Being a former elected official myself, as well as a person with a number of politicians as personal friends, I can tell you that one of the common phrases you hear is "Is this a hill you’re willing to die on?". It’s basically a variation on the "pick your battles" sentiment, but goes to a far more personal level. That being "Is this issue so important to you that you would be willing to accept the possibility of being defeated in your next election?"
Health care is one of those. The so-called "blue dogs" are being put in the unenviable position of making that choice. It’s a true Sophie’s choice. Most are in conservative districts, and were recruited by Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer in order to give the democrats a majority in the house and senate.
The political reality is this: If they vote for the health care plan that is being presented, they are going to be attacked mercilessly by the Republican challenger, and have a very difficult time getting re-elected. On the other hand, if they vote against it, the Democratic party will go after them, and refuse them contributions in their next elections - thus they are going to have a very difficult time getting re-elected.
Talk about damned if you do, or damned if you don’t.
Be that as it may, I wondered how people on this site would answer that same question. The people on this site were absolutely ecstatic after the election last November. The ecstasy was well-warranted. For the first time in 16 years, we owned the house, the senate, and the presidency. We were absolutely drunk with power. We were the lizard kings! All those things that we had been waiting for sooo long were all now within reach.
As soon as Obama was sworn in, he was able to push through the closing of Gitmo, the passage of stimulus, an order to end the war in Iraq, the passage of SCHIP, the passage of the Omnibus bill, as well as the passage of Cap & Trade in the house.
...And then he took on health care.
I doubt that anyone could have predicted the level of opposition that we have seen on that front. While the Republican opposition was easily predictable, the opposition within the Democratic party came as quite a surprise. Who could have predicted that a group of Democrats would stand in the way of health reform?
The blue-dog’s opposition notwithstanding, the Dems still have the numbers to push this through, and if they want it bad enough they can push it through. Damn the torpedoes - full steam ahead!
However, if the current polls are any indicator, if the Dems ram this through, they may well get slaughtered next November. With the political realities in mind, it is entirely possible that the Democrats could lose their majorities in both houses. And they know it - that’s why they haven’t forced it through up till now.
So here’s the question: Is this a hill you’re willing to die upon?
Without going into long diatribes about how the premise of the question is wrong because passage of health care is vital to success, just simply answer the question: Would you support passage of the house version of health care if you knew it would likely cost democrats their majority? Notice I’m not offering a third or fourth option. This is strictly a binary question yes, or no.
Is Bob Beckel correct when he said, "Universal health care is in Democrat's DNA. Nothing is more important."? Or is the feeling of the power that can only come from owning all pillars of government more important?
hmmmmm....