The odd paradox of the health-care debate in Congress is that the Democrats' resolve to pass the bill only seems to stiffen the more unpopular it gets with the public. They seem like kamikaze pilots, willing to crash and burn their political careers, and the electoral prospects of their party, in order to smash into and destroy the private, for-profit health-care industry.
But then again, maybe it's because some of these politicians realize that their careers are already dead, so they have nothing to lose. Democrat Tom Perriello, Charlottesville's congressman, won last year by a margin of 700 votes, in the most pro-Democrat election year in decades. He has to look at his prospects for re-election and realize that he is probably not going to make it. So why not vote according to his ideology?
Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now projected to lose against his likely challengers in 2010.
And then there is the fact that many Democratic politicians are just as afraid of the far left as they are of the general public. Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, for example, could lose in the Democratic primary if her Democratic base blames her for blocking the health-care bill.
A second poll question for primary voters asked how a decision by Lincoln to join "a Republican filibuster of the Democratic health care reform plan" may affect their vote. In that scenario, Lincoln's lead shrinks to 37-27 over Halter, with 36 percent undecided.
Moreover, with his decision to approve a "surge" in Afghanistan, President Obama is facing a revolt from his Democratic base, making it even harder for him to force them to accept compromises on the health-care bill.
But this could work to our advantage. Below, Dick Morris describes what I think is the most credible plan to block passage of the health-care bill in the Senate debate over the next few weeks: propose a flurry of amendments, with three goals. First, each amendment should be calculated to draw public attention to an objectionable part of the bill. Second, each should substantially mitigate the damage so that if the bill passes it will be less of a disaster. Third, each amendment should be a compromise that the far left will have a hard time swallowing, inspiring defections in the Senate and blowing up the bill in conference committee if it gets that far.
In the piece below and elsewhere, Morris makes an interesting observation:
It is now reasonable to predict—and I do—that the GOP will take both houses of Congress [in 2010]….
But this could work to our advantage. Below, Dick Morris describes what I think is the most credible plan to block passage of the health-care bill in the Senate debate over the next few weeks: propose a flurry of amendments, with three goals. First, each amendment should be calculated to draw public attention to an objectionable part of the bill. Second, each should substantially mitigate the damage so that if the bill passes it will be less of a disaster. Third, each amendment should be a compromise that the far left will have a hard time swallowing, inspiring defections in the Senate and blowing up the bill in conference committee if it gets that far.
In the piece below and elsewhere, Morris makes an interesting observation:
It is now reasonable to predict—and I do—that the GOP will take both houses of Congress [in 2010]….
On Capitol Hill, the Democrats seem to have almost abandoned the message war on health care. They are hunkering down and focused on keeping their troops in line. The appeals to party discipline are so strong that one senses that they are prepared to march, in lock-step, over the cliff together.
Now isn't that interesting? The whole summer was a massive blitz in the "message war," as President Obama and leading Democrats appeared again and again on television and at town hall meetings, trying to convince the public to back the health-care bill on its merits. But all of these attempts failed, and at times it seemed that the more Obama talked about the bill, the less people liked it. So the Democrats have largely given up trying to convince the public, and they are now appealing only to party discipline.
I think that's a losing proposition, because it allows us to take the initiative in the "message war" and turn public opinion even farther against this bill—so far against it that attempts to enforce a suicidal party loyalty will fail.
The abandonment of the message war is the Democrats' admission that they are losing and we are winning. Let's press our advantage.
"Now Is the Time to Act," Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, DickMorris.com, December 1
As this bill enters its next phase in the Senate, let's all remember that the Democrats need to win every vote. We only need to win one to kill the bill.
The debate in the Senate takes place against a backdrop characterized by two contradictory forces: public opinion is moving more and more against this bill in particular and Obama in general and at the same time, the Democratic leadership in Congress is ratcheting up the pressure on its members to stay in line and back the bill.
One top Democratic strategist conceded to me that "we are losing the message war." In fact, he implicitly conceded that they have given up on the message war and "are concentrating on holding our guys in line."…
The key is to force the moderate Democratic Senators to demand amendments that move the bill so far to the right that the House can't pass it….
Meanwhile, we need to really pour it on in the message war. We have the public opposing this bill by 38-56 in the Rasmussen Poll of last week. If we can move those numbers to something more like 30-60, we will create irresistible political pressure. Politicians seeking re-election are not made to withstand pressure like that!...
Obama is alienating the left by sending more troops to Afghanistan. The left will not take kindly to the moderate amendments the Senate will likely add. And the longer the bill remains in conference committee, the more public pressure can build to kill it…and the closer the 2010 elections loom. The more his popularity on the left ebbs, the more liberal Senators and Congressmen will refuse to go along with modifications of the bill.
One top Democratic strategist conceded to me that "we are losing the message war." In fact, he implicitly conceded that they have given up on the message war and "are concentrating on holding our guys in line."…
The key is to force the moderate Democratic Senators to demand amendments that move the bill so far to the right that the House can't pass it….
Meanwhile, we need to really pour it on in the message war. We have the public opposing this bill by 38-56 in the Rasmussen Poll of last week. If we can move those numbers to something more like 30-60, we will create irresistible political pressure. Politicians seeking re-election are not made to withstand pressure like that!...
Obama is alienating the left by sending more troops to Afghanistan. The left will not take kindly to the moderate amendments the Senate will likely add. And the longer the bill remains in conference committee, the more public pressure can build to kill it…and the closer the 2010 elections loom. The more his popularity on the left ebbs, the more liberal Senators and Congressmen will refuse to go along with modifications of the bill.
0 comments:
Post a Comment