Progressive Primary Pressure Changing Senate Votes on Health Care

On Monday, I noted that the upsides of a contested Democratic primary here in Colorado are huge, because it will force whomever the nominee is to be far more concrete and progressive in their positions on issues. And within two days, that truism has already been proven correct. It's a good lesson not just here in Colorado, but everywhere: primaries are good because they make legislators more accountable to the constituents they are supposed to represent.

Notice on Saturday that appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) was still all wishy-washy on the public option, saying he technically supports it but probably wouldn't fight for it - and probably wouldn't vote against a bill without a public option:

Bennet said that he favored a so-called public option, which would provide an alternative insurance source for those who can't get private insurance. "But as I stand here today, I think it's very unlikely that the public option part of this will pass."

This followed a report in the Durango Herald a few weeks ago about Bennet explicitly refusing to take a concrete position on the public option - and urging other senators not to take a concrete position:

Bennet, speaking after the meeting, said reform shouldn't hinge on the public option, though he has said he supports it. "I don't think we should be drawing lines in the sand," he said.

Now, just a few days after headlines about a potential Senate primary challenge from former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D), Bennet is aggressively insisting he will fight for the public option. The tone and the positioning represent a huge change.

The Denver Post editorial board - which leans conservative, by the way - has it exactly right:

[Bennet's] silence on a few contentious issues, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, prompted Republicans to deride him as "Silent Senator Bennet." But we don't think Sen. Michael Bennet's silence was for lack of an opinion; rather, he was hoping to stave off a primary challenger from his left...

Bennet may not like it, but we say the more the merrier. Coloradans deserve a choice, not a coronation...While Bennet is the U.S. senator from Colorado, only one person -- Ritter -- has voted. Colorado will be fortunate to have wide-open races on both sides of the aisle.

Whether or not Romanoff ends up running a progressive campaign or not, it's nonetheless true that primaries are good for democracy precisely because they force politicians to take positions and answer to voters.

To those who say that an appointed senator who has never run for or held public office before automatically deserves an uncontested primary and coronation, I say that's a lot of bullshit. Additionally, with Bennet voting against cramdown, taking no position on EFCA and flip-flopping around the public option, its clear that ColoradoPols has it exactly right:

There was a time, perhaps, when Democrats would be making the smart political move by trying to disguise their every opinion in order to appear more moderate. But that was also a time when Republicans controlled everything. If Bennet ends up losing the Democratic nomination to Romanoff, he'll have nobody to blame but himself (and whoever advised him to be so overly cautious on policy issues).

Put another way, if Bennet really wanted to avoid a primary, he would have bent over backwards to be accountable to voters - not bent over backwards to hide his positions and coddle big money. Those who argue that longtime public servants like Romanoff or other Colorado Democratic candidates should have looked at Bennet's behavior and simply backed off show themselves to be far more loyal to institutional/establishment sensibilities than legislative success, progressive results, electoral choice and democracy itself.

 

 

 

Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota

Comments

[gro]

06:44 PM on 09/02/2009

I think the problem for most people is the money. Everyone is spending way too much on health care insurance, drugs, and the hidden costs of the uninsured. If there is no public option, there will be no real competition to reduce health care expenses.
Getting millions in campaign contributions from the health care industry can buy a lot of advertising lies come election time. It won't help the average person.

[Dosadi]

05:32 PM on 09/02/2009

It may be time to institute recall elections. Why wait for 2 to six years. At the first sign of an elected official kowtowwing to special intererest groups, wham, call for an election recall. This will force our elected officials to work for the peopl who voted them into office and force them to ignore those that seek to buy favors through campaign contributions and gifts (like cushy jobs after they leave office). Elected officials should be banned for lifr from working for any lobyist or special interest group after they leave office. Anyone who refuses to see the problem with this is more than blind.

[sunny123]

08:19 PM on 09/02/2009

Great idea. I'm all for that. Even better would be a referendum on term limits. 2 terms for Senators and 4 terms for Representatives. If they aren'ty in so long, they can't create so much pain for everyone.

[altohone]

02:48 PM on 09/02/2009

You skirt a BIG "if" when you mention Romonoff running a progressive campaign.

Corporatists abound at the top of the party.
A true progressive would be nice... not just a campaigner using the formula.


The appointed one better understand that those giving him money are not the ones he works for.

[LarksTongue]

01:53 PM on 09/02/2009

I participated in a DNC conference call the other night (they have taken over the Obama campaign list). Then, I received an email from them today asking for financial support and volunteers. Here is part of my response:

I will NOT donate one more penny or spend ANY time volunteering until the DNC assures me that it will cut off Party funds to Blue Dogs and others who refuse to support the Public Option. If Democrats fail to pass a strong Public Option (Medicare for all) I will be voting for the Green Party next election cycle.

The ball is in the DNC's court. It has been since we took the House, Senate and Presidency.

[blindlemon]

01:51 PM on 09/02/2009

These parasites are only concerned with their own survival. They must understand that if they prefer to work for the corporations, instead of the citizens, they should just move fully into the private sector and we will find someone to represent us who actually fights for us. And that goes from the top on down.

[drnking]

01:39 PM on 09/02/2009

This article really gets at what has to happen for this to work. Nobody needs to put additional pressure on President Obama. It is these so called democratic congressmen and senators who have no desire to follow the direction of the people because little pressure has been put on them. President Obama has tried to respectful of the legislative process- he is not supposed to write the law, that is the job of the legislators. His job is to use the bully bull pit to sway public attention. But how in the world can he do that when those who are supposed to be on his team are playing on the other side of the line.

The democratic party, specifically the senate is working hard to "pull defeat from the Jaws of victory." Here is the one place that I envy the republican party, once they set a legislative priority, everyone gets in line or at least gets out of the way. These Blue dogs can disagree if they wish, but they must not be allowed to disrupt progress, and it is not President Obama that must stop them it is the people in their districts and around the country. On this issue, it is time for the people to tell the blue dogs and any other democratic legislator who is not in compliance to LEAD, FOLLOW, or GET the HELL out of the WAY!

[cheeriogirl]

06:45 PM on 09/02/2009

AMEN!

[codycap]

01:25 PM on 09/02/2009

The whole Democratic Party is held up by the conservative blue dog blackmail and they make no bones about it. The only time they ever vote with the democratic agenda is when their vote is not needed (would pass anyway) or is inconsequential, i.e. naming post offices. Our party will never be strong unless we bring them in line. The only thing that gets their attention besides money is votes. I threatened my blue dog with loss of votes if he doesn’t back his party this time. If the party threatens them by saying they will not support them if they win their primaries it will get their attention. It’s called twisting their arms. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/history-shows-that-democr_b_233056.html In the 1994 elections. Democrats lost 54 seats. Of those, 36 were incumbents. It wasn't the members from strong Democratic districts, who had fought hard for health care reform, who lost. It was mainly members from swing districts, rural districts and southern districts.

[Ricardo Deleon]

12:38 PM on 09/02/2009

why can't we start a health plan and work on the public option later? while i favor medicare for all with monthly premiums based on income factored for local cost-of-living indices, i am concerned that we can't afford the cost right now. allowing interstate competition, widening eligibility requirements for medicaid, tort reform mandated at the federal level, guaranteed insurability may be all we can hope to afford for the next 4 - 6 years.

sorry about the caps... broken arm.

[vie2012ne]

12:34 PM on 09/02/2009

Here's a thought. US electorate totals approximately 200 million. Lib/progs account for approximately 20 percent, or 40 million. If every lib/prog used his/her own resources to purchase health insurance for one uninsured person, the problem of the uninsured would be solved!

Of course this will never happen, because lib/progs want to use other people's money to achieve their policy goals. Will Rogers once said "I remember a time when Liberals used to be generous with THEIR OWN money ..."

[cheeriogirl]

06:51 PM on 09/02/2009

You truly don't get this, do you?

Americans can't pay for their OWN insurance, since the cost is too prohibitive. This is WHY we NEED health insurance reform, ASAP.

[ColoradoTaxpayer]

03:12 PM on 09/20/2009

You do understand that whatever gets passed will not take effect until 2013? Everyone thinks that it will go into effect 1/1/2010-NADA, NOPE. why rush into something and say it is a crisis when it needs to be done right-not fast.

[ChimesOfFreedom]

12:22 PM on 09/02/2009

You make some excellent points as usual, David. Bennet has gone out of his way to make himself a non-entity in the Senate, but even aside from that, he was far from the best choice to fill that seat. I'd like to see Romanoff take it. This is how it's supposed to work - if the guy in office isn't representing the people appropriately, he can be voted out and replaced. No need for term limits to remove incumbents if the electorate are doing their job properly.

By the way, I really enjoyed your interview with Charlie Pierce the other day.

[iblogleft]

11:29 AM on 09/02/2009

The progressive position has not changed, and it will not change.

This administration must lead and support progressive issues to be successful. Conservatives love to think they have caused the drop in this administrations poll numbers, but the fact is, Obama has lost progressives.

If he keeps mixing what will work with what will not, and calls it "bi-partisanship", it will be a sad end too a truly great opportunity for the future success of this country.

There is no middle ground when fighting corporate ownership of our social and Democratic foundations.