- Make a “reasonable” offer of $80, and have the seller agree to sell it for $90
- Make an initial offer of $50, have the seller offer $80, and talk him down to $70
Option number 2 is the approach typically favored by Republicans. When Republicans are in power, they they tout insane libertarian ideas such as a flat tax, and in turn, their true positions seem less conservative. The hapless Democrats offer them “compromises” which actually result in very conservatives policies.
When the Democrats are in power, on the other hand:
“We have 60 votes on paper,” Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said Wednesday in an interview. “But we cannot bulldoze anybody; it doesn’t work that way. My caucus doesn’t allow it. And we have a very diverse group of senators philosophically. I am not this morning suddenly flexing my muscles.”
Yes, it’s Ol’ Spineless himself, Harry Reid, admitting at the outset that he’s going to throw himself on the mercy of the Republicans. It’s tactics like this that led Democrats in Congress to lead with a ridiculous plan for health care co-ops, instead of demanding universal, single-payer health care and “settling” for a robust public plan.
At least some Democrats know what they’re doing. Take Chuck Schumer, for example:
“If you did a consensus within the Democratic Party, you would find the level-playing-field public option to be the answer,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “And now that we have 60 votes, it seems to me like we don’t have to turn it inside out for something we don’t like.”
Is Schumer right? Probably not, but why not bargain from a position of strength, rather than a position of weakness? Despite their 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats have long since resigned themselves to watering down one of the most important bills in decades. Even if Reid can’t muster 60 votes, what about using budget reconciliation to pass health reform with 51 votes?
The Democrats are simply amazing. They’re at the peak of their political power right now, and they still can’t ram a thing through Congress. They desperately need to learn how to negotiate, before it’s too late.
The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.
Take a lithium, dude.
Yes, it’s Ol’ Spineless himself, Harry Reid, admitting at the outset that he’s going to throw himself on the mercy of the Republicans.
You got that right, Jeff.
Good analysis. The Republicans aren’t quite as good at this as you give them credit for but they do seem a bit better at it then the dems. I really think the problem with the Dems is they are actually afraid to tell people what they really, really want. Republicans will come out with “insane libertarian proposals like the flat tax” and actually be happy with an insane libertarian flat tax. Democrats (the elected ones) for whatever reason feel the need to cloak their real goals in wishy-washy nuance. If the goal is canadian/euro style universal healthcare, they have to refer to it in other terms like Single Payer Sytem, or Public Option. Because they don’t come right out and say what they mean (election is just around the corner afterall) they’re vagaries, platitudes and euphemisms can be easily manipulated to mean whatever people want them to mean. Bill Clinton, to his credit, didn’t need to do it as much - but then again Bill was a pretty conservative dem all told so his crazy ideas weren’t all that out of the mainstream.
I agree with what you wrote. I can only imagine that there are three things holding Democrats back from unleashing their policies on the GOP:
1. they don’t know how, like you suggest but I don’t think they are that naive
2. there is enough reservation about the real cost or predicted effectiveness of the public option, and they don’t want to be the only ones to supported it if it sucks
3. The “60 votes on paper” really means they have 50 gauranteed votes, 5 more likely supporters when the smoke clears, and 5 “hard sells” within their own party.
I think #3 is pretty likely.
It would be nice to stick with the issues instead of playing games. That’s my two cents.
The spinelessness of the Democratic leadership — both nationally and on the state level — is why I no longer want to be identified as a Democrat. I still vote that way most of the time, but I would prefer not to be identified with such a timid crowd.