Now, I know that there are going to be about a bazillion principled responses to this suggestion, so one should understand that I post at least half to three-quarters in jest. But I couldn’t help wondering this morning on my way into work as I listened to yet another healthcare debate via podcast why one doesn’t hear any Democrats throwing this line out,
“Republicans want to take away your right to choose to a public option for your healthcare insurance. Support for a public option in healthcare reform remains strong in this country and we believe that the freedom of choice on issues that directly impact your life is a founding principle and value in America that no party has the right to violate. Democrats are standing up for your right choose the kind of healthcare that best suits your needs and we won’t back down in the face of Republican attacks on your liberty.”
That not all Democrats support a public option is, of course, a major chink in the armor of that logic. But, you know, it would be kind of fun to watch a Democratic Party with the gumption to come out swinging like that and at least attempt to beat Republicans at their offensive game for a change.
Burt Likko 
Will Truman 
Kim 
DensityDuck 
Mark Thompson 
Randy Harris 
Plinko 
Teacher 
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I’m just listening with sadness…a little sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt,
{ 11 comments }
“Choice, choice, choice. Whenever Democrats talks about choice, we have to wonder what they *AREN’T* talking about. Death Panels for gramma (which didn’t exist and they took them out of the bill anyway)? State-funded abortions (which they also dance around)? Don’t be fooled by the use of the word “choice”, America. When Democrats talk about ‘choice’, dead bodies are never far behind.”
Sure, but Republicans, by and large, are already saying that stuff. At least my rhetoric is new on the side for which I’m proposing it. At least to the best of my knowledge.
Hey, I was just coming up with my best guess of a “reframe the debate” ad campaign from the bad people who oppose children having the choice to get health care.
Heh, innovation m’boy. you need to consider innovation. Democrats done already been called gramma and baby killers. Tis old news, that.
There are three target audiences in political arguments, it seems to me. A basic political campaign will target one. A decent one will target two. A great one will get all three.
1) Get your side fired up. Get them out there carrying signs and starting drum circles. Hey hey, ho ho, black olives have got to go!
2) Get those who sit on the fence to either vote for your side or say “heck with it” and not vote for the other guys.
3) Get the other side to talk about what you want them to talk about *OR* Get the other side to lie down in the slough of despond and not get up. (John Kerry provides a good example of this type of attack.)
This type of attack doesn’t do any of 3, but I’d guess that it would do 1 and 2 fairly well. The point is to make the connection of abortion to government health care in the 1 listener’s head to get him or her fired up to fight health care like they fight abortion and to get a “maybe I support this but it’s still distasteful” series of thoughts in the 2 listener’s head. With luck, the 3s will be stuck arguing how it’s nothing like abortion and, ideally, there will be sub-3s who will argue how abortion is just fine anyway, and you hate women, and get your pope out of my womb, and whatnot.
Because the modern democratic party has little instinct to fight hard for their policies. They are constantly wavering on how to fight and whether they will be called mean by people in the press. Good policy should be more important then politics, but the dem’s don’t seem to get that to pass policy you need to be able to win at politics. There are plenty of powerful attacks on the opposition to health care reform that they don’t seem to want to make.
Jay’s response is great, but it would only work on con’s who already think being a Dem means to kill fetuses for fun. It would go nowhere with independents.
I am not sure I understand the argument. Well, I understand it, I think. But it seems prety flimsy. I mean, you could argue this point for any kind of “government takeover.” If I proposed a government run shoe factory, I am not sure people would buy the argument that it is meant as a way to expand choice. Instead, i think the debate would be about whether or not the govenrment ought to be in the shoe business.
Granted, if the government was currently providing shoes to everyone older than 65, people older than 65 generally liked the shoes a lot, and politicians were falling all over themselves to praise this shoes-for-fogeys program, that might change things up a bit.
So I retract my original concerns, and join you in wondering why people aren’t making this argument.
Yeah, if there was also a relatively strong push amongst a sizable proportion of the population, it would probably also bolster such an argument.
I mean, to some extent, the argument about whether government ought to be in the “business” of healthcare has gotten to the point where there are two sides lined up facing one another thinking up fancy ways of saying “Yes they should!” and “No they shouldn’t”, which really hammers Greg’s point home.
Er, a strong push for government shoe provision.
Long story short Scott the Dems aren’t unified on the public option. Most importantly the Dem -leadership- is not invested in the public option. You can be sure that when Obama started getting the impression that the public option might scuttle the whole deal he sent someone to put a severed donkey head on Pelosi’s doorstep. The leadership knows that they have to pass at a minimum something they can claim is reform. Fighting hard for the public option ties them to it so they’ll namby pamby push for it and let their left wing flap for it but they’re not going to close off any options for themselves and fighting whole hog for the public option closes more doors than it opens.
The above of course is predicated on the assumption that they’re thinking politically instead of on principal. Frankly seeing the one engaging in some practical political manuvering makes me feel more fond of him.
MoveOn has actually sent out a whole bunch of e-mails saying something pretty similar.
Comments on this entry are closed.