How democrats f***ed up Health Care Reform

Being a party loyalist entails general support of the party platform, it entails supporting the nominees to your party even if you disagree with a certain item they are running on, and most importantly it entails rebuffing them when they've messed things up.

When getting asked recently what went wrong with Health Care reform that it went from what seemed like an inevitable fate inspired passage of the bill to such an ambiguous and gloomy mentality that perhaps we are on the cusp of repeating 1994, the answer really could not be much clearer.

We took an incredibly successful 2008 election and ended up widely committing an error that many have incorrectly tried to attribute solely to Coakley in the Massachusetts election. We've taken a decisive election and a filibuster proof majority and fed off of ourselves this feeling of entitlement of this being our time, as if we had no need to continue working for the policy initiatives we feel are most necessary to restore a strong America.

This was evident in op-ed pieces on the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, New York Times, etc.

Democrats and the White House truly took for granted the 60 vote filibuster proof majority and continuously wasted time and effort that could've seen the health care reform bill passed by the original August 2008 deadline.

How could we mess up so bad? I think the answer is somewhat obvious.

Scott Brown used the tactics we should've used to have kept up the 65% of people supporting "Obama-care" in getting elected. Populism got dems elected in '08 but for some reason decided to abandon that this year. People are hurting just as bad as they were in the fall of 2008, if not realistically worse because of dire unemployment numbers.

It would've been easy as pie to have shaped the debate using populism as a cornerstone. The people elected the first grassroots candidate to the White House, the people made universal health care possible. It could easily have been marketed as a big win for the middle class by the middle classes; a win by the people, for the people.

For some strange reason, the administration and congress decided to let republicans, the tea party movement, and everyone else define the debate by doing these town halls instead of outright campaigning for the bill and championing it as a populist and popular idea that everyone in this country should have health care.

There was no real attention brought to how many jobs could be created with the passage of the bill, there was no effort to get Americans on board. It was simply assumed the support we began the debate with would stay, but why we would have made such a terrible assumption is beyond comprehension.

This administration really faltered and made a similar mistake that Bill Clinton did in failing to shape the narrative. Being reactionaries and offering those types of arguments only after republicans and others had begun their opposition really left democrats in the dust. It put needless congressional seats in danger and the bill's future in real doubt. This was a flat out strategic failure.

To the President's credit, his reunion with the populism that had gotten him elected will likely drive up his and democrats approval numbers in the near future if they can do right this time what they did wrong during his entire first year. The Huffington Post is reporting that the President and the House of Representatives will hold deliberations about passing the Senate bill and using reconciliation in public; something that should've been done from the start and has hurt the entire process.

This effort is not dead, but to say anything less than “we f***ed up” would be a complete understatement. This Massachusetts election has really brought democrats down to earth. Maybe we can finally take the job of governing with new resolve and a realization that power isn't everything.

America sure needs real change in Washington.

A New Era for the Democratic Party and the politics of Change

Chris Dodd and company have forced in a new era for the Democratic Party

The triple whammy can be seen as passing of the torch, "the promise of change coming full circle"

This moment could potentially define the party for years to come
Over the past couple of days, the Democratic Party has been handed some incredibly tough news in the retirement of 2 prominent Senators Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, and Governor Bill Ritter of Colorado.

What's immediately obvious is that the future of the Democratic Party has been significantly changed in a matter of a few hours.

To what extent is to be determined, but I believe there's a certain dynamic here that is being missed by a lot of people, particularly the other party (although, no surprise there).

I don't think anyone truly expected the party to maintain a filibuster proof majority past 2010 or maintain similarly strong majorities in the House, but for some odd reason many news networks are jumping on the issue as if it was somehow a foregone conclusion that the party would stay solidly in power. History proves seats will be lost in next year's elections.

What we must not forget is that in 2008, it wasn't just President Obama that ran on the platform of change. The Democratic Party did the same. We did the unprecedented then-we won a near filibuster proof majority and within months actually had that super majority to have sole control in dictating national policy political parties only dream of.

Change didn't mean ultra-liberal, change didn't mean center left, change didn't mean progressive. Change referred to fundamental change, first and foremost through policy initiatives, and second through moving towards a new generation of leaders. Congress attempted to change the deep partisanship that went on to the unrelenting resistance from Republicans, in effect killing any hopes of accomplishing anything.

When we Illinois college students campaigned in the primaries in 2007 for President Obama in Iowa, walking door to door trying to build support for a candidate from Illinois that we quickly found out had virtually no name recognition, we didn't go around bashing Hillary and dissing on John Edwards.

What we did do was go around having conversations with people and hearing directly from them that they simply wanted fundamental change. Voters weren't looking for a health care reform position with a public option, they wanted sweeping and fundamental change in Washington and in the country. At almost every door that was opened to me I kept hearing that they were tired of the same people promising the same things and failing to come through.

What was most striking at the time was hearing that people really did WANT to trust the government. People aren't always pointlessly cynical.

They've been duped over and over and are sick of it. They placed their trust in this unknown candidate and this party because unlike the opposition, this party had confidence not seen since Ronald Reagan's GOP, a willingness to take on an increasingly contrarian opposition, a pretty good history of economic success, and because of a brand new party leader that had ignited new hopes for better days.

Over time, people realized that even with a new President, those who ended up controlling the actual policy are the same congressmen who have been re-elected for decades. People tend to think that with the same old faces you get the same tricks and no action. They don't trust career politicians although they tend to re-elect them successively. This has come to change since this past election cycle with underdog democrats bringing on strong primary challenges to establishment candidates and the softening of once safe blue and red seats.

It would be presumptuous for us to believe that these career politician's passion about causes such as health care to be illegitimate. Ted Kennedy sure never did waver in trying to get Health Care reform done, and Chris Dodd was never too far behind in helping Ted accomplish what he could with his help.

The Democratic Party has been able to use their majority in the legislature to pass monumental moves to fix the economy, to fix health care, and to offer some reform to the financial system. There is one year left to get the most pressing things on the agenda done with things as they are.

Whether you think what they've done has been inadequate, what we must really be thankful for as liberals, democrats, and those opposed to republican policy is the fact that we've been given this rare opportunity to pass sweeping legislation to guide this country in the way that we have. This has been an incredibly unique moment in history that perhaps may not ever happen again.

When the new congress gets sworn in spring 2011, all us liberals will be grounded back to earth off of our little power high that we've had over the past year. We will be reminded that the Senate is called a deliberative body for a reason, and suddenly remember Alexis D Tocqueville and James Madison's warnings against a tyranny of the majority.

We will begin the day with three of the longest serving Senators gone in what could be described as a passing of the torch to a new generation of American politicians and a new era in American politics. Whether you take Dodd at his word or not, Chris Dodd isn't a pushover and much less a weak politician. If he and the two other Senators felt like they had much more to provide to the country now that health care and the economy have been addressed, tough campaigns or not, they would've done so valiantly.

The reality that bears on us is that over the next several years, names like John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Robert Byrd, and Patrick Leahy will cease to be talked about as they slowly begin to wave farewell. They will no longer be part of the U.S. Legislature and any remnants of 20th century America begin to be taken over by a new youthful and invigorated generation of politicians and activists.

Senators have expressed regret at the new state of polarization that have caused a complete cessation of bipartisanship in congress.

Dodd, Dorgan, and Ritter are forcing us to re-evaluate how we act and what our game plans for our party's future will be with good cause. As their gift to Americans and a gift to this party, their retirement is the promise of 'change' coming full circle. The policy came first in 2009, the personnel transition in 2010 and beyond.

In 2011, the jig is up. In order to get things done, dems will need to reach across the aisle as the legislature was meant to operate, and republicans will need to seriously engage when it comes to crafting policy if they ever want to be in power again.

America won't survive long if this spirit of hyper-partisanship doesn't stop and stop soon. Citizenship, not bipartisanship.

The roundtable discussion:The Daily Kos

I just wanted to take a moment to remind all visitors of The Art of Politik that this blog runs parallel with The Daily Kos.

Some people think of this marketplace of ideas as simply a soapbox for ultra-liberals, but the fact is that it's full of democrats from the most liberal to the most conservative whom aren't afraid to put forward and defend their point of views.

Making a post there ignites almost instant debate as long as what you post is thoughtful and consistent. If you do waver in that, you will be told so to your own benefit for future pieces.

If you like having real, serious discussion about issues that affect us all every day, make sure you stop by there and read some user and site submitted diaries. I guarantee you will leave there with information or ideas you didn't have before you entered.

Follow this blog and discussions about the pieces by searching for account: 'r2wildfire' or you can click on the 'diaries' link to the right to get the most recent user submitted diaries (the main page is mostly material from site operators).

IL US Senate Race: Hoffman and supporters have little ammo against Giannoulias

Democratic primary attacks from David Hoffman are hollow, reek of GOP anti-Obama criticisms in 2008.

Inter-party attacks show inconsistency, flagging support for a little known dem candidate.

Even Cheryl Jackson, a lesser known candidate has a wide lead over Hoffman.

Chicago Tribune Polling 12/14/09 (Democratic Primary): Giannoulias (D) 31% - Cheryl Jackson (D)17% - David Hoffman (D) 9%

Rasmussen Polling 12/11/09 (General Election): Alexi Giannoulias (D) 42% - Mark Kirk (R) 39% - Giannoulias +3%

In the past two years alone, we've made great inroads to repairing the economic calamity America has been left with under Republican rule for eight years.

Once again, Americans are called upon to wield their constitutionally given right to fire or re-contract our representatives in the U.S. Congress. No doubt, these races get contentious, but sometimes every once in a while there are few issues thrown into the open because there's really not many to discuss.

In this case of David Hoffman versus Alexi Giannoulias, we find ourselves in similar territory.

Let's get some things cleared straight away. Alexi Giannoulias was formerly associated to a small bank owned by his family that formerly held some loose connections to Tony Rezko; a bank Alexi quickly severed ties with. It is also significant to state that the bank is a small one, and any chances of ire directed towards the state treasurer because of his ties to a small town bank because of Henry Paulson's TARP program seem highly overstated.

The Giannoulias family is an immigrant family that got to the United States and quickly were able to bring upon themselves the reality of an American dream come true. I don't believe voters will be quickly hypnotized because the word 'bank' is mentioned near Alexi's name.

Many pundits are calling the race a toss up in a state that hasn't found itself very willing to vote republican since George Ryan was indicted a few years back. People of course aren't amnesiacs and aren't quickly to forget good ol' Blago, but these two governors are creating a cognitive dissonance among Illinoisans who simply don't know where to turn to find suitable people to run the state.

Let us not forget that the 2008 elections were held during the whole Blagojevich debacle and had little if any bearing on state elections at the time. We found historically republican districts being won by democrats.

There's no denying that the race in 2010 is closer because of Blagojevich, but Rasmussen's latest poll shows Alexi 3 percentage points ahead of Mark Kirk, and that's of course considering that Rasmussen has been recently proved to show inflated numbers for republicans. The last poll before that, run about this same time last year by Research 2000 showed Giannoulias 8 points ahead of Kirk.

I can't offer any big criticism of David Hoffman, because truly, there is little of it to be had. I could criticize him as Giannoulias did in a recent debate between the two for using tons of his own money to fund his campaign, but that issue is neither here nor there. A candidate has that option if they have the money to do so as much as it pushes down grassroots candidates.

Both Giannoulias and Hoffman would be great candidates to fill the President's old Senate seat, but let's be realistic about this. David Hoffman is a weak candidate for the seat severely lagging in primary polls.

Illinoisans know Giannoulias well. He's been on the political scene for a few years now and holds the respect of republicans and democrats alike. He's been the type of political figure you'd want to run your state, he's been people friendly and never afraid to lend his constituents a personal word despite how busy he may be. I've even had direct messages from the man himself through Facebook.

If all David Hoffman supporters can cling on to is his severely loose ties to Tony Rezko, then I really struggle to understand why these concerns weren't raised by these same people in their support of Barack Obama in 2008. That's being disastrously inconsistent in an attempt to boost a candidate that has little chance of winning to begin with.

The only real benefit that could come from Hoffman's challenge would be the strengthening of Giannoulias as a candidate, but since Mark Kirk has no real primary challenges himself, any serious attempt to low blow Giannoulias into a loss would give the image of a weak candidate and dimming the chances of Illinois maintaining dual democratic Senate seats since Peter Fitzgerald retired.

Let's end these shenanigans now. We have much left to do in the U.S. Congress to keep supporting a candidate in Hoffman who has little recourse left in trying to win this election.

If you must, cast your vote for Hoffman in the primaries, but a strong democratic showing for our nominee will undoubtedly reap huge benefits for that person in the general election. You should really think about it.