Parsing Obama’s silence is always a risky game, but opponents of Employee Free Choice just feel compelled to try and find some comfort there. But buried in Sam Stein’s interview with Claire McCaskill about limiting executive compensation for TARP recipients was this exchange, where she indicates that there are Republicans in the Senate who are inclined to support the bill:
You are tackling the income disparity issue from one end. How about the other? What kind of labor priorities should Congress consider and where does the Employee Free Choice Act stand on the congressional schedule?
I asked yesterday a member of leadership: ‘How soon are we going to get [EFCA] up [for a vote]?’ I think there is a growing sense that we need to get it up on the calendar sooner rather than later. But leadership hasn’t said clearly when they are going to bring it up. I think there is just as much support for it on our side as there has always been. And I think there are a few members on the other side who would be supportive. So I think it has got a really decent chance of passing. It is obviously something that a lot of us think is important in terms of reinvigorating the middle class.
Care to name some of those Republicans who might cross over?
I don’t want to commit to where anyone is because it would tip people off and the business community would descend on them like locust. So I would rather do it quietly, under the fold, without outing them.
The waffling of Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and other Democrats in the press has mostly been I believe an effort to get themselves out of the line of fire of Rick "Family Guy" Berman and the Chamber until there’s a vote. No Democrat has said they would unequivocally cast a "no" vote — but in the meantime nobody wants to be low hanging fruit, either.
With Toomey out of the Senate race and no meaningful challenge to Specter from the right in 2010, there’s nothing to stop Arlen from making a deal with labor to stay out of the race. And if Sarah Palin starts eyeing Lisa Murkowski’s seat, there are a lot of Alaska unions which organize building and pipeline workers that she’ll want to stay friendly with. But if Gregg goes to Commerce and Lynch appoints a friendly Democrat to fill his spot, that would be the real game changer — it would make it much more likely that the bill won’t have to be "watered down" before it can pass.
American Rights At Work has a new ad (above), running in the Washington DC area, targeting legislators. It does something proponents of the bill have needed to do for a long time — push back against the stupid zombie lie that Employee Free Choice takes away the "secret ballot." It doesn’t. But the ad gives legislators the space they need to in order to cast an affirmative vote, something that Republicans — according to McCaskill — are also looking for a reason to do.
Related posts:
- Chamber of Commerce’s “Buy an Economist” Health Care Strategy Identical to its Anti-Employee Free Choice Campaign
- McCaskill on Health Care: “This Will be a Fight and it Will be an Ugly Fight”
- Reid, Wyden, Baucus Reach Agreement on Version of Free Choice Amendment
- Republicans Still Dubious About Voting For Senate Health Reform Bill
- Peggy Noonan: Obama’s Health Care Proposals Must Be Terrible, Because No Republicans Support Them
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Oh, help! Sarah Palin is intent on inserting herself even to the end of time, isn’t she?! Byukkk.
The rights of laborers have fallen below the rights of any minorities or any other citizen rights…mostly caused by other uneducated ignorant laborers, scabs and union members alike.
i really, really want this bill up for a vote (and passed, ‘natch) like yesterday and not just for it’s own sake (although that is more than enough reason). i’ve been pissed off to see unions get behind obama’s flawed stimulus and even more obama’s seriously fucked up health care plans. and i wonder if that’s the perceived deal (unspoken or not) for EFCA support because otherwise it makes no sense that i can see.
so, if EFCA can get passed might that also free up some support for single payer? or at least will the unions stand down from fighting against it?
Speaking of Senators … I hope everyone reads today’s Glennzilla:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html
Daschle is awful.
Good read but why and who brought up his tax troubles? The GOP should want him at the job? Or am I missing something?
The unions represent people at the low end of the economic spectrum who in large part have absolutely no health care at all. They’re supporting something they think will pass. Some got dinged because they didn’t support single payer in California, as if their endorsement would have made the difference when they were simply being realistic about what legislation could possibly get through the California legislature. Even then, the legislation couldn’t pass. “Single Payer” advocates got a wonderful moment of PR triumphalism. Poor people got nothing.
I don’t mind people advocating for single payer — I absolutely support it. What I don’t support is criticizing those who advocate on behalf of the poor for being “sell-outs” when they realistically assess the situation and understand that it’s going to be really hard to get any kind of health care legislation through. At all. And I frankly don’t think it will happen.
The Blue Dogs just got Obama to agree to their “pay-go” principles going forward for anything but “emergency” legislation. If he didn’t do it, they would have tanked the stimulus bill. (If eight more Blue Dogs had held out, it would not have passed.) They hold the reigns of power in the House. They are opposed to health care legislation we can’t “pay for,” and as Jim Cooper said recently in the WSJ, they can join with the Republicans and do whatever they want.
By all means advocate for single payer, but there is a risk of getting nothing at all if opposition is too strong and it’s used as an excuse to kick the health care can down the road completely. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse those who have an honest difference of opinion and are trying to do their best to help the people they represent of acting in bad faith.
I’m liking McCaskill more and more every day. The current business community is indeed a cloud of locusts. They have stripped our economy bare of anything of value. Where will they go next?
Just this once, maybe we should get a short-term license to bring back DDT…
Morning all,
DIGG is open.
” SANTA CLARA, Calif. – Banks collecting billions of dollars in federal bailout money sought government permission to bring thousands of foreign workers to the U.S. for high-paying jobs, according to an Associated Press review of visa applications. “
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200….._workers_2
McCaskill Says Some Senate Republicans Support Employee Free Choice: I bet you $100.00 as a donation to whatever cause you like they will not vote to pass EFCA.
I’ve never understood this argument:
‘They are opposed to health care legislation we can’t “pay for,”’
We already paying (and paying and paying and paying) for health care. All we are discussing with signal payer is the removal of overhead (Marketing, Sales, Management & Adminsitration expense from the system.
Removal of unecessary overhead. A concept any capatalist would like. We need to frame the Single payer Healt care system better, with numbers & pie charts.
I’m up for this. It will be short. Where to publish when its done?
and I’d like an edit function. I neither type nor spell well.
Of course, this is the reason we never got single payer universal healthcare 30 years ago. There is always a reason found to not push for it, to delay it, to put something else ahead of it.
If Obama and Congressional Democrats basically say this is not a major priority then this gives Republicans and Blue Dogs the running room they need to oppose it. If Obama said I want this, if Pelosi told the Blue Dogs support this or we will burn you every chance we get, if Reid told the Republicans you filibuster this and the nuclear option is back on the table, then yes single payer healthcare would get done. And with healthcare already at about 15% of GDP and moving toward 20% this is a huge, huge issue. But as all those ifs show, none of theose power centers are really serious about pushing for meaningful healthcare reform.
Glenn’s up
O Brother, What Culture War?
isn’t Mr. Silk Shorts dude a union man?
Hugh I would love it if all those things happened. They’re not going to happen, any more than they happened in 2007 to end he war. I agree they should. But you’re a smart analyst of political power, you know too that unless there is a significant political realignment there isn’t going to be that kind of drastic change in the near future.
We’re working like crazy behind the scenes to try and weaken the Blue Dogs with Accountability Now because we think that’s where the leverage is. We’ll have more to announce soon, but in the mean time, willing the health care situation to be anything other than it is just because it “should” be simply isn’t going to make any difference in people’s lives, especially when so many with the ability to affect the outcome are looking for any opportunity to do nothing.
Wondering… I’m sure this has been discussed but I missed it………… as Accountability Now succeeds and the Blue Dogs power recedes (like that?)will Obama include the R’s less? Ya think his efforts to include the R’s were as much to get the Blue Dogs? Think Rush is actually right? It was for show and then when they didn’t come through at all, he can say “Well, I tried……”
if the union members actually support something other than single payer i will withdraw the following comment (with appropriate groveling and apologies). but that would surprise the heck out of me, because from what i’ve seen the country as a whole prefers single payer. what it looks like to me is the leadership thinking they know better than the rest of us – which may be the case, but if so then the argument should be made so we can all understand why the leaders are going against the wishes of the people they are supposed to be representing. but that’s not what is happening.
i don’t think this is just a difference of opinion (although i have no doubt it is with some – this is not directed at jane or anyone here). the reasons i think this goes way beyond the leadership not openly making the case for why they have chosen to work against single payer – the fact that the long time single payer advocates were not only not included they were completely blindsided, the choice of a name so obviously meant to be confused with the group that is organizing for single payer (and showing real progress), the choice of advocates who so clearly are clueless about the destructive role insurance companies play are just some of the reasons.
yeah. i dunno. i agree with jane that single-payer isn’t going anywhere. but when will it ever? or will it? how do we get to a point where it is worth fighting for if we don’t fight for it? is it just that it’s not a priority? go that direction in increments?
jezz. just looked at my last 2 comments. i’m full of… comments today.
i guess i see the political realignment coming from mobilization around things like single payer as well as other efforts (like accountability now).
it’s easier to mobilize around the policy we want even though compromises may come – but like the current stimulus bill, too much compromise early on saps the momentum, energy and excitement needed to mobilize lots of people.
i’m not a smart analyst of anything political though…. just a v little experience in local grass root organizing, so i’m quite willing to entertain the idea that i have it completely wrong. would just like the case to be made in a way i and others can understand.
lots of questions… maybe something worth discussing / arguing (in the good way) / researching so we all have a better understanding?
gotta go now (someone is waiting on me) but will hope for more conversation later.
There are several logic leaps here I’m not following — the public may choose single payer when asked which form of healthcare they would prefer. But ask them “do you want single payer or nothing?” and see what the results are. I’m not sure I’ve seen that poll yet, and I believe that is the reality of the situation. I don’t think I’m guilty of bad faith in making that assessment.
Also, I’m not sure who you’re talking about when you say “leadership.” Are you talking about labor leadership or congressional leadership? It seems like we started with the former and wound up with the latter, because if you’re accusing labor leaders of “going against the wishes of the people they are supposed to be representing,” I’d like to know specifically what you’re referring to.
Congress on the other hand? Yes. Absolutely. It’s been a problem for a while. Again, wishing for it to be otherwise is not going to make it go away in any time soon.
The country is re-aligning. It’s the politicians who aren’t. Ask Americans if they would like to stop having to worry about what happens to them, their job, their finances if they or someone in their family becomes ill and they will tell you this ranks right up there with their concerns over the economy.
What I was trying to point out above is that Obama and the “mainstream” Democrats are really closer to the Blue Dogs in their positions than they are to ours or those of most Americans on health issues.
The “This or nothing” argument is nothing more than a strawman. We have heard the same thing with regard to the $700 billion bailout. Well it may have been poorly thought through and badly spent, but hey it was better than nothing!
The question is more along the lines of “Do you want single payer universal healthcare and not have to worry about getting sick in this country or do want some variant of the current crappy system?”
It is, and I cannot emphasize this enough, physically impossible to mobilize enough people against Obama right now to make him adopt anything he doesn’t want to, even single payer. Physically. Impossible. He has 80% approval ratings. It doesn’t really matter what the issue is, it cannot be done.
From a progressive perspective we can organize against the Blue Dogs who oppose him, but that’s pretty much it unless he really steps in it like he did on FISA.
We may be able to nudge things in a progressive direction on certain issues, which is why I took the poll on the McCaskill bill to limit executive compensation for TARP recipients — there is overwhelming support. But Obama himself took a public swipe at that, so we’d only be amplifying sympathies he’s already demonstrated.
I absolutely agree with that, Hugh.
It’s not a strawman. It’s the reality. If the people in this country voted for a health care system you might have a point, but they don’t. They vote for representatives. Those representatives are the ones who vote for health care, and they have no intention of voting for single payer.
And since their constituents have shown no interest in voting them out of office if they don’t support single payer, we’re stuck with that reality.
I hope single-payer-or-nothing advocates do mobilize against those who won’t support it in 2010. And again in 2012, and then go for broke in 2014. I sincerely hope it works. Never has before, the public has never prioritized health care reform that highly, and certainly not a demand for single payer, but maybe it will now.
In the mean time, I’m not sure how it helps any one to oppose something that can get passed now. In fact it seems rather cruel and absolutist. I usually want to smack people who say “let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” but in this case I think it actually may apply.