Mary has a plan, all right. (4.00 / 7)

  Without a public option, sick Americans die quicker and save us all money!

  That's her plan.

  And in her next breath, she'll tell us how she's such an ardent defender of the sanctity of life.

  A pox on her.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:04:41 PM CDT

that is the plan exactly (4.00 / 5)

the situation in Louisiana is deperate.

---

by: AliceDem @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:27:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep. Either she supports a public option... (4.00 / 4)

Or we cut off the grassroots support for her in 2014.

Want to save marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how! ;-)

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 17:42:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let Me Get this Straight (4.00 / 10)

Landrieu R D-LA, doesn't support the public option anymore.

And what about NOLA's problems with health issues:

Even before the storm, Louisiana was the least healthy state in America. In the past few years, however, levels of sickness have risen sharply. Almost two-thirds of New Orleans residents now report chronic health problems, a 45% rise since 2006. The percentage of people suffering from mental difficulties, mostly depression, has tripled since then, and the suicide rate has doubled since 2005. For months thousands of people were housed in temporary trailers which were poorly ventilated and contained high levels of formaldehyde. In the houses which were left habitable, mould and spores grew during the many humid weeks when the city lacked electricity. As a result, respiratory and skin problems are rife.

Greater poverty is also a factor. Almost a fifth of New Orleans households now live below the federal poverty line ($22,000 a year for a family of four). Many people were unemployed for months after Katrina and, although the number out of work has fallen, the effects endure. An estimated 12,000 people are still homeless.

The situation is expected to deteriorate in the coming years. Nearly 20% of people are now without health insurance. One in four say the emergency room is their primary source of care and, as the recession bites, that proportion is growing. Plans for two new hospitals are mired in payment battles and preservation disputes, meaning neither will become operational until at least 2013. It is little wonder that one in five New Orleans residents say they are considering leaving.

http://www.economist.com/world...

Notice the article is not even a month old.

Landrieu is always whining about no money for NOLA and trying to bring the city back.   Doesn't look like she's even interested.

She's just as bad as Specter.  

---

by: Benny @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:19:32 PM CDT

Landrieu is four things (4.00 / 7)

Stupid.
Unprincipled.
Dishonest.
Cowardly.

At least Obama isn't stupid, nor all Dems. That's about all that I can say that's praisworthy of them at this point. Meaning, with enough public pressure, they hopefully won't be stupid enough to buck the public will on this issue, because it could cost them dearly.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:31:13 PM CDT

landrieu (4.00 / 3)

is from la, that means she is a con albeit a dem, a dem in name only i would argue.

---

by: pc @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:50:55 PM CDT

Very true (4.00 / 11)

and this kind of pressure works. Ron Wyden who had been rumored to be supporting a trigger has backed off and basically condemned the trigger. He's also still supporting a weak excuse for a public option (let the states do it and only a federal ones in areas that don't have enough competition) but when we put pressure on these people they listen. Here's Wyden's statement

http://wyden.senate.gov/newsro...

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:55:49 PM CDT

Targeted outrage as signal (4.00 / 9)

It is perhaps true that under present circumstances (i.e., the NOLA diaspora) a progressive Dem cannot be elected in LA and, further, should Sen. Landrieu be weakened, we risk electing an even more conservative Republican.  Not as much on this site, but in many corners of the progressive blogosphere, the "lesser of two evils" argument is made to justify fake Dems like Sen. Landrieu.  Despite some surface logic, this arguments falls for (at least) three specific reasons on this particular issue.

First, I agree and find Bowers utterly persuasive that this is the line in the sand for progressives.  I do not generally embrace political purism, but this issue is the exception.  Without a public option this moment with the current correlation of forces will be lost.  Yes, things can be and should be made better than the status quo even in the absence of a public option.  But without a public option, it might be a generation or two before something comparable is again politically possible (and forget about single payer).  A failure on this issue, as Bowers argues, all but ensures feeble accomplishments on other progressive issues.  The political fallout will be disastrous across the board.  Control of either chamber might be at risk in 2010 if all the other negatives continue and there is no real transformation in health care to justify continued Dem control.  Kristol was absolutely right in 1994 and the same logic applies now.

Second, Sen. Landrieu was re-elected in 2008.  Any damage vociferous attacks now on this issue might have is years removed from any electoral consequence, with plenty of opportunities to address it, assuming there is some logic in the first point about electability.  That damage can be undone but losing the public option now perhaps cannot be undone for a long time, idiotic "triggers" notwithstanding.

Third, and in my judgment most importantly, taking on this backslider sends a signal to all the other corporate hacks/moderate Dems/3rd way jerks who are just itching to walk away from real health care reform.  If they see people occupying her LA offices, forming "Take out Lying Landrieu" committees, funding attack pieces, swamping letters to the editor, in her face lobbying, etc., these others may be just that much less likely to stake a pro-death position.  Make no mistake, her view is the pro-death and pro-illness position.

If the attack is immediate, fierce, and uncompromising, perhaps the others will also, as Nelson apparently suggested, at least give us a cloture vote.  Then there isn't a need for the temporary reconciliation solution to make real health reform possible.  It is disgusting in the extreme that the very notion of single payer, the only long-term solution if the purpose of the health care is, you know, to promote health is off the table.  Even if universal coverage at far smaller cost, rationing on triage principles instead of wealth, superior health outcomes, and competitiveness for manufacturing industries is not sufficiently persuasive to the hacks like Landrieu, a public option is the very least we should accept.

This is the line in the sand. Fight.  Fight hard.  Fight now.

---

by: T. Jacobsen @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 17:15:48 PM CDT

Landrieu won election in 2008 (4.00 / 2)

If we back off, we can do that in 2013.

On the one hand, after elections the elected don't necessarily have to do what they promised their supporters they would. On the other hand, any betrayed supporters can attack them with very little likelihood that it will deny all hope of them winning their next election against a more conservative foe.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 17:18:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would Huey Long be able to get elected in Louisiana these days? ... (0.00 / 0)

I am curious .. not trying to be funny ... just trying to gauge how Louisiana got so far off the rails

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 23:31:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well said (4.00 / 2)

I can understand not supporting us somewhere else but not in this

this is the #1 issue, failure here will be close to suicide

and it's not like she'd be sponsoring any awful bill, just allow the people to choose what they want, the public option won't be mandated on people

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 23:34:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Calling all LA Dems! (4.00 / 2)

That is, Louisiana Democrats. Put the pressure and keep it on until she falls in line. There's NO EXCUSE not to support a public option for health care!

Want to save marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how! ;-)

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 17:41:05 PM CDT

With not only one capitulation after another by Dems (4.00 / 3)

but the enthusiastic embrace of it by so many people who claim to either be Democrats, or to be supporters of Democratic politicians from Obama on down, what I'm seeing here is the new division within American society. Instead of the most recent one, that was mostly along social and cultural issues, the new one is along economic class lines. But not the old Depression era class division between the rich and everyone else, but a new one, between the better-off middle class and the struggling middle class, working class, and poor.

The former constitute Obama and Dems' biggest and most important support group right now, and really why they're in power, because they're the key swing group that have determined electoral outcomes for the past 30 years, and they currently see Dems' policies as benefitting them more than Repub policies. And by policies, I'm talking about Obama and Dems' centrist policies which have been at best only mildly progressive, but essentially Clintonesque, and NOT the more progressive policies that Obama and Dems promised during the election but have so far shown no signs of trying to promote, and have often backtracked on.

This is the group which, while it may have been hit by the economic meltdown, more or less still owns and can afford to pay for its homes, has decent jobs and health insurance, and is still doing relatively ok, and is more than anything interested in protecting what is still has, and restoring what it recently lost in the meltdown. It's interested in policies that benefit it, which are invariably anti-progressive.

And Obama and Dems are clearly embracing this group, not only in their economic policies, but in their legal, national security and foreign policies, which have been consistently center-right, because this group happens to be center-right on such issues. So while the far right now appears to be a non-factor in national politics, and social and cultural issues are not currently decisive (but always liable to become so once again since they are still lurking in the background), there is still very much a division in the country between right and left, with the left being left, and the right now being the center-right.

I am now convinced that this is what's going on. It's all a political calculation by Obama and Dems. They have determined, with good reason, that power lies in the center-right right now, and that they surest way to stay in power is to embrace it, and abandon the left, or at most throw it a few bones now and then. They are pitting the center-right better-off middle class against the less well-off lower middle class, working class, poor, and progressives. It's not a principled stance based on what they view are the best policies for the majority of Americans, and on core values and principles, but on cold, hard political calculation, and self-interest.

It's quite cynical, it's quite obvious, and with any luck it's going to fail. But the danger there is that if it does fail--and I think that it will--it will enable a far-right return to power. By splitting the difference (in their eyes), embracing the center-right, and not aggressively persuing a genuinely progressive agenda (which isn't just morally right, but also, I believe, the only sustainable long-term agenda), they are quite possibly ensuring their own fall from power in a few years, much as LBJ did by escalating the Vietnam war to avoid looking weak on security. They are, in short, embracing the disasterous post-New Deal strategy of triangulation that has consistently damaged the party and held back progress.

Fools. Cowards. Unprincipled hacks. They aren't just hurting the country and the majority of its people. They're destroying themselves. Yet again. All for the illusion of power.

Plus ca change...

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 17:41:36 PM CDT

We should remember Louisana's electoral system, though (4.00 / 2)

There are no primaries in LA.  Instead, all candidates run on the same ballot, and if no majority happens on election day, then everyone but the top two are removed from the ballot.

Will Landrieu vs. Republican suck enough oxygen out of the race that it won't be possible to really get any traction?  

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 18:27:22 PM CDT

Will you be taking this message (0.00 / 0)

out to anyone else? I've seen some discussion of the effort to target the Third Way - this would be a great addition.

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison

---

by: David Kaib @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 18:41:24 PM CDT

Absolutely. (4.00 / 1)

This business of ridiculing Limbaugh, which the DNC thought was such a good idea, won't advance the progressive cause. Targeting Blue Dogs will.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

---

by: Caro @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 19:15:30 PM CDT

It's both Landieu's and the GOP... (0.00 / 0)

While what you're saying certainly makes sense, it's not like replacing Landrieu with a Republican will help matters either.  I agree, we should put pressure on Landrieu-types and but I think people will have to end up making their own decisions come election time what their priorities are going to be in who to support.  

---

by: leshrac55 @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 19:17:11 PM CDT

The question is not whether (4.00 / 1)

replacing one Democrat with one Republican will make things better. The question is whether putting pressure on this Democrat will make other Democrats behave better (knowing that a willingness to lose that seat makes that pressure work.)  

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison

---

by: David Kaib @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 19:25:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I just called (4.00 / 1)

Staffer emphasized that Senator doesn't believe a good health care plan STARTS with a public option.  Not sure what she could possibly mean by that, but it sounded like Landrieu would be releasing a statement about it.

John McCain <3 lobbyists

---

by: Fran for Dean @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:42:58 PM CDT

It could mean that she supports a trigger (0.00 / 0)

which is a polite way of saying she will pretend to support a public option while actually undermining it.

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison

---

by: David Kaib @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:56:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Look at the HMO & Pharma $ to Blue Dogs (0.00 / 0)

We -- http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org -- put this news release out yesterday: http://bit.ly/igCf8

Will Insurer & Drug Money Leash the "Blue Dogs"?

The "Blue Dog Coalition," a group of 51 conservative and moderate House democrats who now oppose a strong public option to for-profit health insurers, took $1.7 million in campaign contributions since 2005 from the health insurance and drug industries according to Consumer Watchdog.

On the Senate side, Politico reported today that Mary Landrieu (D-LA) now opposes the public option.  Landrieu received $40,080 from health insurers and $75,800 from drug companies.

"The insurer and drug lobbies are leashing the Blue Dogs with $1.7 million in campaign contributions to keep them from fighting on behalf of a public alternative to for-profit health care," said Carmen Balber, Director of Consumer Watchdog's D.C. Office.  "What the Blue Dogs are telling us is that the insurance and drug companies should be trusted, but that's because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.  That's no comfort to the millions of Americans who have been mistreated by their insurance companies, much less those that can't afford health care due to the greed of the private market."

Total health insurer contributions to the Blue Dogs = $839,806
Total pharmaceutical company contributions to the Blue Dogs = $896,734

Read the entire release at http://bit.ly/igCf8

---

by: dougheller @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 18:37:39 PM CDT

I know Louisiana is a fairly conservative state now (0.00 / 0)

but is supporting a public option really a political death sentence there?

I'm just wondering why Landrieu can't simply go along with it and keep her mouth shut, if it really is such a political liability, instead of making this noisy show of being against it.

It's getting to the point where I think it'd actually might be better if a Republican were in this Senate seat instead of Landrieu.  At least the Republican would be merely a member of a disgraced and irrelevant (though still oddly powerful) minority, instead of an annoying obstructionist self-important moderate high horse that everyone in the country has to woo and beg.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 02:41:39 AM CDT