Pearson's Free Pass to Bernie on Healthcare Inconsistent with his Own Vote on Catamount Health

Like... (0.00 / 0)

Political Preparation H, that post of Pearson's.

Not really.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. Politics. Godlessness. Music. Films of questionable quality. It's all there, folks.

---

by: JDRyan @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 18:52:48 PM UTC

Capital P (0.00 / 0)

"in response to a bit of progressive (li'l 'p') pushback in the comments, Pearson responded..."

That's capital 'P' pushback in the comments he is responding to. I post as "Jessica" on that blog and I am on the State Prog Party's Coordinating Committee (the equivalent to the State Dems' Executive Committee).

---

by: jjem @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 18:58:02 PM UTC

Yeah, but it wasnt just you... (0.00 / 0)

...on the other hand, I had no idea you were involved in such an official capacity. I'll alter the diary. Nice work.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 19:12:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Easy now (0.00 / 0)

I posted Bernie's speech (from a week) ago before he voted for the bill. My post was simply to share what I found to be a very impressive speech that made me feel a tiny bit better since the past several months have been utterly depressing on the health care front.

More important than my post or this one, we should be asking why Obama and others took Medicare for All off the table?

Happy Holidays Everyone.

---

by: Chris Pearson @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 19:38:59 PM UTC

So... (0.00 / 0)

You didn't defend Bernie's decision to support the Senate Bill? That's sure not how it reads - especially in the comments.

Are you calling for the Bernie to defeat the bill? Sounds like you were lauding him on his deal. He could still single-handedly stop this bill. If he doesn't, he owns it as well.

If you, in fact, feel he should kill the bill, perhaps you should post that on your site.

And we are asking about Obama. Quite a bit. Obviously. We also ask the harder, more inconvenient questions. Do you?

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 20:18:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Go read the post before you react (0.00 / 0)

I called Bernie and Leahy (both!) to ask them to vote no on cloture. Although in some regards I am thinking twice about that recommendation.  And I will get into that in a moment.

But before I do, I want to ask readers to go to the Prog blog www.progressiveparty.org/blog/ and read Chris Pearsons post.  It was praising Bernie, not for or against his vote on this bill, but reminding us that Bernie has been one of the most important voices and leaders on the push for single payer of anyone in Washington.

The reason I am torn about my recommendation to vote no on cloture is this, and it is a nuanced argument...so I am sure I will be challenged on it. I do not think that the minority should be able to uphold progress on legislation.  We have a system of majority rule whether we like it or not.  It is a strange quirk that we have this 60% rule.  

Now...it is a different vote when it comes to the actual bill.  On that, I truly hope that he and Sen. Leahy both vote no.  The moderates can win without their votes.

Let me add that in Montpelier there is a motion to "call the question" which is a similar motion to cloture.  It is a motion that if passed, ends the debate and calls for the vote to be taken on the question at hand.  The request is made a few times each year when debates go on and on and on and some would argue start looking like a filibuster.  In my 13 years, I have never seen that motion pass (that I can remember).  However, what occurs next is the Institutional dignity that is lacking in DC.  Folks realize that while the motion failed, it does seem as though most everything has been said that needs to and it is time to move on whether you are on the prevailing side or the losing side.  Typically no one else rises to speak and the vote on the underlying motion is taken.

Sadly, that is not the case in DC.  The cloture rule exists.  Unfortunately it does not exist in its true form as the filibuster would occur far les frequently.  But it exists none-the-less.

So in retrospect, my call to our senators should have been to vote for cloture and then vote against the bill.  To stop majority rule (whether we like it or not) should not be a hallmark of our Democracy.  

It is also important to remember (for those that will bring up minority rights), that we have a constitution that has clauses relating to rights.  And for me, that is an entirely different matter and the majority should not be able to trample on minority rights (marriage equality, gender, race, etc.).

Anyway, I appreciate Chris Pearsons remarks in that we have one of the strongest and most articulate leaders in DC.  That is what his post was about, it was not to say whether he liked the bill or not.

---

by: David Zuckerman @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 19:48:26 PM UTC

You say ... (4.00 / 1)

... " want to ask readers to go to the Prog blog www.progressiveparty.org/blog/ and read Chris Pearsons post" as though I'm hiding something. I link to it twice in the diary. I want people to read it. If you're against the bill, its timing is very, very poor - given that it went up just as the rest of us both here and at FDL were ratcheting up our efforts to pressure our Junior Senator. Does that not matter to you?

And frankly I find your parsing of votes/procedures/actions indistinguishable from Democrat John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" or Bill Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Bernie had an opportunity to stop this bill inits tracks. He chose not to. There is still time for him to change his mind. Those of us who believe this bill will do more harm than good are asking him to do that. Period. If you disagree and think the Senate bill is OK, fine - make your case. Hiding behind technicalities and word parsing should be beneath you, and in fact is the very strategy so frequently employed by power brokers in the Democratic Party that you so frequently have railed against for that very reason - and rightfully so.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 20:26:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I should add... (0.00 / 0)

...that there are front pagers on this very site in favor of the bill's passage, warts and all. It can be a totally honorable position (I just think it's wrong).

What's important, though, is that you take a position clearly. Nobody should get to have it both ways, even though it is a hallmark of politicians to try.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 20:33:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not trying to have it both ways (3.00 / 1)

I was just trying to explain that there are two votes.  One is proceedural and the other is actually the bill.

As I thought more about my recommendation to Bernie and Leahy, I have come to the conclusion that they should not use proceedure to kill the bill.  But I do think they should vote against its passage.

I believe in majority rule. Not super majority rule.

I believe our consitution is written to protect minority rights (i.e. women, minorities, GLB etc.), and that we should stand up and fight for those rights. But that is different than how our process was set up to be run.

I do not know when or how the original cloture rules came about.  I do believe everyone should get a chance to have their say with respect to why something is good or bad.  But when those proceedures are exploited beyond the reason they were created then it is bad democracy.

I am actually pleased that the U.S. citizenry has seen how disgusting DC politics is.  I hope that this spurs on a real discussion about the underlying causes of these problems; campaign finance and election reform in general.  But I am not going to hold out hope.

I think this discussion has shown how some Democrats are totally beholden to the insurance industry (and there are many others from all parties who are beholden to some industry or another depending on the economics of their state).

I also think this discussion has shown how the Republicans are simply a party of obsructionists with absolutely no creative ideas of their own.

I think this discussion also should prepare all of us for the problems we will face with energy legislation, and just about anything else that we hoped for with respect to the new Presidents agenda.

Do I think that Bernie is perfect.  No.  Do I think he is one of the best legislators (House and now Senate) that is or has been in office, Yes.

I believe that Chris was simply trying to give us something to be a little proud of and something to help us all feel a little better in these depressing times.  His focus appears to be to have been on the single payer speach and how at least someone is willing to stand up (albiet briefly) to speak to what this country really needs.

I felt that directly posting the link was more clear than in your posting.  It was not meant as a slam on you for not doing that. I am sorry about that. I did think that your portayal of what Chris was saying was not quite fair and that folks should check it out for themselves.

---

by: David Zuckerman @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 21:43:58 PM UTC

As much as anything... (0.00 / 0)

...the post cites Pearson's comment in the post itself, in which he explicitly gives Bernie cover.

As far as the filibuster rules go, it simply does not make sense to unilaterally disarm. The filibuster is the rule. The GOP uses it. To say our side shouldn't because its icky is... well, it's bizarre at best. Advocate for its elimination, but until it IS repealed, to say that we should allow conservatives a different, more advantageous set of legislative rules than liberals get - as a matter of principle (?) just seems, not only weird, but absurdly self-destructive. We become a movement dedicated to self-sabotage for its own sake, no less.

By the rules of the Senate, Bernie - or Leahy - could've stopped this bill. They chose not. Chose. NOT. To. That is an absolute, reality not subject to debate. Nor is it subject to debate that there still is an opportunity to stop it.

We've focused on Bernie because he seems to "get it," was wrestling with his decision, and is therefore the very legislator who needs to hear from his constituents.

But this thing isn't over, and we owe it to the millions of Americans who stand to be hurt by this bill - not the least of which the millions of women who will effectively have their reproductive choice taken from them - to do what we can to stop it, and not undermine serious efforts because we find a procedural rule icky. Them's some messed-up priorities, IMHO.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 22:09:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Go ahead, have it both ways (0.00 / 0)

David,
While I agree in principal about shutting down debate and voting on the damn thing, the fact is the Senate makes procedure a function of the substantive content of the laws that affect us.

I'd prefer to play basketball without fouling, without traveling, without spending 12 seconds in the lane and without double-dribbling. However, I am at a distinct disatvantage if I go on the court, and respect the three second rule and keep my pivot foot down, while all the conservatives players the "Washington Generals" leave the rule book in the locker room and play like a rugby team while the ref sleeps under the bleachers.

The fact is, Lieberman has used the 60 vote canard to funnel health care resources to the insurance industry rather than to health care.  Nebraska Mutual of Omaha agent Ben Nelson has used the 60 vote canard to strip women of their medical rights. Harry Reid decided that the 60 vote filibuster canard would be used a cudgel against reform and liberals rather than using reconciliation as a cudgel to force conservatives to compromise in favor of taxpayers and patients.

Back to the basketball analogy. If all parties agreed that "at the end of the day, we'll bring this to a vote" then I'd agree with your position.  However, the way the game is played in D.C. means that liberals are expected to play by one set of rules (the capitulation set of rules where the voters/taxpayers/patients/workers etc. get fucked) and conservatives are allowed to play by another set of rules (the extract any concession we want or there is no vote rule).

Right now, the insurance industry, Harry Reid and President Obama need our delegation far more than they need to worry about Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman.  

In fact, Big Insurance is salivating so profusely over the fucking they're about to give policy holders and taxpayers alike, that if a couple of liberals backed out, Big Insurance would be pushing Susan Collins or Olympia Snowjob to the cameras where they'd be making a "history calls" speech to save this worthless piece of wealth transfer from the working class to the insurance corporations. I guarantee you if a liberal or two made a demand at this point, someone on the right would jump in to save this bill.  The objections are more political and theater than policy for the corporate Republicans at this point.

Liberals did not invent the cloture/filibuster rules. They did not exploit or pervert them the way the conservatives have since Bill Clinton became president.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't play the game the way the game is imposed on them when the chance for a semblance of health care reform might still be in play.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 00:33:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

fair enough (0.00 / 0)

on many counts.  

I am just curious how and when we decide that the ends justify the means?

I agree...the other side has no scrupples.  So does that mean we should all throw our own out the window?

As I stated (maybe a couple times) I do not like the bill either.  I agree with Odum (and many others) that the Nelson provisions are abhorent.

But to focus the blame on Bernie is a bit over the top.

Nelson and others will continue to get money and support from the Democratic Party establishment.  Lieberman will probably continue to hold on to his chair.  There are far greater leverage points that Reid could have used on these guys and he chose not to.

As you point out.  If Bernie had pulled the plug, there would have been an R to switch (and I agree with you 100% it is theater...and the Insurance Co.s will make out with the mandated insurance provision).  Therefore making him the bad guy is a false attack.  So instead...he used what he could to get a little bit more in the bill without holding out and getting nothing while the bill still moved forward with the vote of a Snowe or other.

Thanks for a good healthy debate.

---

by: David Zuckerman @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 02:26:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're talking to people who aren't in the room (0.00 / 0)

This has nothing to do with scruples.

We are not even close to an "ends-justify-the-means discussion." Everything I discussed revolved around even-handed parliamentary pragmatism. It's all above board. I'm not suggesting lying to people about death panels. Nowhere did I suggest cutting back-room deals to insert insurance industry loopholes. Nowhere do I suggest engaging in the bad faith behavior that the conservatives engage in as a matter of course.

Where did I suggest throwing our own out the window?  In fact, my comments were not even directed at Bernie. Rather, I specifically said that "Liberals" should play by the rules as they are enforced.

My comment was specifically directed at the strategic responsibility that "Our Team" has to play the hands that they are being dealt rather than play by the rules we wish everyone else would respect.

Repeat.  Not singling out Bernie. Not saying engage in bad faith.

As you point out.  If Bernie had pulled the plug, there would have been an R to switch (and I agree with you 100% it is theater...and the Insurance Co.s will make out with the mandated insurance provision).  Therefore making him the bad guy is a false attack.  . . . .

Thanks for a good healthy debate.

Hello! I did not make this about Bernie much less disparage him.

My comment pointed out that our team is ceding territory by leaving their cups & mouthguards at home and playing without a helmet. My comments go to strategy, or the lack of it and the lack of appreciation too many liberals in congress have of the power that is their to wield if they chose to use it. I'm am pointing out that they hit the ground when they are tagged while the other team keeps running unless they are tackled. Bernie is, has been and always will be one of the best members of either house of congress. In fact, he is less likely to cede territory than a lot of liberals in congress. I think that is why Odum is looking to him to exert more pressure on this and it probably reflects Odum's trust in Bernie's ability to be effective. That's not making anyone a bad guy. In fact, that's a pretty good measure of respect in many political environments.

Thanks for a good healthy debate. Please consider debating the points I made rather then the straw men you sneaked onto the field hoping the ref would not notice them.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 12:31:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dave, (0.00 / 0)

As your  constituent I really want to thank you for coming on here, stating a position and defending it. Although I disagree with you on the Filibuster issue, the fact that you are engaging in the online back and forths of the progressive blogosphere is sweet and I appreciate it.  

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

---

by: vtmarkvt @ Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 03:41:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just a sidenote (4.00 / 1)

I'm pretty sure I'm a true progressive, even though I don't want to stop the Senate bill from moving forward to reconciliation.  What special handshake do I need to implement in order to not get thrown out of the club?

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 02:39:54 AM UTC

Best I can do. (0.00 / 0)

You got this from me just upthread.

Considering how strongly I feel about all this, that may be the best I can do.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 03:09:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I get that (0.00 / 0)

I don't have any problem with your position.  I'm not clear on whether or not I'll support passage of the final bill that comes out of reconciliation, but until I know what that bill looks like, I don't feel right in opposing moving forward.  

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 03:19:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

we're all getting... (0.00 / 0)

... "conference" and "reconciliation" confused in this debate, aren't we? Or am I confused?

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 03:28:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Conference committee is used to... (0.00 / 0)

reconcile the difference between the two bills.  I'm not confused at all.  Not about that, anyway.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 00:02:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You said "reconciliation" (0.00 / 0)

It's a term thats been used in this debate, and has been mushed together with the conference process. When activists have said Reid should've used "reconciliation, they're referring to (from wikipedia):

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party.

There as been confusion on this of late, as the terms have started being used interchangeably.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 01:24:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

The two terms have been used interchangeably in a sloppy fashion, but they're both accurate terms.  

this one refers to budget reconciliation. It's also common to refer to "reconciliation" when trying to reconcile the senate and house bill.  Also referred to as "resolution."

What people are asking is that it be handled through the BUDGET reconciliation process, which requires just a simple majority, rather than the standard reconciliation process involving a joint committee between the senate and the house to create a version that both houses might be able to pass.

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 01:43:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you. Julie! (0.00 / 0)

Apparently the secret handshake is that it's "honorable" to disagree with Odum if we "take a position clearly."  So here's my clear position:

1) This whole process has been a FUBB of the worst order by the Obama administration. I WANT to believe if they'd done it right we'd have a better bill, though the level of teh crazy and teh stupid (it burns! -- thank you Atrios) leaves this open to question.

2) I am not convinced by Hamsher's/Odum's clear position.

3) I am (mostly) convinced by Ezra Klein's analysis. No, I'm not engaging in a simplistic battle of the blogs-type analysis.  Klein's only ONE of the things I read that got me to where I am, just as Jane's is only ONE of the the things I read that got took a different position. This is a comment,not a "post," 'kay? Klein and Hamsher are useful summaries of many other analyses.

4) As far as I'm concerned, passage of this bill, awful as the whole process has been, is a FIRST step in getting genuine health care reform. With the bill in place, some fixes could be much more easily done through reconciliation, and I think that is a very good place to push both Leahy and Sanders.

5) Just as there are some bad things in this bill, there are also some good things. Removal of the anti-trust exemption alone is huge.

6) I do have a dog in this fight, in that I get subsidized health insurance through Catamount, and I get my care at a Rural Health Center. I am grateful to Bernie for getting last-minute improvements to a bad bill, and I believe that he's not going to sit around with his thumb up his butt letting this be the end of health care reform.

And in the hope that whatever you celebrate, including the wonders of science, I offer this from Normandi Ellis's wonderful translation of the Book of the Dead,Awakening Osiris:  "May the light shine through us, and on us, and in us. May we die each night and be born each morning that the wonder of life not escape us.  May we love, and laugh, and enter lightly into each other's hearts.  May we live forever.  May we live forever."

---

by: MadamPince @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:28:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh. (4.00 / 1)

I think eye-rolling comments about "honor" and "tak(ing) a position clearly" speak to what a strange debate this has turned into.

The one thing I would respond to in this is this oft-repeated notion, coming from progressives such as Tom Harkin, that we can just "start" with this bill and come back to it later for improvements. This is - IMO - a rationalization.

Seriously. Step back, look at this debate over the course of the year. Look at where its gone. Look at Obama, Harry Reid, virtually any Dem senator.

Do you really think they're going to be eager to return to this battlefield anytime in their terms? Really really?

Eyes wide open, folks. This is for the whole enchilada. We don't get half an enchilada now and the other half later.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 14:22:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And that, in my opinion, is the bigger message (4.00 / 1)

If I'm trying to get to Burlington from Montpelier, and I start walking backwards towards Boston ... I'm not getting any closer to my goal no matter how many candy bars I'm handed along the way.

Oh, and MadamPrince? We all have one those proverbial dogs in this fight.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 14:31:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah .. it really is about winning ... (4.00 / 1)

and radical right wing and the corporate allies of the DC Dems (including Sanders) won big time.

There will not be reductions in premiums.

There will not be reductions in out of pocket expenses.

There will not be reductions in the costs associated with health care.

There will be a huge tax increase on the lower and middle economic classes as we are forced to fund the lavish life styles of the already glutted insurance industry.

There will be a quantum leap in corporate power as our money simply funds tomorrow's further destruction of any honest health care/insurance reform.

There will be an absolute loss of privacy and expanded marketing making use of the information we are mandated to give to the already glutted insurance companies we are mandated to sign up with.

There will be less social control and protections as the glutted insurance industry swarms to the least regulated state ... from which to sell their cross border policies (how many of you can afford to drive to Alabama for a court case when you have to sue one of these glutted insurance companies for non-payment?).

Sure a few bones were sent out there, but those meat-bare bones were only meant to get support for the corporate agenda. Watch as the next step is to finish destroying Medicaid and Medicare ... the DC Dems (including Sanders) have given the radical right wing and the glutted insurance industry the vehicle to do just that.

It really is about winners and losers. Sanders and Leahy helped sell us down the river, and Sanders and Leahy helped give the glutted corporate industry a huge leap in political power.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 14:05:34 PM UTC

This really gets at my thoughts on the matter (0.00 / 0)

If you really look at the overall trends in Washington, the agenda they have set for the foreseeable future, it doesn't look good. They're already trying to create a bipartisan "Entitlement Commission" which will no doubt begin to streamline(privatize) Medicare and Social Security.  

I'm of the hold-up the bill camp and I think if we can get a solid progressive bloc in the house then a reinvigorated debate can take place where progressives will have a powerful ear in the MSM. And as for engaging in the filibuster, since the American game is already rigged in so many ways, I would advocate pretty extreme measures to get the average working american more power in D.C.  The Filibuster is one of those tactics. Oh man, I can't wait til they debate climate change legislation. If you thought this bill was a free for all for the insurance industry just wait til we see how far dems are willing to go to compromise on a givaway to the emerging carbon market/polluting industries. Fortunately physics doesn't determine healthcare outcomes. The Earth might not be so lucky.  

Agitate.Liberate.Create.

---

by: vtmarkvt @ Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 03:32:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]