Representative Tom Perriello, Live on Open Left, 4 p.m. eastern, Sunday

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 15:58


(Alright, the chat is over.  Thanks to Representative Perriello!  Some technical difficulties required me to post Tom's responses under my name.  Check them out in the extended entry!  -- promoted by Chris Bowers)

At 4 p.m. eastern on Sunday, Representative Tom Perriello will be taking your questions here at Open Left.  He will be talking about the upcoming House vote to repeal the anti-trust exemption for the health insurance industry.

Ask him about health care, or about anything you like.  Post a question in the comments, as I will be bumping this thread back up to the top of the blog at 4 p.m. Sunday for the liveblog!

Chris Bowers :: Representative Tom Perriello, Live on Open Left, 4 p.m. eastern, Sunday

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Representative Tom Perriello, Live on Open Left, 4 p.m. eastern, Sunday | 47 comments
Three questions (4.00 / 4)
1. Given that Congressman Perriello worked as an activist outside government prior to being elected, what is his view on what progressives in the grassroots need to be doing (more? differently?) to move the country in a more progressive direction...?

2. What's his view on why the antitrust legislation he's sponsoring ought to be important to us?

3. Is he planing to attend Netroots Nation this summer?

This is Chris responding for Tom (4.00 / 3)
(Sorry, technical difficulties)

1. What does the movement need to be doing?

I believe the movement needs to continue operating on two levels - blunt people-powered organizing to score legislative victories, and introducing and reinforcing a strong narrative into our politics. You, for example, have written about corporate capture of government as a common thread between Wall Street bailouts, Citizens United, watered down healthcare reform, and energy. While most of us have read Lakoff, few seemed to have turned this into action. For this reason, Americans simultaneously think we are doing too much and not enough. Too much because we offer a rapid fire of legislation without explaining how all of these are coordinated parts of providing economic relief to working families. Too little because they elected us to be different. To stand up for them. To get rid of the Ben Nelson style carve outs. Right now most working and middle class Americans are furious that they are working their tails off and have seen nothing in return. Meanwhile they see the most rich and powerful bailed out by Washington. In the meantime, though, people-powered organizing continues to be key. The other side is robo-pounding our offices on a regular basis and, to their credit, the tea party movement is doing real grassroots organizing.

But the movement also needs a victory, and that is on us in Congress to deliver. While that ultimately rests on the Senate to clean up the bill, we should continue to produce results that protect patients and reframe debates, which brings me to...

2. Why care about anti-trust?

This is an approach we have not seen enough of - start with a pure, clean bill, not with some compromised thing just because it might survive the Senate. This issue is clear and asks every politician in Washington whether they stand with patients or the profiteers behind health insurance monopolies. Chairwoman Slaughter, Rep Defazio, Rep. Degette and others have been championing this simple but powerful caase for a long time, and progress often came at the price of "safe harbor" provisions that were big enough to drive a oil tanker through. This is a simple two-page bill that removes the extraordinary monopoly protections from the health insurance companies. Simple. Ask the Republicans where they stand? Ask Democrats who have been so close to corporate interest groups where they stand. This fight next week is a chance to do something real for patients and consumers, and it is also a chance to redefine this reform debate in a simple way - who is with the people, and who is with health insurance monopolies.

3. Netroots nation

Unlikely, but thanks for the invitation. Maybe it should get moved to central or southern viriginia where people can visit and spend lots of money - we need it.

[ Parent ]
Do other members of Congress understand (0.00 / 0)
the important role that the movement plays?  Are they thinking about how to bridge the gap between themselves and the movement?

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.
[ Parent ]
Why don't Democrats copy Scott Brown's success with online ads? (4.00 / 3)
First, Representative Perriello, thank you for signing the Polis/Pingree letter.

Next, my question. In the Senate race in Massachusetts, Brown bought large amounts of advertising on Google sites such as YouTube, Gmail, and search. "If you were in Massachusetts, pretty much all day every day you would see a Scott Brown ad," according to Google spokesman Galen Panger.

Beginning Thursday, the Brown campaign began what's known as a Google network blast, an advertising tactic that floods Google content network Web pages in a particular geographic area with display ads from one advertiser...

The campaign also used ads in YouTube, gmail and search. Rick Klein of ABC News sees the use of online advertising as one sign that the Republicans might have closed the technology gap with Democrats that was so evident in the 2008 election. He mentions specifically the Brown campaign's success in "using Google AdWords to direct people searching for both his name and Coakley's to his campaign Web site." (emphasis added)

Why don't Democrats use the same online campaign tactics -- flooding on-line advertising networks with ads, targeting oppositional searches for your ads, etc. -- to promote Democratic policies like health care reform and also to help Democrats in the fall elections? It feels like Republican politicians like Brown are embracing online advertising while Democratic politicians leave it up to liberal blogs to get the word out for free.

As an example, I just searched Google for "health care reform" (4.00 / 1)
The search produced many ads, but I didn't see a single ad sponsored by the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, or OFA. Only Rock the Vote had an ad that linked to a page supporting health care reform. Three conservative groups -- FreedomWorks, Conservatives for Patient Rights, and ObamaCare Lemon -- all had Google ads linking to pages attacking health care reform. The FreedomWorks and CPR ads came up all the time; ads attacking health care reform were far more prevalent than ads supporting it.

Why isn't the DCCC or any other Democratic party organization sponsoring Google ads linked to "health care reform"? Also, are you -- or any other Democratic members of Congress that you know of -- using Google's ability to target geographical locations to sponsor advertising to your constituents, either on health care reform or other topics?

[ Parent ]
This is Chris responding for Tom (0.00 / 0)
(technical difficulties--I am posting Tom's responses for him right now--chirs)

All for OnLine Ads

Democrats have enjoyed an online organizing advantage for a few election cycles, but Scott Brown's campaign and others have shown that the other side has caught up to speed. Online ads can be useful, though they are honestly more difficult for local races like mine. The Massachusetts campaign took on national significance, making those ads more effective, but again there is no reason it cannot work at a smaller scale.

[ Parent ]
Just to clarify (4.00 / 1)
The Scott Brown online advertisements that the WSJ article refers to were not national ads. Google only displayed the ads to people located in Massachusetts. The "network blast" was "an advertising tactic that flood[ed] Google content network Web pages in a particular geographic area with display ads from one advertiser..." (emphasis added)

Any member of Congress could target their own ads so only the people located in or nearby their congressional district would see them.

[ Parent ]
Perriello is a brave man and should be lauded. (4.00 / 1)
He represents a fairly conservative district (home to some nutsos that wanted to hang him in effigy), but manages to hold his own quite well.
It's the economy, stupid (4.00 / 3)
And an increasing number of people in the US feel that Congress isn't doing enough to help them in these difficult times. I'm sure those people would like to know more about what Congressman Perriello thinks about economic problems:

1. Mr. Perriello, in the past, outsourcing to countries like China has been a major problem for your district. It's well known that especially China enjoys unfair trade advantages. What can and will Congress do to fight this, and to secure US jobs?

2. The current crisis was sparked by financially irresponsible behaviour of banks and financial institutes. And many WallStreet insiders even profitted fom the downturn by shortselling, and other, more complicated financial "products" which essentially are bets on a companies fall. What is being discussed in Congress to stop this kind of gambling which is hurting the economy, and where do you stand on this issue?

3. Those bankers are flying high again, enjoying huge bonuses, even though their companies had just been saved from bankruptcy with billions of taxpayers' dollars. Those payments also reduce the profits of the shareholders, and consequently the savings of millions of hard working people who rely on stock funds for their retirement. What is Congress doing to stop the self-serving practice of the bankers, and what is your own stance on this?

It is absolutely the Economy Stupid (4.00 / 1)
Sorry--technical difficulties. I am posting Tom's responses for him right now--Chris)

Yes. Jobs. Absolutely. My district includes towns with over 20% unemployment. Rural counties in the high-teens. Each of those statistics represents a family crushed by job loss, and hundreds more who fear they might be next. When Wall Street stood on the verge of collapse, Washington responded with unprecedented speed and scope. While I personally opposed the bailouts, I respected that leaders understood the gravity of the situation. Why has Washington been unable to act with the same boldness when it comes to jobs? I support a new jobs bill every two weeks funded by returned bailout funds. This must include direct lending to small business, infrastructure and public works, commercial, residential and municipal retrofits ("cash for caulkers"), and any other plan focused on job creation.

But I also see health care as an economic issue, particularly bringing down premiums for middle class families. The Consumer Federation of America says removing monopoly protection from health insurance company will save billions of dollars for working and middle class families. If this were just about the moral obligation to cover the uninsured, we could expand Medicaid, but this is about economic relief for those who already have insurance.

The House pushed through a jobs bill in December - too small but well focused on job creation and direct lending to small business. It is time for the Senate to make a move as if their own jobs depended on it.

[ Parent ]
YES, indeed! Every single percent means million of families! (0.00 / 0)
That's the danger in talking about numbers: We can easily forget that they represent lots of people! But the difference between 9 and 10 percent can mean about a million households with a horrible loss of income. This isn't simply a minor change in statistical numbers, that's a national tragedy!
[ Parent ]
However, I hav to say... (0.00 / 0)
...even tough it sure shows the right(left) spirit, I see this as the weakest answer in this discussion. Congressman Perriello, imho the economy will bcome the most important topic in the campaigns, and if folks ask about you stance on China, or banks, or bonusses, which will undoubdetly happen, it would be good igf you had good, detailed answers at hand which speicifically mentions those topics! And I don't mean this as a criticism, but as an encouragement to be prepared for this, and not to leave people with the feeling you averted adressing their point.

Really, imho the economy will be an important topic, and especially the questions "how to deal with China" and "how can it be prevented that banks build another bubble"! And the people will want to hear straight answers on this.

[ Parent ]
OT, Chris, but did you, or Paul, contact OL user SarahBurris? (0.00 / 1)
You sure have noticed, Paul promoted the excellent article  "Youth turnout: Oregon special election far outpaced Mass--for good reasons" to the frontpage:
http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

Great work, important info, and an encouragement for progessives to counter the lameness of Dem leadership with a bottom up approach. But is Sarrah even aware her diary receives such attention here now? She isn't a regular commenter, and she didn't weigh in in that discussion thread yet (hasn't commented since 2008!).

Chris, wouldn't it be a good idea to contact Sarah, point out that her story has been promoted, and of course thank her for her great story? Again, imho we should encourage the posting of such quality diaries here, and make sure the authors can participate in the resulting discussions. Thx.

Hmm, noticing that I shouldn't rely on others... (0.00 / 0)
...for stuff I can do myself, I checked back at Futuremajority and found Sarah's blog there. Good stuff:
http://futuremajority.com/blog...

Sadly, there is a problem with their spam filter now, which sems to be down and blocking both new comments and mails send through their form. So, it may still be a good idea if Chris would send an email...

[ Parent ]
VA GOP Says Existence Of Winter Disproves Global Warming---What Say You? (4.00 / 1)
TPM has a story about a new GOP web ad using the existence of winter to deny global warming:

Virginia GOP: Tell Cap-And-Trade Dems How Much 'Global Warming' You Get This Weekend! (VIDEO)
Christina Bellantoni | February 5, 2010, 12:53PM

The Virginia Republican Party is out with a whopper Web video today mocking the incoming massive snowstorm as "global warming."

Showing images of cars stuck in giant snow banks, ominous weather reports and a ruler showing more than a foot of the white fluffy stuff, the Virginia GOP attempts to exploit the storm for political gain.

The ad, called "12 inches of Global Warming" is specifically targeting Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Tom Perriello (D-VA) in advance of the fall midterm elections.

Boucher and Perriello "think global warming is a serious problem for Virginia" the ad claims, "so serious" they voted to "kill jobs" by backing the House cap-and-trade bill this summer.

The Web ad, set to soothing music, asks Virginians to call Boucher and Periello "and tell them how much global warming you get this weekend. Maybe they'll come help you shovel."

As one of the targets of the ad, I'd like to know Representative Periello's response.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

And, pls, kiss! (0.00 / 0)
Uh, keep it simple, stupid (no insult intended). I mean, imho it would be good to focus on the effects on average people. Is Cap and Trade something they have to be afraid of, or not?
[ Parent ]
Global Warming Ad (4.00 / 3)
(Sorry--technical difficulties. I am posting Tom's responses for him right now--Chris)

I was asked about it on ABC on Friday and suggested that if the Republicans spent this time shoveling their neighbors driveways instead of shoveling this kind of baloney, we might all be better off. There are obviously serious issues with not knowing the difference between global warming and climate change or just rejecting science, but sometimes its not even worth swigning at the pitch.

And thanks for the BVS reference, but bored now.

[ Parent ]
Grrrr! Arrgh! (4.00 / 1)


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
"could you try that once more with feeling?" (0.00 / 0)
(Sorry--technical difficulties. I am posting Tom's responses for him right now--Chris)
[ Parent ]
"Bored Now" Is Not A Feeling (4.00 / 1)

It's an attitude.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
War/IMF vote last June (0.00 / 0)
Why were you happy to vote for war money?
Why did you oppose the IMF banker bailout?
When the Dem leadership told freshman they would be "dead to us" if they voted No, were you one of them?
What were you threatened with and promised to win your Yes vote?
Why, shortly after the vote, did people like Steny Hoyer and Van Jones come down to Charlottesville to do events with you announcing nothing in particular?
Why, shortly after the vote, did the DCCC buy you radio ads?
You took over a million from the DCCC at the end of your last campaign.  What would be your chances of reelection if they cut you off this time?
To what extent do you represent us in your district and to what extent the leader of a party in Washington?
Have you done anything since you got to Washington that the Dem Party ordered you not to?
Have you seen any of your colleagues do such a thing?
What do you think the role of parties should be?
You've cosponsored the Fair Elections Act - what will you do to advance it?
How much good will it do with the "Citizens United " ruling in place?
What will you do to undo that ruling?
Will you cosponsor Congresswoman Edwards' amendment?
And how shall Dems react on people who have too many questions? (0.00 / 0)
Rep. Periello, what do you see as the most urgent questions, and how to you cope with the deep distrust people have towards Congress now?
[ Parent ]
Let me try these in reverse order (4.00 / 2)
(Sorry--technical difficulties. I am posting Tom's responses for him right now--Chris)

Let me try these in reverse order. I think the Citizens United decision was a disaster for our democracy and an embarrassment of jurisprudential reasoning. Not only was this judicial activism, overturning a decision of just 6 years earlier, but also it was one of those times when brilliant people can reach stupid conclusions. Last year, the justices were faced with a similar case of corporate expenditures to buy elections and they decided it created at least the perception of corruption. In that case it was the election of State Supreme Court Justices who then sat on cases impacting the very corporations that elected them (I highly recommend reading John Grisham's The Appeal for the story behind such cases). In the world that they know - the judicial branch - they understood that corporate expenditures corrupt, but they somehow left logic at the door for applying this to federal offices with even higher stakes at play.

As for next steps, I support public financing of elections, including the fairly creative approach taken by the Fair Elections Now Act. I will also support a number of the proposals floated to address the new problems created by this decision. However, thus far I have not signed on to a Constitutional Amendment for one major reason - I think the Constitution already protects these sorts of laws and believe that the decades of precedent should be restored through subsequent decisions. I do not want to concede that our Constitution lacks this authority. The Constitutional framers had an utterly different view of corporations at a time when the state granting corporate charters was a major step, not something filed online for a couple of bucks.

As for my breaks with the party, I have continued to vote against the bailouts, opposed the President's budget, rejected the financial regs bill because it had too many loopholes for the biggest actors and insufficient support for our community banks, demanded greater transparency, and voted to investigate some of the most powerful members of my own party. I have also supported energy independence and healthcare reform because I believe they were the right things to do for my district and my country, and I was clear about that in my campaign and sense then. As for the IMF Bailout, while I am proud to support foreign aid, I opposed that bailout for the same reason I opposed the US bailout - pouring in cash first and promising to fix the rules later is dumb policy. I will continue to follow my convictions

As for the vote on wartime supplemental, I ran on the Responsible Plan for Iraq and for a substantial realignment of strategy in Af-Pak. While I have been disappointed in the subsequent development of a "new" Afghanistan strategy, I do not feel like the vote in the spring (CHECK) for the supplemental was inconsistent with those two positions. Furthermore, I joined a small number of Democrats in voting that the President must provide Congress with a timeline and strategy for completing the mission in Afghanistan. As usual, the debate in Afghanistan has been about how big the lever should be when the reality is that we have no fulcrum to lean against. It is rotten to the core. I opposed the bailouts because you do not give what the problem-creators want - cash - and then ask for what the American public needs - predictability and accountability from strong financial regs - later down the line. Nor do you give President Karzai what he needs first - more US troops - and then demand what we need - cleaning house on corruption and better human intelligence - later down the line.

[ Parent ]
Pelosi's "make the Senate go first" (4.00 / 1)
A few months ago, sources reported that Speaker Pelosi would not force House members to take any more "politically tough" votes until the Senate goes first.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately told her politically vulnerable Democratic members that they will not vote on controversial bills in 2010 unless the Senate acts first.

After a year of bruising legislative victories that some political analysts believe have done more to jeopardize her majority than to entrench it, Pelosi is shifting gears for the 2010 election.

The Speaker recently assured her freshman lawmakers and other vulnerable members of her caucus that a vote on immigration reform is not looming despite a renewed push from the White House and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The House will not move on the issue until the upper chamber passes a bill, Pelosi told the members.

Presumably, this goes for immigration reform and a number of LGBT rights issues.

1. Given that you come from a marginal district, what is your honest opinion on this decision? For reference, I argued against her decision in a piece here.

2. Would you give your opinion on the "mood" in the House and realistic opportunities for critical items to accomplish before the midterms, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act?


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

What Makes the Senate Go At All? (4.00 / 1)
(Sorry--technical difficulties. I am posting Tom's responses for him right now--Chris)

In general, there is an exhaustion on the House side of passing bills only to watch them die in the Senate - including bills that were already watered down in attempt to make them more Senate-friendly. However, there is a second strain of thought right now which is that the electorate is asking us to pick sides. They want to know who - if anyone - in Washington is working for them and not just the people and corporations that write the big checks. In this sense, there are many in the House more than happy to put Senators on the hotseat about these issues.

As I wrote above, this is part of why the anti-trust fight is exciting. Not only would be a great victory for consumers, but the House is actually starting with the bill it thinks is right for the American people - a full repeal of the monopoly protections without the "safe harbor" wiggle room. Will the Senate accept this? I cannot say that, but I would not want to be the Senator demanding a filibuster to protect health insurance monopolies.

As for the LGBT agenda, I think DODT is the focus right now, and seems likely to move. Employment Non-Discrimination does not seem out of the realm of the possible, but I really don't have particularly good intel on that. (But your updates from state efforts have been very helpful for some inside the beltway--keep them coming.) As for comprehensive immigration reform, my read is that this is unlikely to gain serious momentum this year. But on all of these, I am a lowly freshman and not your best source.

[ Parent ]
Financial reform - your vote against HR 4173 (0.00 / 0)
Given that financial reform seems to be back in the news, I'm curious to hear why you voted against H.R. 4173 - "The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009". What aspects of the bill did you want changed?

Do you support Rep. Maurice Hinchey's bill to restore the Glass-Steagall Act? In the Senate, Maria Cantwell and John McCain have also introduced a bill to restore Glass-Steagall.

What economics and finance blogs do you read?

When Half a Loaf is just not enough -- Financial Reform: (4.00 / 1)
(Sorry--technical difficulties. I am posting Tom's responses for him right now--Chris)

While I respect those who worked hard on this legislation, I watched while amendment after amendment introduced loopholes big enough to drive the next Great Recession through. On the exotic derivatives trading amendments, we had less than 100 Representatives vote for them. I felt we ended up with the worst of both worlds - too many holes for the biggest players and not enough support for our community banks that, I believe, need to be a bigger part of the equation. Again, strong financial regulations are essential, and again want to send some props to those who worked on it, but this is another example of where the interest groups water things down on the way to 218 before completely drowning it in a sea of 60.

[ Parent ]
Glass-Steagall (4.00 / 1)
Do you support Rep. Hinchey's bill to restore Glass-Steagall? He lists the original cosponsors as U.S. Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA), and John Tierney (D-MA).
[ Parent ]
Once again, this is Chris posting a response from Tom (4.00 / 2)
Brian, In the absence of a serious new financial reg regime, we would be better of returning to glass-steagall, and I would support that.
[ Parent ]
Does He Support The National Conference of State Legislatures' Education Proposal? (4.00 / 2)
I just posted a diary about a new report from the The National Conference of State Legislatures "Education at a Crossroads: A New Direction for Federal and State Education Policy."

The report--produced by a bipartisan panel of state legislators--acknowledges the crucial role of the federal government in the past in making sure that all children recieve a public education, and it recognizes the importance of process-oriented regulations in achieving that goal.  But it argues that that approach is very ill-suited to the problems we now face.

It's sharply critical of the top-down, cookie-cutter, process-oriented approach that's common to both Bush's "No Child Left Behind" and Obama "Race To The Top," and it has a set of recommendation for taking a very different approach that allows states to craft policies that best fit their challenges as well as their specific geographic, demograchic and historical realities--but holds them accountable for bottom line results.

Their main recommendations are:

  • Concentrate available federal funding on those populations most at-risk, using a research-based formula that emphasizes the neediest students instead of trying to leverage system-wide reforms with the 7 percent federal contribution.
  • Funding IDEA [the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] at promised levels would immediately free $16 billion annually that, because of federal maintenance of effort requirements, would be redirected to reform and innovation at the state and local levels.
  • Make permanent changes to the tax credit provisions of the bonding laws that apply to school construction.  This action also would free tens of billions of dollars in state and local resources that would otherwise be spent on debt-service for school bonds.
  • Revitalize the federal focus on research and reporting on what works and why without picking or mandating how and when "winning strategies" should be required by law or "encouraged" by withholding additional federal resources.
  • Use any remaining funding to reward and encourage true innovation-not conformity with others or compliance with a checklist of reforms, but progress toward performance gains.

Since it was just released this past Monday, I do not expect Representative Perriello to be familiar with the report, but I would like to know (a) if he is sympathetic to the concerns of state legislators, whose leaders (in writing this report) have decades of experience in dealing with education policy in their states; (b) if he's willing study their report and seriously consider it; and (c) if he's willing to support them in opposition to the reining consensus in Washington if he finds their report to be compelling and convincing.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Once again, this is Chris posting Tom's response (4.00 / 1)
Paul, I have not read those reports but will take a look. I do think one of the ironies of Republican opposition to the recovery act was the fact that about 40% of it was just funding an unfunded federal mandate that they have been railing against for years.  
[ Parent ]
Chris LaCivita and the "tea partiers" (0.00 / 0)
Tom: I was just curious if you saw this story on Chris "Swift Boat" LaCivita bashing the "tea party" candidates in the 5th CD. Referring to the half dozen or so "tea partiers," LaCivita - Sen. Robert Hurt's campaign manager - commented that "if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you think you can be a member of Congress." Not surprisingly, the "tea party" people are livid at LaCivita (and Hurt) right now. Anyway, I was wondering what you thought of LaCivita's comments and whether you think they reflect the attitude of Robert Hurt and the Republican establishment in the 5th CD (and nationally).  More broadly, how do you see this "tea party" vs. Republican establishment contest playing out in the 5th CD over the next few months? Thanks.
Campaign Finance Ethics (0.00 / 0)
Tom: Do you think that Robert Hurt is violating the intent of the ethics law prohibiting state representatives from raising money during the General Assembly session?  According to "tea partier" Laurence Verga, "Although it may be legal, it certainly isn't ethical. The American people are tired of career politicians like Senator Hurt who put their personal aspirations above their ethical obligations." What do you think? Thanks.
5th CD Tea Party debate (4.00 / 1)
Tom: Which of the following comments from the 5th CD "Tea Party" debate a few weeks ago do you think was the funniest?

1. Feda Morton bragging about being a science teacher and then claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant.

2. Ken Boyd claiming that "cap and trade" was contrary to the "right to work." Huh?

3. Laurence Verga not understanding that the EPA is part of the Executive Branch.

4. Jim McKelvey stating that the Republicans view the tea partiers as a "bunch of aliens."

5. Mike McPadden and Ron Ferrin arguing that shutting down the government is a great idea.

Tough choices, I know. ;) And just think, the extreme Islamophobe/homophobe/xenophobe Virgil Goode wasn't even there! What a bunch.

RaisingFeld (4.00 / 2)
(Sorry--technical difficulties. I am posting Tom's responses for him right now--Chris)

Lowell, thanks for the questions and for doing so much to build the Dem party in Virginia, including calling us each out when we fall short of what we promised during the poetry of campaign season I will leave much of the campaign analysis to you and others, but we will once again not lack for interesting story lines in the Virginia Fifth. While some are tempted to find pleasure in watching the Republican party and tea party duke it out, I believe the stakes and the differences are very serious. I tend to give the tea party a lot more credit than some Dems, and I have four different networks in my district. We disagree on many things, and I do not try to whitewash those differences, but most are people of deep conviction with a keen sense of the collusion between big business and big government. The soul of the tea party movement is yet to be defined, and I respect a group of citizens that stands

As for my race, I have always benefited from being underestimated by the Republicans and from their almost comical attempts to paint me as a scary "other" from the outside. Now we have tea party members validating that I am the most homegrown of the candidates. I will keep focusing on jobs and economic relief for working families, for how to rebrand southern Virginia as the future energy capital of the nation, and working that double shift in Congress every day for those working two shifts back home to make ends meet.

Keep fighting the good fight, Lowell.

[ Parent ]
Imho a very realistic approach by Perriello (0.00 / 0)
He's absolutely right, there are some among the teabaggers who rightly protest the influence of big business, and it's a good idea to listen to them. And the more reasonable among them will then see that Congressman Perriello represents their interests! This isn't a question of party affiliation, but of values and boldness. And I'm not surprised that Perriello connects to those protestors better than his Republican adversaries!
[ Parent ]
One Question: (0.00 / 0)
1.  What is the momentum to get comprehensive health care reform done and signed by the president ASAP?
Momentum is a Power Thing (4.00 / 3)
(Sorry--technical difficulties. I am posting Tom's responses for him right now--Chris)

"I'll tell you where momentum is not: the Senate. We're doing a lot to try to move healthcare reform, and members from both chambers are becoming more vocal about our frustration in that regard. Hopefully, the End Health Insurance Monopolies bill will be a good chance for the Senate to start rolling in that direction. Courageous members of Congress like Slaughter, Defazio, Markey and Degette are leading the charge on ending health insurance monopolies but this is also a simple question asked of the Senate - are you with patients or are you with the corporations that are racking up record profits in the health insurance industry.

Thanks everyone for the great questions and comments and keep up the fight for turning all that hope into something that puts food on the table for American families."

[ Parent ]
You're very welcome, Congressman. (0.00 / 0)
If I lived in your district, I'd work day and night for your re-election campaign.
[ Parent ]
"are you with patients or are you with the corporations" Indeed! (0.00 / 0)
That is the question! I really like Perriello's ability to boil down issues to the basic problems behind them. Imho it's evidence of a lawmaker who is able to look though the brouhaha, and not let it affect his value based decisions. We need more of those honest liberals!
[ Parent ]
Two questions (4.00 / 3)
1. What steps do you think should be taken in response to the Citizens United v FEC case? I thought this tweet of yours

when I worked in W Africa, companies gave $ to public officials for private gain and we had a simple word for it: corruption

was right on and I was wondering what kind of response you'd advocate to fight that.

2. Where do you stand on the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy? The President, Pentagon, military leadership and other retired military leaders such as Colin Powell have recently called for its reform and it is likely that you will either take a vote on repealing it or on a Defense bill that repeals it. Would you vote to join General Powell, Admiral Mullen and others in helping repeal the policy?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

thank you (4.00 / 1)
I'm not going to ask a question because there are already so many good ones above, but thanks to everyone involved for doing this.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
And a comment (4.00 / 1)
that I don't particularly expect you to respond to, but I want to get off my chest.

You are coming here to promote the anti-trust bill. While that may be nice and smart politics for us in the fall, it's worthless and insulting to our intelligence to think we will buy that as progress.

It is probably a minority opinion at this site, but the cowardice of the House Democrats on healthcare in the last weeks has been incredibly disillusioning. Democrats have the chance to pass the greatest social policy advancement of our generation and we may screw it up beacause House Democrats are too worried about their re-elections to get it done.

I guess it comes back to this post you made on TPMCafe more than two years ago about conviction politics. That's what got me involved in your campaign and I've been a huge fan ever since. But the refusal of you and your fellow Democrats in the House to take leadership on this issue reeks of the poll driven politics you decried then. This is why we are Democrats, this is what we should be doing when we are in power. Yes, the Senate and the White House have blame in this, yes the House bill is better. But that won't matter to the thousands who will suffer and die if the House doesn't get it done. When a political party cannot deliver on the most essential planks of it's platform when it has the power to do so and has spent years working towards the 5 yard line, when all that happens and they throw it away, why should it's most loyal suporters continue working for that party? That's exactly how I and many of my comrades who have been working on this for years feel. We're on 4th and goal, under ten seconds left, trailing by 6 and the Democratic leadership is deciding to punt the ball. Don't let them do that, show your leadership.

/rant

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Populista, I hear your frustration (4.00 / 2)
(Sorry--technical difficulties. I am posting Tom's responses for him right now--Chris)

I hear your frustration and know how hard you fought for real healthcare reform, but the ramifications of playing the middle class off against the working class and poor are not just matters of bad policy. They play to the very soul of the progressive and populist cause. It is not a coincidence the support for healthcare reform plummeted once the Senate began redrafting the bill. I believe people are basically smart and decent and they know when someone is standing up for them (the House) and when they are placating the powerful (the Senate). This is not a turf battle or ruffled feathers. This is deep policy differences about whether we stand up for working and middle class Americans or for the rich. If the Senate fixes the tax on benefits, eliminates the carve outs and back room deals, reinstates at least a federal exchange, and demands negotiated prescription drug rates, then it is a bill for the people again. I understand the desire to get this done, but I believe the damage of doing this the wrong way will last for a very long time. We are still within reach of comprehensive reform and believe pressure should remain intense from those who demand it.

As for the anti-trust bill, this is something that cannot be fixed in reconciliation and makes great policy sense regardless of what happens from here. It was also something many House members must see to believe consumers are going to win out over health insurance corporations.

With all due respect to your arguments, I would suggest that the House of Reps has done far more than that other House to stand on the side of working and middle class Americans. If you look at the results we produced, sometimes with great reticence from those down a certain Avenue, it was a bold agenda for the American people. I came to DC expecting to be an advocate for a transformative administration against an entrenched House and have found change has flowed far too often and ironically in the other direction.

[ Parent ]
With all due respect (0.00 / 0)
that is a weak, insidery argument. Anti-trust has little to no impact on the lives of working class Americans. Healthcare coverage does.

Purity at the expense of health coverage is not standing up for the working class over the rich, it's selling out the middle class and your base for a weak, insidery argument pushed by political strategists who don't give a shit about the human impacts of policy.

Don't buy it Tom, you are better than this.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Imho everybody who witnessed the fight between the House and Senate... (0.00 / 0)
...has to basically agree with Periello's view of that battle. Imho it's obvious that the responsibility of the failure lies mainly in Senate. Many in those outfit clearly had not the best interest of the people in mind. And even their wifes agree: "Why do you always end up being the point person here?"

However, some House members deserve criticism, too, for endangering the passing of a bill with their unreasonable desire to make a mainly rhetoric point about public funding of abortions. Why did they put this above the interests of all those millions who aren't able to get into a healthcare insurance plan now? That was misguided, to say it carefully.

[ Parent ]
thanks for taking questions (0.00 / 0)
1) Why didn't Medicare for all ever get a hearing in the current legislative context?
2) Why wasn't single payer health care framed as medicare for all?
3) What is being done to reduce destructive steps taken by the U.S. government or other governments in the name of national security or 'strategic interests' (e.g. the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, the war in Iraq, scapegoating of foreign countries or their citizens for corporate economic greed, etc.) over the long run?
4) What is the current status of efforts in Congress to ensure that the Sri Lankan government is held accountable for protecting all people on the island, including any remaining in concentration camps?
Representative Tom Perriello, Live on Open Left, 4 p.m. eastern, Sunday | 47 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