Attacking the Protesters Won't Help Health Care Reform

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 18:00


Here is Pollster.com's trenndline graph on support and opposition to Democratic health care reform plans. It shows that support has stagnated since late May, while opposition has risen. Even if one filters out Rasmussen, stagnating support and rising opposition is still the trendline:


The main problem currently facing the various health care reform plans is a lack of popular support. Sure, Americans agree that health care reform is needed, and they generally seem to support progressive legislation in the abstract, but they do not seem particularly supportive of the current efforts anyway. This is a serious issue because, as I discussed last week, Congress rarely passes unpopular legislation.

What health care reform needs right now is more popular support for the plans in Congress. Given this, every progressive should ask him or herself the following question: exactly how will portraying health care protesters as astroturf extremists increase support for current health care reform efforts? Personally, I can't figure that one out. Growing to dislike protesters is not the same thing as growing to like the target of the protests.

I know I am starting to sound like a broken record here, but progressives are focusing too much of their attention on attacking the protesters. I just don't see how focusing on them gets us closer to our goal of passing health care reform. It is a big distraction.

Chris Bowers :: Attacking the Protesters Won't Help Health Care Reform

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Attacking the Protesters Won't Help Health Care Reform | 76 comments
You are right. (4.00 / 2)
But I will still get repuglicans all riled up on twitter.  I will stick to the importance of health care reform.

Please join me on Twitter: Here


RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

It would help immensely... (4.00 / 9)

 ...if our Democratic leaders would coalesce around a few basic principles that would create the framework for a bill, even if we don't have a specific bill yet. (That would have been better, but we are where we are.) Universal coverage, the public option, insurance and pharma regulation, whatever.

 But the Dem approaches are all over the place. So we don't have anything coherent to actually support and promote. Do we have a public option? Do we not? Meanwhile, the enemies of reform can make up all kinds of stuff -- and it gains traction because we're not all reading from the same sheet of music.

 The anti-reform blue dogs bear much of the blame for this, but the messaging of the progressive wing has been abysmal as well in creating a solid narrative FOR reform. And this messaging deficit is getting really, really old -- it's been DECADES since it's been a problem, and the next step taken by Democrats to resolve it will be the first one.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Messaging deficit source (4.00 / 5)
is trying to be all things to all people. Trying to deliver to corporate lobbyists while getting elected by populist and progressive base.

A lot of mixed messages and betrayals (er unmet promises).

[ Parent ]
re (4.00 / 3)
is trying to be all things to all people. Trying to deliver to corporate lobbyists while getting elected by populist and progressive base.

2 things that don't mix

[ Parent ]
How can you argue for something (4.00 / 1)
when do don't stand for anything specific?
[ Parent ]
I think we're coalescing (0.00 / 0)
around boycotting Whole Foods, that bastion of right-wing vegetarian conservative thought, to protest Mackey speaking his mind.

Think it'll help?  

[ Parent ]
There are two messages I would stick with (4.00 / 1)
Increased Choice
Guaranteed access

Arguments over the public option don't seem to be the sort that get people to scream "I want that".  The public option is a means to an end.

[ Parent ]
Is this 1993 all over again? (4.00 / 4)
Oh gawd, I hope not. Dem leaders need to get a strong message and stick to it NOW before it's too late.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
I would like to know (4.00 / 3)
why Obama was so eloquent and articulate during his campaign, and yet he can/will not do the same with the healthcare debate? He is not being upfront with us. His administration's reaction to the protestors was unfortunate at best. You might say he "acted stupidly."

Things are slipping away--and we HAVE to stop blaming the right. We have done this to ourselves. These last 6 months have brought out the worst in the left, and drowned out the best.  

Ask Rahm (4.00 / 12)

  1. Which of the following groups served as the biggest obstacle to the President's health-care reform goals?

    a) Republicans
    b) blue dogs
    c) progressives
    d) the grassroots
    d) a and b

   2. Which of the following groups did Rahm aim most of his anger and arm-twisting at?

     a) Republicans
     b) blue dogs
     c} progressives
     d) the grassroots
     e) c and d

  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why health-care reform is faltering.
   

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
and the media (2.00 / 2)
who keeps regurgitating right wing talking points for 24 hours a day has nothing to do with this?

Fact is most Americans aren't progressive nor do they know what the hell the grassroots are.  

[ Parent ]
expressing your 'america is a conservative right wing country' crap again? (4.00 / 5)
Fact is most Americans aren't progressive

link to the "fact"?

[ Parent ]
here (2.00 / 2)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120...

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal

but tell us again how those moderates and conservatives are really progressives who don't know it yet.  

[ Parent ]
wrong answer (4.00 / 7)
I didn't dispute a 'Americans don't think they are progressive' opinion

I disputed your 'Americans aren't progressive' opinion

[ Parent ]
This is true. (0.00 / 0)
This is exactly correct

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
and I proved to you (0.00 / 1)
that Americans aren't progressive.  
[ Parent ]
No, you did not (4.00 / 4)
You showed how more Americans self-identify as conservative than progressive/liberal. Which doesn't change the fact that in their policy stances and now voting patterns, they indisputibly are progressive/liberal. They're just hung up on labels. As are you.

You keep trying to pull this crap here. Are you this bad at understanding polls, or just dishonest about it?

Never mind, I've already answered that when I recently posted a poll showing this, where a majority of Americans supported one progressive/liberal policy after another.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
and I posted a series of polls (0.00 / 1)
showing that they supported one conservative policy after another.

[ Parent ]
Who did, conservatives? (0.00 / 0)
Links, please?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Umm (4.00 / 7)
because those same people overwhelmingly support a public option and believe in a massive taxpayer funded jobs program to end the recession and rebuild our national infrastructure.

They also support progressive taxation, social security, medicare, and almost every other broad based quasi-socialist program that Democrats have fought for since the New Deal.  

You can't simply point to those broad questions, the responses they produce, and draw intelligent conclusions about how the vast majority of people understand the relationship of society to government.  

[ Parent ]
They do? (1.33 / 3)
the same people who overwhelmingly prefer mainanting the current healthcare system rather than change the whole system

http://www.gallup.com/poll/470...

opposes closing Gitmo,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/525...

supports torture in some cases

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...

opposes marriage equality

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118...

thinks the deficit is more important than stimulating the economy;

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...

Fifty-six percent of respondents said that they were not willing to pay more in taxes in order to reduce the deficit, and nearly as many said they were not willing for the government to provide fewer services in areas such as health care, education and defense spending.

what's that again about the public supporting progressive taxation and massive taxpayer funded jobs programs?

 

[ Parent ]
The alternative you propose and that Gallup polled (4.00 / 2)
is nowhere to be found among the policy alternatives that congress and the president are debating.

Where are people debating "chang[ing] the whole system" and what would that even mean?  More insipid quasi-push polling from Gallup.  It's similar to asking about "continental drift" versus "were Africa and the Americas once connected": charged questions that seek to produce a result for public manipulation rather than objective data.

When Gallup did ask about the role of government in improving infrastructure to ease unemployment, however, people were wildly in favor.  

None of the changes the fact that you're a troll, and people who read what you say should understand you as such.  

[ Parent ]
We're not at DKos here. This didn't deserve a TR. (0.00 / 0)
You may not like this opinion, but it doesn't contain personal insults, hate speech or something. And no commercial links either (DTOzone is a regular commenter here, there's no evidence he/she works for Gallup). So, you don't have any valid reason to TR this.

[ Parent ]
You're selectively picking and choosing (4.00 / 2)
polls that appear to verify your preconceived conclusions on certain issues du jour at the particular moment in time that they appear to verify them. To be useful, such polls have to address the broad spectrum of issues that we've confronted over the past 5-10 years, over that time. And if you did that, you'd see that on such issues, the majority of Americans support the progressive/liberal position:

Abortion rights
Gay rights
Civil liberties
Ending Iraq war
Spending on education, science & arts
Regulating corporations & banks

Also, reducing the deficit is not a "conservative" position, as it's shared by economists across the ideological spectrum. And a majority of economists that I've come across, including centrist and right-leaning ones, appear to believe that stimulating the economy if more important than deficit reduction right now.

And if you look at these other issues over the past 5-10 years, they'll show a strong progressive/liberal tilt. Take a look for yourself at http://www.pollingreport.com.

Here's one such poll, on abortion. If a majority of Americans are so conservative why do a majority of them also support abortion rights?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Not to mention (4.00 / 3)
that defining American politics in terms of a continuum ranging from "Right" to "Left" describes nothing except the preconditions for an intellectually bankrupt discussion.  
[ Parent ]
So I take it that you're not part of the "Right to Left" movement? (4.00 / 1)
;-)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Given that your posts always defend Obama's non-position on health care (3.00 / 4)
I'm beginning to think that you're a troll working for either the insurance industry or conservative Democrats.  
[ Parent ]
Or he just disagrees with you (0.00 / 0)
It's incredibly arrogant to think that anyone who disagrees with you must be a troll.
[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
but when a specific person generally calls out people who criticize the administration's approach to health care, defends people who don't support a public option, calls those people centrists in relation to a "conservative" body politic, we're not talking about just "anyone".  
[ Parent ]
I was pointing out (0.00 / 1)
that the fault over the message war isn't with the White house, but with the media.

Who am I defending exactly? We're attacking the wrong people. I don't know how you people think the white House would have had an easier time getting the media to listen to it if they had taken our points of view or leaned on us.

We letting the media off scott free when they're the real problem.

Seven years I worked for the media, you let them off at your own peril.  

[ Parent ]
Anticipating what will please the MSM (4.00 / 1)
shouldn't be the focus of the White House's messaging strategy.
[ Parent ]
I might be a conservative Democrat (0.00 / 1)
compared to people around here...of course, in my neck of the woods...Brooklyn...I'm considered a radical socialist, so I don't know about that.


[ Parent ]
That data free statement (0.00 / 0)
doesn't justify your aggressive attempts to defend people who don't support a public option.  
[ Parent ]
Who was I defending exactly? (0.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
The "America is a conservative nation" stuff (4.00 / 2)
distorts the debate about how people understand the role of government.  

While the MSM portrays a health care debate between people who support a public option on one end and opposed by "deathers" on the other, in reality, the overwhelming majority of the American people support a "public option" and a plurality support single payer.  

In contrast, your posts suggest that whatever compromise the Dems arrive at by whatever means will be by definition the best that people can hope for given the conservative policy preferences of the American people.  You cite a polling data that depends on questions that are too broad and general to draw specific conclusions about how people feel about the government's role in health care to have any specific meaning.  

As such, what you say distorts the contest over health care and does so in a way that is favorable to the status quo.  This leaves me with the conclusion that you don't support a public option and this position determines what you say here.

Do you support a public option?

[ Parent ]
I'm off to see Bill Clinton (4.00 / 3)

 I need a shot of hope. Maybe he's got some.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
Democratic Party believes it has a captive audience (4.00 / 2)
w/progressives.  The belief is that progressives are so passionate about issues (particularly Democratic Party Platform) that they would never abandon the party.  That is why they are so quick to cut deals that sacrifice progressives interests.

Progressive Democrats should draw a line in the sand (actually Howard Dean is starting to that w/threats of primaries).  There has to be consequences to their actions.  Repuglicans understand this very well that is why they always cater to their base.

Suggestion: if Democrats can't deliver health care reform then maybe progressive democrats should consider taking so time off from volunteering for campaigns and save money and not contribute until democratic party understands that they should not abandon progressives.

RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

my suggestion (4.00 / 8)
progressive groups should tell democrats that if they abandon the public option as rumored, those groups will openly and publicly oppose the bill  
[ Parent ]
who said this? (0.00 / 0)
Town hall protesters are "evil-mongers," says ... Such "evil-mongers" are using "lies, innuendo and rumor," to drown out rational debate
http://bit.ly/Q2RIk [briefingroom.thehill.com]
Problems began before the 'protesters' (4.00 / 3)
Support for reform peaked and started to wane in late June, well before the town hall tantrums in August. Lack of a unified Democratic position/plan has reduced our side to chaotic sausage making and has given fuel to those who simply oppose. Fears that the economy will remain bad or get worse despite a stimulus that is (in perception, anyway) seen as a wasteful Fail, along with huge deficits, government takeover of the auto industry and general 'wrong track' unease is the real problem we face. Reasonable or not, the public now has doubts that must be addressed and remedied. The default position is when in doubt, don't.

The town hall tantrums are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Neutralizing the symptoms will not cure the disease.

Finally, I don't have time to look it up, but my guess is the apex and tipping point for health care support in that graph coincides with national unemployment going past 9% and still rising.


Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

You are right - Obama is the problem (0.00 / 0)
You got that right. If Obama had really believed in the public option - which I doubt - he would have been out with a clear and forceful message, not his usual neighborhood organizer message of "Let's all get along."

The message Obama should have been sending all along - IF he wanted a public option - "We need to do the right thing for all Americans on health care, and I will fight to get Congress to do the right thing."

[ Parent ]
Funny... (0.00 / 0)
...I didn't mention the name Obama. And I disagree with your conclusion.

IMO there are four people who stand out for responsibility: Pelosi, Reid, Ross and Baucus. The first two for not effectively controlling and managing their caucuses on health care strategy, and the later two for dividing, delaying and opposing the majority of the caucus.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
No kiddin (4.00 / 2)
It doesn't help that the media is only interested in videotaping a fight.

Ask Republicans if they like monopoly pricing. How about free markets instead? Real competition? Because that's what HR 3200 does.

Real competition among health insurance companies instead of the monopolies they have in most states now.

Unorthodox Strategy... (0.00 / 0)
Normally someone would be pushing a single bill (usually the White House) but that means the other side knows where to push back.

Right now there is not a single bill. I suspect what the White House and Congress is trying to do is to diffuse the attacks at this stage by presenting a moving target. I expect, late in the process, they'll find a consensus bill, engage in a quick sell, and then try to pass it before the dust settles.

The key question is whether that bill is progressive or not, and a lot of that will depend on how firm the Progressive caucas in the House is willing to be.

It will be too late... (4.00 / 3)
....the damage will have been done, I'm afraid... Just like Kerry was unable to un-swiftboat himself after the attacks, I don't think the health bill will be able to resuscitate itself once it's unified...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
re (4.00 / 2)
It will be too late the damage will have been done

right on the money!

[ Parent ]
Afraid you're right (4.00 / 1)
Sadly, even though I think we were winning the intra-party Democratic sausage making war on the Hill, it's been at the expense of a unified messaging war...

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
This was why (4.00 / 1)
Clinton decided to write the bill himself and send it to Congress, but that failed because the opposition was able to pick out certain sections of the bill, demonize them, and then tie the bill to the Clintons, who were unpopular.

If this failed, we would have tried it both ways to no avail.

[ Parent ]
"We?" (4.00 / 3)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Additionally... (0.00 / 0)
One thing about this strategy, and I don't know if it will work, is that by having the opposition rail against non-existant bills, they may end up expending energy on useless fights.

For example, the railing about 'death panels' allowed Dems to engage in some jujitsu by dropping Isakson's idea. It was fine policy, but not an essential part of reform. But now Republicans have used political capital to kill it, paid a political cost in terms of looking like fools, and placed Democrats in a superior long term negotiating position by allowing them to claim moderate (sane/adult) bona fides at minimal policy cost.

The ideal position for Progressives is for Democrats to appear moderate, respectful and bipartisan without that appearance carrying with it a policy cost. Republicans expending political capital on non-real things may improve the chances of that kind of outcome.

[ Parent ]
ah (1.33 / 3)
The ideal position for Progressives is for Democrats to appear moderate, respectful and bipartisan without that appearance carrying with it a policy cost.

you're talking to a crowd who thinks the ideal position for progressives is to run over the Republicans and conservatives like a monster truck over a row of Cadillacs and laugh about it along the way.

cause that's what the people want...they just won't admit it.  

[ Parent ]
Eyes on The Prize (4.00 / 1)
The forum of public opinion is just like any other forum. Attacking your opponent has limited utility. At best, it only makes their ideas look worse. It does nothing to make your ideas look better. So, when someone tries to make you look bad by attacking, the best approach is to simply soldier on and continue explaining why your ideas are good ones. If they are, and all the other side can do is say "Boo!", then you will win.
WHAT? How old are you? Did you live through the (4.00 / 2)
POTUS elections of 1980, 84, 88, '00, '04??

your moral high ground is a COMPLETE TOTAL failure.

they attack you, you ignore it, they define you, you lose.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

[ Parent ]
Obama refuses to be specific about what he supports (4.00 / 4)
Obama refuses to draw lines that distinguish his position from Enzi and Grassley,  and he refuses to take sides.

I can understand the deference to the legislative branch, but now we've got this  through a few committees.  Obama needs to be explicit, distinguish where he stands from from the status quo in terms of explicit policy, and argue for that rather than "bipartisanship".

Obama has yet to say definitively that he's behind the public option.  How can he argue against the GOP, who also have no tangible policy proposals, when he has made very few explicit commitments himself?

Sitting presidents define party agendas, and the time has come for Obama to argue for something more tangible than what he "might" support.  At this point in the debate, Obama must define his position and fight like hell to make it happen.  

Agreed (4.00 / 2)
The majority of the anti-health care tea party town hall rally content is nothing but the same old tired rhetoric that nobody but us cares about.

The protestors, are indeed not the sharpest knives in the drawer, but attacking them is serving no purpose other than to stoke their paranoia about elitism.  Screaming at the media for covering them is not having much effect either.

This is the lay of the land.

Deal with it.

We're not being creative.  Meanwhile a million Brits are so goddamned mad about GOP lies about their beloved National Health Service (which really IS that bogeyman "socialized medicine") that they've started a Twitter campaign about it that nearly took down Twitter.  Seeems to me we ought to be able to do something with that.  

Attack the liars, leave the poor saps who believe them alone.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

. (4.00 / 1)
August just has to be weathered. Even with a bill these attacks would have happened. And it's not like the bill is simple enough to rally around one thing in the first place. So putting things on not having a finished bill is just lazy. What? You need to know how much medicare is going to reimburse rural doctors before you defend the bill? You need to know if you can tell people we are going to have a public option that doesn't even affect most of the people the bill has to be sold too? Fuck outta here.

The only real option is counter attack on moderate republicans so they don't get the upperhand in negotiations. Set sights on Grassley, Snowe etc. Otherwise, Baucus is going to give away even more of the store.

Nate Silver's feeling pretty down about it, too... (0.00 / 0)
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

We've got how many more weeks to go? 3-4?

I hope we manage to find a way to survive it... it's not going to be a good month...  how many of these "love to be popular" congresscritters are going to feel spooked, even though the people shouting at them never voted for him and never will?

It's hard to get fired up to work on this when you are feeling despondent that you are going to lose again to a nutjob minority...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Polling (4.00 / 4)
If someone called me and asked if I was happy about the way this has been handled I would have said no.  If they asked if I supported the Dem plans I would be forced into saying no since there is no one Dem plan.

Now if they asked me specifics such as do I want a public option, etc I would of course answer yes.

Polls suck and we spend way too much time focusing on them.

That said, I have contacted all my elected ones and tried to let them know what I want and written letters to my editor and posted on as many blogs (especially right leaning) as I could engaging real discussion on the topic.  I will continue to do all that until there is a plan in place.

As to what Obama should do, I can't tell you the number of times I was wringing my hands during the campaign hollering at his image on TV to DO SOMETHING IT'S SLIPPING AWAY.  Each time he did it his way and made me look the fool.

This is hard to get real policy through the convolutions of our system.  It would be a fine teaching moment to educate more folks about how our system actually worked.

I'll wait to pass judgement until the final bill is written.

If that final bill does not contain a public option or at the least the groundwork to open Medicare, et al to all then I will put all of my efforts into getting those in office un-elected.

It's what I can do.

I agree that they shouldn't be our focus (4.00 / 1)
That would put us in reactive and defensive mode, fighting them on their chosen field of battle, where irrationality and raw emotion dominate, and sophistry and ad hom taunts are very effective, which they, of course, are extremely good at. Fighting dirty is their forte.

Instead, we need to fight them on our own turf, where ideas, policies, facts and logic dominate--delivered persuasively, of course, as rhetoric and messaging clearly matter. This is less about debunking lies and smears than about promoting ideas and policies.

However, since they are having an effect on low-information centrist types, we do need to expend some effort in making them and their ideas look bad, to discredit them and deprive them of their potency. Done in a smart, targeted, consistent manner, it would help.

As we move forward, we need to watch our rear, that's all.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Grassley is right (4.00 / 2)
about one thing:

"...If (Democrats) do go ahead (on their own), this is what I fear.  They get done what they want, they're going to change our health care system forever. You understand I feel a little bit like the boy sticking his finger in the dike, trying to stop the ocean from coming in...If I had not been at the table, there would have been a bill through the (Senate Finance) Committee the week of June 22 and it would have been through the senate by now because there's 60 Democrats so I think that I have, by sticking my finger in the dike, I've  had an opportunity to give the grassroots of America an opportunity to speak up as you're seeing every day on television and I think that's a good thing."

If the White House had pulled the plug on the Finance Committee's bipartisan negotiations months ago, we would be in a stronger position now.

But then, the White House barely seems to be pretending to want a bill that solves the problems anymore. Obama is more concerned with placating the industries that profit from the status quo.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

That is as close (4.00 / 3)
to a smoking gun as you will ever read.

To kill it the GOP needed to slow it.

So far, from their perspective, so good.

[ Parent ]
You are correct ... (4.00 / 2)
but then Grassley mentions the 60 vote thing again .. I still don't trust Ben Nelson(Or Evan Bayh .. or a few others) or the Arkansas twins till I see the final vote
[ Parent ]
. (4.00 / 1)
Exactly. Grassley provides just as much political cover for the nelson's and landrieus as he does for the GOP. So it's not like you cut him out the deal and magically get 60 votes.
[ Parent ]
Grassley bought (4.00 / 2)
time for opposition to build, utlimately with the goal of making it very hard for red state dems to vote for real Reform.

That was always the game.  Delay, build redstate opposition, and then pressure the blue dogs.

It has worked.  

[ Parent ]
seems to me that the left needs to make a decision, quickly. (4.00 / 1)
either we fight for the bill, splitting our time advocating for the bill and advocating for a strong public option; or we decide to turn against the democrats in washington, start doing what we can to build support for single payer, and basically let obama et al twist in the wind on healthcare.  

i can see upsides for both, but if we split the difference, we are going to be left in a terrible position, whether a watered down bill passes or not.  

To abandon Obama (0.00 / 0)
is to choose marginalization.  It also splits the left, since I doubt Obama is going to lose African Americans.  
[ Parent ]
ok then, i suppose the choice is clear. nt. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Advice from Mark Thoma (4.00 / 1)
Wrong Message

The administration has been trying to sell health care reform by reassuring people that if they are satisfied with the coverage they have now, they can keep it.

That is, so long as it's still available. Given the way employers have been shedding responsibility for health care and the way escalating costs have been reducing affordability, it's unlikely that it will be. And, of course, if you do get sick, you may find you don't have the coverage you thought you had.

So the message should be that health care reform is the only chance people have to keep the coverage they have now.

Most people are looking at the proposals, such as they are, and such as we know them, from where they are standing right now.  But Calculated Risk is reporting that 32.2 percent of all mortgaged properties were in negative equity position as of June 30, 2009 according to newly released data from First American CoreLogic.  CNN Money projects that number will be near 50% by 2011.

I'm not sure why the Democrats ceded the framing for health insurance reform to the Republicans, but they did.  Consequently, imho, the ability to help people look forward to what, if... was lost.  Again, imho, people - to include the protesters - are feeling that what, if right now... whether they can articulate it or not.  And, they've got the best death grip they can get on what they have at this moment, frightened they could lose that, too.  That just around the corner, it's already gone, isn't something they're even willing to imagine, even if they should.  

The whole intersection of the real economy and domestic policy vis a vis health insurance reform has been so hidden from people it ought to be prosecutable.

ONLY problem w/ attacking IDIOTS is that is only (4.00 / 1)
what is happening -

I exagerate a little, but, WHERE is the message? WHAT is the message?

Boo Hoo, Snivel, Whine, Petulance against the ignorant - the meanies are not being accurate! LOMG! !! L.O.M.G! Meanies are MEAN!!

------------

this is like watching willie horton & the pledge of allegiance against dukakis, or harry and louise & the f'ing dinosaur congress & sell out clinton, or gore's shitty campaign, or kerry's shitty campaign, OR barack's shitty campaign till he started fighting back.

ALL shitheads on their side must attacked, ALL THE TIME. Right now we're just picking on the village idiots, NOT the scum bags giving the idiots a bus ticket, a lollipop, a sign, and free movie pass if they'll go yell at dem libruls.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

Big overreaction (0.00 / 0)
here.  People still support reform.  But I got news for you.  You have the strategy wrong.  We do not need popular support.  We need those fuckers we call the 60 in the senate to act like it.  And fuck all these polls.  If these anal number crunching dorks would have been active in 1933 we never would have gotten the New Deal.  Congress's job must be to shove good legislation down our throat.  Obama's job must be to make us like it.  

As far as who we should go after?  Everybody on the insurance side.  Protesters, media.  We need ObamaTV with ailing sick children cast away by the insurance industry.  If you have an enemy, do not dice them up into sub enemies, go after all of them.  You lob the missiles in the general direction of evil and obstruction and let someone else sort it out.  I no longer believe our "Representative Democracy"  is capable of reform.  I believe socialism is what is required.  Look at some history.

[ Parent ]
Totally correct. (0.00 / 0)
You are totally correct. But Pres. Obama does not want the public option and he will kill it.
[ Parent ]
Somerby discussed this problem as well (0.00 / 0)
In his usual, editor-deficient way (this post more readable than usual, fortunately), Bob Somerby made this point in the latter portion of his Thursday post.  Here is a brief snippet of his post where he discusses the interview of Arlen Specter protester Katy Abram by Hardball guest host Lawrence O'Donnell :

Abram was a pleasant, smiling presence throughout. But she's unsophisticated, unlettered, about public affairs. She doesn't talk politics with her parents, she told O'Donnell at one point. She doesn't know her own family's annual income. "Maybe I'm just not that smart," she said at another point in the segment. But here's the problem, a problem that is especially acute for the kind of upper-class pseudo-liberals who went to Stanford or (Cornell), became Rhodes Scholars, and like to mock and name-call their lessers:

The vast majority of American voters are unsophisticated, unlettered, about politics! They aren't as brilliant as our high lords. But uh-oh! They get to vote! And there are many more people like Katy Abram than like our high lord O'Donnell.


Keep your mind free and clear, Donna Edwards, and don't sell your soul.
Hmmm... (0.00 / 0)
It may not reduce the validity of Somerby's point - I'm still pondering that myownself - but some new information has come to my attention regarding Ms. Abram, via this post by Stef over at GOS.


Katy Abram of Arlen Spector Town Hall fame was interviewed by Lawrence O'Donnell last night and claimed that this health care initiative woke her up to politics. In fact, she helped to organize the protest before the Spector event and has been hosting Glenn Beckian 9-12 meetings at her home. She joined Meet-Up in December, 2006, with an interest in Conservative and Glenn Beck groups, though since last night she's scrubbed info about her interests from her profile.

And later Stef added an UPDATE to her post:
.....Katy is now comparing herself to MLK.

Heh.  I'm sure Somerby's Innocent Ignoramuses are out there in significant numbers (got a few in my own family), but it doesn't look like sweet li'l Katy is one of them.  She was weaponized for use in the Culture War some time ago.



Keep your mind free and clear, Donna Edwards, and don't sell your soul.

[ Parent ]
hard to support this effort that is currently in Congress. (0.00 / 0)
I and my family are low income without health insurance.  My fear is that, even with subsidies, we will be forced to pay too much for not so good coverage.  

I do not trust Obama to do the right thing, especially when he plays around with Baucus.

Without specifics, I cannot and do not say anything.  I have let my Rep and my Senators know I support Medicare for All, but that is as far as I will go.

Confused (0.00 / 0)
For decades - from Dukakis, through Whitewater, through the swiftboaters - Democrats have failed to respond to gutter tactics of the Republicans.

Now, we are confronted with bat-shit crazy on video every night.  Democrats have responded aggressively, and this time even the MSM has sided with the Democrats.

Now, Chris asks the question: "how does attacking the protesters advance our agenda?"

Shining a light on the protesters (not "attacking" them) isn't SUPPOSED to advance the cause.  It's defensive action that the Democrats have failed to pursue again and again.

If the Democrats successfully play defense on the townhalls, they can recover the offense when they go back to Washington.  Holding the line against an assault isn't losing, it's just part of the cycle.  

Real reform is dead - Obama does not want it (0.00 / 0)
Rahm Emmanuel could have written the same piece as the CEO of Whole Foods. Rahm speaks for the real Obama.

Real health care reform - a public option - is dead. Obama does not want the public option. He is only going through the motions of supporting it so he can express his "regrets" that it's out and then give us the health "reform" the insurance companies and the pharmas want. The blah blah: "We have the best health care reform we could have at this time, and afford/" Blah blah.

Yet everyone on this blog will vote for Obama next time.

Attacking the Protesters Won't Help Health Care Reform | 76 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox