The War for the Soul of the Democratic Party

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Apparently, every few days, we're going to have to go over this ...

Yes ... the stuff crammed into the spending bill is bad ... we all hate it ... but had Democrats blown up the spending bill, the republicans would have cobbled together a stop-gap measure, with the message: "See we - republicans - are doing this to keep government running", knowing that any stop gap measure would expire in late January/early February ... just after the gop has control over both houses of Congress. Any subsequent long term spending bill would have included everything we hate and much, much more ... AND come with the added "benefit" of having any 2015 government shut-down fall squarely on the Democratic Party (the soon to be labelled (hopefully), the "Obstructionist Democratic Party" ... how's that for turn-about?)

Now ... accepting this as the way the spending battle would likely have played out, into early 2015 (and it IS ... what boehner and mcconnell, both, indicated was their next move if the spending bill had failed) wouldn't the more prudent strategy be to lock in a budget fully funding the ACA and keeping the social safety net and research programming (and federal government employees' jobs) funded, into September 2015, while setting up the fight to win comprehensive immigration reform (i.e., no immigration, no funding for DHS ... we can't deal, no government shut-down, only a DHS shut-down)?

Now ... let's look a step farther ... We know that each and every piece that Democrats/liberals/progressives hate (with the possible exception of the energy/environmental roll-backs) would be unable to survive, should Democrats introduce (loudly) legislation re-establishing the roll-backs and removing the political giving rules.

In the best case, the stand alone, re-establishing legislation is introduced by Democrats, and all the stuff we hate gets stripped out ... name a single Democrat and more than a hand full of republicans that would vote TO re-open the casinos, TO cut WIC, and all the other stuff.

In the immediate case, the legislation is introduced; but, never makes it out of committee/is never brought to a vote, we are at status quo, with all the crap we hate ... but we have a funded government though September 2015, a strong position for the immigration fight, and have the superior messaging position, i.e., "We - Democrats - want to close the casinos, to restore WIC, to get money out of politics; it's the gop that is allowing this to happen by not bringing this to a vote."

In the worst case, the stand alone legislation is introduced and fails, or it is never introduced by Democrats. In the former case, we have republicans (and possibly a few Democrats) on record affirmatively voting to re-open the the casinos, to cut WIC, and to allow more money of the powerful into politics; but we still have a funded government, a strong position for the immigration fight, and have the superior messaging position, i.e., "We - Democrats - tried to close the casinos, to restore WIC, to get money out of politics; it's the gop that is allowing this to happen by defeating our legislation." However, if the latter scenario proves ... Democrats never introduce the stand alone legislation ... well ... we'd have to question why Democrats didn't do so ... but more, wouldn't/shouldn't that question be posed to the liberal/progressive lions of Congress?