Obama Has a Choice to Make...

[Frodo]

He could get his health care reform package passed with some muscle in it on the strength of Democratic majorities, or have it watered down still further to attract illusory Republican votes:

Partisan or Not, a Tough Course on Health Care

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: July 25, 2009

WASHINGTON — The decision by Senate Democratic leaders last week to devote more time to winning Republican support for a health care overhaul has allowed President Obama to keep alive the possibility of bipartisanship on one of the most contentious issues on his agenda.

"Bipartisanship is absolutely possible and it’s absolutely necessary, even when you have a Democratic president with huge majorities," said Senator Lamar Alexander.
But Mr. Obama is under growing pressure to choose between wooing a small band of Republicans or struggling to rally his party to use its big majorities in Congress to get the job done. The bipartisanship exhibited in the passage of two other ambitious domestic programs that offer one historical backdrop for this debate — Social Security in 1935 and Medicare and Medicaid 30 years later — seems increasingly improbable in today’s Washington.

To some extent, achieving any kind of bipartisan accord seems almost a luxury given the difficulties Mr. Obama has had in corralling his own party behind a health care plan. After a sharp clash on Friday between different camps of Democrats on the health care bill, House staff members worked into the weekend in an effort to reach a compromise and bring a bill to the floor before recessing for the summer.

Even if he goes the bipartisan route and succeeds, the end result could be comparatively modest: Perhaps fewer than 10 Senate Republicans, and perhaps not even that many in the House, party officials said. Social Security, by contrast, passed in 1935 with the support of 16 of the 25 Republican senators and 81 of the 102 Republican representatives.

Still, ending partisan infighting was a central pledge Mr. Obama offered the nation from the earliest days of his candidacy. His aides have increasingly debated whether he should abide by it in the face of Republican resistance and liberal pressure not to concede on the principles of an overhaul plan, like a public plan to compete with private insurers. And how much are Democrats going to be willing to give up for what could be just a handful of Republican votes, and just the veneer of bipartisanship?

“If Republicans don’t make a genuine effort to negotiate to achieve health care reform, I certainly don’t think there’s a price to pay for doing it without them,” said Joel Benenson, the president’s pollster.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Democrats can't govern. My party is a disgrace.

[Democratic Hawk]

From a purely petty partisan standpoint, the Republicans are invested in healthcare reform failing and that is all there is to it. Getting drunk on the prospect of a re-run of 1994, no doubt

That party's entire raison d'etre seems to be because we were so hapless at governing, government doesn't work

Nero fiddled while Rome burned, but the Republicans only ever snored

Democrats can't govern. My party is a disgrace.

What I'd like to know is why can't Democrats work out their differences in private. Is that so bloody difficult?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Democrats can't govern. My party is a disgrace.

Sad but true.     

[Democratic Hawk]

Democrats can't govern. My party is a disgrace.

Sad but true.     

Congressional Democrats could organize a trip to the brewery but they couldn't organize a piss-up in the bugger

[Stampever]

He could get his health care reform package passed with some muscle in it on the strength of Democratic majorities, or have it watered down still further to attract illusory Republican votes:

Are you making the assumption that a Democrat-only bill will be better than a "watered-down" bipartisan bill?

[HappyWarrior]

We need to shove this down Congress' throat now!  Republicans or not, something needs to be done and any Republican plan won't do enough.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The republicans' downfall was whipping moderates until they bled and it killed their prospects to survive in swing/dem districts. Unsurprisingly, it looks like the democrats' will be kowtowing to the moderate faction and worshipping at the altar of bipartisanship so that any attempts at implementing democratic policies will be so watered-down, they will be ineffective.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I see no reason why Obama should care if he gets a single Republican vote. Hell Clinton didn't on his tax plan, why can't Obama govern to the left of Clinton?

[Stampever]

We need to shove this down Congress' throat now!  Republicans or not, something needs to be done and any Republican plan won't do enough.

So, just for arguments sake, you would force upon the nation legislation that would make the situation worse just because "something needs to be done?"

[JSojourner]

Democrats can't govern. My party is a disgrace.

Democrats can't govern and Republicans won't govern.

Talk about a Libertarian wet dream...

[pogo stick]

I see no reason why Obama should care if he gets a single Republican vote. Hell Clinton didn't on his tax plan, why can't Obama govern to the left of Clinton?

I'll give you  a few reasons why :

1) America is center-right
2) The Blue dogs will lose their seats
3) Obama will lose re-election
4) Moderates will  go back to the GOP.
5) Indys will vote GOP

[Marokai Backbeat]

1) America is center-right

lol, No

[Stampever]

1) America is center-right

lol, No

That is correct.  America isn't "center-anything."  It is a diverse nation with people having numerous views all across the artificial two-dimentional plane. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1) This has been covered above.

2) A handful of Blue Dogs from very conservative districts may vote against it, but we can still pass it without them. For most, even Blue Dogs, it shouldn't be an issue, the movement in those districts has been because of cultural issues, guns and abortion, not economics, which is the reason such areas voted Democratic to begin with.

3) Polls show a vast majority support more what he's proposing than a watered-down plan.

4) See above.

5) See above.

[jokerman]

If necessary, Kennedy should be wheeled in on his hospital bed to break the fillibuster.

[Lief 🗽]

Really, Blue Dog opposition to this doesn't make any sense at all (unless of course they're so indebted to their lobbyist masters that they care more about campaign contributions and golf trips and free meals than getting re-elected). If health care reform does not pass, or it is so watered down that it actually makes things worse, who do you think is going to bear the brunt of voter anger? Which Democrats are going to lose their seats? The ones in the Republican leaning districts the Blue Dogs represent? Or the ones in the safe democratic districts the Progressives represent? If a Republican wave election does happen, the Blue Dogs will be the first to go. And if health care fails to pass or is so watered down that it's useless, the chance of a Republican wave election increases dramatically.

[Stampever]

Really, Blue Dog opposition to this doesn't make any sense at all (unless of course they're so indebted to their lobbyist masters that they care more about campaign contributions and golf trips and free meals than getting re-elected). If health care reform does not pass, or it is so watered down that it actually makes things worse, who do you think is going to bear the brunt of voter anger? Which Democrats are going to lose their seats? The ones in the Republican leaning districts the Blue Dogs represent? Or the ones in the safe democratic districts the Progressives represent? If a Republican wave election does happen, the Blue Dogs will be the first to go. And if health care fails to pass or is so watered down that it's useless, the chance of a Republican wave election increases dramatically.

I go back to my prior question to Frodo.  What if the waterdowned versions is better than the Democrat-only bill?

[Lief 🗽]

It's not. Read Nate Silver's post on this: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/baucus-bills-bad-math.html

[Stampever]

It's not. Read Nate Silver's post on this: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/baucus-bills-bad-math.html

That is one persons opinion on a particular bill.  And without being able to see the future, how can we know he is right?  How can we know if Waxman is right?

Personally, I think the whole thing should be scrapped and start with small, but effective adjustments.  We have many areas that need targetted work, and that can be achieved on a bipartisan level without throwing the baby out with the bath water (as to say).

[Marokai Backbeat]

1) America is center-right

lol, No

That is correct.  America isn't "center-anything."  It is a diverse nation with people having numerous views all across the artificial two-dimentional plane. 

Pretty much, but I think the public is more permissive and accepting of government intervention than most people like to parrot. Most polls pretty much back that up. People enjoy saying we're a "center right country" but if anything we just vary from center-left to center-right depending on what we're talking about.

[Хahar 🤔]

Were we expecting anything else? The Democrats' job is to pander to the right.

It's not. Read Nate Silver's post on this: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/baucus-bills-bad-math.html

That is one persons opinion on a particular bill.  And without being able to see the future, how can we know he is right?  How can we know if Waxman is right?

Personally, I think the whole thing should be scrapped and start with small, but effective adjustments.  We have many areas that need targetted work, and that can be achieved on a bipartisan level without throwing the baby out with the bath water (as to say).

To extend that analogy, the baby is a changeling who will kill us all.

[Democratic Hawk]

I see no reason why Obama should care if he gets a single Republican vote. Hell Clinton didn't on his tax plan, why can't Obama govern to the left of Clinton?

I'll give you  a few reasons why :

1) America is center-right

In so far as conservatives outnumber liberals, but what if the right has problems with the center?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily. Many vote their districts rather than the party line

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends on whether the economy has rebounded nicely; there are no unpopular foreign wars; and there is no major scandal directly implicating the president

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends, in no small part on the answer to 3) and, as to whom the GOP nominates - and moderate Republicans are pretty much viewed as heretics by many on the right. Democratic voters are primarily moderate and the Democratic Party remains, ideologically, the more inclusive of the two. The "maverick" McCain - long out of favor with his party's right - had big problems with moderates, losing them (60-39), nationally, and carrying the moderate vote in only Alabama (49-50); Louisiana (45-54); Alaska (43-55); Oklahoma (43-57) and Wyoming (40-57)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Independents ebb and flow - and in many states they lean Democratic while in others they lean Republican. Much, ultimately, will depend on the answer to 3). In 2008, the only state which Obama carried, while losing Independents (39-60) was North Carolina. He won independents in three states carried by McCain: Kansas (52-44); Nebraska (51-43) and Arizona (51-46)

Any one who expects this president to govern from the "radical" left can think again . IMO, a pragmatic center-leftist like the president is, quintessentially, moderate. He's focused on practical solutions to today's issues and problems. We can all argue the toss as to whether they are the right solutions

There is plenty of radicalism around but that, if anything, is on the right of the Republican Party. Look no further than the House GOP's alternative Congressional Budget Resolution. Extending the Bush tax cuts in their entirety; along with $3 trillion more - skewed in favor of the wealthiest - coupled with a draconian freeze in spending aside from defense and veterans. Rolling back the tax cuts to workers in the stimulus, among other things

In fact, given that 65 Republicans voted against the Jordan of Ohio substitute amendment and 38 against the Ryan of Wisconsin substitute amendment, it was rather a relief to know that some moderate Republicans still exist. On the other hand, the substitute Democratic amendments from Reps. Woolsey and Lee, of California, on the left of the caucus, were decisively rejected by a majority of Democrats

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=91207.msg1961541#msg1961541

Too true, there is a moderate party in America. It's called the Democratic Party