Warner is about so much more than uncompelling keynote addresses. His love of duds in general is apparent in his commitment to watering down badly needed reform. This is just the way Mark Warner rolls.
Cell phones! Bipartisanship! Chocolate Fountains! Weak Policy! And more Cell Phones!
Speaking of keynote addresses, Igor Volskly at Think Progress covers Bill Clinton's speech to AHIP.
There's one thing that I seriously doubt came up, but should have. In preparation for his 92' presidential campaign, Clinton had discussions with aides and advisers about what kind of health care plan to propose. He ended up deciding that Team Medicare For All won the policy argument, but the politics of pursuing it were far too difficult. I don't fault Clinton's early nineties political decision (the progressive infrastructure we have now wasn't around then), but if he's speaking to AHIP, the fact that he has supported Medicare For All on the merits for almost two decades is relevant.
My sig line tells all that needs to be told about my current representation in Congress, at least in general. Specifically, my Senators are those stalwart defenders of corporate interests, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. My Representative in the House is one Phil Gingrey, and he got pummelled last night by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. As a constituent of Congressman Gingrey, I invoke my right - to pile on!
Below is the video from last night - Ms. Maddow's onslaught of logic and fact against the gentleman from Georgia begins at roughly the 4:15 mark (the video would not embed).
If the hearing word bipartisan makes you want to commit senseless acts of violence, chances are that you are probably one of those pacifist liberals. Just like so many words in American politics, bipartisan no longer means what we think it means. It would also seem that "progressive action" has come to mean being in the constant state of erasing lines in the sand.
All this time so many Democratic supporters were thinking that Social Security and Medicare represented the backbone of the Party of FDR but in the spirit of bipartisanship our Democratic president recently appointed a Republican as the chairman of the euphemistically named National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. That way the former Republican Senator from Wyoming can "save" the United States from "insolvency" by hacking away at Social Security and Medicare.
Yesterday there was this story by James Ridgeway and he seems to have understood what to expect from the beginning. It really helps to redefine bipartisanship and understand where progress will be going under "bipartisan Democrats."
PS = Previously supported the public option.
FS = Fellow Senator from their state supports the public option through reconciliation.
CS = Constituent support is very high.
Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) PS, FS, CS
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico) PS, FS, CS
Maria Cantwell (Washington) PS, CS
Ben Cardin (Maryland) PS, FS, CS
Chris Dodd (Connecticut) PS, CS
Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) PS, FS, CS
Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) PS, CS
Dick Durbin (Illinois) PS, FS, CS
Ted Kaufman (Delaware) PS, CS
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin) PS, FS, CS
Patty Murray (Washington) PS, CS
Ron Wyden (Oregon) PS, FS, CS
Note: Russ Feingold (Wisconsin) and and Carl Levin (Michigan), aren't on the PCCC list, but they have said that they would support passing the public option through reconciliation. Tom Harkin (Iowa), as strong of a public option supporter as we have seen, is also reportedly supportive. If they would sign the Bennet letter, it would be very helpful with presenting a single count.
If all of these Senate Democrats sign, we'll be at 40. At this point it becomes impossible for the opponents to hide and we can pick - up the others we need.
Five points to make.
- Senators who says that they support the public option but aren't sure about using reconciliation to pass it don't really support it at this point. The only way this is happening... in fact, the only way anything is passing is through reconciliation.
- There is no real downside. The right - wing is already energized. Not passing anything will depress the Dem base and annoy swing voters. Passing a bill without a public option through reconciliation will fail to energize the Dem base on the scale that is needed, and leave a very popular part of reform out of the mix. Passing a bill with a public option through reconciliation will definitely fire up the base and give swing voters the choice they clearly want.
- Anti - establishment sentiment is very strong right now. Nothing says "out of touch insider" like failing to support something that is needed and highly popular with regular voters because the Beltway Bubble is wobbly on it.
- Senators who are concerned that there is a stunt aspect to this should know that we've past the point where someone can try to put on the breaks. This was set in motion on election day in November of 2008. If you're given big majorities, you're expected to get results. The grassroots is not asking for anything that isn't good policy, entirely doable, and popular.
- Memories are going to be very long on this. It's not going away. The notion that weak Dems should be allowed to hide behind those who support the public option badly misreads just how angry the base, rank and file Dems, and Americans in general are right now.
If this isn't going to happen, there are two outcomes.
The backlash will be contained to those responsible because everyone was on the record.
or...
The chance of widespread losses will be raised substantially because a bunch of Dem Senators, either directly or indirectly, covered for the public option killers.
Please, step away from the politically toxic Ben Nelsons of the caucus.
However, DSCC Chair Robert Menendez said that he sees "a lot more" Senators joining, and the possibility that support will reach a tipping point. Menendez and Chuck Schumer wouldn't be backing this unless they saw it as good politics, which it obviously is. You want to close the enthusiasm gap and deliver or something that is widely popular? Use reconciliation to pass a public option. This really isn't rocket science.
Chris Bowers makes a great point. Show us the votes.
George Lakoff is right. You don't want the case for reform to sound like it's coming directly from Peter Ortzag.
Democrats have already paid a political price for tackling health reform at a time when voters are hurting from the recession, anxious about the economy and wary of new government initiatives. There is no way they can avoid facing this line of attack in the fall. The question, at this point, is whether Republicans will be able to toss in allegations of gutlessness and incompetence: The Democrats controlled the White House and all of Congress, and still couldn't get it done.
And how will Democrats answer? "Um, we worked really hard on health-care reform, and we're still convinced that it's vital, but we got scared by the polls and so we backed off. Vote for us!"
It's the same old story. Another slap in the face to both organized labor and the entire middle class as both Craig Becker and the National Labor Relations Board are in limbo. Harry Reid called for recess appointments, The AFL-CIO sprang into action and the president's response is limbo continued. There is nothing this Democratic president can do for such close allies? As workers are wondering if a functioning NLRB is being saved for October of 2012 this all seems so 1994. But top that off with Obama's lust for the HCR excise tax and it gets so much worse.
In the debate over the finance of health insurance expansion it would be worth noting that the wealthy who voted for Barack Obama and supported the Democratic party fully expected that healthcare reform would be financed by a roll back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year. The union members who voted for, stuffed envelopes, reached into their pockets an organized fundraisers, were under the impression that they would see some much needed advancement from a Democratic president after eight years of Bush.
By now most progressive bloggers have moved way beyond these workers who have been losing ground since the 1970's. It has been rationalized to death so everyone could move on to the next action, followed by the next capitulation, followed by the next wild goose chase towards progress. Come November blue collar workers, like Massachusetts voters recently, might end up being framed as stupid for protecting themselves from harm.
Distrust for government seems to work for Republicans, not for Democrats. As the public option is being presented once again, probably another carrot on a string, a deeper look at this excise tax that will live in the memories of workers for many years is in order. How much trust will be left between the workers and Democratic leadership once this excise tax becomes law and in years to come?
First off, a couple of comments about Friday's Countdown segment with Lawrence O'Donnell.
(2:45 - 3:12) The Lesson From Massachusetts
If some Democratic Senators think the lesson from Martha Coakley's loss is "bipartisanship," they're buying into baseless conventional wisdom.
Let's look at the factors in Coakley's loss that are unique to that race and/or relate more to execution than anything else.
- Coakley's Fenway Park and Curt Schilling gaffes.
- Coakley going on vacation.
- Massachusetts already having its own health insurance legislation.
- Scott Brown running for only 1/3 of a term.
- Labor unions not being mobilized until it was too late.
There were also factors in Coakley's loss that actually emphasize why passing a public option through reconciliation is good politics. Namely, extremely low turnout among key parts of the Democratic coalition: single women and younger voters.
So - called "centrists" (Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson), the very group that places so much emphasis on Beltway bipartisanship, have done a tremendous amount of damage to the popularity and credibility of this effort. Recent polling shows that bipartisanship for its own sake is not a winner with voters. The public option, on the other hand, clearly is.
This really is maddening. Why are some Senate Democrats so determined to learn the wrong lesson? In whose Broderite Fantasy Land does taking up a whole year of the American people's time only to abandon the most popular element of the reform effort constitute good politics?
Basically...
GOP response to reform passed through reconciliation that doesn't include a public option - "SOCIALISM! PARTISANSHIP! HYPER - PARTISAN SOCIALISTS!"
GOP response to reform passed through reconciliation that does include a public option - "SOCIALISM! PARTISANSHIP! HYPER - PARTISAN SOCIALISTS... FOR SOCIALISM!"
The only difference on the GOP side is would be extra incoherent reference to "socialism" or two. On our side, the difference in turnout and enthusiasm would be major.
O'Donnell's comments about the viability of reconciliation had me scratching my head. I thought this had been decided in our favor, but started to wonder if O'Donnell being downright emphatic came from him knowing something that had escaped my attention.
David Waldman at Congress Matters has done some really good work clearing this up. The short answer is "game on."
(h/t priceman, who referred me to Waldman's work and is always fun to discuss these issues with)
Greg Sargent (whose blog is a must read IMO) commenting on this reporting from The Hill on Senate Dems and reconciliation.
Key takeaway: Most Senators won't rule out supporting it.
So health care reform lives, and the public option does too. But let's be clear: just as the pessimism about both was not right, neither should wild optimism be the feeling of the moment. We still have big, big hurdles yet to go before we get either the public option, or health care reform in general, passed.
...
Here's the final part of the health care psychology: everyone is sick of this issue. It needs to get done. The President and his White House need to be focused and tough in pushing this to conclusion. This is why we elect a president: to lead in the tough moments. And if health care reform -- with a public option -- gets passed, the psychology of this whole election changes again. Voters would see that the Democrats can persevere and get things done, and a discouraged base would get a huge energy boost. It is time for Democrats to dig in and win the game.
Senator Reid has always and continues to support the public option as a way to drive down costs and create competition. That is why he included the measure in his original health care proposal.
If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes.
For what it's worth, I think the criticism of Reid since he made the decision to include an opt - out public option (and then doubled down) has been off base. Reid has been doing a good job under very difficult circumstances. He's actually been something of an unsung hero. There are plenty of reasons to take issue with Reid, but I don't think the public option or the reform effort is one of them. Baucus, Conrad, Ben Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, Bayh, and the White House's fixation with Beltway bipartisanship have been the major problems here, not Harry Reid.
Something to keep an eye on is the policy arguments against the importance of the public option. A frequent claim is that the ground lost with a public option can be made up through stronger regulation and subsides. If we're talking about a weaker public option, there is real truth to that. The problem is that regulations and (especially) subsidies are much more politically vulnerable. It seems to me that insurance companies and their servants in Congress and/or at the state level could chip away at them, especially if this year's midterms turn out to be a disaster. Taking away people's health care by getting rid of an existing program would be much more difficult.
Is the public option an "icon"? In many ways, yes. But this icon represents elected Democrats listening to the grassroots and doing something that:
- Is the reliable path to the needed policy outcome.
- Is widely popular, and extremely popular among voters who would vote for Democrats.
- Could be a clear example of why the right - wing talking points against the Democratic ethos of effective, responsive government are wrong.
Not to mention that, at this point, if Democrats don't rally their base and show swing voters that they are not ineffectual and/or afraid to take on special interests, we're setting ourselves up to lose big in 2010 and go into the 2012 election crippled.
What about claims that these bills would force Americans into the clutches of greedy insurance companies? Well, the main answer is stronger regulation; but it would also be a very good idea, politically as well as substantively, for the Senate to use reconciliation to put the public option back into its bill.
And for the record, RJ Eskow is right. The so - called "Cadillac tax" is almost certainly going to be in the bill. But that doesn't change the fact that it's misguided policy and bad politics.
Today at CPAC, Tim Pawlenty talked about how conservatives aren't afraid to fight for tax breaks for people with yachts, thoroughly discredited trickle down economics, a deregulated Wall Street, the Citizens United decision / corporate interests buying elected officials, putting the face of "Ronaldus Magnus" on the dollar bill, and a bunch of other conservative priorities.
Someone should inform T - Paw that we fight too, even though unlike the right - wing GOP, we don't have powerful special interests propping us up. Progressive and populist Democrats have been fighting for the public option for months. And every time we're knocked down, we get back up.
We have one hell of a fight ahead of us. But it's a fight that we just might win.
Greg Sargent broke the news that Senator Chuck Schumer, former head of the DSCC and current member of the Democratic leadership has added to his support to passing the public option through reconciliation.
This effort is still a major challenge, but it's gaining momentum. I called Senators Murray and Cantwell earlier today. It only takes a minute, and it's well worth it.
Reminders:
- We need Senators to support using reconciliation to get health care reform passed with a public option. Reference the Bennet letter.
- If the Senator's office says that they "are a strong supporter of the public option," remind them that it can only pass through an up or down vote. No Republicans (that includes Joe Lieberman) are going to come on board and anger their insurance company overlords. Reconciliation is the only way to get it done.
- You want fiscal responsibility? Then you want the public option. It simply does not make sense to say you are concerned about how much reform will cost and then oppose the public option.
- The public option is hardly a "radical" proposal. It's not the Medicare For All that the Democratic base and many physicians and nurses favor. It's not even Medicare Choice For All (the best approach in my mind). It's a very incremental approach to giving the insurance companies some competition and holding them accountable.
- The public option has been supported by a clear majority of the American people for months and months now, ever since it was first polled. Depending on how the question is asked, and whether the term "choice of a public option" (exactly what it is) is used, it typically receives somewhere between 55% and 75% support.
Among those who either vote for Democrats or are persuadable, support for the public option is through the roof. Politically, there is no good reason not to do this. Not passing strong reform will expand the already huge enthusiasm gap that could become a majority killer.
Still not reason to get hopes up yet, but it looks like game on.
UPDATED: Kathleen Sebelius voiced support. There is more than enough reason to be skeptical, but this needs to be put firmly in the White House's court.
Do they want to keep buying into the same useless Beltway bipartisanship fetish that got us into this mess, or do they want to listen to the clear majority of the American people, an overwhelming number of voters who either support Democrats or might, and the core values they're supposed to stand for?
Main Street bipartisanship or Beltway bipartisanship. Which one really matters to President Obama?
We should be able to pick up Akaka, Bingaman, Cantwell, Casey, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Harkin, Innouye, Kaufman, Menendez, Murray, Reid, Rockefeller, Specter, Stabenow, Mark Udall, and Wyden fairly soon.
Baucus and Conrad played a huge role in making this mess. They need to help clean in up.
Tom Carper is really begging for a primary challenge if he doesn't sign on.
I can't imagine a scenario in which Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, or Pryor sign. Bill Nelson is most likely with them.
Begich, Hagen, Johnson, McCaskill, Tester, Warner, and Webb will need a lot of constituent support to come on board.
Yesterday Mike Stark interviewed Rep. Joe Courtney (CT - 2) about the state of the health insurance legislation. Influential Democrats should listen. Courtney highlights the national exchange, affordability, and financing as three areas where things need to move in the House's direction.
"I do think that there will be, inevitably, a backlash against health care reform if it's left in the state that the Senate gave it to us."
