GO TO THESE TOWN HALL MEETINGS AND CALL THEM OUT, using the same type of language, including the "insurance companies don't think very highly of our intelligence"; they are not prepared to be called out, and it throws them off their game. There was no doubt leaving that meeting that the public option side in the room had won the debate, and that the wingers actually only represented 25-30% of the room - but the perception could have easily gone the other way had the meeting continued the way it started, with the minority sounding so loud it seemed to be a majority.
I also have to mention that if I at all managed to disarm the RW at that meeting, I was at best the third most effective speaker in the audience: it was a tough guy steel worker union man with the populist sharpness and effectiveness of a Jesse Ventura or a James Cornette, and especially a pro-life military family Sunday school teacher with a child she couldn't insure because of pre-existing condition whose incredible comments in favor of a public option were a home run, and made it very clear which side of the debate won that meeting. If I had to guess, I would strongly suspect that the wingnuts left that meeting fairly dejected, and that Congressman Courtney was generally quite happy with the way the meeting turned out (all the stress and drama not withstanding).
As well as a link to a downloadable flyer made by ShadowSD with some excellent points called Why A Public Option Makes Sense, aka "The Ten Health Care Talking Points EVERY DEM MUST REPEAT".
Today, 57 Democratic members of Congress signed a letter to House leadership stating that the Blue Dog compromise on the public option in the Energy and Commerce Committee was "fundamentally unacceptable." Here is the full text of the letter, which includes a clear line in the sand:
Dear Madame Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller:
We write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of "keeping insurance companies honest," and their rates down.
To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members of the Committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to low- and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.
In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies.
We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.
Missing from the list of signatories? Any single Member of Congress from Connecticut, including Progressive Caucus member Rosa DeLauro.
August will be a long month of citizen lobbying, insurance industry spending, and message maneuvering on health care thanks in large part to the delay of the House floor vote that was also a key part of the Blue Dog compromise. There is still a long road ahead, but what happens in August will be key.
All of Connecticut's delegation - John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, Chris Murphy - will be in their districts next month. They will certainly be hearing from the insurance industry. They need to hear from their constituents too. Ask them to pledge to vote against any legislation that does not include a strong public option.
As the August recess looms, the state of health care reform in the House of Representatives is changing by the minute.
Today, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman appears to have possibly called the Blue Dogs' bluff and set the stage for passing the House health care legislation before the recess without the right-wing Dems in his committee getting to vote against it.
Also today, the ranks of progressives in the House who are standing tall and saying they refuse to vote for any legislation without a robust public option - on the floor, or after it comes back from conference - is growing.
Minutes ago, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who had previously refused to commit to voting against any reform-in-name only bill without a public option, changed her tune dramatically:
I have always been a strong supporter of the public option (including co-sponsoring single-payer) and pledged to you several weeks ago to fight like heck to make sure a public option will be included in any health care reform bill. But, having watched the debate evolve over the last week or so, I want to make sure all of you know that I have decided I will not vote for a health care bill in the House that doesn't include a real public option and I Pledge to uphold the public option principles agreed upon by the Progressive Caucus.
And here's Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), saying largely the same thing in a statement today:
"I'm not going to vote for any House bill that doesn't include a robust public option without any triggers or coops -- that's a must-have for me. I also believe that it's vital that there be a vote on the bill before the August recess. Delaying will only give entrenched special interests time to do everything they can to defeat it."
We specifically asked if "House bill" also meant conference report, and she indicated that it did.
Meanwhile, Connecticut's delegation - John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, and Chris Murphy - still have not stood up to declare that they will vote against meaningless reform-in-name only.
Greg Sargent at Plumline has this nifty little piece on Joe Courtney rapping the knuckles of those who oppose the public plan while they in congress enjoy such benefits on the public dime.
When I listen to the hysterical descriptions of what is in this legislation, I would remind many members to look at themselves in the mirror. Because what they are presently entitled to as members of Congress is exactly what this legislation is proposing to create for all Americans.
Sargent adds:
Courtney went on to blast opposition to the public plan as "hogwash," and concluded: "At the end of the day, we must give the people of this country exactly what they give us."
The Hill reports today on a letter to the Speaker signed by 22 members of the New Democrat and Blue Dog caucuses - including Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney, both New Dems - stating their support for a "robust" public option that competes on a level playing field with private health care plans.
The letter, unsurprisingly, doesn't address where these 22 members draw a line in the sand - the point at which they will refuse to vote for a health care reform bill that will surely be whittled away in the committee, floor, and conference fights to come in the coming weeks in both houses - or whether they are preemptively saying they will vote for any bill no matter how horrible it is.
It does, however, shed some light on what appears to be some real fracturing of the New Democrat Caucus on the health care fight:
Many New Dems criticized their leaders and said they have not liked being lumped in with opponents of the bill, particularly the public plan.
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a relatively new member of the group, said it should consider reviewing its practices....
"There is some concern that some decisions come only from talk among New Dem leadership rather than the broader leadership," said a New Democrat lawmaker. "A lot of decisions are made by New Dem leadership and not broadly discussed in membership meetings."
There's a very easy way for worried individual members interested in salvaging a real, workable public option - like 72% of Americans - to avoid being "lumped in" with those in their caucus who are pulling out all the stops to gut this bill even more and turn it into an insurance industry giveaway: by letting us know that you pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a public option that is (1) available nationwide (2) on day one and (3) accountable to Congress and voters.
While there continues to be much talk of "support" for a public option, neither John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, nor Chris Murphy have told us where their "line in the sand" is on this bill. If we want to have any chance of seeing a public option in the final bill, we need to know where they stand now.
As Rahm Emanuel unilaterally declares a public option not to be a necessity for the Obama administration (for the second time in two weeks), and President Obama himself finds himself walking back his chief of staff's comments from halfway across the globe, the need for a progressive bloc in the House of Representatives who will stand together and pledge to vote against reform-in-name only, making a real public option a necessity for any health care bill's passage this year, gets only clearer and clearer.
In CT, Joe Courtney is the latest Connecticut Representative to refuse to commit to voting against any health care plan without a workable, robust public option. Campaign Silo has the audio from his appearance last week on WNPR's "Where We Live":
This echoes Courtney's recent comments at a town hall meeting with constituents in DC, where he also refused to commit to vote against a health care bill without a public plan.
Our representatives need to know that at this point in the legislative process, voicing "support" for a public option means very little. What we need desperately are Democrats committed to real health care reform - like Jerry Nadler in New York - with the courage and the conviction to say loud and clear that a bill without a public option will be dead on arrival in the House.
Joe now joins Rosa DeLauro in refusing to be part of this effort. Apparently "Where We Live" will be hosting Rosa and the remainder of the Connecticut House delegation in the coming days and weeks (Chris Murphy was on yesterday), so constituents can continue to call in.
Here's how the citizen whip count of targeted progressive representatives (specifically, whether they will pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a public option that is (1) available nationwide (2) on day one and (3) accountable to Congress and voters) stands as of today. You can contact your representative using the info here and report their response using the whip count tool here.
Previous "Whipping the Public Option in CT" posts:
("The CT #healthcare09 delegation arrives in @jahimes office." by CCAG via TwitPic)
Today, Beau from CCAG is twittering the huge Health Care '09 rally and lobby day live from DC. You can follow CCAG's twitter feed all day here, photo updates here, and video updates here. This is by all accounts the largest national healthcare reform lobby day in history, and it comes at a crucial time. You can follow CCAG on twitter throughout the day for updates on meetings between Connecticut voters lobbying for meaningful health care reform - including a robust public option - and their representatives.
While most recent attention - and pressure - on healthcare legislation has been focused on the opaque workings of Senate committees and the huge egos and twisted priorities at work therein, this week Firedoglake and nyceve from Daily Kos launched a public whip count of progressive Representatives asking them for a firm commitment to vote against any health care "reform" legislation that does not include a public option that is "1. Available nationwide, 2. From day one," and "3. Answerable to Congress and the voters."
As Ben Smith from Politico points out, public whip counts like this are one of the most powerful tools available to online activists who want to influence legislation:
Legislative vote counts are one of those things that the Web can transform. They're typically closely held - counting is an insider's art - and deliberate ambiguity is a key negotiating tactic. Legislators who would prefer to vote no, for instance, might be willing to be the last vote, for a price. So while this has the effect of pushing members toward Obama's position, it also shines a spotlight on members who might prefer to stay uncommitted, or to wait for details and compromises.
Getting only 40 progressive Representatives to commit to voting against meaningless "reform" legislation without a public option may be the best way to force the Senate's - and White House's - hand on the public option. The Firedoglake whip count tool is here, but it only targets 100 progressive Representatives who they believe to be the lowest hanging fruit. Only one Rep from Connecticut - DeLauro - is on the list, and she has yet to respond. Yet Connecticut has 5 Democratic representatives who are all signatories to the Health Care for America Now "core principles" -- 3 of whom were elected to replace Republican incumbents in 2006 and 2008 based in large part on their support for real health care reform.
There's no reason not to ask CT's entire House delegation to commit to oppose meaningless reform-in-name-only that does not include a workable and robust public option. Contact your Rep at the phone number below and ask them to pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a public option that is (1) available nationwide, (2) on day one, and (3) accountable to Congress and the voters, and report any response to the FDL whip count tool here.
(Ironic that Republicans who called previous voters against supplementals traitors or defeatist now vote against it, and Democrats vote for it. - promoted by Jon Kantrowitz)
When it comes to a major opportunity to stop the wars, as Edwin Starr would sing, Absolutely nothing!
All the members of the Connecticut Congressional delegation--Rosa DeLauro, Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney, Jim Himes, John Larson--voted for the war supplemental. Several of these pols have presented themselves in their campaigns as being committed to a less warlike foreign policy. But when the chips were down and there was an opportunity to stand up and really cut the funding that fuels this bloody mayhem, they voted for war.
Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is the leading national grassroots campaign in America for health care reform, comprised of more than 850 organizations in 46 states representing 30 million people. President Obama and Vice President Biden; Members of Congress John Larson, Joe Courtney, Rosa DeLauro, Jim Himes, Chris Murphy and over 190 of their colleagues signed onto the HCAN principles.
HCAN is dedicated to winning quality, affordable health care we all can count on in 2009. Everyone benefits from healthy communities, where we all have access to affordable, quality health care from a provider of our choice, at the time we need it, at a cost we can afford. Our mutual goal is affordable, quality health care for everyone in America and for our nation.
Connecticut Co-Chairs Tom Swan, Executive Director of CCAG and John Olsen, President of the Connecticut AFL-CIO invite you to one of three health care reform forums throughout Connecticut. Even if none of these are in your area, please be sure to forward this invitation to family and friends who do.
Special Guest Congressman Chris Murphy
10:00 AM to 12 Noon (Doors open at 9:30 AM)
Pulaski Club
89 Grove Street, New Britain 06053 [Google Map]
NOW is time to fix our health care system. Come and share your story about how and why our health care system needs to be reformed, and hear about the latest reform proposals before Congress. Learn how you can get involved in bringing health care reform to America now!
As summer ends, and fall approaches, many rural communities sponsor town and county fairs. One such fair, the Four Town Fair in Somers, opened on Thursday and will close on Sunday. The four towns are Ellington, East Windsor, Enfield, and Somers.
A nice feature of this fair, and of most or all local fairs, is the presence of political grassroots campaigning.
As DavidNYC noted in his Orange-to-Blue endorsement post of Jim Himes yesterday, Chris Shays has a history of pretending to be a "moderate" while voting again and again for Bush's policies.
This morning, Shays joined many in both parties in Congress by standing with Bush again on the FISA "compromise".
(Here was Jim Himes's statement in opposition to the FISA "compromise" yesterday.)
Thankfully, Connecticut has four out of five Democrats in our House delegation, and all four - John Larson, Rosa DeLauro, Joe Courtney, and Chris Murphy - stood up and voted against both the war supplemental and against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies included in the FISA bill.
Let's show them that we have their backs. Send a thank you note to all four CT Dems for their vote today here:
I am enthusiastically endorsing Barack Obama because I believe that he can lead this nation and bridge the partisan divide that has hindered progress in our nation over the past eight years. Barack Obama has demonstrated leadership in pledging a new direction to drawdown our forces in Iraq and end our disastrous engagement that has stretched our military to the breaking point, damaged our economy, and diverted our attention from terrorist threats in Afghanistan and across the globe. Senator Obama's economic vision would revive our sluggish economy and invest in our middle class which has been so neglected in the Bush era. The power of Barack's words is matched by the force of his ideas.
In addition, by endorsing Senator Obama I am keeping faith with the new and young voters who helped propel me to a razor-thin victory in 2006. At UConn and on campuses across eastern Connecticut and the nation, Barack Obama has inspired new voters to engage in the political process and make their voices heard. A torch has been passed to a new generation to help solve the serious challenges facing our nation.
Courtney also praised Hillary Clinton in his statement.
UPDATE ctblogger: WTNH just filed this report on Courtney's endorsement.
According to the Hartford Courant, Joe Courtney has decided to endorse Obama. He joins Dodd, Larson, DeLauro, and Murphy in endorsing him. This leave only Nancy Dinardo as CT's only undecided superdelegate. Time to make a decision Nancy. As Courtney himself points out: "The math is not going to change," he said. "It's clear, to me anyway, that now is the time."
Since
last
fall's review of the spending habits of Congressional
campaigns, the state's candidates
have continued to find thrifty, questionable and downright foolish
ways to spend their money between October and March, several months
before voters start paying attention to them.
Democrats
in ostensibly competitive districts (Courtney, Himes, and Murphy) have
spent much less of a percentage of their income on average than
their Republican counterparts.
Chris Murphy's campaign, a
disciplined machine, has raised and saved the most and, not
coincidentally, has the lowest and most consistent burn rate.
John
Larson is the only candidate spending more than he is
raising. He
was actually left with less cash on hand at the end of March
than
when he started this electoral
cycle.
Sean Sullivan is the worst GOP candidate of the
year. (Tony Nania would compete for the title if he were for
real.)
Jim
Himes nearly matched Chris Shays in cash on hand, in large
part
because of Shays' pattern of big spending and Himes' past thriftiness.
But Himes raised less and spent more than Shays early this
year, diminishing
his progress.
CD
Candidate
Cash on hand
Jan 1 07
Raised
Jan 07 -
Mar 08
Spent
Jan 07 -
Mar 08
Cash on hand
Mar 31, 08
Burn
rate
Jan 07-
Sep 07
Burn
rate
Oct 07-
Mar 08
Total
burn rate
1
Larson
236,969
652,432
682,850
179,552
87%
155%
109%
2
Courtney
47,599
1,465,808
318,722
1,194,685
20%
25%
22%
2
Sullivan
-
230,450
101,462
128,988
23%
72%
44%
3
DeLauro
16,124
624,773
473,024
167,873
83%
66%
76%
4
Shays
61,544
1,608,255
532,072
1,137,726
37%
29%
33%
4
Himes
-
1,379,992
274,781
1,105,212
11%
27%
20%
5
Murphy
50,703
1,791,612
297,675
1,544,639
16%
18%
17%
5
Cappiello
-
654,655
232,039
420,316
24%
43%
35%
5
Nania
-
31,989
21,943
10,046
-
77%
77%
Burn rate = (total spent + debt)/ total raised.
More on the spending
habits of each candidate, and an update on April spending below.
(And why don't they ever pick on Larson? Get him on that Stairmaster, Chris Healy. - promoted by mikect)
But where is Joe Courtney?
In 2006 Chris Murphy defeated Republican Incumbent Nancy Johnson by 22,000 votes. His colleague Joe Courtney squeaked out a victory over Rob Simmons by a razor thin margin of 91 votes. Conventional wisdom would suggest that Courtney would be considered the more vulnerable of the two in 2008, but the National Republican Congressional Committee doesn't seem to think so.
Roll Call (subscription required for the full article) obtained a memo from the NRCC listing 23 top targeted Democratic incumbents. Republicans have taken aim at Chris Murphy but left Courtney off of their list.
Apparently the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is a "nonprofit and historically nonpartisan" 501c(3) think tank has formed a 501c(4) issue advocacy group called Defense of Democracies (so there's, you know, no chance of getting the two confused) that's behind these ads. The advocacy group is run by Clifford May, who's also in charge of the Foundation (but, you know, the two organizations are totally independent; pay no attention to the fact that they work out of the same offices)... and May is also a former RNC Communications Director.
(I actually meant to post this as a comment to the Thursday Read 'Ems thread, but for some bizarre reason it wouldn't stick there. There's more below the fold...)
So far this week, Joe Courtney, John Larson, and Chris Murphy have come to Iowa to campaign for Chris Dodd. Megan Lubin, our Iowa blogger, and I have been able to speak to them and record their explanation as to why they're in Iowa campaigning for Chris Dodd And the fourth CT Democrat in Congress, Rosa DeLauro -- she's national co-chair of the Chris Dodd for President campaign.
Congressman John Larson (CT-01)
Congressman Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-05)
Clearly Chris Dodd is someone who has earned the respect and support from his colleagues back home in Connecticut. Many of his staff members in Iowa are people from CT who have known him for years. What greater sign of Chris Dodd's record of accomplishments than the people he's spent a career representing dedicating themselves to helping him attain the highest office in our land? As Congressman Courtney makes clear, it is what Chris Dodd has done and what Chris Dodd will do that makes him the best choice to "turn this country around."
The purpose of raising campaign money is to spend it
- in a timely,
targeted, and effective manner. Some candidates focus on the
first half of that guideline and neglect the latter
portion. If campaign donors critically examined the
spending habits of some Connecticut candidates, they might have second
thoughts about contributing again.
To get a sense of how much
and how well funds are being spent, take a look at Congressional
campaign "burn rates" - how much of their incoming funds federal
candidates are spending in these early days of their campaigns.
Dist.
Candidate
Cash on hand
Jan 1, 2007
Raised
Jan-Sept 2007
Spent
Jan-Sept 2007
Cash on hand
Sept 30, 2007
Burn
rate
1
Larson
236,969
419,857
364,142
292,684
87%
2
Courtney
47,599
898,294
178,128
767,765
20%
2
Sullivan
-
132,384
30,686
101,698
23%
3
DeLauro
16,124
367,265
303,795
79,594
83%
4
Shays
61,544
838,489
306,242
593,791
37%
4
Himes
-
617,676
70,976
546,699
11%
5
Murphy
50,703
1,057,795
166,914
943,583
16%
5
Cappiello
-
268,802
64,434
204,368
24%
Burn rate = (Total spent during 2007 calendar year + debt as of Sept.
30)/ Total raised during 2007.
As
the biggest spender in a competitive district, Chris Shays is shedding
37% of his contributions as he goes. This is more than three
times the spending rate of Jim Himes, the most frugal and efficient
federal candidate in the state, who has departed with only a small
fraction (11%) of the funds he has raised. Despite Shays'
long
head
start, Himes has nearly as much cash on hand as his opponent.
If this pattern continues, Shays will soon fall behind his
challenger, in large part because of his wasteful spending.
Himes
Shays
Himes advantage
Average raised per quarter
308,838
279,496
Raised 29,341 more
Average spent per quarter
35,488
102,081
Spent 66,592 less
More on what they're
spending all that money on below.
Rep. Joe Courtney has helped secure nearly $600 million towards submarine production at Electric Boat in Groton in the latest defense spending bill. This helps secure thousands of jobs for workers at the sub base here in Connecticut and in Rhode Island. The Hartford Courant reports:
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, whose 2nd Congressional District includes Groton, has been pushing for this moment since his election last year, just as his predecessor Rob Simmons had - with little success. Courtney said Thursday, "I am extremely excited by the fact that we've gotten to this point." But he cautioned the effort will have to continue, increasing the budgets through 2010 to get to the level of two submarines every year.
Though this $588 million adds up to only about a quarter of the price of a Virginia-class fast-attack submarine, it can begin to buy the reactor and engine components that take the longest to put together, so a complete second submarine could be ready to build within the next few years.
It's referred to as "advance procurement" funding, and Courtney called the extra cash a "huge boost to the submarine building program that has been frustrated for a number of years in the budget process."
Chris Dodd appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and Tim Russert put Dodd through the ringer. Video and transcripts are now available on the MSNBC website.
Connecticut College is signing up new voters at a faster clip than usual, with some college students surprisingly expressing an interest in local elections. It's a small sampling of voters, but good to see improvement.
Joe Courtney made an appearance in Colchester yesterday, and got his picture in the paper. Unsurprisingly, people he spoke to said they were concerned about the war.
Any thoughts on the Dodd interview, voter registration, Courtney? What else is going on?
Update (tparty): As Spazeboy notes in the comments, Ned Lamont will be liveblogging at MLN about some great candidates in the upcoming municipal elections tomorrow, Tuesday Oct. 30th, at 1pm ET. Stop by tomorrow at lunchtime! (More on his endorsed candidates at NedLamont.com.)
Since
MLN is powered by