Bad Medicine
I've been saying all along I can't imagine the Dems won't pass a health care bill. You might think the polls would give them the willies, but the argument that we might as well pass it now because we won't get another chance this good (and any bill is better than no bill) seems to be winning. The Dems also seem to be hoping if they get it done soon, people will forget by 2010. (And in the long run come to love it.)
Republican party activists recognize this and are already planning a new campaign. They think this will be a big enough issue to run on next year. They'll remind everyone the Democrats (regardless of individuals votes) passed this bill and so Republican candidates will promise to reverse it. It's hard to know what will be on people's minds in a year's time, but I think this can work. It's one thing to pass massive social legislation. It's quite another to do it against the will of the voters. I'm not even sure if I can remember it ever happening before.
And if it works in 2010, it may even work in 2012, since they won't be able to overturn health care reform no matter how well they do next year. (And any changes in the health care system will probably still be too new to have widespread popularity yet.) I'm not sure if the Democrats just don't believe this will happen, or just don't care.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:02 AM
2 Comments:
I think most Congressional Democrats are wise to pass health care.
Suppose you are a moderately liberal Democrat in a centrist district. Yes, you know now in hindsight that it would have been better for this particular flavor of healthcare bill to never have been put on the House calendar.
But it's too late to change that. You have two choices. (1) Buck your party leadership, be cursed by Nancy Pelosi, and defeat the health care bill (in an alliance with 45 Democrats and all the Republicans in the House). (2) Pass the unpopular health care bill.
If you choose option # 1, all the liberals in your district -- and that's 30% of your district, and all of them voted for you -- will utterly hate you. Most of them will probably still vote for you, since they have nowhere else to go, but you'll get NO donations. And your Republican foe in 2010 will call you a liberal anyway, and unless he or she self-destructs you won't be picking up anyone from his base. Yes, you will win a lot of independents to your side... if they remember your name in November. And with no campaign money, that's a big "if".
If you choose option # 2, you will have cemented all the liberal support in your district, and you'll get tons of money (because Pelosi will see you as a valuable ally in a swing district). You will have to spend most of 2010 convincing all the moderates in your district that the bill isn't as bad as they think, and that you are still very moderate on many issues. "Re-elect Fred Johnmiddle to Congress. He will work with President Obama to fix the problems with the health care reform bill." A silly message, but you'll have enough money to hire Brad Pitt to narrate your commercials.
Neither of these plans sounds much fun, but I'd choose 2 over 1 any day.
But this doesn't apply to the blue dogs, who can make or break it, even with the huge advantages the Dems have in the House. They only won 218-215 over the bill, which shows great fear. This shows most of the blue dogs, in their conservative districts, didn't want to vote for it, and I'm sure they had to decide which ones could get away with it and what deals they could make. (I'm sure Nancy Pelosi had some votes in store if needed, but note they must have been relieved they weren't required to fall on their sword).
The Senate has a whole different demographic problem, of course. Still, as I've noted in the past, because the Dems won about 8 of the laste 9 close elections, they have just enough votes to get the 60 to start and end debate. If just a couple elections had been different, and they were essentially coin flips, health care would either be dead right now, or you'd see some true compromises.
Post a Comment
<< Home