Sen. Ted Kaufman will vote for a public insurance option as part of a health care reconciliation package, the Delaware Democrat told HuffPost Tuesday evening.
Whip count numbers now reflect this update.
****
The public option whip count in the Senate continues to make progress. Senator Ron Wyden says he would vote yes to pass a reconciliation bill with a public option:
Wyden, in a statement, said, "I've long believed we need a more competitive insurance market. If the House version of the public option came up for a vote in reconciliation I would vote yes."
Also, in Colorado, Senator Mark Udall says the same:
Senator Udall shares President Obama's over-arching priority of enacting meaningful and comprehensive health reform that will increase quality and access and put our system on a sustainable track by lowering costs for small businesses, taxpayers, and American families. As part of reform, he continues to feel that inclusion of a public option to go head-to-head with private insurers could play a significant role in bringing down costs and offering more affordable options to Coloradans. He thinks it's important that such a plan -- like the one approved in the House bill -- negotiate reimbursement rates while competing on a level playing field with the private sector, and if such a plan comes up for a vote under the reconciliation process, he would vote for it.
Asked directly if he supported a public plan that would give folks access to Medicare or something like it, Halter answered: "Yes."
"If you give individuals the opportuinity to voluntarily buy into a system like Medicare, there is broad support for that," Halter said.
Asked directly whether he'd back a reconciliation vote on the public option - and the use of reconciliation in general to pass reform, which Lincoln has hedged on - Halter answered Yes on both counts.
"Reconciliation has been used multiple times not just on tax bills but on health bills," he said.
When the "yes" and "maybe" votes on reconciliation are combined, they total 49. As such, if this pressure forced Blanche Lincoln to change her position on reconciliation, there would now be enough votes to pass a fix to the Senate health reform bill through the budget reconciliation process.
Ask Shannon Hilt, who's seen our broken system for forming unions firsthand, and she'll tell you that there's no question: Workers need the Employee Free Choice Act.
Hilt spent three years as a field examiner for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), overseeing the elections process and investigating unfair practices. She says the system we have now, one in which companies, not workers, have all the power, isn't free, it isn't fair and doesn't protect workers.
Writing in the Boulder, Colo., Daily Camera, Hilt explains how her years of experience as an NLRB field examiner have convinced her that we need fundamental labor law reform that gives workers, not their bosses, the ability to decide how they form a union and bargain.
(Gotta hand it to the former Republicans, they deliver some zingers - promoted by Adam Bink)
Got home at 8 p.m. from the errands. First reaction was that moving to Invesco was a great idea for the final night. The crowds looks fantastic in the sunlight, and in their massive size. Very good idea.
Mark Udall was boring. I was actually worried the sound system wasn't working while he was speaking, because his words seemed to float into the ether. Tim Kaine was a good speaker and got the crowd going. Still, I personally didn't like what he said very much. Much happier with Biden (although Kaine's Spanish was impressive-not typical candidate Spanish, but the real deal.) Speaking of which, Bill Richardson was actually quite good. Not quite as good as Kerry last night, but still loaded with great attacks. This line was hilarious (going from memory):
John McCain may pay hundreds of dollars for his shoes, but we are the ones who will pay for his flip-flips.
At the end of Richardson's speech, he said "are we going to win this election?" I actually shouted back to the television "yes!" I'll take that as a good sign that my feelings on the efficacy of the convention have changed.
This is an open thread. I will update after Obama speaks.
I had a meeting with a senior leader in the environmental movement about a year ago, and we discussed among other things Democratic Senate prospects for 2008. He was really excited about Mark Udall, the Boulder liberal running for Senate in Colorado, who had excellent ratings on the various checklists used by the environmental groups. I expressed skepticism, because I remembered his flip-flop on Iraq. Udall, in 2002, voted against the war, but in 2007, he voted for a blank check bill funding the war to prepare for his role as a 'moderate' candidate running for Senate in Colorado. After I criticized him, Udall wrote this Op-Ed in the Denver Post explaining his vote, lashing out at antiwar critics who would immorally withhold equipment and medical supplies from American troops. He has subsequently done a number of things, both good and bad, but most significantly voting to cave on FISA, using a smarmy and dishonest rationale about telecom companies still being subjected to criminal prosecution.
I've always been clear about my criteria being the bar fight primary. Loyalty to principles when it is hard, and not when you are looking at a checklist of largely meaningless procedural and easily gamed votes, is how I judge people in politics. And I think lots of new progressives, most of us reading this site, get that. Disagreements are important, but loyalty on core principles is paramount.
I just got an email from Kay Hagan's campaign on net neutrality.
"I support net neutrality because it speaks to the values central to our American Democracy - free speech and equal opportunity. With an open internet we can ensure communities throughout the state of North Carolina and the nation receive equal access to the internet as well as the information contained there, to help ensure our country can compete on a global level." Senate Candidate Kay Hagan (D-NC)
I also got affirmation from Mark Udall's campaign and will post a statement when I receive it. (UPDATE) Here it is:
Congressman Udall believes telecommunications laws must support a competitive market that provides the most options to consumers at an affordable price. He also wants to protect the freedom of the Internet by ensuring network neutrality. In fact, he has voted to ensure that Internet providers do not block or degrade legal content on the Internet. In 2006, Congress considered reforms to telecommunications law that contained much needed updates to the last major reform in 1996. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) proposed an amendment to that legislation in support of net neutrality. Congressman Udall voted for the Markey amendment but, unfortunately, it was not adopted. The underlying legislation, which Congressman Udall voted for with some reservations, passed the House but was stymied in the Senate. Congressman Udall continues to support network neutrality.
And Andrew Rice.
When I am U.S. Senator, I will support legislation similar to the Freedom Preservation Act, which aims to keep the Internet open and free for everyone, not just subscribers to large cable and phone companies. I am like millions of American who rely upon an open Internet on a daily basis. I will work to preserve broadband access for the general public so that all users have equal access to high speed Internet and are not dependent on commercial gatekeepers.
I'm assuming he means the internet freedom preservation Act.
The only viable Senate candidates that have not come out for net neutrality at this point are Jeanne Shaheen of New Hamsphire, Andrew Rice of Oklahoma, Bob Tuke of Tennessee and Ronnie Musgrove of Mississippi
Allen, Begich, Franken, Hagan, Kleeb, LaRocco, Lunsford, Merkley, Noriega, Rice, Slattery, Udall, Udall, and Warner are all for net neutrality.
You gotta love the modern day Republican party in Colorado - and most other places - for that matter. And yes, I do use modern advisedly. It's current leaderBob Schaffer for Senate scapegoat, Dicky "Macaca" Wadhams, is a prime example of their never forget/never learn/no regrets philosophy.
They really do make you doubt Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Wadhams was asked about the “lessons” from the Virginia race. He was blunt and brief.
“Really didn’t learn anything from it, other than the candidate shouldn’t say stupid things in public,” said Wadhams. “I don’t think there much mystery to it. That’s all I have to say about it.”
Pressed further, he said, “We could take up the entire day talking about the Virginia Senate race. I’d rather talk about the Democratic National Convention, O.K.?”
Defensive much, Dick? (And just to keep the Google happy, here's a link to the infamous "it", which really should be the top hit when you search "macaca", hint hint).
But you have to admire Republicans' blind stubbornness sometimes. It has served Colorado Republicans well in the past. It's looking like they'll keep this up at least through November, when Wadhams and Schaffer will both have to look for a new jobs after being rejected by Colorado's voters.
And the lessons learned then will surely be, once again, none.
Legally, Act Blue can't operate on a state level in Colorado as current law prohibits an intermediary transfer of funds. So, I created what's known in Colorado as a Small Donor Committee. In the works for almost a year, finally the i's are all dotted; the t's are all crossed. The SquareState Small Donor Committee is here.
We've done pontificating, pointed out the failed policies of the extreme right wing, mobilized voters, coordinated grassroots action, and even fundraised for federal races. It's time to help those local candidates we want to see in office in our somewhat square state. Let's show (current CO-GOP chair)Dick Wadhams that this isn't the same state the last time he was here. All the progress made in the last few years, we're just getting started.
Open seats, not primaries are the best places where progressives have the most leverage of the Democratic Party. And right now, there's a vicious one in Colorado's 2nd, the seat cautious liberal Mark Udall is vacating to run for the Senate. The race pits Jared Polis, an openly gay progressive businessman and philanthropist, against Joan Fitz-Gerald, an Emily's List candidate and President of the Colorado State Senate (there's a third and largely irrelevant candidate). It's an interesting microcosm of the larger debate in the party, because While Fitz-Gerald was voting to approve Bush's war in Iraq, Polis was protesting the war. Now Fitz-Gerald is claiming that she was lied to by George Bush, while Polis is ripping her for her support of the war. When pressed, Fitz-Gerald argues that Polis does not support the troops.
As for her 2003 vote in support of removing Hussein, Fitz-Gerald said voters should view it in "historical context."
"We were lied to about Saddam Hussein's capabilities," she said. "I'm the one with the voting record and I suppose that makes me fair game."...
Polis, a Boulder Democrat, called on Fitz-Gerald to "apologize for voting twice to praise the leadership of President Bush on the matter of Iraq." The second resolution, which passed unanimously in 2003, focused on supporting the troops but also "commended" Bush's leadership.
Fitz-Gerald campaign manager Mary Alice Mandarich questioned whether Polis supports the troops and said she was disappointed he was "attempting to divide us on the most critical issue facing the nation."
I couldn't see any clear distinctions in this race until now, as I do have sympathy for someone in Fitz-Gerald's position. I mildly supported the war since I trusted the elites like Ken Pollack and Tom Friedman; the right response to being duped is to learn from the experience and not trust the old arguments that led you to a place of misjudgment. So when a candidate breaks out the old 'supporting the troops' canard against someone who was right on the war, well, that's a problem, because it means that Fitz-Gerald has learned nothing.
