'Yes we can' set our own course as a party . . . and arrive on our own initiative

[bigtree]

"Cheers have gone up in the chamber. As they crossed 216, shouts of “Yes, we can! Yes, we can!” went up." -NYT, liveblogging the House vote on March 21, 2010.


IT'S funny how politics can be infuriatingly banal, and, at the same time, defining and transforming. The politics surrounding the passage of the health insurance bill was rendered partisan, right from the start, by republicans who were determined to defeat ANYthing the Democrats produced. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Mike Pence . . . all had nearly a decade, often in the majority, to pursue whatever health insurance proposals they insisted be included in the bill none of them would support in the end.

The President took them at their word and almost eviscerated the winning edge of support from his own party for the resulting Senate bill. But, in the end, it was clear that any interest and ambition the republican party actually had in providing coverage to millions of Americans at risk and without insurance was far outweighed by their cynical politics of fear and division. The only response they could manage when the President called their bluff and voluntarily included their ideas in the Democratic legislation was a shrill and alarmist 'no' to match their earlier embrace of their party's traditional obstructionist moniker.

The Senate Minority Leader's strategy, right from the start, was to disavow the public of any notion that his party had anything to do with the health reform process led by the Democrats.

from the NYT: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html?pagewanted=print)

“It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,” Mr. McConnell said about the health legislation in an interview, suggesting that even minimal Republican support could sway the public. “It’s either bipartisan or it isn’t.”

The party of 'no had found their strategy. Despite agreeing to appear in public with the President, and to look as if they were offering serious proposals to advance the cause of health reform, the republican party spent most of their energy emphasizing their distance from the proposal, even as the administration and Democratic leaders were busy soliciting republican proposals to include in their legislation. Even when it became clear that Democrats would be forced to forge ahead alone - after it was obvious that republicans had no intention of allowing the bill to advance - The WH was still highlighting republican initiatives in the legislation.

Yet, the very politics republicans had so successfully employed to delay the effort and stall the bill that contained their own initiatives awakened the President and Democrats in Congress to their own potential to successful partisanship. A solid majority of our own party members lost whatever interest they had in partnering-up with their insincere opposition, and, for the first time in what seems like decades, pushed forward on their own initiative and strength of our majorities to advance the bill and keep the process of reform alive.

Democrats left republicans behind and found a formula which would deny their opposition any chance at a stick in the spokes or a leg out in the aisle. Right before the vote in the House, a disbelieving republican leadership went into denial and was reduced to vowing to defeat the inevitable.

from CNN: (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/21/pence-house-gop-will-use-every-means-at-our-disposal)

“Well, I don’t know if they have the votes,” Rep. Mike Pence, , said just minutes after Rep. John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Democrats had lined up the 216 votes necessary to pass the legislation. “House Republicans are going to use every means at our disposal (to defeat the bill),” Pence said.

How utterly weak and ineffectual the republican party presents itself today. It's no surprise to find them reflexively obstructionist this morning, vowing to use their 'no' power to reverse the transformational history their Democratic opponents produced for the American people. I welcome the republican's partisanship, if that means our Democrats will be left (compelled) to forge through on the strength of our own majorities.

Funny thing about their politics of 'no'. It has sparked our party to be positively positive about our potentially ephemeral control of the political agenda. 'Yes we can' set our own course as a party and reach our destination on our own . . . a lesson for Democrats, hopefully not forgotten in the future.

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Interesting perspective

I don't have the stats, but because of the severe intransigence of the GOP in both Houses - all as spite - I have actually observed more "unity" (in terms of final votes) within the Democratic Caucuses than in any recent time. This in particular in the Senate, where up until they lost that one seat, they were able to actually hold the 60 for a significant % of legislation facing filibuster threats (not including the HCR). I.e., where there was once "bipartisanship" among the moderates of both parties, the Democrats were shown, in dramatic fashion, that the term (and practice of being) "moderate" has been summarily excised from the current GOP strategy. This, like the Palin-as-VP fiasco, is yet another failed "Hail Mary" pass from the GOP.

Sadly, the only "bipartisanship" that is left between the parties is when it comes to the commemoration resolutions.

[bigtree]

2. I haven't seen the value in any of the republican proposals

. . . that would cause me to 'reach out' to them for the sake of the inclusiveness the President speaks of. The present republican leadership is more concerned with employing political wedges in a transparently craven scramble to regain power than in anything substantive or helpful. In fact, Bush fostered this generation of obstructionists. It is helpful that they've been so open about their obstructive intentions. I do hope our party takes notice and refuses to waste the precious time they have in power coddling or soliciting them for anything more than bridge-namings.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. I think that the adoption of

the Lee Atwater tactics that originally came to fruition under Raygun (and that became the standard-bearer strategy that lead to the GOP's descent into uncivil discourse) served to bring us, some 30 years later, to this intractable divide.

I also think that the past couple months of attempts to "reach out" did in fact help to expose this problem - not only for certain members of the Democratic party, but to the American people as well (most notably, the independents that both parties crave votes from).

[bluescribbler]

4. That was the whole strategy

The President tried to be reasonable, and the public saw first hand that the GOP just wasn't going to go along, no matter how many of their proposals were included in the bill.

[bertman]

5. Change your wording from "The President tried to be reasonable" to "The President

tried to be conciliatory" and I'll agree with you. IMO the President was UNreasonable and EXCESSIVELY conciliatory in his attempts at BIpartisanship with a group who have shown no desire whatsoever to compromise.

The bipartisanship meme was incorporated as a way of giving in to the Insurance and Pharma Cartels while attempting to couch that surrender as compromise.

[bigtree]

8. the President was a yes vote for whatever Congress produced

The decision was to fashion a filibuster-proof bill and advance it through the expected hurdles. What was evident after the Senate bill was that republicans had no intention of letting anything through. Whether we should have adopted a more partisan approach from the start is academic, but it was Congress which allowed most of the objectionable influences to manipulate the debate and content of the legislation they crafted.

[bertman]

9. So, the President's role has now been diminished to simply being the guy who either

signs or vetoes legislation? No "persuasion" of legislators, no influencing the legislative process, no bully-pulpit, no back door deals to "get things done" (WHOOPS, forgot about the Pharma/Insurance Cartel deals).

[bigtree]

11. I prefer an independent Congress

I don't think Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid allowed the WH as much influence as has been reported. I do blame Congress. The President is mostly charged with implementing legislation Congress fashions and passes. This president would have signed ANY HCR bill Congress sent to his desk, I believe.

[bigtree]

7. the move to reconciliation

. . . served to force those Democrats to put their party hat back on. They were indeed exposed when they decided they had enough cover to bark up the same tree as the republicans. They get more responsible as we remove the cover of the need for republican votes and force them to respond more to our own party members for support.

[sabrina 1]

10. From your OP;

The President took them at their word and almost eviscerated the winning edge of support from his own party for the resulting Senate bill. But, in the end, it was clear that any interest and ambition the republican party actually had in providing coverage to millions of Americans at risk and without insurance was far outweighed by their cynical politics of fear and division. The only response they could manage when the President called their bluff and voluntarily included their ideas in the Democratic legislation was a shrill and alarmist 'no' to match their earlier embrace of their party's traditional obstructionist moniker.

He almost lost 'winning support' from his own party, that would be members of Congress, because HE put Republican ideas in the bill. And when Democrats finally woke up (what are they drinking in that town?) and realized that 'no' was all they would ever get from Republicans, those 'Republican Ideas' were not removed, as they should have been.


He was no by-stander to this whole process. He was involved in secret meetings, something he said in the campaign needed to end in DC, he talked constantly to Republicans, listening to them, and as he said himself at the HC Summit, put many or their ideas in the bill.


It's unfortunate that a Democratic President felt the need to cater so much to the rightwing fringe elements of society, giving them much of what they wanted, while silencing the voices of those who elected him. There was no inclusion of Liberal ideas in this bill, in fact every Liberal idea was killed. Every one.

If he wants accolades for passing this bill, then he cannot point fingers at Congress and blame them for everything that went wrong. Democrats were waiting to give him everything he wanted, and he said himself, that he got 95% of everything he wanted in the Senate Bill.

[bigtree]

12. I do think we can blame Congress for their dealmaking

It's their house, their bill. This president wasn't going to walk away from any deal they made which would advance something called HCR. So he got most of what he wanted, but he ate a lot of BS to get to the finish line. Who knows how it could have gone different politically, but Congress and the President share blame for the legislation Congress produced.

[sabrina 1]

13. I agree, Congress definitely shares the blame. They

should have stood up for their colleagues, like Kucinich and others who offered amendments that originally had support and was often taken out, we are told, by the WH. At that point, Congress should have reacted and fought these tactics, instead they walked away and left people like Kucinich to fight alone.

Which is why from now on the focus should be on removing those members of Congress who caved, or who were responsible for pushing the interests of Private Insurance over the people's interests.

[bigtree]

6. .