VOTE: Which Senate Dem should we target next with public option TV ads?

by: AdamGreen

Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 10:30


 

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America are running a 10-day vote where progressives can decide which states to bring the WeWantThePublicOption.com "sign your name" ad to.

Ads will feature the names of local residents from across a given state and call out the local Senate Dem for taking millions from health and insurance interests while threatening to oppose the public option. (A slight variation of the ad to the right we've been running in DC the last few weeks.)

Thousands of people have voted. So far, Baucus is in first place, Kerry second, Feinstein third, Lieberman fourth, Bayh fifth, and so on. 

Who do you think should be targeted in their home states? Comment below and vote here.

Results so far, with about 48 hours left to vote:

 results
AdamGreen :: VOTE: Which Senate Dem should we target next with public option TV ads?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
VOTE: Which Senate Dem should we target next with public option TV ads? | 33 comments
Weird. (0.00 / 0)
Why do people feel the need to target Feinstein and Kerry? Yes, I know they've made certain comments, but I doubt very much they'd work in any capacity to block passage of a public option as the vote nears.

On the other hand, I think Nelson and Landrieu (and Lincoln) are much more important targets, and they are some of the lowest-polling.

I think people shouldn't be allowed to give credence to those positions without censure. (4.00 / 1)
There is something to the argument about who might need it more, which vote is more easily pressed out by this method, but letting people know that Kerry is carrying water for Nelson's obstruction is a good thing. Letting Kerry know he is being watched is a good thing. Getting the message out to progressives in Kerry's state about his foot dragging, which may surprise them, is good thing.

Bad dems take comfort, and tell their progressives "even Kerry" etc etc.

All good reasons to tell the truth. Which is all this is.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
If the money was raised ... (0.00 / 0)
I say go after all of them .. but Feinstein before Kerry ... and why Feinstein? .. because she's a war profiteering DINO .. plus .. did you see FDL earlier this week?
[ Parent ]
Can't you hit them harder than that? (4.00 / 1)
Is there a problem with reminding the public that their salary is $174,000, and in spite of the fact that they could easily afford to insure themselves individually - or even just to pay cash if and when they need healthcare - they are entitled to the same "socialized" healthcare insurance as other as other federal employees? ( I assume that this is a "gold-plated" plan.)

Also, what are the chances that a sitting US Senator will be dropped from their insurance provider if they should actually get sick and really need to use their benefits?

While I'm thrilled to see somebody going after these guys in a halfway provocative manner, I'm still baffled as to why it needs to be halfway. If you were targetting Republicans, wouldn't you make an edgier ad? Speaking of which, why not also target Republican Senators who are on the wrong side of this issue (probably all of them - hah!) and who are vulnerable in the 2010 elections? I'll bet that a lot of contributors would gladly double up if they could deliver a blow to the Republican obstructionists, also.

Another thing I'd like to see is mention of the fact that the most cost-effective solution is a single payer one, and this is off the table. So, the least that these Senators could do is to support a strong public option.

To throw in one extra sentence about single payer doesn't seem too intrusive, even if the ad is short. By leaving it out, you are throwing away a teaching opportunity.  Obama's bone-headed kow-towing to Wall Street will ensure a prolonged recession/depression (at least in terms of jobs), and we will be either forced to single payer, eventually, or just continue with inadequate healthcare. Why don't you improve the ad so that the former is more likely?

Indeed, adding a second sentence about making state-based single payer legal (for those Senators who oppose it) should be considered.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

Another reason for an edgier ad is to support the Progressive bloc (0.00 / 0)
I mean indirectly. It seems to me that the public is insufficiently aroused, over this eminently 'arousable' issue. Note that there are no mass demonstrations (yet) over healthcare. Some in the progressive bloc, who may be tempted to fold, might draw inspiration for staying the course if they know that healthcare obstructionists are being aggresively dealt with.

When in doubt, I suggest that you ask yourself, "What would George Galloway say?" :-)

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
single payer/Medicare for All (4.00 / 1)
Indeed, adding a second sentence about making state-based single payer legal (for those Senators who oppose it) should be considered.

I agree that we should do something on Medicare for All, but I think it should be in a different ad.  Putting it in the same ad will reduce the ad's focus.

[ Parent ]
How does pushing the only science-based solution... (0.00 / 0)
... "weaken the focus"?  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
I mean for the purposes of the ad (0.00 / 0)
It's best to do just one solution per ad.  Make an ad with the public option, make an ad with Medicare for All, but don't mix them in the same ad.  People are just gonna be confused and go, huh is this about public option or Medicare for All?
[ Parent ]
I only suggested adding a single sentence, to frame the issue more correctly (0.00 / 0)
Most readers of OpenLeft will agree that a public option is already a compromise. But what about the low-information voters? (And possibly a second sentence which makes note of the state single payer issue.) I don't think a federal single payer plan is politically possible at this particular time, so I don't think significant $$ should go to that.

Of course, if people donate enough $$, all sorts of possibilities open up.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Since a workable public option isn't possible either... (0.00 / 0)
.... it makes no sense to throw bad money after good.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
I'm not following (0.00 / 0)
Are you saying that a workable public plan isn't possible in principle? Having seen the Frontline program 'Sick around the world', I certainly don't subscribe to that belief.

OTOH, if you are saying that a workable public plan isn't possible politically, all I can say to that is 1)I haven't been following closely enough to know how to judge that for myself and 2) if a weak public option is presented, I surely hope it's blocked by the progressive bloc. I'd rather have no healthcare reform than a crummy reform. With no healthcare reform, the public will have a clearer choice to work to get rid of crappy Congress critters, or to keep getting abused by them. Ultimately, it's our fault for allowing politics to be corrupted by money so badly, but this process was made easier not just by public apathy but also by misleading propaganda. (Not to mention the lack of awareness of superior, foreign systems.) A failure of healthcare reform will make it harder to sustain any illusion that we have the best healthcare in the world, understood as a function of affordability and availability, or that we are moving in that direction.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Quickly (0.00 / 0)
1. I don't have a TV, so I can't have seen Frontline. Do you have a link to the transcript? I'd like to check it out.

2. All I can tell you is that I haven't seen a public plan advocate in the blogosphere point to an example of success, and you'd think this would be a very easy talking point to create, it it were there to be had. I could be wrong, but I've been out here a lot on this issue.

3. I agree that no bill is better than a bad bill. I don't agree with Obama that this year is a once in a life-time chance because the problem will not go away. That means that genuine progressives really an hold out for a better bill. If they want to do a strange bedfellows thing with the crazy party, like they should have done on TARP, then so be it.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
you can watch it on your computer (0.00 / 0)
I don't have a TV, either.

This program's home page is here.

The video is online here.

One of the reason democracy doesn't work well in the US is that we're not properly kept informed of what real options look like, as practiced in other countries. This Frontline program was a wonderful exception, but even without watching TV, I'm confident that continuing coverage of what's available overseas, and how it might work in the US, is not being covered in the main stream media.

I had suggested to the PDA that they push the Frontline program as part of their outreach, but AFAIK, nobody took up that suggestion.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
Actually I prefer transcripts... (0.00 / 0)
... as a methodological principle, because their quotable, linkable, don't require special software, besides being much quicker to read (sustainable as sources, in other words).

That said, I'll try to give it a look.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
There's a book version (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Cool, thanks (0.00 / 0)
It's amazing how much, even just a few years ago (like 2002-2003) is either gone or behind paywalls. Many times fair-used stuff from blogs is the historical record...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Targeting Republicans (0.00 / 0)
Speaking of which, why not also target Republican Senators who are on the wrong side of this issue (probably all of them - hah!) and who are vulnerable in the 2010 elections? I'll bet that a lot of contributors would gladly double up if they could deliver a blow to the Republican obstructionists, also.

All the Republicans are opposed to a real public option - even Olympia Snowe is only open to a trigger, and she's the exact opposite of vulnerable; she could drown a kid in a river and she'd still probably be reelected.

So yeah going after them would be like shooting fish in a barrel.  But the point of this ad is to change the terms of debate now and put pressure on these Senators to do something now.  Since we're never gonna change the minds of any Republican, we can hold off on attacking Republicans until next year's elections are fully underway.

[ Parent ]
There is no such thing as a "real" public option (4.00 / 1)
It's crippled in the House bill, and that's before we even get to the Senate. Let's not confuse "progressive" talking points with the sausage that is actually being made, please.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
I'd also point out who is a millionaire (0.00 / 0)
From a 2003 CNN article, the following members of the list of senators in the poll were millionaires at the time:

Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014
Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028

These are not the sorts of folks who will have trouble making a co-pay.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

[ Parent ]
2010 (0.00 / 0)
Bayh is up in 2010.
And? (0.00 / 0)
I doubt there's anything we liberals can actually do to him.
[ Parent ]
I voted in this poll already (0.00 / 0)
and blogged about it, which you can read here: http://liberalmaverick.xanga.c...

The gist of my votes are thus:

1. Ben Nelson, cuz he's fuckin Ben Nelson.
2. Joe Lieberman, cuz he's the only one on this list who is actually vulnerable to a challenge from the left.
3. Kent Conrad, cuz I have a feeling that he only supports co-ops cuz he thinks nothing better will have the votes to pass, so if we demonstrate public support for the public option maybe he'll have more confidence and fight harder for it in the Senate.

It's disheartening to see the poll results so far, which I think are misguided.  Targeting Kerry is ridiculous - he's already on-board.  There's no point in wasting money on Feinstein and Baucus either, since they're both politically invulnerable in their states and have both demonstrated that public opposition doesn't move them "one whit" (Feinsten's words) and if anything it only hardens their resistance because they're both bipartisan glory hounds who get off on inviting the wrath of the left.

If anything, we should be concentrating all our firepower on Joe Lieberman because he's the one guy out of these eight who we can actually have a chance at knocking off in 2012 and replacing with a real liberal (Ned Lamont?).

My choices (0.00 / 0)
1. Ben Nelson  Nelson has a small amount in his campaign kitty ($411,484 as of 3/31; he has not filed for 6/30).  He is a major f**ker who used his Finance Committee to stop or water down everything.  

2.  Ben Nelson.  He's stupid.  He acts like the king of the walk.  He screws up everything.  He's the worst "Democrat" in the Senate, worse than Snowe really.  And he is proud of being stupid.  Twist his arm by taking away SAC and relocating it to Michigan.

3. OK, I made my point about Nelson.  Next on the list is Landrieu.  She's got no money in the bank ($159 K) and twists in the wind.  Pressure might work.

4. Baucus.  Yes he's got over $2 million but he is twistable through his Committee chair.  Dingell loses his and stupid Baucus gets to block everything.  Sweitzer is standing around ready to decapitate him.  Who says he's so popular?

I'd love to go after Bayh but he'd just laugh.  The man is going nowhere on the national level but has over $12 million in the bank.  For Indiana.  

[ Parent ]
Landrieu is not a good target (0.00 / 0)
Louisiana is too conservative and Landrieu, as much as I despise her, is probably the best we're gonna get out of that state for awhile.  If anything Landrieu has to worry about being defeated by the right, so targeting her might actually be counterproductive, as it'll only encourage her to be on the right so that she can show Louisianans her "independence".

Baucus is quite popular in his state and he's also apparently quite stubborn and unreceptive to pressure.

That said, I do think primary challenges to Baucus and Ben Nelson (not Landrieu) may be in order.  Can someone with knowledge on Nebraska politics tell us whether a primary challenge to Ben Nelson from the left might be able to succeed?

[ Parent ]
Public option as good as it gets? (4.00 / 1)
10 talking points on single payer vs public option.

I'm all for poking Ben Nelson in the eye with a sharp stick, but let's not delude ourselves: The public option, as it always has been, is a crock.

At least if you look at the legislation, which career liberals tend not to do...  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

The top three are uselss (0.00 / 0)
Feinstein and Kerry would be expensive to target. Kerry isn't really that bad. Feinstein doesn't give a crap what her constituents think and probably never will.

Baucus isn't going to vote against healthcare reform. He's a negotiator, not a great one. But we should put pressure on the people he has to get on board. Like Bayh. He's up for re-election, he's in a blue state, he is the one most likely to listen to pressure.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

I highly doubt Bayh will respond to public pressure (0.00 / 0)
He's egotistical and he doesn't need to worry about his reelection.  Certainly not from the left.  And Indiana just barely voted for Obama - it's a purple state.

I agree that Feinstein is immovable.  If anything, pressure from liberals telling her to support the public option will probably make her want to oppose the public option even more.  That way she can pat herself on the back and congratulate herself for resisting the demands of those eeeevil liberals that she's surrounded by in her hometown of San Francisco.

[ Parent ]
Whoever signed the letter, and is up for re-election (0.00 / 0)
Whoever signed the letter stating that the timeline for debate should be lengthened (a stalling tactic, and one that is explicit and overt), and who is also up for re-election.

I thought Ron Wyden fits both of these categories? Senator De Fazio, anyone?

He's also pro-free trade (0.00 / 0)
Nail 'em.
[ Parent ]
The Senators who signed that paper are (0.00 / 0)
Susan Collins
Mary Landrieu
Joe Lieberman
Ben Nelson
Olympia Snowe
Ron Wyden

Only Wyden is up for reelection in 2010.  Wyden is somewhat liberal but like Obama he seems to obsess over bipartisanship.  And he supported the awful Republican Medicare prescription drug (companies) benefit as well.  He ought to be primaried, but I don't think there will be any takers for that in Oregon.

[ Parent ]
I thought Landrieu was up as well (0.00 / 0)
but back to Wyden: while not wanting to overstate Oregon's progressive populist streak, I think in terms of matching performance to "district" he's underperforming (Cantwell and Murray probably both fit into that category as well). In any case, that makes him the perfect target to go after (compared to Landrieu, where LA doesn't have a history of electing liberals).  
[ Parent ]
Thanks all. (0.00 / 0)
Great comments.
Say, why isn't Obama on the list? (0.00 / 0)
I mean, in 2003 Obama was for single payer,  then Obama ran Harry & Louise ads against a mandate in 2008, then he was for a mandate, and public option, except that everything was negotiable and it was all up to Congress, and now he's decisively in favor of public option.

Well.

I think that means Obama can be rolled. Why not try it?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

VOTE: Which Senate Dem should we target next with public option TV ads? | 33 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox