Progressive Block Whip Count To Begin Monday

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 17:30


The Huffington Post is reporting that the Progressive Block will start their own whip count next week:

Next week will be gut-check time for the bloc of progressives standing in opposition to any bill that doesn't include a public health insurance option.

The leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus plans a "whip count" for early in the week to gauge the strength of their coalition, caucus members tell the Huffington Post. The whip team will also approach members of the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses.

Democrats hold 256 seats in Congress and need 218 to pass a bill, meaning 39 progressives, voting together, could tank the legislation, assuming all Republicans vote nay.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a member of CPC leadership, estimates that eighty to 100 members will make the pledge.

So, next week we will know if the Progressive Block will be continuing their campaign or not. The odds appear to be in favor of continuing.

Here is my favorite part of the article:

A senior administration official said Wednesday that killing the bill for not including a public option would be "tragic." Centrist and conservative Democrats have expressed frustration at the forcefulness of the support for the public option, arguing that it's a distraction from the broader package.

If the public option is just a minor distraction, then why don't moderate and conservative Democrats just give into the Progressives? Seriously--if the public option is so meaningless, then what's the big deal? Just give into the demands, and pass the bill.

The reason why this doesn't happen is that the basic political calculation for most moderate and conservative Democrats is to claim credit either for voting against, or watering down, a Democratic bill that passes. By voting against or watering down the bill, they can claim credit for standing out from the dirty hippies that make up most of the Democratic Party. However, if no bill passes, then the Democratic Party as a whole is severely damaged, and these moderates and conservatives are usually the first ones to lose their seats in a bad political climate for Democrats. So, they need a bill to pass, but they need to stand apart from that bill at the same time.

However, through their ongoing threat to defeat any bill that lacks a robust public option, the Progressive Block is taking that option away from conservative and moderate Democrats. Now, conservative Democrats can only choose a stronger bill (giving into the Block) or no bill at all (not giving in). From their perspective, they are screwed in both cases. They don't get the option of voting against a bill that passes, or removing the provision the dirty hippies love. Thus, the Block denies Conservadems and Blue Dogs their primary political mode of operation, and all of the power that comes with it.

As such, the Progressive Block actually threatens the continued dominance of Conservadems and Blue Dogs within the Democratic Party. In addition to taking instructions from their corporate masters, that is an important reason why the Conservadems and Blue Dogs don't want to give into the supposedly minor distraction that the Progressive Block is demanding.

Chris Bowers :: Progressive Block Whip Count To Begin Monday

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Great post (4.00 / 4)
This is the best case you've made for the progressive block in a while.  You are absolutely right.

How likely (0.00 / 0)
is it that not a single Republican will break ranks?  

Only zero or one (0.00 / 0)
Snowe is the only available Republican, right?  Unless she is willing to accept face saving options like a trigger-in-name-only (good for us, bad for insurance corporations), I don't see how she stays in if the Progressive Block holds.

[ Parent ]
Cao and maybe one or two others (0.00 / 0)
are the only Republicans I could see voting for the bill, regardless of what's in it. Remember that no Republicans in the House supported the stimulus, which was much less controversial than this health care reform bill is.

It's possible that this bill might get two or three Republican votes in the House, but I think it's a lot more likely that it gets none at all.


[ Parent ]
BINGO!!!! (4.00 / 1)
"If the public option is just a minor distraction, then why don't moderate and conservative Democrats just give into the Progressives? Seriously--if the public option is so meaningless, then what's the big deal? Just give into the demands, and pass the bill."

Z


All the things that we have to give up are minor and inconsequential (0.00 / 0)
.. but anything that they'd have to give up is essential and necessary.

Z


[ Parent ]
just like... (0.00 / 0)
If the Republicans really want a bipartisan health care reform bill... if being bipartisan is the single most important consideration... they can take care of that in a single stroke by voting as a block for the Democratic plan that includes a public option.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

Who ever said Republicans want a bipartisan bill? (0.00 / 0)
Obama is the only one I ever heard harping on the importance of bi-partisan.

Republicans don't want a health care bill at all - at least not until they take back the White House.


[ Parent ]
my congresswoman says it all the time (0.00 / 0)
Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (WV-02)

I imagine that a lot of Republican congress-critters say the same thing back home. In almost every newsletter Capito says things like, "we don't need a Democrat solution or a Republican solution, we need to come together where there is common ground to solve important problems." More often then not, she'll use the word bipartisan.

From a quick blog search at WVaBlue.com, here's at least two times we've called her out on her bipartisan fetish: recently (healthcare) and not so recently (Iraq war).

Of course she wants to maintain the status quo on these things. She invokes bipartisanship as a way of blaming Democrats for not supporting the Republican position.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue


[ Parent ]
Very hopeful sign (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for posting this!

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

dare i have hope? (4.00 / 1)
i'm still amazed that the super model dating Anthony Weiner is a leader in this fight.

Good for him!

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November


I think this is the time to either redouble funding the pledge block on actblue (4.00 / 1)
or start a new one with the results of Mondays whip.

I am very very much in favour of pushing the presnt funbding mechanism as a sign of faith with our pledge block

Keep the faith top keep the faith.

I know some will not want to trust and go with the second option. but I think its the best move, assume a strong block and keep at it.

Heres where I think we should send the message to everyone. We support you, we will re-elect you, we will fight with you. We appreciate what you have done, we know how hard it is. Keep the vow, keep the faith, we are with the pledge block.

http://www.actblue.com/page/th...

Go, pledge again, crosspost, donate and fight back. Call them, email them tell you friends. This is our fight, lets win it. Call the nurses, call the single payers call you friends and relatives.

--

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


I hope Ellison knows what he is talking about (4.00 / 1)
I can't see 80 to 100 taking the pledge when only 64-65 took the pledge already (according to Blue America PAC and Democracy for America). If we had 80 to start with there's a much better chance of holding 40.

I think there's a better than 50/50 chance that the Progressive Block folds, but it's the only strategy we have.  

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


Is past is prologue (0.00 / 0)
Then I think that your assessment is overly optimistic. Between arm-twisting and sweeteners, I strongly suspect that enough of them will fold on the final, post-conference bill. Just as they did on FISA, TARP, the stim bill, the supplemental, and cap and trade. While there's always the chance that this time, they'll stand firm, based solely on the past, I see absolutely no reason to believe that they won't fold yet again. Sorry, I'm way past "hope" at this point.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something (0.00 / 0)
But so long as every senate Dem votes for cloture on a final bill with a strong PO, can't up to 10 CD's vote against the actual bill--along with nearly 40 BD's in the house--and the bill still passes, and they can still brag to their constituents that they didn't support it?

I mean, the point is to pass a good bill, not to pass it with large numbers (although that would be nice too). Or is it seen as necessary for it to pass with overwhelming Dem support?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Excellent summary (4.00 / 1)
This post hit all the points.

1. The "no big deal" argument by definition cuts both ways, where you're doing something new. So if one party says it's important, and the other says it's not, then by his own logic, if he really believes it, the latter should consent.

2. The Dog Dems are the ones politically vulnerable here, not the progressives.

Their position is really way too "subtle" for me. Are they Democrats or not? I can buy that their constituency may be somewhat more conservative on things like war and social issues.

But everything I read tells me that on economic issues that constituency is more progressive than the way these guys want to vote, and that when they vote according to the way the insurance racket paid them to vote, they're not only selling us all out over the long run, but voting directly against what their constituents want in the here and now.


http://attempter.wordpress.com


That's the key question, isn't it? (0.00 / 0)
Are they Democrats or not?

  Why do these blue dogs identify with the Democratic Party to begin with, when there's a well-funded, high-name-rec, organizationally formidable political party across the aisle that much better conforms to their worldview?

  I just don't get the thought process of a young blue dog developing his political career: "I hate working people, our taxes are too high, I love corporations, I love war, I hate minorities, I hate immigrants... gee, I think I'll ask the local Democratic Party about running for office!"

  And a related question is, if the voters in these blue-dog districts are so "conservative", then why do the voters in these blue-dog districts vote for the Democrat, when there's a perfectly viable Republican wingnut available to them in every election? Obviously the voters believe there's something they can get out of the Democrat that they can't get out of the Republican. Has anyone ever confronted a blue dog about this?
   

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


[ Parent ]
Great analysis (0.00 / 0)

 Just forwarded the link to the county Dem listserv.

 Why can't the blue dogs get through their thick heads that if a strong bill passes that actually HELPS people, that the ENTIRE Democratic Party benefits, INCLUDING blue dogs?  

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


So -- it's no longer a "strong" or "robust" public option? (0.00 / 0)
Just anything that the D leadership calls a "public option," regardless of how feeble, trigger-encrusted, restricted, and in substance merely another promise, since it won't take effect until after two Congressional and one Presidential elections?

Good point, but incrementalism is mostly the way change happens (0.00 / 0)
According to how Obama presented it in his speech the other night, the "public option" program will take effect in four (4) years.

And he also pointed out that it will only insure about five (5) percent of the population.

I have been very cynical over the past couple months thinking that once again the Dems (blaming it on Obama) are losing a big political fight. However, I have to say that after listening to Obama's speech I capitulated, in my thoughts, and now believe an incremental approach is the right way to go.

Get something - public plan and insurance reforms - in to take the bogey man out of it and then improve upon it.

At the same time, I also hope the Progressive Block holds. It could be the beginning of incremental change on the conservative-corporate-leaning philosophy so popular in our government.


[ Parent ]
Hmm (0.00 / 0)
So how about we also start pushing something else -- say, opening Medicare to people 55 and up, or something -- and the Blue Dogs can get their jollies opposing and watering down that, and take their attention off the public option?

(Cue "I told you so! We should've started with single payer!".)


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox