First, a critique. Keep in mind that because we did not start at single-payer, the public option was the progressive proposal instead of the compromise. So now we are in a position where we need to compromise. That's politics. A strong robust public option can pass both houses and a comprehensive health care reform bill should be passed. Progressives need to stand strong and Democrats need to remember which party they belong to and quit siding with the Republicans/conservatives on this issue.
It's real simple: Either you want reform or you want a primary. Your choice.
The opt-out provision can be the compromise. It should be the compromise solution and it isn't complicated. All the opt-out provision does is it allows states to "opt out" of the public option if they do not wish to take part.
So the new idea seems to be a public option offered at a national level, but with states having the right to opt out - that is, make it not available to their own residents.
At first blush, that sounds good. It's true that the states most likely to opt out will probably be small states that really need the competition. But many states, with probably a majority of the population, would opt in. And if the public option works well, there will soon be pressure on politicians in the others to do the same.
I guess there's a possible issue of principle: if states can opt out of one component of reform, why not all? But I haven't noticed principles playing much role in this process! And the idea of putting red-state governors on the spot, having to decide whether to deny their voters cheaper policies, definitely has some appeal.
I emphasized that last part because that is the key portion of this provision which could be our greatest asset.
The point is that it would be good for the Democrats to put the GOP in this position. If they don't want the public option (or what they call "socialized medicine" and "government-run health care") they can explain that to the citizens of their state instead of disrupting the national debate. States like New York would surely welcome the public option. But the red state governors would be put in a position where they would either have to accept the public option or tell their citizens that the public option won't be offered to them because they would rather put politics above their best interests.
This is not a bad provision. It's a lot better than "triggers" or any other past compromise proposal. Because the reality is that there probably won't be anyone who, as governor, would want to kill the public option in their state out of fear that they would lose re-election as a result.
Bill Owens isn't a Democrat (not officially, anyway, until he votes in November) and since he wasn't an elected official, much isn't known about him. I started looking at Owens and came up with a number of different positions, but there were more questions that came from that post.
Obviously, health care is a big issue. There has been some debate about where Owens stands. But now, at least to me, his stance is clear.
The question about Owens and his support of a public option might seem complicated, but it really isn't. Owens isn't opposed to a public option. That, to him, isn't the biggest piece.
He has outlined his ideas for health care reform already. If a public option is in a bill that meets his objectives, he will support it. That has been repeated to me over and over again. It's not the public option that he is opposed to. He wants to see a strong comprehensive bill. I think we all can agree that there is a such thing as a weak health care reform bill even with a public option. Because if we don't reform the whole system and just throw in a public option as a deal sweetener, that's not much of a reform package.
Owens wants a strong comprehensive bill. I think that's something we all want.
The Owens campaign also confirmed that Owens supports climate change legislation. When asked specifically about the bill that passed the House earlier this year, Owens said he would have supported (and supports) that legislation.
It is easy to look at Owens and say he is going to be a "conservaDem" or a "Blue Dog." He doesn't see himself as conservative or progressive. He seems himself as a moderate independent. Is he going to be the next Alan Grayson? Probably not. But I don't see him as the next Mike Ross either.
With Bill Clinton and the Working Families Party getting behind Owens it is time that we get behind him. Is he the perfect progressive? No. But he is a moderate that we can work with. He's a vote for climate change and for health care reform. He is for job creation and ending regressive taxation and wasteful tax cuts. Those are all good things we can get behind.
Plenty of good news on the campaign trail for Democratic candidate Bill Owens. A key minor party backed him and a key Democratic figure sent out an e-mail blast for him.
The Working Families Party announced today that it has endorsed Owens in the 23rd congressional district race featuring Owens, Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
The importance of the WFP endorsement will be known later, as the party is still plotting its course forward with the New York City elections just around the corner (although, it's hard to imagine that any of the candidates they have backed in the city have the task ahead of them like Owens, but I digress) and a number of issues they were going to be active on. It is key that they endorsed Owens when you consider that in 2004 and 2008, they supported Scozzafava. Of course, Scozzafava ran unopposed in both elections and there was no alternative.
Also helping Owens out today is former President Bill Clinton, who sent out a fundraising e-mail for Owens.
Here is part of the e-mail:
Every once in a while, a special election comes along that's bigger than just one candidate or one office. Such an election is taking place right now in Upstate New York. It can expand our Democratic Majority in Congress this year.
With the media closely watching this race, victory or defeat will also be seen as a referendum on President Obama's agenda for health care and on our entire progressive agenda. So it's critical that we stand together as Democrats behind our candidate, Bill Owens.
With just 26 days left before the November 3rd special election, Republicans and their conservative outside groups are expected to spend over a million dollars attacking Bill. Our top strategists just briefed me on this race. They said that Bill needs to raise $83,000 before Friday to stay on the air combating the more than $500K Republicans have already spent attacking him.
There is a lot going on in NY-23 today and in recent days. I'll have more on this race later.
The other day, I shattered the ugly belief that the Republican candidate in the 23rd congressional district, Dede Scozzafava, was the most liberal. That post was a direct response to Markos' post Thursday, which also included a critique of Democratic candidate Bill Owens.
One of the arguments made by Markos is that Owens is a "conservaDem" and that he would be just another member of the Blue Dog Coalition should he win in November. Owens, who was an independent but has changed his party affiliation to become a Democrat, was picked over two Democrats to run.
While I enjoy 90% of what I read here, I am baffled by this pages sometimes blind support for Senator Gillenbrand and its reviling of Governor Paterson.
I thought this sight was a progressive one? Lately it seems that if a politician, member of the press, or private citizen disagrees with the TAP party line, they are villified ala Limbaugh and Beck, by ceratin contributing authors.
(Full disclosure: I was called a "fool" by one contributor because I disagreed with their assessment of press coverage for Senator Gillenbrand, a view I thought was legitamite, it may not have been - but a fool?)
TAP's love affair with Kirsten Gillibrand and now its cry for Paterson's head are incongruous with the progressive model.
Why can't someone primary against Gillibrand? Some on TAP thinks that is an absurd (see NY-Sen: Meet Jon Cooper: Still Pondering Run Against Gillibrand ) road to travel - why, someone might challenge the Senator on her inconsistent record?? - party heresy!
The cries for a sitting governor to NOT run more than a year out from the election is also an absurd notion. If he is as terrible as TAP has been saying (unfortunately it seems he is), then isn't a primary the logical place to have an open and honest debate about policy and government, instead of running him out of town with pitch forks and torches?
In both cases, the irrational demands made by some on this page betray the reason the page was created in the first place - intelligent, logical, and reasoned debate to help take back what is rightfully ours.
All viewpoints should be welcome to that debate; only then will progress be reached.
There are certain issues that steal the spotlight for short or long periods of time. Right now, health care is the focus of the media's attention and in Washington D.C., health care is the hot topic right now with Congress looking at reforming our broken system.
But one issue that should not be forgotten is the environment. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand hasn't forgotten about the importance the environment plays and why keeping our air and water clean and addressing the issues with climate change deserve to be a top priority.
But Sen. Gillibrand is hoping that it will pass, but not at the environment's expense. Earlier this month, she spoke out regarding one key element in the House bill that would give coal-fired power plants less regulation and strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to regulate those coal plants.
Environmental activists already have complained that the House bill is too friendly to polluters and have been urging the Senate to toughen it by selling more emissions allowances -- rather than donating most of them to businesses initially.
Senate deal-making also jeopardizes some of the last-minute agreements that were key to passage in the House. For instance, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is worried about a provision added to the House bill that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate pollution from coal-fired power plants -- language backed by lawmakers in coal mining states.
"The EPA has to have authority to regulate coal plants under the Clean Air Act," said Gillibrand, who has promised "to use every bit of persuasive power" she can to ensure the bill "reflects the needs of New York." Leaders in New York have been concerned about acid rain traced to coal-burning plants in the Midwest.
This provision was criticized by environmental activists for being too lenient on polluters in a bill supposedly touting clean (and green) energy. In response, progressives have led the charge to make sure that such a provision won't survive in the Senate version (and the future agreed upon version) of the bill. MoveOn has a petition you can sign voicing your opposition to the provision and also sent out an e-mail to New York members of MoveOn asking them to send a note of thanks to Sen. Gillibrand for being "one of the very first senators to speak out publicly against rolling back the Clean Air Act."
Here's an excerpt from that e-mail:
For years, New York has had some of the worst air pollution in the country. On top of local pollution, New Yorkers get tons of smog and acid rain blown in from out of state.
Now, coal industry lobbyists are trying to slip a provision into Obama's clean energy plan that would repeal a key part of the Clean Air Act. This would bring about a whole new generation of dirty coal power and make New York's pollution problems even worse.
But not if Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has anything to say about it. She's one of the very first senators to speak out publicly against rolling back the Clean Air Act.
...
Under the Clean Air Act, dirty coal-fired power plants are required to meet standards for their global warming pollution. The Bush administration refused to enforce these rules, but President Obama has already started taking steps to crack down.
That's why coal lobbyists are trying to repeal key sections of the Clean Air Act, letting coal plants off the hook and sticking New Yorkers with lots more pollution.
This rollback is the wrong thing to do, and it certainly doesn't belong in a "clean energy" bill. But the polluters might get away with it if champions in Congress don't fight back.
Sen. Gillibrand is fighting. She told the Albany Times-Union in an article that got picked up nationwide that "The EPA has to have authority to regulate coal plants under the Clean Air Act" and promised "to use every bit of persuasive power" to ensure the bill "reflects the needs of New York" by cutting power plant pollution.
MoveOn also thanked Sen. Gillibrand outside of her office in New York City:
Gillibrand has been at the forefront of many progressive issues during her time as a senator. This isn't the first time, but it is key since this legislation will be taken up by the Senate and there are already debates about what protections should be included (or excluded). Senators from coal-friendly states will be facing pressure to defend the interests of the industry. Gillibrand won't face such pressure, but she isn't going to let the best interests of coal be reflected in a bill that is supposed to be promoting clean and green energy.
I like Kirsten Gillibrand. I think she'll be a substantial improvement over Hillary Clinton as a Senator in many ways. I don't however, call myself a "progressive", if only because I don't believe in progress. Lots of New Yorkers do, though, and it's clear some of them are disappointed by the choice.
New York is an extremely blue state, but it's not been electing progressive stalwarts for a surprisingly long time. Jacob Javits may have been further to the left within the Republicans than Daniel Patrick Moynihan was within the Democrats. Chuck Schumer is many things, but "progressive" doesn't come to mind. Hillary Clinton deliberately ran from the center.
Within the state, Mario Cuomo was seen as a conservative choice, winning his primary with support from Upstate at first, before he became the great liberal hope that never ran for President. Spitzer's platform of muscular reform included progressive elements, but he wasn't exactly a man of the left. Paterson came in to high hopes, but most of the grousing I've heard about him has come from progressives disappointed that he won't move boldly in their direction.
There hasn't been a Paul Wellstone or a Russ Feingold, or even a Teddy Kennedy, from New York in a long long time. RFK may be the closest we've had, but he sounds like he moved left after he was elected, eventually moving to the left more people remember as he ran for President.
So what kind of coalition might propel a progressive statewide candidacy toward success?
For starters, you can probably count on Tompkins County, centered on Ithaca. It gave Jonathan Tasini the highest proportion of votes of any county in the 2006 primary. (I think he got 16% statewide, but 40% here.) It was also the Obama county in a bright sea of Clinton counties - certainly willing to be different. You can't, of course, win based on a small county deep in Upstate.
To win, you need large numbers of votes in the cities. Not just NYC, but Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, and Albany. Binghamton's even become more friendly these days. None of those places are screamingly progressive, though - they tend to have relatively centrist Democrats in charge.
NYC seems like it should be progressive, but its political machinery isn't particularly progressive. The Gang of Four and Gang of Three who were threatening to tilt the State Senate back to the Republicans weren't conservative Upstaters - they were all NYC representatives with tight bonds to the local political machines. (Pedro Espada is the most complicated story of the four, but seems to have his own local machinery.)
There are Citizen Action and Democracy For America groups across the state, and there is of course the Working Families Party, who I'm pretty sure would be happy to support a progressive statewide candidate.
Out of all of this, what kind of coalition could propel a genuine progressive to statewide office? Might a compelling candidate be enough, or do progressives need to convert or bypass the existing political machinery?
The Assembly seems to be the place in New York State politics most eager to portray itself as progressive - but are there compelling candidates there? Preferably candidates untainted by the corruption or other legal issues that periodically remove legislators from office?
NYS Republicans may help too - largely because the party core seems to have moved far enough right that they may be losing their ability to reach out.
It should be possible to elect a progressive in New York State. As in all things NYS, though, it's a big question of how.
It's been a hard few years for New York Democrats with a fondness for reform. After years of little hope, Spitzer raised our hopes and then crashed them. Over the last few months, our hopes climbed with the election of a Democratic majority in the State Senate, the last Republican fortress. Now they've crashed to earth again, thanks to the "Gang of Three" and the Democratic leadership's response.
I don't know why we keep thinking that it will be easy once our favorites get into office. Changing the cast of characters makes a difference, certainly - but even if he hadn't imploded, Eliot Spitzer would still be facing challenge after challenge from a deeply-rooted Albany culture.
Our legislature has been about two things, and two things exclusively, for the last few decades: power and deals. Power is the foundation, and deals are how everything gets sorted out. Deals lubricate the mechanisms of power and are the path by which ideas become concrete.
What we've seen over the last few weeks is a slow struggle toward a deal. The blunt fact of the matter is that the "Gang of Three" has power right now - power that I think they're well aware is temporary, but power they'd like to cement in a deal.
They're not, despite some overheated rhetoric here, terrorists - they're playing the Albany game exactly as it's been played for a long long time. Party loyalties? Yes, they sort of matter, but really only so far as they mesh with the demands of power.
Similarly, while it's completely likely that we'll hear a lot of high-minded rhetoric from Democratic Senators who are unhappy with the deal, there isn't much reason to believe that the rhetoric is really motivated by idealism. There's a bit of that, some sense that party loyalty should matter - but mostly, once again, it's about power, and how this deal affects the distribution of power.
It's too bad we can't just say that the Senate is divided 30-29-3 and move on. That's the underlying reality, but it doesn't fit into the legislative rules very neatly, so we're stuck in a very strange charade.
How can I possibly be so cynical, when I'm the guy who lectures the most about what New York State government should be? Given my rants about the Democratic Assembly, how can I possibly tolerate this nonsense from our Senate, long the home of lofty Democratic reform rhetoric?
It's because we need to change the culture of New York politics, not just the players. Changing the players regularly is an important part of changing the culture, but shifting a few Senators from one party to the other isn't nearly enough.
Yes, we're stuck in an ugly situation. Of course, we're stuck in an ugly situation. We're at a point where tiny groups of Senators have tremendous power, where the folks we'd like to be in control haven't ascended yet, and even when they do ascend, it's going to be touch and go for a long long time to come.
I've had days when I liked Smith and days when I loathed Smith. But Smith isn't the story - and neither is a Democratic Majority Leader.
The real story, I think, is much slower, less exciting, and less likely to make good fodder for soap opera tabloid. It's the kind of work cliffweathers is taking on in Rockland County, and the involvement many of us have in our local committees. We need to change the political culture in every county, and across the state.
We can't count on party leadership shaped by decades of Albany's power and deals culture to break free of that culture in a single election. It will take many, many elections, even after Democrats are comfortably in control.
Getting there is not up to them, though - it's up to us.
Robert posted an important entry yesterday regarding the current leadership of New York State. In sum, Albany is now controlled by downstate politicians. Upstate New York is woefully underrepresented. In a comment, I stated that New York Democrats need to find new leadership from their upstate members in order to represent the region in the most direct way. In the following entry, I'd like to look at a few individuals who I believe could rise to prominence as upstate leaders in the Democratic Party.
Democracy for NYC (DFNYC) is committed to the ideals of Democracy for America (you may know it as DFA), the group founded by Howard Dean. We're proud to have TAP folks as members.
DFNYC has continually petitioned electeds to end the war, and spoken out for withholding funds. A totally volunteer, non-profit political action committee, DFNYC works for fiscally responsible, socially PROGRESSIVE candidates to WIN, at ALL levels of government.
Because of yesterday's terrible vote, Democracy for NYC is NOT caving. In point of fact, we are CHARGED. Read on.
