Didn't she already openly admit this?
Link (new window)

Only "reportedly," I guess.

Let me be the first to say "Fark the blue dogs."

Is the on vacation ?

If this thing isn't a colossal give-away to the health insurance industry, the seats will be fine.

Look at the corporate whores at WSJ pointing fingers.

Why wouldn't she? What's the point of having 258 Democrats if you can't actually pass anything you want because you might lose some of them?

The political tides shift all the time. Democrats will lose the majority eventually, no matter what. The idea is to use the time you have in power to do what you think is best for the country. When LBJ accurately said he'd lost the south for a generation after signing the Civil Rights Act, his boldness to do it anyway was something to emulate, not a warning never to sign controversial legislation again.

Right-wing concern is concerning.

If the elections earlier this week taught us anything it is that running away from Obama's policies (like Creigh Deeds did) is political poison for Democratic candidates. 2010 is going to be a base election, and the party that can motivate and bring out its base is going to be the one to win races.

The fact of the matter is that the self identifying Democratic base outnumbers the self identifying Republican base by 50%. The Democratic base supports the Obama policies by a ratio of 4:1. A candidate that campaigns to that base, motivating them and getting them out to vote will win their race. A Democratic candidate that moves away from the Obama policies will have a hard time bringing that base out to vote for them, and as a result they will lose.

If you want current proof, look at the approval polls for Blue Dog Democrats. Their resistance to the Obama policies is doing nothing to build support in their districts. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) is likely to lose her seat, because she is growing increasingly unpopular with Democrats in her home state over her lack of support for Health Care Reform.

If Democrats want to win in 2010, they stay with Obama. If they want to lose, then they just need to run further away from him.

/2012 will be a different story, because the independent voters tend to be a more significant factor in presidential election years.

And I might add, the last time Democrats had a large advantage in the House, their seats were sacrificed precisely because "liberal government health care" didn't pass. The House was viewed as ineffective and the party that actually had ideas and looked like they had the backbone to pass them were voted in.

I'm quite sure Pelosi is aware of that lesson.

Dorgan is getting kind of unpopular here in ND. His reelection is starting to look more and more uncertain.

well duh. welcome to the machine.

EvilEgg: If this thing isn't a colossal give-away to the health insurance industry, the seats will be fine.

That's a pretty big "if."

Well, maybe the Blue Dogs should act like Democrats and stop opposing everything. The "financial watchdogs" are opposing a deficit neutral plan, but didn't say shiat when we tossed $3 trillion into a desert.

we (that is the Republicans) are working to unseat Democrats in every district that we have a snowballs chance of competing. We will not be kinder to a "blue dog".

Besides, it's all theatre, Pelosi can allow a bunch of Democratic representatives to vote against this bill and go back to their districts with their "principaled stands." Horsefeathers, I say.

You mean the "liberal health care" that 60% of Americans support? Those goddamned liberal Americans?

Seriously...can we please gerrymander a new country along the coasts? Whoa...not so fast there, Virginia and North Carolina. Our border stops just short of you. Enjoy dinners with South Carolina, Alabama and Oklahoma.

/also, we're keeping Vegas

IrateShadow: Let me be the first to say "Fark the blue dogs."

Why is it so difficult to believe that someone should represent their constituents?

"A lot of Democrats are getting a sneaky suspicion Mrs. Pelosi is willing to sacrifice their seats on the altar of liberal government health care"

Won't you please think of the congressmen? Great argument WSJ.

Of course she is. She knows that in the long run this will ultimately give Democrats and the federal government power and control and that's all she, Obama, and Reid actually care about.

I'm certainly willing to sacrifice their seats.

The Dems won't be in power forever. We need to get things done while we have the chance. I'll trade scores of Blue Dogs seats in order to make sure people don't die in the US because they lack health insurance. Why does this surprise anyone?

rwhamann: IrateShadow: Let me be the first to say "Fark the blue dogs."

Why is it so difficult to believe that someone should represent their constituents?

Because the stands they take don't represent their constituents. They go on and on about fiscal responsibility and yet oppose every proposal that's actually fiscally responsible. They almost unanimously opposed the robust public option that reduced the deficit by $85 billion more than the one that ended up in the bill, but they all supported Bush's trillion dollar tax cuts that weren't paid for at all.

What they are are corporatists.

randomjsa: Of course she is. She knows that in the long run this will ultimately give Democrats and the federal government power and control and that's all she, Obama, and Reid actually care about.

Yeah, I can understand why you might be very upset with the "give the voters what they want, then the voters keep voting for you" strategy. Being a member of the party that only gives the top 2% what they want you're probably not used to that.

Racht: Why wouldn't she? What's the point of having 258 Democrats if you can't actually pass anything you want because you might lose some of them?

The political tides shift all the time. Democrats will lose the majority eventually, no matter what. The idea is to use the time you have in power to do what you think is best for the country. When LBJ accurately said he'd lost the south for a generation after signing the Civil Rights Act, his boldness to do it anyway was something to emulate, not a warning never to sign controversial legislation again.

Amen to that.

If you sit around with your thumbs up your butts, you're going to lose your job anyway, so just get MOVING on this stuff.

randomjsa: Of course she is. She knows that in the long run this will ultimately give Democrats and the federal government power and control and that's all she, Obama, and Reid actually care about.

Translation:"Arff! Arff! Arff!"

Whargarbl Street Journal.

I bet in 2 years the WSJ will be as bad as World Net Daily.

Racht: And I might add, the last time Democrats had a large advantage in the House, their seats were sacrificed precisely because "liberal government health care" didn't pass. The House was viewed as ineffective and the party that actually had ideas and looked like they had the backbone to pass them were voted in.

I'm quite sure Pelosi is aware of that lesson.

the WSJ has been careful to omit this piece of history.

the reason Obama's numbers have been falling is because of all the negative media attention the corporate media had been giving this healthcare debate. they've tried to pronounce this thing dead for months now.