Game On

by: Mike Lux

Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 19:25


Okay, folks, we progressives got what we wanted. A comprehensive health care reform bill with a reasonably strong public option will be going to the floor as part of leadership bills in both the House and the Senate. We don't yet know whether we will get the best version of the public option in the House bill, and the Senate version is not as strong as progressives have been pushing for. But strengthening the form of the public option can be negotiated over in conference committee, once we get there.

For now, we can thank Harry Reid (HCAN has a page here) and Nancy Pelosi for their gutsy leadership, and fight like hungry dogs to win the floor fight and deliver on this hope. In the coming weeks we will have an all-hands-on-deck, all out public war with the insurance industry over whether we finally pass comprehensive health care reform or once again fall short at the bitter end after coming so far.

Here's where things are as we head into the floor fight:

1. White House staffers confirmed for me this afternoon that they are backing Harry Reid's decision "100 percent." Now that's not to say they aren't a little nervous about it. I suspect that there are still some feelings by some people working in that building that progressives should have given up and rolled over, and let them cut a deal with Olympia Snowe on her trigger-written-never-to-trigger. That would have been easier than sweating what will undoubtedly be a very tough battle to get all 60 Democrats to go along with the rest of the party. But us irritating progressive folk got in the way of doing that, and now Obama knows it's time to stand and deliver. I believe my friends at the White House when they say they will do an all-out fight for this bill. They know that starting down this path, and not being able to pull it off, would be a huge embarrassment and destroy all the momentum we've built by making it this far. They are all-in, and know how much is at stake. Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina are famous for twisting arms and doing everything in their power to get the votes that are needed, and now is their time to deliver.

2. The entire progressive movement has to go all-in supporting an up or down vote on health care reform. We should try to strengthen this bill with an amendment strategy on the floor, and we should be prepared to fight for a strong, tough negotiation strategy in conference committee. But first, we should be putting every ounce of work, dollars, and muscle we can to convince all the Democrats in the Senate to support Reid on the cloture vote in the Senate. The White House and Reid are on the line to deliver, but so are we. This is a history- making fight, one of those huge moments in American history, and if we win, this progressive movement will be written about in the history books the way the big change movements of the 1960s, 1930s, 1900s, and 1860s are. This is our time to deliver, too.

3. Senate Democrats who are reluctant to support this need to be clear: there are plenty of things none of us like in this big, sprawling bill. Personally, I think the idea that states could opt out of the public option is a tragedy, and I will fight for a better bill in conference committee. There are plenty of other provisions I don't love as well. But to step on history, to stop the entire rest of the Democratic party from making history because you don't like one provision in a bill, is fundamentally wrong. Go ahead and vote against it on an up or down vote, but do not stop this incredibly important, incredibly historic bill with a filibuster. And as a loyal Democrat who wants all Democrats to win, I want you waverers to be very clear about the political consequences. There is a huge political upside to supporting Reid on cloture, and an even bigger downside to not doing so. I don't speak for the entire progressive movement at all, but I have spent my life working in it, and have a pretty good sense of it, and I will tell you this: this is of truly massive importance to progressives. If you think this is just another issue, you are dead wrong. You will be helping yourself an enormous amount with progressives by letting this vote happen, and letting the Democratic party and the president get a huge win. It would be harder to raise money for anyone running a primary against you and easier to get our help in any tough general election you might face. On the other hand, if you screw us on this issue, you are opening yourself up for enormous political problems. The odds of serious primaries, with a ton of funding, go up dramatically, just as the odds of ever getting help in a tough general election fight go steeply down. The likelihood of people and organizations trying to block anything politically you are trying to get for your state go up exponentially, from judges you are trying to get appointed to highway money you are trying to get. Look, I am not trying to make threats here at all, I am just a lowly consultant. What I am suggesting is that everyone in the progressive movement is going to have very, very long memories about this highest of high priorities for us.

This is the fight of our lives, and after all the preliminaries, we have made it to the finals. Reid and Pelosi have delivered. The White House is ready to roll. Now let's get this done.

Mike Lux :: Game On

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Game On | 56 comments
The Filibuster (4.00 / 3)
The entire progressive movement has to go all-in supporting an up or down vote on health care reform.

A Democrat joining a Republican filibuster should, at best, be an exceedingly rare tactic - maybe once in a life time. While it's worth pointing out that this is not just another issue, that sort of undemocratic procedural abuse should not be tolerated. The party doesn't own the votes of its members, but to help Republicans use the filibuster to frustrate a majority of the voters, the caucus and the Senate is unacceptable.


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


Nobody wanted to be the one to kill the PO (4.00 / 13)

 In the last few weeks we saw Reid punt to Schumer, who would punt to Obama, who would punt back to Reid, who would punt to Baucus, who would fumble to Conrad... and they all said they'd LIKE a public option but "the votes weren't there" or somesuch.

 Nobody wanted to be the bad guy who smothered the public option.

 And I suspect that nobody wants to be the one Democrat enabling a Republican filibuster. Not if he or she wants his or her surname to avoid becoming a verb.

  So I'm cautiously optimistic that Reid has the cloture votes -- right now, at this moment in time. As cautious as he is, I doubt he'd proceed if he didn't. (Then again, there WAS that doctor vote, but that was the Republicans sticking the shiv in him.)

 OK, I'm rambling... I'm not used to good news...

 

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


[ Parent ]
Great line (4.00 / 6)
"not if he or she wants his or her surname to avoid becoming a verb."

Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.

[ Parent ]
there's still conference (4.00 / 1)
that wonderful process whereby a few Congressional oligarchs meet behind closed doors, away from the scrutiny of TV cameras, to decide the content of the final bill.

You can bet Rahm will be in the room when that happens. And you can probably imagine what he'll be saying, and it won't be "We support a robust public option."

No one need go on the record at all as having been the one to kill the public option. It can all be ascribed to the work of an anonymous senator who just thought it would increase the deficit a little too much.

Presumably Reid and Pelosi understand the political consequences for them if they allow that to happen, so there is some hope we might get it. Still, I wonder...


[ Parent ]
Yeah, Rahm's the one actor here I don't trust (4.00 / 3)

 But even he has to understand that the ramifications of killing a public option would be politically disastrous for the Democrats at this point.

 I would hope, anyway.  

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


[ Parent ]
If you're a centrist (4.00 / 1)
 you logically want the Democratic party to be weaker than it is now. That is what would suit your agenda. That's what makes these people so dangerous.  

[ Parent ]
That's the thing (4.00 / 6)
if the PO were to just fall by the wayside in Conference there will be a freakin' Civil War in the Democratic Party. Rahm Emanuel may not like that but he's a smart guy... he has to understand that, and he has to take the Progressive wing very damn seriously at this point.

The smart thing now from the White House perspective seemingly would be to accept which way the wind is blowing on this, start twisting some arms and knocking some heads to make sure that Baye or Nelson or whoever stay on the reservation; and then reap all the accolades when the bill passes.

And when it does pass, presumably without a SINGLE Republican vote, Obama and Rahm can make a lot of political hay out of that too!


[ Parent ]
Sweet reason, I'm all for it (4.00 / 1)
Anyone who thinks Rahm Emanuel is afraid of us hasn't been paying attention. He thinks of us as means to an end at best, and the shit on his shoes at worst. This isn't likely to change unless we can find a way to mug him in an alley somewhere and take his Rolex.

What odds would you give of that happening anytime soon?


[ Parent ]
That's the thing (0.00 / 0)
if the PO were to just fall by the wayside in Conference there will be a freakin' Civil War in the Democratic Party. Rahm Emanuel may not like that but he's a smart guy... he has to understand that, and he has to take the Progressive wing very damn seriously at this point.

The smart thing now from the White House perspective seemingly would be to accept which way the wind is blowing on this, start twisting some arms and knocking some heads to make sure that Baye or Nelson or whoever stay on the reservation; and then reap all the accolades when the bill passes.

And when it does pass, presumably without a SINGLE Republican vote, Obama and Rahm can make a lot of political hay out of that too!


[ Parent ]
Rahm (4.00 / 4)

If he's twisting right arms for a change, instead of left arms, then that's a nice advantage going in. I just hope the WH is as all-in as they're saying they are. If the chronic mixed messaging finally comes to a stop, then that will be a good indicator.

 

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


Now that it looks like we'll get some sort of PO (4.00 / 1)
in the final bill, perhaps now it's a matter of how many arms Rahm will be twisting trying to  keep it as watered down as possible. Hate to be pessimistic, but let's face it - it's Rahm.

[ Parent ]
re: wh (4.00 / 6)
I just hope the WH is as all-in as they're saying they are.

do they have an option at this point?

a fail now is a white house fail


[ Parent ]
You are a wonderful phrasemaker today (4.00 / 3)
"not if he or she wants to avoid having their surname become a verb"

and I love this one

"twisting right arms for a change instead of left arms"

the end of mixed messaging would be good too...


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Thanks, Deb (0.00 / 0)

  Don't know, they just kind of came out...  :)

  Still polishing the Open Left trivia trophy from Pittsburgh?

   

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


[ Parent ]
I can't tell you how much I just loved it (0.00 / 0)
No trophy... I did win something...a disk but I had it already or something.....gave it to someone else....

I keep polishing the memory in my thoughts, though

Memories are gold.

I came to America as a child. I arrived in July and my very first memory is of a warm day ( July) somewhere in an urban environment,( I now know it was my Aunt's house in the Bronx and it was that summer because they soon moved to Brooklyn) standing 2 steps from the top of the stairs of a stoop watching other children play in the street.  I still remember my sense of wonderment.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Keep the opt out. (4.00 / 8)
Just make sure it's written so that it's never likely to be used, a la the Snowe Trigger.

Then focus your compromise efforts on more important things, like reimbursement rates (Medicare+5) and especially universal access (let anyone enroll).


how would you do that? (0.00 / 0)
Since the public option wouldn't go into effect until 2013 anyway, it seems that state legislatures have plenty of time to opt out before people have a clue what they'd be missing.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Some rumors say that states will have to try it for a year before they can opt out. (4.00 / 1)
That would kill the opt out in my opinion.

But frankly I think it would be dead anyway, as long as the it takes a law passed through normal procedures to opt out. Even if a few states pass that, they would repeal it within a couple years once they see what they're missing.


[ Parent ]
Why not make the mechanism for a state to opt-out (4.00 / 1)
include a public referendum that would have to be put on a state-wide ballot and voted on by the citizen's of each state?

You know, actually use our democratic system for a change.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
This will resemble 1900s progressivism (4.00 / 3)
Where the benefits are directed at a privileged few, but denied to those who most truly need it.

We're about to acquiesce in the creation of a two-tier system, where some states have a public insurance option, and others do not. We've abandoned the concept of universality in order to cut a quick political deal at the expense of people in red states who need an escape from private insurance.

I see little to cheer here.


Maybe, maybe not (4.00 / 2)

 How many states declined stimulus money, even after their governors declared their Principled Objections to it? Even South Carolina elbowed Mark Sanford aside for the cash -- and this was pre-scandal.

 My guess is that a few reactionary states -- SC, UT, a couple others -- will opt-out at first. But enough of their citizens will raise a stink to keep the issue alive, particularly if they see their blue-state brethren enjoying the benefits of a public option without the sky falling.

  Lots of things can happen with the opt-out. It's a very shrewd POLITICAL idea -- it takes away the right-wingers' arguments about "federal government takeovers" and plays into their states' rights fetish. And as a PRACTICAL matter I doubt it's going to be all that bad. But we'll see.  

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


[ Parent ]
stimulus money is not the same as the public option (4.00 / 2)
The stimulus was all sweet and no sour. No corporate interests opposed it.

The insurance companies don't want the public option. Therefore they will seek to kill it, by lobbying statehouses to opt-out.

But enough of their citizens will raise a stink to keep the issue alive, particularly if they see their blue-state brethren enjoying the benefits of a public option without the sky falling.

Or maybe the people in the red states will say "Hey! Congress threw us under the bus just so they could have an easier time passing the buck! Screw them!"

There's no better way to give the teabaggers a real issue to demagogue on than to give people in some states access to government-run health insurance, while denying it to others.

It doesn't matter that it will be the state governments' decision that denied them the PO. It's always easier to blame the federal government than it is the local boys.

These red-state politicians have screwed over their constituencies for years and they still get reelected time and again, by A) taking tons of corporate money and B) demagoguing on culture-war bullshit.

There's no reason to believe it'll be any different this time.


[ Parent ]
money will trump big health fear-mongering (0.00 / 0)
in no-public option people in state A see yes-public option in state B paying less, the fear-mongering won't do anything

[ Parent ]
There's no reason to believe it'll be any different this time - not (4.00 / 2)
No, there ARE reasons to believe it will be different this time. The fact that we got to this point illustrates a bunch of reasons! The fact that we're here, able to do this, is the biggest. The web, and the netroots activists who have been learning how to harness the web, have made ALL the difference. The fact that when some political figure lies he/she can be rebutted seconds later has slowly but inexorably changed the battlefield (and will continue to do so). Things are out in the open now, more and more and more. Now when something is going on behind closed doors, we know it. No, we may not be able to attend the closed fundraising event paid for by some lobbyist, but, we know the event is going on. Jane Hamsher's whip project, insisting that our elected representatives make their positions public, has been huge. We certainly aren't getting full accountability, but we now have ways to demand it, ways to apply pressure -- and they've worked!

You are right that the republicans will attempt to spin whatever happens to their advantage, and will succeed to at least some extent. But the extent keeps getting smaller -- there's too many facts and too many voices pointing out the facts.


[ Parent ]
if we're that powerful, then we can force the Senate (4.00 / 1)
to do the job right and include a public option that is available to all Americans.

Simple as that.

As long as we are dealing with the US Congress, we can concentrate the forces of activists nationwide on one goal, and one legislature. Victory there means victory nationwide.

For an opt-out public option, we would have to fight fifty battles in fifty state legislatures, with a fraction of the support and interest and money we would have at the national level. And each victory would be only fractional.

Meanwhile we would be a house divided, with some states with the public option and others without, with all the attendant tensions that would create.

So, if we're serious about this, then we need to make sure things are done right the first time, rather than throwing up our hands and tossing the responsibility in the lap of the states.


[ Parent ]
then support the House bill (0.00 / 0)
and push for something better out of the conference.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Right On! (4.00 / 1)
The Internet is ours and we have the future! We elected Obama, we can do anything!

[ Parent ]
That's right, we elected Obama, (0.00 / 0)
And we can elect someone else in 2012.  I'm sorry I helped elect him now.  

He's turning out to be one of the biggest "Con Men" in history.


[ Parent ]
Ummm, point of fact. (4.00 / 1)
You say:
...[the opt-out] takes away the right-wingers' arguments about "federal government takeovers"....

That was supposed to be one of the selling points of the public option.  Apparently the tea baggers/party-ers/whatever-ers didn't get the memo.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.


[ Parent ]
The opt-out strategy (4.00 / 3)
is sort of like the Saskatchewan reform in reverse. And it plays, shrewdly yes, on some long standing GOP memes like 'states rights' and 'just say no' - to reform. It's almost Pavlovian for GOPers.

[ Parent ]
yes, one tier of NO option (0.00 / 0)
Would have been much better.

[ Parent ]
Medicare (0.00 / 0)
I'm from a red state, and while I will be very disappointed if GA opts out, I don't see it happening. Medicare has an opt-out provision and even at their most Randian moments I haven't heard anyone suggest a state opt out of Medicare. Inertia and cowardice are very powerful forces.

[ Parent ]
There's a state opt-out provision in Medicare? (0.00 / 0)
I know citizens can opt out, but that's a personal choice, and I'm fine with that.  No one should be required to participate in social benefits programs if they don't want them.  But I didn't know states could opt out of it.  You got a link to that?

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.


[ Parent ]
Whoops, (0.00 / 0)
meant "Medicaid".

[ Parent ]
Oh, well in that case, you're wrong. (0.00 / 0)
Medicaid is opt-in, as I've had to point out twice, now.

Shorter version:
Medicaid is a series of state run programs that recieve federal subsidies as long as the states abide by federal regulations.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.


[ Parent ]
Ratchet (4.00 / 3)
States cannot opt out after 2014, but it seems they can opt back in whenever they want.  (At least I doubt there is any explicit rule that says they cannot.)  That means we get the ratchet effect on our side.  We only need approval once, but they need disapproval all the time.

[ Parent ]
Thanks Mike! (4.00 / 5)
You've been a terrific voice of reason and cautious optimism throughout this tumultuous and often discouraging process. I'm still processing the fact that we got to this point - we're so used to disappointments!  

this sounds like the foundation of the sell out (0.00 / 0)
which will be happening in a week or 4.

YAWN - golly gomer, I hope I'm wrong, but ...

imagine if obama wasn't a sell out and had knocked heads over this, he would have passed his tax cut to the wealthy and ruined clintons surplus in May, well before sept 11 ...

oh, shit ... I'm mixing up events.

Dummy Dumb Me!

IF I don't do those fucker's jobs, then it is MY fault nothing improves!

thanks for the rah rah. got any ideas to get rid of the f'king slimeballs who keep selling us out, or, is that not nice ... will it get you kicked off the secret phone call and secret email lists?

rmm.

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way


the Kucinich amendment (0.00 / 0)
is Harry Reid backing the Kucinich amendment to permit states to do their own single payer plans, is the Obama administration backing it?

The finance bill already has a similar provision... (0.00 / 0)
the HELP bill did not... in fact a similar amendment was defeated in the HELP committee.  I presume it survived the melding process.  If so, it is compatible with the Kucinich amendment which will be in the house bill.  that makes it difficult to strip out.

This one seems to be in good shape and can be completed under the radar!

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!


[ Parent ]
What If? (0.00 / 0)
I keep wondering if Obama and Emmanuel made promises to the health insurance companies that we don't know about, and thus the ability of the administration to get fully behind a more progressive bill is limited?

I don't think (4.00 / 1)
that is beyond the realm of possibility. At all.  

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 2)
But short of Mr. Obama speaking out unequivocally in favor of Reid's compromise bill, I withhold my unequivocal support. Until Mr. Obama, as President, makes clear in adult terms that he will accept nothing less than the bill Senator Reid has proposed, this fight is his to lose, not mine.

I've fought for 30 years since I was able to vote to make America a country that cares more for its people than corporations. Mr. Obama has not. Today's announcement by Reid is a step in the right direction, but this still comes down to whether Obama will do what he promised during his campaign and deliver.


Don't hold your breath! (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Yell it out! (0.00 / 0)


Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.


[ Parent ]
"This is the fight of our lives" (4.00 / 2)
Unfortunately I think we are going to have a number of such fights on our hands: climate, Afghanistan,...I fear we are on our own, with little help from the much-heralded Obama team. They seem to have a much different definition of change than I do. Hopefully some of the reviled Congress may show some signs of spunk. (I don't count on it. But I think it is more likely coming from there than from the White House).

The WH is ready to roll"???? (4.00 / 1)
You mean steam roll???

"President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...


yeah that's two days old and the WH denied it and so did Reid (4.00 / 3)
next.  

[ Parent ]
Dear Shainzona: (4.00 / 2)
Are you in a different time zone? Like on Pluto?  This is old, old news ... inoperative, debunked and buried.

[ Parent ]
Hey, if you believe the WH spin, then..... (0.00 / 0)
I have a bridge I'd like to talk to you about.

HuffPost is obviously also "behind" in the news.  However, I sitll maintain...don't hold your breath when it comes to Mr. Zero.


Hey, if you believe the WH spin, then..... (0.00 / 1)
I have a bridge I'd like to talk to you about.

HuffPost is obviously also "behind" in the news.  However, I sitll maintain...don't hold your breath when it comes to Mr. Zero.


we progressives got what we wanted? (4.00 / 2)
A public opt-out wasn't on any progressive agenda I ever read. I never thought for more than a few weak moments it was a good idea. Still don't, and I am a progressive.

Are there no triggers? Specifically, will there be no person cut off from buying into a public plan because they earn middle or upper income levels?

Does this start on day one.. or within year one? (See I'm flexible)

Are we certain the middle income folks aren't going to bare the brunt of the costs.. instead of some progressive or outright serious tax on the rich?

Does anyone have a pdf. copy of any of Harry's versions sent to CBO? If not, has anyone we know and trust read it and listed specific answers to my questions above?

I have a whole bunch of brand new Prius (in old Pinto bodies) for y'all real cheap.. if you all are ready to call a P.O. victory today.

I really don't understand the excitement in Open Left these days.. some good news, yes... but we call victory now and we absolutely cede the possibility of it when it counts, imo.


Some thoughts, though probably no answers. (4.00 / 2)
I'm with you 100% on the opt-out.  I cannot fathom why having that is considered a good thing in any way.

The only trigger that was possibly under consideration was the Snowe trigger, and everything I've read says that won't be in the bill.  Proof is in the pudding, of course, but I feel pretty confident in saying there won't be a trigger.

The Wyden amendment would allow everyone access to the PO, but so far, I've heard no indication it will be in the bill.  So unless there's some major change I'm not aware of, the PO will still only be available to the desperate.

We'll probably be lucky if it starts in 2014, but my understanding of the purpose of that date is sketchy.  It may have something to do with the opt-out instead of (or in addition to) the start date.

The Senate version uses Schumer's "Level Playing Field" PO.  That means the PO has to function like an independent insurance organization.  The only funds coming into it will be from those paying their premiums and whatever other fees there may be.  This does not fit the definition of a "robust, Medicare-like PO" IMO, but I'm willing to listen to arguments for it.

AFAIK, what Reid sent to the CBO is not available to the public.

The only good news is that Reid, Baucus, and Rham realized they couldn't bring a bill to the floor without a PO of some sort.  That's certainly something to cheer about since it defied everything the Village and its CW predicted, but I agree with you that this is by no means a victory.  This is like breaching the castle's outer wall.  It's a big step to achieving our goal, but our opponents haven't surrendered, yet.  The battle's far from over.

Health insurance is not health care.
If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
Watch out for flying kabuki.


[ Parent ]
Democratic filibuster is a nuclear option (4.00 / 9)
This isn't some garden variety bill. This is landmark legislation, decades in the making and a generationally defining moment for the party and the nation. Obstructing and preventing your own party so near success on this bill is a nuclear act. It should have nuclear consequences.

Any Democrat that filibusters this bill will be finished in Democratic politics. They should be kicked out of the Senate Democratic caucus and, frankly, they should consider just leaving the party entirely. Quite simply, it would be a disgrace beyond rehabilitation within the party.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


Excellent, Mike. (0.00 / 0)
Especially this:

Look, I am not trying to make threats here at all, I am just a lowly consultant. What I am suggesting is that everyone in the progressive movement is going to have very, very long memories about this highest of high priorities for us.

I hope Blanche Lincoln can hear this and Andy Stern's and Richard Trumka's message.  

If she destroys the bill, a third party candidate will arise with the sole purpose of defeating her.    


Game On | 56 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox