don't know how true that is, but there must be a reason the opposition party usually picks up some seats in off years.

          No doubt the Rethugs are itching to try to capitilize on a failure to pass health care reform - even though they never really wanted it. It will probably go something like this: "They have majorities in both houses and they couldn't get health care reform passed" or "They would only accept their big spending, big government public option, so they killed the opportunity for REAL reform."

          Typical Rethug behavior, and I'm sure the administration knew who they were dealing with from the get go. That's why the President wanted them to show their cards before he laid down more of his - and some of them did. More ammunition to use against them...

          •  But will he use it? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jabney, littlebird33

            Therein lie the question.

            A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

            by nippersdad on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:41:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think it's only a matter of when (0+ / 0-)

              Rahm has already gone on record saying the Rethugs care more about playing politics than health care reform twice now. You can bet that will be the theme of many anti-Rethug ads, along with the wingnuts who showed up for the town halls and their Rethug appeasers.

              •  I hope you are right. (0+ / 0-)

                However, if it happens, it will not be because of Rahm Emanuel. Remember, Rahm is the guy who defines success as anything which benefits BlueDogs and their constituency.

                A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

                by nippersdad on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 05:00:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's a narrow view of Rahm (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  askew

                  I've heard it a million times, but that does not make it true.

                  His idea of success may not be yours, but he wants Dems to win.

                  I'm sure he'd love to have a House and Senate full of progressives who would pass the President's agenda without a struggle, but unfortunately that's not the reality in Congress or the country.

                  •  I don't want to be an ass, but I really (0+ / 0-)

                    don't think you have gotten the point of the DLC. They exist to coopt Republican constituencies, not aid Progressive ones. I like the optimism, but you will first need to overcome twenty years of realism.

                    A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

                    by nippersdad on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 08:42:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kayfromsouth, littlebird33

        Trigger means we get a bill passed PERIOD!! What do you think will happen if NO BILL is passed by the democrats? It will be a bloodbath in 2010 that will make 1994 look like party. I'm sorry, We need to pass a freakin bill with or without public option.  Hell I don't want the trigger, but we don't have enough votes to pass into law a bill with a public option. The public option can't garner enough votes. The progressives are weary of making the same assanine mistake bill clinton made in 1994 when he held that pen up in congress and said "ANY BILL THAT REACHES MY DESK THAT DOESN"T PROVIDE UNIVERSAL COVERAGE WILL BE VETOED" and 15 years later we are in worse shape then we were back then. And I betcha if Clinton knew then what he knows know, he would have cut a deal and got a bill passed and added on later down the road. Get 80% of what you want now and pass a bill, get the credit and then later on add the other 20% of the bill. Ramming a reconcilliation bill down with a partisan vote will be detrimental to democrats in conservative districts, will turn off more Independents who are looking for a bi-partisian bill with those who are truly trying to work togther(Snowe) and figure out a way to cover everyone, cut costs and provide insurance reform. With a temporary reconcilliation bill, the reform will be on borrowed time, cause if republican (GOD HELP US) regain control of either senate or congress within 5 years, we can kiss that law goodbye, cause they will repeal it and we will back to square one. No healthcare bill? Is that worth, a temporary bill instead of a permanent one?  We need a permanent LAW in the books on  Healthcare Reform, so nobody can change it, nobody can touch it, nobody can repeal it, It will be PERMANENT!. The blue dogs hold the cards and they are not going to vote for a bill with a public option so we dont have 60 votes. Although I hate the blue dogs  with a passion, they are democrats and we can't afford to cut our nose to spite our face but putting them in an unpopular situation in the districts of states. The majority of america knows we need healthcare reform, but if we do it right, it can help the progressives down the road with independents and we can gain more seats, give Obama a 2nd term to add on the rest of the 20% to the bill.

        •  Did you flunk Civics? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RunawayRose, jabney, Predictor

          We need a permanent LAW in the books on  Healthcare Reform, so nobody can change it, nobody can touch it, nobody can repeal it, It will be PERMANENT

          Laws on the books can be repealed. There is no such thing as a PERMANENT law. Even the Constitution can be amended.

          Veni, vidi, farinuxi.

          by Ahianne on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:42:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We'll be picking up 2-3 senators, minimum (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, killjoy, Ahianne, jack23

      in 2010. It's the way the map is. Sorry to disappoint you by failing to deepen your gloom. I expect we'll be up to at least 62.

      Stop Rob "The Job Outsourcer" Portman. Jennifer Brunner for Senate http://www.jenniferbrunner.com/

      by anastasia p on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:58:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No way (3+ / 0-)

        We are going to likely lose Reid, Bennett, Dodd, and Lincoln.  That puts us down four.  If we are lucky, we will pick up Missouri and Ohio.  Putting us down two.  I dont see how we pick up seats.  

      •  Dont assume every state is as blue as you think (0+ / 0-)

        Imagine we lose MD and NJ governorships to Republicans, that equation changes, it just does.

        I am not a "suicidist" I am deeply deeply partisan, and void of many of the higher morals people on this site have.

        I want us to win, and we came in this year with a winning message that was under attack by the DLC and their lackeys.

        Sorry if I am hell bent to defame them out of DC.

        Dont be mad at me if I demand party loyalty to party members,  I know, thats an incredibly radical idea.

        PCCC: http://boldprogressives.org
        TYT: http://www.theyoungturks.com

        by George Pirpiris on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 01:37:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  did I miss something? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vlajos

      So health care reform got voted down today, eh? Bummer.

  •  No healthcare reform=1994 again (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    Its gonna happen if we dont get it done.  

  •  nailed it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, doinaheckuvanutjob, jack23
    Most Republican victories come not from a new zeal and support for Republican ideas, but from a Vacuum of progressive energy.

    http://www.thehamandlegsshow.com

  •  I don't think so (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kayfromsouth, littlebird33, jack23

    All this unnecesary venom spewed by the republican party is going to sink them even further from mainstream America in 2010 and thereafter. The DNC (Tim Kaine), DSCC, DCCC, OFA, all the labor unions, etc have enough footage, photos, comments, etc of these right-wing kooks to put in hundreds of commercials to scare the living begezzers out of folks especially INDEPENDENTS when election time comes around again. Why would any sane person vote for a party of hate, vitriol, racism and down right ignorance? Folks maybe be pissed with the democrats and disagree with the direction they are going, but I know they will be damned if the vote for folks who are represented by those that we have seen over the past couple of weeks/months who are beyond scary and dangerous. It is downright despicable and they will pay dearly for this concerted effort to

  •  1994 was a disaster because (5+ / 0-)

    it finished the political re-alignment in the House from the civil rights movement. We lost a ton of seats simply because they were represented by long-term conservative Democrats (especially in the South) and their constituents decided they'd rather have a real Republican than a fake one. (2004 finished the realignment in the Senate when we lost a bunch of open seats in the South.)

    Add in a massive dose of complacency and what was already shaping up to be a wave year and you have a full-blown disaster.

    Democrats today are significantly better structured than they were in 1994. There's no complacency and the Representatives in the highest risk seats know they're in trouble. And the pool of natural targets of opportunity is significantly smaller. They might net 10-20 seats sweeping blue dogs but they really need to shift the scale at a national level to actually take control of the House.

    On the Senate side, the GOP is having a terrible time recruiting for races that on paper should be incredibly difficult. I see us playing far less defense than we expect and may actually net one or two seats at the end of the day.

  •  Nope, it's not 1994 (3+ / 0-)

    and I hate this revisionist hating on the Clintons and the pseudo-Creationist historical narrative of recent American political history that goes along with it.  It's a friggin' pestilence on DKos.

    I remember 1994 well.  The story was the uselessness, conservatism, and feebleness of the Democrats in Congress.  Conservatives were the dominant faction and controlled the agenda.  They felt their end nearing, and rather than do things they chose to do nothing. The ones that were retiring (and there were many) didn't want to do anything except send defense spending pork to their states/districts.  The ones that wanted to get reelected went to Newt Gingrich and asked what they had to do to get beaten less.  

    The electorate is 15% more seriously Democratic/liberally committed than in 1994.  The 1994 strategies were excellent at defeating conservative Democrats.  Of which we have about 15-20 in the House now, and maybe 3-5 in the Senate.  In the worst case scenario we lose those in '10/'12 and pick up the Republican seats that open in states and districts that have tipped Blue recently, which is perhaps 10 in the House and 3 in the Senate.  For a net wash in numbers.

    •  Conservatives DO control the agenda (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jack23

      Why do you think we cant get healthcare reform?

      •  Because Obama/Emmanuel/Axelrod let them (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jabney

        have too much say, more than anything else.

        http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/...

        •  I think you just contradicted the argument (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jack23

          you previously made.

          I remember 1994 well.  The story was the uselessness, conservatism, and feebleness of the Democrats in Congress.  Conservatives were the dominant faction and controlled the agenda.

          That did not work well for them and all of those conservative Democrats, forerunners of DLC strategy, are now running the show. By your own estimation they are running the show with Obama's overt aid just as Clinton did. We are back to, to use Digby's phrase, punching hippies and we have seen how the hippies react to being sucker punched by those they perceive to be own.

          How has anything changed?

          A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

          by nippersdad on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:55:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  In these uncertain times, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jack23

        fear controls the agenda. That plays right into the Rethug strengths - they are excellent at exploiting fear.

        It's easy to blame the administration, but fact is this always has been and was always going to be a tough battle, especially when we got down to the nitty gritty.

        The economy has just made it more difficult. We can talk about how we need health care more than ever with people losing their jobs, and how it will help small business, etc., and we are right. But when the CBO projections come out with all those 000000's, too many people are paralyzed by fear - and the Rethugs are all too happy to exploit.

    •  the pestilence is literacy (0+ / 0-)

      try finishing a diary before you comment.

  •  Well, no. (0+ / 0-)

    There will not be as much Progressive zeal than would have happened if Obama lead as President with the inspiration he displayed as candidate, but there is nothing at all attractive about conduct of Republicans in their role as opposition. Hardly anybody thinks the state of the economy or the health care system is acceptable, but most people assume that Republicans most embrace those features that made it the way it is.

    Ultimately reform will have to be in the way elections are conducted. Government by bribery has led us to a particularly feckless and corrupt set of leaders, with a few notable exceptions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site