Olympia Snowe and the Importance of Being Pivotal

Once upon a time, I had a teacher. A law professor, to be precise about it. (And he'd want me to be precise about it -- he was a law professor.) He was an excellent professor, even though -- or should that be because? -- he was known to wander away from the syllabus from time to time to indulge in the entertaining-if-only-mildly-pertinent anecdote.

This particular morning, he was telling us about his dealings with the stock market. They were minor, almost minuscule, dealings, he admitted. Still, there was something to be said for being involved. There was, for instance, his one share of AT&T.

Now, one share of AT&T was beyond minuscule; it was practically non-existent. But the professor didn't see it that way. The professor was taking the longer view. One day, he said, there might be a crucial shareholders meeting, with a crucial vote, on a crucial issue.

And the vote might be tied.

He'd be sitting mighty pretty then, wouldn't he?

So let's talk about Olympia Snowe.

If it's good to be on the winning side, and bad to be on the losing side, best of all may be being the one who decides which is the winning side and which is the losing side.

So let's talk about Olympia Snowe and health care reform. Tuesday's Senate Finance Committee vote wasn't tied, exactly. There were 13 Democrats on the committee and only 10 Republicans; assuming Chairman Max Baucus could keep his own troops in line, the bill was going to pass regardless of which way Sen. Snowe came down.

But her vote was the pivotal vote nonetheless; hers would be the vote that would allow the chairman -- and the president -- to claim that health-care reform had "bipartisan" support in Congress. Which would make reform more popular with the public. Which would also make reform more palatable (i.e. provide some political cover) to some of the Senate's more conservative Democrats.

Olympia Snowe's vote might not have been a tie-breaker, but it was a mood-shifter. A perception-alterer.

Which means the senator from Maine was sitting mighty pretty.

(Come to think of it, my law professor moved to Maine the year after I took his class. You don't think he -- ?)

What we don't yet know is Olympia Snowe's price for being the lone Republican to vote in favor of any of the five different bills the various Senate and House committees crafted over all these months. What we can assume is that she didn't jump the fence for nothing. A favored provision inserted here. A loophole closed there. A problem clause tweaked to her satisfaction.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's all in the great tradition of legislative deal-making. She's got something they want, they've got something she wants. Let's do some business.

At least she's not the kind who gloats, who flaunts her influence and does a victory dance when the bargaining's done. She keeps her head down, and her voice soft: reasonable people, having a reasonable conversation about matters of mutual interest. Who could object to that?

And anyway, who says the bargaining's done? You heard her announce, even as she was voting to send the committee's bill to the Senate floor, that "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow."

Some people took that as indecision. Maybe so.

Or maybe she can count. She realizes that her one vote in the Senate might be the difference between getting to 60 and not getting to 60.

She's still sitting mighty pretty.

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at [e-mail].

 

Follow Rick Horowitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Rick_Horowitz

Comments

[AsISaid]

She is in her position soley due to the Democrats putting her there. No Republican votes are needed in either the House or the Senate. The spotlight should not be on her, it should be on a couple of the blue dogs that are selling their party down the tubes.

In my view, Democrats are going to take a beating in 2010. Why? Because Senate Democrats show they can't lead, aren't clear what they stand for, and won't take charge. If they lose, it will be because they deserve to.

They've had a once-in-a-­generation chance to really make a change in this country and they're waffling and hiding. It's sickening to watch.

[DocTwain]

I disagree. I don't think Snowe's position is particularly interesting or pivotal. One Republican vote does not a bipartisan bill make, and doesn't provide real political cover. Real reform should not be weakened in the slightest clause to gain a false veneer of bipartisanship.

The GOP is the party of the plutocrats; it opposes social democracy; it favors policies that enrich the industrial cartels and their owners at all costs--and always to the detriment of working Americans. Insofar as Snowe acts as a Republican, she acts as an enemy of real reform and of economic common sense for ordinary Americans. Poll after poll has demonstrated that a large majority of Americans believe health care needs major reform, that universal care should have been passed years ago, and that a strong public option is a sine qua non of real reform.

The reality is that Democrats can pass any legislation they want with just 51 votes in the Senate. They control both houses of Congress and the presidency. Therefore, Democrats are 100% accountable not only for the final form of health-care reform--they are 100% accountable for every plutocratic abuse, fixed market, and scheme of corruption still in place come the 2010 election. It is THEIR position that is interesting, because what they do in the next year will demonstrate, beyond argument, who they are and whom they represent.

And believe me, if Democrats don't deliver real reform, the Centrists and the Blue Dogs will be toast come 2010.

[medicinecat]

Thank you for speaking truth.

[Jannsmoor]

Olympia is trying to do what she thinks is best for the American people. To her credit, she is not a libertarian like most of her fellow republicans. I give her credit for having more heart than her party.