I don’t what effect the votes of Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe etc. will have on their political careers. But whenever Senators cast votes on a bill like this, I think of New York State Assemblyman George Michaels:
Mr. Michaels personally favored a woman’s right to choose but had voted against the proposed law twice at the behest of the Cayuga County Democratic Committee. He did so at the beginning of April 1970 when the bill went down to a narrow defeat.
But on April 9, he realized that the measure was doomed without his support. He rose to take the microphone, his hands trembling. “I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I am terminating my political career, but I cannot in good conscience sit here and allow my vote to be the one that defeats this bill,” he declared. “I ask that my vote be changed from ‘no’ to ‘yes.’ “
His tearful reversal provided the 76th vote needed for passage. The State Senate quickly added its approval and Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller signed the bill into law. “I found myself caught up in something bigger than I am,” Mr. Michaels said about his agonizing decision. “I’m just a small country lawyer.”
Mr. Michaels sought a sixth term that year, but piqued county leaders denied him renomination and he lost the June primary in a four-way race.
Assemblyman George Michaels was never eulogized by David Broder. He never appeared on “Meet the Press” or earned millions of dollars as a lobbyist.
I feel bad that in this age no thinking person can use the phrase “principled decision” without a healthy dollop of irony.
d0n camillo
And Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller signed it. Can you imagine a Republican governor doing that today?
jharp
Great piece. I always have run my business the same way. And yes sirree, it has at times been costly. Yet I’ve got no regrets.
I hope my son and daughter grow into the same kind of person.
Sly
Michaels’ pang of conscience happened when he saw the possibility of actually helping people despite what it might do to his electoral chances. So, obviously, it doesn’t count.
Folks like Nelson and Collins, though, who team up to slash stimulus funding to the NSF and the Department of Energy because those organizations haven’t given much in the way of grants to their states and divert those funds to defense contractors who do… now that’s some principled bipartisan collaboration that we can all applaud.
Jon
Will BJ allow me an uncultured, uncouth and yet appropriate…Fuckin’ A. First I’ve heard of it. That is incredible.
Jon +3
DougJ
Can you imagine a Republican governor doing that today?
No. But there is still some Rockefeller Republicanism that lives on in New York State.
Will
It is so refreshing to be able to state the following without snark:
Thanks for reminding us what this is all about, DougJ.
TenguPhule
The sad thing is, I can barely recognize the country in which that story was possible any more.
Sly
And, by the way, not being a volcanic douchebag when it comes to public policy might actually benefit you, as Jerry Sanders’ successful reelection in 2008 demonstrated. But we’ve come to expect people who do the right thing to fall on their swords, I suppose. Perhaps an unfortunate sign of its rarity.
BC
DougJ:
here are a few short clips of assemblyman michaels making the statement you noted. pretty cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBVSmuWL0Mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOckXY6OmwA&feature=related
blahblahblah
He could have been a homosexual, you know. As in, filled to the brim with teh gay. He’s dead now, so unfortunately we can’t ask him. We’ll never know. But it’s worth considering, because he has to have something on him. Everyone does.
_That’s_ why he lost the seat. He did *something* and even if we can’t prove it the guy is baby killing slime anyway. And probably a homosexual. Gay. Like.
Can I have a job, Karl?
satby
Or as John Rogers so ably stated: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html
Tried the link thingie and it didn’t work, but edit did, yay!
asiangrrlMN
Thank you, DougJ. I sorely needed that right now.
JasonF
It still happens every now and then. Sly beat me to it in post #8, but Jerry Sanders, the Republican mayor of San Diego, was elected on a platform that, among other things, opposed gay marriage. But about two years ago, push came to shove and he abruptly reversed his position, tearfully supporting a City Council resolution in favor of gay marriage.
jcricket
@JasonF: Exception proves the rule, and all that.
In all states where running as a Palin-esque-Republican dooms your party to tiny minority status, Republicans are not changing course. In some instances (see California) they are doubling down on the crazy.
If that’s not evidence that Republicans ain’t learnin, I don’t know what is.
But yes, with our ridiculous amount of checks and balances that “favor” the status quo, we’ll never get anything done with one real(ish) political party and one brand of assholic, douchenozzley nihilists.
Especially when you throw in the public’s penchant for “throw the bums out” mentality when nothing gets done and love of “2/3rds majorities” for any major initiative.
Sly
@JasonF
Sanders having a daughter who is gay probably had a great deal to do with it. Though I have no proof, I rather suspect it was the primary reason for his turnaround. Rather difficult to say to your own child “Sorry, sweety, but my political career is more important than your long-term happiness.” Even for the Dark Lord of Morder.
Comrade Kevin
@d0n camillo:
As much as I dislike him, I could see the Governator signing something like that.
kid bitzer
also remember the story of harry burn, a 24-year old republican state senator in tennessee, whose vote ratified the 19th amendment, thereby recognizing women’s right to vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Burn
he had voted against ratification in the first round, but changed his vote because his mother asked him to be a good boy.
say that to a republican these days, and they’ll ask you if that’s today’s safe word.
Jorge
Republicans have been jujitsued on Medicare…
Folks at 150% or less of poverty will get Medicaid.
Tens of millions of Americans will now have health care coverage and the rest of the world can keep enjoying the benefits of the US consumer paying the lion’s share of the world’s medical R&D costs
Not a bad piece of sausage
d0n camillo
@satby:
Satby,
I like that Kung Fu Code Monkey piece. I noticed a distinct arc in the Republican Party starting with Reagan’s “Morning in America” 1984 campaign, to 1987’s Iran Contra “You have to go above the written law” to 1988’s “Willie Horton and the flag burning amendment” to 1992’s “Annoy the media, re-elect Bush and Pat Buchanan thinks immigrants and homos are poopyheads” to 1998’s “Impeach the lying blowjob recipient” to 2000’s ” The activist judges said Bush won, get over it” to 2002’s “9/11 vote Republican or die” to 2004’s “He speaks French, here have a purple heart bandaid.”
satby
@d0n camillo:
I always pimp Kung Fu Monkey political posts when I can. Wish Rogers wasn’t so busy with his TV series to do more. Check his 01/07 index page for his greatest hits.
ds
This is a stupid example. It’s pretty unlikely anyone’s going to lose their job because of their vote on a cloture motion regarding health care reform. But we know for certain that voting down health care reform will be a massive blow to Obama’s standing, which will probably hurt Democrats up and down the ballot line. It happened in 1994.
Contrary to the media theme, health care reform isn’t unpopular with the public. A significant proportion of the opposition to the current bill is from people who think it isn’t liberal enough.
Combined, a solid majority of the public supports the current reform bill or would support a more liberal version of reform.
A majority of the public thinks that the Democrats should pass health care reform, even if it gets no Republican votes.
The “centrists” aren’t scared of some sort of upcoming wrath from voters. They’re scared of losing special interest cash, and ruining their reputation by doing something that might please dirty hippies. Aside from Blanche Lincoln, the key Democrats who were holding up health care reform aren’t even up for reelection next year.
Because of the latter part, the fact that a lot of liberals have coalesced around the idea that the public option is the centerpiece of reform, even though it was only ever going to affect 2% of the population, is actually helpful for passage of the rest of the bill. The centrists can pass some major reforms that will make our health care system far less cruel and dysfunctional, and still enrage the hippies.
Comrade Mary
@kid bitzer:
__
Hell, yeah.
Thanks, DougJ. I actually got a little teary over that.
I miss the old Progressive Conservatives, too. Flora, Joe, Bob: I didn’t appreciate you guys enough when you were in office. Sorry.
Why oh why
The best health care bill possible is on the Senate floor and appears doomed, it’s 59-40, when Nelson surprises everybody and votes ‘yes’: 60-40! Know hope!
Then Lieberman frowns, and stands up…
Davis X. Machina
I’d like to think so. Instead, I fully expect Feingold, Sherrod Brown, and a couple more to pull a Samson-at-Gaza, and bring this whole edifice down, because the magic words ‘public option’ weren’t uttered. The announcement of the public option’s death has at least had the salutary effect of revealing who’s just in this fight for the theater — on both sides of the aisle
So far as I can see, the public option turned into an empty shibboleth four months ago and anyone who’s still treating it as a make-or-break is guilty of empty, gestural politics.
Xenos
Thanks for this Doug. This is from before my time, but I am awfully impressed with the guy. The sort of leader who is better than we deserve — thank God we can still get one once in a while.
Then again, maybe we won’t see too many like him again.
ds
Nonsense. If health care reform dies, it’s not going to be at the hands of liberals.
Health care reform is an issue where liberal members of Congress have next to no leverage, because everyone knows our system is so absurdly dysfunctional that even a modest, crappy reform package could save thousands of lives, and liberals aren’t callous enough to vote ‘no.’
The most that will happen is that a couple liberal senators will vote no as a protest on the final bill, after voting for cloture.
If the centrists just accept that they won the public option battle, and vote for cloture, health care reform will pass. If they become emboldened and push for major changes and more delay, it’ll likely die.
KCinDC
I don’t think Blanche Lincoln’s political career, or Ben Nelson’s, is going to be killed by voting for cloture on a health care reform bill. If they’re going to lose, it won’t be because of that. Though if they do have constituents who are particularly exercised about health care reform, then it probably wasn’t the greatest idea for them to stand up and make themselves central players in the game. Much better to lie low and not call attention to themselves by constantly issuing new statements about how everything must be changed to satisfy them.
Davis X. Machina
Feingold has already said he will, and the margins are close enough for a single vote to matter. He’s going to either have vote ‘no’, or make an embarrassing public climbdown based on the definition of ‘purely private’…
Et Tu Brutus?
Well, Charlie Brown’s over, so back the the blogs ( Xmas special still not as good the one with the Great Pumpkin). Nice story, DougJ, I’m sure there are still principled pols out there some where ( actually, Jay R. might be one), but it ain’t the ’70s, or even the ’90s, rather we live in the age of the multinational ( or transnational) corporations, entities that see us as nothing more than cattle. The thing to really focus on is the realization that counting on the Guverment to take care of us is a fools game- find ways to take care of yourselves, either as individuals or small groups like neighborhoods. Sure, you can organize politically to get your desired candidates elected, but what makes you think they will be able to successfully swim against the powerful currents of the status quo?
ds
He’ll vote for cloture.
The House Progressive Caucus said that they’d vote against any bill that didn’t include a public option tied to Medicare rates + 5%. Didn’t work out that way.
Unfortunately with the 60 vote Senate, this is Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman’s world, and we’re just living in it.
At this point the fate of reform rests entirely with the centrists.
Ian
@Davis X. Machina:
No way anyone is serious about it creating competition for insurance companies, or saving middle class families millions of dollars by lowering premiums across the board, or creating an affordable alternative for those who the insurance companies won’t cover. It has nothing to do with trying to establish something Theodore Roosevelt proposed over one hundred years ago. Just gesture and theater by those evil libruls.
Mark
@Comrade Kevin:
Doesn’t seem likely. This is the governor who fired Warren F-ing Buffett because he dared to suggest that Prop. 13 needed to be overhauled. The very same governor who came out with a single-payer health plan and then never mentioned it again, and nobody ever asked about it. Everybody knows: he never actually *does* anything – signing a bill would be too active for him.
ds
Single payer? His plan was modeled on the Massachusetts health care reform, and was very similar to what’s being debated in the Senate currently.
His plan died because it would have affected taxes and spending and thus required a 2/3 vote, and he couldn’t get any Republicans to vote for it. Simple as that.
You could elect Noam Chomsky as California’s governor and it wouldn’t change things a bit, unless you got rid of the 2/3 requirement or Democrats managed to get a 2/3 margin in both houses.
Supermajority requirements have consequences. Contrary to what some bloggers are saying, health care reform isn’t being watered down because Obama is an evil corporate shill who secretly wants it to fail, or something. He either gets a bill that has the approval of the noxious centrists, or he gets nothing.
snowsim
@Comrade Mary:
As a former PC Youth who became a staunch NDP-er, I too miss the old Progressive Conservatives. And with the rise of the Tea Party right in the States, I wonder: are they too headed to a massive split of their conservative party as the Reform / Alliance did here? And if so, how long will it take before they reunite?
(And why is it that a minority government in Canada works seems to work better than a majority in the US?)
Davis X. Machina
A public option covering 2% of the potential market won’t accomplish any of that. It will make Jane Hamsher happy, though, and that’s the important thing, isn’t it?
mcc
@ds: Second me confused as to what single-payer health plan Mark refers to. Didn’t Schwarzenegger veto the actual California single payer bill like twice?
FlipYrWhig
I’m not sure very many people outside of Congress know what the “public option” actually means anymore, when it kicks in, what have you. I sure as shit don’t, and I’m confident that Hamsher doesn’t. At a certain point “public option” got to be a crucially important _phrase_, so that people could scan every speech for that phrase as a litmus test for whether it was Good or Bad. And since then even the phrase became unimportant, because the _really_ important thing was the _idea_ of the “public option,” whatever it was in any actually-existing policy framework. And ultimately the public option was like Tom Joad, always there in spirit, reminding you that Blogosphere Liberals Are Still Disappointed.
Ian
@Davis X. Machina:
2% of 300 million is around 6 million. Those are 6 million people who may have affordable coverage thanks to those who have been repeatedly fighting the good fight. Even if the current watered-down PO doesn’t accomplish the things I mentioned in my above post, it still is worthwhile.
Keith G
The battles are still not finished, so there are ways that a decent law can still be cobbled together.
I do wonder though, if a bill that sucks might actually bring about single payer more rapidly.
A law that does not expand coverage, control costs and regulate the insurance industry enough will lead to (I believe) to a quick do over as more of suburban America gets mauled by an increasingly stupid, corrupt and expensive system.
FlipYrWhig
I don’t know about that. There was a catastrophic health care bill for seniors passed in 1988 — which was then rescinded in 1989 — and it didn’t make Clinton’s efforts go any more smoothly.
ds
Not really. One of the perverse things about our health care predicament is that as the system deteriorates, it makes reform harder to accomplish. People become protective of whatever health care they already have, become more and more scared that reform will hurt it.
If reform is successful, it will increase the chances of single payer, because it will prove to the public that the government can reform health care without having to resort to killing senior citizens and rationing care.
If the bill fails and the system deteriorates further, people aren’t going to magically start rallying for single payer. They’ll just because more worried about protecting their own health care, and will become more skeptical of any reform plan. That’s basically what has happened in this country since 1994.
Keith G
@ds:
Possibly. Yet it maybe hard to protect what one cannot afford.
Yutsano
@Keith G: Not to mention what businesses can sustain and still afford to stay open. It was really the ultimate flaw in connecting health care to employment.
monica
Indeed. If the bill is not a success, reforms become much tougher to implement
arguingwithsignposts
DougJ
I join the others in offering a hearty and well-deserved teh awesome for this post.Would that more had the regard for their political careers to submit themselves to this kind of decision.
Martin
At first blush, this compromise sounds decent. In exchange for public option we get a Medicare buy-in starting at age 55 – which is important for no other reason than it closes the gap with Social Security, plus we get increased regulation which will hopefully either expand coverage or lower costs.
People need to remember that this wasn’t a compromise with Republicans but between Democrats. The biggest cost to losing the public option is that the DFHs are going to whine and moan and piss on the leg of the Democratic party in 2010.
My bet is that this compromise scores better than the previous bill did, which scored pretty damn well. If it does, and Democrats can campaign on the promise of having solved a big part of the entitlement problem, and the left can stop pouting, they could do very well politically from this – even in the conservative midwest and west.
ds
That might cause people to rally behind a universal plan.
Or, it might cause people to rally behind right wing demagogues who will claim that health care would be cheap if only we would drop coverage for those people and eliminate those burdensome regulations on insurance companies.
Given the history of the issue, the smart bet is on the latter.
TenguPhule
There is always a simple solution to any problem provided you’re willing to kill enough people to get there.
TenguPhule
Oh for the days of “up or down vote”.
At least make the fucking GOP actually get up on stage and go through with a fillibuster instead of honoring the “hold”.
arguingwithsignposts
They have enough blood on their hands now. Seems we ought to be able to charge them with negligent homicide. or at least criminal indifference or something.
we. the people. are. f**ked.
MelodyMaker
was looking for an article about how a couple of MN Republicans were treated after overriding Governer Sam’s Club veto of the gas tax increase… found this instead.
edit: whoaahh, that’s funky. I mean “yay!”
Ecks
@snowsim:
Because there’s party discipline in Canada. The leaders can get together and cut a deal, and then whip as many MP’s into line as needed for the vote. They’ll threaten to kick MP’s out who cross them, and they’ll mean it.
In the US senate there’s no party discipline. If Lord Nelson decides he wants to fux everything up, there’s basically nothing anybody can do to stop him.
Cerberus
@ds:
Well the people have been for this for a good long while now and indeed have been for something far more liberal at percentages somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 and even a shit ton of “I love my Jesus to death” fundie types will rant in defense of actual meaningful health reform.
Why? Because the one thing people below upper class hate more than whoever they perceive as their enemies or inferiors is the m-fing health insurance companies. There is little way to make the public support it more.
The problem is the money. A guaranteed filibuster on every bill and the conservadems mercenary tactics are allowing a few paid hatchet job types to dominate the conversation.
Selling the idea to the public has already been done. They support real reform. What we need to do is mobilize these people in activism to harass the centrists so much they remember that their cushy job is directly threatened here and that all the lobbyist money in the world won’t get them elected if the people hate them. Remind them of the fate of John Corzine, sunk by his connection to people the People hated despite his massive sacks of fat cash.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
Michaels’ statement is a humble one:
He knew that his job was not all about himself, when push came to shove he did what he thought was right. That he did this fully understanding that to do so would be the end of his political career is all the more remarkable. In the end, he wasn’t in it for what he could do for himself but rather what he could do for the people he represents.
The bigmouths in our current crop of pols are in this for themselves, not one is willing to throw themselves on the sword and go down in flames, if necessary, to do the right thing. They get fluffed by the ‘press’ regularly and are in it to win reelection. They have turned representing us into a job that enriches them beyond they pay of the job itself. They are on a gravy train river and not one of them are interested in rocking the boat.
Awhile ago I saw someone photoshop some pols head onto a Nascar-style racing suit that was covered with the logos of their corporate ‘sponsors’. I wish someone with mad photoshop skillz would make up some individual ‘suits’ that have the various corporate sponsors on them for various pols. It would be nice for the pols (or bloggers) to be able to easily let everyone knows who bought and paid for their services.
A group photo of the same pols all proudly wearing their racing suits with the advertising of their sponsors would say a whole lot more about them than a million words ever could.
Michael
OT – The new squabble is now over whether teabaggots are real true adherents to “the movement”. God forbid that there be any Teabaggots In Name Only (TINOs).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/09/hot-button-19487319/?page=2
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, knowing that my daughters are either going to live in a Talibornagain theocracy or Glibertarian paradise, ducking rape gangs in either eventuality.
Michael
PS, here’s something fun. Everybody’s a RINO.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/they_are_all_rinos.html
The eliminationism is out of hand. When these people get back into control, they will commit violence and murder to maintain their way.
harlana pepper
@Michael: Damn, that is some fucked-up American Thinking.
Victory
Well, my November 2 just opened wide up. After reading about this compromise I am sure a lot more people are going to have more free time on 11/2/10 as well.
WereBear
@Michael: Ick. Now I’m sorry… but it’s valuable to know just how screwed up they are.
American Thinker Dude, maybe your ideas suck? And when they are implemented, they suck more?
Napoleon
Well at least George Michaels went on to have a more successful singing career then his political career.
Funkhauser
Some guy once wrote a book about acts like this.
I wonder if he ever went on to make it big….
Napoleon
Duh, I must still be asleep. After my post at 58 I noticed DougJ’s title to this post. And here I could not believe that nobody had mentioned my favorite member of Wham! in this thread.
BigSwami
So, basically, they dropped that bullshit Stupak amendment, dropped the public option, and called it a historic compromise.
I see myself with a very full schedule in November 2010.
El Cid
Aasif Mandvi rules.
geg6
I am not thrilled with the compromise. But I love how, once again, the perfect is going to be the enemy of any progress at all for some people. I plan to do what I have always planned to do November 2010: support better Democrats and work my ass off to get them elected. Personally, I am not willing to hand the country back to the cretins who put us into this mess and taking my ball and going home makes nothing better. But please, feel free to sit at home and pout as the Teabagger Party comes into power because the pony is a broken down nag instead of the shiny new one I’d hoped for.
Keith G
@geg6: This
Marry me!
Will
@BigSwami:
Cause God knows what we need right now are fewer Democrats in Congress…
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@Will:
No shit.
Waah! I didn’t get my pony so I am going to go home, do nothing and eventually I will have…
nothing left.
My congressman and senator have been fighting for a public option and I will vote for them again. Have yours? If not then you have a problem to deal with, not me.
satby
If the reports are true and the option for Medicare buy in at 55 is realized, that will also help open up jobs that many middle-aged people are hanging on to for dear life for fear of losing their health insurance now. Many of my peers are more than ready to downsize to less stressful (read PT) work, but stay in their jobs only for the insurance. And I know at least 2 IT managers past retirement age, but they take up space in jobs because their spouses are still not eligible for Medicare, or so I’ve been told.
BruinKid
@Sly: Or you could be Alan Keyes and disown your own daughter for being gay.