Why are the Democrats such pussies?

Great Debates
1

It’s my understanding that in addition to a Democratic president, the Democrats also control the Senate and the House. That boils down to controlling government. Why then, are they continuously struggling with the Republicans on a health care compromise? Could they not just say “Screw you guys” and pass it themselves? I can understand trying to be amicable and wanting to please both sides but it’s pretty obvious the Republicans are just fighting anything and everything Obama throws at them.

As much as I despise Bush, at least he had balls and stood up for what he believed in spite of opposition. I don’t believe for one second that he would be bending so far over backwards to try to please Democrats. So perhaps I’m seriously misconstruing something here or believe something that isn’t true. We have a majority of government AND Americans backing “change” that still isn’t happening. Can someone help me understand this situation?

2

You are what you eat.

3

OK, that was fun, moving along…

The Dems are not, and never have been, and most likely never will be a unified bloc. They are a coalition of coalitions, some lefty, some centrist, some downright conservative. Adding up the numbers with a (D) doesn’t really get it.

And then, of course, you have the ones who just plain sold out. But they can be gotten to, just takes more effort. If Rep. B. Dogg (D-Wafflehouse) gets a hefty campaign contribution for his stern fiscal conservatism from Big Health/Pharm, that will help him get re-elected. But if he begins to catch on that the people he’s expecting to vote for him will get pissed if he blocks health care reform, he will see The Light.

When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

4

So you’re saying the root of (or part of) the problem is how split the Democratic party is? Hmm. Seems like that just demonstrates how silly the two-party system is at times, if there’s that much disagreement and fighting within it.

Still, it seems they could unite just enough to overcome their main opponent (the GOP). After all, do they not realize they’re winning battles against each other, but that will eventually cause them to lose the overall “war” against the Republicans?

5

Interestingly, when the Republican party started to lose out to the Dems at the voting booths, everyone was saying that the problem was that the Republican party was founded on too many different small groups, the religious right, the economic right, libertarians, etc.

I would say that either liberals are too invested in the idea of making everyone happy to push legislature through (i.e. are pussies), or simply don’t have as strong a method of leadership within their ranks at the moment. The latter is probably more likely, but I don’t know anything about the organizations specifically to compare and contrast.

6

I think we are going to see some backlash from Democrats in next couple of weeks. After bitching and moaning until the public option was dropped from the Baucus healthcare bill, no Republicans on the finance committee are going to vote for it anyway. I think that may piss off enough Democrats in the Senate to amend the bill to restore the public option and many of the provisions that were dropped in the name of bipartisanship.

The Republicans have overplayed their hand, and now Democrats are realizing they are damned if they do, and dammed if they don’t, so they might as well abandon any pretense of bipartisanship and pass a bill with all the lefty goodies they originally considered. There will be a mighty knashing of teeth and rending of garments, but Dems are getting an earful from their constituents about passing mandatory insurance without a public option.

7

I suppose arguably one part is that if you hold all the cards, you still don’t want to piss off the “enemy” too much because politics and the public mood changes. If either side bulldozes the other at each and every opportunity, they may well indeed get what they want - and then four years, eight years, however long down the line, the other side is going to get into power and you can be damn sure they’ll do the same in return. You compromise even when you’re in power so that they’ll do so, too, when it’s their turn at the reins.

8

Democrats control the government now. How they wield that power will determine whether or not they still control the government a year and a half from now. The smarter Democrats understand this. Even when you have large majorities, you have to pay attention to the will of the people, because they can take that majority away from you really fast.

Yes, Democrats can probably invoke the ‘nuclear option’ and pass a health care program of their choice through the reconciliation process. The question to ask is whether that program is important enough to risk losing power over, because that’s probably what will happen. Are Democrats willing to die on that particular hill?

Of course, you could argue that it’s almost certain that Democrats will lose enough seats in the next election that they will not longer have the ability to shut down a filibuster, and so they’re likely headed into two years of gridlock anyway, so they might as well ram through as much as they can now. But if that causes them to actually lose their majority, the Republicans could simply turn around and undo it all before it has a real chance to get started.

It’s kind of like a business that holds a monopoly in the market. It still has to behave as if it didn’t have a monopoly in terms of keeping prices low and quality high, or it will soon lose its monopoly anyway.

9

Not with a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Even if Republicans retake the Senate (which I find highly unlikely), they are not going to have a veto-proof majority, so they won’t be undoing anything.

10

Well, gee, Rev, sounds good but does it match the record? My recollection is that the Pubbies treated the Dems like doggie dirt for some years, and just recently. By that standard, the Dems are being bi-partisan as all get-out.

For my two bits, its because the Pubbies are totally in the death grip of the Troglodyte Right, the Pubbie who appeals to the centrist, moderate wing is going to pull about 6% in the voting, finishing right behind the Silly Party.

For a politician, those are the only facts that matter. Idealism? Sure, they remember that, when they were young…

11

Because as elucidator said, Democrats are not unified. But so what, neither were Republicans.

If you really look closely you find the Dems and Reps are not that far apart on most issues.

Also remember the Senate is not based on population but on states. Wyoming and Vermont, very small states have as much power as California and Texas.

So it doesn’t matter what party the Senators of VT and WY belong to, they use their “power” to bargain.

For instance, no one cares about a dam in Wyoming except the 100,000 people in Wyoming it’ll effect. A 100,000 people in WY is about 1/5 the state population so to a Senator in WY he has to get that dam built.

But who cares about a 100,000 people. Well if Mr Republican Senator in Wyoming can go to Mr Democratic Senator in California (where each state is equal), he can say, "Support money for my dam and I’ll give you something CA wants)

See how it works

A Republican Senator can’t simply say “I voted on party lines.” The electorate would say “You’re first duty is to the people of the state, not your political party.” And if the electorate wouldn’t say it, at the next election his opponent would say that.

Finally remember Obama barely won the nomination. He got in basically 'cause “Oprah thought he was cute.” Polls indicate in a lot of states the fact he didn’t vote for the Iraq War was the sole reason people voted for him over Hillary.

The Clinton by contrast worked their way as Democratic Party players, so they still hold much influence.

Mr Obama is an upstart or outsider to Washington DC. He has stated the reason he ran for president was because he was tired of the Washington system which prevented him as a Senator from getting anything done.

That’s a slap to those who work within the system. I’m not saying he’s wrong, but it’s like at a workplace, lots of unpleasent people work with you. Even if you’re right and go over their head, when that is over you still have to work with these people, who are now going to be openly hostile to you.

Lastly Senators and Representatives have no term limits. Many are there for decades. Mr Obama will be out by 2012, maybe sooner, and those Congressmen are going to have to work with others long after Mr Obama is gone.

So it pays not to bully your way in and burn all your bridges.

So a Congressman is viewing his priorites as:

  1. His own job and career. (Maybe he wants to president someday)
  2. His own state, to keep him re-electec
  3. His own fundrasiers, (Got to keep them happy, a run for the US Senate, successful or not is estimated to run about 25 million. So even if the voters love you, if they won’t cough up big time you can’t win)
  4. Then the party.

And note “then the party.” Look at the Clintons, played by all the rules, always helped Democrats, totally went within the Democratic Party rules and system. Hillary had the nomination wrapped up. Then an upstart like Mr Obama came along and took it away.

So looking at it like that loyalty to your party is pretty low on the list, since the party won’t back you when the going gets tough

12

Sam, you’re kidding yourself.

If a reform bill passes, even a watered down reform bill, people will benefit. Black people, white people, brown people, gays, straights, lesbians, vegetarians, Baptists… Its the Everybody demographic, it cuts across all the lines. And the people who beneift, however few they may be, will remember who to thank. And it ain’t gonna be Michele Bachman, and it ain’t gonna be Rep. Cantor.

That’s why the scorched earth policy, that’s why they must, positively must kill health care reform. There is no lie they won’t tell, no slander they will scruple at.

The up side, for you? Tons and tons of American Tories, once again, fleeing from Socialized Obamism to Canada. Hey, beats tons of hippy draft resisters, right? Right?

13

70% of Americans are satisfied with their health care. They will not benefit.

When you add 47 million people to the ranks of the insured, with no increase in the number of doctors and nurses, some people will see their quality of care diminish. Probably older people.

It’s a charade to believe that you can do all this without major tax increases or major increases to the deficit. Those who see their taxes go up will not benefit.

People today who do not receive health insurance from their employers will have an 8% payroll tax added to them. So people who currently have private health insurance they are happy with will not benefit. They will be in the same position as people who put their kids in private schools - they will have to pay for public health care as well as their own private health care. This will force them out of their private plans and into the ‘public option’. If it’s not as good as their private care was, they will be pissed.

Companies that can not afford either health care plans or the 8% payroll tax to fund the public plan will go out of business.

Some companies that are under the threshold for the 8% payroll tax will choose to remain small rather than grow past the point where they suddenly have 8% added to their employment costs. The economy will not benefit.

And you had better hope that the government actually can run health care efficiently, and provide better service for the 70% of Americans who currently have coverage, or many people will be dissatisfied.

And if you ram through health care using the budget reconciliation process which was never intended to be used for such sweeping social reform, you will get a backlash from the public over it. Furthermore, you will have set a precedent that you can be sure will be used against you the next time the Republicans regain power. Are you sure you want to open that can of worms?

14

A big majority of Americans want a single payer or an option. The dems are not pussies. They just have to get campaign cash from the same companies the repubs do. Baucus got a couple mill from heath care companies. What do you expect? He works for them so he came up with a gutted and weak bill. The dems were in a great position after the election. They are blowing it.
The government can provide a lot better and more equitable health care than the private sector.

15

Yes, I am.

And what if we’re right, and you’re wrong? It’s been happening quite a bit, these last several years, as I’m sure you’ve noticed. You have noticed it, right?

16

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1913426,00.html Polls show the people absolutely want health care change. They know the system is broken. I suppose if you spend your time listening to Fox and Rush, you would not know that.

17

Back in the day (2000) when there were grassroots efforts to oppose Dubya at dailykos, I noticed this was probably the biggest difference between neocons and everybody else. Right or wrong, a neocon will support whatever their party tells them to support. A liberal will argue until they’re dead.

They couldn’t even agree on which candidate to support in the primaries, and kept arguing even after the selection was made.

18

I am one of those who is satisfied with my health care. However, it does not follow that I will not benefit from health care reform. I would benefit in the following way: I would sleep better at night, knowing that in the worst case, if I lost my job, and was unemployed for the next five years, I would still have health care, even though I have certain preexisting conditions.

19

Until they lose their job and their insurance. Or until they need something that their insurer doesn’t feel like covering.

Companies that currently care enough about their employees to offer health care are at a competitive disadvantage against those that don’t cover their employees. How did you think Wal-Mart got so big?

Maybe we ought to let government run health care coverage for a sample of the population for about 40 years, say the seniors, and see how it goes before expanding it to everybody.

Gee whilikers, those that currently have health coverage and good health care, they’re so much more important than the great unwashed, we can’t possibly lift a finger now can we?

What kills Democrats is that we don’t fall in line behind a Dear Leader like Republicans. That makes Republicans more effective (at passing bad policy) in the majority and more effective (in just being ornery) in the minority. That and some Democrats have the misperception that Republicans are interested in bipartisanship.

Bipartisanship During Republican Rule:

Republican: We’re going to pass this bill. Here it is.
Democrat: May we suggest changing one word in page 3, paragraph 2, second sentence?
Republican: Eat shit!
Bipartisanship During Democratic Rule:

Democrat: Oh, Mr. Republican! We’d love to pass this bill in a bipartisan way. We know you don’t like A, B, and C so we took them out. Would you vote for this bill, prettyprettypretty please?
Republican: We can’t live with a bill that doesn’t have X, Y, and Z.
-four months later-
Democrat: OK, we added X, Y, and Z just like you wanted. Won’t you please vote for this bill?
Republican: Eat shit!

20

Sam apparently is oblivious to the fact the majority of foreclosures has a huge health care component and over half of them HAD coverage. Had coverage. That means with coverage, you can still go bankrupt by illness or accident. Our health care is a mess.