Thursday, January 7, 2010

A Simple Declarative Statement

Here's the latest from the leader of the House Progressive Caucus on resolving the health care bills between the House and the Senate, via Talking Points Memo:

In an interview with TPMDC moments after a conference call with over 175 members of the House Democratic caucus, [Rep. Raul] Grijalva said he was encouraged by what he heard from members--strong support for the House bill--but the President needs to get involved if their concerns will be met.

"The president is having his listening sessions, right?" Grijalva asked rhetorically. "After all we've been through at some point the administration can not be neutral players in this process."

Grijalva To White House: It's On You Now

Has this guy not been paying attention? Obama won't commit to anything on this bill. He hasn't; he isn't going to now. You're going to have to tell him what you will and will not accept. Use simple, declarative statements. Why is that so hard to figure out?

Here's an example.

I will not support in any way a congressman who votes for a bill that includes an individual mandate, but doesn't have a viable public option. In fact, if that person is my Representative or Senator, he'll be very lucky to get my vote.

Get it now? Chris Dodd lost my support, not to mention a lot of other progressives, when he voted for the Senate bill. Look where he is now.


One Fly said...

No shit Cisco and correct of course.

The Prez could make the difference for all of us doing what is best for you and me and our country but he is not going to.

Cujo359 said...

Unfortunately, his big campaign donors wouldn't like that. He works for them, not for us.

shoephone said...

Cujo - I wonder if your congressman realizes how many people are adamant about the inclusion of a strong public option? Smith's website is filled with platitudes about cost containment, the need to pass a bill that "moves toward universal access" (but not guaranteeing universal access itself) and the usual political carping about "inefficiencies" in the system. Sounds a lot like Republican talking points, with all the generalities and buzzwords, and none of the sticky details.

I know your district is more conservative than the 7th, but Smith -- and Dicks -- will prefer to vote for any bill that DOESN'T include a public option. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that the PO was one of the main reasons Smith refused to support HR3200.

Cujo359 said...

Based on the town hall I attended, I'd say he's aware of a wide variety of opinions on the subject. I suspect he'll probably have to find out on election day. If things turn out like usual, he won't miss our votes, I'm sorry to say.

shoephone said...

Well, that's the crux of the problem with those "Let's primary the incumbant with a better Dem!" arguments. Sometimes, in certain districts -- like the 6th -- there aren't any "better Dems" stepping forward to join the fray. So, we end up with the same ol' thang for another two years.

Of course, if we want to energize the liberal base, it helps immensely to have a president acting like a leader on the big issues.

Cujo359 said...

Yes, it is. There are only so many primaries folks like FDL or Kos can support at a tim, and it really takes blogs with their numbers to generate the money and the volunteers. Until a candidate wins the primary, you really can't count on backing from unions, or any other organizations that can contribute lots of volunteers.

So, sometimes the best option will be simply to vote the bastards out, and hope that you can replace the bastards you replaced them with next time.