Rep. Stephen Lynch, in MA-9, voted for the health care bill in November but announced today that he's voting against the new compromise bill -- supposedly from the LEFT.
That is, he says he won't back the new bill because it's weaker than the original House bill, doesn't do enough to constrain insurance companies and doesn't allow for a public option. In other words, we're supposed to believe Lynch is to the left of Kucinich on this issue. This is wildly implausible. Lynch is a DINO, and his opposition to the bill is from the right. Who does he think he is fooling?
My larger question is: Is there any possibility of a labor-backed primary opponent for Lynch -- from the actual left? MA-09 (South Boston) is not the bluest of MA districts, but my hunch is that labor is pretty strong there. It might be important for the larger project of keeping wavering "Yes" votes in line on this bill for some plausible primary opponent to at least begin to get talked about for Lynch.
Mike Castle is toast. Not only did he cast his vote against the Health Care Bill and for the anti-choice Stupak Amendment, he also drafted an amendment to allow health insurers to raise your premiums if you don't sign up for a Wellness Plan.
Here is the amendment Mike Castle added to the GOP "Die Quickly" Health Insurance Bill.
''In applying subparagraph (B), a group health plan
(or a health insurance issuer with respect to health
insurance coverage) may vary premiums and cost
sharing by up to 50 percent of the value of the benefits under the plan (or coverage) based on participation (or lack of participation) in a standards-based
wellness program.''.
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment made
by paragraph (1) shall apply to plan years beginning
more than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
In the comments reacting to the post, the big question surrounds Owens and his position on the public option. Obviously, the public option is a huge issue among progressives and the netroots. It is also a question that, in Owens' case, does not have a clear cut response.
I'm quite prepared to delete this if I'm breaking site policy but the topic seems relavant to me.
I've been fighting something of a lonely battle at Daily Kos arguing with people over the health care debate and real possibility of the Obama administration dropping the so called 'public option' in order to bring conservative Democrats in congress onboard in order to pass a bill.
Most have drawn their proverbial line in the sand and are committed to opposing any bill that does not include a robust public option. I have no doubt that many posters here at SSP also hold this position. I respect it but cannot agree.
This mcjoan diary from earlier today seemed to be totally off base and I said so.
They are fixated on the polls that show support for the public option in theory but refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the polling that indicates the electorate has turned against the plans that are actually under discussion. As we all know perception is reality in politics.
The reason I believe we can and should discuss this here is because of the real paradox that this has created. On the one hand Democrats in conservative districts won by John McCain or narrowly won by the president last year are clearly concerned about supporting a bill that is unpopular among their constituents. Their rationale is to remove the public option. But of course this is a sticking point for progressives particularly in the House.
I think this impass is a recipe for disaster. Though I don't think the health care failure in 1994 was the only factor in the Republican Revolution it was clearly the coup de grace after all the scandals and the contentious votes taken that cycle particularly on the budget and on the assault weapons ban. There is clear evidence that Dems in conservative districts that year who voted for those bills were likely to go down to defeat while those who voted no all survived.
Though the author is a bit of a winger and RCP in general leans conservative this article is quite persuasive.
I know Dave Wasserman at The Cook Political Report has come to the same conclusion and Nate Silver posted a link to the article yesterday and made many of the same points.
It is clear to me the pragmatic solution would be to find a compromise that can find the necessary votes in both chambers. Kossacks seem determined though to stand their ground even if it means no bill at all. What do y'all think?
As the critical governor's race approaches this fall, the New Jersey State AFL-CIO has launched a new website, The Real Chris Christie, to take a closer look at the Republican challenger and where he stands on key issues.
Chris Christie, who got a political appointment as a U.S. attorney after raising more than $350,000 for George W. Bush, is running as "reformer," but voters need to know what Christie would do as governor. Where does he stand on the critical issues facing New Jersey?
Christie wants to cut corporate tax rates at the expense of critical health, education and housing programs for working families.
Christie is proposing changes to health care that would allow insurance companies to deny claims and refuse to cover preventative care like mammograms.
Christie opposes funding for pre-K programs for young children.
Christie opposes paid medical leave for workers, project labor agreements and collective bargaining.
Christie has awarded no-bid contracts to friends and political allies.
Visit The Real Chris Christie to find out more. It's an important resource as we approach the Nov. 3 election.
The Oregonian is reporting that Senator Ron Wyden (D) is a candidate to be the next HHS Secretary. I'll discuss the rumors, who Wyden is and what this would mean for the US Senate if he were to be nominated.
I do most of my writing at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland.
Last year at this time I was scrambling to make as many phone calls and knock on as many doors as I could before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.
This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.
After the jump I've linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.
I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I'll do a review of Bleeding Heartland's 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.
This month we won a historic electoral victory. But our work didn't end on election day - it only started.
As President-elect Obama said on election night:
"This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were."
The time to make real, lasting change is upon us.
Now we must repair the damage inflicted by eight years of Republican misrule, and put our country back on track. As progressives, we must fight to ensure that the Democrats in control of our government respect the voters and enact policies that put the American people first.
This is a critical time for our country. We can't sit back and let the Republicans in Washington push the Democrats to the right. We'd like to as everyone to take a moment to check out our Progressive Priorities 2009 petition, and share it with your friends. Your signing the petition will let our leadership know that we want progressive change, not a Republican-lite government.
The campaign schedule has been pretty intense over the last week and will continue to be so until the BIG day on Tuesday, November 4th. I want to congratulate everyone for putting so much effort into this year's election, not just for an individual campaign, but for the entire Democratic ticket. I've seen people in every community throughout the 5th district working to make sure the message is getting out.
I want to remind everyone it is important that we finish strong. Don't take anything for granted, ignore the polls and work like the polls show our candidates 5 points down. Remember, while all indications show Barack Obama will be our next president, if we believe the polls, Al Gore would be concluding his second term or we would be working to re-elect President John Kerry right now.
There have been no public polls in the race between Republican incumbent Tom Latham and Becky Greenwald in Iowa's fourth Congressional district, and neither candidate has released any results from internal polling.
However, Latham may be increasingly concerned about holding this D+0 district amid what looks like a landslide victory for Barack Obama in Iowa.
Until this week, Latham's campaign messaging touted his record and mostly ignored his challenger. But on Monday he went negative, issuing this statement blasting Greenwald's support for the recent bailout package. (She came out against the first bailout bill the House considered but supported the version that cleared the Senate before coming up for a House vote.)
Latham voted against both bailout bills, one of very few times he's ever refused to support something the Bush administration wanted. For months, Greenwald has been hitting him on his lockstep Republican voting record. He is clearly grateful to have this issue to separate him from the White House and Republican leadership in Congress.
