Check your fax; this post uses stale talking points (0.00 / 0)

Pelosi has now given the the all clear to go after the insurance companies: "Health Insurance Reform to Hold Insurance Companies Accountable."

And that's a Good Thing, because the problem with Max Baucus isn't that he comes from a small state -- Bernie Sanders comes from a small state.

The problem with Baucus is that the insurance companies own him. As they do a large swath of the Democratic party, which is why the bill rewards their rent-seeking behavior.

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

---

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:22:01 PM UTC

Gutsy move (4.00 / 1)

Let's give Pelosi some props for deciding to take on the health insurance lobby.  She has always had to tread a fine line in a caucus that includes Blue Dogs and others.  If the lobby wins, she may well lose the Speakership.

Contrast that with gutless wonders like Reid and Obama.

---

by: Taylor @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:55:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

just posted a diary about Blue Dog candidate Lori Edwards (4.00 / 1)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Doug Tudor, her primary opponent, is a good progressive and he needs our support.  

---

by: Susan S @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:28:26 PM UTC

The injustice of having (0.00 / 0)

a few people representing Cow States determine the shape of something like healthcare seems to me to present an argument for bypassing the 60 vote rule.  Just do it by majority, straight up-or-down, vote under budget reconciliation, and say you are doing it in the interest of having the interests of all Americans represented.

The Founding Fathers founded us, and also condemned us to banana republic status in which the most retrograde, backwards parts of the nation have a stranglehold on our future.

---

by: bob h @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:52:06 PM UTC

That is not true ... (0.00 / 0)

The Founding Fathers founded us, and also condemned us to banana republic status in which the most retrograde, backwards parts of the nation have a stranglehold on our future.

Do you really think they could have foretold people like Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:09:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Expose the sell outs (4.00 / 1)

On the other hand, these districts and states are also disproportionately poor. The average poverty rate of the states/districts of the 13 tyrants are higher and the per capita income lower than the national average. That should give these folks a particular interest in health care reform, considering that reform will disproportionately help constituents who can't afford health care.

Except, that gets us to campaign contributions. As you'll see in the column, the mix of legalized bribery and a tyrannical system that lets the very few legislate for the very many can easily make legislators vote against their own districts' interests.

The people who live in the tyrants' districts/states would benefit as much as any other group from health care reform. Unfortunately, their representatives are selling them out for campaign contributions from wealthy donors from outside their districts/states.

Perhaps, we need to run ads in the respective distracts/states pointing out to their constituents that they are being sold out and to who and why. One thing that runs through almost all right wing douche buggery is the concept that "damn east coast elite (outsiders in general work fine) are destroying the country". That type of faux populism is very powerful in small, poor communities which rightfully feel that they have no say in politics. We should do this for no other reason then the joy of watching Baucus try to explain to his constituents that they are more important than his east coast donors.

For this to be effective the ads would need to highlight just how much out of state donors give to their representative, how health care reform would benefit poor rural areas, and that their representative is defending his donors at their expense. His actions  will deny their need for affordable and accessible health care.

We need to put these tyrants on the defensive. We may not be able to beat them at the ballot box. But, putting them on the defensive, while at the same time encouraging the progressive block to be more aggressive, will go a long way toward passing progressive legislation.

For several years polls have shown that progressive ideas, in general, are popular with a majority of the country. If we convince our allies in Congress to push for and pass legislation that implements them, and demonstrate to our allies that we have their backs, then progressives could become a force in the Congress and remain that way for a long time.

---

by: dorf @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 17:10:16 PM UTC

Where is George Soros and other wealthy liberals as (0.00 / 0)

far as putting up ads?  Nowhere because they like the status quo.  So who is the "we"?  We here in Montana have been barely able to scrape up money to print single payer flyers and money for poster board for rallies.  We know commercials would be better, but where's the money?  We could easily use excerpts from "Sicko".  We could have interviews with Canadians telling their side.  And yes, we can keep pointing out how corrupt our senators are, all of them.  I have my fourth letter to the editor published today.  We are plugging away but without media reform and campaign finance reform, we are struggling.
Today some brave souls are protesting at the Baucus Camp in Big Sky where you have to pay $5000 to golf and fly fish with Max.  Where's the liberal left?  Why aren't we sabotaging them on the 5th hole?  Why aren't there airplanes with banners flying "For Sale: Max Baucus"?  No money and quite frankly most of us are getting older and fought the Vietnam War with tactics like those but it's not as easy now,.  Where are the young people?  The young people here are mostly Third Way types.  They want to sit down and have a beer and figure it out.

---

by: FeralCat @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 21:09:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Small Donors (0.00 / 0)

I would not count on George Soros or any other super wealthy individuals, or their foundations, to fund things that may actually threaten their ability to make more money. Not that they need more money, they just seem to want to make it to stroke their ego, and prove that he with the most toys when he dies wins.

I also, did not mean that only the people of Montana should have to fund ads against the tyrants. It sounds like you are doing what you can in Montana and I commend you for what you are doing.

In the last two election cycles the netroots have raised a substantial amount of money with our capacity to raise money growing with each cycle. It is our collective nationwide ability to raise money from small donors that I was referring to as "we". Do we continue to raise money for candidates (primary fights seem to be a better use of our resources)? Or do we use our money to fight legislative battles? Personally I think we can do both. The ads run against Senator Mary Landrieu in Louisiana were an example of the type of ads I was thinking of. She has softened her position against the public option since they ran.

Do you think this kind of ad would be effective in Montana? Would it help those of you in Montana that are working to expose Baucus, or hurt?    

---

by: dorf @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:58:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disproportionate representation (0.00 / 0)

In reading the full column, David, the most irritating thing to me is that the ad hoc mini-committee is evenly split between Ds and Rs. It's not only that those few Republicans are wielding disproportionate power relative to their constituency at home, but also relative to their constituency in the Senate itself.

I blame it on Democrats. They're letting it happen and the corporate slaves among them are probably glad to have the Republicans up there taking heat as a CYA move.

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 17:11:58 PM UTC

Hey David... (0.00 / 0)

I thought people like Kent Conrad and Herseth-Sandlin were supposed to be economic populists.  But here, they seem to be doing the opposite of populism.  What gives?

---

by: BruinKid @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 20:18:14 PM UTC