>> There's nothing wrong with holding out for a deal and ultimately
>> relenting
>> when it is not forthcoming.
>
> The Blue Dogs, etc., threatened to vote no and meant it. They got what
> they wanted. The pwog never do, and never do.
What kind of comparison is that? The Blue Dogs are credible when they threaten to vote no because what do Blue Dogs care about people getting health insurance? The pwogs and their donors and constituents do care - that's the reason they caved. In a game of chicken, the BDs have nothing to lose if the bill fails, whereas progressives could lose a lot. If the leadership threatens the BDs with the prospect that the bill will fail if they vote no, they can just reply "so what?" The progs can't do that.
It's fine and admirable to attack a bad health care bill, fight to replace it with single payer, fight to make it less obnoxious, call it a turd, etc. I've been calling it a turd too. But in the end, the progressives got maneuvered into an up or down vote where they would kill the bill for good if they voted no. Just to clarify, if the bill passes 30 million people get health insurance, if it fails, they don't. You seem to think it's obvious that for an earnest liberal killing the bill is the best thing to do, but that doesn't seem so clear to me. Obviously, if the bill had been expected to pass by a margin of 100 votes, the progressives would be facing no dilemma at all and they'd all vote no.
My point is just that criticizing the progressives for their final vote is mis-specifying the source of the problem. The problem isn't that they're voting this way. The problem is that they were fated to vote this way given the relationship of forces a the outset.
SA