Notes from the Boiler Room

by: Mike Lux

Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:09


One of the most fun things in all of politics as far as I'm concerned is to be involved in the final few days, boiler room operation for a close vote. It is intense, it is frustrating, it is nerve-wracking, it is exciting, and it is fascinating all at the same time. Being able to be part of the outside whipping operation on the heath care bill was one of the best experiences of my life, rating right up there with being part of the famous 1992 Clinton war room in Little Rock.

I am not going to tell any of the secrets from the process this time - sorry, but I'm not going to reveal, at least until I write my memoirs, which congresswoman we only got by getting Hollywood celebrities to call her - but I did want to throw out some general thoughts about this process to demythologize things a bit:

1. The "giving a pass" thing that everyone in the media talks about so much, like they are such big insiders with all this secret knowledge, is talked about way more than it's actually done on a big vote like this. While I wasn't in the room for conversations between Congress members and the President or Speaker, our boiler room was never given any sense to back off of maximum pressure of wavering members, or to tread lightly with defectors. This was too important a vote, and too close a vote, for that to be happening.

2. People on the outside very much underestimate the fluidity of the whipping process. In the days leading up to the vote, people always ask "well, how many votes do you have?" In fact, it is very hard to determine the answer to that question because members of Congress have dozens of variations to the question of whether they will vote yes ("I'm trying to get there," "I just need this one thing," "I hope to get there," "I don't want to vote for it but might if you really, really need me," etc.), plus members you think are voting yes suddenly start to stray from the fold for one reason or another. A big part of the whipping process, in fact, is keeping the likely yes votes from just kind of drifting over to the other side.

3. Part of the whipping process is exposing the lies. One congressman I will mention by name is Jason Altmire, because he lied so blatantly and really screwed himself in the process. First he repeatedly told both the Speaker and Democrats back home that he would be there if needed. Then he decided to go back on that promise and announce a no vote, but told the Democrats back home that he had been given a "pass" when nothing of the kind had happened. When the folks back home heard he was lying about this, they went crazy. Altmire's hometown Democrats will probably never trust him, or help him, again.

4. Hardball was played with all wavering votes, most of whom were moderates. I know it sometimes feels like hardball is played with progressives, and I certainly get frustrated with deals our team is expected to accept a lot of the time. But the fact is, at the end of the process in a close vote like this, every wavering vote is treated equally: like another vote we need to have. And most of the waverers were moderate members. We were never asked to pull a punch or back off on any vote at the end - hardball in fact was encouraged.

5. A lot of people deserve credit, but Nancy Pelosi is my hero. She knew exactly where things were with each member, took in every ounce of information she was fed, applied pressure in all the right places, and made things happen.

Mike Lux :: Notes from the Boiler Room
One final note, less about the process but informed by what I saw by being part of it: I think the swing votes that decided to vote no (people like Altmire and Zach Space) on this are going to look back on their decision with great regret on the years to come. Some of them wanted to do the right thing, but just lacked the courage. Now, though, their base is unhappy with them, Democratic donations will be scarcer, Democratic turnout will likely be down, and the Republicans will attack them anyway. As President Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party are campaigning throughout the country selling the bill and inspiring the base with its passage, these members will be left on the sidelines. They will probably lose their race in 2010, and it will be hard to come back and run for office again because they will always have this no vote hanging around their necks, making it easy to beat them in a primary. And for the rest of their lives, people will see on their resume they were part of this historic Congress that passed this bill, and will congratulate them for it, and they will have to hang their head and say they voted no.

This was a hell of a fight, far tougher, far more dicey than people will remember years from now. I am glad to have been a part of it.  


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
If the public option was included (4.00 / 2)
as part of the Reconcilliation package, do you think Pelosi would have had the votes to pass it.  The margin here wasn't big, but do you think the PO would have caused any of the moderates to flip?


No. (4.00 / 1)
There were 7 or 8 members whose votes I think we would have lost if the public option was in the bill. It sucks.

[ Parent ]
I would love to have the names (4.00 / 1)
of the seven or eight we need to replace.

If you could sort them by state and r-value that would be great.

Altmire is getting a primary, and if that doesn't work a challenger in the general, though we may need to help Shea decide. I'd urge a fundraiser here on openleft to kick-off a major campaign across the country.

--

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


[ Parent ]
re: po votes (0.00 / 0)
do you think those 7-8 votes would vote down a po that would have 210 yes votes?

I've no doubt that 7-8 said 'I'd vote no on a po,' but do you think they'd actually do it?

we can't know for sure but what does your gut tell you?


[ Parent ]
My guess on the "Hollywood on line 1" person (4.00 / 8)
is Loretta Sanchez.

As to the question of whether pressure is put on centrists...to me the issue isn't categorizing electeds and saying that one category gets pressure while the other doesn't.  To me, the issue is the reasons that they put pressure on people.  This wasn't a bill to repeal Taft-Hartley, or the ERA, or Medicare for All, or nuclear disarmament, or a carbon tax.  An asshole like Altmire isn't supposed to like that stuff, and should need tons of pressure to get him to vote for any of them.  This was a set of reforms to health insurance that those centrists like Altmire should have loved in the first place, because it fits much more with their world-view than it does with that of folks on the left.  It's much, much closer to being Romneycare than it is to being Medicare-for-All.  The incredible thing is how much success the right-wing had in persuading center-right Democrats that their own policy preferences were too liberal for them!

I recognize the institutional Democratic Party's happiness in beating the GOP on this; I recognize that the bills that were passed introduce some good reforms to our country's health insurance scheme; and I recognize, as well, your personal sense of accomplishment for your participation over the years in the fight for universal health insurance.

But I hope that you, for your part, can recognize how I, a person who ended up reluctantly believing that passing the bill was better in the end than not passing it, am more than a little irritated at the triumphalism of the DC Dem establishment about this vote.  If you'd told us a year ago that Congress was going to pass a health insurance reform bill with no public option, a mandate to buy private insurance, and no federal regulation of insurance premiums, that's financed by an excise tax, that won't cover 15 million people who currently have no health insurance, and that also includes a provision that's minimally an obnoxious re-endorsement of the anti-woman Hyde amendment, and possibly the end of abortion coverage in most health insurance, people would have said, "No way -- we'll definitely do better than that!"  And if you'd added that, along the way, we'd lose Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in a special election, we'd have called you Chicken Little.

How did it come to this?  How did we get to the point that we lost so many of our key goals, and the Dems still had to pull out every stop to get the thing passed?


"Get Back Home, Loretta!" (4.00 / 2)
Yeah, that sounds like a Hollywood call.

"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 ]
Yep. (4.00 / 5)
I do understand, and I feel a ton of frustration about all those things as well. My happiness about winning this fight does not diminish my anger at how much power these corporate interests have in our political system. I see this as a solid and necessary first step, one which we must keep fighting to improve on. But change is a really hard thing, especially in the corporate dominated country we now live in.

[ Parent ]
Major quibble (4.00 / 1)
The excise tax contributes like $40 billion in revenue.  The vast bulk of the money to pay for health insurance for middle-class and poor people, whether by subsidies or by Medicaid expansion, comes from a direct tax on the rich.  The extension of the medicare payroll tax to earned income and investment income on those making $250,000+ a year is responsible for half of the money spent in this bill, and cuts to medicare advantage (ie subsidies for insurance companies) is most of the rest of it.  We took from the rich and gave to the poor in this bill in a very big way.  That is worth celebrating.

As long as the Nelson language doesn't wind up ending all abortion coverage, which I somehow just don't feel is likely, then this bill is still a big win for basic progressive economics.  Take investment income from the rich, give health security to the poor.  Rad.


[ Parent ]
Yes, I should have said "partly financed by an excise tax" (4.00 / 1)
And I think you're right to characterize that as a quibble, since you don't really dispute the rest of the description, nor my sense that this deal would have seemed unacceptable to the vast majority of people on our side if you'd described it a year ago.

The PO polled well all along, for instance, and it took enormous effort just to get the House to pass a weakened version of it in a mostly symbolic way (since the Senate was never interested in it, Obama seems to have horse-traded it earlier on for some kind of neutrality agreement with AHIP, and the 60 or so progressive Dems who signed the "PO or bust" letter were just bluffing).

Take investment income from the rich, give health security to the poor.  Rad.

Take investment income from the rich, and wages from the middle class (through the excise tax's effects on the insurance they have) and give 15 million customers to the insurance industry.  Better than the alternative of "nothing", but it's way too optimistic to say that we've just "give[n] health security to the poor."  Obviously, the bill also expanded Medicaid, but (a) a Dem Congress could just do that as a stand-alone measure, and (b) A GOP Congress could just de-fund that down the road.

Again, passing it in the end was better than not passing it.  But this is a deeply flawed bill, and the flaws are structural.  The party line for months has been "pass it and improve it" -- that can't happen if the new party line is "we just gave health security to the poor."


[ Parent ]
Altmire Is Finished, I Think (4.00 / 3)
As I noted in quick hits, Jack Shea, the president of the Allegheny County Labor Council, is reportedly considering a challenge to Altmire in either the primary or general elections.  From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Labor head Shea considers run against Altmire
Monday, March 22, 2010
By James O'Toole, Post-Gazette Politics Editor

Irate at Rep. Jason Altmire's vote against the health care bill, Jack Shea, the president of the Allegheny County Labor Council, said he is considering a challenge to the McCandless Democrat in either the primary or general elections.

Mr. Shea, who's led the local labor group since 1998, said he was being urged by some colleagues to mount a write-in campaign for the May 18 Democratic primary. But he said that he was concerned that it might be too late to organize a realistic challenge for the nomination, given the difficulty of convincing voters to write in a name against a candidate with the considerable advantage of having his name listed on the ballot.

Mr. Shea said he might have a better chance of ousting the second-term incumbent by gathering enough signatures to run as an independent on the November ballot. He said that his consideration of a challenge was a response not just to Mr. Altmire's health care vote itself but also to his belief that Mr. Altmire had misled him and other labor leaders on his plans on the legislation.

"He didn't keep his word," Mr. Shea said. "I'm not the only one that he committed to. He told [Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President] Bill George the same thing. He told [USW President] Leo Gerard. . . . What he said very plainly was, at the end, the final bill, he would be there."

A wave of encouragement for Shea to run right now would certainly be in order.

"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


Distinguish 'the win' from policy (4.00 / 1)
The win is great, don't get me wrong. Obama got it (with a little help from his friends); he's got the footage of him signing 'the health care reform bill' in his locker ready for 12.

The Dems have been (let's face it) a bit short of wins in the last decade or two, and Obama touched down. Can't take that away from him.

But this has been an essentially political operation, steered (not too badly) by the WH: they needed a signing ceremony, and so they needed a text that would pass both houses.

So the Interests had to be bought off (tick!); and the process had to be dragged out (in the Senate, where else?) to exhaust lefties and lower their expectations to the floor. Only a corporate bill would pass the Senate - but, after all that Kafka, even the leftiest were happy to see the Senate bill pass.

Then - and I certainly hadn't seen this coming - the WH strategy switched to making sure, at all costs, that the House passed the Senate bill. Sidecar, shmidecar, whatever it took to get the Senate bill to pass was worth it.

And now it's Mission Accomplished. Obama is covered whatever.

(Will the Senate Dems pitch a perfect game on the sidecar - surely the GOP should manage to get Biden to overrule the Parliamentarian once! But Obama could care less.)

Is the Senate bill (amended or not by the sidecar) a crap bill? Probably - but everyone's a low info voter when it comes to health care reform! Does Obama care? Answers on a postcard...


Money drives votes. Why not say so. (0.00 / 0)
Your first assertion about celebrities calling Santa Barbara Sanchez was right on. And in the Asheville NC area, there are a few notable in-district celebs who haven't chimed in yet, but Blue dog Heath Shuler is on the radar. Shuler has been spineless, and he is another who will regret turning against the young demographic in his district.  

They only call it class war when we fight back.

We need a compelling campaigner for this one. (0.00 / 0)


--

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


[ Parent ]
Very interesting. (4.00 / 5)
Thanks for posting this Mike.  I agree with you that those who voted 'no' will regret that vote for multiple reasons.

First of all, this is historic legislation, which will be mentioned alongside Social Security and Medicare.  I would think every member would want to say they were a part of passing something so important.

Second, while this was a tough vote for many members, there are very few districts where a 'no' vote actually helps.  Long serving members with very conservative constituencies (Rick Boucher, Chet Edwards, Ike Skelton, Gene Taylor) are really the only ones where a 'no' vote helps, because an 'aye' would alienate conservatives who are used to voting for them.  On the other hand, newly elected representatives from marginal districts were elected on progressive waves, and their constituencies will not forgive them for voting against Health Care (Nye, Altmire, Arcuri, Adler).  Conservatives in those districts were never going to vote for them, and now Liberals have no reason to.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!


The only thing historic about this legislation (4.00 / 1)
is the size of the opportunity that was wasted.

[ Parent ]
question (0.00 / 0)
Were any of the people who voted No votes that you released? In other words, once you were sure you had the votes you needed, did you tell any of the extra votes that they could vote No if they needed to for their district?

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox