Party Wisdom

Two things regarding my current approach to party politics have been going through my mind lately. The first is whether I should continue to vote for non-progressive Democrats, particularly in federal elections. The second is a stranger thought to me - whether to encourage those Republicans who speak out against the far-right and untruthful tactics that the current Republican leadership has pursued of late.

I know that, living in Virginia especially, I am not always going to end up with Democrats that are not far too centrist for my taste running in the general elections. This has happened this year with Creigh Deeds and last year with Mark Warner. However, I have generally been of the opinion that you vote for the better of the two real candidates, or you're just throwing your vote away. The debate over health care reform has started to change the way I see this, however. After all, what is the point of voting for someone who still will not do the things you wish he or she would do? What is the point of having a majority, even a filibuster-proof one, if you still cannot get something like a public option, which has widespread public support and a majority of both Representatives and Senators willing to vote for it, passed into law?

I recognize that there are no viable third parties, and that most third-party candidates seem to be somewhat nutty, at best. However, how can I, in good conscience, vote for people who are so beholden to corporate special interests that they are unwilling to do what is clearly in the best interest of the country? The only arguments I've seen against voting for a public option are that it does not have the votes to pass or that it would drive private insurers out of business. The first is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the second has both the difficulty of not necessarily being a bad thing and having been disputed by every reputable study that's been done. If the majorities the Democrats currently possess in Congress combined with possession of the White House aren't enough to get this done, then I think it might be time to accept that even the Democratic Party is not willing or able to accomplish progressive goals. I think it might be time to give my vote to alternative candidates, or simply not to vote at all. I'm really not sure what other solution there is. And I don't think I can vote for candidates that are more worried about the good of their political futures in the hands of special interests than they are about the good of the American people they serve.

Another major problem we've all become increasingly aware of is the scorched earth tactics to which the Republican leadership has stooped. Birtherism has reared its ugly head among many members of Congress, and we constantly hear the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin ranting about death panels and other similar nonsense. Meanwhile, the powers that be back up this nonsense rather than calling it out and trying to encourage a return to civil and honest debate - which is necessary in order for our government to perform properly.

However, occasionally Republicans do step up and call for an end to the nonsense, like Rubio, who is running for the Republican nomination for Senate in Florida, or Senator Lindsey Graham, on occasion. In cases like Rubio's, where he is the longshot against Crist for the nomination, it occurs to me to support him, even financially, because of how much better it would be for the country if the debate were between people unwilling to stoop to lies, innuendo and name-calling for political gain. Surely, though, that would be going too far?

Equality

I've been feeling especially feminist the last couple days. It started with this commentary on CNN, where the writer talks about Nancy Pelosi as though she's some sort of kindergarten teacher, instead of the Speaker of the House. Honestly, can you imagine any journalist ever writing anything about a male authority figure wanting to give someone a time-out?

Then, I saw this from HuffPo about how there are eight states and DC where insurance companies are allowed to consider being a victim of domestic violence to be a pre-existing condition, and therefore refuse coverage. Wow, way to look out for those who can't help themselves. Way to make it yet harder for these victims of abuse to seek the help and treatment they need.

Finally, I saw the story about how female congresspeople are more effective than male ones. Of course, we still only make up a ridiculous minority of the Senate and the House. At least here's an argument that may help us increase that percentage.

It's not that we haven't come a long way. Of course we have. And of course I am grateful that we have - grateful for my opportunities to go to a great law school and have a great job. But we still have one hell of a long way to go.

Voting Against a Bill Without a Public Option

Right now, there are about 60 Progressive members of the House who have signed a pledge to vote against a bill without a robust public option. There is some controversy on the left as to whether this is such a good plan or not. I support these Representatives strongly, although I understand some reasons why people who do support a public option might think this is a bad idea or even silliness.

First, I think the arguments against are basically the same old idea that you should take what you can get, and maybe we just can't get a public option. People don't want health insurance/care reform to die entirely just because this one aspect of it isn't there. To an extent, I agree with this. I would rather we get some of it done than none of it.

However, I think this is a watershed moment for both the future of health care and the future of Progressive politics in America, and I think that if House Progressives roll over on this, they will be unlikely to ever get the White House or anyone else to listen in the future. Right now, it seems that the White House and the rest of the Dem leadership has been willing to roll over on basically every piece of craziness coming from the right, such as death panels and this nonsensical argument about coverage of illegal immigrants. However, everything the left wants seems to be consistently watered down or abandoned entirely. It seems to me that this is because the Dem leadership knows that the right and the right-leaning Dems will really, truly, actually vote against a bill if they don't get what they want, and the White House then has to cave because they assume that Progressives will still vote for the bill anyway. It's like a game of chicken, only so far, the Progressives have always caved. I know, because I vote for people like Senator Mark Warner because the alternative is a disaster like Gilmore. And I'm about to vote for Creigh Deeds because the alternative is Bob McDonnell (who apparently thinks I need to go find a man who can support me because women in the workplace is detrimental to families).

Not this time. Progressives need to finally stand up and say "no more." We need to prove to the rest of the political world that we are here, we're not going away, and we are powerful. Yes, I'd rather have some of it than nothing at all, but if we show we are willing to walk away from the table, then it becomes politically hard NOT to include the public option, rather than only being politically hard TO include it. Furthermore, it will guarantee the Progressives a seat at the table in the future, and probably grow the movement significantly once people see we can actually get things done. Obama supports the, 58% of Americans support the public option, and we are very close to having enough votes (yes, even in the Senate!) to get it done.

Thank you to the brave, principled Congresspeople who have taken this pledge. Please, for all our sakes, stick to it!

The Speech

Wow. I thought it was going pretty well, and that was before he started talking about Teddy. I'd have liked a bit stronger of a stand on the public option, and I especially could have done without him scolding the progressives who got him there, but all in all, I think he made our side seem both eminently reasonable and the bill to seem bipartisan. He made those who oppose the plan as a whole sound petty, childish and irrational, and invited reasonable debate and new ideas.

The last part of the speech, starting with some things about Teddy and moving into the moral and humane case for health care reform, and then into a discussion of the need for people to stop being petty and obnoxious, and stop trying to score political points at the expense of working for the good of the country - was awesome. Legendary, in my opinion. Moving, convincing, and great. If there are any people out there that can be convinced to come to the table, that was the speech to do it.

Meanwhile, the response was terrible. Not only was Boustany a terrible speaker, sounding totally canned, his speech made no sense next to Obama's. He repeated some things Obama just debunked or clarified, like the Medicare cuts, the budget, and the government takeover nonsense. He listed some things he says Pubs and Dems agree on (including, apparently, co-ops? I could have sworn the Pubs have said absolutely no to that). Then he claimed he was going to list some things that we disagree on, but the first thing he mentioned was medical malpractice reform, which he admitted Obama had just said we were going to do. Terrible speech. Great for us, though!

Frothing at the Mouth

All the frothing at the mouth from the Obama-haters is beginning to make me froth at the mouth, and I'm not even that happy with him at the moment. I cannot believe that Loudoun County, among apparently many others, is really not going to broadcast a President's speech to schoolkids on the importance of education. Has it really fallen this far, that it is not just a very small, minor fringe that is willing to go to this sort of extreme? This week, the same day I heard about the Florida GOP head and his accusations of Obama's intention to indoctrinate children with his "socialist ideology," there were LaRouchies outside my metro stop on the way home from work, complete with Obama-as-Hitler posters and all their other nonsense. I wanted to get into a fight with them. And at this point, I really don't see any reason for this kind of reactionary garbage except racism, and I think the witchhunt that has lost us Van Jones is probably further evidence that is at the root of things. I'm worried for this country if the Republican "leadership" won't stand up and denounce the crazies and try to tone things down.

And for those who want to claim that Dems were like this about Bush, first of all, you're flat out wrong, and second of all, think about this: at this point in Bush's presidency, 9/11 hadn't even happened yet. The biggest complaints about him were about pulling out of Kyoto and taking too much vacation...

Thought for the day:

With all this crazy talk about "death panels," can we turn it to our advantage? Can we promise to drop the (already nonexistent) death panels in exchange for something?

Creigh Deeds

So it looks like McDonnell's lead just keeps growing, and according to a new poll, it looks like it's got a lot to do with a lack of interest in supporting Deeds from the Democrats.

Somehow, this doesn't really surprise me. I'm a pretty avid Dem, and I REALLY want McDonnell not to be the next governor - I think it could actually be pretty disastrous, unless we can magically get back control of the House of Delegates (not bloody likely). However, I can't get excited about Deeds. Most of what I can do to try to convince people is tell them what an extremist candidate McDonnell really is - I don't have a lot of pro-Deeds stuff to say, although I'm sure he'd be a fine candidate. And while negative campaigning works, you really need to have more positive stuff about your own candidate to go along with it...

This is the problem with McAuliffe and Moran having split up all the votes and having left us with Deeds. Deeds isn't a liberal. At all. He's probably to the right of center. He'll be a competent governor, and would actually probably be particularly effective because he's so centrist, but it does make it difficult for the partisan Democrats, i.e. the ones who usually get out and vote in non-national elections and especially the ones who donate and volunteer, to get motivated to get involved and get behind the candidate.

Well, here's hoping we can find some enthusiasm somehow, because I'm not kidding around about McDonnell. Gilmore and Allen nearly destroyed the state - and McDonnell's at least of their mold, if not worse.