Contrary to earlier reports, Jerry McNerney is not a "no" on health reform. David Dayen explains:
I just got off the phone with Sarah Hersh, the communications director for Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA). He was quoted in the Morgan Hill Times as opposing the health care bill. However, Hersh told me that his statements were paraphrased and mischaracterized by the reporter.
McNerney certainly has concerns with the Senate proposal, in particular the backroom deals that favored some states over others, and the level of coverage (31 million, down from 36 million in the Senate bill). But McNerney wants to see some fixes, and will hold for language before making a full appraisal of how to vote. When told that the reconciliation fixes under consideration included an elimination of those backroom deals, Hersh said that such changes "would certainly go a long way" toward making the Congressman more comfortable voting for passage. She expected to see "a number of corrections made" in the press about where McNerney stands.
Lincoln took to Twitter this afternoon to respond to a story published this morning suggesting her mind maybe have changed on reconciliation. In the tweet, she reaffirmed her opposition to reconciliation.
So, there's that. Apologies on my delays in getting this up, as Open Left is a bit understaffed at the moment.
Well, you know it's getting close to the end of the quarter when the fundraising letters start coming in fast and furious. But most of the Democrats I know are feeling pretty unhappy with the quality of representation we've been getting in DC lately. That's why it was refreshing to get this fundraising email that eschewed feel-good campaign rhetoric and took the straight-shooting approach.
Hello babaloo,
One person really can make a difference.
In just my first nine months in Congress, I've already set in place an agenda that's preserving the status quo.
Since I am passionate about new energy technology, I was particularly proud of the legislation I wrote and introduced to increase research and development funding for cutting edge, 21st century geothermal technology. That legislation was put on a calendar to be considered for a House vote back on June 21, and no further action has been taken on it since that time. Currently, my bill is on hold while I'm trying to round up a veto-proof majority so I can bring the bill to the floor for a vote.
Two months ago, I was honored to lead a bipartisan, all-freshman Congressional delegation to Iraq. I returned impressed with the signs of progress there and am now more likely to listen to those who want more time in Iraq. While I still favor a timeline, I'm now open to crafting it in a way more favorable to generals' wishes.
I feel privileged to be able to sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war, and present it to the president. None of that would have been possible without your support in my campaign for Congress. Now I'm asking for your support again.
After you donate, there's a box where you can share your thoughts and ideas. I probably won't read them, but you don't have too many other choices, do you? What are you going to do, help a Republican get elected?
Thank you for everything you do.
Jerry
P.S. I value your support and commitment, at least when its expressed monetarily. So keep your dollars coming and your opinions to yourself.
Here's Washington state's Brian Baird talking about how great the surge is, how he'll no longer vote for timelines, and bashing Democrats, after spending a grand total of two days in Iraq. This is part of a campaign to split Democrats. As part of the right-wing PR campaign, here's Jerry McNerney bashing Democrats on Iraq to the Washington Post.
But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.
"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."
This is after a 'clarification' on his blog pandering to activists.
We have a lot of work to do on this Bush Dog campaign. Sign up to profile one of them. And meanwhile, we'll need criteria for figuring out how to add new ones. Baird voted correctly on the FISA bill, but I think it's hard to say that he doesn't deserve criticism. Bush won his district in 2004 by a margin of 50-49.
I transcribed Baird's full interview with Tucker in the extended entry.
Earlier today, I put up a post, "The Courage To Follow," worrying that the Clinton campaign was basing too many of their decisions on poll numbers and beltway conventional wisdom. I received a clarification from the Clinton campaign on one of the examples I used in the piece:
Sen. Clinton believes in turning the page on the failed Bush policies. She has called for robust diplomacy and engagement of both allies and adversaries, but in the CNN/YouTube debate, she made clear that we need to lay the diplomatic groundwork before committing to a presidential-level meeting with some of the world's worst dictators and would not unconditionally commit to meetings with them in the first year.
Peter Daou told me that Clinton's position was not to avoid meetings with leaders of nations like Venzuela and Iran, but just that she would not do so unconditionally in the first year, as per the exact wording of the question at the debate:
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
I think that is reasonably newsworthy, considering how the debate has been framed so far. Clinton is not going along with the right-wing position on this issue, as much as Mitt Romney and John McCain wold like to think otherwise. She is still different from Obama on this, and the issue still probably does not have much resonance for many people, but I think this clarification is worth noting.
Now, leaving the details of the policies aside, there is another, more important issue I want to address from my post earlier today. Specifically, I wanted to talk about stating, in public, my worries that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton alike tend to bend in whatever direction the political winds are blowing. Even though it comes from a formative experience in my political life--voting for a the first Democratic President I can even remember at the age of 18, but not getting exactly what I hoped for once he was in office--this is not a worry that I enjoy expressing in public. Mainly, I was wary about writing that piece because it reiterates a right-wing talking point that has been sued about the Clintons, and indeed virtually all Democrats, for quite some time: Dems we don't stand for anything.
There are several tensions at play here. One is the need for bloggers to always be honest, authentic, and transparent. I have always believed that this is absolutely necessary for any independent blogger in order to be successful. Second, there is the very real fact that the blogosphere is now part of the broader progressive ecosystem that is engaged, on a daily basis, in fighting the conservative movement. Unfortunately--and I want to emphasize that I am only speaking for myself here--I can see why sometimes talking points and spin are needed to engage such a fight successfully. (Though I don't think the blogosphere is the place for such talking points, and while I don't think we need anywhere close to the same level of robotic, Borg-like message discipline so frequently visible from the right, I can see why it is important in some forums. I just wanted to point out that I sometimes feel tempted.) Third, there is also the very real worry that we progressive activists do not always know what we are getting from the candidates we help to elect. Consider the following statement made today by freshmen Representative, and Blue Majority favorite, Jerry McNerney:
STATE BLOGS
