An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« My Algorithm Proves You’re Gay!

Olympic Spirit »

Public Option Furor: Democrats Form Circular Firing Squad?

Posted by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief in Politics.
Oct 1st, 2009 | Comments

It sounds as if the Democrats are starting to form a circular firing squad over the public option in the health care debate. At a time when the party is losing independent voter support, some progressives are saying public option or political purge. From TPMDC:

“If Harry Reid does not have the leadership skills to get 60 votes for cloture and give a Democratic president an up-or-down vote on health care, progressives will help defeat him in 2010, even if that means Republicans take that seat,” said the head of one progressive organization, who’s still working out the detail of the campaign. “There is no use for Reid’s vote if 60 Democratic votes means nothing on cloture, and no use for Reid’s leadership if his leadership is so blatantly ineffective.“

Deja vu? I heard Democrats talk this way in 1968 when some said it would be good for the party if Hubert Humphrey went down to the defeat — that cleansing it of people like Humphrey who weren’t overtly enough anti-Vietnam war would restore the party to victory in a few years. It didn’t quite happen that way.

I also heard it in 2000 when friends said there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush so they’d stay home or vote for Ralph Nader. But when GWB got in power they noticed there were some tiny differences in things such as environmental policy, the Supreme Court — to mention just a few. Some folks felt the same way — and came to the same realization after the election — in 2004, as well..

The danger for progressives and the Democratic part is that is if they are as dismissive of independent, centrist and moderate voters’ concerns as many in the GOP are, and if they decide to prune the ranks of other Democrats who didn’t go along with their party wing’s wishes, then they could feel deja vu (again). And all of the talk about bringing about changes in environmental policy, Supreme Court appointments — to mention just a few – under a Democratic majority will prove to have been just that.

On the other hand, Republicans can use some cheering up. And seeing Democrats go after Reid and others who didn’t agree on the public option would please GOPers, who increasingly seem to have a fired up base (whether what they’re fired up about is true, accurate or not).

Republicans circle the wagons; Democrats fire on their own wagons. One party seemingly doesn’t try to expand its coalition, but consolidate and keep an existing one. The other (if we see a political bloodletting if progressives don’t get their demands met on the public option) party would would banish or purge part of a coalition that resulted in its victory.

Which strategy seems more likely to be beneficial in an increasingly polarized 21st century?

  • AustinRoth
    “Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.” - Will Rogers
  • kathykattenburg
    Will Rogers was a very smart man.
  • "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
    Will Rogers
  • DLS
    If the Dem asylum can be reclaimed from the lunatics -- just apply some salve. Change "co-ops" to "non-profits."
  • To me it seems that we've been so distracted by the conflicts between democrats that we've heard little about the bill itself. http://www.newsy.com/videos/not_much_of_a_healt...
  • Davebo
    Actually, it's no use winning seats if the winner refuse to support your agenda, especially when it's wildly popular among the electorate which the public option is. And keep in mind, no one is asking democrats who disagree to vote for the bill. Just to vote for cloture and give it an up or down vote.

    And can anyone deny that Reid is a rather pathetic leader in the Senate? In fact, he'll most likely loose his seat at the next election with no help from Democrats.
  • Leonidas
    This behavior isn't just something Democrats engage in. I see it all the time on the other side. The I'll vote for Bob Barr over John McCain cry, the calls of RINO, traitor, Olympia Snow is a democrat, Lindsey Graham described as Gramnesty, etc. Both the far wings alienate the moderate. Hopefully one day moderates will have enough on this and have a viable Blue Dog or Moderate Republican candidate to lead them into an election that is more of a choice than the lesser of two evils of the far-left and the far-right.

    To me, there is not a whole lot of difference between the far-left and the far-right, they are both simply the far-away from reality.
  • JSpencer
    Well, let's see... democrats who are painted as "extreme" tend to believe that folks should have access to affordable healthcare, that climate change and the environment are important, that war should not be the first "solution" embraced when faced with conflict, that unfettered capitalism is not a good recipe for a rational society, that science should generally be considered more credible than superstition, that being taught the value of critical thinking might well be as important as say, a masters degree in business. On the other hand, the republican version of "extreme"... well geeze, I think we've had more than enough acquantance with that depressing phenomenon lately haven't we? The point (again) has to do with the absurdity of false equivalence.

    Are there democrats who are nutcases and hypocrites? Sure there are, but anecdotes are not the same as trends. One more observation: if compromise and bipartisanship becomes a goal in and of itself, then the success of that goal could result in little more than backpatting over the accomplishment of extending a status quo - one that is moving steadily downward. Frankly I don't see us addressing the real problems we face without breaking a few eggs. Just how important is it to placate and sooth the ruffled feathers of the clueless, paranoid, and out of touch? Sorry if this seems painfully un-PC, or overly judgemental, but I just never got into any of that phony self-esteem building, nor into extending credibility to those who have done little to deserve it.
  • Dr J
    Democrats who are painted as "extreme" tend to believe that folks should have access to affordable healthcare

    ...through any means imaginable, whether it's a welfare state, a crippling entitlement program, or outright socialism.
  • Leonidas
    if compromise and bipartisanship becomes a goal in and of itself, then the success of that goal could result in little more than backpatting over the accomplishment of extending a status quo - one that is moving steadily downward.

    '
    I see it as better than a political yo-yo when policies are implemented pleasing one side and reversed as soon as the other side takes over. Better to have a constant bipartisan progression. If its worth having, it needs sustained and bipartisan support, or it will not be either die out or continue to split the nation. We need to focus on the long term needs of the nation, not a need to ram through partisan agendas in a limited time.
  • JSpencer
    Leonidas, that's just the point, it isn't a "progression" at all, it's a downward spiral. The problems aren't being addressed. The sin of the democrats may lie in having imperfect solutions, but the republican sin is in ignoring the problems altogether, perhaps imagining they aren't real, or will cease to exist of their own accord.
  • I don't think it's a circular firing squad as much as it is an insurance company assisted suicide on the part of the "blue dogs". The polls show that 60 to 70 percent of Americans support a public option. That includes 40+ percent of Republicans. A case in point is Blanche Lincoln the Senator from Arkansas who is perhaps the most endangered Democratic Senator. Although 65% of the residents of Arkansas support a public option she is opposed to it because she is receiving money from the insurance companies.
  • JeffersonDavis
    What poll says 60-70% of Americans support a public option?
    The Obama family poll?
    The Congressanal Democratic Caucus Poll?

    EVERY reliable poll I've seen has the numbers the other way around!!!!


    And yes, there are Insurance Whores, Pharmaceutical Whores, and Trial Lawyer Whores.
    But no one will vote them out.

    Don't just drop a lie-bomb and not be prepared to support it.
  • superdestroyer
    The Democratic Party option is to tax others to spend the money on tax payer subsidized health care that will benefit the core groups of the Democratic Party while passing all of the costs onto the former Republicans.

    And anyone who believes that the Democrats are disorganized is not paying attention. The Democrats run on a platform of expanding government, expanding entitlements, and more government and they deliver. The Republicans run on a platform of smaller government, lower taxes, and limiting entitlements and all they deliver is expanded government, expanded entitlements, and expanded government.

    That is why the U.S. will soon be a one party state: The U.S. only needs one big government party just like most big cities only need one political party.
  • JSpencer
    JD, most of the polls I've seen also reflect the numbers cited by RB. I'd be interested in seeing those "reliable" polls you say are showing the opposite numbers. Rasmussen is probably one, but Rasmussen is often a flyer when compared to other polls. We all know that polls can give varying results depending on how they are worded and applied, but looking at a variety of polls usually gives a better picture. The results you claim are a "lie-bomb" can be found in a variety of polls. Take a look at fivethirtyeight to find several. Next time reconsider your language before making a false charge.
  • WSJ/NBC: 73%
    Quinnipaic: 62%
    NYT/CBS: 65%
  • SD, I personally purchase individual insurance, and have for a long time. Since I don't have the employer paid deductible insurance, MY TAXES pay to subsidize health insurance for others. If you're trying to say it would be unfair, IT ALREADY IS. To me and everyone else who doesn't get to deduct our health insurance premiums. In what universe is that fair?
  • superdestroyer
    GD,

    Would you support giving everyone the ability to deduct the cost of health insurance. But you always support the higher taxes on everyone to pay for health insurance for illegal aliens, non-tax payers, and virtually everyone who refuses to pay for themselves now.
  • JeffersonDavis
    JS,

    I just hadn't SEEN the polls. You're right, Rassmussen was one.

    But consider this from P.M. Carpenter: http://blog.buzzflash.com/carpenter/505

    "For example, 55 percent of Americans, says one poll, are firmly behind a public option. Oh, you slackers, says another; it's actually a walloping 79 percent. OK, either way, there's majority support, right? Yes, but get this: in the second poll -- the one purportedly revealing a groundswell of popular support on behalf of a public option -- only a dispiriting minority (37 percent) were able to show they even understood what "public option" meant."

    For those who may or may not know what "public option" even means (let's face it, the President hasn't been exactly clear on this), the support is 60% or more. You've got to be cautious with polls.
  • SD I would support leveling the playing field, and that would be a big step in that direction. How about if I can buy a policy that's as good as a giant corporation can buy through bigger bargaining power? That would help even more.

    Now look at what you'd have. First, we ALREADY use taxes on everyone to pay for health insurance for YOU! What my scenario above means is that for every customer of the private health insurance industry, we'll give THEM $2,000 a year (that's the part of employer-provided insurance WE TAXPAYERS pay). Then why not make it MANDATORY? So then the entire country is required to give $2,000 a year to a highly profitable industry. Any way you slice and dice that, it IS A TAX. So, in making that suggestion YOU are advocating HIGHER TAXES. The only difference is that under your plan, the beneficiary is a ruthless private industry that denies care, drops customers and gives themselves unbelievably massive salaries. They are getting FILTHY RICH on tax dollars. Unlike a public plan, our TAX MONEY would be spent to lobby our government, buy TV ads, pay sales staff, for marketing, advertising, underwriting, palatial offices and extreme salaries, especially for those bonused for screwing customers, er, I mean "avoiding medical losses."

    You favor taxing everyone to shovel money into the pockets of the already rich, as I have always known.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC