Make no mistake, I think it's a great idea to remain mobilized for fixing healthcare and fixing the Senate bill. I'm just trying to figure out the wisdom in continuing the "kill the Senate bill" idea at this point. "Fix the Senate bill" seems more productive and less self-destructive, say nothing of being less disappointing.
First, the Senate bill is going to pass. The only shot for killing it would be to get a progressive senator to vote against cloture and that seems very unlikely.
But even though the bill will probably pass, kill-billers are making a detailed and very angry case against the content of the bill, while also presenting a futile solution, leaving in the aftermath only anger and disillusionment. How does this help progressives?
It's seems more productive to mobilize around the problems with the bill, but presenting the problems with a realistic path to enacting fixes. This way, the downsides aren't so fatal and you're not sabotaging the public impression of the positive things.
Kill the Bill Path:
1. Everyone will hate the bill.
2. Here's numerous reasons why.
3. So we should kill the bill even though there's no chance of this succeeding.
You've only sold and reinforced all of the awful things about the bill, as well as the notion that there's nothing redeemable about it. You've wasted time, effort and persuasive capital on a futile effort. You've left very little room for embracing the good things in the bill because you've made a case for them being expendable. Who wins?
Fix the Bill Path:
1. This bill is flawed but fixable.
2. Here are the things to fix.
3. So we should push for fixing the bill, for which there's a lot of precedent.
You've identified problems. You've allowed room for promoting the many positive aspects of the bill, and thus promoting progressive policies. You've presented your team with a realistic path to substantive victory. You haven't sabotaged Democratic chances in 2010 -- especially progressive Democrats.
One final thing. It's likely that "kill the bill" activists could eventually shift to a "fix the bill" posture. However, the "fix" case has already been damaged by the "kill" effort. Once the case has been made for the bill being too awful to live, how can you segue to fixing it? Make sense?