ft's Blog tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/ft//499 2010-01-21T03:23:26Z Movable Type Pro 4.21-en I phoned my anti-HCR Democratic Rep. tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/ft//499.314967 2010-01-21T02:25:52Z 2010-01-21T03:23:26Z ft Today, I phoned the home of office my Congresswoman, Betsey Markey, Colorado District 4.  No one answered.  I left a message urging passage of the current Senate HCR bill, but she's probably going to remain opposed to it as she was to the House bill.
Markey factors into this discussion because she voted no on the House bill, and is a likely no vote on the Senate bill, too.  Her argument, at least the official one on her web site is that the House bill "does not do enough to cut the health care costs that are crushing our businesses and families." 
Markey's stand on HCR and other measures has been a disappointment, and she needs to get behind the bill  as much as does Jerry Nadler--they each have one vote--but in her case and that of most of the 39 Democrats who opposed the House bill, how will bitching at Fire Dog Lake, Ariana Huffington, and Barney Frank make a difference?   
]]> The House could pass this right now with half of the 39 House Dems who voted no switching. They were mostly no for conservative reasons and the Senate bill is more conservative than the House bill.  Should be easy, but they won't budge.  
I'm posting this in light of the stream of front page posts that frame the imminent collapse of the Senate HCR bill as a product of liberal intransigence. That frame ignores Reid, Obama, and MacCaskill telling the House that the Senate will not consider an amended bill without Scott Brown, meaning no amended bill at all, and the headline stories in the NYT and WaPo quoting  Obama's statement about re-tooling the bill to find common ground with Republicans.  
Only if readers ignore the constraints that the WH and Senate Dems are applying does it look like Barney Frank or Jerry Nadler has the power.  For those Democrats who have a hate on for progressives right now, these tactics--no pressure on the Blue Dogs, no pressure on the Senate side--won't make for successful reform because there is no accountability on the right of the party to play ball, and to win the House and Senate votes those Democrats have to support  bill as much as do the progressives.
Since the Lieberman apostasy, Josh has treated HCR's outcome as contingent on Dem voters, and especially progressives, to maintain sufficient enthusiasm for the White House. As the crackup on the bill worsens, this line of argument is starting to look more like an excuse than a strategy.  
I say that because Markey if anyone has so much to lose by being saddled with a failed president that she and other swing district Dems should be up front cheering along, but they aren't.  Progressives clapping louder won't do any good with her, nor will it convince Stupak and the other anti-abortion Dem congressmen who oppose the Senate bill.  
Meanwhile as the White Hose figures out a new approach to HCR,  John Kerry today had some advice for Democrats.  

I hope as a Party we don't succumb to the temptation to form a circular firing squad. It does no one any good.


]]> the counterpunch test tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.181619 2008-03-05T16:41:27Z 2008-03-05T16:41:27Z Hillary is back in, and has the momentum. Look for news stories about the savvy makeover of her campaign as a mark of Hillary finally taking charge and erasing the influence of Bill and his cronies.  Meanwhile, Obama will suffer... ft


It's not a great insight on my part to say that Obama's challenge is the ultimate one of this election and of governing: fight back effectively.  Hillary Clinton traded in smears and fear-mongering terrorism ads to raise the negatives on Obama sufficiently to win by a narrow margin (sound familiar? See Bush-Kerry 2004)


If Obama can't knock back Clinton's swiftboating, he can't do it against McCain either, so this is the test.  Obama’s unity over partisanship appeals to Republicans are a big liability when he gets attacked with rightwing themes. If he wants to find common ground with Republicans, what's he going to do when they call him bad names?  To call his attackers out as rightwing hit men inevitably takes him into attacking conservatives as such undercuts the uniter message (You’ve questioned the ethics of Rush Limbaugh?  Millions of honest conservatives listen to him even if they don’t agree with everything he says.  Are you calling them immoral, too?).  To do nothing and say he’s above this, makes him look wimpy and that's the Dukakis-Gore-Kerry end of the race.


Thus far in the GWB era, no Democrat has been able to successfully land an effective counterpunch in a national campaign without co-opting rightwing talking points, and they’ve yet to take it to a Republican. In the 2004 primaries, Kerry cleaned up after Dean's remark that Saddam's capture had not made the US safer, but Kerry did that by adopting an argument handed to him by Rove and company.  Clinton is doing the same with Obama right now. 


If Clinton could trade in the same dirt with McCain, one could look at this as regrettable but necessary in that Clinton is the only one capable of pushing back against the right.  But I doubt we’ll see general election tactics that question McCain’s religion, patriotism, and racial affiliation.  Nor will the Clinton campaign run a “3 a.m.” ad against McCain.  This was the stuff of the Ohio-Texas attack on Obama was straight out of the Bush playbook, whereas attacks on McCain are more likely to emphasize social issues, and ideological inconsistency,  to counter his presumed national security strength. McCain's presumed national security strength will be magnified with McCain's own, better version of the 3 a.m. phone call ad.  Such a re-hash of the 204 campaign might still get the Democrat elected (Kerry came close under less favorable conditions), but not without conceding a lot of ground on the rightwing security narrative.


Obama has been impressive as a campaigner, and could reverse the trend, but this story in this morning’s Washington Post is really bad news if it’s true:


“Obama aides also expect to take concentrated fire from McCain (Ariz.) and his Republican allies, who have already begun raising questions about the 46-year-old Democratic senator's credibility, authenticity and even his patriotism.


For months before his victory in Iowa, doubters questioned whether Obama had the stomach to deliver the blows necessary to wear down Clinton's advantages. Now, the question is whether he can take a punch -- "and you know they will be coming," said former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (D), a Clinton supporter.


Some Obama supporters are increasing pressure on him to shift tactics, frame more sharply his criticism of his opponents and begin inoculating himself from the GOP attacks, but Obama remains reluctant to change the approaches that he still thinks will secure him the nomination. "I have said consistently that we do things differently," Obama said. "It's worked for us so far. And I'm not going to do things that I'm not comfortable in doing." “

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/04/AR2008030403392_pf.html


Obama's got it absolutely backwards if you ask me.

]]>