Which women do we abandon?

by: ericf

Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 00:42:31 AM CST

Stupak gained his chance to play cock of the walk by using that familiar tactic of attaching something your opponent can't stand to something your opponent wants very badly. Want health insurance for everyone? Then take these abortion restrictions. The restrictions go too far? Then no health care bill. The blue dogs can live with that. Seems they'd rather the whole subject hadn't come up anyway.

I make no pretense Stupak and the blue dogs are the first to do this. This was how the recent hate crimes bill got passed. It never would have gotten past the conservative filibuster, but then it was attached to the defense bill. Conservatives, moderates, centrists, and deficit hawks do love their defense spending. They love it so much in fact they passed it with the expansion of hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation.

Of course, there is a slight difference: the Democratic caucus had a majority and enough members to pass the bill if they could vote, and the people who voted Democratic were strongly for the bill, so this tactic got the bill past the obstruction of the minority.

Stupak, however, ostensibly part of the majority, did it to his own party. He knew one simple thing: when one side wants something very much, and the other is happy to walk away with nothing, the nothing side gets to make a lot of demands. If anyone wonders why the liberals keep having to compromise while Republicans and blue dogs don't...that's why. The only way to avoid voting for a watered down bill with things we don't want is to vote for nothing. The blue dogs know it, and have shown --- again --- they're willing to do this to their own party.

So of two things I'm sure: there must be blowback; and that blowback must not include killing the health care bill.

If it doesn't pass however, then remember 15 years passed between the prior and current attempts to pass reform. Almost 30 years passed between Medicare --- which had to be watered down to pass --- and Pres. Clinton's bill in 1994. That's how tough this is. If nothing passes this time, how many years before the next opportunity? Another 15 years? 20?

And it's not like in 20 years we'll get to start where we left off this time. We'll go through this whole horrible fight again. The corporate special interest money will flow to lobbyists and deceptive TV ads again. The lunatic ravings of the conspiracy theory right might change, but they'll be there scaring the public with disinformation campaigns just like this time, like 1994, like the multiple attempts to pass Medicare. And we might lose again.

If the bill passes however, let the blowback begin. There's another defense bill every year, with all sorts of testosterone-dripping weapons systems scattered among many a blue dog's district. To get those bills through, they'll have to accept the attachment of a provision to roll back the Stupak amendment. Not related to defense? So bloody what.

If not the defense bill, there will be something else they really really want.

That's blowback part one. The sequel comes at election time. Remember Al Wynn? A blue dog was not only beaten in a primary, but the winner kept the seat Democratic. It can be done. Stupak certainly put himself at the top of the list of preferred targets. I'd add in every conservative Democrat who got every concession he wanted and still voted no.

No, let's not have our own Scozzafava/Hoffman situation. Let's pick targets carefully, where the challenger is strong enough to have a realistic chance at both the primary and general election, where the blue dog isn't likely to be replaced by a wingnut. If we're careful in selecting targets, and willing to step up with donations and volunteers when geography allows, we can beat a few of these guys and even keep their seats.

The rest will get the message. After all, the lives they're most "pro" are their political lives.