Public Option or Primary!

by: DaveJ

Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 14:30


Any Democrat who does not vote for a "public option" insurance plan in health care reform must be challenged in a primary.  And this includes any President who does not go to the mat and fight 100% for a public option.

Our elected officials gave away our opening negotiating position by refusing to even consider the popular "Medicare-for-All" plan.  Had they started with Medicare-for-All they would have the option of giving in and compromising with a public option.  In fact they could well have won with this because Medicare-for-All just makes more sense.  It is simple, costs less, is easily explained and the public loves Medicare.

So here we are.  Just like the stimulus fight, the administration gave away essential policy to please Republicans and appear "bipartisan" before even entering negotiations.  Just like during the fight for a solid stimulus plan, the Republicans took that compromise as an opening position, whittled it away without having to exchange their wins for votes, and after reducing the plan to bad public policy won't vote for it anyway.

If -- let me emphasize that I am saying "if" -- the President is really backing away from the public option these are the lessons that will be learned:

Lesson learned for members of Congress who spent political capital and backed their President, going public supporting a public option:  The President can't be trusted to be consistent and stand with you.  So the lesson is don't go out on a limb to back him again.

Lesson learned for teabaggers who shouted down Democratic legislators as they tried to explain the advantages of a public option:  Intimidation works, so ramp it up.

Lesson learned for big corporate interests who orchestrated the terrible lies and intimidation: Do more of this.

Lesson learned for the public:  Why even bother to vote?  You might win, but what does it matter if the leaders you elect feel free to do the opposite of what you voted for.

We need to fix this.  We need to apply pressure the way it should be applied in a democracy.  We need a credible threat to run solid progressive candidates in primaries against any elected official who lets us down, rewards the big corporate interests and enables and encourages the intimidation tactics of the teabaggers.  We need to start now to find a candidate to run against Obama in the 2012 primaries if he does not step up and fight for us.  If.

DaveJ :: Public Option or Primary!

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Public Option or Primary! | 20 comments
Dean talked about this... (4.00 / 8)
...but we need to get into gear NOW, and get some credible primary opponents to announce their intentions in September...

Credibility is important.  The primary challengers can't be just some guy in the street.  They have to either be well known or a leading businessperson (i.e. rich and well funded)...  Not every district will be amenable to a primary challenge.  Some blue dog districts are so red, that a leftward challenge actually helps the bluedog...

But, we need to start contacting people, getting people onboard, and making a rash of announcements next month....


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Amen. (4.00 / 3)


Montani semper liberi
I agree with you 100% and think your wrong (0.00 / 0)
What about FISA, what about the Stim package, what about cap and trade?

The focus is to broad in targets and to narrow in focus.

What we need to do is decide to target a very limited number. And make the "eenies", the "minees" and the "Moes" to sweat throughout the selection process.

not just primaries (4.00 / 3)
it would be no tragedy for Mike Ross, for instance, to lose his seat to an actual Republican.

a third-party candidate in the general could also be an alternative for districts where there are problems with trying to run a primary challenge (nobody wants to run, procedural issues, etc)

for that matter, i wouldn't break down and cry if Harry Reid lost his seat either. 60 votes is an illusion. the Democratic coalition in the Senate is barely worth the name, and the leadership is a joke. case in point: Dawn Johnson's nomination is still on hold, for no good reason except putting chumminess above the nation's interests.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

I'd vote for a Republican over Reid (4.00 / 1)
if I lived in Nevada - at least I'd know what to expect.  Still prefer a progressive alternative of course, but 60 votes is indeed an illusion if you aren't willing to use them.  A split 50/50 majority with effective Dem leadership could and probably would be more effective than what we have.
[ Parent ]
Have you run this past the PDA? (4.00 / 2)
They stick to their guns, unlike some Democrats that I won't mention. :-)

My guess is that they could supply a lot of candidates.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

This brings up a related question -- (4.00 / 2)
at what point do we cut the Bush Dogs loose?

I went to a townhall today, and finally pinned my Congressman down, he said he would not vote for the public option.

And one guy standing against the wall, God bless him, said "I'm not voting for you again! I voted for you, not like these people (hand wave indicating the Fox News brigade occupying the prime seats in the center). They didn't vote for you, but I did, and I won't do it again!"

It was very emotionally satisfying, of course, but it got me thinking, what if?

Have we crossed the "more Democrats" stage, where we can start to focus on the "better Democrats" part of the equation?

What if my friends and I sit on our hands for the next Congressional race, and let this Bush Dog lose to a Republican? Will it help the real Democrats in Congress pass better legislation not to have him to worry about?

Montani semper liberi

What did you say when the guy said he wasn't voting for him? (0.00 / 0)
Did you agree and back him up?
[ Parent ]
I clapped. (4.00 / 2)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
what district? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Let's name names and think long term. (4.00 / 1)
The good thing about these guys is most of them are bad across the spectrum so our candidates can be narrative candidates instead of single issue ones.  2012 is a great year for electing better democrats I think, and there's some very obvious heads to put on the chopping block that year, namely Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman.  On down the road, there's Max Baucus in '14.  In the House, Mike Ross has got to go, and I'd like to see us run out several of the Blue Dogs if at all possible.

Who else?

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

Senate (0.00 / 0)
18 Democrats are up for election but Burris and Kaufman are not running.  The Progressive Punch scores for crucial votes for this session are listed in parentheses.

We already are pressing Arlen Specter (43.48) and that is now showing up in his votes.

Evan Bayh (45.65) has a ton of money but he's moved sharply right this session and organized the conservadems.  He's a disgrace to his father and to the Democrats of Indiana.  Number 2 target because he's the leader of the conservadems.

Michael Bennet (67.39) of Colorado.  We can elect somebody better than Bennet in Colorado and we can beat him in a primary.  Top target.

Russ Feingold has a score of 58.76, a sharp drop.  Has he been sick?  Is he votibg no because the bills are not progressive enough?

Patty Murray (76.09) could be pressured left.

Blanche Lincoln (47.83) needs to represent the people of Arkansas rather than the owners of Wal-Mart, Tyson Chicken, etc.  I don't expect much but a 60 or 65 would be safe.  

[ Parent ]
House (4.00 / 1)
There are about 50 House Democrats with Progressive Punch scores under 50% for this session on crucial votes.  The heavy majority of them are recently elected members.  Most are from Republican districts.  Some just are asking for it though.

John Barrow, GA-12, 30.77 PP, Cook PVI of D+1

Artur Davis, AL-7, 28.21 PP, Cook PVI of D+18
Artur's scores took a nosedive once he decided to run statewide.  Guess he is following the Harold Ford playbook.

Bill Foster, IL-14, 33.33 PP, Cook PVI of R+1

Scott Murphy, NY-20, 20.69 PP, Cook PVI of R+2

Mike Arcuri,NY-24, 35.90 PP, Cook PVI of R+2
Votes are great except in the clutch

John Adler, NJ-3, 38.46 PP, R+1

Dan Lipinski, IL-3, 48.72, D+13

[ Parent ]
Need the candidates (4.00 / 1)
I fired off an email to Obama today that said if there is no public option, I won't vote for him, or Larry Kissell, or Kay Hagen, or whomever runs against Burr in NC.  OK, it probably isn't fair to target Burr's opponent yet, but if he/she isn't strong single payer/public option, then I won't vote for him/her.  I'll skip that race on the ballot.

But in hindsight, I think a better option would be the primary route.  And to go this way:

Find a Senator and a State where a hard core progressive could win and where there is a race next year and the incumbent Dem is a weakling/shill.  Possibly Nevada or Pennsylvania.  Find a good strong progressive candidate and get that person to announce a run.  I'm not sure that includes Nevada.  

Every time the Dems get soft on the public option, then donate your fundraising money to the candidate.  We could have a limited slate.  The public option Democratic primary candidates.  Who might they be?

So I'm out of touch on this last question at the moment, but I guess Sestak.  There should be someone in Nevada.  I assume Dorgan and Conrad's seats are pretty safe because the progressive candidate would be hard to find or hard to win against a GOP, but maybe not.  Perhaps Schweitzer would run....

Who should I give Obama's campaign donation to instead?

...Because I'd like to send this email to Obama: (4.00 / 1)

"Since you are no longer supporting the public option, I have rerouted the money I would have donated to your campaign to the campaign of {progressive Dem Senate primary candidate} instead.  I hope you don't need the money in 2012.  But I think it is more important to elect someone who will actually support the campaign promises you made, even if you don't.  Obviously {incumbent Senator} doesn't, so I'm helping to send someone to Washington who will."

I'd be happy to do exactly the same thing with the climate change bill.

[ Parent ]
I thought Dorgan supported the public option. (0.00 / 0)
I seem to recall North Decoder getting him on the record for it in contrast with Conrad.  It's a shame either way, until Conrad started this nonsense the two from North Dakota were surprisingly progressive.

Let's not limit our thinking though.  There are other states we should look at-Indiana comes to mind, as does my home state of Arkansas (though I don't see a viable challenge emerging to Lincoln due to the tight nit nature of state politics, but Ross himself might not be out of bounds).  We should also focus on electing new progressives and better Democrats, Jennifer Brunner and Jack Conway coming to mind.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

[ Parent ]
Spending More Money On Elections Is Pointless. (0.00 / 0)
How much progressive money has been given away to candidates for public office in recent years?  For what?  We finally "won," and "our" politicians now spit in our face.  They say that a massive majority in Congress isn't enough -- we need to give them more money, elect more Democrats, and then maybe, finally, they'll do something for us.

We should not spend one penny on elections.  If the Democrats do not pass a healthcare system that is essentially Medicare for All -- let everyone buy into a Medicare-style system if they elect, based on a sliding scale, with subsidies for the poor -- then we need massive civil disobedience.  We should shut down the government, shut down the institutions of society, until the Democrats finally take us seriously.

Honestly, we don't have enough money to buy Congress.  Besides, the corporations beat us to it.  The only power we have is in number.  We need to start planning massive public civil disobedience, across the country, to make the Democrats start paying attention to us and doing what they promised to do:  end the wars, create real jobs for Americans, create public healthcare, prosecute the war criminals and Wall Street criminals, and stop selling their votes to the corporations.

http://NABNYC.blogspot.com  

Really? I mean, really? (0.00 / 0)
"We need to start planning massive public civil disobedience, across the country, to make the Democrats start paying attention to us and doing what they promised to do"

And we condemn scared, mis-informed seniors for yelling a little at townhalls. The hypocrisy thickens.  

[ Parent ]
The key word is "civil." (0.00 / 0)
There is nothing civil about bringing guns to public meetings, and calling for assassinations.

The Right always relies on violence, and threats of violence, because that is their theory of change. It's the only theory they have.

But the Left is not the same. We have the theory of nonviolent resistance (which, if truth be told, actually has a better track record when it comes to implementing sustainable, positive change than violence).

That's why there has never been a King or a Ghandi on the Right and there never will be.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Spend it on building progressive infrastructure instead (0.00 / 0)
Seriously, spend money on building a progressive infrastructure instead.  I work with the Commonweal Institute (Chris Bowers here is also a CI Fellow) and Campaign for America's Future.  In California I work with Speak Out California.  

These organizations are working to change underlying public attitudes, to help create demand for progressive policies and candidates.  Another organization working toward this end is Open Left and they have a Donate button in the right-side column.

Think about this: a donation of $100 to any of these organizations helps them reach the public to help advance progressive values.  Then, when election time comes around the public is that much more ready to support progressive candidates.  So that $100 donation NOW acts like a donation to each and every progressive candidate later!

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

[ Parent ]
Public Option or Primary! | 20 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