Why Romanoff's Demands Are Dangerous to Health Reform

Please cite your source

I've been arguing all day with Romanoff supporters that Andrew's attempt to derail the reconciliation bill by insisting Michael Bennet only vote for it if the public option is included is dangerous.

First of all, obviously Romanoff's not trying to "derail" it -- he's trying to greatly improve it. And lord knows it needs a lot of improvement.

Second of all, what is your source for your claim that Romanoff has said Bennet should "only vote for [the sidecar] if the public option is included"?  All I've heard is a very reasonable demand that Bennet simply follow through and offer a public option amendment as he promised he would.

Third, Trumka's letter is referring to the amendments that are expected to come from Republicans, amendments that actually are intended to derail the thing. The need to stand firm against GOP amendments should not be misused as political "cover" for Michael Bennet to renege on the promise of his "Bennet letter."  

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:24:09 PM UTC

No, not true PETER.

This will include amendments on issues that we would otherwise strongly support.

Any ammendment is a bad ammendment because it derails the process. Romanoff knows better. Why he claims to be for health care reform but is willing to derail it for his own career props is beyond me.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:39:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How does it derail the process?

Last time I checked there has been a process in place for 200+ years to pass legislation.

---

by: otoole @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:46:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indeed

It doesn't derail the process -- it is the process.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:49:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's not how I interpret that line

I read that as a reference to the fact that the Republicans have threatened to introduce some sham version of a public option amendment to try to embarrass the Dems.

The best counter to that tactic would be for the Dems to introduce a REAL public option amendment. That's what the American people strongly desire, as repeatedly demonstrated in poll after poll.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:48:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

@Peacemonger

I repeat:
What is your source for your assertion that Andrew Romanoff was "insisting Michael Bennet only vote for it if the public option is included."

Do you stand by that assertion or not?

If your assertion is true, it should be easy enough for you to provide us a link to the proof. If not, you should retract the assertion.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 04:50:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

here you go again

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and to suggest YOU understand the intricacies of this bill is laughable.  
Have you ever talked to Union representatives?  They are the most pro-public option groups out there.  Mr. Trumka is clearly knows Sen. Bennet or any other Democrat is actually going to add the public option amendment.  If he thought that was the case this release would never go out.
Your transparent attempts to spin the terrible week Sen. Bennet has had is making you and the Bennet campaign look desperate.  Take a step back, collect your thoughts and come back when you are ready to make a point that can't be blown up in 2 seconds.  It is a long race (unless you are hearing from your people Bennet is thinking about getting out of the race and you need to get in your parting shots) we have months of fun ahead of us  

---

by: otoole @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:31:21 PM UTC

My comment is directed at peacemonger

not PeterFisk.  

---

by: otoole @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:34:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep, I know.

But thanks for clarifying.  :)

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:36:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I figured you knew that

it was more for peacemonger

---

by: otoole @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:41:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have I ever talked to Union reps.

If you only knew the answer to that one, you would really laugh.  Yeah, I've worked for some.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:41:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then of course you know thier stance on the public option

---

by: otoole @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 21:42:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

WE ALL WANT THE PUBLIC OPTION!!

That's why we are not letting Romanoff screw this up for us!

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 22:10:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So wait...

What if Bennet was to offer the amendment?  He has the chance - look at David Sirota's article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
(by the way David Sirota is far more intelligent than either you or I)
Would you tell Michael Bennet he is taking away your healthcare?

---

by: otoole @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 22:30:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

David Sirota doesn't know what he is talking about.

n/t

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 22:42:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And you do?

You go right ahead and go toe to toe with Sirota.  You will be embarrassed.  You and your friends on Pols do not collectively have even a fraction of his intelligence.  I do not even come close to his intelligence and I prove you are full of shit all the time.

---

by: otoole @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 22:51:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree. Sirota is smart.

He's very smart. Smart and wise are not the same thing. Wisdom comes with reflection and listening.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 14:35:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hope you are not claiming you are wise?

It makes you look like an idiot  

---

by: otoole @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 14:41:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

None of us are perfect, O'Toole.

We all learn. That is why we we're here.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 16:16:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Since you know more than any of us...

Tell me how Sen. Bennet is not a fraud when it comes to the public option?  

---

by: otoole @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 23:01:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Worse than that- Sirota

wants to kill the bill and start over.
It's what he's advocated for months.

Now healthcare is passed, he wants to load up the reconciliation bill so it will fail.

---

by: MADCO @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 00:59:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a Romanoff supporter, I agree w/NO AMENDMENTS

Any amendments will be playing into the hands of the Republicans and cause the reconciliation bill to be sent back to the house. Yes, this is the process, but this is NOT the time to give the Republicans a win. We're gonna have enough on our hands with the lawsuits.

Actually, I'm no longer sure that I support a Public Option as a separate program from Medicare. I'm with Howard Dean and others -- the best thing that we could do is to support dropping the age requirement of Medicare to 0. It would help make and keep Medicare solvent and provide the goals of a PO w/o creating a new program.

---

by: dave.wolf @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 22:33:41 PM UTC

Well, that's probably what's going to happen -- no amendments

That's the reality, or at least what passes for reality in this kabuki theater production.

So where do we go from there?  Agreed that Medicare-for-all is clearly far superior to the current reform plan, with or without any kind of public option. So we need to elect people who will fight to get it implemented. Romanoff is an advocate of single-payer universal health care. In stark contrast, Bennet vehemently refused to even discuss putting single-payer on the table at the very beginning of this legislative process (right in step with his strategy at that time of playing to the far right as a Blue-Dog ConservaDem).


------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 23:15:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great. Fine. Wonderful!

I'd love Single Payer, too. Romanoff and Sirota should be trying to pass Grayson's bill rather than screw up the bill we've worked for 15 months trying to get passed!

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 00:09:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes! /nt

---

by: GMFORD @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 19:31:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grayson's bill

Have degette or Polis signed on?

Maybe Andrew could primary Degette.

---

by: MADCO @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 01:02:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a Romanoff supporter, I agree w/NO AMENDMENTS

Are you allowed to be a Romanoff supporter and deviate like that?

I'm with you and Governor Dean.

---

by: MADCO @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 01:00:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where are the guarantees

that zero Republican amendments will make their way onto the reconciliation bill?

Put another way, Dems will look mighty clueless if even one Republican amendment is accepted and there is no attempt to even offer the public option, which the House approved back in November, as an amendment.

As long as zero amendments are added, incumbent supporters across the nation will have a valid reason to argue against the public option amendment.

---

by: WeatherDem @ Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 23:45:08 PM UTC

There are other reasons

The Senate will be adjourning for Passover/Easter soon. The Republicans are trying to derail the process by introducing every ammendment they can think of. If the Dems unite to vote "NO" on every ammendment, liberal and conservative alike, it increases the chance we get a vote before they adjourn.  Later, we can introduce any bills we want for more reform.

If we wait, we risk the whole house of cards falling in.  Very stupid. Very risky.

This is a lot like blog writing.  If you don't save what you have now and then, you risk losing your whole diary when your system crashed. Been there, done that!

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 00:12:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, then

How 'bout this:

If the Republicans manage to add so much as one amendment, then Michael Bennet will offer the public option amendment that he claims to be in favor of. That way he can't be blamed for the measure getting sent back to the House.

Doesn't that sound reasonable?  He'll have no excuse whatsoever for not doing it.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 00:21:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why not stop grandstanding and let the Senator do his job?

n/t

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:26:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This *is* his job

Why don't you answer the question?

I'll repeat it:

How 'bout this:

If the Republicans manage to add so much as one amendment, then Michael Bennet will offer the public option amendment that he claims to be in favor of. That way he can't be blamed for the measure getting sent back to the House.

Doesn't that sound reasonable?  He'll have no excuse whatsoever for not doing it.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:29:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Peacemonger can't answer the question, because Michael Bennet won't take action

If there's one thing his time at Denver's public schools showed, Bennet is about Bennet. He has a track record of saying he is looking out for the little guy while stuffing money into the pockets of the rich guys. The rich guys then stuff his pockets.  

When he worked for Anschutz, Bennet merged three movie chains together.  As part of the deal, he squashed the retirement systems of the employees. Then he helped architect a stock payout that drove the company further into debt.  Guess who the biggest stock holder was?  Phil Anschutz.

Now, why do you think Anschutz's companies have given Bennet so much money? Because they know one thing: if they give Bennet $500,000 now, he'll get them a billion later.

Apply that model to healthcare. When Bennet made his statement about a public option and his commitment to it last fall, he never thought he'd have to back up his statement with public action. Michael doesn't take action publicly.  He shuffles along playing "Ah Shucks, isn't Washington out of control, but look at me, I'm an outsider!"

Of course, Bennet grew up in DC, and attended a private school where a good number of Washington's elite sent their kids. He knows these ropes well.

Now Bennet finds himself out on a limb, having said one thing but without the courage to back up his talk. He wrote letters to Harry Reid asking him to save the public option.  He hopped up and down saying he'd lose his job to get a public option in place.  But then the cruel winter wind of politics starts to blow, and Bennet is finding it difficult to stand up it with his jello like spine.  

If Bennet goes down the public option road, all those insurance companies will be able to point to him as the reason for their suffering. They won't feed the Bennet campaign.  His republican ATM will likely be shut off.  His 1st buddy will be pissed. Out of all this, maybe his Wall Street friends get nervous. They stop sending checks every week.

These are the times that try a man's soul. While Bennet might have a soul, he has no courage.  He's screwed.

---

by: JAFO @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:36:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

JAFO

I don't know anything about Bennet's work at DPS or Anschutz. I never claimed to know about it, and frankly, I don't care.

What I do know is that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding his stand on health reform. I have organized full time on health reform for a year, and have met with Bennet many, many times on this issue. He has spoken with thousands of people who have horror stories, and he has been exceptionally compassionate and responsive to us.

In contrast, Romanoff was mostly gone during 2009, never helped anyone on this issue after leaving the House. We often wondered, "Where is Andrew Romanoff and why isn't he here helping us now?"

Say what you will about Bennet from your limited exposure to him -- it's not my concern. But if Andrew Romanoff succeeds in interfering with the reconciliation bill being passed, thus endangering the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, then he deserves all the wrath that will befall him, for it.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:35:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I never claimed to know about it, and frankly, I don't care.

I believe a willful ignorance of history is what made G.W. Bush so successful.

Past behavior is indicative of future performance.  The argument here is not one of how best to push healthcare reform through our legislative and executive branches of government. It is about how a man's character shapes the intended reform.  

We all owe you a debt of gratitude for working as an advocate of healthcare reform.  It is shameful that our country does not have healthcare for every citizen. Advocacy and organizing are key to any successful reform effort. So is leadership, however.  

While you may have sat with Bennet while hearing thousands of people's horror stories, I am not interested in that.  I am interested in actions.  Teary-eyed Bennet saying how much he feels your pain means nothing.  His picking up the flag of healthcare reform and doing something with it is what counts.

So, I ask, what has he done?  Give me a list that shows his actions and their effects.  I'm not talking about when he and 12 other people got together and did something.  I'm talking about when he did something.  I am betting that list is pretty short.

I don't know how much time you've logged with Michael. I've logged about 100 hours with him in working sessions, meetings, planning events, the like.  I've watched him pat kids on the head, tell Latino families how he feels their pain, tell principals how they must be entrepreneurial in how they run their schools, tell teachers to think outside the box.  He then turns around and pushes a teacher evaluation system based only on test scores, hamstrings principals with bureaucracy and a culture of fear, and fosters a system that segregates Latino families into underfunded public schools or charter schools built around a high stakes test environment.

So, while I am sure you know 1,000 times more than I do about healthcare reform, I am not so sure you know all that much about Bennet the man.  It is one thing to be with him in public. It is quite another to see him at work behind the scenes.  The man has little integrity and even less courage.  

---

by: JAFO @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 18:12:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's ridiculous, Peacemonger. This election is a hiring process.

Peacemonger wrote:
I don't know anything about Bennet's work at DPS or Anschutz. I never claimed to know about it, and frankly, I don't care.

That's an absurd attitude. When you're hiring someone for an important job, it would be insane not to explore their work history.

You can't sweep Mr. Bennet's past under the rug like that just because he's a crony of yours.

We the voters are doing the hiring here. (This is the first time we've had the chance to evaluate this job candidate Mr. Bennet as an applicant for this position -- or for any position, for that matter.)

We need to be asking questions like these:

*** "We see here on your resume that you worked for a man named Anschutz. Who is he, and what does he do? And what sort of work did you do for him?"

*** "We see here on your resume that you worked for Denver Public Schools and that part of your job was to invest the public's money. What sorts of investments did you make with that money, and what was the outcome?"

Moreover:

*** "We can't help but notice that you receive very large amounts of campaign money from Wall Street bankers, health industry executives, and other wealthy corporate donors who have an enormous vested interest in thwarting the efforts that we want our next senator to undertake on our behalf in Washington. Can you explain why these groups give you so much money, and why they would have any reason to believe they'll benefit from making these large contributions to your campaign?"

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 19:04:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, so remove "I don't care".

It is relevant to his candidacy.  Irrelevant to this thread, which is about health care reform.

The Romanoff zealots, when presented with facts about health care reform and Senator Bennet's effectiveness and commitment to the issue, changed the subject to "What about DPS?"

This thread is about health reform (look at the title).  On this thread, I want to stick to the subject -- something I know a lot about.  Let DPS experts have all the discussion they want somewhere else.

I'm personally here to talk about health reform.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 16:19:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, so remove "I don't care".

It is relevant to his candidacy.  Irrelevant to this thread, which is about health care reform.

The Romanoff zealots, when presented with facts about health care reform and Senator Bennet's effectiveness and commitment to the issue, changed the subject to "What about DPS?"

This thread is about health reform (look at the title).  On this thread, I want to stick to the subject -- something I know a lot about.  Let DPS experts have all the discussion they want somewhere else.

I'm personally here to talk about health reform.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 16:19:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And Andrew's PAC donations from 2000-2008.

Did they buy his votes?

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 16:19:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the votes aren't there

---

by: MADCO @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 01:04:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We've already waited

and the house of cards has already fallen in.  It was stupid and risky - hence the health insurance & drug giveaway legislation that's currently law.  It's ridiculous that people are now calling to pass what we have as quickly as possible after all the aggressive provisions were frittered away.  Where were these calls last year when the legislation could still have been characterized as health care reform?

Democrats continue to give too much to the Cons and CorporateDems who poisoned this entire process.  Democrats can pass whatever amendments they come up with - they only need 50 votes.

I still have yet to hear how people seriously think that any bill that is introduced later will pass with a higher threshold than the threshold we currently face.  It sounds really pretty and great, but you know and I know that a stand-alone public option bill will not pass later in this session.  Democrats will not secure 60 votes required for passage.  The public option will have to wait until at least the next session, when the make-up of the Senate and House will be different.  I have zero confidence that the Senate leadership will actually change the rules of the filibuster in the next session.  Why?  For the same reason I have zero confidence they'll get a public option passed - it's all about telling the base what they want to hear while taking no action.

---

by: WeatherDem @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 15:35:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, there are *only* 41 Republicans

It would take 10 Democrats siding with them to get an amendment added. I certainly hope they never get the 10 Dem defections.

---

by: dave.wolf @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 00:16:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But unfortunately,

... there are more than 10 "Blue Dogs" in the Senate:

Evan Bayh
Tom Carper
Blanche Lincoln
Michael Bennet
Mark Begich
Kay Hagan
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Joe Lieberman
Claire McCaskill
Ben Nelson
Bill Nelson
Jeanne Shaheen
Mark Udall
Mark Warner

.  

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 00:37:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That just goes to show you don't understand marketing in CO politics, Peter.

Colorado is a red state. We were blue for about ten minutes after hundreds of out-of-state voter registrars and campaign workers came in to get Barack Obama elected, but we're red again without them.  No Democrat outside of Cheeseman Park is going to get elected without saying they are a moderate. Pretty simple, really.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:28:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh yes

Every time someone disagrees with you, it's an indication that they are personally deficient. That's lovely.

The claim that Democrats need to act like Republicans in order to get elected in places like Colorado is ludicrous. Look at Mark Udall -- he did the opposite.  He ran as a "Boulder liberal" and got elected as such, then he became a Blue Dog after getting elected.

The people want - and deserve - politicians who will just state their principles and stand by them, not pander to the latest tracking polls. We need leaders who are more committed to standing for principles than standing for re-election.  

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:38:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, not every time.

Only when it is true.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:35:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True-- but!

From my count above...from your list. There is only 15 blue dogs, AND, as long none of the other democrats join them (4 more to be exact), in other words to reach the 60 for passage, I think the bill will be safe...

Be safe and take care

---

by: BoomerDen @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:32:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is a reconciliation bill, only 51 votes needed. n/t

I don't think that Bennet & Udall should be on the Blue Dog list above. I've certainly not agreed with all of their votes, but they've not completely jumped the fence.

The following will almost certainly side with the Republicans:

Mary Landrieu
Joe Lieberman
Ben Nelson

Who else?  

---

by: dave.wolf @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 04:05:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That was the list of senators who openly self-identified as Blue Dogs

when Evan Bayh formed his ConservaDem coalition:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...

From MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:37

As he announced on Morning Joe today, Sen. Evan Bayh is forming a Moderate Dems Working group that will meet every other Tuesday before the Democratic caucus to discuss legislative strategies and ideas.

Per Bayh's office, the group's goal "is to work with the Senate leadership and the new administration to craft common-sense solutions to urgent national problems."

Here's part of a statement to be released very shortly from Bayh... The group will focus "on the upcoming budget negotiations and the importance of passing a fiscally responsible spending plan in the Senate."

More: "Leading the new group are Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper of Delaware and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas... [O]thers joining the group are Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mark Udall of Colorado, and Mark Warner of Virginia."

That same basic group -- including Michael Bennet -- was still functioning together as the Blue Dog Coalition at least as late as September, when virtually that identical list of senators were summoned to the White House:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...

Democratic Senators Summoned to White House

September 10, 2009 11:38 AM

ABC News has learned that President Obama will be meeting with 16 Democratic senators (and one "Independent Democrat") this afternoon at the White House.

They are: Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Tom Carper of Delaware, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

The meeting is scheduled for 4:15 pm ET, in the Cabinet Room.

Many of these senators have expressed concern about if not downright opposition to key elements of President Obama's health care proposals, particularly his push for a government-run public health care option to compete with private insurers to drive down costs.

- jpt

(emphasis added)

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 04:40:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's why the Washington Post puts him at 92% consistent

with the Democratic party.  Get over yourself, Peter. You've never given five minutes of a chance since the beginning.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:36:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Blanche Lincoln

for a fact.  She's running to the right as fast as she can.

---

by: WeatherDem @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 15:36:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also

Bayh, Begich and Warner.

All three have acted in opposition to the Democratic majority on key issues this session.

---

by: WeatherDem @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 15:37:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Blue Dogs Voting Against Reconciliation

Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln.

---

by: WeatherDem @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 20:25:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's Pass this

I am for the public option. I am for the single payer too. But, at this point let us pass the reconciliation fixes and move on.  And, next year work towards the single payer or public option. Jobs and financial re-regulations needs to get done this year before the mid-terms. Let's get the victories and let the rest be sorted it out later....

Be safe and take care

---

by: BoomerDen @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 00:34:49 AM UTC

yep

---

by: MADCO @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 01:06:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is from a friend who does policy work for a political nonprofit in town.

It was a political communique, but if he says I can credit him later, I will.

***********************************************************

Over the last few days, Facebook, twitter, and progressive blogs have been full of people calling on Senator Bennet to offer an amendment to add a public option to the reconciliation side-car legislation currently under consideration in the Senate. Let me make perfectly clear that I am a strong supporter of the public option and so is Michael Bennet. Any assertion to the contrary is either disingenuous or uninformed.

That said, I cannot support this latest effort to insert the public option. The last thing I want is to discourage people from continuing to fight for matters of public policy they strongly support, but sometimes we have to take a step back to get some perspective and realize that the current situation is not the appropriate time for this battle.

We've been working to pass health care reform legislation during this Congress for over a year. It has dominated our politics and our discourse for most of that time. As of this morning, the legislation we worked on for those many months was signed into law. The history of the moment and the achievement should be lost on no one. Now we find ourselves in a bit of a strange spot. We couldn't pass the reconciliation changes (fully closing the donut hole, increasing affordability for the middle class, etc.) without first passing the much larger and much more important base bill. That means that the current consideration of the reconciliation language comes after the main event has already happened and the celebration has begun, making reconciliation a bit anti-climactic. The biggest problem with this long battle has been the misinformation and lies told about the legislation. Well, now that the bill is law, we have our best opportunity to use the moment to educate people about what's actually in the bill. Now is our chance to turn the tide of public opinion, to focus on the incredible benefits people will see from this law's enactment. From a messaging standpoint, any sustained, health-care-related effort outside of that becomes something of a distraction to our main goal right now. That means the Senate has every incentive to get reconciliation done as quickly as possible.

The problem with amending the legislation in this stage is that any change, no matter how tiny, requires the House to debate and vote again, potentially starting a ping-pong between the House and Senate. Currently, the Senate is on track to pass the bill by the weekend. Given the Congressional schedule, which has both houses in recess beginning Monday, such a scenario could cause major delay.

Further complicating things is the fact that we're closing in on April of an election year. Whether we like it or not, the time is fast approaching when members of Congress will turn all of their focus on getting re-elected and that thing that passes for progress in Washington will grind to a complete halt. Now, if we as progressives were content with getting nothing more done this year, we wouldn't have a major issue, but with further jobs legislation, financial reform, energy and climate legislation, and more still on the agenda, we need to turn the page on health care reform and quickly move on to these other incredibly important issues.

If those problems weren't enough, we then face the fact that the Senate has a number of rather moderate and conservative Democratic members. Republicans want desperately to drag this fight on even longer, to continue mischaracterizing the legislation and distracting people from the message we really want to be sharing. To that end, they intend to offer as many amendments as they can, including a good number that may look pretty attractive to those more conservative Dems. We don't yet know what all of those amendments will contain, but we do know that progressives probably don't want to see them pass for policy reasons alone, not to mention the dilatory effect they will have. This is why Harry Reid's main goal right now is to keep his caucus as focused as possible on voting against all amendments as a block. Imagine how much less credibility Reid has with Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson if he either gives progressives a pass to offer an amendment or if progressives ignore his request and do it anyway. That lack of credibility could see a number of Democratic moderates voting with Republicans on a variety of amendments.

Given that reality, Reid made his case to Bennet and other public option supporters. In exchange for their agreement to not offer any amendments and vote against any and all GOP amendments, he would agree to go on record promising the public option would receive a separate vote sometime this year.

I know all of us, including Senator Bennet, would like to see the public option make a triumphant comeback. Given the difficult political and procedural realities right now, though, I think the right choice has been made here. Progressives should celebrate the passage of health care reform right now, and they should gear up for the upcoming financial regulatory reform fight and what is sure to be a tough coming election. Michael Bennet has been strongly supporting the public option for a long time and he has unquestionably taken a leadership role. I trust him to make good on his promises. That's why I'm supporting his decision to fight another day.

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 01:30:26 AM UTC

Exactly

If that doesn't spell it out in plain enough English, nothing will.

---

by: Harry Doby @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 03:52:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Someone is seriously arguing

that Reid should worry about the credibility he might have with Lincoln or Nelson?

They either haven't paid attention to the process or they support Lincoln and Nelson's efforts to vote for their corporate sponsors.  Progressives are the ones who have lost on topic after topic.  What have Lincoln and Nelson given up in return?

---

by: WeatherDem @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 15:40:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Facts are funny things, kids

No matter what Bennet thinks, he is only one man. He cannot force a body of 100, or even 50 Senate critters to vote for a public option, no matter how much he may support it. The public option simply doesn't have the votes in the Senate right now, period.

Because of this fact, to propose this vote would be a waste of time and only distract away from passing truly progressive legislation that would have immediate positive impacts for thousands of people without insurance. This is why the GOP is planning to propose the public option, and a whole slew of other amendments, with the intentions of derailing passage of the bill.

The fact that Romanoff, is partnering with the likes of Sirota and Hamsher, two people who clearly wanted the bill President Obama signed yesterday to be dead from the get go (much like they did with the stimulus, or Treasury nominations, or whatever the "outrage" of the week is), speaks volumes about the state of the former Speaker's campaign.

Let's ask ourselves these questions:

What 51 Senators, right now, would support the public option if proposed in the reconciliation bill? What are their names? If you can't name them, explain to me how it would pass? Or would it simply be a useless gesture?

Where is the opposition to health care reform coming from? Is it coming from people who would be affected, or is it coming from a small minority of hecklers--who have money and have health care--who are consistently wrong on political issues?

What do these "public option pushers" have to gain from such an effort, when such a measure has no chance of being passed in the reconciliation bill? Might these people, perhaps, wish to curry political favor of some sort, more attention to themselves and their ventures, or soothe their own self-indulgent notions of "populism" and "purity?"

These are questions Sirota, Hamsher, and their ilk, can't or don't want to answer.

And I would really encourage the new Square State not to pollute its front page with Sirota's desperate peas for attention--pleas that he posts on every other blogging site, anyway.  

---

by: EMRosa @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 15:40:50 PM UTC

Good points and questions, EMRosa

We obviously don't know who those 50 or 51 Senators might be, because the public option hasn't come up for a vote in the full Senate.

To those advocating the public option wait its turn in line; that the Congress will return to it another day, I would propose they ask themselves the question, "What 60 Senators, at some undefined point in the future, would support the public option, either as a stand-alone or part of another piece of legislation?"

By extension, if 60 names don't become available for that effort, what is the explanation for how it would pass then?  If 60 names aren't forthcoming, the promise to take it up later can be characterized as an empty promise.

There will be no public option amendment proposed by a Democrat this week.  We all know that - it's a bitter pill of political reality we have to swallow.  But I would warn those who promise to introduce the public option later think hard about what the ramification might be if it doesn't pass.  They can't ignore that political reality either.

---

by: WeatherDem @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 19:19:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's how this will shake down.

If the Republicans find something in the Reconciliation Bill that the Parliamentarian rejects, then it goes back to the House to fix.  That's the time to put the public option in, since it has to be changed anyway, and that's what Bennet has proposed.

Of course, the Republicans will soon figure this out and I suspect will resign themselves to letting the fix go through as is.

---

by: GMFORD @ Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 19:29:56 PM UTC

That's exactly what happened this a.m. Ford.

Now, I am waiting for Camp Romanoff to spin it that A.R. did this. LMAO

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 14:36:44 PM UTC