Do you agree? Should the Dems be more "attack dog"-ish on health care reform, or are the American people tired of anger politics?
The national debate over President Obama's health care plan has exposed a weakness in the Democratic Party apparatus: it lacks a high profile surrogate to push back -- hard -- against the rhetorical arguments put forward by Republicans.
While people like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin have scored points by hammering the Obama plan hard and repeatedly, there has not been that same sort of presence on the Democratic side. The dearth of attack dogs contributed to the White House losing the message war in September....
But, politics is a game of choices -- the candidate or party that is able to define the choice in terms favorable to them usually wins.
Like it or not, Republicans have been relentless in their willingness to slam the Obama health care plan as -- among other things -- detrimental to seniors, sketchy when it comes to end of life care and almost certain to raise taxes on the middle class.
In politics, an attack with no response is often believed. Democrats' lack of an attack dog has meant that they have left too many Republican hits unanswered -- a problem not only for the remainder of the health care debate but the next several years of the Obama presidency.
