Now Get Out There And Sell It!
The day many of us thought would never happen is here. Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema finally allowed President Joe Biden and the entire rest of the Democratic Party to actually get some good things done. A budget reconciliation bill has -- almost miraculously and at the last possible second -- passed the United States Senate. The House is on vacation, but they're being forced to come back to Washington anyway for a vote this Friday on the Inflation Reduction Act. It should be on Biden's desk in time for a triumphant signing ceremony by the weekend. Victory is at hand.
And it's a big deal. Biden might even add a forceful and emphatic gerund to that sentence, in fact, as he is sometimes wont to do. Here's how one Washington Post columnist summed things up:
President Biden, despite his party's thin House majority and the 50-50 Senate, has arguably passed more important bills than any president since Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. And L.B.J. had a filibuster-proof Senate majority throughout his presidency (a high of 68 Democrats at one point) and huge House majorities (his low, after the 1966 election, was a 61-vote advantage).
With the passage Sunday of the historic Inflation Reduction Act, which would invest in green energy, contain prescription drug costs and make it much more difficult for big corporations to evade paying taxes, Democrats capped a run of victories. That includes the American Rescue Plan, the infrastructure plan, the gun-safety bill, the semiconductor manufacturing bill, expanded health care for veterans exposed to burn pits, reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, Senate approval for admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO, and confirmation of 76 federal judges (including the first Black female Supreme Court justice).
Throw on top of that the 9 million jobs gained since Biden took office; the widely successful rollout of coronavirus vaccination and treatments that are preventing serious illness for the vast majority of Americans; the record-low 8 percent uninsured rate; and the killing of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, and it's clear this administration has a remarkable record.
And, as icing on the cake, the price of gas has fallen a full dollar since the spike the Russian invasion of Ukraine caused. Things are looking up, in other words, for the Democrats.
So far, they've gotten some pretty good press for this crowning achievement. And Democrats are also doing a pretty good job of highlighting what they have accomplished, rather than getting bogged down in all the stuff they didn't manage to get into the bill. People are talking about what is actually in this bill, not all the items from Build Back Better that were left out. So for once, Democrats seem to be happy to toot their own horns.
As well they should. This bill is indeed a big deal. And it's going to make it so much easier for Democrats to hit the midterm campaign trail in earnest. Because the message is such an easy one to sell:
"Because of this bill, America's seniors are soon -- within a couple years -- never going to have to pay more than $2,000 a year to fill their prescriptions ever again. The cap on drug costs in Medicare will be an enormous relief to millions of older Americans, and they all have Democrats to thank for that. Not one single Republican voted to bring their out-of-pocket drug costs down. Democrats did that. Republicans voted against a cap on drug costs for American families."
That really is the prime thing to sell from the package. It will happen sooner than some of the other stuff (like Medicare being able to negotiate with drug companies over drug prices), and its effect will be very personal. Seniors will see the difference in their lives, and their family budgets. It is direct, in other words, not indirect.
There are plenty of other things in the bill that Democrats won't have the slightest problem making into a partisan issue as well:
"Democrats voted to help the I.R.S. go after millionaires and billionaires who cheat on their taxes. Republicans are against that -- they are actually defending some sort of 'right' to be a tax cheat. Even though there were massive backlogs in getting tax return checks out last year, the Republicans don't think the I.R.S. needs any help -- as far as they're concerned, it's fine that some people had to wait six months to see their checks. We don't think that's fine. And Democrats are sick and tired of hearing how millionaires cheat on their taxes with impunity."
Or how about:
"Democrats are now going to force corporations to pay their fair share of the U.S. tax burden. Companies that are worth billions will no longer be able to just 'write everything off' on their taxes so that they don't pay one thin dime -- even though they report that they made billions in profit to their shareholders. That is going to end. And you know what? Not a single Republican voted for it. They took the side of the companies that never pay any taxes at all. They think that's the way the tax code should work. Well you know what? I don't. I think everyone -- especially companies worth billions -- should pay their fair share of taxes. Republicans don't."
Democrats can even twist one particular knife very effectively:
"Democrats are bringing down the deficit. Republicans always say they want to bring down the deficit, but each and every time they get control of Congress all they do is shovel more free money in tax cuts to the wealthiest among us -- and they never pay for any of it. So the deficit goes up. They lie about caring about the deficit, they just do. They had a chance to reduce the deficit by $300 billion, and they all voted against it. So if you want someone who is fiscally responsible representing you in Congress -- vote for a Democrat, not a Republican. Because we don't just talk about lowering the deficit on the campaign trail, we actually make it happen."
The contrast between the parties has really never been clearer, and making the case to voters has never been easier, for Democrats. Republicans voted against bills to rein in price-gouging on gasoline and to provide health care for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits. Those are indefensible positions with many voters. So Democrats should certainly point it out.
Both parties can and should be judged on their record, over the past year and a half. Democrats should stand tall for their record of achievements. Republicans should be raked over the coals for their positions against anything and everything good. But the only way to make sure this happens is to tell the voters directly. Over and over again. This is what Democrats made happen -- and Republicans voted against it!
Democrats, your mission is a simple one: get out there are sell it! Your majorities in Congress depend on you doing that, plain and simple.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
[Insert standard caveat here regarding snatching defeat from jaws of victory -- Dems only pretend to care about non urban and non professional elites aka the working class. Repugs at least pretend to care but the Dems can't be bothered to even pretend the New Deal was once a thing.]
"Republicans are always saying that Democrats are elitists who don't understand the needs of common people. But it's Democrats who thought that seniors should not be weighed down with sky-high prescription drug prices. Republicans don't think that's an issue. It's Democrats who think that you should not have to pay your taxes while billionaire corporations pay nothing. Republicans don't see any problem with that. It's Democrats who think that veterans injured by burn pits should receive the medical attention they need. Republicans voted against that and congratulated each other for killing the measure. And it's Democrats who think that Medicare should be able to negotiate prices with manufacturers. Republicans think that you, the taxpayer, should be saddled with paying full price for each pill. Republicans present themselves as just ordinary folks who understand you, but it's only the Democrats who are actually on your side."
So if you want someone who is fiscally responsible representing you in Congress -- vote for a Democrat, not a Republican. Because we don't just talk about lowering the deficit on the campaign trail, we actually make it happen."
That is going to take a sea change in thinking but adding just four little words might make it easier:
"So if you want someone who is fiscally responsible representing you in Congress -- vote for a Democrat, not the Republican cult of economic failure (a useful phrase coined by David Fiderer, I should add)..."
Republicans have long been viewed, mistakenly, as the best stewards of the economy for far too long. This is probably the biggest obstacle for Democrats to overcome even though it should be easy enough to articulate.
Again, far better the Dems got some decent chunk of B³ passed todayrather than when negotiations started over a year ago, no?
With a little of marketing prowess this and other good legislation will stand in stark contrast to the Repug Party of No, every step of the way let their voting record.
The Red wave is by no means assured, I said before and repeat today.
andygaus[2],
A bit wordy but, quite succinct, nevertheless. :)
Maybe you could add in there at the end something about the Republican cult of economic failure!
If just the Senate Repugs who voted with Trump's #BigLie and the half dozen House Repugs that requested pardons get indicted don't you think this will stain the Repugs just like Nixon did to the GOP in 1976? It would fade after two to four years, but still.
Oh, and this is a good time to remind one and all that Joe Biden has 100% approval in the most critical shadow poll. I call it shadow poll because it's the polling question not even being asked, namely,
Are you, in fact, not Donald Trump?
No matter what, the 2022 Repugs are Trump and 81 million Muricans voted against another four years of Trump.
This is why Joe Biden's approval rating -- and Dems wetting their pants over whatever it is -- is like the Dem negotiations I've ignored for a year now. Read Future Shock to understand how the pace of change is accelerating and Trump has exacerbated that pace.
Conventional Wisdom is failing left and right.
Elizabeth, how about,
What are Republicans going to do about inflation?
I mean, besides give millionaires another tax cut?
No millionaire left behind is the Republican cure for every problem.
No millionaire left behind seems catchier than Cult of economic failure.
No weapon left unsold seems more catchy than [insert lame anti-NRA slogan here,]> no?
[Expletive*] is way up in the air and we're not even in September yet!
*Good/bad economic news, foreign policy news -- e.g. what happens if Ukraine wins?, J6C and DoJ and indicted Repugs and who knows what else...
I wasn't around in Weigantia when Trump won in 2016, so y'all didn't know that at the time I was likewise shocked but thence speculated that,
Progressivism would have been strangled by a Hillary Clinton administration. But Murica instead first nominated and then elected Trump, a sure sign of universal dissatisfaction with the status quo.
I didn't think it would cost hundreds of thousands of extra Murican Covid deaths but I did expect that Trump's weirdness would at the least enlarge the Overton Window.
And hence we find ourself in better shape at this moment than had Hillary won in 2016.
Yep, it seems that real change doesn't much happen unless some blood is spilt/some lives are lost. We don't pay attention otherwise.
Yeah yeah yeah cliche cliche cliche...
But CRISIS equals DANGER and OPPORTUNITY.
Yep.
Hillary might have won in 2016 if she had been listening to all of the free advice I was directing her way around here. Heh. But, she never did. Sigh.
If I recall correctly, though, I was saying things like it was Hillary's husband who ended up sabotaging her entire run for the presidency.
So Elizabeth I'd like to dissuade you of the notion that Joe messed up the Ukraine situation and that he could have kept Russia from invading.
Go ahead, make my day!
CW
All of the above! :)
Also, hit the individual GOP Senators who had a chance to put their money where their mouth is on these very specific issues and then proved unequivocally and without doubt that they're all talk and no action.
For an example, look no further than Senator Bread Bags from Iowa (excerpt of speech):
*
And what exactly did Joni Ernst do when she had the chance to vote specifically to include just this one provision in the bill that would have capped the price of insulin for those who already had private insurance?
She voted "no," of course, because Republicans are liars and hypocrites.
Elizabeth Miller
3
That is going to take a sea change in thinking but adding just four little words might make it easier:
"So if you want someone who is fiscally responsible representing you in Congress -- vote for a Democrat, not the Republican cult of economic failure (a useful phrase coined by David Fiderer, I should add)..."
Okay, five little words, but hell yes! :)
Elizabeth Miller
16
If I recall correctly, though, I was saying things like it was Hillary's husband who ended up sabotaging her entire run for the presidency.
Yes, you did, and you're still incorrect about that because Hillary's husband did not take it upon himself to break longstanding rules at the DOJ and de facto announce an investigation into one of the candidates for president when the opposition candidate, in point of fact, is also under a long-running investigation by the same entity, specifically, the FBI.
FBI, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the classified documents that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.
So, to recap:
Lock him up!
@kick (fpc),
The "forced birth" issue was an excellent framing of the problem. "Choice" is such a milquetoast counter-narrative to anti-abortion (how many people are actually in favor of abortion when they think about it). If people start getting on screens and referring to it as forced birth every single time, that term sinks into the gut and makes you feel it.
I mean really, choice sounds like hey, perhaps I'd like almond milk in my latte, or maybe oat milk. It's a very coastal, yuppie type term for such a serious life decision. Forced birth? That conjures a very different image.
Joshua,
'Forced birth' is better than 'choice'. It certainly distills the issue down to its essence.
But, I prefer to see it framed in a way that exposes the sexual repression of American men and women who would presume to impose their political and religious beliefs by interfering in the most intimate life decisions concerning reproductive freedom.
Did someone mention American theocracy? Well, I think it's related.
nypoet22
24
I mean really, choice sounds like hey, perhaps I'd like almond milk in my latte, or maybe oat milk. It's a very coastal, yuppie type term for such a serious life decision.
Exactly this, and the Trumpian cowards and rubes who whined and moaned that "mask mandates" are a violation of our freedom will not stop until the "forced birth mandates" of the Red States are instituted nationwide, unless something is done to stop them.
And another thing: Is anyone talking about the foreseeable costs that will be foisted onto the taxpayers of America to subsidize the consequences of the forced birth mandates legislation of the Red states? Mandated forced stillbirths, pregnant children and medical bankruptcies foisted upon families by the politicians in Red states who disdained the prospect of funding for low-income women during a baby formula shortage and worked tirelessly for decades to kill the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in favor of a health care plan TBA (that never existed and still doesn't) because two weeks have come and gone, and Russ and I are still waiting for the promised health care plan that will replace the ACA to be revealed... any day now. *shakes head*
They don't care about life; they want a Christo-fascist America where law is based on their religious dogma, where wearing a mask is an assault on your freedom but forcing you to give birth for the guy who illegally date raped you (or your teenage daughter) is a tiny imposition.
Well, screw that.
Forced birth? That conjures a very different image.
Accurate, though, isn't it? The argument for forced birth is based on religious beliefs that "life begins at conception." Science says otherwise. The Constitution makes no such claim either, but it definitely speaks about religious freedom. Making a law that restricts what kind of medical care Americans can receive based on religion is the definition of theocracy. If the religious righties want to enshrine their biblical beliefs into law, they can cease to be tax-exempt entities and start funding the consequences of their legislating religion: Amen.
* 1 Corinthians 6:18 - Have you sinned sexually against your own body? You knew the possible consequences of fornication. Forced birth for you. You were sinned against? Forced birth for you.
But why stop there? Following verse:
* 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 - Have you not been treating your body as a temple unto the Holy Spirit? You knew the possible consequences of corpulence. No heart surgery for you.
I could go on.
Elizabeth Miller
25
But, I prefer to see it framed in a way that exposes the sexual repression of American men and women who would presume to impose their political and religious beliefs by interfering in the most intimate life decisions concerning reproductive freedom.
Well then, I've inadvertently granted your wish.
Did someone mention American theocracy? Well, I think it's related.
Correct answer.
Kick[20],
Okay, five little words, but hell yes! :)
Well, I actually just swapped out the 'a' for a 'the' so I only really added four little words, you know. But, who's counting!
Kick,
Yes, you did, and you're still incorrect about that because Hillary's husband did not take it upon himself to break longstanding rules at the DOJ and de facto announce an investigation into one of the candidates for president when the opposition candidate, in point of fact, is also under a long-running investigation by the same entity, specifically, the FBI.
In reality, I was and still am quite correct about Bill being the one who really sabotaged Hillary's campaign by his little impromptu - cough, cough - meeting with then Attorney General Lynch, boarding her plane on the tarmac in Phoenix ... to say hi and chat about the grandkids. Ahem.
And, then there was that promise Comey made to Congress in public testimony that he would inform them if the investigation should re-open.
Between Hillary's horrible campaigning and her interfering, sabotaging husband, not to mention the fact that she lost a never to be found thumbnail hard drive!!!!, she had only herself to blame for Comey's actions and for her lost presidential run.
Elizabeth Miller
29
In reality, I was and still am quite correct about Bill being the one who really sabotaged Hillary's campaign by his little impromptu - cough, cough - meeting with then Attorney General Lynch, boarding her plane on the tarmac in Phoenix ... to say hi and chat about the grandkids. Ahem.
So, you assert (again and incorrectly) that her husband is to blame.
And, then there was that promise Comey made to Congress in public testimony that he would inform them if the investigation should re-open.
I may have mentioned that. Meaning: I definitely mentioned that James Comey violated longstanding rules of the Department of Justice to (technical term) "butt the eff out" of impending elections.
Between Hillary's horrible campaigning
I interrupt this sentence to inform you that you're now contradicting yourself and making my point for me, but go ahead and continue...
and her interfering, sabotaging husband, not to mention the fact that she lost a never to be found thumbnail hard drive!!!!, she had only herself to blame
So you're saying she had herself to blame too. Fancy that! Go on...
for Comey's actions and for her lost presidential run.
Oh, wrong answer! No one not named James Comey forced James Comey to break longstanding rules at the Department of Justice that are in effect to this very day. No one.
You might as well be arguing that Comey had an obligation to inform the public about both presidential candidates being under investigation (for whatever reason), and you'd be incorrect still. Comey shouldn't have made promises with his mouth that were in violation of DOJ rules no matter who the candidate, either Clinton or Trump. Period. Full stop.
Comey had an obligation to inform Congress. Why is this so hard to understand?
I recommend you go watch Comey's testimony where he explains all of this, okay?
I really have to laugh every time I think of poor Bill on that plane, the day before his wife was to have her little sit down with the FBI.
I mean, seriously, how obtuse can one man be!?
Which reminds ... remember this wholly unrelated exchange at a congressional hearing from long ago ...
Committee member, possibly even the chairman or ranking member, Iran-Contra Hearings, c1987:
"So, you were shredding documents in there in the middle of the night!?"
Lt.Col. Oliver North:
"Yeah, YEAH! And, I didn't think anything of it!"
OMG! That's hilarious!!!
LMAO ...
Elizabeth Miller
31
Comey had an obligation to inform Congress.
No, he most definitely did not.
Why is this so hard to understand?
You tell me. I'm not the one insisting that a man with a decision to make had only one choice because a "decision" by definition is choosing which course to take among many. He chose poorly. If Comey had sent a memo to Congress 11 days before the election alerting them to the fact that Donald Trump was under investigation for multiple months, it too would have been an incorrect decision.
If either Christopher Wray (Trump appointee) or Merrick Garland were to take the advice of Mitch McConnell and publicize any ongoing investigation into Donald Trump, it too will be a wrong decision. FBI Director Wray or Attorney General Garland should ultimately report only on whether or not Trump (or others associated with any related investigations) have been indicted or will not be indicted.
I recommend you go watch Comey's testimony where he explains all of this, okay?
I don't need to; he prattles on and on about his only choices being "speak" or "conceal," but he left out the obvious choice wherein the FBI does not comment on investigations and particularly does not inject the Bureau into political affairs when absentee in-person voting and voting absentee by mail is underway in practically every state in America and the District of Columbia and where a presidential election is being held in 11 days. If he had literally done the same thing to Donald Trump, it still would have been the wrong decision. Nothing you believe will change that fact.
So, to recap: It's not the place of the DOJ/FBI to influence elections regardless the Party of the candidate being discussed. It wasn't Merrick Garland or Christopher Wray but Trump himself who chose to politicize the warrant served on his residence by Director Wray's FBI -- and not the other way around -- and it was Trump himself who is choosing not to release the list of classified documents that were illegally taken from the White House, illegally relocated to his residence by himself and his aides, and then ultimately/finally forcibly removed and returned to their rightful place in Washington, DC, after over 18 months of NARA attempting to obtain them without incident.
Elizabeth Miller
32
I really have to laugh every time I think of poor Bill on that plane, the day before his wife was to have her little sit down with the FBI.
I would be lying if I said I didn't laugh my ass off at you laughing about something that's verifiably incorrect; however, a faulty memory is no laughing matter.
Hillary met with the FBI on July 2, while "poor Bill" met with Lynch on June 27. I don't think of him as "poor," however, he definitely made an ignorant choice.
I mean, seriously, how obtuse can one man be!?
You tell me. You're the one who has to "laugh every time" you "think of" a timeline in your head that never existed in real life. :)
What are we doing commenting on an old thread?
Heh. ;)