This morning, the MyDD-listed blog Minnesota Progressive Projectbroke the news that Senator Al Franken will headline be the keynote speaker at the closing evening event of this years Netroots Nation convention in Las Vegas. As the Political Director of Netroots Nation, I invite you below the fold to hear from Al and about him and invite you to join us and register for Netroots Nation.
What Will Coakley's Defeat Mean for Health Care Reform?
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger
Last night, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election to fill Teddy Kennedy's senate seat in Massachusetts. Coakley's loss puts health care reform in jeopardy.
With Coakley's defeat, the Democrats lose their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. However, as Paul Waldman explains in The American Prospect, Coakley's loss is not the end for health care reform.
Remember, the Senate already passed its health care reform bill in December. Now, the House has to pass its version of the bill. The original plan was for House and Senate leaders to blend the two bills together in conference to create a final piece of legislation (AKA a conference report) that both houses would vote on. Once the Democrats are down to 59 votes, the Republicans can filibuster the conference report and kill health care reform.
But if the House passes the same bill the Senate just passed, there's no need to reconcile the two bills. This so-called "ping pong" approach may be the best way to salvage health care reform. Some of the flaws in the Senate bill could still be fixed later through budget reconciliation. It would be an uphill battle, but nothing compared to starting health care reform from scratch.
The second option would be to get the bill done before Scott Brown is sworn in. According to Waldman, there could be a vote within 10 days. The House and Senate have already drafted some compromise legislation, which Waldman thinks is superior to the straight Senate bill. If that language were sent to the Congressional Budget Office immediately, the Senate could vote before Brown is sworn in.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said in a statement last night that Brown won't be sworn in until the election results are certified, a process that could take two weeks. Historically, the winners of special Senate elections have taken over from their interim predecessors within a couple of days. If the Republicans were in this position, they'd use every procedural means at their disposal to drag out the process. The question is whether the Democrats have the fortitude to make the system work for them.
Remember how the Republicans did everything in their power to hold up the Senate health care vote, including forcing the clerk to read the 767-page bill aloud? They were trying to delay the vote until after the Massachusetts special election. If it's okay for the GOP to stall, the Democrats should be allowed to drag their feet on swearing in Brown.
Also, remember how the Republicans fought to keep Al Franken from being seated after he defeated Norm Coleman? For his part, Franken says he's determined to pass health care reform one way or another, according to Rachel Slajda of Talking Points Memo.
Incongruously, some Democrats are arguing that rushing to a vote would be a violation of some vague democratic principle. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) wasted no time in proclaiming that there should be no vote before Brown was sworn in. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), of all people, averred last night that the Democrats should respect the democratic process and start acting like they have 59 votes while they still have 60.
All this talk of "respecting the process" is hand waving disguised as civics. According to the process, Scott Brown isn't the senator from Massachusetts yet. According to the process, you have the votes until you don't.
Talk about moving the goalposts. It's bad enough that we need 60 votes to pass a bill on any given day. Now, they'd have us believe that we also need 60 votes next week. Webb and Frank are arguing that Brown's victory obliges Democrats to behave as if Brown were already the Senator from Massachusetts. Of course, if Webb won't play ball, it's a moot point. The whole fast-track strategy is predicated on 60 votes. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly thinks that Webb effectively took the fast-track option off the table with his strongly worded statement.
Katrina vanden Huevel of The Nation argues that this historic upset should be a wake up call to President Barack Obama to embrace populism with renewed fervor. I would add that Obama was elected on a platform of hope and change. There is no better way to fulfill a promise of change than to reshape the nation's health care system and provide insurance for millions of Americans.
Ping pong, anyone?
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
The CBO didn't explain how it came to the seemingly arbitrary figure of 90 percent. Franken said he and Rockefeller met with the CBO chief Doug Elmendorf about his determination and came away uncertain of the reasoning. Elmendorf, who is not an elected official, deemed that 80 percent for small groups and 85 for large didn't amount to nationalization. In the American system of government, what Elmendorf says, goes, so regardless of the rationale, the bill includes the figures he dictated.
Two questions: what technical backup did Franken have (like experts of his in the room, prior briefings, etc)? And what was Elmendorf asked about the 90% point?
As it stands, the meeting appears to have been a mess - and, if for no reason that the 90% thing was Franken's big number on health care, you'd have thought he'd have gone about things rather less casually!
On MLR, the HuffPo piece also flags the provision in the manager's amendment which allows the HHS Secretary to adjust the MLR numbers. Uh oh...
Second, rescission:
The same piece highlights the bizarre case of Anthem Blue Cross, which operates in California.
State regulators identified loads of illegal rescissions by ABC, but at first failed to impose fines fearing that the company would challenge each case in court.
Eventually, company and regulators made agreements under which fines were imposed, and rescissions rescinded - but apparently these deals weren't as tough as they looked.
Digby writes admiringly of the move by several Democratic senators to surprise Sens Vitter and Coburn by co-sponsoring what they thought was a poison pill amendment to the Senate health care bill to require all members of Congress to enroll in the Public Option. It's a brilliant bit of bluff calling. The video clip she posts is enjoyable, Franken is proving worth the fight it took to get him there. One of Digby's commenters captures what happened here perfectly:
Like many conservatives, Coburn and Vitter have internalized their cynicism and assume that others are similarly corrupt and selfish. It must astound them that liberals actually want to rely on the services they would have the government provide.
Not understanding and appreciating one's enemies leads to truly stupid mistakes like this.
Xenos | 12.04.09 - 10:47 pm | #
It is this sort of thing that liberals need to get better at.
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of 2010 candidates that need our help. (There are! Please help!) I'm just saying that helping our previous progressive winners to close their books and retire their debts could encourage other Democrats currently running to follow in more progressive footsteps, knowing we have their backs.
I'll leave you with a few reasons to be very, very proud of Senator Al Franken's first months as a U.S. Senator (and very, very motivated to help retire his campaign debt):
Last month, when Stephanie Taylor and I turned the tables on FOX's Griff Jenkins, he had "no comment" when asked about the talking points that are distributed to FOX anchors and reporters each morning giving them Republican propaganda to say aloud on the air.
But last night, the single-best progressive talk show out there -- The Young Turks -- went beyond their great news analysis and entertaining commentary. They broke actual news.
Check out FOX's talking points on Al Franken:
Congrats to Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, Jayar Jackson, David Koller, and Jesus Gadoy for breaking this news.
A programming note: I mentioned above that the Young Turks is the single-best progressive talk show out there. I mean it. I listen to their podcasts when I jog and whenever else I can.
Not only is their news analysis absolutely in the same ballpark as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but they are extremely entertaining. Mothers pushing their babies around DC in strollers look at me weirdly because I spontaneously laugh while jogging.
How can you listen to The Young Turks? Watch the Young Turks online for free at TheYoungTurks.com. Join their 59,000 subscribers on YouTube. Or, do yourself a favor and become a $10/month member and get all their podcasts to listen to whenever you want -- like your drive to work.
After an unprecedented eight months of legal wrangling and pouring over hundreds upon hundreds of contested ballots, the Minnesota Supreme Court has paved the way for Democrat Al Franken to fill long-vacant Senate seat, CBS station WCCO-TV reports.
Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has indicated he will sign Franken's election certificate, CBS News reported. The timing of the signing was not yet clear.
Now, let's see if Senator Al Franken will support a public option!
If this were a boxing match, it appears Norm Coleman is on the ropes:
Roll Call reports that we may now be entering a truly crucial phase in the seemingly never-ending saga of the 2008 Minnesota Senate election -- indeed, it might actually be ending fairly soon, if Norm Coleman doesn't have the heart to keep going.
The MN Supreme Court will rule within a week or two.
This is the moment of truth. Either we lay the pressure on thick now and get Coleman to concede when the ruling comes, or he appeals again -- keeping Al Franken out of the Senate for potentially months more.
So Norm made a statement about Obama's Supreme Court appointment, tu wit:
"When debating judges, I was firm that I would use the same standard to evaluate judges under a Democrat President as I would a Republican President. Are they intellectually competent, do they have a record of integrity, and most importantly, are they committed to following the Constitution rather than creating new law and policy. When I am re-elected, I intend to review Judge Sotomayor's record using this process. Certainly, the nomination of a Hispanic woman to the nation's highest court is something all American's should applaud."
Fun news. Yesterday in Minnesota, Norm Coleman thought he was being greeted by supporters outside a local Republican event.
But instead, Coleman came face-to-face with the fact that his insistence on being a sore loser has raised over $90,000 to help progressives defeat Republicans in 2010 -- thanks to the "Dollar a Day to Make Norm Go Away" campaign the PCCC recently launched with Howard Dean's Democracy for America.
It's all caught on video -- check it out!
And if you haven't already, now's the time to join the "Dollar a Day" campaign -- add to the momentum.
Over at the Dollar a Day to Make Norm Go Away campaign, Norm Coleman's insistence on being a sore loser has raised over $60,000 to help progressive congressional challengers defeat Republicans in 2010.
And that number gets higher by the hour.
This campaign was launched 2 weeks ago by Howard Dean's Democracy for America and the new Progressive Change Campaign Committee (which I co-founded after leaving MoveOn.org, along with some other great folks).
The goal is to change the incentives for Coleman's DC funders. Before, there was really no downside for those bankrolling Coleman's endless court challenges and denying Al Franken his Senate seat. But as thousands of us sign up to give $1 every day Norm refuses to concede -- to help progressives defeat Republicans -- the equation changes.
There are two things that make this campaign work: scale and buzz.
We've achieved great scale, but I'd like to formally invite anyone who hasn't already signed up to join the cause: NormDollar.com
I'd also like to thank DFA, MoveOn, Darcy Burner, Chris and Natasha at BlogPAC, and countless blogs for sharing news of this campaign with their networks.
The proper response is to find a great Democratic candidate and run him/her against either that far-right yahoo or the old Republican, who has been left bruised and bloody following a drawn-out primary against said yahoo. Instead, the Democrats have essentially performed a tactical retreat here, moving Specter to the "D" column rather than risking an election that would clearly have favored the Democrats. Instead of an election that they probably would have won, leaving them with a solid Democratic senator, they have instead chosen an election that they will almost definitely win, but that will leave them with a mealy-mouthed political hack with all the morals of a wounded badger.
As blogging great Glenn Greenwald has already mentioned over at Salon, "prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill 'seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years' and is 'patently unconstitutional on its face.' He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage." (Greenwald's entire piece is a must-read.)
Note: This is an analysis "from a purely political perspective."
From a policy-making perspective, maybe the gambit is that having that 60th vote more often during possibly the most game-changing 2 years of the Obama Administration is totally worth the political hit.
In fact, assuming good policy motives, maybe those on the inside are basically challenging those of us on the outside: "Look, we did what we had to do on the policy front. Don't want Specter around after 2010? Want to pressure him from the left the next 2 years? You lead the primary charge -- our hands are tied."
Yesterday, Senate Republicans prioritized human life over anti-abortion grandstanding and confirmed Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the world totters on the brink of a pandemic, slow-walking the future health secretary begins to look unseemly.
Part of smart politics is understanding the audience you're trying to persuade. During election season, the main audience is clearly voters.
What about in recount season?
The Bush 2000 team targeted the refs -- those counting the ballots -- and chose their intimidation tactics accordingly.
This week, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (which I co-founded) and Democracy for America launched a campaign with an audience that Chris Matthews summed up perfectly last night:
They’re asking Democrats for a dollar every day Norm Coleman doesn’t concede the race to Democrat Al Franken. They’re going to use the money to fund progressive challengers in 2010.
That’s right, they want to give the Republicans an incentive to give up that fight in Minnesota.
Exactly! By connecting Coleman's obstinance to a day-by-day building of a warchest to help progressive candidates win, we're moving DC Republicans to a place where they'll want Coleman to concede.
(At the time of the New York Times article Matthews based his comments on, we'd raised $15,000. Now, it's over $27,500 -- nearly doubling our leverage -- and that grows by the hour. You can join the fun by visiting NormDollar.com.)
But who is Norm Coleman targting with his messaging?? From the New York Times:
The fledgling campaign is intended as a way to influence other Republicans to help pressure Mr. Coleman to quit his protracted fight to regain his seat.
In response to the new fund-raising drive, Tom Erickson, a spokesman for Mr. Coleman, returned to an accusation that Mr. Franken owes back taxes and suggested that the proceeds from the dollar campaign might be used to settle that tab.
Really? Stupid, petty, old messaging? Who is the audience??
It's a serious question. The Minnesota Supreme Court? No. Voters in 2014, assuming both a Coleman miracle win now and a Coleman-Franken rematch? Kinda dumb. DC Republicans? Doesn't seem like trumped up tax allegations against Franken will reverse DC insiders' political calculations one bit.
I suppose it's good news for us that the Team Coleman is from the Republican JV league.
That said, if you've had enough of watching these JV players on the field for 5 months after the game was supposed to be over, help cut this game short by adding to the Dollar a Day.
Republican sore loser Norm Coleman's endless and pointless appeals will not accomplish a victory for Coleman. But ol' Normie can be proud that he has accomplished one thing: his name has become synonymous with "sore loser" to the point that "pulling a Norm Coleman" has entered the lexicon meaning "acting like a sore loser." To wit:
Larry King: 'I'm not a sore loser. I'm not gonna pull a Norm Coleman'
Here's evidence that Minnesota's post-election battle for U.S. Senate has permeated pop culture. Al Franken and Norm Coleman were cited this week by contestants in another competition that attracted millions of partisans: the race between movie actor Ashton Kutcher and news juggernaut CNN to be first to gain one million followers on Twitter, the social-media phenomenon. ...
Here's a video clip of Kutcher on "Larry King Live" tonight (King's "Norm Coleman" comment comes at the 5:00 mark):
KING: I'm not a sore loser.
KUTCHER: No, you're not.
KING: I'm not gonna pull a Norm Coleman and take this to the courts.
KUTCHER: You have been gracious, very gracious.
While Coleman sore-losers it up, Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have introduced a new effort: NormDollar.com, "A Dollar a Day to Make Norm Go Away." Very simply put, commit to contributing just one dollar per day for every day that sore loser Norm Coleman refuses to concede. (HT: MPP)
I don't know if this effort was inspired by Open Left's AdamGreen's post laying out a very similar fundraising strategy a little over a week ago, but it is exactly the correct approach to take to provide Republican leadership in Washington with adequate disincentive from continuing to fund Coleman's endless appeals. You also have the option of chipping in a bit of change directly to the Franken Recount Fund.
Of all the hurdles facing healthcare reform in 2009, the U.S. Senate is arguably the most formidable. But the prospects for passing a healthcare bill this year have brightened noticeably over the past few days, thanks to a senate seat pickup in Minnesota, solidifying support for the budget reconciliation strategy, and tentative overtures towards bipartisanship from key Republicans.
Last week, I took a look at the political leanings of the five Minnesota Supreme Court Justices who will decide Republican Norm Coleman's likely appeal. Of one of the five Justices, Justice Christopher J. Dietzen, I suggested that he "has the clearest partisan background" of any of the Justices, pointing to facts including Dietzen serving as a campaign lawyer on Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty's 2002 campaign. Of Dietzen's service on Republican Pawlenty's campaign, I sarcastically noted:
So, Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty's campaign lawyer is one of the five judges that will decide Republican Norm Coleman's appeal. Nothing wrong with that.
Clearly, one of the Justices being active in Republican politics is sketchy, but I didn't go so far as to call for Justice Dietzen to recuse himself from any further cases before the state Supreme Court involving Norm Coleman and the Senate seat. Until now.
DownWithTyranny! took my analysis a little further and found out that Justice Dietzen is himself a two-time Norm Coleman donor! A simple search on OpenSecrets.org finds that Justice Dietzen has given to a number of Republican committees and candidates, including:
Contributor Occupation Date Amount Recipient
Chris Dietzen Larkin Hoffman 12/3/01 $250 Coleman, Norm (R)
Chris Dietzen Larkin Hoffman 1/21/04 $250 Coleman, Norm (R)
Remember that two of the Minnesota Supreme Court's seven Justices recused themselves from hearing Coleman's appeal to the state Supreme Court because they served on the state Canvassing Board. Those two Justices wanted to avoid the conflict of having served on the Canvassing Board and then serving on the Court that will hear an appeal of, in part, the Canvassing Board's actions and decisions.
Well, one of the remaining Justices that will decide Norm Coleman's electoral fate is a two-time Norm Coleman donor! Heck, one of the two contributions occurred in the six years leading up to Coleman's 2008 re-election bid - in other words, it was put toward this very election whose result Coleman is preparing to appeal. This is a crystal clear conflict of interest. Justice Dietzen should recuse himself from any Coleman appeals to the state Supreme Court in order to prevent the (rather obvious) appearance of bias. If you feel the same way, you should let Justice Dietzen know by contacting his office at (651) 297-7650, and - very respectfully - urging Justice Dietzen to recuse himself in order to avoid a clear conflict of interest and the appearance of bias by having a previous Norm Coleman donor rule on Norm Coleman's electoral fate.
They call for fiscal discipline after driving our debt through the roof.
They refuse to concede Al Franken's victory five months post-election after originally calling on Franken to concede a few days post-election (and after calling for Al Gore to put country first and concede early in 2000).
Dick Cheney says President Obama is making us weaker. And you KNOW that if anything tragic happened to Capt. Richard Phillips, Republicans would say, "Obama can't even defeat a couple pirates on a lifeboat, how will he keep us safe from terrorists?"
President Barack Obama twice authorized the military to rescue a U.S. captain who was being held by Somali pirates and whose life appeared to be at risk, administration officials said after Sunday’s rescue.
The Defense Department twice asked Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. Obama first gave permission around 8 p.m. Friday, and upgraded it at 9:20 a.m. Saturday. Officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations said the second order was to encompass more military personnel and equipment that arrived in the Indian Ocean to engage the pirates.
But 11 days into the stand-off, the US said in a letter to China it was “very sorry” for the loss of a Chinese fighter pilot in a collision with a US spy plane, and for the US aircraft’s entering Chinese airspace without permission.
Good point, Oliver. Republicans love to project strength on military affairs, but time and time again they prove to be quite bad at the whole military thing. Republicans are kind of the Bad News Bears, but with missiles.
Especially as Republicans launch attacks on Obama and Bob Gates for re-prioritizing spending within the Defense Department and making initial attempts to combat the inefficiencies of the military-industrial complex, it would be good to get other examples of Republican incompetence on military affairs out on the table.
If you have some, please share below (with links, preferably).
I know as well as anyone that some emails that you expect to work simply flop. Others that you expect to be par for the course go gangbusters -- inspiring droves of activism. Innovation and creativity are key, so I'll never fault anyone for trying weird, wacky new things -- even if they fail.
With one caveat: Every activist email must have a plausible "theory of change." People should see some concrete theory about why taking action could lead to a desired result.
But some people choose to inflame people's passions just to get their email addresses (and, more likely than not, to fundraise from them -- as opposed to later engaging them in quality activism). This sullys the online activism process for the rest of us.
That's why getting emails like this one from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recently was both insulting and maddening:
Dear Adam,
First they counted the votes. Then they recounted them. Then they painstakingly went over every disputed ballot by hand. It was the most thorough and exhaustive recount process Minnesota has ever seen.
It's time to give it up, Norm. President Obama needs Al Franken in the Senate. It's time to concede the race. Click here to add your voice.
First the bipartisan canvassing board declared Al Franken the winner of the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota.
But Norm Coleman didn't like that result, so he took it to court. And now when even his own lawyers are predicting he'll lose, Coleman's threatening to keep appealing to more and more courts.
How many more recounts does Norm Coleman want? How many more delays? How much longer will the Republican Party hold Minnesota's Senate seat hostage?
Coleman can end it today and give Minnesota the two Senators it's entitled to. But he's not going to give up unless we convince him to act. So let's speak with one voice and tell Norm Coleman it's time to go.
It then links to a page with a "petition" to Norm Coleman. If you sign, you land on a donate page. If you scroll to the bottom of the email, you also see a donate button -- and a tell-a-friend button, so the DSCC can get your friends' emails.
Nowhere in the entire email is there a theory for why a DSCC petition to Norm Coleman will make any impact.
And, if you think about it, why on earth would Norm Coleman listen to the DSCC? Can you think of a less credible messenger than the DC committee whose sole role is to defeat Senate Republicans like Coleman?
I'm not saying the DSCC has no role to play in getting Coleman to step down. I'm just saying they should play an honest and effective role.
Norm Coleman has had several vote quests struck down by the Minnesota Second District Court, and Al Franken told a conference of Democratic Senators today that he can see a "light at the end of the tunnel." I hope that means Al will be awarded certification on his seat by the Minnesota Court very soon. The Democrats need his vote to fight off the filibuster strength of the Republicans in the Senate.
In order to get a real sense of what's happening, I spent time reading .pdf files at the Minnesota Second District Court web site this afternoon, and, going back a couple of weeks, it's clear that Norm Coleman is following every failed approach with a newer one... what he is doing is stalling and, I expect, it is stalling at the instruction of the Republican National Committee.
